bearingarms--2020-07-20--No Charges Yet, But MO Gov Already Talking Up Pardon For McCloskeys

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has yet to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey over the couple ’ s display of firearms as protesters marched through their private neighborhood nearly one month ago , but Missouri Gov .
Brad Parson says any successful prosecution of the pair may be mooted by a pardon issued by his office .
Speaking to St. Louis talk show host Marc Cox , Parson was asked about the possibility of coming to the defense of the McCloskeys if necessary .
“ I think that ’ s exactly what would happen , ” Parson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what he knows about the case , “ I don ’ t think they ’ re going to spend any time in jail.
” Parson on Saturday retweeted a link to the interview on his personal Twitter page .
An email message left with his spokeswoman was not immediately returned .
It ’ s an interesting twist in the saga of the St. Louis attorneys , but I ’ m not sure that Parson ’ s comments make it any less likely that Gardner will bring criminal charges against the couple .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , and faces an August primary against several of her fellow Democrats , and backing down in the face of opposition by the likes of President Donald Trump , Parsons , and Missouri senator Josh Hawley wouldn ’ t exactly endear Gardner to her far-left base .
It ’ s also important to note that Parsons did tell Cox that his current thinking on a pardon is based on the facts as he knows them at the moment , telling Cox , “ You don ’ t know until you hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , if this is all about going after them for doing a lawful act , then yeah , if that ’ s scenario ever happened , I don ’ t think they ’ re going to spend any time in jail.
’ ‘ I don ’ t think they ’ re going to spend any time in jail.
’ He continued : ‘ A mob does not have the right to charge your property .
They had every right to protect themselves.
’ The Republican governor later took to Twitter to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens to be targeted for exercising their constitutional rights.
’ If Gardner is going to bring a case against the McCloskeys , I ’ d expect charges to be filed in the very near future .
It ’ s been more than a week since a search warrant was served at the couple ’ s home and their firearms were seized by St. Louis police , and nearly a month has passed since the incident took place .
Gardner can take as much time as the statute of limitations provides , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without formal charges just makes the investigation into the pair appear that much more political , instead of based on the true interests of justice .
Since there ’ s still more political upside for Gardner to file charges than to drop the issue , I think the most likely scenario is that the pair end up facing a charge of unlawful use of a weapon , though I wouldn ’ t be surprised at all if Gardner offers the McCloskeys a plea bargain that would keep them out of jail long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has yet to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey over the couple’s display of firearms as protesters marched through their private neighborhood nearly one month ago, but Missouri Gov. Brad Parson says any successful prosecution of the pair may be mooted by a pardon issued by his office.
Speaking to St. Louis talk show host Marc Cox, Parson was asked about the possibility of coming to the defense of the McCloskeys if necessary.
“I think that’s exactly what would happen,” Parson said. He later added that based on what he knows about the case, “I don’t think they’re going to spend any time in jail.” Parson on Saturday retweeted a link to the interview on his personal Twitter page. An email message left with his spokeswoman was not immediately returned.
It’s an interesting twist in the saga of the St. Louis attorneys, but I’m not sure that Parson’s comments make it any less likely that Gardner will bring criminal charges against the couple. Remember, Gardner is up for re-election this year, and faces an August primary against several of her fellow Democrats, and backing down in the face of opposition by the likes of President Donald Trump, Parsons, and Missouri senator Josh Hawley wouldn’t exactly endear Gardner to her far-left base.
It’s also important to note that Parsons did tell Cox that his current thinking on a pardon is based on the facts as he knows them at the moment, telling Cox, “You don’t know until you hear all the facts.”
‘But right now, if this is all about going after them for doing a lawful act, then yeah, if that’s scenario ever happened, I don’t think they’re going to spend any time in jail.’ ‘I don’t think they’re going to spend any time in jail.’ He continued: ‘A mob does not have the right to charge your property. They had every right to protect themselves.’ The Republican governor later took to Twitter to add: ‘We will not allow law-abiding citizens to be targeted for exercising their constitutional rights.’
If Gardner is going to bring a case against the McCloskeys, I’d expect charges to be filed in the very near future. It’s been more than a week since a search warrant was served at the couple’s home and their firearms were seized by St. Louis police, and nearly a month has passed since the incident took place. Gardner can take as much time as the statute of limitations provides, of course, but every day that goes by without formal charges just makes the investigation into the pair appear that much more political, instead of based on the true interests of justice. Since there’s still more political upside for Gardner to file charges than to drop the issue, I think the most likely scenario is that the pair end up facing a charge of unlawful use of a weapon, though I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Gardner offers the McCloskeys a plea bargain that would keep them out of jail long before the case ever gets to a trial.


bearingarms--2020-07-20--Biden's Gun Control Plan Burden On Poor Americans

Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden tend to like to present themselves as champions of the poor .
They support programs that they argue give economically disadvantaged Americans a leg up , even if it doesn ’ t actually work out that way .
If we take people like Biden at their word about wanting to help the poor , though , it would seem that these are a case of good intentions , bad outcomes .
However , I don ’ t think Joe Biden gives a damn about anyone who isn ’ t at least middle class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service to caring about the poor because that ’ s what gets him elected .
Yet his gun control plan proves just how much of a lie that really is .
Former congressman Beto O ’ Rourke , D-Texas , may have pulled the most attention with his brash anti-gun rhetoric during the primaries , but Biden ’ s less ambitious plan still offers plenty of cause for alarm for firearm owners .
Alongside a raft of more common-sense measures ( and a confusing aside about “ smart gun technology ” ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacture and sale of what are known as “ assault weapons , ” with a proposal to bring their regulation under the National Firearms Act .
This 1934 law currently applies to “ machine guns ” ( i.e.
, fully automatic firearms ) , silencers and short-barreled rifles , but Biden ’ s plan would extend it to apply to what he characterizes as “ assault weapons , ” meaning semiautomatic rifles , pistols and shotguns with interchangeable magazines that fire intermediate cartridges ( the most notorious of which is the AR-15 style @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high capacity magazines ” ( generally understood under the 1994 bill to be those that can hold more than 10 bullets ) .
Individuals who already own these items would be required to either participate in a federal buyback program or register each of their qualifying firearms and magazines under the NFA — which comes with a $ 200 price tag ( on top of extra fees incurred during the registration process ) .
When it was first enacted in 1934 , that $ 200 fee was intended to be prohibitively expensive ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for many people .
Given how costly some firearms can be , that registration fee may not sound like too much of an added burden , but for a person who has already bought and paid for multiple qualifying firearms and magazines ( or inherited them ) , that amount will add up quickly .
Those who violate the NFA will also face up to 10 years in federal prison , and a potential $ 10,000 fine .
Biden also wants to end the online sale of firearms and ammunition , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people use to manufacture their own low-cost DIY firearms ( known as ghost guns ) further limiting accessibility .
Regardless of one ’ s opinion on guns and gun control , it is obvious that this proposal will disproportionately affect poor and working-class communities .
Those within those communities who already own firearms would be robbed of their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones , while their wealthier counterparts would skate by on their ready piles of cash .
Stephen Paddock perpetrated one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a plush Las Vegas hotel suite ; this plan would have no effect on someone like him .
In effect , Biden ’ s plan sets in motion a “ war on guns , ” the same way his predecessors declared wars on “ poverty , ” “ crime ” and “ terror ” — wars in which it was inevitably black and brown people who were the real targets .
Among those most likely to be affected are retired individuals , people who bought guns when they were working , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more fixed income .
However , it ’ s not just them that will feel the brunt of this .
As of right now , we have a ton of people who aren ’ t working due to COVID-19 .
While the government threw money around like it was going out of style in an attempt to keep businesses open , a lot of people are still going to be out of work .
These are people who may have purchased guns when times were good and would then face Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
Meanwhile , a 2014 study found that 48 percent–the largest percentage recorded–of mass shootings are carried out with handguns , not the so-called “ assault rifle.
” In non-mass shooting murders , more Americans were killed with hands and feet as well as knives than with rifles of any kind .
In other words , Biden ’ s jihad against the AR-15 and similar weapons is nothing more than an attempt at misdirection , a way to signal that he ’ s worried about the right things , regardless of whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make an appreciable difference in much of anything .
Except , it will .
You see , Biden ’ s plan actually does account for the poor .
You see , you don ’ t have to pay the $ 200 tax stamp .
You can just sell them to Uncle Sam in the “ buyback.
” Then the poor won ’ t have to worry .
Of course , they ’ ll just have to worry about something else .
After all , without those weapons , they ’ re more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple attackers–and we ’ ve seen cases where that ’ s been a factor .
Poor neighborhoods are often synonymous with rough neighborhoods , meaning those poor may well need those guns .
Not that Biden cares about them .
He just cares about the poor he can buffalo into voting for him .

Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden tend to like to present themselves as champions of the poor. They support programs that they argue give economically disadvantaged Americans a leg up, even if it doesn’t actually work out that way. If we take people like Biden at their word about wanting to help the poor, though, it would seem that these are a case of good intentions, bad outcomes.
However, I don’t think Joe Biden gives a damn about anyone who isn’t at least middle class. He just likes to give lip service to caring about the poor because that’s what gets him elected.
Yet his gun control plan proves just how much of a lie that really is.
Former congressman Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, may have pulled the most attention with his brash anti-gun rhetoric during the primaries, but Biden’s less ambitious plan still offers plenty of cause for alarm for firearm owners. Alongside a raft of more common-sense measures (and a confusing aside about “smart gun technology”), its centerpiece is a ban on the manufacture and sale of what are known as “assault weapons,” with a proposal to bring their regulation under the National Firearms Act. This 1934 law currently applies to “machine guns” (i.e., fully automatic firearms), silencers and short-barreled rifles, but Biden’s plan would extend it to apply to what he characterizes as “assault weapons,” meaning semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with interchangeable magazines that fire intermediate cartridges (the most notorious of which is the AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle) as well as “high capacity magazines” (generally understood under the 1994 bill to be those that can hold more than 10 bullets). Individuals who already own these items would be required to either participate in a federal buyback program or register each of their qualifying firearms and magazines under the NFA — which comes with a $200 price tag (on top of extra fees incurred during the registration process). When it was first enacted in 1934, that $200 fee was intended to be prohibitively expensive; now, inflation aside, it still is for many people. Given how costly some firearms can be, that registration fee may not sound like too much of an added burden, but for a person who has already bought and paid for multiple qualifying firearms and magazines (or inherited them), that amount will add up quickly. Those who violate the NFA will also face up to 10 years in federal prison, and a potential $10,000 fine. Biden also wants to end the online sale of firearms and ammunition, including gun parts and parts kits that some people use to manufacture their own low-cost DIY firearms (known as ghost guns) further limiting accessibility. Regardless of one’s opinion on guns and gun control, it is obvious that this proposal will disproportionately affect poor and working-class communities. Those within those communities who already own firearms would be robbed of their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones, while their wealthier counterparts would skate by on their ready piles of cash. Stephen Paddock perpetrated one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history and could afford dozens of high-powered weapons and a plush Las Vegas hotel suite; this plan would have no effect on someone like him. In effect, Biden’s plan sets in motion a “war on guns,” the same way his predecessors declared wars on “poverty,” “crime” and “terror” — wars in which it was inevitably black and brown people who were the real targets.
The writer, Kim Kelly, isn’t wrong here.
Among those most likely to be affected are retired individuals, people who bought guns when they were working, then they retired and are now on a more fixed income.
However, it’s not just them that will feel the brunt of this. As of right now, we have a ton of people who aren’t working due to COVID-19. While the government threw money around like it was going out of style in an attempt to keep businesses open, a lot of people are still going to be out of work. These are people who may have purchased guns when times were good and would then face Biden’s gun control plans when they’re not.
That’s a problem.
Meanwhile, a 2014 study found that 48 percent–the largest percentage recorded–of mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not the so-called “assault rifle.” In non-mass shooting murders, more Americans were killed with hands and feet as well as knives than with rifles of any kind.
In other words, Biden’s jihad against the AR-15 and similar weapons is nothing more than an attempt at misdirection, a way to signal that he’s worried about the right things, regardless of whether those “right things” will actually make an appreciable difference in much of anything.
Except, it will.
You see, Biden’s plan actually does account for the poor. You see, you don’t have to pay the $200 tax stamp. You can just sell them to Uncle Sam in the “buyback.” Then the poor won’t have to worry.
Of course, they’ll just have to worry about something else. After all, without those weapons, they’re more likely to be unable to defend themselves from multiple attackers–and we’ve seen cases where that’s been a factor. Poor neighborhoods are often synonymous with rough neighborhoods, meaning those poor may well need those guns.
Not that Biden cares about them. He just cares about the poor he can buffalo into voting for him.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Connecticut 13-Year-Old Charged With Armed Robbery

When I was 13 , I was into…well , I don ’ t mostly remember .
I was an Eagle Scout at that age , so I was still involved in Boy Scouts , but I couldn ’ t tell you what else I might have been into besides checking out girls who weren ’ t interested in me and watching TV .
About the last thing I was thinking about was how to become a hardened criminal .
Most kids these days probably aren ’ t that much different than I was at their age .
Sure , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videogames than I was , they ’ re generally not looking to become felons .
Three teens approached the two women at a Lexington Street residence in Hamden while one of the teens held the above object Saturday around 12:30 a.m .
The teen pointing the object demanded the women ’ s belongings , according to Hamden police spokesperson Capt .
Ronald Smith .
The teens made off with a pocketbook .
“ Moments later , ” Smith wrote in a release , “ Officer Luis Rivera observed three teenaged males running through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located one of the males hiding in a backyard , under a stairway.
” That person , who is 13 years old , was holding the object — which looked like a Sig Sauer firearm .
It in fact turned out to be a facsimile bb gun .
Whether the gun is real or not , that ’ s armed robbery .
What ’ s most troubling , though , is that parents aren ’ t paying attention to their children and where they may be carrying their realistic-looking air guns .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoking the names of black people killed by police , regardless of the circumstances .
One of those names mentioned from time to time is Tamir Rice .
Rice was 12-years-old when he was shot by police over what turned out to be a realistic-looking air gun .
It was a horrible situation , to be sure .
Many think the police need more training to determine if a gun is real or not , but that ’ s not practical .
A better option is to pay attention to what your freaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t end up getting shot over stupid crap .
Luckily , this teen wasn ’ t gunned down .
Instead , he committed armed robbery and will face charges for that .
He could well have ruined his life .
Or , if one of those women were armed , it could have ended his life .
Children need supervision .
Some require less than others , to be sure , but they all require at least some .
Clearly , this boy needs much more than he got .
Otherwise , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We could be talking about how the officer didn ’ t have a choice , how you can ’ t determine if it ’ s real or not in the split second you have to make a decision .
Some will try to put this on the companies that make these guns , but the responsibility has to rest with the parents .
It ’ s up to them to monitor what their kids are doing and what they ’ re into .
What happened above is far from the worst-case scenario , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what their kids are doing , though , it could easily have become just that .

When I was 13, I was into…well, I don’t mostly remember. I was an Eagle Scout at that age, so I was still involved in Boy Scouts, but I couldn’t tell you what else I might have been into besides checking out girls who weren’t interested in me and watching TV. About the last thing I was thinking about was how to become a hardened criminal.
Most kids these days probably aren’t that much different than I was at their age. Sure, they’re probably more into YouTube and videogames than I was, they’re generally not looking to become felons.
That’s not universally true, apparently.
Three teens approached the two women at a Lexington Street residence in Hamden while one of the teens held the above object Saturday around 12:30 a.m. The teen pointing the object demanded the women’s belongings, according to Hamden police spokesperson Capt. Ronald Smith. The teens made off with a pocketbook. “Moments later,” Smith wrote in a release, “Officer Luis Rivera observed three teenaged males running through yards on Bradley Avenue. Officer Rivera located one of the males hiding in a backyard, under a stairway.” That person, who is 13 years old, was holding the object — which looked like a Sig Sauer firearm. It in fact turned out to be a facsimile bb gun.
Whether the gun is real or not, that’s armed robbery.
What’s most troubling, though, is that parents aren’t paying attention to their children and where they may be carrying their realistic-looking air guns.
Right now, a lot of people are invoking the names of black people killed by police, regardless of the circumstances. One of those names mentioned from time to time is Tamir Rice. Rice was 12-years-old when he was shot by police over what turned out to be a realistic-looking air gun. It was a horrible situation, to be sure.
Many think the police need more training to determine if a gun is real or not, but that’s not practical. A better option is to pay attention to what your freaking kids are doing so they don’t end up getting shot over stupid crap.
Luckily, this teen wasn’t gunned down. Instead, he committed armed robbery and will face charges for that. He could well have ruined his life. Or, if one of those women were armed, it could have ended his life.
Children need supervision. Some require less than others, to be sure, but they all require at least some. Clearly, this boy needs much more than he got.
Otherwise, this story could have read quite differently. We could be talking about how the officer didn’t have a choice, how you can’t determine if it’s real or not in the split second you have to make a decision.
Some will try to put this on the companies that make these guns, but the responsibility has to rest with the parents. It’s up to them to monitor what their kids are doing and what they’re into.
What happened above is far from the worst-case scenario, thankfully. Without parents keeping an eye on what their kids are doing, though, it could easily have become just that.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--LAPD Officer Under Fire For Competitive Shooting Background

Most police officers are able to go their whole careers without having to discharge their weapon in the line of duty anywhere outside of a training environment .
For LAPD officer Toni McBride , though , that isn ’ t the path her career will take .
That ’ s because , as a fairly new police officer , McBride has already had to use her weapon .
She ’ s the officer on the other side of body cam footage that ’ s made the rounds on social media .
Faced with a man armed with a knife , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She clearly didn ’ t want to shoot the suspect , but he gave her no choice .
She did what she had to do .
Now , she ’ s being vilified because in addition to being a police officer , she ’ s also been a competitive shooter .
An LAPD Officer was forced to shoot a man armed with a knife and now she is coming under fire because she ’ s also a competitive shooter and social-media influencer .
In a time where police training is coming into question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trains more often than most with her firearm ?
There has to be more to the story .
Rookie Police Officer Toni McBride is a professional shooter for Taran Tactical Innovations out of Simi Valley California .
Taran Tactical is the same outfit responsible for all those badass videos of Keanu Reeves training for his John Wick movies .
There ’ s even one of Halle Berry training for John Wick 3 .
Taran Tactical is also known for spotlighting attractive women on their team .
However , her looks aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her on the competitive shooting scene .
That ’ s right , folks .
She ’ s got the skills that matter .
However , it ’ s those skills that are causing some to question how she handled the incident .
The LAPD has released the PO McBride ’ s body camera footage showing the incident as well as the 911 calls leading up to the shooting .
They also included third party video in their “ Critical Incident Community Briefing ” .
The video shows McBride and her partner arriving on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind his crashed Chevrolet pick-up truck .
Hernandez is clearly armed with a box-cutter in his right hand .
McBride gives verbal commands and Hernandez does not comply causing McBride to shoot him .
The video also shows a large crowd surrounding the accident scene .
McBride seems to do an excellent job of getting onlookers to clear the main street and get to the sidewalks .
Hernandez ’ s family has said that McBride shot too fast because she is a competition shooter however , with so many other lives to preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; she wasn ’ t given much of a choice by the seemingly disturbed Hernandez .
No , she wasn ’ t .
She gave instructions multiple times and Hernandez not only did he not heed them , he was advancing on her .
While there was still distance between McBride and the suspect , there were also people far closer who could have become victims or hostages .
In other words , it sure looks like McBride did everything she could .
If her competitive shooting background did anything , it minimized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confrontation before any innocent parties could be hurt .
She should be praised , not criticized .

