bearingarms--2020-02-12--Not Just VA: MD Dems Introduce Gun Ban, Registration Bill

As Democrats in Virginia are advancing Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun , magazine , and suppressor ban , their counterparts in the Maryland legislature are getting ready to crack down once again on the state ’ s legal gun owners with a gun ban bill of their own .
HB1261 has the backing of the House speaker in Annapolis , which gives it a little extra weight and improves the chances of the bill ’ s passage .
That would be disastrous for gun owners in the state , who would not only face a registration requirement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees that would prohibit many gun owners from complying with the requirement if they wanted to .
The proposed registration requirement would kick in on October 1st , 2020 , and features a sliding scale of registration fees .
The longer you wait to register a firearm , the more expensive it would be .
A PERSON WHO VOLUNTARILY REGISTERS AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON AS DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH ( II ) OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS SUBJECT TO : 1 .
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1 , 2021 , AND @ @ @ @ @ @ @ REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $ 290 PER FIREARM ; 2 .
ON OR AFTER MAY 1 , 2021 , AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 1 , 2022 , A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $ 580 PER FIREARM ; AND 3 .
ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1 , 2022 , AND BEFORE MAY 1 , 2023 , A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $ 1,000 PER FIREARM .
( IV ) 1 .
A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1 , 2020 , AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AFTER JANUARY 1 , 2021 , AND BEFORE MAY 1 , 2023 , ONLY AFTER BEING DISCOVERED IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER , IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE .
According to the legislation , anyone found in possession of an unregistered “ assault long gun ” after May 1st , 2023 would be subject to a misdemeanor charge and could face up to a year in prison as a result .
The state of Maryland put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place back in 2013 as part of the Firearms Safety Act gun control package , but since then , homicides have spiked in Baltimore .
2019 saw the highest per capita homicide rate in the city ’ s history , and so far 2020 is shaping up to be even worse .
There have been 27 homicides in Baltimore City so far in 2020 .
This time last year there were 25 homicides .
“ It ’ s a culture in this city that has to change , ” said one Baltimore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to continue to experience the same thing.
” HB1261 would do nothing to change the culture in Baltimore , nor would it do anything to lower the crime rate .
Once again , lawmakers are focused on the state ’ s legal gun owners instead of getting serious about the career criminals who are making life miserable on so many Baltimore streets .
It ’ s not just gun owners who should be furious about this bill .
The good people in Maryland ’ s bad neighborhoods should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concrete steps to address the rising tide of criminality , Democrats in Annapolis are intent on restricting the rights of the law-abiding .

As Democrats in Virginia are advancing Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun, magazine, and suppressor ban, their counterparts in the Maryland legislature are getting ready to crack down once again on the state’s legal gun owners with a gun ban bill of their own.
HB1261 has the backing of the House speaker in Annapolis, which gives it a little extra weight and improves the chances of the bill’s passage. That would be disastrous for gun owners in the state, who would not only face a registration requirement for their so-called assault weapons, but onerous fees that would prohibit many gun owners from complying with the requirement if they wanted to.
The proposed registration requirement would kick in on October 1st, 2020, and features a sliding scale of registration fees. The longer you wait to register a firearm, the more expensive it would be.
A PERSON WHO VOLUNTARILY REGISTERS AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON AS DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS SUBJECT TO: 1. ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2021, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $290 PER FIREARM; 2. ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2022, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $580 PER FIREARM; AND 3. ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2022, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 PER FIREARM. (IV) 1. A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, ONLY AFTER BEING DISCOVERED IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE.
According to the legislation, anyone found in possession of an unregistered “assault long gun” after May 1st, 2023 would be subject to a misdemeanor charge and could face up to a year in prison as a result.
The state of Maryland put its first “assault weapons ban” in place back in 2013 as part of the Firearms Safety Act gun control package, but since then, homicides have spiked in Baltimore. 2019 saw the highest per capita homicide rate in the city’s history, and so far 2020 is shaping up to be even worse.
There have been 27 homicides in Baltimore City so far in 2020. This time last year there were 25 homicides. “It’s a culture in this city that has to change,” said one Baltimore man. “Without a culture changing we’re going to continue to experience the same thing.”
HB1261 would do nothing to change the culture in Baltimore, nor would it do anything to lower the crime rate. Once again, lawmakers are focused on the state’s legal gun owners instead of getting serious about the career criminals who are making life miserable on so many Baltimore streets. It’s not just gun owners who should be furious about this bill. The good people in Maryland’s bad neighborhoods should be outraged as well. Instead of taking concrete steps to address the rising tide of criminality, Democrats in Annapolis are intent on restricting the rights of the law-abiding.


bearingarms--2020-02-12--Gun Control Activists Want End To Active Shooter Drills

In response to mass shootings at schools , many school districts have adopted active shooter drills as a way to prepare for such occasions .
To those who implemented the idea , it probably made a lot of sense .
The idea of practicing the response for not just the students but also the police and the district itself sounds perfectly reasonable .
However , there are issues with such drills .
A number of them .
So much so that gun control activists , among others , are calling for an end to such drills .
The nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun-control nonprofit are recommending that schools stop holding active-shooter drills .
The groups say they ’ re concerned that such drills traumatize students and staff and could hinder children ’ s academic performance .
School-shooter drills are routine across the United States : about 95 % of public school districts regularly hold active shooter drills , NPR reported .
Some states require schools to do so .
But there ’ s little evidence that these drills help prevent deaths during active shootings , according to a white paper released Tuesday by the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association .
Everytown for Gun Safety ( Everytown ) , an anti-gun advocacy organization financed by democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , joined the unions in releasing the report .
Instead , the organizations argue , these lockdowns may contribute to students ’ anxiety , cause sleeplessness or drum up fear or past trauma .
“ Mental health professionals have begun warning about the effect of these drills on students ’ well-being and about the possible short- and long-term consequences on school performance and physical and mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The white paper does not include research on active-shooter drills or their effectiveness , but the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of School Resource Officers said in 2014 that these drills can cause harm if they aren ’ t “ conducted appropriately.
” Well , my son went through an active shooter drill last school year , his final year of high school .
How traumatized by the event was he ?
He made fun of it .
No , seriously .
He and his friends recognized that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds were it would be someone from the school…someone who just saw what the response was and would plan accordingly .
Honestly , that ’ s why I actually oppose these things .
It ’ s only a matter of time before a would-be shooter studies the response and uses those drills against the school and their classmates .
Claiming that it creates trauma and psychological problems for students suggests that kids today need to be made more antifragile .
How would today ’ s teens have survived the tornado drills of my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drills of my parents ’ ?
So , it seems that for once I sort of agree with Everytown on something .
I actually agree when they say staff should be trained , but not the students .
I just happen to agree for very different reasons and I think their reasons are absolutely idiotic .
Then again , their reasons for almost everything else they propose are idiotic , so it ’ s not like this is groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination .

In response to mass shootings at schools, many school districts have adopted active shooter drills as a way to prepare for such occasions. To those who implemented the idea, it probably made a lot of sense. The idea of practicing the response for not just the students but also the police and the district itself sounds perfectly reasonable.
However, there are issues with such drills. A number of them.
So much so that gun control activists, among others, are calling for an end to such drills.
The nation’s two largest education unions and a gun-control nonprofit are recommending that schools stop holding active-shooter drills. The groups say they’re concerned that such drills traumatize students and staff and could hinder children’s academic performance. School-shooter drills are routine across the United States: about 95% of public school districts regularly hold active shooter drills, NPR reported. Some states require schools to do so. But there’s little evidence that these drills help prevent deaths during active shootings, according to a white paper released Tuesday by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. Everytown for Gun Safety (Everytown), an anti-gun advocacy organization financed by democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, joined the unions in releasing the report. Instead, the organizations argue, these lockdowns may contribute to students’ anxiety, cause sleeplessness or drum up fear or past trauma. “Mental health professionals have begun warning about the effect of these drills on students’ well-being and about the possible short- and long-term consequences on school performance and physical and mental health,” the organizations wrote. The white paper does not include research on active-shooter drills or their effectiveness, but the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of School Resource Officers said in 2014 that these drills can cause harm if they aren’t “conducted appropriately.”
Well, my son went through an active shooter drill last school year, his final year of high school. How traumatized by the event was he?
He made fun of it.
No, seriously. He and his friends recognized that if there were a mass shooting, the odds were it would be someone from the school…someone who just saw what the response was and would plan accordingly.
Honestly, that’s why I actually oppose these things. It’s only a matter of time before a would-be shooter studies the response and uses those drills against the school and their classmates.
Claiming that it creates trauma and psychological problems for students suggests that kids today need to be made more antifragile. How would today’s teens have survived the tornado drills of my youth, much less the nuclear attack drills of my parents’?
So, it seems that for once I sort of agree with Everytown on something. I actually agree when they say staff should be trained, but not the students.
I just happen to agree for very different reasons and I think their reasons are absolutely idiotic. Then again, their reasons for almost everything else they propose are idiotic, so it’s not like this is groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Armed Citizen Shoots Home Invaders During Second Visit

Home invasions are terrifying .
They ’ re probably the thing most gun owners have the most concern over .
The “ bump in the night ” that sends us reaching for our weapons to defend hearth and home against the invading hordes is something many of us train for regularly .
For others , though , they may not do much training , but it ’ s why they have a gun .
For one homeowner , it ’ s a damn good thing he had one , too .
On Saturday , Feb. 8 , two teenagers broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bates Avenue , beat up a 14-year-old inside , robbed the house and threatened to “ return and inflict further harm , ” according to the Reno Police Department .
In the early morning hours of Feb. 10 , the same teenagers broke into an addition off the house , apparently looking for the 14-year-old victim .
“ Essentially making good on their threat , ” said Officer Travis Warren with the Reno Police Department .
An adult who lived in the house armed himself and confronted the teenagers .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult , prompting him to fire several rounds at them , according to police .
Both “ teens ” –in quotes because we don ’ t know if these were also 14-year-olds too or if this is some 19-year-old whose already done time in big boy jail–were hit and one is listed in critical condition .
So to recap , these two twits broke into the house before and beat up a teenager who lived there , then robbed the place .
They came back a couple of days later looking to beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time there was a grownup there with a firearm .
So one of the “ teens ” produced a gun of his own and got himself and his buddy shot .
How does someone look at this and decide the homeowner is in the wrong ?
After all , this is a clear cut case of justified if ever I ’ ve seen it , yet some would make that very argument .
They ’ d say the adult resident was wrong to use deadly force .
Nevermind that the thug had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been violent once before .
Nope .
None of that would matter to some folks .
For me , though ?
I say good on that resident .
Not only did they protect their home and the 14-year-old in question , but they ’ ve now given both of these “ teens ” an opportunity to reevaluate their life choices going forward .
I wouldn ’ t have minded if they weren ’ t able to have that reevaluation , mind you , but since they survived , maybe they ’ ll rethink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ object lesson to others who might think the life of the criminal is all fun and games .
After all , you know what they say .
Play stupid games , win stupid prizes .
These two definitely won a stupid prize while the resident is going to sleep safe and sound in his or her own bed for the foreseeable future .
That ’ s a win by any metric you want to use .
Plus , one or two other would-be thugs might rethink their career plans now , thus making @ @ @ @ @ @

Home invasions are terrifying. They’re probably the thing most gun owners have the most concern over. The “bump in the night” that sends us reaching for our weapons to defend hearth and home against the invading hordes is something many of us train for regularly.
For others, though, they may not do much training, but it’s why they have a gun.
For one homeowner, it’s a damn good thing he had one, too.
On Saturday, Feb. 8, two teenagers broke into a home on the 900 block of Bates Avenue, beat up a 14-year-old inside, robbed the house and threatened to “return and inflict further harm,” according to the Reno Police Department. In the early morning hours of Feb. 10, the same teenagers broke into an addition off the house, apparently looking for the 14-year-old victim. “Essentially making good on their threat,” said Officer Travis Warren with the Reno Police Department. An adult who lived in the house armed himself and confronted the teenagers. One of the intruders aimed a gun at the adult, prompting him to fire several rounds at them, according to police.
Both “teens”–in quotes because we don’t know if these were also 14-year-olds too or if this is some 19-year-old whose already done time in big boy jail–were hit and one is listed in critical condition.
So to recap, these two twits broke into the house before and beat up a teenager who lived there, then robbed the place. They came back a couple of days later looking to beat up the teenager again, only this time there was a grownup there with a firearm. So one of the “teens” produced a gun of his own and got himself and his buddy shot.
How does someone look at this and decide the homeowner is in the wrong?
After all, this is a clear cut case of justified if ever I’ve seen it, yet some would make that very argument. They’d say the adult resident was wrong to use deadly force.
Nevermind that the thug had a gun. Nevermind they’d already been violent once before. Nope. None of that would matter to some folks.
For me, though? I say good on that resident. Not only did they protect their home and the 14-year-old in question, but they’ve now given both of these “teens” an opportunity to reevaluate their life choices going forward. I wouldn’t have minded if they weren’t able to have that reevaluation, mind you, but since they survived, maybe they’ll rethink their lives and perhaps serve as an object lesson to others who might think the life of the criminal is all fun and games.
After all, you know what they say. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
These two definitely won a stupid prize while the resident is going to sleep safe and sound in his or her own bed for the foreseeable future. That’s a win by any metric you want to use.
Plus, one or two other would-be thugs might rethink their career plans now, thus making the world safer for everyone.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--MN County Becomes State's First Second Amendment Sanctuary

