bearingarms--2020-01-22--Ammunition Sales Skyrocket In Virginia

Ammunition Sales Skyrocket In Virginia

Monday ’ s Lobby Day protest in Richmond , Virginia , should mark a high point in the gun rights debate .
It is , at least to my recollection , the single largest gun-rights rally ever .
If there was a larger one–not counting the American Revolution–I ’ d be delighted to know about it .
My point , though , is that 22,000 people showed up to let the governor of Virginia and legislature know that they weren ’ t interested in gun control .
However , those same lawmakers have made it clear that they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say .
Which is fine , I suppose , because gun owners in the state are digging in .
They ’ re also buying a whole lot of ammo .
An online ammunition shop has noticed an upsurge in ammunition sales in Virginia recently .
AmmunitionToGo.com , an online ammunition retailer based in Houston , Texas , reports that they have seen a massive upsurge in their online traffic and sales in Virginia .
The company says that the number of Virginians accessing their website in 2020 has increased by 137 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
“ I doubt that any other businesses are affected as much by politics as firearm and ammunition manufacturers and retailers , ” said Brandon Black of AmmunitionToGo.com .
“ We ’ re now seeing a massive number of Virginia shooters stocking up on ammunition in anticipation of new laws that they believe will make it harder to purchase rounds legally.
” The company released its sales from 2019 to 2020 for January 1 through January 20 : The company notes that Virginia was one of the top 20 states , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top five states for its sales .
I ’ m pretty sure you ’ ll see a similar pattern elsewhere , and I can only imagine how ammo is flying off the physical shelves there in the Old Dominion state .
So what gives ?
Well , some will automatically assume that Virginian gun owners are preparing for the Boogaloo and are getting enough ammo to take on the state and potentially federal governments .
I ’ m not going to dispute that as a potential contributing factor , either .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a non-existent factor in most discussions about resisting tyranny , so it makes sense that people will make sure they have their own .
However , there ’ s a far more mundane possibility , too .
Right now , the legislature is going whole-hog on the idea of gun control .
While there may not be any measure seeking to restrict ammunition access , no one is interested in ruling that possibility out , either .
We ’ ve seen ammunition restrictions pass in states like California and become a logistical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammo because of computer glitches , for crying out loud .
So , they ’ re stocking up now so they won ’ t be stuck without ammo should such a law end up being passed .
Plus , you also have a lot of people buying guns , many for the first time .
Guess what they ’ re going to need ?
That ’ s right , ammo .
In other words , while there ’ s a potentiality that this represents people getting ready for the Boogaloo , it more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People are worried , and they ’ re not interested in going without ammunition because of idiot lawmakers .

Monday’s Lobby Day protest in Richmond, Virginia, should mark a high point in the gun rights debate. It is, at least to my recollection, the single largest gun-rights rally ever. If there was a larger one–not counting the American Revolution–I’d be delighted to know about it.
My point, though, is that 22,000 people showed up to let the governor of Virginia and legislature know that they weren’t interested in gun control.
However, those same lawmakers have made it clear that they don’t care what those 22,000 people had to say.
Which is fine, I suppose, because gun owners in the state are digging in. They’re also buying a whole lot of ammo.
An online ammunition shop has noticed an upsurge in ammunition sales in Virginia recently. , an online ammunition retailer based in Houston, Texas, that they have seen a massive upsurge in their online traffic and sales in Virginia. The company says that the number of Virginians accessing their website in 2020 has increased by 137 percent as compared to this time period in 2019. “I doubt that any other businesses are affected as much by politics as firearm and ammunition manufacturers and retailers,” said Brandon Black of AmmunitionToGo.com. “We’re now seeing a massive number of Virginia shooters stocking up on ammunition in anticipation of new laws that they believe will make it harder to purchase rounds legally.” The company released its sales from 2019 to 2020 for January 1 through January 20: Arlington – 339%
Ashburn – Up 42%
Charlottesville – 278%
Fredericksburg – 161%
Newport News – 102%
Norfolk – 113%
Richmond – 80%
Roanoke – 155%
Suffolk – 76%
Virginia Beach – 207%
The company notes that Virginia was one of the top 20 states, but has since soared to being one of the top five states for its sales.
I’m pretty sure you’ll see a similar pattern elsewhere, and I can only imagine how ammo is flying off the physical shelves there in the Old Dominion state.
So what gives?
Well, some will automatically assume that Virginian gun owners are preparing for the Boogaloo and are getting enough ammo to take on the state and potentially federal governments. I’m not going to dispute that as a potential contributing factor, either. After all, Boogaloo supply lines seem to be a non-existent factor in most discussions about resisting tyranny, so it makes sense that people will make sure they have their own.
However, there’s a far more mundane possibility, too.
Right now, the legislature is going whole-hog on the idea of gun control. While there may not be any measure seeking to restrict ammunition access, no one is interested in ruling that possibility out, either. We’ve seen ammunition restrictions pass in states like California and become a logistical nightmare. People can’t buy ammo because of computer glitches, for crying out loud.
So, they’re stocking up now so they won’t be stuck without ammo should such a law end up being passed.
Plus, you also have a lot of people buying guns, many for the first time. Guess what they’re going to need? That’s right, ammo.
In other words, while there’s a potentiality that this represents people getting ready for the Boogaloo, it more likely has far more mundane origins. People are worried, and they’re not interested in going without ammunition because of idiot lawmakers.


bearingarms--2020-01-22--Do Gun Stocks Need Trump Loss In November?

While Obama was outright hostile to the Second Amendment and the companies that supply people with the means to exercise that right , the fact was that most of his administration occurred with an oppositional Congress that kept him in check .
He might have wanted to restrict gun rights , but he couldn ’ t .
Regardless , the looming threat of Obama drove gun sales through the roof .
Once he was out of office , and Donald Trump walked in , things settled .
Yet since all indications were that we were getting President Clinton Part Deaux @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They overproduced to meet the expected demand , but without a gun-grabber-in-chief in the Oval Office , that demand didn ’ t materialize .
Now , almost four years later , things are starting to settle just a bit .
However , it now seems some believe that gun companies need a Trump loss to thrive , at least so far as the stock market goes .
On the back of a strong economy and Democratic infighting , President Donald Trump ’ s reelection chances don ’ t look like a pipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates have enjoyed his presidency , gun stock investors have suffered .
The “ Trump bump ” has lifted the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 more than 50 % since the 2016 election , but firearms manufacturer valuations have tumbled .
Trump is not uniquely problematic for gun stocks , though .
Republicans have almost always been catastrophic for the gun industry , while Democrats have had the opposite effect .
If Donald Trump wins a second term , most firearms enthusiasts will likely breathe a sigh of relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope Democrats make gains at other levels of government .
The perfect example is Virginia , where Democrats took complete control of the state government in November .
Less than two weeks into the legislative session , three gun control bills have already been approved .
It ’ s easy to look at stock trends historically and make that conclusion , I ’ ll grant you , but that ’ s if you also don ’ t look at the overall push politically and where that may lead .
A Trump win might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it also means the industry as a whole won ’ t be threatened with extinction .
That won ’ t be the case if anti-gun lawmakers take over at the federal level .
Should that happen , expect gun-control law after gun control law limiting what guns can be sold and to whom , completely restricting the market to the point that these companies end up in an even worse position than if Trump had been elected .
While a Republican presidency may well mean a decreased market share , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a chance of that market share disappearing completely .
On the flip side , the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are ready to declare war on our gun rights and make it so that we ’ re not allowed anything but the minimum they have to allow to pretend they ’ re adhering to the Constitution .
Only a fool would think that would somehow benefit gun companies in any meaningful way .
Yes , American companies sell internationally .
The truth is the American market is the largest gun-buying market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , and what you end up with are companies with no one to sell their goods to .
Now , I ’ m not a market guru by any stretch , but it doesn ’ t take a Warren Buffet to see how that works out for gun companies .
I ’ m sure most gun investors can understand that easily enough .

Gun companies thrived under the Obama administration.
While Obama was outright hostile to the Second Amendment and the companies that supply people with the means to exercise that right, the fact was that most of his administration occurred with an oppositional Congress that kept him in check. He might have wanted to restrict gun rights, but he couldn’t.
Regardless, the looming threat of Obama drove gun sales through the roof. Once he was out of office, and Donald Trump walked in, things settled. Yet since all indications were that we were getting President Clinton Part Deaux, the gun manufacturers hit a snag. They overproduced to meet the expected demand, but without a gun-grabber-in-chief in the Oval Office, that demand didn’t materialize.
Now, almost four years later, things are starting to settle just a bit.
However, it now seems some believe that gun companies need a Trump loss to thrive, at least so far as the stock market goes.
On the back of a strong economy and Democratic infighting, President Donald Trump’s reelection chances don’t look like a pipe dream anymore. But while Second Amendment advocates have enjoyed his presidency, gun stock investors have suffered. The “Trump bump” has lifted the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 more than 50% since the 2016 election, but firearms manufacturer valuations have tumbled. Trump is not uniquely problematic for gun stocks, though. Republicans have almost always been catastrophic for the gun industry, while Democrats have had the opposite effect. … If Donald Trump wins a second term, most firearms enthusiasts will likely breathe a sigh of relief. But gun stock investors had better hope Democrats make gains at other levels of government. The perfect example is Virginia, where Democrats took complete control of the state government in November. Less than two weeks into the legislative session, three gun control bills have already been approved.
Uh, no.
It’s easy to look at stock trends historically and make that conclusion, I’ll grant you, but that’s if you also don’t look at the overall push politically and where that may lead.
A Trump win might well lead to decreased sales, sure, but it also means the industry as a whole won’t be threatened with extinction. That won’t be the case if anti-gun lawmakers take over at the federal level.
Should that happen, expect gun-control law after gun control law limiting what guns can be sold and to whom, completely restricting the market to the point that these companies end up in an even worse position than if Trump had been elected.
While a Republican presidency may well mean a decreased market share, it also means there’s far less of a chance of that market share disappearing completely.
On the flip side, the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are ready to declare war on our gun rights and make it so that we’re not allowed anything but the minimum they have to allow to pretend they’re adhering to the Constitution. Only a fool would think that would somehow benefit gun companies in any meaningful way.
Yes, American companies sell internationally. The truth is the American market is the largest gun-buying market in the world. Eliminate or restrict that, and what you end up with are companies with no one to sell their goods to.
Now, I’m not a market guru by any stretch, but it doesn’t take a Warren Buffet to see how that works out for gun companies.
I’m sure most gun investors can understand that easily enough.