Most police officers are able to go their whole careers without having to discharge their weapon in the line of duty anywhere outside of a training environment. For LAPD officer Toni McBride, though, that isn’t the path her career will take.
That’s because, as a fairly new police officer, McBride has already had to use her weapon. She’s the officer on the other side of body cam footage that’s made the rounds on social media. Faced with a man armed with a knife, McBride seemed to do everything right. She clearly didn’t want to shoot the suspect, but he gave her no choice.
She did what she had to do.
Now, she’s being vilified because in addition to being a police officer, she’s also been a competitive shooter.
An LAPD Officer was forced to shoot a man armed with a knife and now she is coming under fire because she’s also a competitive shooter and social-media influencer. In a time where police training is coming into question, we are criticizing an officer who trains more often than most with her firearm? There has to be more to the story. Rookie Police Officer Toni McBride is a professional shooter for Taran Tactical Innovations out of Simi Valley California.
Taran Tactical is the same outfit responsible for all those badass videos of Keanu Reeves training for his John Wick movies. There’s even one of Halle Berry training for John Wick 3.
Taran Tactical is also known for spotlighting attractive women on their team.
However, her looks aren’t the only thing she had going for her on the competitive shooting scene.
When she graduated from the police academy in 2017, McBride was awarded the “Top Shot” in her class for her proficiency with firearms. She was assigned to Newton Division in South Central Los Angeles.
That’s right, folks. She’s got the skills that matter.
However, it’s those skills that are causing some to question how she handled the incident.
The LAPD has released the PO McBride’s body camera footage showing the incident as well as the 911 calls leading up to the shooting. They also included third party video in their “Critical Incident Community Briefing”. The video shows McBride and her partner arriving on scene and shortly thereafter, Hernandez appears behind his crashed Chevrolet pick-up truck. Hernandez is clearly armed with a box-cutter in his right hand. McBride gives verbal commands and Hernandez does not comply causing McBride to shoot him. The video also shows a large crowd surrounding the accident scene. McBride seems to do an excellent job of getting onlookers to clear the main street and get to the sidewalks. Hernandez’s family has said that McBride shot too fast because she is a competition shooter however, with so many other lives to preserve in addition to that of her own; she wasn’t given much of a choice by the seemingly disturbed Hernandez.
No, she wasn’t. She gave instructions multiple times and Hernandez not only did he not heed them, he was advancing on her. While there was still distance between McBride and the suspect, there were also people far closer who could have become victims or hostages.
In other words, it sure looks like McBride did everything she could.
If her competitive shooting background did anything, it minimized the risk to bystanders and ended the confrontation before any innocent parties could be hurt.
She should be praised, not criticized.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--NYC Assemblywoman Hoping To Disarm Peace Officers

A new bill filed in the New York state legislature wouldn ’ t defund police , but it would disarm peace officers in the state , and that has at least one sheriff warning that the measure would put the lives of those officers , including corrections officials , at risk .
Manhattan Democrat Linda Rosenthal is the lawmaker behind the bill , which she says would enhance public safety because of the “ abbreviated ” training that peace officers receive compared to police officers .
Police in New York undergo a minimum of 900 hours of training , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for peace officers , but contrary to what Rosenthal apparently believes , not all of the training is firearms-related .
It ’ s not like cops have 780 more hours at the range than peace officers do .
Police officers and peace officers both receive training in all aspects of their job , but police officers are able to perform law enforcement functions that peace officers can not , but their powers of arrest are limited to the scope of the duties of their employment .
No peace officer is carrying a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the local police training council .
Don ’ t pass the police-prescribed course ?
You can ’ t carry a gun while on the job .
It ’ s that simple .
Suffolk County Sheriff Errol Toulon , Jr. believes the bill poses an “ intrinsic risk ” to corrections officers in his county , who are peace officers and not police officers , and argues that while the bill references the minimum training standards for peace officers , many jurisdictions go far beyond what the law requires .
The sheriff said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some peace officers receive .
Suffolk County correction officers receive 450 hours of training , he said , well above the 180-hour minimum cited by the bill .
Correction officers also receive 40 hours of initial firearms training , he said .
Toulon noted that the Criminal Procedure Law requires any peace officer authorized by their employer to carry a firearm to annually complete a course of training in the justification of the use of force/deadly physical force and in the use of firearms and/or other weapons .
Suffolk County correction officers receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
These are all good points that I suspect will be utterly ignored by Assemblywoman Rosenthal .
Facts are secondary to feelings here , and what better way to show support for the anti-policing movement than by disarming some law enforcement officials .
Even for a Manhattan Democrat , a bill that would outright disarm all cops might be a bridge too far ( for the moment , anyway ) , but by only targeting a certain section of law enforcement , Rosenthal is hoping she can convince some of her more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on the right side of history , if not law and order .
So far , Sheriff Toulon is the only law enforcement officer that I ’ ve seen who ’ s spoken out against the bill , but he won ’ t be the last .
If the bill were to pass and be signed into law by Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , many corrections officers at both the local level and in the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision would be disarmed on the job .
Additionally , peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Tunnels , state court officers , and others charged with keeping the peace would have to do so while unarmed .
It ’ s an absurd idea , but it ’ s right in line with the Defund Police movement .
As Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts says , “ police violence is gun violence , ” and it ’ s far easier for the state to disarm its own agents than it is for them to disarm violent criminals ( or law-abiding gun owners , for that matter ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers , however , anti-gun politicians like Rosenthal aren ’ t going to quit coming after regular New Yorkers for exercising their Second Amendment rights as well .
Rosenthal was actually one of the authors of a measure in New York that bans so-called ghost guns and unfinished receivers from being purchased and possessed by New Yorkers .
When she introduced the bill earlier this year , she actually claimed that the measure would prevent violent crime .
It ’ s absolutely easier than ever to produce a firearm from an unfinished receiver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the comfort of your own home , but Rosenthal ’ s bill ( now law ) doesn ’ t actually do anything to prevent that from happening .
It just makes it illegal to do so , regardless of intent .
If someone is intent on committing an act of “ mass destruction , ” are they really going to be stopped because it ’ s against the law for them to build their own gun ?
At best , it ’ s a charge that could be brought against someone after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , chances are they ’ ll be looking at far more serious charges as well .
Rosenthal ’ s shown quite explicitly that her agenda has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with trying to ban her way to safety ; banning the guns themselves , banning certain classes of New Yorkers from carrying them , and eventually banning as many people as possible from owning them at all .