Commissioners in Roseau County , Minnesota have approved a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary , becoming the first county in the state to join the growing national movement ( though others are considering the measure ) .
The Roseau County resolution , passed unanimously to applause from the dozen residents in attendance , reads that the board “ wishes to express opposition to any law in the future , beyond existing laws to date , that would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of the citizens of Roseau County to keep and bear arms.
” The motion goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Roseau County , or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights.
” Roseau County Sheriff Steve Gust said the resolution won ’ t change local law enforcement ’ s operations , since one of the resolution ’ s main intents is to oppose “ red flag ” gun laws , which allow courts to temporarily remove guns from people who are found to be a risk to themselves or others .
Red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not passed .
Only a dozen residents in attendance ?
I think that ’ s the smallest turnout I ’ ve seen for any Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution .
Apparently support in the community was widespread enough that many residents didn ’ t feel the need to turn out in person to encourage commissioners to approve the language .
With proposed red flag laws being considered by the Legislature , however , County Commissioner Russell Walker said the resolution was about making a statement .
“ Sometimes you have to make a stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is radical , but you got to get people ’ s attention so they all band together and support what you ’ re doing , ” Walker said .
“ I think this is a thing that the gun owners in Minnesota need to get on board , because there are a bunch of radical folks down in the metro area that are on the other side of the issue , and they ’ re ready to infringe on my constitutional rights and the rights of everybody else in the state.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pioneer Press notes that the county ’ s attorney wouldn ’ t sign off on the measure , saying she wanted to get an opinion from the Minnesota County Attorneys Association .
Kristy Kjos says that group will be meeting later this month to come up with the legal opinion .
Kjos said she has been in her position with the county for about a year .
In that time , she said the board hasn ’ t passed any other motions without her legal advice .
But Walker said he and Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passage of the resolution , were weary of what they perceive as a disconnect between the urban attorneys who make up the state board ’ s leadership and rural Minnesota gun owners .
“ ( Kjos ) thought we should get advice from them first , and myself and John Horner made a very strong stand against that and said , basically , ‘ We ’ re leaders , not followers , and we ’ re not going to let the metro decide what we ’ re going to do in Roseau County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were elected to represent Roseau County , not ( Hennepin County Attorney Michael ) Freeman or any of these other guys who are Hennepin County attorneys or Ramsey County attorneys .
As far as I ’ m concerned , they ’ re with the opposition and I will not listen or have anything to do with them , period.
” I like that attitude .
Roseau County commissioners aren ’ t taking their queues from their counterparts in Minnesota ’ s urban centers .
Why should the county attorney ?
We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these resolutions have no force of law , blah blah blah .
That misses the point .
This was a resolution , not an ordinance .
It ’ s a statement of principle , an exercise of the First Amendment in support of the Second Amendment .
Ultimately , if it were to come down to a county refusing to spend resources enforcing certain laws , I imagine that would make for an interesting court case .
For now though , there ’ s no reason for the county attorney to oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds .

Commissioners in Roseau County, Minnesota have approved a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary, becoming the first county in the state to join the growing national movement (though others are considering the measure).
The Roseau County resolution, passed unanimously to applause from the dozen residents in attendance, reads that the board “wishes to express opposition to any law in the future, beyond existing laws to date, that would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of the citizens of Roseau County to keep and bear arms.” The motion goes on to resolve that “public funds of the county not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Roseau County, or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights.” Roseau County Sheriff Steve Gust said the resolution won’t change local law enforcement’s operations, since one of the resolution’s main intents is to oppose “red flag” gun laws, which allow courts to temporarily remove guns from people who are found to be a risk to themselves or others. Red flag laws have been proposed in Minnesota but not passed.
Only a dozen residents in attendance? I think that’s the smallest turnout I’ve seen for any Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution. Apparently support in the community was widespread enough that many residents didn’t feel the need to turn out in person to encourage commissioners to approve the language.
With proposed red flag laws being considered by the Legislature, however, County Commissioner Russell Walker said the resolution was about making a statement. “Sometimes you have to make a stand on some things that people might think is radical, but you got to get people’s attention so they all band together and support what you’re doing,” Walker said. “I think this is a thing that the gun owners in Minnesota need to get on board, because there are a bunch of radical folks down in the metro area that are on the other side of the issue, and they’re ready to infringe on my constitutional rights and the rights of everybody else in the state.”
While support from commissioners was unanimous, the Pioneer Press notes that the county’s attorney wouldn’t sign off on the measure, saying she wanted to get an opinion from the Minnesota County Attorneys Association. Kristy Kjos says that group will be meeting later this month to come up with the legal opinion.
Kjos said she has been in her position with the county for about a year. In that time, she said the board hasn’t passed any other motions without her legal advice. But Walker said he and Commissioner John Horner, who also spearheaded the passage of the resolution, were weary of what they perceive as a disconnect between the urban attorneys who make up the state board’s leadership and rural Minnesota gun owners. “(Kjos) thought we should get advice from them first, and myself and John Horner made a very strong stand against that and said, basically, ‘We’re leaders, not followers, and we’re not going to let the metro decide what we’re going to do in Roseau County,’” Walker said. “We were elected to represent Roseau County, not (Hennepin County Attorney Michael) Freeman or any of these other guys who are Hennepin County attorneys or Ramsey County attorneys. As far as I’m concerned, they’re with the opposition and I will not listen or have anything to do with them, period.”
I like that attitude. Roseau County commissioners aren’t taking their queues from their counterparts in Minnesota’s urban centers. Why should the county attorney?
We know the state association is likely to say that these resolutions have no force of law, blah blah blah. That misses the point. This was a resolution, not an ordinance. It’s a statement of principle, an exercise of the First Amendment in support of the Second Amendment. Ultimately, if it were to come down to a county refusing to spend resources enforcing certain laws, I imagine that would make for an interesting court case. For now though, there’s no reason for the county attorney to oppose this resolution, other than on ideological grounds.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--VA Prosecutors Drop Mask-Wearing Charge Against Lobby Day Attendee

The January 20th Lobby Day and rally that brought tens of thousands of Virginians to the state capitol in Richmond was a peaceful show of support for the Second Amendment and opposition to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda .
There was only one arrest that day , and it wasn ’ t for anything violent .
21-year old Mikaela E. Beschler was arrested after police said she refused to remove a bandanna that was over the lower part of her face , but now prosecutors in Richmond are dropping the charges .
Her charge of wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to court records .
The state acknowledged it would have been difficult to prove she “ had criminal intent to conceal her identity , ” Mackenzie Clements , an attorney for Beschler , told the Richmond Times-Dispatch .
A prior Virginia case allows an exception to the law under certain weather conditions , Richmond Commonwealth ’ s Attorney Colette McEachin told the newspaper Wednesday .
Temperatures were freezing that day and news outlets reported hundreds of gatherers had also covered their faces to avoid the cold .
McEachin acknowledged that others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t cited .
A video posted to a social media account under Beschler ’ s name documented the confrontation with police and showed her complying with their requests .
In it , she reveals her face and explains that she was trying to keep warm , The Times-Dispatch said .
Not only does it sound like prosecutors would have had a hard time proving that Beschler had criminal intent to conceal her identity , it sounds like they would have had a tough time proving that she had concealed her identify at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s video of her showing her face to officers and explaining why her face was covered .
I was there on Lobby Day , and it was one of the coldest mornings of this winter .
I was bundled up with a sweat jacket underneath my top coat ( classy , I know ) , and I have a pretty heavy beard to protect my face , but I couldn ’ t feel my feet after being outside for a half hour or so .
I ’ m not sure how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bandanna might have given Beschler , but if she complied with the requests by officers it sounds like she shouldn ’ t have been arrested in the first place , though prosecutors say the officer acted appropriately .
I ’ m glad that Beschler had good things to say about the Richmond Police Department , despite her arrest .
I saw nothing but positive interactions between law enforcement and the tens of thousands of Second Amendment supporters on January 20th , and it ’ s a shame that Beschler ’ s arrest marred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
Thankfully , the felony charge hanging over her head has been dismissed .
Unfortunately , the threat posed by Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda is still very much in play .