bearingarms--2020-01-22--Meet The "Pew Pew Jew" Arming Folks With Facts

It ’ s another edition of Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. from the 2020 SHOT Show in Las Vegas , and my guest today is Yehuda Remer , also known as “ The Pew Pew Jew.
” I first met Yehuda at the NRA Annual Meeting a few years ago , and I ’ ve followed his journey over the last few years as he first dipped his toes into the waters , and then plunged into the world of Second Amendment activism .
Remer ’ s first project was a book about gun safety designed for children , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four more books , but he ’ s also become a vocal advocate for members of the Jewish faith to arm and train themselves amidst a rise in anti-Semitic attacks .
It ’ s a fascinating conversation with a really good guy , so make sure you check out the whole thing above .
We ’ ll have more shows from SHOT coming up on Thursday and Friday , and more coverage from the show hear at Bearing Arms throughout the week .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

It’s another edition of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. from the 2020 SHOT Show in Las Vegas, and my guest today is Yehuda Remer, also known as “The Pew Pew Jew.”
I first met Yehuda at the NRA Annual Meeting a few years ago, and I’ve followed his journey over the last few years as he first dipped his toes into the waters, and then plunged into the world of Second Amendment activism. Remer’s first project was a book about gun safety designed for children, and since then he’s published four more books, but he’s also become a vocal advocate for members of the Jewish faith to arm and train themselves amidst a rise in anti-Semitic attacks.
It’s a fascinating conversation with a really good guy, so make sure you check out the whole thing above. We’ll have more shows from SHOT coming up on Thursday and Friday, and more coverage from the show hear at Bearing Arms throughout the week.


bearingarms--2020-01-22--NJ Passes Law Banning 'Realistic' Toy Guns In State

The state of New Jersey has a lot of problems .
Then again , what state doesn ’ t ?
They all have their challenges , to be sure .
However , it seems New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has all of his state ’ s problems beaten .
No , really , that must be it .
All of its problems must have gone up in a puff of smoke and now legislators can focus on the little things .
How little ?
Well , it seems the state is banning “ realistic ” toy guns .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t due to the lack of legislation , but a lack of understanding .
No , I ’ m not bagging on the cops here .
In those cases , they did precisely what I would have done under the circumstances .
No , the problem was that no one taught these children that if a police officer tells you to drop something , you drop it .
Also , you don ’ t point a gun at someone who has a real one .
The question for toy manufacturers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market to bother with trying to comply .
If not , the supply of toy guns will be greatly reduced to the Garden State .
That might be a bigger problem in the long run .
While the deaths of Tamir Rice and Tyre King were legitimate tragedies , I can ’ t help but wonder how many other parents use toy guns to teach their children gun safety as I do with mine and like my father did with me .
It ’ s a good way to learn the Four Rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal risk .
How many children will be denied this kind of opportunity ?
Then again , this is Phil Murphy we ’ re talking about here .
He probably prefers the kids not to learn gun safety because if they did , they might become gun people and then have this pesky insistence on maintaining their gun rights .
Folks are weird this way .
There is a very real possibility that this is an effort to dissuade people from becoming gun folks .
Toy guns are a way of life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get toy guns , then it ’ s possible they might not grow up to buy real ones .
Frankly , none of that matters .
What matters is that this is a stupid bill that never should have seen the light of day , much less been turned into law .
Then again , what else should I expect from New Jersey at this point ?
It ’ s simply what they do up that way , apparently .

The state of New Jersey has a lot of problems. Then again, what state doesn’t? They all have their challenges, to be sure.
However, it seems New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has all of his state’s problems beaten.
No, really, that must be it. All of its problems must have gone up in a puff of smoke and now legislators can focus on the little things. How little?
Well, it seems the state is banning “realistic” toy guns.
Governor Murphy signed a bill on Tuesday that would restrict the sale of realistic toy guns and ammunition, in response to the fatal police shootings of Tamir Rice and Tyre King several years ago. … The bill has several stipulations for toy gun manufacturers, which say toy guns cannot be blue, black, silver, or aluminum, the barrel of the gun must have an orange stripe on it, and the barrel of the gun must be made with the same material as the rest of the toy gun.
The problem with the shootings of Rice and King aren’t due to the lack of legislation, but a lack of understanding. No, I’m not bagging on the cops here. In those cases, they did precisely what I would have done under the circumstances.
No, the problem was that no one taught these children that if a police officer tells you to drop something, you drop it.
Also, you don’t point a gun at someone who has a real one.
The question for toy manufacturers is whether New Jersey represents a large enough market to bother with trying to comply. If not, the supply of toy guns will be greatly reduced to the Garden State. That might be a bigger problem in the long run.
While the deaths of Tamir Rice and Tyre King were legitimate tragedies, I can’t help but wonder how many other parents use toy guns to teach their children gun safety as I do with mine and like my father did with me. It’s a good way to learn the Four Rules in a way where violating them has minimal risk.
How many children will be denied this kind of opportunity?
Then again, this is Phil Murphy we’re talking about here. He probably prefers the kids not to learn gun safety because if they did, they might become gun people and then have this pesky insistence on maintaining their gun rights.
Folks are weird this way.
There is a very real possibility that this is an effort to dissuade people from becoming gun folks. Toy guns are a way of life, of course, but if people don’t get toy guns, then it’s possible they might not grow up to buy real ones.
Frankly, none of that matters. What matters is that this is a stupid bill that never should have seen the light of day, much less been turned into law. Then again, what else should I expect from New Jersey at this point? It’s simply what they do up that way, apparently.


bearingarms--2020-01-22--Washington State Push Illustrates Lack Of Data In Gun Control

Gun control data is confusing , especially when you just skim the surface of it .
There are studies with findings both for and against gun control , but it ’ s important to delve a little deeper to see why those studies shake out that way .
But gun-control activists don ’ t need studies .
Oh no , they want emotion to drive the day .
That ’ s clear in this story about debate beginning on Washington state gun control measures .
A grieving mother , a frightened student , prosecutors and law enforcement officers told a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms will save lives , while a home-invasion victim , gun store owners and a tribal chairman argued that changing firearms laws will prevent vulnerable people from protecting themselves .
After two days of public hearings on a list of firearms bill , the Senate Law and Justice Committee is expected to debate the measures on Thursday and possibly vote them on to the next panel .
The measure that drew the most comment seeks to limit firearm magazines to 10 rounds .
Keely Hopkins , a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their personal protection .
Others testified that taking the larger magazines from law-abiding citizens makes them vulnerable to bad guys who don ’ t care about the law .
Ami Strahan told lawmakers that she never got to say good-bye to her 15-year-old son Sam before he was fatally shot by a student at Freeman High School outside Spokane , Washington , in 2017 .
The shooter came to school with more than 400 rounds and planned to unload them in a busy hallway , she said .
The only thing that saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooter ’ s gun jammed , she said .
“ I am here because I am a grieving mother , ” she said , speaking in favor of banning high-capacity magazines .
“ I lost part of my soul and I am still struggling to recover.
” Now , my heart does go out to Strahan .
It does .
I can only imagine what it must be like to lose a child like that .
Yet , I can ’ t help but ask precisely what expertise does she have on guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or anything else of substantive value to the debate .
She lost her son , Sam , in a horrible tragedy , but does that make her an expert ?
Of course , it doesn ’ t .
But expertise is irrelevant when it comes to gun control .
It ’ s about emotion .
Even the prosecutors and police officers–people who one might think would boast the relevant expertise for the discussion–were focused on the emotional issue .
Mass shootings are emotional as hell .
They ’ re emotional for all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know better than anyone .
It ’ s easy to let emotion carry the day .
And that ’ s what anti-gunners in Washington state are trying to do .
They don ’ t want reason .
They don ’ t want facts .
They want emotional outpourings that will pressure people to make decisions that may not be the right ones .
That ’ s all gun control is predicated on .
When anti-gunners trot out studies , they ’ re easily debunked .
Either that or they undermine their entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t bother .
They are trying to take away the rights of people in Washington state based on feelings , screw the facts .
The question is , are we going to let them get away with it ?

