bearingarms--2020-09-21--36 Virginians Hit By State's "Red Flag Law" So Far

Well , that ’ s a discussion we can certainly have .
It should be right up there with whether it actually matters one way or another when it comes to a fundamental human right as the right to keep and bear arms .
For proponents of these laws , though , it often seems like the safety argument vanishes after these laws are passed .
Instead , they use a different metric to determine whether or not the law is working or not .
That process is starting in Virginia .
Of course , it should be remembered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hearsay evidence by third parties presented to a judge who issues a ruling without ever having spoken with the individual in question .
Further , none of the people involved in the process are mental health professionals who may actually be qualified to judge someone ’ s mental state .
Instead , it ’ s a couple of people who don ’ t necessarily understand psychology rendering a decision about whether another person gets to exercise a basic human right .
There ’ s a lot we don ’ t know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of threat they supposedly presented .
Further , while we don ’ t know for sure , we can assume that none of have carried out any kind of murder or taken their own life following the orders being issued .
For proponents , that just proves they work , but that ’ s not necessarily true .
After all , there are tons of ways to kill yourself or someone else without ever touching a firearm .
If someone was that determined , they ’ d do it regardless of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with the orders .
They leave the supposedly dangerous person to roam the streets .
If someone is that big of a threat , shouldn ’ t you use the tools already available to commit them at least temporarily ?
Then it won ’ t matter if they have access to guns , knives , or high explosives at their home .
They won ’ t be at their homes in the first place , but somewhere they can be evaluated by people who actually know what the hell they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wait and see just how things shake out in the long term , but don ’ t expect to see anything else from Virginia other than raw numbers of how many orders are issued and a lot of preening from supporters of the law that claim those numbers show just how well the orders are working .
Especially if homicide and suicide rates don ’ t decrease .

Do red flag laws make anyone safer?
Well, that’s a discussion we can certainly have. It should be right up there with whether it actually matters one way or another when it comes to a fundamental human right as the right to keep and bear arms.
For proponents of these laws, though, it often seems like the safety argument vanishes after these laws are passed. Instead, they use a different metric to determine whether or not the law is working or not.
That process is starting in Virginia.
At least three dozen Virginia residents have been prohibited temporarily or potentially permanently from having firearms or purchasing them based on a new state law allowing authorities to convince a judge that a person would be a danger to themselves or others. The “red flag” law creating the petition for substantial risk orders began July 1, as one of many gun-related restrictions approved this year by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. Twenty-six temporary and 10 potentially permanent orders were issued in July and August, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. The numbers came from the Virginia State Police, which operates the Virginia Firearm Transaction Center. The state police is prohibited from releasing details about the orders.
Of course, it should be remembered that temporary orders are issued on what amounts to hearsay evidence by third parties presented to a judge who issues a ruling without ever having spoken with the individual in question. Further, none of the people involved in the process are mental health professionals who may actually be qualified to judge someone’s mental state.
Instead, it’s a couple of people who don’t necessarily understand psychology rendering a decision about whether another person gets to exercise a basic human right.
There’s a lot we don’t know about these 36 individuals, such as what kind of threat they supposedly presented. Further, while we don’t know for sure, we can assume that none of have carried out any kind of murder or taken their own life following the orders being issued.
For proponents, that just proves they work, but that’s not necessarily true. After all, there are tons of ways to kill yourself or someone else without ever touching a firearm. If someone was that determined, they’d do it regardless of the order.
And that’s another problem with the orders. They leave the supposedly dangerous person to roam the streets. If someone is that big of a threat, shouldn’t you use the tools already available to commit them at least temporarily? Then it won’t matter if they have access to guns, knives, or high explosives at their home. They won’t be at their homes in the first place, but somewhere they can be evaluated by people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.
We’ll have to wait and see just how things shake out in the long term, but don’t expect to see anything else from Virginia other than raw numbers of how many orders are issued and a lot of preening from supporters of the law that claim those numbers show just how well the orders are working.
Especially if homicide and suicide rates don’t decrease.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--A Supreme Court Showdown & The Future Of The 2A

President Donald Trump says he ’ ll announce his pick to fill the newly-vacant seat on the Supreme Court by the end of the week , and says he ’ s narrowed down the list of possibilities to five individuals .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation joins me to talk about the importance of the upcoming confirmation fight in terms of our right to keep and bear arms , as well as delving a little bit into the Second Amendment records of one of the potential nominees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president said that he ’ ll wait until after services are held for Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who passed away on Friday after battling pancreatic cancer , but that he believes a confirmation vote should be held before the election in November .
“ I think it will be on Friday or Saturday and we want to pay respect , it looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday , as I understand it , and I think we should , with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the president said .
The president ’ s shortlist is said to include Judge Amy Coney Barrett from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , Judge Barbara Logoa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit , and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit , among others .
The president touted the list of potential picks , calling them “ excellent , ” and “ all very smart.
” “ No matter how you would look at it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation—young people , pretty young for the most part , ” the president said .
Barrett is 48 , Lagoa is 52 , Rushing is 38 , and it is unclear the age of the president ’ s other potential nominees .
“ These are the smartest people , the smartest young people , you like to go young , because they ’ re there for a long time , ” Trump said , adding that his nominee would “ abide by the Constitution , ” be a “ good person ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values.
” With Democrats vowing to pack the Court if Trump ’ s appointee wins confirmation and Joe Biden wins in November , the stakes for the election and the future of the Supreme Court have never been higher .
For gun owners , a Trump appointee would provide new life for Second Amendment challenges , which have been turned away in recent months , but a Democrat-packed SCOTUS could curtail the right to keep and bear arms for generations to come .
As for the potential nominees , Swearer notes that several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Comey Barrett , are on the record recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms , but even those who don ’ t have much of a history with Second Amendment jurisprudence , like Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa , have demonstrated their fealty to the Constitution as it is written .
That ’ s the type of justice who needs to be on the Supreme Court , according to Swearer , who says that any Biden picks would likely adhere to a worldview that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever-changing document that means whatever a majority of justices says it means .
If that ’ s the case , you can likely kiss the Second Amendment goodbye .
Even if a Biden-packed Supreme Court doesn ’ t outright overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions , they could gut the Second Amendment by reducing the right to a privilege .
Sure , you can own a handgun for home protection , as long as you don ’ t mind waiting a year to be approved , forking over hundreds of dollars in non-refundable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being turned down for any reason or no reason whatsoever .
The Supreme Court has already let several awful laws stand because of its refusal to hear challenges to California ’ s microstamping law , gun and magazine bans , and may-issue carry laws requiring applicants to show a “ justifiable need ” in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
A Court that ’ s downright hostile to the Second Amendment could do far more damage , and regardless of what happens with Trump ’ s nominee before the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s almost certainly what we should expect from his Supreme Court makeover .

President Donald Trump says he’ll announce his pick to fill the newly-vacant seat on the Supreme Court by the end of the week, and says he’s narrowed down the list of possibilities to five individuals. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation joins me to talk about the importance of the upcoming confirmation fight in terms of our right to keep and bear arms, as well as delving a little bit into the Second Amendment records of one of the potential nominees.
During an interview on Fox & Friends, the president said that he’ll wait until after services are held for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday after battling pancreatic cancer, but that he believes a confirmation vote should be held before the election in November.
“I think it will be on Friday or Saturday and we want to pay respect, it looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it, and I think we should, with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg, wait for services to be over,” the president said. The president’s shortlist is said to include Judge Amy Coney Barrett from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barbara Logoa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, among others. The president touted the list of potential picks, calling them “excellent,” and “all very smart.” “No matter how you would look at it, these are the finest people in the nation—young people, pretty young for the most part,” the president said. Barrett is 48, Lagoa is 52, Rushing is 38, and it is unclear the age of the president’s other potential nominees. “These are the smartest people, the smartest young people, you like to go young, because they’re there for a long time,” Trump said, adding that his nominee would “abide by the Constitution,” be a “good person” and have “very, very high moral values.”
With Democrats vowing to pack the Court if Trump’s appointee wins confirmation and Joe Biden wins in November, the stakes for the election and the future of the Supreme Court have never been higher. For gun owners, a Trump appointee would provide new life for Second Amendment challenges, which have been turned away in recent months, but a Democrat-packed SCOTUS could curtail the right to keep and bear arms for generations to come.
As for the potential nominees, Swearer notes that several of them, including rumored-front runner Judge Amy Comey Barrett, are on the record recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms, but even those who don’t have much of a history with Second Amendment jurisprudence, like Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa, have demonstrated their fealty to the Constitution as it is written. That’s the type of justice who needs to be on the Supreme Court, according to Swearer, who says that any Biden picks would likely adhere to a worldview that sees the Constitution as a living and ever-changing document that means whatever a majority of justices says it means.
If that’s the case, you can likely kiss the Second Amendment goodbye. Even if a Biden-packed Supreme Court doesn’t outright overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions, they could gut the Second Amendment by reducing the right to a privilege. Sure, you can own a handgun for home protection, as long as you don’t mind waiting a year to be approved, forking over hundreds of dollars in non-refundable fees, and run the risk of being turned down for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
The Supreme Court has already let several awful laws stand because of its refusal to hear challenges to California’s microstamping law, gun and magazine bans, and may-issue carry laws requiring applicants to show a “justifiable need” in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights. A Court that’s downright hostile to the Second Amendment could do far more damage, and regardless of what happens with Trump’s nominee before the election, if Joe Biden wins in November that’s almost certainly what we should expect from his Supreme Court makeover.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Everytown Seeks To Buy Pennsylvania Legislature