The January 20th Lobby Day and rally that brought tens of thousands of Virginians to the state capitol in Richmond was a peaceful show of support for the Second Amendment and opposition to Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda. There was only one arrest that day, and it wasn’t for anything violent. 21-year old Mikaela E. Beschler was arrested after police said she refused to remove a bandanna that was over the lower part of her face, but now prosecutors in Richmond are dropping the charges.
Her charge of wearing a mask in public was dismissed Wednesday, according to court records. The state acknowledged it would have been difficult to prove she “had criminal intent to conceal her identity,” Mackenzie Clements, an attorney for Beschler, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. A prior Virginia case allows an exception to the law under certain weather conditions, Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Colette McEachin told the newspaper Wednesday. Temperatures were freezing that day and news outlets reported hundreds of gatherers had also covered their faces to avoid the cold. McEachin acknowledged that others “were similarly garbed” and weren’t cited. A video posted to a social media account under Beschler’s name documented the confrontation with police and showed her complying with their requests. In it, she reveals her face and explains that she was trying to keep warm, The Times-Dispatch said.
Not only does it sound like prosecutors would have had a hard time proving that Beschler had criminal intent to conceal her identity, it sounds like they would have had a tough time proving that she had concealed her identify at all, given the fact that there’s video of her showing her face to officers and explaining why her face was covered.
I was there on Lobby Day, and it was one of the coldest mornings of this winter. I was bundled up with a sweat jacket underneath my top coat (classy, I know), and I have a pretty heavy beard to protect my face, but I couldn’t feel my feet after being outside for a half hour or so. I’m not sure how much protection against the cold and wind a bandanna might have given Beschler, but if she complied with the requests by officers it sounds like she shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place, though prosecutors say the officer acted appropriately.
I’m glad that Beschler had good things to say about the Richmond Police Department, despite her arrest. I saw nothing but positive interactions between law enforcement and the tens of thousands of Second Amendment supporters on January 20th, and it’s a shame that Beschler’s arrest marred what would have otherwise been a perfect day. Thankfully, the felony charge hanging over her head has been dismissed. Unfortunately, the threat posed by Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda is still very much in play.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Bloomberg's Bugging Americans Across The Political Spectrum

Not bugging as in recording us ( though something tells me that Bloomberg wouldn ’ t be opposed to that if it would help him get elected .
Bugging as in annoying , frustrating , and concerning to Americans all across the political spectrum , from Bernie Sanders supporters to those on board the Trump Train .
Michael Bloomberg seems intent on buying his way to the White House , spending $ 350-million to date ( pocket change for the billionaire ) , and his campaign ads are hard to avoid online and on your television screen .
Podcaster and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting Sanders , made some waves this week when he shared audio of some of Bloomberg ’ s comments back in 2015 in Aspen , Colorado , where he talked about reducing crime in New York by disarming young black men , “ throwing them up against the wall ” and frisking them .
Other audio has since been uncovered that reveal Bloomberg approving of minority neighborhoods being “ afraid ” of police thanks to stop-and-frisk , because if they ’ re afraid of cops throwing them up against the wall and patting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to carry a gun .
Bloomberg ’ s comments are bringing Americans together , because Dixon , a socialist , sat down with me , a conservative , to talk about Bloomberg ’ s comments and his policies , and why Americans of all political ideologies should reject the former mayor ’ s authoritarian impulses .
Dixon and I have plenty we disagree on , and I hope that he ’ ll come back for a deeper debate about the gun control laws that Bloomberg enforced with stop-and-frisk , because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bloomberg ’ s legacy isn ’ t just about making neighborhoods live in fear of the police in hopes of reducing crime .
It ’ s about denying constitutional rights to the residents of those neighborhoods , making it nearly impossible to legally own or carry a gun for self-defense while protecting himself with plenty of armed security .
To this day there are a disproportionate number of young black men from New York City who are sent to prison for years for simply possessing a firearm without a license , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many states .
I believe there ’ s a fundamental disconnect by many on the left who want criminal justice reform AND more gun control laws .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , for instance , tweeted out her criticism of Bloomberg ’ s stop-and-frisk policies , but she ’ s never met a gun control bill she didn ’ t like .
The authoritarian and racist gun control laws in New York City were enforced , in part , with stop-and-frisk tactics , but they ’ re still two sides of the same coin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fact .
Michael Bloomberg is spending a lot of money to try and convince Americans that he ’ s the reasonable and moderate choice for Democrats to nominate for President .
In truth , there ’ s nothing moderate about his policies .
He ’ s a ban-happy autocrat who believes that , because people will make different choices about their lives than he would , those choices should be made by him instead .
And yes , in New York City the enforcement of his policies led to a disproportionate number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offenses among young black men .
Bloomberg ’ s policies are still sending young black men to prison for something that isn ’ t even a crime in many states , and is a simply misdemeanor in many others .
Check out the entire interview with Benjamin Dixon above , and I appreciate him coming on the show to talk despite our political differences .
It just goes to show that Michael Bloomberg ’ s campaign really is bringing Americans of all walks of life together… in opposition .

Not bugging as in recording us (though something tells me that Bloomberg wouldn’t be opposed to that if it would help him get elected. Bugging as in annoying, frustrating, and concerning to Americans all across the political spectrum, from Bernie Sanders supporters to those on board the Trump Train. Michael Bloomberg seems intent on buying his way to the White House, spending $350-million to date (pocket change for the billionaire), and his campaign ads are hard to avoid online and on your television screen.
Podcaster and author Benjamin Dixon, who’s supporting Sanders, made some waves this week when he shared audio of some of Bloomberg’s comments back in 2015 in Aspen, Colorado, where he talked about reducing crime in New York by disarming young black men, “throwing them up against the wall” and frisking them. Other audio has since been uncovered that reveal Bloomberg approving of minority neighborhoods being “afraid” of police thanks to stop-and-frisk, because if they’re afraid of cops throwing them up against the wall and patting them down, they’ll be less likely to carry a gun.
Bloomberg’s comments are bringing Americans together, because Dixon, a socialist, sat down with me, a conservative, to talk about Bloomberg’s comments and his policies, and why Americans of all political ideologies should reject the former mayor’s authoritarian impulses.
Dixon and I have plenty we disagree on, and I hope that he’ll come back for a deeper debate about the gun control laws that Bloomberg enforced with stop-and-frisk, because I believe that’s the bigger issue. Bloomberg’s legacy isn’t just about making neighborhoods live in fear of the police in hopes of reducing crime. It’s about denying constitutional rights to the residents of those neighborhoods, making it nearly impossible to legally own or carry a gun for self-defense while protecting himself with plenty of armed security. To this day there are a disproportionate number of young black men from New York City who are sent to prison for years for simply possessing a firearm without a license, which isn’t even a crime in many states.
I believe there’s a fundamental disconnect by many on the left who want criminal justice reform AND more gun control laws. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, tweeted out her criticism of Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policies, but she’s never met a gun control bill she didn’t like.
Will people get their records expunged? Will young people sucked into the spiderweb of incarceration get their lives back? Unless there is restorative justice, there is no “moving on” from Stop & Frisk. It’s just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian & racist policy. https://t.co/2wv6KO9YJT — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 13, 2020
The authoritarian and racist gun control laws in New York City were enforced, in part, with stop-and-frisk tactics, but they’re still two sides of the same coin, even if AOC can’t acknowledge that fact.
Michael Bloomberg is spending a lot of money to try and convince Americans that he’s the reasonable and moderate choice for Democrats to nominate for President. In truth, there’s nothing moderate about his policies. He’s a ban-happy autocrat who believes that, because people will make different choices about their lives than he would, those choices should be made by him instead. And yes, in New York City the enforcement of his policies led to a disproportionate number of both stops and arrests for possessory offenses among young black men. Bloomberg’s policies are still sending young black men to prison for something that isn’t even a crime in many states, and is a simply misdemeanor in many others.
Check out the entire interview with Benjamin Dixon above, and I appreciate him coming on the show to talk despite our political differences. It just goes to show that Michael Bloomberg’s campaign really is bringing Americans of all walks of life together… in opposition.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Widow Of Slain Chicago PD Officer Sues Armslist