Gun control data is confusing, especially when you just skim the surface of it. There are studies with findings both for and against gun control, but it’s important to delve a little deeper to see why those studies shake out that way.
But gun-control activists don’t need studies. Oh no, they want emotion to drive the day.
That’s clear in this story about debate beginning on Washington state gun control measures.
A grieving mother, a frightened student, prosecutors and law enforcement officers told a Senate panel that setting certain limits on firearms will save lives, while a home-invasion victim, gun store owners and a tribal chairman argued that changing firearms laws will prevent vulnerable people from protecting themselves. After two days of public hearings on a list of firearms bill, the Senate Law and Justice Committee is expected to debate the measures on Thursday and possibly vote them on to the next panel. The measure that drew the most comment seeks to limit firearm magazines to 10 rounds. … Keely Hopkins, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, said people relay on firearms for their personal protection. Others testified that taking the larger magazines from law-abiding citizens makes them vulnerable to bad guys who don’t care about the law. Ami Strahan told lawmakers that she never got to say good-bye to her 15-year-old son Sam before he was fatally shot by a student at Freeman High School outside Spokane, Washington, in 2017. The shooter came to school with more than 400 rounds and planned to unload them in a busy hallway, she said. The only thing that saved the other students that day was the shooter’s gun jammed, she said. “I am here because I am a grieving mother,” she said, speaking in favor of banning high-capacity magazines. “I lost part of my soul and I am still struggling to recover.”
Now, my heart does go out to Strahan. It does. I can only imagine what it must be like to lose a child like that.
Yet, I can’t help but ask precisely what expertise does she have on guns, gun rights, gun control, or anything else of substantive value to the debate. She lost her son, Sam, in a horrible tragedy, but does that make her an expert?
Of course, it doesn’t.
But expertise is irrelevant when it comes to gun control. It’s about emotion.
Even the prosecutors and police officers–people who one might think would boast the relevant expertise for the discussion–were focused on the emotional issue.
Mass shootings are emotional as hell. They’re emotional for all of those touched by the horrific events. I know better than anyone. It’s easy to let emotion carry the day.
And that’s what anti-gunners in Washington state are trying to do. They don’t want reason. They don’t want facts. They want emotional outpourings that will pressure people to make decisions that may not be the right ones.
That’s all gun control is predicated on. When anti-gunners trot out studies, they’re easily debunked. Either that or they undermine their entire position. So, they don’t bother.
They are trying to take away the rights of people in Washington state based on feelings, screw the facts.
The question is, are we going to let them get away with it?


bearingarms--2020-01-22--Virginia Dems Kill Bill That Targeted Criminals Who Use Guns

While Virginia Democrats are merrily approving gun control laws aimed at the state ’ s legal gun owners , they apparently aren ’ t interested in focusing on violent criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime .
HB 1175 would have increased the penalty for using or brandishing a firearm while committing certain felonies , which seems like a pretty common sense bill to me .
Instead , members of the House Public Safety Committee rejected the measure on Tuesday , while approving a number of gun bills that are meant to restrict the rights of legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .
Of course , Del .
Helmer also says closing the National Rifle Association range is going to save lives instead of making it harder for northern Virginia gun owners to find a range and train with their firearms , so I don ’ t exactly consider him an expert on “ reasonable ” gun laws .
I see him as more of an anti-gun zealot intent on stripping people of their constitutionally protected rights , to be honest .
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association noted that several gun control advocates lobbied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re okay with making it a felony to continue to possess your 15-round magazine or to transfer a firearm without a background check , but the status quo is fine when it comes to punishing those who use guns in the commission of a crime .
Think about that for a second .
Ralph Northam , who believes himself to be a champion of criminal justice reform , would turn the vast majority of Virginia gun owners into felons with HB 961 while maintaining the current penalties for actually using a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform that Northam wants to enact would simply replace the war on drugs with a war on legal gun owners .
Northam would create criminals out of law-abiding Virginians , instead of ensuring that violent criminals stay behind bars for a significant period of time for their crimes , and the public ’ s safety .
I don ’ t believe this is what Virginians were voting for last November .
They were told that if they elected Democrats , common sense gun safety measures would be passed .
Now Democrats are running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and violent criminals in favor of unconstitutional infringements on the rights of Virginians .
Even as gun control groups like Giffords acknowledge that less than one percent of the population drives violent crime in most cities , anti-gun activists and politicians have the 99 % of us in their legislative crosshairs .

While Virginia Democrats are merrily approving gun control laws aimed at the state’s legal gun owners, they apparently aren’t interested in focusing on violent criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime.
HB 1175 would have increased the penalty for using or brandishing a firearm while committing certain felonies, which seems like a pretty common sense bill to me. Instead, members of the House Public Safety Committee rejected the measure on Tuesday, while approving a number of gun bills that are meant to restrict the rights of legal gun owners in the name of public safety.
“We will not be deterred in our mission to save lives.” Thank you @ChrisHurstVA for standing on the floor for the majority of Virginians who think #EnoughIsEnough . This is the year we pass reasonable gun laws in Virginia. #HD40 #VaLeg — Del. Dan Helmer (@DelDanHelmer) January 21, 2020
Of course, Del. Helmer also says closing the National Rifle Association range is going to save lives instead of making it harder for northern Virginia gun owners to find a range and train with their firearms, so I don’t exactly consider him an expert on “reasonable” gun laws. I see him as more of an anti-gun zealot intent on stripping people of their constitutionally protected rights, to be honest.
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association noted that several gun control advocates lobbied against the bill as well.
Both Lori Haas and Andrew Goddard as well the Northam representative spoke against the bill. — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) January 21, 2020
So they’re okay with making it a felony to continue to possess your 15-round magazine or to transfer a firearm without a background check, but the status quo is fine when it comes to punishing those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Think about that for a second. Ralph Northam, who believes himself to be a champion of criminal justice reform, would turn the vast majority of Virginia gun owners into felons with HB 961 while maintaining the current penalties for actually using a gun in a violent crime. The reform that Northam wants to enact would simply replace the war on drugs with a war on legal gun owners.
Northam would create criminals out of law-abiding Virginians, instead of ensuring that violent criminals stay behind bars for a significant period of time for their crimes, and the public’s safety. I don’t believe this is what Virginians were voting for last November. They were told that if they elected Democrats, common sense gun safety measures would be passed. Now Democrats are running wild with legislation that ignores common sense and violent criminals in favor of unconstitutional infringements on the rights of Virginians. Even as gun control groups like Giffords acknowledge that less than one percent of the population drives violent crime in most cities, anti-gun activists and politicians have the 99% of us in their legislative crosshairs.


bearingarms--2020-01-22--WV Invites NRA To Move To Their State

WV Invites NRA To Move To Their State

The National Rifle Association is the big bugaboo for the gun control crowd .
It ’ s so much so that the NRA is used as a euphemism for gun rights supporters in general , many of whom have little to do with the NRA for whatever reason .
And that same gun control crowd is in firm control of the state of Virginia .
Ordinarily , this would be a minor setback for the gun-rights group except for one thing .
They ’ re based in Virginia .
So , not only are they faced with hostility by anti-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government of their home state , who has already tried targeting them with legislation .
Luckily for the NRA , someone else is more than interested in hosting them in a much more friendly environment .
A West Virginia senator is inviting the National Rifle Association to move to his state as lawmakers pursue gun-control measures in neighboring Virginia , where the group now has its headquarters .
The invitation came in a Monday letter from Republican Sen. Randy Smith to NRA leadership that said his home state lets residents carry guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow firearms on college campuses .
“ Where Virginia is pushing for stricter gun laws , West Virginia has worked on and passed a number of legislation in support of gun rights , ” Smith wrote , also noting potential tax incentives for companies that bring their headquarters to the state .
The NRA did not immediately comment .
The reason is that this is both an awesome offer , but a tricky position for the NRA .
If the NRA stays in Virginia , they face being targeted with more and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ultimately be focused on them and have little impact on anyone else within the state .
The state government doesn ’ t like them and this particular government seems to be making it clear that they intend to have their way moving forward .
On the other hand , if they move , there ’ s an optics issue .
There ’ s the potential for it to appear the NRA is declaring defeat in Virginia , that they ’ re just handing the state over to anti-gun forces permanently .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running .
That ’ s not necessarily the image the embattled gun-rights group wants to portray .
Of course , there ’ s also the fact that Virginia is still winnable .
Monday ’ s protest in Richmond tell us that there is a massive groundswell of support for gun rights still in the state .
More than 20,000 people ( I hear 22,000 or more , to be specific ) showed up on Lobby Day in the state to make their voices heard .
How many more couldn ’ t ?
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Richmond for whatever reason , such as having to work or due to family obligations ?
Between Monday ’ s turnout and the sanctuary movement that swept something like 90 percent of the counties in Virginia , I ’ d say that the Second Amendment movement in the state is still strong and has the potential to take back all the ground they lost in November .
If they can somehow manage to hold ground through the next two years , they can retake the legislature and the governor ’ s mansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s likely the NRA isn ’ t interested in leaving the state .
That said , it ’ s pretty cool of West Virginia to make the offer .