A new bill filed in the New York state legislature wouldn’t defund police, but it would disarm peace officers in the state, and that has at least one sheriff warning that the measure would put the lives of those officers, including corrections officials, at risk.
Manhattan Democrat Linda Rosenthal is the lawmaker behind the bill, which she says would enhance public safety because of the “abbreviated” training that peace officers receive compared to police officers. Police in New York undergo a minimum of 900 hours of training, as opposed to a minimum of 180 hours for peace officers, but contrary to what Rosenthal apparently believes, not all of the training is firearms-related. It’s not like cops have 780 more hours at the range than peace officers do.
Police officers and peace officers both receive training in all aspects of their job, but police officers are able to perform law enforcement functions that peace officers cannot, but their powers of arrest are limited to the scope of the duties of their employment. No peace officer is carrying a gun without first passing a training course approved by the local police training council. Don’t pass the police-prescribed course? You can’t carry a gun while on the job. It’s that simple.
Suffolk County Sheriff Errol Toulon, Jr. believes the bill poses an “intrinsic risk” to corrections officers in his county, who are peace officers and not police officers, and argues that while the bill references the minimum training standards for peace officers, many jurisdictions go far beyond what the law requires.
The sheriff said the bill understates the level of training some peace officers receive. Suffolk County correction officers receive 450 hours of training, he said, well above the 180-hour minimum cited by the bill. Correction officers also receive 40 hours of initial firearms training, he said. Toulon noted that the Criminal Procedure Law requires any peace officer authorized by their employer to carry a firearm to annually complete a course of training in the justification of the use of force/deadly physical force and in the use of firearms and/or other weapons. Suffolk County correction officers receive this continuous training every year, Toulon said.
These are all good points that I suspect will be utterly ignored by Assemblywoman Rosenthal. Facts are secondary to feelings here, and what better way to show support for the anti-policing movement than by disarming some law enforcement officials. Even for a Manhattan Democrat, a bill that would outright disarm all cops might be a bridge too far (for the moment, anyway), but by only targeting a certain section of law enforcement, Rosenthal is hoping she can convince some of her more moderate colleagues that disarming peace officers puts them on the right side of history, if not law and order.
So far, Sheriff Toulon is the only law enforcement officer that I’ve seen who’s spoken out against the bill, but he won’t be the last. If the bill were to pass and be signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, many corrections officers at both the local level and in the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision would be disarmed on the job. Additionally, peace officers with agencies like the MTA Bridges and Tunnels, state court officers, and others charged with keeping the peace would have to do so while unarmed.
It’s an absurd idea, but it’s right in line with the Defund Police movement. As Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts says, “police violence is gun violence,” and it’s far easier for the state to disarm its own agents than it is for them to disarm violent criminals (or law-abiding gun owners, for that matter). Even with her current focus on peace officers, however, anti-gun politicians like Rosenthal aren’t going to quit coming after regular New Yorkers for exercising their Second Amendment rights as well.
Rosenthal was actually one of the authors of a measure in New York that bans so-called ghost guns and unfinished receivers from being purchased and possessed by New Yorkers. When she introduced the bill earlier this year, she actually claimed that the measure would prevent violent crime.
“Technology has improved, and it’s easier than ever to produce a virtually undetectable weapon capable of mass destruction with little effort or expertise in the comfort of your own home,” Rosenthal said.
It’s absolutely easier than ever to produce a firearm from an unfinished receiver (or even a 3D printer) from the comfort of your own home, but Rosenthal’s bill (now law) doesn’t actually do anything to prevent that from happening. It just makes it illegal to do so, regardless of intent. If someone is intent on committing an act of “mass destruction,” are they really going to be stopped because it’s against the law for them to build their own gun? At best, it’s a charge that could be brought against someone after they were arrested, but in that case, chances are they’ll be looking at far more serious charges as well.
Rosenthal’s shown quite explicitly that her agenda has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with trying to ban her way to safety; banning the guns themselves, banning certain classes of New Yorkers from carrying them, and eventually banning as many people as possible from owning them at all.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--NYPD Commissioner: It'll Take Time To Address "Uptick" In Violence

New York has been a fairly safe city in recent years , at least as safe as major cities go .
All that went out the window a couple of months ago , all because of something that happened in a completely different state .
Now , the Big Apple is a pressure cooker just waiting to explode .
In fact , it kind of already is .
Violence has stricken the city in ways few expected and the police have seemingly been powerless to stop it .
Now , the NYPD commissioner is offering up his thoughts on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he NYPD is committed to combating gun violence and arresting those responsible for the recent surge in shootings across the city , but its efforts will “ take some time , ” Commissioner Dermot Shea said in an interview with 1010 WINS on Monday .
Shea and Mayor Bill de Blasio on Friday announced a new initiative , the “ End Gun Violence Plan , ” that aims to address what Shea described as a “ sharp uptick in gun violence ” in parts of the five boroughs .
In an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , Shea said it would “ take a little bit of time ” to see the plan yield results .
“ Towards the end of last week , we moved a lot of resources to the areas where it ’ s needed , both on the patrol side and on the investigative side , ” he said .
“ And it ’ s going to take some time , it ’ s going to take some time to have effect.
” “ We ’ ve started to see some arrests on some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to take a lot more of that to really turn the tide here , and it ’ s going to take a significant number of people off the streets , ” he added .
“ There are people that are carrying guns with no regard to life , and that ’ s who we ’ re concentrating on .
That ’ s who New Yorkers want us to get off the street.
” To his credit , Shea didn ’ t try to pretend that the response to COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t have played any factor in this surge of violence .
He didn ’ t credit it exclusively , either , which is probably also accurate .
The problem , however , is that while it will take time to deal with this , innocent people may die in the interim .
On the other hand , though , I don ’ t see any way around that .
Shea has to do what he can with what he has .
He can ’ t snap his fingers and make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worth , it looks like Shea is making the right steps .
They ’ re focusing their attention on areas where there are problems and they ’ re going after the bad guys .

New York has been a fairly safe city in recent years, at least as safe as major cities go. All that went out the window a couple of months ago, all because of something that happened in a completely different state.
Now, the Big Apple is a pressure cooker just waiting to explode. In fact, it kind of already is. Violence has stricken the city in ways few expected and the police have seemingly been powerless to stop it.
Now, the NYPD commissioner is offering up his thoughts on how to stem the tide of bloodshed.
he NYPD is committed to combating gun violence and arresting those responsible for the recent surge in shootings across the city, but its efforts will “take some time,” Commissioner Dermot Shea said in an interview with 1010 WINS on Monday. Shea and Mayor Bill de Blasio on Friday announced a new initiative, the “End Gun Violence Plan,” that aims to address what Shea described as a “sharp uptick in gun violence” in parts of the five boroughs. In an interview with 1010 WINS’ Kathleen Marple on Monday morning, Shea said it would “take a little bit of time” to see the plan yield results. “Towards the end of last week, we moved a lot of resources to the areas where it’s needed, both on the patrol side and on the investigative side,” he said. “And it’s going to take some time, it’s going to take some time to have effect.” “We’ve started to see some arrests on some of these shootings. (But) it’s going to take a lot more of that to really turn the tide here, and it’s going to take a significant number of people off the streets,” he added. “There are people that are carrying guns with no regard to life, and that’s who we’re concentrating on. That’s who New Yorkers want us to get off the street.”
To his credit, Shea didn’t try to pretend that the response to COVID-19 and recent bail reforms in New York couldn’t have played any factor in this surge of violence. He didn’t credit it exclusively, either, which is probably also accurate.
The problem, however, is that while it will take time to deal with this, innocent people may die in the interim.
On the other hand, though, I don’t see any way around that. Shea has to do what he can with what he has. He can’t snap his fingers and make the problem go away.
For what it’s worth, it looks like Shea is making the right steps. They’re focusing their attention on areas where there are problems and they’re going after the bad guys.
Let’s just hope it works.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Will The McCloskey Case Actually Go To Trial?

Mark and Patricia McCloskey may be facing felony charges for displaying firearms on their own property while an angry mob busted down a gate leading into their private community as they marched to Mayor Lyda Krewson ’ s home , but what are the chances that the pair will actually end up in a trial over the events that unfolded in the early evening hours of June 28th ?
Marina Medvin , senior columnist at Townhall.com and a trial attorney , joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the politically charged decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and why she believes the couple will soon be in the clear .
Medvin says that the intervention by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt , who ’ s filed a brief to intervene in the case and dismiss the charges against the St. Louis couple , should be enough to put a halt to the prosecution .
Schmitt argues that the McCloskeys had every right to protect themselves and their property from the mob , telling Fox News : “ The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , including the Castle Doctrine , which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm… “ Despite this , Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys , who , according to published reports , were defending their property and safety .
As Missouri ’ s Chief law enforcement officer , I won ’ t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored , ” Schmitt said .
If for some reason Schmitt ’ s request to intervene and dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court judge , Missouri Gov .
Brad Parson has already repeatedly stated that he ’ ll pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey , most recently on Monday night ’ s edition of Sean Hannity ’ s show .
Prosecutor Kim Gardner , meanwhilem says she ’ s willing to offer the McCloskeys a chance at pre-trial diversion , meaning the couple wouldn ’ t face any jail time and could have their record expunged .
Why even bother with charges at this point , other than to make some headlines and earn some far-Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Louis Democratic primary , where Gardner will face off against several challengers in her bid to retain her seat .
Medvin notes that Gardner has already received more than $ 75,000 from George Soros as part of the billionaire ’ s campaign to “ quietly overhaul ” the nation ’ s criminal justice system by electing radically far-Left prosecutors around the country .
Back in 2016 , Gardner ’ s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Soros-funded super PAC and easily outspent her opponents to win the Democratic nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantees victory in the general election .
The prosecution of the McCloskeys is an argument for criminal justice reform , not an example of it in action , but for Gardner , it ’ s clearly an opportunity to raise her national profile all while claiming she ’ s seeking “ equal justice , ” whatever that is .
At the end of the day , I agree with Medvin that the McCloskeys won ’ t ever face a trial in a court of law , but Gardner will do everything she can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public opinion .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey may be facing felony charges for displaying firearms on their own property while an angry mob busted down a gate leading into their private community as they marched to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home, but what are the chances that the pair will actually end up in a trial over the events that unfolded in the early evening hours of June 28th?
Marina Medvin, senior columnist at Townhall.com and a trial attorney, joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the politically charged decision to pursue a case against the McCloskeys, and why she believes the couple will soon be in the clear.
Medvin says that the intervention by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who’s filed a brief to intervene in the case and dismiss the charges against the St. Louis couple, should be enough to put a halt to the prosecution. Schmitt argues that the McCloskeys had every right to protect themselves and their property from the mob, telling Fox News:
“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm… “Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” Schmitt said.
If for some reason Schmitt’s request to intervene and dismiss the case is rejected by the circuit court judge, Missouri Gov. Brad Parson has already repeatedly stated that he’ll pardon Mark and Patricia McCloskey, most recently on Monday night’s edition of Sean Hannity’s show.
“Without a doubt, Sean,” he said when asked about a pardon. “I will do everything within the Constitution of the State of Missouri to protect law-abiding citizens and those people are exactly that. They are law-abiding citizens, and they’re being attacked frankly by a political process that’s really unfortunate.”
Prosecutor Kim Gardner, meanwhilem says she’s willing to offer the McCloskeys a chance at pre-trial diversion, meaning the couple wouldn’t face any jail time and could have their record expunged. Why even bother with charges at this point, other than to make some headlines and earn some far-Left street cred in the days before the St. Louis Democratic primary, where Gardner will face off against several challengers in her bid to retain her seat.
Medvin notes that Gardner has already received more than $75,000 from George Soros as part of the billionaire’s campaign to “quietly overhaul” the nation’s criminal justice system by electing radically far-Left prosecutors around the country. Back in 2016, Gardner’s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Soros-funded super PAC and easily outspent her opponents to win the Democratic nod, which in Democrat-dominated St. Louis virtually guarantees victory in the general election.
The prosecution of the McCloskeys is an argument for criminal justice reform, not an example of it in action, but for Gardner, it’s clearly an opportunity to raise her national profile all while claiming she’s seeking “equal justice,” whatever that is. At the end of the day, I agree with Medvin that the McCloskeys won’t ever face a trial in a court of law, but Gardner will do everything she can to convict them in the court of public opinion.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Men's Rights Activist And Attorney Suspected Of NJ Shooting