Chicago Police Commander Paul Blauer lost his life in the line of duty .
For someone like me who grew up in a law-enforcement family , I can only imagine what his family must have gone through .
I know I imagined it happening to my father more than once through the years , wondering how my family would continue .
For Blauer ’ s family , though , that plan involves filing a lawsuit against the website his widow has decided to blame .
The widow of slain Chicago Police Cmdr .
Paul Bauer has sued the website used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband ’ s murder .
The 9-millimeter Glock pistol that four-time felon Shomari Legghette allegedly used to kill Bauer in 2018 was sold by a Wisconsin man on Armslist.com , one of the nation ’ s largest online gun marketplaces .
According to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday in Milwaukee by Bauer ’ s wife , Erin , and the nonprofit gun control group Brady , the site negligently allowed sales of weapons without background checks , allowing Legghette to get his hands on the alleged murder weapon .
Other websites have features @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large numbers , and from selling to customers who are legally barred from owning firearms , said Jonathan Lowy , chief counsel for Brady .
“ We can ’ t know what would have happened if Armslist was not negligent…but we do know what did happen : someone who should not have had a gun was able to get one , and a police commander is dead , ” Lowy said .
The thing is , Armslist just facilitates a face-to-face transfer .
It ’ s no different than someone answering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such , they ’ re not responsible for what two individuals do after that meeting .
And no , it ’ s not just me saying that .
Cam wrote about a similar case in Wisconsin that the Supreme Court refused to allow to go forward back in November .
Then why would the widow push this now ?
The answer is simple .
First , dipsticks from Brady show up on the doorstep of someone like Mrs. Blauer who is hurting and angry that their loved one is gone , then offers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make pay .
Sure .
Shomari Legghette is probably going to go to prison , but there ’ s someone else to blame , they argue .
They prey on vulnerable , grieving family members so they can push these lawsuits , lawsuits they then use to try and fundraise so they can justify their existence .
It ’ s unlikely Blauer ’ s widow knew anything about the Wisconsin case .
It ’ s unlikely Brady told her anything about it and unless you religiously follow this stuff , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened .
After all , if anyone were honest about it , there ’ s no reason to believe that this case will be any different than that one .
After all , it ’ s the same Supreme Court .
It ’ s not any different than it was back in November when they slapped that other case down .
But Brady doesn ’ t care about that .
At my most charitable , I can only imagine they think they can sue Armslist into oblivion simply be keeping up these kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t afford to defend against them anymore .
That ’ s not very charitable , either , but that ’ s the only reason other than money-grubbing I ’ ve come up with so far .
Meanwhile , grieving people like Mrs. Blauer are taken advantage of by predatory activists .
It ’ s par for the course from this crowd , though .

Chicago Police Commander Paul Blauer lost his life in the line of duty. For someone like me who grew up in a law-enforcement family, I can only imagine what his family must have gone through. I know I imagined it happening to my father more than once through the years, wondering how my family would continue.
For Blauer’s family, though, that plan involves filing a lawsuit against the website his widow has decided to blame.
The widow of slain Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer has sued the website used to sell the gun tied to her husband’s murder. The 9-millimeter Glock pistol that four-time felon Shomari Legghette allegedly used to kill Bauer in 2018 was sold by a Wisconsin man on Armslist.com, one of the nation’s largest online gun marketplaces. According to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday in Milwaukee by Bauer’s wife, Erin, and the nonprofit gun control group Brady, the site negligently allowed sales of weapons without background checks, allowing Legghette to get his hands on the alleged murder weapon. Other websites have features that prevent unlicensed sellers from selling guns in large numbers, and from selling to customers who are legally barred from owning firearms, said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel for Brady. “We can’t know what would have happened if Armslist was not negligent…but we do know what did happen: someone who should not have had a gun was able to get one, and a police commander is dead,” Lowy said.
The thing is, Armslist just facilitates a face-to-face transfer. It’s no different than someone answering a classified ad in the newspaper. As such, they’re not responsible for what two individuals do after that meeting.
And no, it’s not just me saying that. Cam wrote about a similar case in Wisconsin that the Supreme Court refused to allow to go forward back in November.
Then why would the widow push this now?
The answer is simple. First, dipsticks from Brady show up on the doorstep of someone like Mrs. Blauer who is hurting and angry that their loved one is gone, then offers them someone to blame, someone the can make pay. Sure. Shomari Legghette is probably going to go to prison, but there’s someone else to blame, they argue.
They prey on vulnerable, grieving family members so they can push these lawsuits, lawsuits they then use to try and fundraise so they can justify their existence.
It’s unlikely Blauer’s widow knew anything about the Wisconsin case. It’s unlikely Brady told her anything about it and unless you religiously follow this stuff, you’re not likely to even know it happened.
After all, if anyone were honest about it, there’s no reason to believe that this case will be any different than that one. After all, it’s the same Supreme Court. It’s not any different than it was back in November when they slapped that other case down.
But Brady doesn’t care about that.
At my most charitable, I can only imagine they think they can sue Armslist into oblivion simply be keeping up these kinds of frivolous lawsuits until the company just can’t afford to defend against them anymore.
That’s not very charitable, either, but that’s the only reason other than money-grubbing I’ve come up with so far.
Meanwhile, grieving people like Mrs. Blauer are taken advantage of by predatory activists. It’s par for the course from this crowd, though.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--RI "Blue Cards" Prove Second Amendment Is Second Class Right

With 50 states plus various American territories , it ’ s difficult to keep up with the laws everywhere .
Because of what I do , I note a lot of changes in state laws , but even then I miss some really bizarre laws that might be required in various states .
Some of those laws prove Justice Clarence Thomas right when he argued that the Second Amendment is treated like a second class right .
And the kicker ?
Some people are more upset that some of those measures aren ’ t more restrictive .
In order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Island , residents must show the seller a “ blue card ” : a certificate that shows the applicant has passed the state ’ s requisite gun safety exam .
But current state laws require that all records of blue card applications be destroyed after 30 days by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management , which distributes the cards — making it potentially more difficult to authenticate the cards when they are used to purchase weapons .
While RIDEM does not foresee changing the way blue cards are distributed to qualified applicants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy on record-keeping , according to Chief Public Affairs Officer of RIDEM Michael Healey .
He also noted that the statute that the current policy is based upon does not explicitly require RIDEM to destroy the lists of names after 30 days .
“ For several years , we have relied on an internal legal opinion interpreting the law as requiring us to do that , ” Healey said , adding that it is “ reasonable to infer ” that the attorney who wrote this interpretation was mindful of state and federal laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registry of privately owned firearms .
The problem for this writer , apparently , is that on top of requiring people to complete a special class in order to begin to exercise a constitutionally-protected right , the records aren ’ t kept on hand indefinitely so as to provide some kind of de facto method of registration .
After all , one can assume those who undergo the training are also likely to buy firearms afterward , right ?
Meanwhile , I ’ m still hung up on the fact that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many people supporting this law would also support mandatory civics classes prior to registering to vote ?
How many would back a measure requiring someone to show they ’ ve attended a responsible speech class before buying a computer ?
All right should be exercised responsibly , to be sure , but we don ’ t require people to attend special training just so they can exercise them .
We punish them if they use those rights irresponsibly and that ’ s about it .
As it should be .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but is relatively uncontested , all things considered , is an utter abomination to the founding principles of this great nation of ours .
Yet even that isn ’ t enough for some people .
They want more .
They want records kept indefinitely .
They want more oversight over this kind of thing , yet these same people likely balk at the idea that the Second Amendment is a second class right .
Well , let ’ s try implementing some of those measures but applying them to other rights and see @ @ @ @ @