The National Rifle Association is the big bugaboo for the gun control crowd. It’s so much so that the NRA is used as a euphemism for gun rights supporters in general, many of whom have little to do with the NRA for whatever reason.
And that same gun control crowd is in firm control of the state of Virginia.
Ordinarily, this would be a minor setback for the gun-rights group except for one thing. They’re based in Virginia.
So, not only are they faced with hostility by anti-gun states in general, but also by the government of their home state, who has already tried targeting them with legislation.
Luckily for the NRA, someone else is more than interested in hosting them in a much more friendly environment.
A West Virginia senator is inviting the National Rifle Association to move to his state as lawmakers pursue gun-control measures in neighboring Virginia, where the group now has its headquarters. The invitation came in a Monday letter from Republican Sen. Randy Smith to NRA leadership that said his home state lets residents carry guns without permits and its lawmakers have pushed to allow firearms on college campuses. “Where Virginia is pushing for stricter gun laws, West Virginia has worked on and passed a number of legislation in support of gun rights,” Smith wrote, also noting potential tax incentives for companies that bring their headquarters to the state. The NRA did not immediately comment.
Honestly, they wouldn’t.
The reason is that this is both an awesome offer, but a tricky position for the NRA.
If the NRA stays in Virginia, they face being targeted with more and more anti-gun legislation and other measures that will ultimately be focused on them and have little impact on anyone else within the state. The state government doesn’t like them and this particular government seems to be making it clear that they intend to have their way moving forward.
On the other hand, if they move, there’s an optics issue. There’s the potential for it to appear the NRA is declaring defeat in Virginia, that they’re just handing the state over to anti-gun forces permanently. It’ll look like they’re running.
That’s not necessarily the image the embattled gun-rights group wants to portray.
Of course, there’s also the fact that Virginia is still winnable. Monday’s protest in Richmond tell us that there is a massive groundswell of support for gun rights still in the state. More than 20,000 people (I hear 22,000 or more, to be specific) showed up on Lobby Day in the state to make their voices heard.
How many more couldn’t? How many simply were unable to make it to Richmond for whatever reason, such as having to work or due to family obligations?
Between Monday’s turnout and the sanctuary movement that swept something like 90 percent of the counties in Virginia, I’d say that the Second Amendment movement in the state is still strong and has the potential to take back all the ground they lost in November. If they can somehow manage to hold ground through the next two years, they can retake the legislature and the governor’s mansion.
With that on the horizon, it’s likely the NRA isn’t interested in leaving the state.
That said, it’s pretty cool of West Virginia to make the offer.


bearingarms--2020-01-23--California Case A Prime Example Of Gun Control's Failures

While anti-gunners often decry the lack of gun control , the truth is that guns actually are controlled .
They shouldn ’ t be , in my humble opinion , but they are .
They ’ re just not controlled as much as some would like .
However , California has made something of an art over adding layers and layers of gun control in such a way that they make it difficult to be a gun owner but haven ’ t been formally smacked down for it by the Supreme Court .
One kind of gun that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are machine guns .
Fully-automatic weapons are heavily restricted and there ’ s only a finite supply of legal machine guns available anyway .
What does all of this have to do with one another ?
Oh , a California man facing some interesting charges .
A U.S. citizen living in Tijuana is expected to be arraigned Tuesday in Los Angeles on multiple federal charges for allegedly trading heroin and fentanyl for machine guns and explosives .
Pedro Roberto Hernandez-Gomez , 31 , was charged Jan. 21 in Los Angeles federal court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transport explosives , being a felon in possession of firearms , distribution of heroin and distribution of fentanyl , according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives .
In December , Hernandez-Gomez allegedly agreed to provide heroin and fentanyl in exchange for various machine guns , grenade launchers , grenades and handguns during what he believed were negotiations with traffickers but was , in fact , an ATF sting operation .
There ’ s literally nothing about this story that doesn ’ t sound like something out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality is something different entirely .
While Hernandez-Gomez was captured and is now facing criminal charges , we ’ re left wondering just how many people have made trades just like this and gotten away with it .
How many times has he gotten away with it ( allegedly ) ?
Oh , it ’ s easy for anti-gunners to look at this and think this somehow proves gun control works , but nothing is further from the truth .
Any good cop will tell you that there ’ s only so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch .
What you try to do is catch as many as you can to scare off the rest .
A lot of criminals get away with a lot before they ’ re ever arrested .
If Hernandez-Gomez is guilty of this , it ’ s unlike it was his first time doing this .
If it was , though , that just means that someone else is likely to do this a dozen or more time before ever being captured .
Guns are still flowing to places that gun control is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth is that gun control can ’ t stop that flow .
It simply is unable to prevent criminals from doing illegal things .
What it ’ s great at doing , though , is making it so the law-abiding can ’ t do something .
It keeps full-auto firearms out of the hands of people like you and me who would never misuse them for anything but would really like to take them to the range for a bit of fun .
You ’ ll never restrict something so sufficiently that criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can do is interfere with the lawful man or woman and treat them like a criminal instead .

While anti-gunners often decry the lack of gun control, the truth is that guns actually are controlled. They shouldn’t be, in my humble opinion, but they are. They’re just not controlled as much as some would like.
However, California has made something of an art over adding layers and layers of gun control in such a way that they make it difficult to be a gun owner but haven’t been formally smacked down for it by the Supreme Court.
Yet.
One kind of gun that’s heavily regulated pretty much everywhere, though, are machine guns. Fully-automatic weapons are heavily restricted and there’s only a finite supply of legal machine guns available anyway.
Another thing that’s tightly controlled are drugs.
What does all of this have to do with one another? Oh, a California man facing some interesting charges.
A U.S. citizen living in Tijuana is expected to be arraigned Tuesday in Los Angeles on multiple federal charges for allegedly trading heroin and fentanyl for machine guns and explosives. Pedro Roberto Hernandez-Gomez, 31, was charged Jan. 21 in Los Angeles federal court with possession of machine guns, attempt to transport explosives, being a felon in possession of firearms, distribution of heroin and distribution of fentanyl, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In December, Hernandez-Gomez allegedly agreed to provide heroin and fentanyl in exchange for various machine guns, grenade launchers, grenades and handguns during what he believed were negotiations with traffickers but was, in fact, an ATF sting operation.
There’s literally nothing about this story that doesn’t sound like something out of a cop movie.
However, the reality is something different entirely. While Hernandez-Gomez was captured and is now facing criminal charges, we’re left wondering just how many people have made trades just like this and gotten away with it. How many times has he gotten away with it (allegedly)?
Oh, it’s easy for anti-gunners to look at this and think this somehow proves gun control works, but nothing is further from the truth. Any good cop will tell you that there’s only so many of these people you can actually catch. What you try to do is catch as many as you can to scare off the rest. A lot of criminals get away with a lot before they’re ever arrested.
If Hernandez-Gomez is guilty of this, it’s unlike it was his first time doing this. If it was, though, that just means that someone else is likely to do this a dozen or more time before ever being captured.
Guns are still flowing to places that gun control is supposed to prevent them from going.
The truth is that gun control can’t stop that flow. It simply is unable to prevent criminals from doing illegal things. What it’s great at doing, though, is making it so the law-abiding can’t do something. It keeps full-auto firearms out of the hands of people like you and me who would never misuse them for anything but would really like to take them to the range for a bit of fun.
You’ll never restrict something so sufficiently that criminals can’t get it. All you can do is interfere with the lawful man or woman and treat them like a criminal instead.


bearingarms--2020-01-23--Anti-Gun Mayors Want Federal Gun Control? Blame Pelosi

In a country the size of ours–or of any size , really–there ’ s going to be some localities that have a different view of things from other localities .
The best systems of government tend to take this into account by giving the majority a powerful voice in federal politics , yet also balance that voice by providing some protection for the minority .
Right now , anti-gun mayors are upset .
They want gun control and they want it at the federal level .
Hundreds of mayors convened in the nation ’ s capital on Wednesday to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue of gun violence top of mind .
City leadership from Washington , D.C. , Dayton , Ohio and across the country spoke to reporters and implored Congress to more aggressively address illegal guns , ghost guns and gun violence on a federal level .
“ We are seeing no movement out of the capital , and our communities are begging for this change , ” Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley said .
“ We know that we really need the Congress to act on a national policy for common-sense gun regulations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I want the Congress to be able to pass a sensible bill that protects us.
” Bowser pointed to lax gun laws in surrounding states Maryland and Virginia , as well as the availability of the parts needed to build ghost guns — home-assembled firearms that are difficult to trace due to their lack of a serial number — for the city ’ s gun violence .
However , if Bowser and Whaley really want to lament the lack of gun control at the federal level , they need to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Democrats in the House .
You see , they wanted gun control .
Their allies in the media were pushing for it .
They did such a good job that President Donald Trump was on board and willing to consider gun control policies .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was on the record as saying they ’ d pass pretty much whatever policies the president wanted .
It was all but over .
Many of us , myself included , resigned ourselves to the fact that we were getting new federal gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to push forward with impeachment .
In that moment , President Trump lost any interest in helping Democrats with their agenda .
Why wouldn ’ t he ?
After all , if he ’ s gearing up for a tough fight , the last thing in the world he needed to do was alienate his gun-loving base .
Advancing gun control would have been beyond stupid , and say what you want about Trump , he ’ s not stupid .
And for what ?
If Democrats want gun control on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to get it from a President Pence than from President Trump , who at least was willing to deal .
While I vehemently oppose all forms of gun control , I can also recognize where the fault lies for gun control not passing .
These mayors can be furious all they want , but it was their fellow Democrats who are responsible for no gun control passing , oddly enough , and not Donald Trump .