If there ’ s a flip side to modern feminism , many would argue that it ’ s the Men ’ s Rights Movement .
The idea is that these men ’ s rights activists ( MRAs ) are pushing issues that matter to men and serve as something of a counter to the left ’ s preferred brand of feminism we often see .
However , some MRAs are…well , they ’ re a little weird , to put it mildly .
Not all , to be sure , but many .
Now , authorities think at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Authorities believe an attorney found dead in New York Monday was the shooter who killed a New Jersey federal judge ’ s son and wounded her husband a day earlier , law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case tell News 4 .
The body , identified by sources as attorney Roy Den Hollander , was found on a property in the Sullivan County town of Rockland , near Liberty , which is in the New York Catskills .
Den Hollander had previously announced on a GoFundMe page , titled “ Cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off , ” that he was being treated for an apparent serious cancer condition .
One senior law enforcement official said authorities are looking into a file or envelope that was meant for Judge Esther Salas possibly found near Den Hollander , who may have died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds .
Some of the information in the packet may have contained details about a prominent men ’ s rights figure in California who was killed July 11 , and authorities are looking into whether Den Hollander could be connected in any way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources , investigators also found material about Judge Janet DiFiore , the chief judge of the state of New York .
The FBI briefed DiFiore of the information on her that had been found in the suspect ’ s car , a court spokesperson said .
This is interesting because Den Hollander apparently wasn ’ t a big fan of feminism–an ideology that loves women like DiFiore and Salas .
Den Hollander was a notoriously anti-feminist men ’ s rights attorney , whose vitriolic website and book condemn women in rage-filled terms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically blasted Salas by name as “ lazy and incompetent ” and said her only accomplishment was being a high school cheerleader .
Den Hollander appeared in her court at one time as counsel in a lawsuit over the all-male military draft .
Den Hollander was best known previously for unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of “ ladies night ” promotions at bars and nightclubs .
His litigation , and willingness to appear on television , earned him spots on The Colbert Report and MSNBC .
And yet , now here we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t said that yes , Den Hollander was the shooter .
Right now , they ’ re just looking at him .
If he is , then it ’ s kind of over and done with since there can ’ t be a trial .
However , that doesn ’ t mean this won ’ t spur a trial in the media .
Not just of Den Hollander , but of MRAs in general .
This will likely rekindle the debate on incels , as well , though MRAs and incels aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re also likely to have a debate about how the gun was purchased , how to prevent people like this from getting guns , and so on .
All of that deflects from the fact that a young man is dead and early indications are that this guy may have done it .

If there’s a flip side to modern feminism, many would argue that it’s the Men’s Rights Movement. The idea is that these men’s rights activists (MRAs) are pushing issues that matter to men and serve as something of a counter to the left’s preferred brand of feminism we often see.
However, some MRAs are…well, they’re a little weird, to put it mildly. Not all, to be sure, but many.
Now, authorities think at least one of them might have been extremely violent.
Authorities believe an attorney found dead in New York Monday was the shooter who killed a New Jersey federal judge’s son and wounded her husband a day earlier, law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case tell News 4. The body, identified by sources as attorney Roy Den Hollander, was found on a property in the Sullivan County town of Rockland, near Liberty, which is in the New York Catskills. Den Hollander had previously announced on a GoFundMe page, titled “Cancer knocks you down & doctors finish you off,” that he was being treated for an apparent serious cancer condition. … One senior law enforcement official said authorities are looking into a file or envelope that was meant for Judge Esther Salas possibly found near Den Hollander, who may have died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Some of the information in the packet may have contained details about a prominent men’s rights figure in California who was killed July 11, and authorities are looking into whether Den Hollander could be connected in any way to the killing. According to law enforcement sources, investigators also found material about Judge Janet DiFiore, the chief judge of the state of New York. The FBI briefed DiFiore of the information on her that had been found in the suspect’s car, a court spokesperson said.
This is interesting because Den Hollander apparently wasn’t a big fan of feminism–an ideology that loves women like DiFiore and Salas.
Den Hollander was a notoriously anti-feminist men’s rights attorney, whose vitriolic website and book condemn women in rage-filled terms. In one of his books, he specifically blasted Salas by name as “lazy and incompetent” and said her only accomplishment was being a high school cheerleader. Den Hollander appeared in her court at one time as counsel in a lawsuit over the all-male military draft. (Den Hollander previously sued multiple anchors and reporters from NBC News and other networks, alleging they engaged in an illegal conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump’s election to the presidency.) Den Hollander was best known previously for unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of “ladies night” promotions at bars and nightclubs. His litigation, and willingness to appear on television, earned him spots on The Colbert Report and MSNBC.
And yet, now here we are.
To be fair, authorities haven’t said that yes, Den Hollander was the shooter. Right now, they’re just looking at him. If he is, then it’s kind of over and done with since there can’t be a trial.
However, that doesn’t mean this won’t spur a trial in the media. Not just of Den Hollander, but of MRAs in general. This will likely rekindle the debate on incels, as well, though MRAs and incels aren’t necessarily the same thing.
We’re also likely to have a debate about how the gun was purchased, how to prevent people like this from getting guns, and so on. All of that deflects from the fact that a young man is dead and early indications are that this guy may have done it.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Illinois FOID Card Delays

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association have launched a new lawsuit in federal court challenging the failure of the Illinois State Police to process Firearms Owner ID card applications within the 30 days mandated by state law .
In Illinois , a FOID card is required to lawfully possess a firearm , but Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb says the state police are keeping prospective gun owners in a holding pattern for weeks , and in some cases months longer than what the law allows .
“ The law requires that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny a FOID card application within 30 days , ” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb .
“ But ISP has been dragging its feet , leaving applicants in limbo for months .
Sometimes the agency doesn ’ t act for as long as 60 or even 90 days .
You can bet that if a private citizen had to comply with a legal requirement within 30 days , he or she would be in big trouble for not meeting that deadline .
Gottlieb is absolutely right about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private citizens be in big trouble for not meeting that deadline , residents in Illinois will still be violating the law if they possess a firearm without a FOID card , even if the state of Illinois can ’ t meet its obligations under the law .
It doesn ’ t matter if the state police have sat on an application for six weeks or two months ; if you ’ re found in possession of a firearm while your application is in the queue to be processed , you ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new lawsuit argues that nearly $ 30-million dollars has been transferred from the State Police Firearms Services Fund , the State Police Operations Assistance Fund , and the State Police Services Fund over the past five years , and that those funds were supposed to be used to process FOID card applications , as well as background checks for firearm-related services , and concealed carry licensing .
The transfer of those funds has resulted in a “ a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of processing of applications and appeals of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this has been a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of the processing of applications under the FOID Card Act .
Even before the state lockdown in response to COVID-19 , applicants commonly made many attempts to reach someone at the ISP by phone with no success .
In the unlikely event that a person would answer , the applicant is usually told only that his or her case is under review .
A few of the named plaintiffs who ’ ve joined SAF and ISRA in their litigation say they first applied for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but have yet to hear anything back from the state of Illinois , even though the state claims that the average wait time for a FOID card application to be processed is currently 51 days .
Even if what the state is claiming is true , that ’ s still nearly twice as long as the 30 days allowed under Illinois state law .
The Second Amendment groups say that the remedy is simple : Declare that Defendants ’ failure to approve or deny for cause applicants ’ FOID card applications within 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Defendants have unjustifiably denied Plaintiffs Bradley , Moore , Moore , and Shelton , and the organizational Plaintiffs ’ affected members , their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense ; Declare the Defendants ’ failure to approve or deny for cause qualified applicants ’ FOID card applications within 30 days violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ; Declare that Defendants have unjustifiably denied Plaintiffs Bradley , Moore , Moore , and Shelton , and the organizational Plaintiffs ’ affected members , their Fourteenth Amendment right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordering Defendants to immediately issue FOID cards to Plaintiffs Bradley , Moore , Moore , and Shelton , and the organizational Plaintiffs ’ affected members ; Interestingly , the SAF and ISRA filed a similar lawsuit back in February of this year that dealt with delays with the appeals process for revocations and denials of FOID cards , but the case has been delayed thanks to coronavirus-related court closures .
Taken together , both the earlier lawsuit and the new litigation present a case that the state ’ s FOID card system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois is doing nothing to fix it , in part because there are no repercussions for failing to uphold its end of the process by approving or denying applications in a timely manner .
If the system can ’ t be fixed , it should be scrapped entirely as an abuse and infringement of the Second Amendment rights of state residents .