With 50 states plus various American territories, it’s difficult to keep up with the laws everywhere. Because of what I do, I note a lot of changes in state laws, but even then I miss some really bizarre laws that might be required in various states.
Some of those laws prove Justice Clarence Thomas right when he argued that the Second Amendment is treated like a second class right.
And the kicker? Some people are more upset that some of those measures aren’t more restrictive.
In order to purchase a pistol or revolver in Rhode Island, residents must show the seller a “blue card”: a certificate that shows the applicant has passed the state’s requisite gun safety exam. But current state laws require that all records of blue card applications be destroyed after 30 days by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, which distributes the cards — making it potentially more difficult to authenticate the cards when they are used to purchase weapons. While RIDEM does not foresee changing the way blue cards are distributed to qualified applicants, the department is evaluating its current policy on record-keeping, according to Chief Public Affairs Officer of RIDEM Michael Healey. He also noted that the statute that the current policy is based upon does not explicitly require RIDEM to destroy the lists of names after 30 days. “For several years, we have relied on an internal legal opinion interpreting the law as requiring us to do that,” Healey said, adding that it is “reasonable to infer” that the attorney who wrote this interpretation was mindful of state and federal laws that prohibit government agencies from keeping a registry of privately owned firearms.
The problem for this writer, apparently, is that on top of requiring people to complete a special class in order to begin to exercise a constitutionally-protected right, the records aren’t kept on hand indefinitely so as to provide some kind of de facto method of registration.
After all, one can assume those who undergo the training are also likely to buy firearms afterward, right?
Meanwhile, I’m still hung up on the fact that this is required. Like, at all.
How many people supporting this law would also support mandatory civics classes prior to registering to vote? How many would back a measure requiring someone to show they’ve attended a responsible speech class before buying a computer?
All right should be exercised responsibly, to be sure, but we don’t require people to attend special training just so they can exercise them. We punish them if they use those rights irresponsibly and that’s about it. As it should be.
But the fact that this law not only exists but is relatively uncontested, all things considered, is an utter abomination to the founding principles of this great nation of ours.
Yet even that isn’t enough for some people. They want more. They want records kept indefinitely. They want more oversight over this kind of thing, yet these same people likely balk at the idea that the Second Amendment is a second class right.
Well, let’s try implementing some of those measures but applying them to other rights and see how far they fly.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Editorial Argues That With Impeachment Over, It's Time For Guns

Way back when , there was a time when it looked like we were going to get some degree of gun control .
It looked like the only real debate was going to be over just how much we ’ d end up with .
The House could pass any gun control measure they wanted and while McConnell wasn ’ t really interested in letting them pass the Senate , it seemed he ’ d acquiesce to President Trump ’ s wishes .
And Trump definitely seemed interested in passing some degree of gun control .
Then House Democrats decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scuttled the whole damn thing .
That was good news for us on the gun rights side of things–who would have thought we ’ d have reason to thank Nancy Pelosi for anything–but not so good news for the other guys .
Now , though , impeachment has failed .
They tried to remove Trump from office and it blew up in their faces .
Now , some think it ’ s a grand time to go back to gun control .
Even in this highly polarized political moment , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work on together .
It might surprise some observers that one of those issues is gun control .
A year ago , the House passed two bills to broaden federal background check requirements to all private sellers and extend the period of time that a background check can take .
In the six months between the passage of the bills and Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s announcement of the impeachment inquiry , neither bill got a single hearing or vote in the Senate .
According to McConnell , the bills won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as long as Trump doesn ’ t indicate that he would sign them .
Not all Republicans oppose the legislation .
A few Republicans who voted for both House bills .
Almost all other Republicans , however , fell in line with the National Rifle Association ’ s position against any gun control measure .
Senator Pat Toomey has advocated for a weaker background check bill for years — a bipartisan effort he is ready to revisit and believes the White House could get behind .
Still , the Manchin-Toomey bill it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control in decades .
Oh , I ’ m sorry , you have a point ?
Look , the truth of the matter is that House Democrats had their shot at gun control .
They tossed it away because they thought they could remove Trump from office .
Now , there ’ s absolutely no reason for Republicans to alienate the base that remained loyal to them just so they can please people who are still going to hate them at the end of the day .
Pelosi had her shot at getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She gambled that she could boot Trump from office instead .
I guess she thought Vice President Mike Pence would be more amenable for some reason .
It doesn ’ t matter .
She let all her chips ride and she came up snake eyes .
Now , though , she ’ s wanting to go back to square one .
It ’ s like the girl who cheats on you suddenly wanting to pretend it didn ’ t happen .
Look , Trump values loyalty .
He ’ s not about to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had his during this whole mess .
Anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming .
The fact that anti-gunners didn ’ t tells you an awful lot about their foresight .
That ’ s not surprising , though , since they also never foresee the ramifications of the gun control policies they push .

Way back when, there was a time when it looked like we were going to get some degree of gun control. It looked like the only real debate was going to be over just how much we’d end up with. The House could pass any gun control measure they wanted and while McConnell wasn’t really interested in letting them pass the Senate, it seemed he’d acquiesce to President Trump’s wishes.
And Trump definitely seemed interested in passing some degree of gun control.
Then House Democrats decided impeachment was the bigger fish to fry and scuttled the whole damn thing. That was good news for us on the gun rights side of things–who would have thought we’d have reason to thank Nancy Pelosi for anything–but not so good news for the other guys.
Now, though, impeachment has failed. They tried to remove Trump from office and it blew up in their faces. Now, some think it’s a grand time to go back to gun control.
Even in this highly polarized political moment, there are issues that both parties should be able to work on together. It might surprise some observers that one of those issues is gun control. A year ago, the House passed two bills to broaden federal background check requirements to all private sellers and extend the period of time that a background check can take. In the six months between the passage of the bills and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement of the impeachment inquiry, neither bill got a single hearing or vote in the Senate. According to McConnell, the bills won’t get a vote in the Senate as long as Trump doesn’t indicate that he would sign them. Not all Republicans oppose the legislation. A few Republicans who voted for both House bills. Almost all other Republicans, however, fell in line with the National Rifle Association’s position against any gun control measure. Senator Pat Toomey has advocated for a weaker background check bill for years — a bipartisan effort he is ready to revisit and believes the White House could get behind. Still, the Manchin-Toomey bill it would be the most significant piece of gun control in decades.
Oh, I’m sorry, you have a point?
Look, the truth of the matter is that House Democrats had their shot at gun control. They tossed it away because they thought they could remove Trump from office. Now, there’s absolutely no reason for Republicans to alienate the base that remained loyal to them just so they can please people who are still going to hate them at the end of the day.
Pelosi had her shot at getting gun control legislation on the books. She gambled that she could boot Trump from office instead. I guess she thought Vice President Mike Pence would be more amenable for some reason. It doesn’t matter. She let all her chips ride and she came up snake eyes.
Now, though, she’s wanting to go back to square one. It’s like the girl who cheats on you suddenly wanting to pretend it didn’t happen.
Look, Trump values loyalty. He’s not about to turn his back on the people who had his during this whole mess. Anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming.
The fact that anti-gunners didn’t tells you an awful lot about their foresight. That’s not surprising, though, since they also never foresee the ramifications of the gun control policies they push.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--CA Lawmaker Wants To Overhaul State's Concealed Carry Law