In a country the size of ours–or of any size, really–there’s going to be some localities that have a different view of things from other localities. The best systems of government tend to take this into account by giving the majority a powerful voice in federal politics, yet also balance that voice by providing some protection for the minority.
Right now, anti-gun mayors are upset. They want gun control and they want it at the federal level.
Hundreds of mayors convened in the nation’s capital on Wednesday to address the challenges facing their communities, with the issue of gun violence top of mind. City leadership from Washington, D.C., Dayton, Ohio and across the country spoke to reporters and implored Congress to more aggressively address illegal guns, ghost guns and gun violence on a federal level. “We are seeing no movement out of the capital, and our communities are begging for this change,” Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley said. … “We know that we really need the Congress to act on a national policy for common-sense gun regulations,” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters. “I want the Congress to be able to pass a sensible bill that protects us.” Bowser pointed to lax gun laws in surrounding states Maryland and Virginia, as well as the availability of the parts needed to build ghost guns — home-assembled firearms that are difficult to trace due to their lack of a serial number — for the city’s gun violence.
Maryland.
Lax gun laws.
Hilarious.
However, if Bowser and Whaley really want to lament the lack of gun control at the federal level, they need to talk to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats in the House.
You see, they wanted gun control. Their allies in the media were pushing for it. They did such a good job that President Donald Trump was on board and willing to consider gun control policies. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was on the record as saying they’d pass pretty much whatever policies the president wanted.
It was all but over. Many of us, myself included, resigned ourselves to the fact that we were getting new federal gun control laws.
Then Pelosi and company decided to push forward with impeachment.
In that moment, President Trump lost any interest in helping Democrats with their agenda. Why wouldn’t he? After all, if he’s gearing up for a tough fight, the last thing in the world he needed to do was alienate his gun-loving base. Advancing gun control would have been beyond stupid, and say what you want about Trump, he’s not stupid.
And for what? If Democrats want gun control on the books, they’re even less likely to get it from a President Pence than from President Trump, who at least was willing to deal.
While I vehemently oppose all forms of gun control, I can also recognize where the fault lies for gun control not passing.
These mayors can be furious all they want, but it was their fellow Democrats who are responsible for no gun control passing, oddly enough, and not Donald Trump.


bearingarms--2020-01-23--What's To Fear With "Reasonable" Gun Control? Plenty

One of the many tactics anti-gunners push is to pain gun control opponents as unreasonable .
That ’ s not overly difficult , I ’ m afraid .
Not because we ’ re unreasonable so much as a complicit media routinely dismisses our concerns as irrelevant .
Recently , I came across an op-ed that claimed “ reasonable ” control , if such a thing exists ( hint : It doesn ’ t ) , was nothing for us to fear in the least .
That ’ s not quite what happened .
What occurred was the governor declaring a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with him decided to protest .
He used that as justification to ban guns from the state capitol building in a way that went against the letter of the law .
Then a complicit court upheld the ban despite the plain meaning of the law in question .
Let ’ s not pretend this was a legislative act .
It was an executive degree , one that also may portend Northam ’ s endgame when it comes to guns within the state of Virginia .
So yeah , there are grounds to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rights denied .
Handgun rationing has never been shown to have any impact on crime .
It ’ s nothing but a way to inhibit law-abiding citizens from buying guns and nothing more .
Universal background checks are problematic on many levels , including the fact that they often interfere with gifting a gun to someone , passing down a family heirloom , or even loaning a firearm to someone who might temporarily be at risk .
These laws may not stop people from buying guns , but they do interfere with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I said , a right delayed is a right denied .
No , but this is glossing over the lack of due process .
The judge never speaks to the accused before issuing a ruling .
After that , the accused has to basically prove his own innocence in order to have his guns returned .
Further , there ’ s practically nothing to stop these measures from being used maliciously , like one woman tried to do in Colorado .
So a neighbor might not be able to call the cops to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they can describe themselves as a friend to a judge and get those guns taken , all because of a parking spot .
Plus , let ’ s be honest .
If this was all Virginia was going to push , it would be enough for us to take issue with , but it won ’ t .
There will be more gun control laws coming down the pipe in the coming months and years .
Each one erodes our rights just a bit more .
While I have no doubt this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erode people ’ s voting rights or right to free speech , gun rights are just as sacred and worthy of protection .
Anti-gunners routinely make arguments that appear to be predicated on the idea that so long as you have access to a single firearm , your right to keep and bear arms are intact .
Yet by that reasoning , possessing a tongue is sufficient enough protection of your free speech rights .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
So even the most seemingly innocuous is something to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to justify the next bit .
There ’ s plenty to fear for Virginians because the loss of even one tiny bit of their rights will lead to more and more infringements down the road .

One of the many tactics anti-gunners push is to pain gun control opponents as unreasonable. That’s not overly difficult, I’m afraid. Not because we’re unreasonable so much as a complicit media routinely dismisses our concerns as irrelevant.
Recently, I came across an op-ed that claimed “reasonable” control, if such a thing exists (hint: It doesn’t), was nothing for us to fear in the least.
What exactly have Virginia legislators done to get gun lovers in such an uproar?
That’s not quite what happened.
What occurred was the governor declaring a state of emergency because people who disagreed with him decided to protest. He used that as justification to ban guns from the state capitol building in a way that went against the letter of the law. Then a complicit court upheld the ban despite the plain meaning of the law in question.
Let’s not pretend this was a legislative act. It was an executive degree, one that also may portend Northam’s endgame when it comes to guns within the state of Virginia.
So yeah, there are grounds to get worked up.
First, rights delayed are rights denied. Handgun rationing has never been shown to have any impact on crime. It’s nothing but a way to inhibit law-abiding citizens from buying guns and nothing more.
Universal background checks are problematic on many levels, including the fact that they often interfere with gifting a gun to someone, passing down a family heirloom, or even loaning a firearm to someone who might temporarily be at risk.
These laws may not stop people from buying guns, but they do interfere with the purchase of firearms and, as I said, a right delayed is a right denied.
But there is one measure being pushed — a so-called “red flag” law — that allows family members, friends or police to ask that someone’s guns be taken away temporarily if that person poses a danger to themselves or others.
No, but this is glossing over the lack of due process. The judge never speaks to the accused before issuing a ruling. After that, the accused has to basically prove his own innocence in order to have his guns returned. Further, there’s practically nothing to stop these measures from being used maliciously, like one woman tried to do in Colorado.
So a neighbor might not be able to call the cops to take away someone’s guns, but they can describe themselves as a friend to a judge and get those guns taken, all because of a parking spot.
Plus, let’s be honest. If this was all Virginia was going to push, it would be enough for us to take issue with, but it won’t.
There will be more gun control laws coming down the pipe in the coming months and years. Each one erodes our rights just a bit more. While I have no doubt this writer would rightly decry any attempt to erode people’s voting rights or right to free speech, gun rights are just as sacred and worthy of protection.
Anti-gunners routinely make arguments that appear to be predicated on the idea that so long as you have access to a single firearm, your right to keep and bear arms are intact. Yet by that reasoning, possessing a tongue is sufficient enough protection of your free speech rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
So even the most seemingly innocuous is something to be fought vigorously because each bit will be used to justify the next bit. There’s plenty to fear for Virginians because the loss of even one tiny bit of their rights will lead to more and more infringements down the road.


bearingarms--2020-01-23--Virginia Gun Companies Worry About Their Future In The State

Virginians working in the firearms industry are concerned that Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda could force them and their employers to leave the state .
I ’ ve had the opportunity to speak with several folks here at SHOT Show who are native Virginians , and while all of them have been involved and engaged in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , they ’ re also preparing for what might happen if bills like HB 961 become law .
Zenith Firearms is based in Afton , Virginia , not far from Charlottesville .
While the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a Second Amendment Sanctuary , vice president Andy Eckert knows that designation won ’ t save the company if it becomes illegal to manufacture and sell so-called “ assault firearms ” in the state .
“ It ’ s very upsetting .
It ’ s unacceptable , ” he told me .
“ If all the bills that have been proposed by the governor pass , it would drive us effectively out of business in Virginia.
” Zenith deals in Turkish-made firearms , but they don ’ t just serve as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough work on the guns to qualify as a manufacturer .
“ But not only could we not make improvements to the guns , work on them to the extent that it qualifies as manufacturing , we also couldn ’ t sell them , so that would be the most crippling thing .
So we would have to relocate to another state if the relevant bills become law.
” John Gaddy is a lifelong Virginian who works with Idaho-based Nemo Arms .
He says for most of his life , he voted only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state government by Democrats last November has caused him to get much more involved in local politics , and he says he knows many other gun owners who are doing the same .
“ I know several friends of mine who ’ ve never cared that much for politics because its never effected us until now , and there are more of me that have come out of the woodwork that are saying ‘ hey , I need to get out and do stuff !
’ I ’ m a prime example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awake , I ’ m involved , and I will continue to be involved.
” Both Gaddy and Eckert attended their county supervisors meetings to push for Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions , and they know how engaged gun owners are across the state .
In fact , on Monday several of Zenith ’ s employees were in Richmond for Lobby Day , while the rest of the team was setting up their booth at SHOT Show thousands of miles away .
“ If we weren ’ t at the SHOT Show , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday morning , ” Eckert explained .
“ It ’ s very clear that it was a resounding success for our side in that it totally made the anti-gunners look like fools for lying about the people who were there .
They said it was going to be a white supremacist crowd and other ridiculous things , but reality showed they couldn ’ t have been more wrong about who was there.
” Any ban on manufacturing or selling so-called “ assault firearms ” that becomes law would likely take effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t leave companies much time to look for a new home if necessary .
However , given the recent offer by West Virginia lawmakers for the NRA to relocated to the Mountaineer State , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if similar offers ( and perhaps even incentives ) were made to the Virginia firearms manufacturers , distributors , and wholesalers impacted by the anti-gun legislation .