Everytown for Gun Safety is one of those groups that likes to claim that the NRA buys lawmakers .
Anyone and everyone who fails to back their policies , it seems , gets accused of being bought by the “ gun lobby.
” That is , unless they just outright accuse the NRA of all kinds of illegal activites .
However , the NRA doesn ’ t do anything with regard to elections that every other special interest group isn ’ t doing .
But , if the NRA is buying lawmakers , then just what is Everytown doing ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s cities and towns have been pushed to the back of the headlines by the pandemic , the presidential campaign , and the anti-racism and pro-police reform protests still unfolding nationwide .
But one activist group wants to make sure voters remember the Legislature ’ s inaction on the issue as they start casting their ballots this voting season .
Today , the political wing of the anti-gun violence group Everytown for Gun Safety launches a $ 1.4 million digital advertising and direct mail campaign targeting a dozen state House seats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quartet of Senate seats , to flip the General Assembly to a “ gun sense majority.
” While guns and ammo have been flying off the shelves during the pandemic , Pennsylvania lawmakers have left gun violence prevention measures largely untouched .
In other words , the legislature was worried about…oh , I don ’ t know , maybe a global pandemic that ’ s been credited with claiming the lives of tens of thousands of Americans so far ?
You know , just throwing that out there as a possibility .
Anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.4 million into the election .
That means a lot of digital ads and mail over the next six weeks or so , all things considered .
Now , in all seriousness , I know that this isn ’ t buying lawmakers .
They ’ re backing people who already agree with them , of course , which is precisely what the NRA does .
I ’ m just sick of them getting a pass because the media thinks they ’ re on the side of the angels .
If this kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then it ’ s the same thing on another .
The question is , though , will it work .
Honestly , I don ’ t know .
Pennsylvania has historically been fairly pro-gun , but they also elected Tom Wolf to be governor and he ’ s done nothing but take a dump on the Second Amendment every chance he got , even encouraging Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto to ignore state preemption law .
If the people of the state elected him , they might just be open to listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different world .
The pandemic followed by riots has changed a lot of people ’ s opinions .
Don ’ t be surprised if the spending backfires and simply rallies the pro-gun side even more , thus handing the state over to Republicans come November .
It ’ ll be interesting to watch , but my hope is that they ’ re wasting their money .
I hope the people of Pennsylvania will rise up and remind the world that they like their guns and they support the Second Amendment .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Everytown losing a big chunk of change with nothing to show for it .

Everytown for Gun Safety is one of those groups that likes to claim that the NRA buys lawmakers. Anyone and everyone who fails to back their policies, it seems, gets accused of being bought by the “gun lobby.” That is, unless they just outright accuse the NRA of all kinds of illegal activites.
However, the NRA doesn’t do anything with regard to elections that every other special interest group isn’t doing.
But, if the NRA is buying lawmakers, then just what is Everytown doing?
Efforts to combat gun violence in Pennsylvania’s cities and towns have been pushed to the back of the headlines by the pandemic, the presidential campaign, and the anti-racism and pro-police reform protests still unfolding nationwide. But one activist group wants to make sure voters remember the Legislature’s inaction on the issue as they start casting their ballots this voting season. Today, the political wing of the anti-gun violence group Everytown for Gun Safety launches a $1.4 million digital advertising and direct mail campaign targeting a dozen state House seats, mostly in suburban Philadelphia, and a quartet of Senate seats, to flip the General Assembly to a “gun sense majority.” While guns and ammo have been flying off the shelves during the pandemic, Pennsylvania lawmakers have left gun violence prevention measures largely untouched.
In other words, the legislature was worried about…oh, I don’t know, maybe a global pandemic that’s been credited with claiming the lives of tens of thousands of Americans so far?
You know, just throwing that out there as a possibility.
Anyway, Everytown is looking to drop $1.4 million into the election. That means a lot of digital ads and mail over the next six weeks or so, all things considered.
Now, in all seriousness, I know that this isn’t buying lawmakers. They’re backing people who already agree with them, of course, which is precisely what the NRA does. I’m just sick of them getting a pass because the media thinks they’re on the side of the angels. If this kind of spending is buying lawmakers on one side, then it’s the same thing on another.
The question is, though, will it work.
Honestly, I don’t know. Pennsylvania has historically been fairly pro-gun, but they also elected Tom Wolf to be governor and he’s done nothing but take a dump on the Second Amendment every chance he got, even encouraging Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto to ignore state preemption law. If the people of the state elected him, they might just be open to listening to Everytown.
Then again, that was a different world. The pandemic followed by riots has changed a lot of people’s opinions. Don’t be surprised if the spending backfires and simply rallies the pro-gun side even more, thus handing the state over to Republicans come November.
It’ll be interesting to watch, but my hope is that they’re wasting their money. I hope the people of Pennsylvania will rise up and remind the world that they like their guns and they support the Second Amendment. If that happens, I have no problem with Everytown losing a big chunk of change with nothing to show for it.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Will Concealed Carry Scandal Take Down This CA Sheriff?

We ’ ve been covering the unfolding scandal at the Santa Clara County Sheriff ’ s Department for over a year now , and while the case has so far led to multiple charges against a sheriff ’ s captain and individuals who are accused of paying tens of thousands of dollars to Sheriff Laurie Smith ’ s re-election campaign in exchange for concealed carry permits , so far the sheriff herself has avoided any criminal culpability .
Could that change in the weeks ahead ?
The San Jose Mercury News had a detailed report on the current status of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they pointed out that if Smith wasn ’ t a part of the illegal pay-to-carry scheme , she may be too clueless to serve in her official capacity .
“ The conundrum she faces , is that either she knew — which suggests a corrupt decision-making process — or she didn ’ t know , which suggests an ineffective management practice , ” said Ann Skeet , senior director of leadership ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University .
“ Given how long this has been an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sheriff Smith has said nothing publicly about the scandal , and when she testified before a grand jury last month she declined to answer their questions as well , repeatedly invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination , even when she was asked mundane questions like how long she ’ d been in office .
When Deputy District Attorney John Chase asked her what she does for a living , Smith told him she ’ s worked for the Sheriff ’ s Office for 47 years .
Before he could even get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as CCWs , she invoked her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career .
“ Sir , under Article 1 of the California Constitution , Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me , ” she said , cutting herself off abruptly .
Though absent from the transcript , witnesses to the proceeding say that ’ s when Smith , visibly overcome with emotion , paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes .
“ That ’ s fine , ” Chase assured , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Take your time , sheriff .
There is no rush here .
We are not in a rush.
” Smith picked up where she left off “ … and Evidence Code 940 , ” she continued .
“ I assert my privilege against self-incrimination .
Therefore , I ’ m declining to answer your questions.
” The Mercury News says that it ’ s been an “ open secret ” for years that those who backed Smith ’ s re-election efforts received preferential treatment in return .
Under California law , getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with plenty of strings attached , and county sheriffs have broad leeway to deny a permit unless they deem it necessary .
Permits are rarely approved in Santa Clara County , and when they do get the green light , they ’ ve often been handed out to campaign donors while the average resident who applies likely has their application shoved into a desk drawer without it ever being looked at .
The agency has been stingy with the privilege — about 150 permits were issued or renewed between 2014 and 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been widely noticed that at least a quarter of the recipients had contributed to Smith ’ s campaigns , in amounts of $ 100 to $ 1,000 .
In Alameda , Contra Costa and San Mateo counties , the sheriff ’ s offices grant the permits at twice the rate of Santa Clara County and typically have twice as many active licenses at any given moment .
The grand jury testimony gives the first inside look at the casual way the process worked : Jensen would make house calls to deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once to a judge , and in a few instances , to players for the San Jose Sharks .
The Starbucks on Coleman Avenue and Taylor Street in San Jose , a five-minute drive from sheriff ’ s headquarters , was practically a satellite office for preferred gun permits , although one meeting , involving the alleged deal at the heart of the current indictment , happened on outdoor tables at the Jamba Juice next door — the Starbucks was closed .
But convenience was just one of the perks sheriff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also contends , via seven felony charges against Jensen of falsifying paperwork , that some applicants didn ’ t even have to go to the gun range to show that they knew how to safely use their firearms .
Among the apparent beneficiaries of that privilege was County Supervisor Mike Wasserman .
In his testimony to the grand jury , Wasserman insisted he simply didn ’ t remember how he fulfilled the firearms safety requirement to carry two concealed pistols .
The San Jose Mercury News , website SanJoseInside.com , and the San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scandal , but for the most part it ’ s been treated as a local Bay-area news story , despite the fact that California ’ s carry permit laws themselves seem almost designed to foster an atmosphere of corruption .
If sheriffs in the state simply approved those who met the training requirements and passed a background check , there would be no opportunity for the kind of graft that ’ s alleged to have been commonplace in Santa Clara County .
Instead , the state has set up a process that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the type of corruption alleged to have taken place .
While the District Attorney in Santa Clara County continues to investigate , and has promised more charges to come , the real change needs to happen in Sacramento .
Unfortunately , with an anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature , it ’ s highly unlikely that the Democrats in charge will revamp or retool the existing system to remove the potential for bribery .
They ’ ll stick with the status quo , even if it means that average citizens are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically connected can pay for the privilege to bear arms in self-defense .
As for Sheriff Smith herself , the Mercury News says the grand jury testimony that ’ s leaked out provides some hints that Smith may have been involved in the bribery scheme , but without direct evidence it may be difficult to charge her .
Again , we ’ re left with two choices : either she knew about the pay-to-play taking place with her re-election campaign , or she was oblivious even though she was ultimately the one approving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to criminal charges , but either way , it sounds to me like it ’ s time for the sheriff to step down .