A California assemblyman from the Needles area has introduced a bill that would allow localities to recognize concealed carry licenses from other states .
The bill isn ’ t likely to go far in the Democrat-dominated state legislature , but Jay Obernolte says the legislation is important , particularly for California towns that border the Second Amendment-friendly of Arizona .
This isn ’ t the first time that politicians from the Needles area have stepped up to take on some of California ’ s draconian gun control laws .
In fact , last summer officials in Needles declared the town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spur changes to the state ’ s laws and allow for exceptions for border communities .
It ’ s not just about ensuring that Arizona gun owners can shop and recreate in Needles without having to disarm themselves .
Gun owners in Needles are forced to drive for hours to legally purchase ammunition , because under existing California law they ’ re not legally allowed to buy ammo in nearby Bullhead City , Arizona and then drive it across the border .
Instead , they ’ re supposed to 140 miles in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store in Barstow .
Even in California , this isn ’ t “ common sense ” , but nonsensical .
Gang members and violent criminals aren ’ t going to go through background checks to purchase ammunition .
They ’ ll steal it , they ’ ll get it through straw purchases , and they ’ ll create a brand new illicit market in ammunition trafficking from other states .
Meanwhile , at least some folks are having to drive nearly 300 miles so they can exercise their right to keep and bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an expensive metal club .
I ’ m pretty sure others have decided to risk criminal prosecution by purchasing ammunition in other states .
Through its sheer stupidity , the law is likely to turn otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals .
Yet supporters of criminal justice reform like Governor Gavin Newsom would never argue against this law .
In fact , California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is actually defending this garbage law in court !
The garbage law is still being defended by Becerra in court , but in the meantime Assemblyman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will at least get lawmakers in Sacramento talking about the damage their gun laws are having in many California communities .
I do disagree with Obernolte ’ s statement that local communities should decide for themselves what is “ suitable ” for their residents when it comes to the right to bear arms .
It shouldn ’ t be up to any level of government to infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms , but unfortunately in California that ’ s exactly what ’ s happening .
County sheriffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are deserving of a concealed carry permit , and have broad discretion in denying anyone they don ’ t believe has demonstrated “ good cause.
” Obernolte ’ s bill attempts to use that local authority to bolster support for the Second Amendment , but ideally , no jurisdiction in the state would be able to negate someone ’ s right to keep and bear arms on a whim .

A California assemblyman from the Needles area has introduced a bill that would allow localities to recognize concealed carry licenses from other states. The bill isn’t likely to go far in the Democrat-dominated state legislature, but Jay Obernolte says the legislation is important, particularly for California towns that border the Second Amendment-friendly of Arizona.
“This is a common sense proposal that gives local governments the authority to respect neighboring states concealed carry laws without hindering public safety,” said Assemblyman Obernolte. “Many bordering states recognize California CCW law and this bill would provide that same reciprocity. Ultimately, cities and counties should have the power to determine what is suitable for their residents.”
This isn’t the first time that politicians from the Needles area have stepped up to take on some of California’s draconian gun control laws. In fact, last summer officials in Needles declared the town a Second Amendment Sanctuary, hoping to spur changes to the state’s laws and allow for exceptions for border communities. It’s not just about ensuring that Arizona gun owners can shop and recreate in Needles without having to disarm themselves. Gun owners in Needles are forced to drive for hours to legally purchase ammunition, because under existing California law they’re not legally allowed to buy ammo in nearby Bullhead City, Arizona and then drive it across the border. Instead, they’re supposed to 140 miles in the opposite direction to the nearest California gun store in Barstow.
Even in California, this isn’t “common sense”, but nonsensical. Gang members and violent criminals aren’t going to go through background checks to purchase ammunition. They’ll steal it, they’ll get it through straw purchases, and they’ll create a brand new illicit market in ammunition trafficking from other states. Meanwhile, at least some folks are having to drive nearly 300 miles so they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms with an actual firearm, not an expensive metal club. I’m pretty sure others have decided to risk criminal prosecution by purchasing ammunition in other states. Through its sheer stupidity, the law is likely to turn otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Yet supporters of criminal justice reform like Governor Gavin Newsom would never argue against this law. In fact, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is actually defending this garbage law in court!
The garbage law is still being defended by Becerra in court, but in the meantime Assemblyman Obernolte is hoping that his bill AB2206 will at least get lawmakers in Sacramento talking about the damage their gun laws are having in many California communities.
I do disagree with Obernolte’s statement that local communities should decide for themselves what is “suitable” for their residents when it comes to the right to bear arms. It shouldn’t be up to any level of government to infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms, but unfortunately in California that’s exactly what’s happening. County sheriffs are already able to decide what residents are deserving of a concealed carry permit, and have broad discretion in denying anyone they don’t believe has demonstrated “good cause.” Obernolte’s bill attempts to use that local authority to bolster support for the Second Amendment, but ideally, no jurisdiction in the state would be able to negate someone’s right to keep and bear arms on a whim.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Background Check Bill Stalls In FL Legislature

A bill mandating background checks on sales of firearms at gun shows has stalled in the Florida state senate , despite being backed by Senate President Bill Galvano and several other Republican senators .
The Tampa Bay Times reports that Galvano and others are blaming the inaction on election year politics .
Taking up a controversial gun-control measure is not one of their priorities , said Sen. Tom Lee , R-Thonotosassa , who is sponsoring the bill .
“ Is that a piece of legislation that Republican legislators would just soon go away ?
” Lee said .
“ Oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In the wake of back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso , Texas , and Dayton , Ohio , last year Galvano asked Lee to come up with a bill to make the state safer , including potential limits on guns .
Lee and his committee came back with Senate Bill 7028 , which would close the “ gun show loophole ” by requiring all sales at gun shows go through a background check .
Currently , private-party sales at gun shows are not required to go through background checks .
For all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seller would have to fill out a form that ’ s notarized attesting the buyer is legally allowed to buy the weapon .
While it ’ s true that many Florida Republicans in the legislature aren ’ t interested in passing gun control legislation during an election year , the fact that Sen. Galvano ’ s fundraising committee received half a million dollars from Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety in 2018 has also raised concerns among law makers and Second Amendment advocates .
Galvano ’ s decision to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “ loophole , ” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $ 5 million to establish a “ statewide strategy for violence prevention.
” The proposal ( SB 7028 ) is a priority of Galvano , as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee ’ s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 Legislative Session begins .
But while Galvano supports the legislation , the National Rifle Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst universal background check language I have ever seen , ” Marion Hammer , the NRA ’ s Florida lobbyist and a former president of the national gun-rights organization , told the legislative panel .
Galvano has said that he doesn ’ t back Bloomberg ’ s campaign for president and is working to re-elect Donald Trump in November , but isn ’ t backing down from taking the Bloomberg Bucks in 2018 .
Galvano has said repeatedly he would not apologize for accepting the funds and that he was “ grateful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ After that legislative action , we received support from many who wanted to see Republican governance continue last election cycle , ” Galvano said .
“ And I am proud to say that , at the helm of Senate campaigns last cycle , we were successfully able to maintain Republican control of the Senate .
That support elected Republicans , and one thing Don Jr. and I will absolutely always agree on is our support to re-elect President Donald Trump , and I proudly support that joint effort.
” Galvano may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president , but it looks like his effort to further restrict the rights of gun owners in Florida is failing .
There ’ s just one month left in the legislative session , and so far SB7028 hasn ’ t made much progress in the Senate .
It ’ s also opposed by Florida ’ s House Speaker , and Gov .
Ron DeSantis hasn ’ t said or done anything to indicate he supports the bill either .
Gun owners in Florida need to keep up contact with their senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be able to officially report the bill is done for the session .