Virginians working in the firearms industry are concerned that Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda could force them and their employers to leave the state. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with several folks here at SHOT Show who are native Virginians, and while all of them have been involved and engaged in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, they’re also preparing for what might happen if bills like HB 961 become law.
Zenith Firearms is based in Afton, Virginia, not far from Charlottesville. While the company is located in Nelson County, which is a Second Amendment Sanctuary, vice president Andy Eckert knows that designation won’t save the company if it becomes illegal to manufacture and sell so-called “assault firearms” in the state.
“It’s very upsetting. It’s unacceptable,” he told me. “If all the bills that have been proposed by the governor pass, it would drive us effectively out of business in Virginia.”
Zenith deals in Turkish-made firearms, but they don’t just serve as an importer and distributor. They also do enough work on the guns to qualify as a manufacturer.
“But not only could we not make improvements to the guns, work on them to the extent that it qualifies as manufacturing, we also couldn’t sell them, so that would be the most crippling thing. So we would have to relocate to another state if the relevant bills become law.”
John Gaddy is a lifelong Virginian who works with Idaho-based Nemo Arms. He says for most of his life, he voted only in presidential elections, but the takeover of state government by Democrats last November has caused him to get much more involved in local politics, and he says he knows many other gun owners who are doing the same.
“I know several friends of mine who’ve never cared that much for politics because its never effected us until now, and there are more of me that have come out of the woodwork that are saying ‘hey, I need to get out and do stuff!’ I’m a prime example of that. Now I’m awake, I’m involved, and I will continue to be involved.”
Both Gaddy and Eckert attended their county supervisors meetings to push for Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, and they know how engaged gun owners are across the state. In fact, on Monday several of Zenith’s employees were in Richmond for Lobby Day, while the rest of the team was setting up their booth at SHOT Show thousands of miles away.
“If we weren’t at the SHOT Show, probably everyone here would have been in Richmond on Monday morning,” Eckert explained. “It’s very clear that it was a resounding success for our side in that it totally made the anti-gunners look like fools for lying about the people who were there. They said it was going to be a white supremacist crowd and other ridiculous things, but reality showed they couldn’t have been more wrong about who was there.”
Any ban on manufacturing or selling so-called “assault firearms” that becomes law would likely take effect on July 1st of this year, which won’t leave companies much time to look for a new home if necessary. However, given the recent offer by West Virginia lawmakers for the NRA to relocated to the Mountaineer State, I wouldn’t be surprised if similar offers (and perhaps even incentives) were made to the Virginia firearms manufacturers, distributors, and wholesalers impacted by the anti-gun legislation.


bearingarms--2020-01-23--Despite Lack Of Violence, Stigmatization Continues Post Richmond

Monday ’ s Lobby Day protests in Richmond were a textbook example of how to protest if you want to be taken seriously , with a couple of possible exceptions .
I ’ m not a huge fan of open carry for political purposes , though I accept not everyone else agrees .
That said , everyone was non-violent and even went to great pains to clean up after themselves , including peeling-up stickers that had fallen and adhered to the street .
The only arrest was of someone who refused to remove her mask .
While no arrests would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a pretty successful outcome .
Despite the peaceful nature of the protest , though , anti-gun lawmakers in Virginia are bound and determined to continue the effort I ’ ve documented here over the last couple of years , the effort to stigmatize gun owners .
To start with , let ’ s talk a bit about Governor Ralph Northam .
His racist past has been thoroughly documented , including photographs , and it ’ s also being ignored .
Part of Northam ’ s strategy has been to demonize gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Democratic governor , declared a public emergency despite knowing there were no grounds for doing so .
The governor , who recently overcame his history of racism to hang on to his current elected office , did this in his typically cynical fashion .
He invoked the 2017 Charlottesville rally organized by neo-Nazis and suggested that a gathering by law-abiding gun owners in opposition to his gun control proposals would turn out similarly .
In asserting that militia and hate groups had threatened violent acts at the rally , Northam was deliberately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday when gun owners converged on Richmond to protest his anti-Second Amendment agenda .
When nothing bad happened at the rally , of course , Northam even had the gall to pat himself on the back for it .
Such are the delusions of a man whose main goal at this point is to build a legacy comprising something other than the racist costumes on his yearbook page and the racist nickname he went by during the 1980s when he was already a full-grown adult .
Of course , I touched on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what Northam is doing here is more than just revealing some racial hypocrisy by the anti-gun left .
No , this is the political version of a magician using misdirection so you won ’ t see how the trick works .
He ’ s screaming about racists and extremists to such a degree that few are bothering to look at the man doing the screaming .
To be sure , there are racists .
There were , apparently , some at Richmond .
They were also shouted down by the tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely nothing to do with such nonsense .
The minority gun owners who appeared were celebrated .
They were photographed .
They were turned into celebrities of the gun world , if only for a short time .
Honestly , Northam ’ s antics would be tiresome if it were just him .
Yet it ’ s not .
A Virginia Democrat said Tuesday that Second Amendment supporters who protested new gun-control legislation at the Virginia State Capitol had “ terrorized Richmond.
” House Delegate Lee Carter , a self-professed democratic socialist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest of menacing lawmakers , saying the thousands of “ idiots ” who demonstrated would only embolden the Democratic majority on gun control .
“ The ‘ pro-gun ’ people that terrorized Richmond yesterday probably don ’ t realize that all they did was tag team with fascists , strengthen the liberals ’ resolve to pass gun control bills , and force the most gun-friendly Dem ( me ) to not show up for a day , ” Carter said .
“ Idiots .
Absolute idiots.
” Now , it ’ s easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , well , he is .
However , there are people who listen to this particular joke .
He was duly elected to the Virginia House of Delegates , for crying out loud .
His choice of words–saying protestors “ terrorized ” Richmond–is deliberate .
He wants to invoke a certain kind of thinking , a certain view of those protestors .
What he wants is for people to see “ gun rights supporter ” and think “ terrorist.
” Lest someone think that Carter changed his tune , here ’ s his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is nothing more than an attempt to silence us .
People like Carter and Northam don ’ t want us speaking out because , if we did , we might not just encourage others to defend the Second Amendment .
It might just remind us that we ’ re not alone in the wilderness and give people the strength to hold strong .
No , they want us silent ; out of sight , out of mind .
Well , I have bad news for them .
We ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever you want , we ’ ll keep comporting ourselves as we did in Richmond .
We ’ re not going to slink away so you can pretend we don ’ t exist .
They might as well get used to it .

Monday’s Lobby Day protests in Richmond were a textbook example of how to protest if you want to be taken seriously, with a couple of possible exceptions. I’m not a huge fan of open carry for political purposes, though I accept not everyone else agrees. That said, everyone was non-violent and even went to great pains to clean up after themselves, including peeling-up stickers that had fallen and adhered to the street.
The only arrest was of someone who refused to remove her mask.
While no arrests would have been better, I can take this is a pretty successful outcome.
Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, though, anti-gun lawmakers in Virginia are bound and determined to continue the effort I’ve documented here over the last couple of years, the effort to stigmatize gun owners.
To start with, let’s talk a bit about Governor Ralph Northam. His racist past has been thoroughly documented, including photographs, and it’s also being ignored. Part of Northam’s strategy has been to demonize gun owners.
Ralph Northam, Virginia’s Democratic governor, declared a public emergency despite knowing there were no grounds for doing so. The governor, who recently overcame his history of racism to hang on to his current elected office, did this in his typically cynical fashion. He invoked the 2017 Charlottesville rally organized by neo-Nazis and suggested that a gathering by law-abiding gun owners in opposition to his gun control proposals would turn out similarly. In asserting that militia and hate groups had threatened violent acts at the rally, Northam was deliberately stoking irrational fears about what would happen Monday when gun owners converged on Richmond to protest his anti-Second Amendment agenda. When nothing bad happened at the rally, of course, Northam even had the gall to pat himself on the back for it. Such are the delusions of a man whose main goal at this point is to build a legacy comprising something other than the racist costumes on his yearbook page and the racist nickname he went by during the 1980s when he was already a full-grown adult.
Of course, I touched on this one a bit earlier today.
However, what Northam is doing here is more than just revealing some racial hypocrisy by the anti-gun left. No, this is the political version of a magician using misdirection so you won’t see how the trick works. He’s screaming about racists and extremists to such a degree that few are bothering to look at the man doing the screaming.
To be sure, there are racists. There were, apparently, some at Richmond.
They were also shouted down by the tens of thousands of people surrounding them who wanted absolutely nothing to do with such nonsense. The minority gun owners who appeared were celebrated. They were photographed. They were turned into celebrities of the gun world, if only for a short time.
Honestly, Northam’s antics would be tiresome if it were just him. Yet it’s not.
A Virginia Democrat said Tuesday that Second Amendment supporters who protested new gun-control legislation at the Virginia State Capitol had “terrorized Richmond.” House Delegate Lee Carter, a self-professed democratic socialist, accused participants in Monday’s peaceful protest of menacing lawmakers, saying the thousands of “idiots” who demonstrated would only embolden the Democratic majority on gun control. “The ‘pro-gun’ people that terrorized Richmond yesterday probably don’t realize that all they did was tag team with fascists, strengthen the liberals’ resolve to pass gun control bills, and force the most gun-friendly Dem (me) to not show up for a day,” Carter said. “Idiots. Absolute idiots.”
Now, it’s easy to dismiss Carter as a joke because, well, he is.
However, there are people who listen to this particular joke. He was duly elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, for crying out loud. His choice of words–saying protestors “terrorized” Richmond–is deliberate. He wants to invoke a certain kind of thinking, a certain view of those protestors. What he wants is for people to see “gun rights supporter” and think “terrorist.”
Lest someone think that Carter changed his tune, here’s his response when someone called him on it.
Nah, pretty sure it was the terrorism. https://t.co/OvWsdfWz8P — Lee 🎆 Carter (@carterforva) January 21, 2020
This is nothing more than an attempt to silence us. People like Carter and Northam don’t want us speaking out because, if we did, we might not just encourage others to defend the Second Amendment. It might just remind us that we’re not alone in the wilderness and give people the strength to hold strong.
No, they want us silent; out of sight, out of mind.
Well, I have bad news for them. We’re not going anywhere. You can call us whatever you want, we’ll keep comporting ourselves as we did in Richmond. We’re not going to slink away so you can pretend we don’t exist.
They might as well get used to it.