We’ve been covering the unfolding scandal at the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department for over a year now, and while the case has so far led to multiple charges against a sheriff’s captain and individuals who are accused of paying tens of thousands of dollars to Sheriff Laurie Smith’s re-election campaign in exchange for concealed carry permits, so far the sheriff herself has avoided any criminal culpability. Could that change in the weeks ahead?
The San Jose Mercury News had a detailed report on the current status of the criminal case over the weekend, and they pointed out that if Smith wasn’t a part of the illegal pay-to-carry scheme, she may be too clueless to serve in her official capacity.
“The conundrum she faces, is that either she knew — which suggests a corrupt decision-making process — or she didn’t know, which suggests an ineffective management practice,” said Ann Skeet, senior director of leadership ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “Given how long this has been an issue, that’s a problem.”
Sheriff Smith has said nothing publicly about the scandal, and when she testified before a grand jury last month she declined to answer their questions as well, repeatedly invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, even when she was asked mundane questions like how long she’d been in office.
When Deputy District Attorney John Chase asked her what she does for a living, Smith told him she’s worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 47 years. Before he could even get to asking about the gun permits, known as CCWs, she invoked her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career. “Sir, under Article 1 of the California Constitution, Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me,” she said, cutting herself off abruptly. Though absent from the transcript, witnesses to the proceeding say that’s when Smith, visibly overcome with emotion, paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes. “That’s fine,” Chase assured, allowing her a moment to regain composure. “Take your time, sheriff. There is no rush here. We are not in a rush.” Smith picked up where she left off “… and Evidence Code 940,” she continued. “I assert my privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, I’m declining to answer your questions.”
The Mercury News says that it’s been an “open secret” for years that those who backed Smith’s re-election efforts received preferential treatment in return. Under California law, getting a permit to carry a handgun comes with plenty of strings attached, and county sheriffs have broad leeway to deny a permit unless they deem it necessary. Permits are rarely approved in Santa Clara County, and when they do get the green light, they’ve often been handed out to campaign donors while the average resident who applies likely has their application shoved into a desk drawer without it ever being looked at.
The agency has been stingy with the privilege — about 150 permits were issued or renewed between 2014 and 2019, out of over 750 applications. But it has been widely noticed that at least a quarter of the recipients had contributed to Smith’s campaigns, in amounts of $100 to $1,000. In Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties, the sheriff’s offices grant the permits at twice the rate of Santa Clara County and typically have twice as many active licenses at any given moment. The grand jury testimony gives the first inside look at the casual way the process worked: Jensen would make house calls to deliver VIPs their gun-permit paperwork, at least once to a judge, and in a few instances, to players for the San Jose Sharks. The Starbucks on Coleman Avenue and Taylor Street in San Jose, a five-minute drive from sheriff’s headquarters, was practically a satellite office for preferred gun permits, although one meeting, involving the alleged deal at the heart of the current indictment, happened on outdoor tables at the Jamba Juice next door — the Starbucks was closed. But convenience was just one of the perks sheriff’s aides offered the VIPs. The indictment also contends, via seven felony charges against Jensen of falsifying paperwork, that some applicants didn’t even have to go to the gun range to show that they knew how to safely use their firearms. Among the apparent beneficiaries of that privilege was County Supervisor Mike Wasserman. In his testimony to the grand jury, Wasserman insisted he simply didn’t remember how he fulfilled the firearms safety requirement to carry two concealed pistols.
The San Jose Mercury News, website SanJoseInside.com, and the San Francisco Chronicle have all extensively reported on the scandal, but for the most part it’s been treated as a local Bay-area news story, despite the fact that California’s carry permit laws themselves seem almost designed to foster an atmosphere of corruption. If sheriffs in the state simply approved those who met the training requirements and passed a background check, there would be no opportunity for the kind of graft that’s alleged to have been commonplace in Santa Clara County. Instead, the state has set up a process that makes it far too easy to engage in the type of corruption alleged to have taken place.
While the District Attorney in Santa Clara County continues to investigate, and has promised more charges to come, the real change needs to happen in Sacramento. Unfortunately, with an anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature, it’s highly unlikely that the Democrats in charge will revamp or retool the existing system to remove the potential for bribery. They’ll stick with the status quo, even if it means that average citizens are being denied their right to carry while the politically connected can pay for the privilege to bear arms in self-defense.
As for Sheriff Smith herself, the Mercury News says the grand jury testimony that’s leaked out provides some hints that Smith may have been involved in the bribery scheme, but without direct evidence it may be difficult to charge her. Again, we’re left with two choices: either she knew about the pay-to-play taking place with her re-election campaign, or she was oblivious even though she was ultimately the one approving the permits. Only one scenario may lead to criminal charges, but either way, it sounds to me like it’s time for the sheriff to step down.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Newsweek Presents Second Amendment Protest As Armed Siege

When you ’ re on the pro-gun side of the debate , you generally don ’ t expect particularly fair treatment from the media .
You know on some level that they ’ re going to try to misrepresent you and your position .
You know better than to trust them .
However , sometimes , parts of the media go so far out of their way to make the pro-gun side look bad that it would be hilarious if it wasn ’ t so infuriating .
The latest example of this comes from Newsweek .
They ran a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capitol with this headline : Hundreds of Heavily-Armed Gun Activists Surround Michigan State Capitol In other words , they presented a lawful protest designed to call attention to their position on a matter the legislature is considering–the banning of open carry inside the capitol–as if it were an armed siege .
See , it ’ s understood by most of us who work in the media that a lot of times , people develop their ideas primarily by reading the headlines .
They read them , then share them , but don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Because of that , though , headlines can shape the narrative surrounding an event just as much as the report itself .
As such , I can ’ t help but believe that this headline was designed to make it look like the protestors were doing more than protesting , that they were a clear and present threat .
The meat of the article isn ’ t much better , either .
In other words , all the relevant boogiemen were there .
I genuinely doubt there were many Confederate flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan fought for the North .
But everything about this report is crafted in an effort to discredit the protestors as a group .
It ’ s designed to make people afraid of those protestors , to present them as some eldritch horror that is lurking around the corner .
However , let ’ s note that nothing was set on fire .
No windows were broken .
No one was assaulted .
Nothing bad happened .
They came , protested , then went home .
There ’ s no spin about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burn in the background .
It was entirely peaceful .
That ’ s why Newsweek had to try and spin it , though .
It ’ s imperative for them that people see this side as vile , aggressive , and dangerous .
Nevermind that there ’ s been no right-wing riots .
Those have all come from the left , after all .
That doesn ’ t matter .
They need people to see the opposition as the real threat .
But they don ’ t get to have their own facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea that truth is relative .
A is A .
Objective reality is objectively real , and that includes how the protest wasn ’ t a siege , yet this particular outlet opted to present it as if it were .