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association have launched a new lawsuit in federal court challenging the failure of the Illinois State Police to process Firearms Owner ID card applications within the 30 days mandated by state law.
In Illinois, a FOID card is required to lawfully possess a firearm, but Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb says the state police are keeping prospective gun owners in a holding pattern for weeks, and in some cases months longer than what the law allows.
“The law requires that the Illinois State Police either approve or deny a FOID card application within 30 days,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “But ISP has been dragging its feet, leaving applicants in limbo for months. Sometimes the agency doesn’t act for as long as 60 or even 90 days. You can bet that if a private citizen had to comply with a legal requirement within 30 days, he or she would be in big trouble for not meeting that deadline.
Gottlieb is absolutely right about that. In fact, not only would private citizens be in big trouble for not meeting that deadline, residents in Illinois will still be violating the law if they possess a firearm without a FOID card, even if the state of Illinois can’t meet its obligations under the law. It doesn’t matter if the state police have sat on an application for six weeks or two months; if you’re found in possession of a firearm while your application is in the queue to be processed, you’re still likely to be charged with a crime.
The new lawsuit argues that nearly $30-million dollars has been transferred from the State Police Firearms Services Fund, the State Police Operations Assistance Fund, and the State Police Services Fund over the past five years, and that those funds were supposed to be used to process FOID card applications, as well as background checks for firearm-related services, and concealed carry licensing. The transfer of those funds has resulted in a “a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of processing of applications and appeals of the FOID Card Act.”
The effect of this has been a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of the processing of applications under the FOID Card Act. Even before the state lockdown in response to COVID-19, applicants commonly made many attempts to reach someone at the ISP by phone with no success. In the unlikely event that a person would answer, the applicant is usually told only that his or her case is under review.
A few of the named plaintiffs who’ve joined SAF and ISRA in their litigation say they first applied for their FOID cards back in March, but have yet to hear anything back from the state of Illinois , even though the state claims that the average wait time for a FOID card application to be processed is currently 51 days. Even if what the state is claiming is true, that’s still nearly twice as long as the 30 days allowed under Illinois state law.
The Second Amendment groups say that the remedy is simple:
Declare that Defendants’ failure to approve or deny for cause applicants’ FOID card applications within 30 days violates the Second Amendment; Declare that Defendants have unjustifiably denied Plaintiffs Bradley, Moore, Moore, and Shelton, and the organizational Plaintiffs’ affected members, their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; Declare the Defendants’ failure to approve or deny for cause qualified applicants’ FOID card applications within 30 days violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; Declare that Defendants have unjustifiably denied Plaintiffs Bradley, Moore, Moore, and Shelton, and the organizational Plaintiffs’ affected members, their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; Enter an injunction ordering Defendants to immediately issue FOID cards to Plaintiffs Bradley, Moore, Moore, and Shelton, and the organizational Plaintiffs’ affected members;
Interestingly, the SAF and ISRA filed a similar lawsuit back in February of this year that dealt with delays with the appeals process for revocations and denials of FOID cards, but the case has been delayed thanks to coronavirus-related court closures. Taken together, both the earlier lawsuit and the new litigation present a case that the state’s FOID card system is simply broken, and the state of Illinois is doing nothing to fix it, in part because there are no repercussions for failing to uphold its end of the process by approving or denying applications in a timely manner. If the system can’t be fixed, it should be scrapped entirely as an abuse and infringement of the Second Amendment rights of state residents.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Gun Control Group Opposes Bill Reducing Training Requirement For Armed Teachers

With schools a preferred target for mass shooters , it only makes sense to have people you can trust with firearms on school campuses to help protect our children .
That ’ s at an absolute minimum .
However , as we saw in Parkland , school resource officers may not always be the best option to achieve that goal .
They ’ re people , after all , and while some will do what is required , others won ’ t .
Yet the teachers are there and are a potential target .
Armed teachers can protect themselves and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , some anti-gunners don ’ t like the idea of making it easier for schools to have armed teachers .
Shocking , I know .
A bill that would give Ohio ’ s local school boards the power to allow employees to carry guns in school buildings gets its first Senate hearing in almost two months on Tuesday .
But gun control groups say the bill also eliminates required weapons training for those workers .
Susie Lane teaches first grade in Middletown and is with the group Moms Demand Action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by that and other gun control groups , Lane noted the bill says armed teachers and other volunteers don ’ t have to go through the same training that police officers who carry in schools do .
“ Allowing school staff to carry firearms in school is dangerous .
Allowing this to happen without extensive training and ongoing training is irresponsible , ” Lane said .
That claim is hilarious because armed teachers are allowed in a number of states and there haven ’ t been issues , including in states with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states often also don ’ t have a lot of school shootings .
Just something to think about .
Look , I ’ ve seen some stuff on the kind of training armed teachers are being required to go through in some states and it ’ s kind of extreme .
They ’ re training them in ways even law enforcement officers aren ’ t being trained .
I don ’ t think that ’ s a bad thing and if states want to help make that training more accessible to teachers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is that there ’ s no evidence that such training is required .
Several states only require the level of training that goes into getting a concealed carry permit and they haven ’ t had any issues .
So what ’ s so dangerous ?
Well , Lane is a teacher and an anti-gunner .
To her , the mere presence of a gun is scary , which is why you can ’ t take her word on just how dangerous a bill like this actually is .
Nor should you take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , Maaieh wants to feel safe , regardless of whether that makes him any safer or not .
Armed teachers aren ’ t going to be whipping guns out at every opportunity .
They ’ re not going to start gunning down students just because they ’ re legally armed .
All this is fearmongering masquerading as a political position .
Until they can show us that lawfully armed teachers represent a problem , they ’ re not going to sway much of anyone .

With schools a preferred target for mass shooters, it only makes sense to have people you can trust with firearms on school campuses to help protect our children. That’s at an absolute minimum.
However, as we saw in Parkland, school resource officers may not always be the best option to achieve that goal. They’re people, after all, and while some will do what is required, others won’t.
Yet the teachers are there and are a potential target. Armed teachers can protect themselves and, by extension, protect our children. However, some anti-gunners don’t like the idea of making it easier for schools to have armed teachers. Shocking, I know.
A bill that would give Ohio’s local school boards the power to allow employees to carry guns in school buildings gets its first Senate hearing in almost two months on Tuesday. But gun control groups say the bill also eliminates required weapons training for those workers. Susie Lane teaches first grade in Middletown and is with the group Moms Demand Action. On a conference call with reporters organized by that and other gun control groups, Lane noted the bill says armed teachers and other volunteers don’t have to go through the same training that police officers who carry in schools do. “Allowing school staff to carry firearms in school is dangerous. Allowing this to happen without extensive training and ongoing training is irresponsible,” Lane said.
That claim is hilarious because armed teachers are allowed in a number of states and there haven’t been issues, including in states with no training requirement.
Of course, those states often also don’t have a lot of school shootings. Just something to think about.
Look, I’ve seen some stuff on the kind of training armed teachers are being required to go through in some states and it’s kind of extreme. They’re training them in ways even law enforcement officers aren’t being trained.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing and if states want to help make that training more accessible to teachers, I say go for it.
The problem is that there’s no evidence that such training is required. Several states only require the level of training that goes into getting a concealed carry permit and they haven’t had any issues.
So what’s so dangerous? Well, Lane is a teacher and an anti-gunner. To her, the mere presence of a gun is scary, which is why you can’t take her word on just how dangerous a bill like this actually is.
Nor should you take fearmongering from students as evidence, either.
Ottawa Hills High School senior Zack Maaieh was also on the call. He opposes guns in schools, saying they can make students of color feel unsafe – especially Muslim students like him. “This isn’t about politics. It’s about protecting students. And I don’t want to go to school with teachers carrying guns they have no idea how to use,” Maaieh said.
In other words, Maaieh wants to feel safe, regardless of whether that makes him any safer or not.
Armed teachers aren’t going to be whipping guns out at every opportunity. They’re not going to start gunning down students just because they’re legally armed.
All this is fearmongering masquerading as a political position. Until they can show us that lawfully armed teachers represent a problem, they’re not going to sway much of anyone.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--Louisiana Man With Machete Stopped By Armed Citizen