bearingarms--2020-01-24--New Hampshire To Revisit Vetoed Gun Control Bills

When a governor vetos a bill , that ’ s usually an indication that it ’ ll be a cold day in hell before that bill ever becomes law while he ’ s in office .
After all , vetos aren ’ t things governors are going to do that often , especially when the opposition party controls the legislature .
If they do it , they want to make it clear that such bills are off the table .
Yet that ’ s not the case in New Hampshire .
It seems that Governor Chris Sununu vetoes a slew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has invited the legislature to resubmit them .
Sure , New Hampshire has violence , but so does every gun controlled place on this planet .
If gun control were the answer to violence , that wouldn ’ t be the case .
Yet despite–or because of–fairly lax gun control laws in the state , New Hampshire is one of the safest states in the country .
I wouldn ’ t recommend monkeying around with that .
Of course , this has to come as a blow for gun rights activists in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fend off the attack last year , only to have the governor invite them back for round two .
Why would he do that ?
It ’ s possible that Sununu is really just hoping to veto the bills a second time , that he wants another chance at slapping them down .
If that ’ s the case , I have to say that I can respect that reason .
I don ’ t think it ’ s necessarily a good move , but I can respect it .
Otherwise , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of sense .
Unless , of course , what Sununu actually wanted was a different set of gun control bills and what he ’ s getting is the same thing , different bill number .
That ’ s still troubling , but the upside is that if that is the case , the anti-gun lawmakers were apparently too stupid to read the tea leaves .
Either way , though , gun rights activists in New Hampshire need to dig in and dust off their pearl necklaces .

When a governor vetos a bill, that’s usually an indication that it’ll be a cold day in hell before that bill ever becomes law while he’s in office. After all, vetos aren’t things governors are going to do that often, especially when the opposition party controls the legislature. If they do it, they want to make it clear that such bills are off the table.
Yet that’s not the case in New Hampshire.
It seems that Governor Chris Sununu vetoes a slew of gun control bills last year but has invited the legislature to resubmit them.
Sure, New Hampshire has violence, but so does every gun controlled place on this planet. If gun control were the answer to violence, that wouldn’t be the case.
Yet despite–or because of–fairly lax gun control laws in the state, New Hampshire is one of the safest states in the country. I wouldn’t recommend monkeying around with that.
Of course, this has to come as a blow for gun rights activists in the Granite State. They were able to fend off the attack last year, only to have the governor invite them back for round two.
Why would he do that?
It’s possible that Sununu is really just hoping to veto the bills a second time, that he wants another chance at slapping them down. If that’s the case, I have to say that I can respect that reason. I don’t think it’s necessarily a good move, but I can respect it.
Otherwise, though, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Unless, of course, what Sununu actually wanted was a different set of gun control bills and what he’s getting is the same thing, different bill number. That’s still troubling, but the upside is that if that is the case, the anti-gun lawmakers were apparently too stupid to read the tea leaves.
Either way, though, gun rights activists in New Hampshire need to dig in and dust off their pearl necklaces.


bearingarms--2020-01-24--Trump Administration Set To Ease Gun Export Restrictions

Since the election of President Trump , the firearm industry had been in a tight spot .
While they ’ re undoubtedly better off than if an anti-gun president occupied the Oval Office and heavily restricted the industry , they ’ re still in a rough patch .
They need more buyers and , frankly , the market in the United States kind of is what it is .
Luckily , the Trump administration is looking for ways to help the beleaguered industry .
In particular , by easing trade restrictions that will allow companies to sell to buyers outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move aimed at boosting the sale of U.S. firearms and ammunition abroad , the Trump administration has eased regulations on some commercial firearms exports .
American manufacturers will have fewer registration requirements in order to obtain an export license , as the State Department moved jurisdiction of certain firearms sales to the Commerce Department .
The change , announced last week , was entered into the Federal Register on Thursday .
It will be effective March 9 .
The long-delayed rule change , which began under the Obama administration , is intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Outdoor Brands Corp. and Sturm , Ruger and Co. , while refocusing regulatory attention on weapons sales that could pose national security risks .
For example , under the Arms Export Control Act , the State Department must disclose any commercial arms sale worth $ 1 million or more to Congress for review .
The Commerce Department has no such requirement .
What ’ s more , the State Department requires an annual fee from companies in the industry , whereas Commerce does not require such a fee .
“ Exports of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perform an inherently military function or provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage – including many articles that are widely available in U.S. retail outlets – will move to the Commerce Department ’ s export licensing controls , ” assistant secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs R. Clarke Cooper wrote in an emailed statement to CNBC .
Honestly , this is how it should have gone from the beginning .
I get that we don ’ t want classified weapon systems to fall into enemy hands and all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law also covered firearms that are easily available to the American consumer .
If the system is that classified , why can I buy it from Bubba ’ s Gun & Tackle ?
This will allow manufacturers to seek out buyers overseas to help supplement the reduced demand here in the U.S. Further , bolt-action and semi-automatic firearms aren ’ t cutting edge missile tech .
There ’ s absolutely nothing in this that will risk American lives .
This rule change–one that will , undoubtedly , infuriate anti-gunners and not just because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this rule–is ultimately good for the firearm industry .
It ’ s also good for the American economy as it will bring in money from outside the U.S. and help create and maintain American jobs .
Plus , this rule change started under President Obama , so let ’ s not pretend this is just Trump trying to curry favor or anything else .
This is just a sound move that will benefit American businesses , particularly on a world stage where their competitors often aren ’ t operating under such restrictions .

Since the election of President Trump, the firearm industry had been in a tight spot. While they’re undoubtedly better off than if an anti-gun president occupied the Oval Office and heavily restricted the industry, they’re still in a rough patch. They need more buyers and, frankly, the market in the United States kind of is what it is.
Luckily, the Trump administration is looking for ways to help the beleaguered industry. In particular, by easing trade restrictions that will allow companies to sell to buyers outside of the United States.
In a move aimed at boosting the sale of U.S. firearms and ammunition abroad, the Trump administration has eased regulations on some commercial firearms exports. American manufacturers will have fewer registration requirements in order to obtain an export license, as the State Department moved jurisdiction of certain firearms sales to the Commerce Department. The change, announced last week, was entered into the Federal Register on Thursday. It will be effective March 9. The long-delayed rule change, which began under the Obama administration, is intended to lower costs for U.S. gun-makers such as American Outdoor Brands Corp. and Sturm, Ruger and Co., while refocusing regulatory attention on weapons sales that could pose national security risks. For example, under the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department must disclose any commercial arms sale worth $1 million or more to Congress for review. The Commerce Department has no such requirement. What’s more, the State Department requires an annual fee from companies in the industry, whereas Commerce does not require such a fee. “Exports of firearms and related items that do not perform an inherently military function or provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage – including many articles that are widely available in U.S. retail outlets – will move to the Commerce Department’s export licensing controls,” assistant secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs R. Clarke Cooper wrote in an emailed statement to CNBC.
Honestly, this is how it should have gone from the beginning.
I get that we don’t want classified weapon systems to fall into enemy hands and all that, but the problem is that the law also covered firearms that are easily available to the American consumer. If the system is that classified, why can I buy it from Bubba’s Gun & Tackle?
This will allow manufacturers to seek out buyers overseas to help supplement the reduced demand here in the U.S.
Further, bolt-action and semi-automatic firearms aren’t cutting edge missile tech. There’s absolutely nothing in this that will risk American lives.
This rule change–one that will, undoubtedly, infuriate anti-gunners and not just because 3D-printed firearms will also be covered by this rule–is ultimately good for the firearm industry. It’s also good for the American economy as it will bring in money from outside the U.S. and help create and maintain American jobs.
Plus, this rule change started under President Obama, so let’s not pretend this is just Trump trying to curry favor or anything else. This is just a sound move that will benefit American businesses, particularly on a world stage where their competitors often aren’t operating under such restrictions.


bearingarms--2020-01-24--FL AG Argues Gun Rights Not Restricted, Even If You Can't Buy Guns