When you’re on the pro-gun side of the debate, you generally don’t expect particularly fair treatment from the media. You know on some level that they’re going to try to misrepresent you and your position. You know better than to trust them.
However, sometimes, parts of the media go so far out of their way to make the pro-gun side look bad that it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so infuriating.
The latest example of this comes from Newsweek. They ran a story about the pro-gun protest at the Michigan state capitol with this headline: Hundreds of Heavily-Armed Gun Activists Surround Michigan State Capitol
In other words, they presented a lawful protest designed to call attention to their position on a matter the legislature is considering–the banning of open carry inside the capitol–as if it were an armed siege.
See, it’s understood by most of us who work in the media that a lot of times, people develop their ideas primarily by reading the headlines. They read them, then share them, but don’t always click on the story itself.
Because of that, though, headlines can shape the narrative surrounding an event just as much as the report itself. As such, I can’t help but believe that this headline was designed to make it look like the protestors were doing more than protesting, that they were a clear and present threat. The meat of the article isn’t much better, either.
Heavily-armed protestors, some waving Confederate flags and Trump campaign banners, stood on the lawn outside the capitol building in Lansing brandishing AR-15 firearms and wearing body armour. Among those in attendance were members of the Proud Boys—a far-right, all-male organization with a history of violence against political opponents—and the Michigan Liberty Militia, a paramilitary group.
In other words, all the relevant boogiemen were there. I genuinely doubt there were many Confederate flags, of course. After all, Michigan fought for the North.
But everything about this report is crafted in an effort to discredit the protestors as a group. It’s designed to make people afraid of those protestors, to present them as some eldritch horror that is lurking around the corner.
However, let’s note that nothing was set on fire. No windows were broken. No one was assaulted. Nothing bad happened. They came, protested, then went home.
There’s no spin about this being “mostly peaceful” as buildings burn in the background. It was entirely peaceful.
That’s why Newsweek had to try and spin it, though. It’s imperative for them that people see this side as vile, aggressive, and dangerous. Nevermind that there’s been no right-wing riots. Those have all come from the left, after all. That doesn’t matter. They need people to see the opposition as the real threat.
But they don’t get to have their own facts. I don’t buy into the idea that truth is relative. A is A. Objective reality is objectively real, and that includes how the protest wasn’t a siege, yet this particular outlet opted to present it as if it were.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Nancy Pelosi's Unintentionally Pro-Gun Move

No one is going to mistake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pro-gun anytime soon .
The Democrat has long been an opponent of the right to keep and bear arms .
The only reason she hasn ’ t pushed for more anti-gun legislation in her career is that she knew she couldn ’ t get it through no matter how much she wanted it .
However , in her tenure as speaker this time around , she deserves a bit of credit .
See , she made a very pro-gun move .
I don ’ t think she meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s worked out well enough for us .
How did she do that ?
Well , like this : Alittle-noticed casualty of Democrats ’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control , Rep. Thomas Massie , R-Ky. , says .
In an interview for my book , “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ red flag law.
” “ I ’ ve told my colleagues , the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head , ” Massie said .
The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate .
But , Massie said , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , was up against progressives ’ strong demand for impeaching Trump , and she faced the “ choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.
” F0r what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massie is right .
Pelosi pushing for impeachment pretty much scuttled gun control efforts that appeared to be all but a done deal .
The Democrats in the House wanted it .
President Trump signaled his willingness to sign it .
Republicans in the Senate were ready to defer to the president .
All the stars had aligned .
We were going to get gun control .
Then Pelosi went after impeachment .
At that point , Trump no longer had any reason to work with Democrats .
Republicans in the Senate were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let them die from inattention .
Gun control was no longer going to happen because the parties weren ’ t interested in doing anything .
Especially since every Democrat had to know that impeachment wasn ’ t going to go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate .
Pelosi caved to the more extreme elements of her party and the net result was nothing .
Most Americans don ’ t even think about impeachment anymore .
Sure , they might remember it happened if someone brings it up , but they don ’ t consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a national-level red flag law would have played on everyone ’ s minds as reports surfaced of just how many times it had been used .
That ’ s not likely to work out well for them come November .
I , for one , have to thank Pelosi for that .
Her plan yielded Democrats absolutely nothing , but especially no gun control , something the party has campaigned on for ages to some degree or another .
Her self-preservation instincts worked out well for the pro-Second Amendment side .

No one is going to mistake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pro-gun anytime soon. The Democrat has long been an opponent of the right to keep and bear arms. The only reason she hasn’t pushed for more anti-gun legislation in her career is that she knew she couldn’t get it through no matter how much she wanted it.
However, in her tenure as speaker this time around, she deserves a bit of credit. See, she made a very pro-gun move. I don’t think she meant to be pro-gun, but she did, and it’s worked out well enough for us.
How did she do that? Well, like this:
Alittle-noticed casualty of Democrats’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says. In an interview for my book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk, commonly known as a “red flag law.” “I’ve told my colleagues, the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head,” Massie said. The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate. But, Massie said, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was up against progressives’ strong demand for impeaching Trump, and she faced the “choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.”
F0r what it’s worth, though, Massie is right. Pelosi pushing for impeachment pretty much scuttled gun control efforts that appeared to be all but a done deal.
The Democrats in the House wanted it. President Trump signaled his willingness to sign it. Republicans in the Senate were ready to defer to the president. All the stars had aligned. We were going to get gun control.
Then Pelosi went after impeachment.
At that point, Trump no longer had any reason to work with Democrats. Republicans in the Senate were now free to oppose the bills and let them die from inattention. Gun control was no longer going to happen because the parties weren’t interested in doing anything.
Especially since every Democrat had to know that impeachment wasn’t going to go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Pelosi caved to the more extreme elements of her party and the net result was nothing. Most Americans don’t even think about impeachment anymore. Sure, they might remember it happened if someone brings it up, but they don’t consider it on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, a national-level red flag law would have played on everyone’s minds as reports surfaced of just how many times it had been used.
That’s not likely to work out well for them come November.
I, for one, have to thank Pelosi for that. Her plan yielded Democrats absolutely nothing, but especially no gun control, something the party has campaigned on for ages to some degree or another.
Her self-preservation instincts worked out well for the pro-Second Amendment side.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Felon Arrested After Pointing Gun At Motorist During Louisville Protest

A 34-year old woman and convicted felon was arrested by Louisville police after she pointed a gun at a motorist during a protest of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron on Friday , but the woman ’ s fellow protesters are angrily asserting that the driver of that car should have been arrested as well .
According to the Louisville Metro Police Department , Robin Ash is now facing several charges in connection with the incident , including wanton endangerment , criminal mischief , and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon .
It ’ s that last charge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute her case at the federal level , where she ’ d be facing a minimum of five years in prison .
Some of those demonstrating with Ash say that she shouldn ’ t have been the only one arrested , however .
They say that the motorist was the initial aggressor , and pulled a gun of his own .
Sheri Wright , a Louisville woman marching with the group on Friday , filmed the incident and posted a separate video of the encounter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t shown in Wright ’ s video , but the footage shows the driver speed past protesters before coming to a stop .
In the video , the driver , still in his vehicle , points a handgun at people outside the car .
He drives a short distance forward ( the kick is not seen in Wright ’ s video ) before exiting his car and pointing the gun into the crowd as he inspects the back of his vehicle .
Wright ’ s video doesn ’ t show Ash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to tell if the driver pointed his gun in response to Ash or in response to the crowd approaching and surrounding his car , but based on the video released by the LMPD , it looks like Ash pointed the gun at the man almost as soon as his car had stopped .
Both videos show the crowd then surging around the car , and in Wright ’ s video you can hear several people shouting that the driver has a gun .
If I was behind the wheel , I probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short distance before getting out to check the damage to my car , but it sounds like the driver was well within his rights to try to get the mob to back away , and in fact Wright ’ s video doesn ’ t show him yelling or threatening protesters .
He briefly points his gun to get them to back away , but actually engages in conversation with a few individuals as he checks out the dent to his rear driver ’ s side panel .
It should be noted that Sheri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most unbiased of observers either .
Wright ignores completely the fact that the driver had a gun pointed at him .
She never mentions the armed woman in her account on Facebook , and portrays the driver as some sort of reckless nut who was “ deliberately targeting protesters and trying to run them over , ” of which there ’ s no evidence whatsoever .
If you watch the video released by the LMPD , it looks like the guy was trying to get past the protesters and turn left at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopping his car as several demonstrators approached the vehicle .
Thankfully the incident ended without injury to either side , but I ’ m wondering why this demonstration was allowed in the first place .
Last month , the Louisville police announced that protests would no longer be allowed on city streets , and that protesters would have to follow the same traffic laws as everyone else .
Clearly that wasn ’ t the case on Friday , where protesters were blocking several lanes of traffic .
If police want to avoid any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back up their words with actions and ensure that these protests remain peaceful and out of the roadways .