This story from the New Orleans suburb of Metairie , Louisiana is a pretty good snapshot of the current state of our criminal justice system and the need for good folks to exercise their Second Amendment rights for their own safety and the well-being of others .
Our tale begins early last Friday morning , just before dawn , at a convenience store in Metairie .
According to police , 37-year old Robert Merritt , armed with a machete , confronted a store employee outside the business and threatened to kill him , then walked inside the store and began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The employee confronted Merritt , who once again threatened him with the machete .
That ’ s when an armed customer intervened , drawing his concealed firearm and pointing it at the suspect .
I honestly can ’ t believe the store clerk gave Merritt his machete , but as it turns out , Merritt actually returned to the convenience store a short time later , presumably to grab the wallet that he had dropped .
Turns out , that was another bad idea on Merritt ’ s part .
Deputies responded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the victim when Merritt returned to the business , Rivarde said .
The deputies tried to detain Merritt , but he resisted being handcuffed , the arrest report said .
One of the deputies used a TASER stun gun , and Merritt was taken into custody .
He was arrested and booked into the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center in Gretna with aggravated assault and resisting arrest .
And here ’ s where the happy ending you might be expecting falls apart .
Once Merritt was booked , according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low , low , price of $ 1,000 .
As it turns out , however , Merritt didn ’ t even have to pay that relatively small amount , because he was “ released the same day because of crowding at the jail.
” According to a 2019 story from the Times-Picayune , the Jefferson Parish jail has been suffering from reduced staffing for some time , and the quick release of accused criminals like Merritt isn ’ t unusual .
I don ’ t know that aggravated assault is a minor offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was minor enough for Merritt to be returned to the streets , where he ’ s presumably been reunited with both his wallet and his machete .
Hopefully his brief stop at the local jail will be enough of an incentive that he pays for his beer in the future , but Merritt ’ s alleged assault and his quick release should also be an incentive for law-abiding citizens to get their concealed carry license .
You never know when you or someone around you might be targeted , and the presence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more of a deterrent than the prospect of a short stay behind bars , even if the trigger is never pulled .

This story from the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana is a pretty good snapshot of the current state of our criminal justice system and the need for good folks to exercise their Second Amendment rights for their own safety and the well-being of others.
Our tale begins early last Friday morning, just before dawn, at a convenience store in Metairie. According to police, 37-year old Robert Merritt, armed with a machete, confronted a store employee outside the business and threatened to kill him, then walked inside the store and began to collect beers from the cooler. The employee confronted Merritt, who once again threatened him with the machete. That’s when an armed customer intervened, drawing his concealed firearm and pointing it at the suspect.
While Merritt was distracted, the employee grabbed the machete and called 911 for help. Merritt allegedly told the employee he’d leave if given back his machete, according to [Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Capt. Jason] Rivarde. The employee handed back the blade, and Merritt fled the store, dropping his wallet.
I honestly can’t believe the store clerk gave Merritt his machete, but as it turns out, Merritt actually returned to the convenience store a short time later, presumably to grab the wallet that he had dropped. Turns out, that was another bad idea on Merritt’s part.
Deputies responded to the scene and were still speaking with the victim when Merritt returned to the business, Rivarde said. The deputies tried to detain Merritt, but he resisted being handcuffed, the arrest report said. One of the deputies used a TASER stun gun, and Merritt was taken into custody. He was arrested and booked into the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center in Gretna with aggravated assault and resisting arrest.
And here’s where the happy ending you might be expecting falls apart. Once Merritt was booked, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, his bond was set at the low, low, price of $1,000. As it turns out, however, Merritt didn’t even have to pay that relatively small amount, because he was “released the same day because of crowding at the jail.”
According to a 2019 story from the Times-Picayune, the Jefferson Parish jail has been suffering from reduced staffing for some time, and the quick release of accused criminals like Merritt isn’t unusual.
Thanks to a decades-old protocol to prevent overcrowding, people arrested for minor offenses are quickly released from the Jefferson Parish jail whether they make bail or not. That leaves an inmate population that consists largely of people accused of violent crimes, [Sheriff Joe] Lopinto said. As of this week, the jail roster included 20 murder suspects and 16 rape suspects.
I don’t know that aggravated assault is a minor offense, per se, but apparently it was minor enough for Merritt to be returned to the streets, where he’s presumably been reunited with both his wallet and his machete. Hopefully his brief stop at the local jail will be enough of an incentive that he pays for his beer in the future, but Merritt’s alleged assault and his quick release should also be an incentive for law-abiding citizens to get their concealed carry license. You never know when you or someone around you might be targeted, and the presence of that legally-owned firearm may very well prove to be more of a deterrent than the prospect of a short stay behind bars, even if the trigger is never pulled.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--D.C. May Be Facing ANOTHER Heller Lawsuit

Heller vs. District of Columbia is easily one of the most important Supreme Court decisions ever .
Even if the lower courts aren ’ t paying much attention to it , it definitively protects the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and bars state and local governments from banning classes of firearms .
Sure , they do it , but that ’ s only until the Supreme Court smacks them down .
However , the plaintiff in that case , Dick Heller , may well be looking at filing a second lawsuit against the city .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court to declare blanket handgun bans unconstitutional , told the Washington Free Beacon that he may sue the city for hindering his right to bear arms in the face of long wait times for purchases .
Heller has been waiting since mid-April for police to process a transfer for a .32 caliber handgun he purchased in Pennsylvania .
He accused city authorities of dragging their feet .
“ It ’ s a bureaucracy and they ’ re understaffed , ” Heller told the Free Beacon .
“ They couldn ’ t care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hurry.
” Residents who wish to purchase guns must go through the Metropolitan Police Department ( MPD ) , the only federally licensed gun dealer in the city—an arrangement unique to the nation ’ s capital .
In neighboring Virginia , as with many states across the country , handgun transfers and the background checks that accompany them generally take minutes instead of months .
The department told the Free Beacon that record demand was to blame for the delays .
“ In less than three months that MPD has been handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about half of the guns that the prior Federal Firearms Licensee received in all of 2019 , ” department spokeswoman Alaina Gertz said .
“ We are currently reexamining processes to try to identify additional efficiencies.
” Heller is far from alone in this .
Over at the Washington Free Beacon , Stephen Gutowski has others who are experiencing similar delays .
To be fair , demand for firearms is way up all across the country .
That ’ s not the fault of the MPD .
Yet even with that increased demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delays .
Further , I recall hearing reports of delays even before the COVID-19 surge in sales began , though that may well be apocryphal .
Regardless , though , the MPD took it upon themselves to handle transfers within the city when the only gun store in town shut its doors .
That means they need to step up and do their jobs .
So why aren ’ t they ?
Why are they content to allow this backup to continue ?
After all , gun stores staffed with only a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , why can ’ t a major metropolitan police department do as well ?
The reason is simple .
They don ’ t want to keep up .
See , gun stores keep up with things because if there ’ s a delay that is their fault , people will simply stop using the gun store in question and take their business elsewhere .
The MPD has no such concern .
For them , this is more akin to a favor they ’ re doing for the gun-buying public and not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means nothing .
If Heller and others file a lawsuit , though , they might want to rethink that uncaring attitude .

Heller vs. District of Columbia is easily one of the most important Supreme Court decisions ever. Even if the lower courts aren’t paying much attention to it, it definitively protects the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and bars state and local governments from banning classes of firearms.
Sure, they do it, but that’s only until the Supreme Court smacks them down.
However, the plaintiff in that case, Dick Heller, may well be looking at filing a second lawsuit against the city.
Dick Heller, whose lawsuit led the Supreme Court to declare blanket handgun bans unconstitutional, told the Washington Free Beacon that he may sue the city for hindering his right to bear arms in the face of long wait times for purchases. Heller has been waiting since mid-April for police to process a transfer for a .32 caliber handgun he purchased in Pennsylvania. He accused city authorities of dragging their feet. “It’s a bureaucracy and they’re understaffed,” Heller told the Free Beacon. “They couldn’t care less. They are noticeably not in a hurry.” Residents who wish to purchase guns must go through the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the only federally licensed gun dealer in the city—an arrangement unique to the nation’s capital. In neighboring Virginia, as with many states across the country, handgun transfers and the background checks that accompany them generally take minutes instead of months. The department told the Free Beacon that record demand was to blame for the delays. “In less than three months that MPD has been handling this service, the Department has received about half of the guns that the prior Federal Firearms Licensee received in all of 2019,” department spokeswoman Alaina Gertz said. “We are currently reexamining processes to try to identify additional efficiencies.”
Heller is far from alone in this. Over at the Washington Free Beacon, Stephen Gutowski has others who are experiencing similar delays.
To be fair, demand for firearms is way up all across the country. That’s not the fault of the MPD.
Yet even with that increased demand, no one else is experiencing these delays. Further, I recall hearing reports of delays even before the COVID-19 surge in sales began, though that may well be apocryphal.
Regardless, though, the MPD took it upon themselves to handle transfers within the city when the only gun store in town shut its doors. That means they need to step up and do their jobs.
So why aren’t they? Why are they content to allow this backup to continue? After all, gun stores staffed with only a few people in total are able to keep up, why can’t a major metropolitan police department do as well?
The reason is simple. They don’t want to keep up.
See, gun stores keep up with things because if there’s a delay that is their fault, people will simply stop using the gun store in question and take their business elsewhere. The MPD has no such concern. For them, this is more akin to a favor they’re doing for the gun-buying public and not a priority. To them, a delay means nothing.
In short, they simply don’t care.
If Heller and others file a lawsuit, though, they might want to rethink that uncaring attitude.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--PA Sheriff Overwhelmed By Demand For Concealed Carry Licenses