When the Founding Fathers decided that the Constitution need to add some language to protect the rights of the people from a potentially tyrannical government , they knew what they were doing .
The right to keep and bear arms , in particular , was important .
The Founding Fathers made it very clear in their own writings that they wanted us armed .
However , in response to an NRA challenge to a post-Parkland law , the attorney general for the state of Florida makes a legal argument that is , frankly , terrifying .
Florida Attorney General Ashley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss out a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association challenging gun legislation passed after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 14 students and three faculty members .
The national gun-rights group challenged part of a sweeping school-safety law that raised the age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21 .
But , in a motion to dismiss the case filed Tuesday , Moody ’ s lawyers argued that the law doesn ’ t violate the Second Amendment because , while individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not buy guns , they may still “ keep and use ” firearms “ for any lawful purpose.
” Now , that might look like no big deal , but let ’ s carry this “ reasoning ” out for a bit .
By Moody ’ s reckoning , so long as possession of firearms isn ’ t restricted , then the Second Amendment rights of individuals are fully preserved .
If that ’ s true , then what ’ s to stop a state like , say , California from outright banning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifting restricting their ownership .
You can ’ t buy and sell a gun , of course , but you could legally have a gun without an issue .
According to Moody ’ s suggestion , that should be in keeping with the Constitution .
Now , before someone accuses me of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy here , keep in mind that I simply took that same argument and only broadened the restrictions it ’ s used to defend .
I didn ’ t even broaden them all that much in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a portion of the population , I just expanded them to the whole population , but the meat of the argument remains the same .
If Moody argues that bans on the purchase of firearms for any lawful adult don ’ t count because those same adults can still own firearms , then why couldn ’ t that same argument apply to all adults .
And that ’ s the problem for me .
It ’ s a bogus argument , but it ’ s also one that if it somehow takes hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment .
The truth is , if you can ’ t purchase a firearm , then the Second Amendment is practically meaningless for you .
It doesn ’ t matter that you ’ re allowed to possess a thing if you have no means to acquire that thing .
At that point , for all practical purposes , you ’ re banned from having it , even if the law doesn ’ t explicitly say that .
Moody ’ s argument , for that reason alone , is particularly troubling .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law is overturned .
We simply can ’ t allow such a legal argument to take hold or else it will be expanded further until even more sections of the American population are effectively restricted from exercising their Second Amendment rights .

When the Founding Fathers decided that the Constitution need to add some language to protect the rights of the people from a potentially tyrannical government, they knew what they were doing. The right to keep and bear arms, in particular, was important. The Founding Fathers made it very clear in their own writings that they wanted us armed.
However, in response to an NRA challenge to a post-Parkland law, the attorney general for the state of Florida makes a legal argument that is, frankly, terrifying.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association challenging gun legislation passed after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 14 students and three faculty members. The national gun-rights group challenged part of a sweeping school-safety law that raised the age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. But, in a motion to dismiss the case filed Tuesday, Moody’s lawyers argued that the law doesn’t violate the Second Amendment because, while individuals who are between ages 18 and 21 cannot buy guns, they may still “keep and use” firearms “for any lawful purpose.”
Now, that might look like no big deal, but let’s carry this “reasoning” out for a bit.
By Moody’s reckoning, so long as possession of firearms isn’t restricted, then the Second Amendment rights of individuals are fully preserved. If that’s true, then what’s to stop a state like, say, California from outright banning the sale of all firearms but not lifting restricting their ownership. You can’t buy and sell a gun, of course, but you could legally have a gun without an issue.
According to Moody’s suggestion, that should be in keeping with the Constitution.
Now, before someone accuses me of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy here, keep in mind that I simply took that same argument and only broadened the restrictions it’s used to defend. I didn’t even broaden them all that much in the overall scheme. Instead of applying to a portion of the population, I just expanded them to the whole population, but the meat of the argument remains the same.
If Moody argues that bans on the purchase of firearms for any lawful adult don’t count because those same adults can still own firearms, then why couldn’t that same argument apply to all adults.
And that’s the problem for me. It’s a bogus argument, but it’s also one that if it somehow takes hold could be used to completely undermine the Second Amendment.
The truth is, if you can’t purchase a firearm, then the Second Amendment is practically meaningless for you. It doesn’t matter that you’re allowed to possess a thing if you have no means to acquire that thing. At that point, for all practical purposes, you’re banned from having it, even if the law doesn’t explicitly say that.
Moody’s argument, for that reason alone, is particularly troubling. It’s also why I pray the law is overturned. We simply can’t allow such a legal argument to take hold or else it will be expanded further until even more sections of the American population are effectively restricted from exercising their Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-01-24--WA State Gun Control Bills Win Committee Approval

On party line votes , Washington State lawmakers in a key committee approved two gun control measures on Thursday , including a ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds .
Anti-gun legislators in Olympia repeatedly brought up the shooting in Seattle on Wednesday that left two people dead and more than a dozen wounded , though none of them explained how their gun bills would have stopped the attack , which was allegedly committed by two young men with lengthy criminal histories .
Marquise Tolbert has 21 arrests , and some of his most recent convictions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 44 arrests some of his most recent cases involve domestic cases .
On May 2019 , a woman who has a child with Tolliver filed for a protective order saying Tolliver threatened her with a gun .
She says he also threatening to kill her , their child and others .
Tolliver has been charged for other domestic violence cases involving other women not to mention theft and unlawful firearm charges .
The pair have 35 convictions between the two of them , yet they were both able to illegally obtain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universal background check law on the books .
Do any of the lawmakers backing the magazine ban honestly think that Tolbert and Tolliver would have been impacted in the slightest had this ban been in effect this week ?
“ This is nothing more than window dressing , ” Sen. Jeff Holy , R-Spokane , said .
If the state lowers the capacity from 15 rounds to 10 , it ’ s just “ biting around the edges ” and could mean that 10 people are killed instead of 15 , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mental health issues at all , ” Holy said , adding that when he was in high school , it was common for students to bring their guns to school if they were going hunting later in the afternoon .
Sen. Patty Kuderer , the bill ’ s sponsor , said she went to high school in the same era , but times have changed and now students have active shooter drills .
Other countries have the same mental health problems , but not the same problems with gun violence , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it the NRA ’ s way for a decade .
I think we need to try it a different way , ” said Kuderer , D-Bellevue .
If the law passes but doesn ’ t produce results “ then we can re-evaluate.
” Sen. Lynda Wilson , R-Vancouver , asked if Kuderer would be willing to amend the bill to require re-evaluation after a certain period .
The bill ’ s language had been worked out with the state attorney general and was “ good to go , ” Kuderer replied , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes they aren ’ t working .
Have lawmakers re-evaluated the state ’ s universal background check law ?
After all , there ’ ve been studies showing the law isn ’ t working , but I haven ’ t seen any news about Sen. Kuderer calling for the law ’ s repeal .
Colorado instituted its universal background check law and its magazine ban at the same time back in 2013 , and in the ensuing years crime has steadily increased by more than 25 % .
Lawmakers there haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there ’ s no reason to think that any anti-gun legislator is ever going to vote to remove a gun control law from the state statutes , no matter how big a failure it might be .
The Washington bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration , along with another measure that requires 8 hours of training for anyone applying for a concealed carry license in the state .

On party line votes, Washington State lawmakers in a key committee approved two gun control measures on Thursday, including a ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.
Anti-gun legislators in Olympia repeatedly brought up the shooting in Seattle on Wednesday that left two people dead and more than a dozen wounded, though none of them explained how their gun bills would have stopped the attack, which was allegedly committed by two young men with lengthy criminal histories.
Marquise Tolbert has 21 arrests, and some of his most recent convictions are felonies… The second suspect, William Tolliver has 44 arrests some of his most recent cases involve domestic cases. On May 2019, a woman who has a child with Tolliver filed for a protective order saying Tolliver threatened her with a gun. She says he also threatening to kill her, their child and others. Tolliver has been charged for other domestic violence cases involving other women not to mention theft and unlawful firearm charges.
The pair have 35 convictions between the two of them, yet they were both able to illegally obtain a firearm even though Washington State has a universal background check law on the books. Do any of the lawmakers backing the magazine ban honestly think that Tolbert and Tolliver would have been impacted in the slightest had this ban been in effect this week?
“This is nothing more than window dressing,” Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Spokane, said. If the state lowers the capacity from 15 rounds to 10, it’s just “biting around the edges” and could mean that 10 people are killed instead of 15, he said. “We’re not addressing the mental health issues at all,” Holy said, adding that when he was in high school, it was common for students to bring their guns to school if they were going hunting later in the afternoon. Sen. Patty Kuderer, the bill’s sponsor, said she went to high school in the same era, but times have changed and now students have active shooter drills. Other countries have the same mental health problems, but not the same problems with gun violence, she said. “We’ve tried it the NRA’s way for a decade. I think we need to try it a different way,” said Kuderer, D-Bellevue. If the law passes but doesn’t produce results “then we can re-evaluate.” Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver, asked if Kuderer would be willing to amend the bill to require re-evaluation after a certain period. The bill’s language had been worked out with the state attorney general and was “good to go,” Kuderer replied, but the Legislature regularly re-evaluates laws when it believes they aren’t working.
Have lawmakers re-evaluated the state’s universal background check law? After all, there’ve been studies showing the law isn’t working, but I haven’t seen any news about Sen. Kuderer calling for the law’s repeal.
Colorado instituted its universal background check law and its magazine ban at the same time back in 2013, and in the ensuing years crime has steadily increased by more than 25%. Lawmakers there haven’t “re-evaluated” the law either, and there’s no reason to think that any anti-gun legislator is ever going to vote to remove a gun control law from the state statutes, no matter how big a failure it might be.
The Washington bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration, along with another measure that requires 8 hours of training for anyone applying for a concealed carry license in the state.