A 34-year old woman and convicted felon was arrested by Louisville police after she pointed a gun at a motorist during a protest of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron on Friday, but the woman’s fellow protesters are angrily asserting that the driver of that car should have been arrested as well.
According to the Louisville Metro Police Department, Robin Ash is now facing several charges in connection with the incident, including wanton endangerment, criminal mischief, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. It’s that last charge that could land Ash in serious legal trouble, especially if the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute her case at the federal level, where she’d be facing a minimum of five years in prison.
Some of those demonstrating with Ash say that she shouldn’t have been the only one arrested, however. They say that the motorist was the initial aggressor, and pulled a gun of his own.
Sheri Wright, a Louisville woman marching with the group on Friday, filmed the incident and posted a separate video of the encounter on her own Facebook page. Ash isn’t shown in Wright’s video, but the footage shows the driver speed past protesters before coming to a stop. In the video, the driver, still in his vehicle, points a handgun at people outside the car. He drives a short distance forward (the kick is not seen in Wright’s video) before exiting his car and pointing the gun into the crowd as he inspects the back of his vehicle.
Wright’s video doesn’t show Ash at all, so it’s impossible to tell if the driver pointed his gun in response to Ash or in response to the crowd approaching and surrounding his car, but based on the video released by the LMPD, it looks like Ash pointed the gun at the man almost as soon as his car had stopped. Both videos show the crowd then surging around the car, and in Wright’s video you can hear several people shouting that the driver has a gun.
If I was behind the wheel, I probably wouldn’t have driven just a short distance before getting out to check the damage to my car, but it sounds like the driver was well within his rights to try to get the mob to back away, and in fact Wright’s video doesn’t show him yelling or threatening protesters. He briefly points his gun to get them to back away, but actually engages in conversation with a few individuals as he checks out the dent to his rear driver’s side panel.
It should be noted that Sheri Wright doesn’t exactly seem like the most unbiased of observers either.
But the confrontation between the driver and the protesters in the street, Wright said, was a harrowing turn that showed the danger those who have demonstrated face. “He could have killed who knows how many people if that gun would have gone off,” Wright said.
Wright ignores completely the fact that the driver had a gun pointed at him. She never mentions the armed woman in her account on Facebook, and portrays the driver as some sort of reckless nut who was “deliberately targeting protesters and trying to run them over,” of which there’s no evidence whatsoever. If you watch the video released by the LMPD, it looks like the guy was trying to get past the protesters and turn left at a traffic light, but ended up stopping his car as several demonstrators approached the vehicle.
Thankfully the incident ended without injury to either side, but I’m wondering why this demonstration was allowed in the first place. Last month, the Louisville police announced that protests would no longer be allowed on city streets, and that protesters would have to follow the same traffic laws as everyone else. Clearly that wasn’t the case on Friday, where protesters were blocking several lanes of traffic. If police want to avoid any more incidents like this, they need to back up their words with actions and ensure that these protests remain peaceful and out of the roadways.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--DOJ Says Portland, NYC, Seattle Failing To Protect Residents

The Department of Justice is calling out elected officials in Portland , New York City , and Seattle for allowing violence to go unchecked during protests that all too often devolve into riots and looting .
In a press release issued Monday morning , Attorney General Bill Barr blasted politicians like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio , alleging that their actions ( or lack thereof ) are making their cities more dangerous places .
“ When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be protected , including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest , ” said Attorney General William P. Barr .
“ We can not allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance .
It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.
” The release goes into great detail about just how bad things have become in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 150 % in New York and by more than 140 % in Portland this summer compared to last year , and even as violent crime has shot up , the response by elected officials in the cities called out by the DOJ has been to cut police budgets in cities like New York .
The DOJ release notes that Portland has cut its police budget by $ 15-million , eliminating 84 positions and scrapping the city ’ s Gun Violence Reduction Team .
As of two weeks ago there ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , far above the 299 reported in 2019 .
In Seattle , the city council and Mayor Jenny Durkan have been at odds over police funding .
The council recently voted to reduce the police budget for the rest of this year by 14 % , but Durkan vetoed the bill , which would have resulted in the layoffs of about 100 officers .
So far the council has criticized Durkan ’ s veto but hasn ’ t acted to override it , despite voting 7-1 in favor of the defunding efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ three cities as places where anarchy , violence , and destruction is allowed to happen is part of President Trump ’ s push to pull federal funds from jurisdictions that are turning a blind eye to the increased violence and unrest .
The next step is for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to “ issue guidance to the heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring , to the maximum extent permitted by law , anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants that the agency has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disfavor anarchist jurisdictions from receiving.
” In other words , the clock is ticking for Portland , Seattle , and New York City , though if Joe Biden wins in November the threat to pull federal funding will disappear .
Heck , he ’ s more likely to throw a ticker tape parade for mayors like Bill de Blasio than he is to threaten them with a loss of federal dollars if they don ’ t get tough on rioters and looters .
In the meantime , it ’ s still destroying businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where windows were smashed and storefronts vandalized on Saturday night without a single arrest being made by local police .

The Department of Justice is calling out elected officials in Portland, New York City, and Seattle for allowing violence to go unchecked during protests that all too often devolve into riots and looting. In a press release issued Monday morning, Attorney General Bill Barr blasted politicians like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, alleging that their actions (or lack thereof) are making their cities more dangerous places.
“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”
The release goes into great detail about just how bad things have become in the three cities. Shootings are up by more than 150% in New York and by more than 140% in Portland this summer compared to last year, and even as violent crime has shot up, the response by elected officials in the cities called out by the DOJ has been to cut police budgets in cities like New York.
While the city faced increased unrest, gun violence, and property damage, the New York City Council cut $1 billion from NYPD’s FY21 budget.
The budget resulted in the cancellation of the new police recruiting class, cuts to overtime spending, and the transfer of certain police functions, including school safety, out of the NYPD.
Meanwhile, the Manhattan and Brooklyn District Attorneys have declined to prosecute charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly arising from the protests, and the District Attorneys in Queens and the Bronx have declined to prosecute other protest-related charges.
Both Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo have forcefully rejected federal law enforcement support.
The DOJ release notes that Portland has cut its police budget by $15-million, eliminating 84 positions and scrapping the city’s Gun Violence Reduction Team. As of two weeks ago there’ve been 488 shootings in Portland this year, far above the 299 reported in 2019.
In Seattle, the city council and Mayor Jenny Durkan have been at odds over police funding. The council recently voted to reduce the police budget for the rest of this year by 14%, but Durkan vetoed the bill, which would have resulted in the layoffs of about 100 officers. So far the council has criticized Durkan’s veto but hasn’t acted to override it, despite voting 7-1 in favor of the defunding efforts.
The DOJ’s designation of the three cities as places where anarchy, violence, and destruction is allowed to happen is part of President Trump’s push to pull federal funds from jurisdictions that are turning a blind eye to the increased violence and unrest. The next step is for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to “issue guidance to the heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants that the agency has sufficient lawful discretion to restrict or otherwise disfavor anarchist jurisdictions from receiving.”
In other words, the clock is ticking for Portland, Seattle, and New York City, though if Joe Biden wins in November the threat to pull federal funding will disappear. Heck, he’s more likely to throw a ticker tape parade for mayors like Bill de Blasio than he is to threaten them with a loss of federal dollars if they don’t get tough on rioters and looters. In the meantime, it’s still destroying businesses as usual in places like Portland, where windows were smashed and storefronts vandalized on Saturday night without a single arrest being made by local police.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Trump Says Second Amendment Is "Gone" If Dems Win In November