With a waiting list of more than 6,000 residents who want to apply for their concealed carry licenses , Allegheny County , Pennsylvania Sheriff William Mullen is getting a little creative in the hopes of easing the growing backlog .
This coming weekend the sheriff will be holding a “ drive thru ” concealed carry event where residents can drop off their applications and get fingerprinted without ever leaving their car , and Mullen says he ’ s hoping the event will be successful enough for them to hold more .
Long lines of applicants are a daily recurrence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment .
With office hours limited to appointments only , and demand for the concealed carry licenses at an all-time high , Allegheny County residents who call to set up an appointment today are being told they can come in sometime in November .
“ People ( are ) afraid of what ’ s going on in the country .
The unlawfulness .
The violent protests .
They ’ re just really worked up about that , ” said Sheriff Mullen .
“ It makes you think .
Yeah .
About unrest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going any more .
You don ’ t know if it ’ s safe , ” Keith Vangura of Pleasant Hills said .
Like most people queuing up in the courtyard , Keith Vangura of Pleasant Hills cities a new uneasiness in the country for the sudden rise in both permit applications and gun sales in the region , which have also taken off .
According to KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh , Sheriff Mullen is processing 84 applications every day , but simply can ’ t keep up with the high demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , these are new applicants for the most part , since Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf has extended expiring concealed carry licenses for several more months .
Firearm permits set to expire on July 31 have been extended through Sept. 30 .
Gov .
Tom Wolf previously extended permits that were set to expire March 30 to July 31 , but has now extended that expiration date until even further .
According to a release from state police , extending the permit expiration for licenses to carry is necessary due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s offices , including ongoing COVID-19 mitigation efforts .
Even with that move by the governor , which should lessen the demand placed on sheriffs , some jurisdictions like Allegheny County just can ’ t keep pace with the growing number of residents demanding to exercise their right to bear arms .
The good news for those forced to wait for months simply to apply for their concealed carry license is that Pennsylvania does allow for the open carrying of firearms without a license , with the exception of carrying in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is required for open or concealed carry .
In a pinch , most Pennsylvanians who may be stuck in the concealed carry queue with their local sheriff can still lawfully carry their handgun out in the open .
It might not be the preferred means of carrying for many , and it ’ s going to become nearly impossible to do once autumn comes and the temperature starts dropping , but for a moment it ’ s a workaround to the long lines and months-long wait for concealed carry applicants .

With a waiting list of more than 6,000 residents who want to apply for their concealed carry licenses, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Sheriff William Mullen is getting a little creative in the hopes of easing the growing backlog. This coming weekend the sheriff will be holding a “drive thru” concealed carry event where residents can drop off their applications and get fingerprinted without ever leaving their car, and Mullen says he’s hoping the event will be successful enough for them to hold more.
Long lines of applicants are a daily recurrence at the sheriff’s office at the moment. With office hours limited to appointments only, and demand for the concealed carry licenses at an all-time high, Allegheny County residents who call to set up an appointment today are being told they can come in sometime in November.
“People (are) afraid of what’s going on in the country. The unlawfulness. The violent protests. They’re just really worked up about that,” said Sheriff Mullen. “It makes you think. Yeah. About unrest. You don’t know where anybody’s going any more. You don’t know if it’s safe,” Keith Vangura of Pleasant Hills said. Like most people queuing up in the courtyard, Keith Vangura of Pleasant Hills cities a new uneasiness in the country for the sudden rise in both permit applications and gun sales in the region, which have also taken off.
According to KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, Sheriff Mullen is processing 84 applications every day, but simply can’t keep up with the high demand from residents like Keith Vangura. Keep in mind, these are new applicants for the most part, since Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has extended expiring concealed carry licenses for several more months.
Firearm permits set to expire on July 31 have been extended through Sept. 30. Gov. Tom Wolf previously extended permits that were set to expire March 30 to July 31, but has now extended that expiration date until even further. According to a release from state police, extending the permit expiration for licenses to carry is necessary due to the closure of some courthouses and sheriff’s offices, including ongoing COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
Even with that move by the governor, which should lessen the demand placed on sheriffs, some jurisdictions like Allegheny County just can’t keep pace with the growing number of residents demanding to exercise their right to bear arms. The good news for those forced to wait for months simply to apply for their concealed carry license is that Pennsylvania does allow for the open carrying of firearms without a license, with the exception of carrying in the city of Philadelphia, where a license is required for open or concealed carry.
In a pinch, most Pennsylvanians who may be stuck in the concealed carry queue with their local sheriff can still lawfully carry their handgun out in the open. It might not be the preferred means of carrying for many, and it’s going to become nearly impossible to do once autumn comes and the temperature starts dropping, but for a moment it’s a workaround to the long lines and months-long wait for concealed carry applicants.


bearingarms--2020-07-21--AG Files Brief For Dismissal Of Charges Against McCloskeys

Mark and Patricia McCloskey didn ’ t ask to become famous .
At least , they didn ’ t ask to become famous in the manner they eventually achieved their fame .
Instead , they reacted to a situation that was downright insane .
While their weapon-handling left much to be desired , their motivations were simple and understandable .
They were trying to protect their home .
That simple and understandable act , however , has landed them smack dab in the middle of a national conversation about oh so many things .
It ’ s also landed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , the state attorney general is stepping in to defend the St. Louis couple .
“ The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws , including the Castle Doctrine .
This provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm , ” said Attorney General Schmitt .
“ Despite this , Circuit Attorney Gardner filed charges against the McCloskeys , who , according to published reports , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri ’ s Chief law enforcement officer , I won ’ t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored – that ’ s why I entered this case to seek its dismissal , to protect the rights of Missourians to defend their property under Missouri ’ s Castle Doctrine.
” The brief supporting dismissal reads , “ The right to use firearms to defend one ’ s person , family , home , and property has deep roots in Missouri law .
Self-defense is the central component of the right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest level of protection from the Missouri Constitution .
Missouri ’ s statutes specifically authorize Missouri citizens to use firearms to deter assailants and protect themselves , their families , and homes from threatening or violent intruders .
A highly publicized criminal prosecution of Missouri citizens for exercising these fundamental freedoms threatens to intimidate and deter law-abiding Missouri citizens from exercising their constitutional right of self-defense.
” Let ’ s be honest , these charges aren ’ t because the McCloskeys broke the law .
They didn ’ t .
They had ample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so they presented firearms in hopes that it wouldn ’ t escalate any further .
They did what any of us would have done .
The charges are politics , pure and simple .
They ’ re the result of a district attorney trying to pander to the mob–a mob that won ’ t be appeased , by the way–in hopes that they ’ ll come for her last .
The reason I say that is because , well , it ’ s obvious .
While the McCloskeys became something of a meme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that everyone who understands use of force understood why they were out there with their firearms .
A mob–the kind of mob that had rampaged throughout the city , destroying property and threatening people ’ s lives–busted through a gate on a private street .
The McCloskeys claim the first few people issued threats to them personally .
All of that together creates a case where it ’ s clear they had reason to fear for their lives .
Schmitt ’ s brief to the court is a good move .
So is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would pardon the McCloskeys .
In other words , thankfully , these charges aren ’ t going anywhere .
Unfortunately , that didn ’ t stop the DA from filing them in the first place , which is how you know it was political theater and nothing else .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey didn’t ask to become famous. At least, they didn’t ask to become famous in the manner they eventually achieved their fame. Instead, they reacted to a situation that was downright insane. While their weapon-handling left much to be desired, their motivations were simple and understandable. They were trying to protect their home.
That simple and understandable act, however, has landed them smack dab in the middle of a national conversation about oh so many things.
It’s also landed them with felony charges, as of Monday.
Now, the state attorney general is stepping in to defend the St. Louis couple.
“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine. This provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed charges against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored – that’s why I entered this case to seek its dismissal, to protect the rights of Missourians to defend their property under Missouri’s Castle Doctrine.” The brief supporting dismissal reads, “The right to use firearms to defend one’s person, family, home, and property has deep roots in Missouri law. Self-defense is the central component of the right to keep and bear arms, which receives the highest level of protection from the Missouri Constitution. Missouri’s statutes specifically authorize Missouri citizens to use firearms to deter assailants and protect themselves, their families, and homes from threatening or violent intruders. A highly publicized criminal prosecution of Missouri citizens for exercising these fundamental freedoms threatens to intimidate and deter law-abiding Missouri citizens from exercising their constitutional right of self-defense.”
I agree with Schmitt.
Let’s be honest, these charges aren’t because the McCloskeys broke the law. They didn’t. They had ample reason to fear for their lives, so they presented firearms in hopes that it wouldn’t escalate any further. They did what any of us would have done.
The charges are politics, pure and simple. They’re the result of a district attorney trying to pander to the mob–a mob that won’t be appeased, by the way–in hopes that they’ll come for her last. The reason I say that is because, well, it’s obvious.
While the McCloskeys became something of a meme regarding their weapon-handling, the truth was that everyone who understands use of force understood why they were out there with their firearms. A mob–the kind of mob that had rampaged throughout the city, destroying property and threatening people’s lives–busted through a gate on a private street. The McCloskeys claim the first few people issued threats to them personally. All of that together creates a case where it’s clear they had reason to fear for their lives.
Schmitt’s brief to the court is a good move. So is Governor Parson’s statement that he would pardon the McCloskeys.
In other words, thankfully, these charges aren’t going anywhere. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop the DA from filing them in the first place, which is how you know it was political theater and nothing else.