In a string of tweets on Sunday , Donald Trump once again reminded voters of the importance of the Second Amendment in this year ’ s elections , though he delve into too many details about why the the right to keep and bear arms would be threatened with extinction if Joe Biden wins the White House in November .
Now , I think Trump is right when he says the Second Amendment is at stake in the election , but I ’ d love to see the president get more specific about why that ’ s the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff like this is to huff and proclaim that “ Joe Biden says he supports the Second Amendment , ” and it ’ s up to the Trump campaign to hammer home why Biden ’ s proclamations are meaningless .
Biden himself describes the Second Amendment as “ limited ” on his campaign website , but never gets around to saying exactly what he believes those limitations are .
Trump needs to remind voters that Biden and Kamala Harris want to ban the most popular rifles and commonly-owned ammunition magazines in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment from a right into a privilege , and would turn tens of millions of legal gun owners into criminals if they didn ’ t hand over their arms to the government in a compensated confiscation scheme or fork over hundreds of dollars in taxes for every gun and magazine they register with the federal government .
That ’ s Biden ’ s stated plan , but Trump should also remind voters that once those arms are registered , Democrats are likely to come back for more .
After all , they routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ battlefield weapons of war ” that need to be “ taken off of our streets.
” As bad as it is , I don ’ t think Biden ’ s plan goes far enough for many of his allies in Congress , and there ’ s no guarantee that the Biden/Harris plan would actually be the gun ban bill that gets to the Oval Office .
The threat to the Second Amendment posed by a Biden/Harris administration runs even deeper than their proposed gun ban .
The future of the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden allies like Chuck Schumer are already promising to pack the Court with anti-gun justices if Trump appoints a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Over the weekend Politico laid out how Schumer and Democrats in the Senate could ensure that an anti-gun majority is on the bench within weeks of Biden being sworn into office .
Politico notes that Biden himself as objected to the idea of packing the court as recently as last year , but concludes that those past statements may very well come with an expiration date if Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate in November .
It ’ s up to the Trump campaign to spell out to voters exactly what is at stake and why .
An anti-gun Supreme Court wouldn ’ t just deny any new challenges to gun control laws .
Justices could also reverse the Heller and McDonald decisions , or undo as much of those victories as possible in future court challenges , rendering the Second Amendment a dead letter , at least legally speaking .
Boilerplate language about saving the Second Amendment may be enough for the base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners right now who aren ’ t necessarily stalwart members of the GOP or even all that knowledgable about the intricacies of the fight over the future of the Second Amendment .
They need to know the specifics of why a Biden victory would be disastrous for our right to keep and bear arms , and they ’ re not going to find out from either the media or the Biden campaign .

In a string of tweets on Sunday, Donald Trump once again reminded voters of the importance of the Second Amendment in this year’s elections, though he delve into too many details about why the the right to keep and bear arms would be threatened with extinction if Joe Biden wins the White House in November.
VIRGINIA, and everywhere else for that matter, I am the only thing standing between you and your 2nd Amendment. If I am re-elected, it is 100% SAFE. If not, it is GONE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2020
…And 96% in the Republican Party. Save your 2nd Amendment! https://t.co/6T9egMb4Rd — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2020
SAVE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT, VOTE TRUMP! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2020
Now, I think Trump is right when he says the Second Amendment is at stake in the election, but I’d love to see the president get more specific about why that’s the case. The typical media response when Trump says stuff like this is to huff and proclaim that “Joe Biden says he supports the Second Amendment,” and it’s up to the Trump campaign to hammer home why Biden’s proclamations are meaningless.
Biden himself describes the Second Amendment as “limited” on his campaign website, but never gets around to saying exactly what he believes those limitations are. Trump needs to remind voters that Biden and Kamala Harris want to ban the most popular rifles and commonly-owned ammunition magazines in the country. That alone would turn the Second Amendment from a right into a privilege, and would turn tens of millions of legal gun owners into criminals if they didn’t hand over their arms to the government in a compensated confiscation scheme or fork over hundreds of dollars in taxes for every gun and magazine they register with the federal government.
That’s Biden’s stated plan, but Trump should also remind voters that once those arms are registered, Democrats are likely to come back for more. After all, they routinely describe AR-15’s and 15-round magazines as “battlefield weapons of war” that need to be “taken off of our streets.” As bad as it is, I don’t think Biden’s plan goes far enough for many of his allies in Congress, and there’s no guarantee that the Biden/Harris plan would actually be the gun ban bill that gets to the Oval Office.
The threat to the Second Amendment posed by a Biden/Harris administration runs even deeper than their proposed gun ban. The future of the Supreme Court is also at stake, and Biden allies like Chuck Schumer are already promising to pack the Court with anti-gun justices if Trump appoints a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Over the weekend Politico laid out how Schumer and Democrats in the Senate could ensure that an anti-gun majority is on the bench within weeks of Biden being sworn into office.
Within days, or moments, of the start of a new Senate session, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announces his intention to move legislation that would expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 members, to “repair the wound inflicted on our Constitution by the Republicans’ refusal to recognize the will of the electorate.” The Senate and House pass the bill, and President Joe Biden signs it on Inauguration Day.
Politico notes that Biden himself as objected to the idea of packing the court as recently as last year, but concludes that those past statements may very well come with an expiration date if Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate in November.
There’s a good reason that more than 80 years ago, in a time of turmoil, a Democratic president at the peak of his political power nonetheless found his plans thwarted by members of his own party, who found the cost of tinkering with constitutional machinery too high a price to pay. If McConnell calls a lame-duck session in the face of an electoral loss to lock in a conservative court majority, however, it’s hard to imagine any such concerns staying the hands of Democrats.
It’s up to the Trump campaign to spell out to voters exactly what is at stake and why. An anti-gun Supreme Court wouldn’t just deny any new challenges to gun control laws. Justices could also reverse the Heller and McDonald decisions, or undo as much of those victories as possible in future court challenges, rendering the Second Amendment a dead letter, at least legally speaking.
Boilerplate language about saving the Second Amendment may be enough for the base, but there are millions of new gun owners right now who aren’t necessarily stalwart members of the GOP or even all that knowledgable about the intricacies of the fight over the future of the Second Amendment. They need to know the specifics of why a Biden victory would be disastrous for our right to keep and bear arms, and they’re not going to find out from either the media or the Biden campaign.


bearingarms--2020-09-21--Senator's Reasons For Gun Control Are Why It's A Non-Starter

We ’ ll always have to accept that , to some degree , there will always be those who seek to intrude on the freedom of ordinary Americans .
Accepting that they exist , however , does not mean giving into their vile whims .
Instead , that acceptance needs to come with a healthy dose of understanding that such people must be opposed at every opportunity .
One such person is Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut .
Over at Townhall , Larry Keane decided to take a look at Murphy ’ s new book , and the central premise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather interesting .
U.S .
Senator Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) encapsulated in 384 pages of his new book “ The Violence Inside Us ” one central theme : America can ’ t be trusted with freedom .
“ You know , it ’ s called ‘ The Violence Inside Us ’ because the conclusion I come to is that America is a violent place .
We have always been a violent place , ” Senator Murphy explained to MSNBC ’ s Kasie Hunt .
The problem is Senator Murphy didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it .
He got there by cherry-picking historical facts , isolating them out of context , and wedging them to fit a narrative that American freedom is bad and must be restrained by a benevolent and all-knowing government made up of people like him .
However , there ’ s a problem with Murphy ’ s line of thinking on this .
Now , I don ’ t believe Americans are inherently violent .
I believe some individuals are , but Americans as a whole ?
Not so much .
But let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contention is correct , that America is a nation that is mired in violence and always has been .
If that ’ s the case , then it would seem imperative that good , decent , law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves from the violent criminals that exist everywhere .
See , while guns do make up a large portion of the weapons used to take human life every year , somewhere around a third of all homicides currently use something other than a firearm , according to the FBI .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that gun control is needed , but only a fool would believe that the other two-thirds of all homicides would simply not happen .
Because most of those murders would still likely be attempted regardless of the existence of guns , let me ask Sen. Murphy just what the hell their law-abiding victims are supposed to do to prevent these murders ?
We ’ re talking about aggressive predators in many of these cases , people who will pounce on those they perceive as weaker and will capitalize on their advantages .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not think twice about it .
It won ’ t matter if they have a gun , a knife , or a freaking rock , they ’ ll try to victimize other people because that ’ s what they do .
So where does that leave us ?
Murphy would leave us to the mob .
He ’ d leave us unarmed to face the predators .
These are the same predators that lead him to believe that this country is inherently violent , but he ’ d leave us to them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes is somehow built into our system , is precisely why gun control is a non-starter for millions upon millions of Americans .

We’ll always have to accept that, to some degree, there will always be those who seek to intrude on the freedom of ordinary Americans. Accepting that they exist, however, does not mean giving into their vile whims. Instead, that acceptance needs to come with a healthy dose of understanding that such people must be opposed at every opportunity.
One such person is Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Over at Townhall, Larry Keane decided to take a look at Murphy’s new book, and the central premise of that book is something I found rather interesting.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) encapsulated in 384 pages of his new book “The Violence Inside Us” one central theme: America can’t be trusted with freedom. “You know, it’s called ‘The Violence Inside Us’ because the conclusion I come to is that America is a violent place. We have always been a violent place,” Senator Murphy explained to MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt. The problem is Senator Murphy didn’t arrive at that conclusion, he started with it. He got there by cherry-picking historical facts, isolating them out of context, and wedging them to fit a narrative that American freedom is bad and must be restrained by a benevolent and all-knowing government made up of people like him.
However, there’s a problem with Murphy’s line of thinking on this.
Now, I don’t believe Americans are inherently violent. I believe some individuals are, but Americans as a whole? Not so much.
But let’s say that Murphy’s contention is correct, that America is a nation that is mired in violence and always has been. If that’s the case, then it would seem imperative that good, decent, law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves from the violent criminals that exist everywhere.
See, while guns do make up a large portion of the weapons used to take human life every year, somewhere around a third of all homicides currently use something other than a firearm, according to the FBI. For some, that’s somehow evidence that gun control is needed, but only a fool would believe that the other two-thirds of all homicides would simply not happen.
(It should be noted that many, if not most of the guns used for these homicides are obtained illegally in the first place.)
Because most of those murders would still likely be attempted regardless of the existence of guns, let me ask Sen. Murphy just what the hell their law-abiding victims are supposed to do to prevent these murders?
We’re talking about aggressive predators in many of these cases, people who will pounce on those they perceive as weaker and will capitalize on their advantages. They’ll prey on people and not think twice about it. It won’t matter if they have a gun, a knife, or a freaking rock, they’ll try to victimize other people because that’s what they do.
So where does that leave us?
Murphy would leave us to the mob. He’d leave us unarmed to face the predators. These are the same predators that lead him to believe that this country is inherently violent, but he’d leave us to them.
Yet that violence, the violence he believes is somehow built into our system, is precisely why gun control is a non-starter for millions upon millions of Americans.


bearingarms--2020-09-20--Police Warn Parents Over "Replica" Guns

Police Warn Parents Over "Replica" Guns

There ’ s something to be said for a gun that looks and handles like the real thing , but isn ’ t .
For example , many are proponents of airsoft weapons for additional training .
Especially for stuff inside the house where you don ’ t want to accidentally fire a real weapon .
However , there ’ s also reason to be a little cautious with these things as well .
See , it ’ s not just adults getting these realistic weapons .
It ’ s also kids .
Now , that ’ s fine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so did a lot of my peers .
Most of us never had an issue with them .
Unfortunately , that ’ s no universally true .
An Ohio police department is now trying to warn parents about them .
The department posted a side-by-side photo on their Facebook page .
This is , of course , why parents need to be careful with these guns .
Restrict where your kid carries one of these .
Now , I ’ m not going to say kids shouldn ’ t play with them at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember that Tamir Rice was killed while handling a realistic looking toy .
See , when police see something that looks like a gun pointing at them , they ’ re not going to play around .
Neither will an armed citizen .
The standard is whether a reasonable person would fear for their life in that moment , and if it looks like a real gun , you will .
The thing is , no one wants to see children be shot .
No one at all .
I ’ m an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I bought them for both my son and my daughter .
I used them to teach the basics of gun safety well before it was time to put their hands on an actual firearm .
However , I also make sure they understood not to even remotely point it at a police officer as well as to follow any police instructions .
Look , I ’ m not saying that every kids gets killed with a gun like this .
I ’ m not even saying that Tamir Rice necessarily deserved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that when armed individuals see a gun-shaped object pointing at them , they ’ re not going to example the fine details to determine if it ’ s real or not .
They ’ re going to act as if it ’ s real .
If you don ’ t want that to be your kid , don ’ t let them run around town with a toy that looks that realistic .
That said , I need to address this bit as well : On this , I ’ m curious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun because it ’ s airsoft or whether they mean for this to apply to any toy gun .
If it ’ s because it ’ s airsoft and thus fires a projectile , I can understand their point .
To some extent , anyway .
If not , then they need to step the hell off .
Children need to play , and yeah , that includes with toy guns .

There’s something to be said for a gun that looks and handles like the real thing, but isn’t. For example, many are proponents of airsoft weapons for additional training. Especially for stuff inside the house where you don’t want to accidentally fire a real weapon.
However, there’s also reason to be a little cautious with these things as well. See, it’s not just adults getting these realistic weapons. It’s also kids.
Now, that’s fine. I had them as a kid and so did a lot of my peers. Most of us never had an issue with them. Unfortunately, that’s no universally true.
An Ohio police department is now trying to warn parents about them.
Euclid police issued a plea to parents after officers recovered a “replica” gun from a 13-year-old boy. “PLEASE teach your children that ALL guns are dangerous and they should NOT be played with in our streets!” According to Euclid police, the seemingly-real firearm and other illegal items were seized from a 13-year-old boy on Wednesday.
The department posted a side-by-side photo on their Facebook page.
See these weapons? See it pointed at you, from the side, in a hand or maybe on a waist. Which one is real???The… Posted by Euclid Police Department on Wednesday, September 16, 2020
This is, of course, why parents need to be careful with these guns. Restrict where your kid carries one of these. Now, I’m not going to say kids shouldn’t play with them at all, but let’s also remember that Tamir Rice was killed while handling a realistic looking toy.
See, when police see something that looks like a gun pointing at them, they’re not going to play around. Neither will an armed citizen. The standard is whether a reasonable person would fear for their life in that moment, and if it looks like a real gun, you will.
The thing is, no one wants to see children be shot. No one at all.
I’m an advocate for toy guns for our kids. I bought them for both my son and my daughter. I used them to teach the basics of gun safety well before it was time to put their hands on an actual firearm.
However, I also make sure they understood not to even remotely point it at a police officer as well as to follow any police instructions.
Look, I’m not saying that every kids gets killed with a gun like this. I’m not even saying that Tamir Rice necessarily deserved to be shot. I’m simply saying that when armed individuals see a gun-shaped object pointing at them, they’re not going to example the fine details to determine if it’s real or not. They’re going to act as if it’s real.
If you don’t want that to be your kid, don’t let them run around town with a toy that looks that realistic.
That said, I need to address this bit as well:
PLEASE teach your children that ALL guns are dangerous and they should NOT be played with in our streets!
On this, I’m curious if they’re calling this a gun because it’s airsoft or whether they mean for this to apply to any toy gun.
If it’s because it’s airsoft and thus fires a projectile, I can understand their point. To some extent, anyway.
If not, then they need to step the hell off. Children need to play, and yeah, that includes with toy guns.


bearingarms--2020-09-22--Employee Of Philly Violence Prevention Program Busted For Carrying Gun

A Philadelphia man who works in the city ’ s Office of Violence Prevention is now on unpaid leave after the office learned that he was arrested earlier this year for illegally carrying a gun in public .
Fox 29 in Philly reports that Morris Hobson , a Group Violence Intervention Coordinator with the office , was charged back in May for the crime .
The Office of Violence Prevention says Hobson did not disclose his arrest or charges when he was hired .
They added that he was already a city employee when hired , and had transferred from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on to say that the charges do not “ automatically disqualify ” Hobson from working in their office .
“ However , due to the nature of the gun violence intervention strategy he works on , it does give us pause , ” the statement continued .
“ We believe Morris is entitled to due process , and we await the conclusion of that process.
” This should be a teachable moment , and not just for the employee involved here .
Philadelphia officials from the mayor on down can learn a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can put a guy with a bright future ahead of him into prison for what amounts to a paperwork error .
If Hobson had been arrested for driving without a license , he ’ d be looking at a $ 200 fine at worst .
Because he was allegedly carrying with an expired concealed carry license , he could be looking at five years in prison .
Is this really just and equitable ?
Does anyone really believe that justice would be served by sentencing Morris Hobson to prison simply because his license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet neither Mayor Jim Kenney or city officials , who ’ ve been awfully quick to rail against the inequities of the criminal justice system , have criticized the gun control law that could put Hobson behind bars .
Mayor Kenney responded to questions from Cole about Hobson in his coronavirus briefing on Tuesday and claimed the arrest stemmed from an expired permit to carry .
Kenney added that Hobson ’ s leave is unpaid , and called his failure to disclose the charges to the Office of Violence prevention a “ problem.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to the allegations during the briefing Tuesday .
“ I can ’ t defend Morris ’ decision or mistake that he made .
This young man is a community volunteer and leader outside of his job .
That ’ s what he ’ s always been , ” Alexander said .
“ He made a mistake , his registration wasn ’ t up to date and he ’ ll have to face his day in court to deal with that.
” I ’ m curious as to when Hobson ’ s license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expiring after March 19th has been extended until December 31st thanks to the coronavirus-related delays in processing applications and renewals .
Honestly though , even if it had been expired for a year , the idea of a five-year prison sentence for failing to renew the license is ridiculous .
Constitutional or permitless carry is the best way to adhere to the right to bear arms in my opinion , but that ’ s not going to happen in Philadelphia without a court order .
However , the state and city could truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their treatment of the Second Amendment if pro-gun Republicans and pro-criminal justice reform Democrats were able to actually work together .
How about a system like this : If someone is carrying on an expired license , treat it like the paperwork violation that it is .
If they ’ re no longer legally eligible to own the firearm , they can be charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm .
If they ’ ve never applied for a license but are eligible for one , give them a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and tell them to apply for their license to carry or else the next time it ’ ll be a far larger fine or a misdemeanor offense .
It ’ s not perfect , but from a practical perspective , it would be much better than the current laws in place .
The good news for Morris Hobson is that D.A .
Larry Krasner is likely to go easy on him .
He ’ s gone easier on guys who ’ ve been accused of far worse , and this is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of easy headlines and positive press .
The problem is that there are other Morris Hobsons out there , and they don ’ t all merit a news story when they ’ re charged with carrying a gun without a license .
It ’ s impossible to believe that justice will always be served if the law in question is itself unjust .
If Jim Kenney and other officials don ’ t understand that after watching a young man face prison for a victimless crime , I hope Morris Hobson gets the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

A Philadelphia man who works in the city’s Office of Violence Prevention is now on unpaid leave after the office learned that he was arrested earlier this year for illegally carrying a gun in public. Fox 29 in Philly reports that Morris Hobson, a Group Violence Intervention Coordinator with the office, was charged back in May for the crime.
The Office of Violence Prevention says Hobson did not disclose his arrest or charges when he was hired. They added that he was already a city employee when hired, and had transferred from one role to another. The statement went on to say that the charges do not “automatically disqualify” Hobson from working in their office. “However, due to the nature of the gun violence intervention strategy he works on, it does give us pause,” the statement continued. “We believe Morris is entitled to due process, and we await the conclusion of that process.”
This should be a teachable moment, and not just for the employee involved here. Philadelphia officials from the mayor on down can learn a valuable lesson; their gun control laws can put a guy with a bright future ahead of him into prison for what amounts to a paperwork error. If Hobson had been arrested for driving without a license, he’d be looking at a $200 fine at worst. Because he was allegedly carrying with an expired concealed carry license, he could be looking at five years in prison.
Is this really just and equitable? Does anyone really believe that justice would be served by sentencing Morris Hobson to prison simply because his license had expired? I doubt it. Yet neither Mayor Jim Kenney or city officials, who’ve been awfully quick to rail against the inequities of the criminal justice system, have criticized the gun control law that could put Hobson behind bars.
Mayor Kenney responded to questions from Cole about Hobson in his coronavirus briefing on Tuesday and claimed the arrest stemmed from an expired permit to carry. Kenney added that Hobson’s leave is unpaid, and called his failure to disclose the charges to the Office of Violence prevention a “problem.” Acting Managing Director Tumar Alexander also spoke to the allegations during the briefing Tuesday. “I can’t defend Morris’ decision or mistake that he made. This young man is a community volunteer and leader outside of his job. That’s what he’s always been,” Alexander said. “He made a mistake, his registration wasn’t up to date and he’ll have to face his day in court to deal with that.”
I’m curious as to when Hobson’s license expired, because any concealed carry license expiring after March 19th has been extended until December 31st thanks to the coronavirus-related delays in processing applications and renewals. Honestly though, even if it had been expired for a year, the idea of a five-year prison sentence for failing to renew the license is ridiculous.
Constitutional or permitless carry is the best way to adhere to the right to bear arms in my opinion, but that’s not going to happen in Philadelphia without a court order. However, the state and city could truly reform both their criminal justice statutes and their treatment of the Second Amendment if pro-gun Republicans and pro-criminal justice reform Democrats were able to actually work together.
How about a system like this: If someone is carrying on an expired license, treat it like the paperwork violation that it is. If they’re no longer legally eligible to own the firearm, they can be charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. If they’ve never applied for a license but are eligible for one, give them a $25 citation and a concealed carry application, and tell them to apply for their license to carry or else the next time it’ll be a far larger fine or a misdemeanor offense. It’s not perfect, but from a practical perspective, it would be much better than the current laws in place.
The good news for Morris Hobson is that D.A. Larry Krasner is likely to go easy on him. He’s gone easier on guys who’ve been accused of far worse, and this is an easy way for Krasner to garner a couple of easy headlines and positive press. The problem is that there are other Morris Hobsons out there, and they don’t all merit a news story when they’re charged with carrying a gun without a license. It’s impossible to believe that justice will always be served if the law in question is itself unjust. If Jim Kenney and other officials don’t understand that after watching a young man face prison for a victimless crime, I hope Morris Hobson gets the chance to explain it to them.


bearingarms--2020-09-22--Two Connecticut Men Charged With Theft Of 17 Firearms

Gun control , we are told , will keep guns out of the hands of those who aren ’ t supposed to have them .
This is what we keep hearing from those who support such policies .
That if we just pass the next law , we can make everyone safer .
However , that ’ s not what happens .
Sure , new guns laws pop up with great fanfare from proponents and the media ( but I repeat myself ) , but then we see pretty much no difference in crime rates .
They go up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrespective of the gun laws on the books .
Law abiding citizens have still more crap to deal with , and the criminals still get guns .
I can ’ t imagine just how they get those guns .
Two Connecticut men have been charged with stealing 17 guns during a break-in last month at a Massachusetts gun store , federal prosecutors said in a statement Monday .
Fernando Rivera , 24 , and Christian Castro , 29 , were each charged Friday with stealing guns from a federal firearms licensee , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Massachusetts , Andrew Lelling .
Both were held without bail pending trial .
Rivera and Castro were among several people in two cars who drove from Connecticut through Massachusetts to Vermont and New Hampshire stealing or trying to steal from ATMs along the way , prosecutors said .
You mean criminals might actually steal guns from law-abiding citizens ?
I ’ M SHOCKED !
!
!
I mean , don ’ t they know that ’ s illegal ?
Surely law-abiding criminals wouldn ’ t steal guns !
Except , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals .
They steal stuff all the time , especially things they can make a lot of money selling .
High-end goods like firearms can make them some decent cash on the black market .
That ’ s especially true if you know who to sell them too .
And that ’ s where these black market guns tend to come from .
While some are from straw purchases , most are stolen from law-abiding citizens , the very people who have never represented a threat to anyone except for the criminals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that this is what happens , that no matter what laws you put on the books , criminals are going to get guns .
They ’ ll get them because they ’ re criminals .
They ’ ll steal them from someone , somewhere .
Hell , they ’ ve even stolen them from the police .
If they ’ ll do that , why does anyone think they won ’ t steal them from anyone else ?
The truth of the matter is that guns are always going to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Criminals will steal as many guns as they possibly can , even if they don ’ t want to sell them .
Most of the time , though , they want to sell them .
It ’ s great when the police catch these thieves , of course , but the question you have to ask is just how many are out there that they haven ’ t caught yet ?
No doubt , there are plenty still on the streets and more stepping up to commit the same crimes all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop gun thefts , you need to start making the punishment enough that the crime is no longer as attractive .
We can hope , anyway .

Gun control, we are told, will keep guns out of the hands of those who aren’t supposed to have them. This is what we keep hearing from those who support such policies. That if we just pass the next law, we can make everyone safer.
However, that’s not what happens. Sure, new guns laws pop up with great fanfare from proponents and the media (but I repeat myself), but then we see pretty much no difference in crime rates. They go up, they go down, but that happens irrespective of the gun laws on the books. Law abiding citizens have still more crap to deal with, and the criminals still get guns.
I can’t imagine just how they get those guns.
Two Connecticut men have been charged with stealing 17 guns during a break-in last month at a Massachusetts gun store, federal prosecutors said in a statement Monday. Fernando Rivera, 24, and Christian Castro, 29, were each charged Friday with stealing guns from a federal firearms licensee, according to the office of the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling. Both were held without bail pending trial. … Rivera and Castro were among several people in two cars who drove from Connecticut through Massachusetts to Vermont and New Hampshire stealing or trying to steal from ATMs along the way, prosecutors said.
You mean criminals might actually steal guns from law-abiding citizens? I’M SHOCKED!!!
I mean, don’t they know that’s illegal? Surely law-abiding criminals wouldn’t steal guns!
Except, of course, they would. They’re criminals. They steal stuff all the time, especially things they can make a lot of money selling. High-end goods like firearms can make them some decent cash on the black market. That’s especially true if you know who to sell them too.
And that’s where these black market guns tend to come from. While some are from straw purchases, most are stolen from law-abiding citizens, the very people who have never represented a threat to anyone except for the criminals.
Over and over again, we warn people that this is what happens, that no matter what laws you put on the books, criminals are going to get guns. They’ll get them because they’re criminals. They’ll steal them from someone, somewhere. Hell, they’ve even stolen them from the police. If they’ll do that, why does anyone think they won’t steal them from anyone else?
The truth of the matter is that guns are always going to be a preferred item as far as loot goes. Criminals will steal as many guns as they possibly can, even if they don’t want to sell them.
Most of the time, though, they want to sell them.
It’s great when the police catch these thieves, of course, but the question you have to ask is just how many are out there that they haven’t caught yet? No doubt, there are plenty still on the streets and more stepping up to commit the same crimes all the time. If you’re going to stop gun thefts, you need to start making the punishment enough that the crime is no longer as attractive.
We can hope, anyway.