A bill mandating background checks on sales of firearms at gun shows has stalled in the Florida state senate, despite being backed by Senate President Bill Galvano and several other Republican senators.
The Tampa Bay Times reports that Galvano and others are blaming the inaction on election year politics.
Taking up a controversial gun-control measure is not one of their priorities, said Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, who is sponsoring the bill. “Is that a piece of legislation that Republican legislators would just soon go away?” Lee said. “Oh, duh, of course it is.” In the wake of back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, last year Galvano asked Lee to come up with a bill to make the state safer, including potential limits on guns. Lee and his committee came back with Senate Bill 7028, which would close the “gun show loophole” by requiring all sales at gun shows go through a background check. Currently, private-party sales at gun shows are not required to go through background checks. For all other private-party sales, both the buyer and seller would have to fill out a form that’s notarized attesting the buyer is legally allowed to buy the weapon.
While it’s true that many Florida Republicans in the legislature aren’t interested in passing gun control legislation during an election year, the fact that Sen. Galvano’s fundraising committee received half a million dollars from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety in 2018 has also raised concerns among law makers and Second Amendment advocates.
Galvano’s decision to accept those contributions became fresh fodder after a Florida Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “loophole,” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a “statewide strategy for violence prevention.” The proposal (SB 7028) is a priority of Galvano, as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee’s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 Legislative Session begins. But while Galvano supports the legislation, the National Rifle Association does not. The measure contains “the worst universal background check language I have ever seen,” Marion Hammer, the NRA’s Florida lobbyist and a former president of the national gun-rights organization, told the legislative panel.
Galvano has said that he doesn’t back Bloomberg’s campaign for president and is working to re-elect Donald Trump in November, but isn’t backing down from taking the Bloomberg Bucks in 2018.
Galvano has said repeatedly he would not apologize for accepting the funds and that he was “grateful for the support” from Bloomberg. “After that legislative action, we received support from many who wanted to see Republican governance continue last election cycle,” Galvano said. “And I am proud to say that, at the helm of Senate campaigns last cycle, we were successfully able to maintain Republican control of the Senate. That support elected Republicans, and one thing Don Jr. and I will absolutely always agree on is our support to re-elect President Donald Trump, and I proudly support that joint effort.”
Galvano may be engaged in a joint effort to re-elect the president, but it looks like his effort to further restrict the rights of gun owners in Florida is failing. There’s just one month left in the legislative session, and so far SB7028 hasn’t made much progress in the Senate. It’s also opposed by Florida’s House Speaker, and Gov. Ron DeSantis hasn’t said or done anything to indicate he supports the bill either. Gun owners in Florida need to keep up contact with their senators, and hopefully in a few weeks we’ll be able to officially report the bill is done for the session.


bearingarms--2020-02-13--Journalist Accuses Anti-Gun Lawmaker Of Being Bought By Bloomberg

Rep. Lucy McBath campaigned for her House seat on gun control above many other issues and defeated Republican incumbent Karen Handel .
It ’ s a line she ’ s pushed on and on .
Well , that and the typical nonsense of claiming pro-gun lawmakers are only that way because they were bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association .
From time to time , I ’ ve argued that what ’ s good for the goose is good for the gander .
If they can claim pro-gun legislators are bought , wouldn ’ t the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal of money from gun control groups in order to be elected ?
Well , now that the gun control grand sugar-daddy of them all is running for president , it seems the idea is catching on .
New York Times columnist Charles Blow on Wednesday accused Rep. Lucy McBath ( D. , Ga. ) of being bought for her endorsement of Michael Bloomberg for president .
“ Everyone has a price .
EVERYONE , ” Blow said in a now-deleted tweet .
Blow was responding to a tweet from Atlanta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bloomberg ’ s gun control group spent more than $ 4.5 million to help McBath unseat Rep. Karen Handel ( R. , Ga. ) in 2018 .
Blow sent several tweets criticizing Bloomberg and his past support for the “ stop-and-frisk ” program , which gave New York police officers the authority to stop anyone they suspected of committing a crime without a warrant .
Earlier in the morning , McBath took to Twitter to praise Bloomberg for helping “ fight back against gun violence ” and said she is “ proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I hate it that Blow deleted the tweet because he shouldn ’ t have .
Let ’ s be honest here , there are a lot of lawmakers who got a lot of money from Bloomberg .
How many of the endorsements he ’ s likely to get from those anti-gun officials is because they think he ’ s the best man for the job and how many because they want to make sure their steady flow of campaign cash keeps coming their way ?
After all , if pro-gun politicians can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why would anti-gun politicians be any different ?
Especially in a case like this ?
You see , I ’ ve always argued that the money generally flows from a candidate ’ s position on the issue .
If they are pro-gun , groups like the NRA will donate .
If they ’ re not , Bloomberg will .
In that regard , no one is really paid to maintain a pro- or anti-gun position .
But with Bloomberg ’ s situation , it ’ s a little different .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years to get politicians elected .
It ’ s not a nameless , faceless organization but an individual .
Now he ’ s running for president .
It ’ s hard not to look at any and all endorsements he gets and wonder whether or not there ’ s a little quid pro quo going on there .
Rep. Lucy McBath is just the first of potentially many who will have to justify any endorsement for Bloomberg after he funneled a lot of money into their campaign .
In truth , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept from someone whose entire political existence arguably hinges on that money coming in ?

Rep. Lucy McBath campaigned for her House seat on gun control above many other issues and defeated Republican incumbent Karen Handel. It’s a line she’s pushed on and on.
Well, that and the typical nonsense of claiming pro-gun lawmakers are only that way because they were bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association.
From time to time, I’ve argued that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If they can claim pro-gun legislators are bought, wouldn’t the same be true of anti-gun lawmakers who accept a great deal of money from gun control groups in order to be elected?
Well, now that the gun control grand sugar-daddy of them all is running for president, it seems the idea is catching on.
New York Times columnist Charles Blow on Wednesday accused Rep. Lucy McBath (D., Ga.) of being bought for her endorsement of Michael Bloomberg for president. “Everyone has a price. EVERYONE,” Blow said in a now-deleted tweet. Blow was responding to a tweet from Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Greg Bluestein, who noted that Bloomberg’s gun control group spent more than $4.5 million to help McBath unseat Rep. Karen Handel (R., Ga.) in 2018. Blow sent several tweets criticizing Bloomberg and his past support for the “stop-and-frisk” program, which gave New York police officers the authority to stop anyone they suspected of committing a crime without a warrant. … Earlier in the morning, McBath took to Twitter to praise Bloomberg for helping “fight back against gun violence” and said she is “proud to stand with him in this race.”
I hate it that Blow deleted the tweet because he shouldn’t have.
Let’s be honest here, there are a lot of lawmakers who got a lot of money from Bloomberg. How many of the endorsements he’s likely to get from those anti-gun officials is because they think he’s the best man for the job and how many because they want to make sure their steady flow of campaign cash keeps coming their way?
After all, if pro-gun politicians can be bought and sold so easily, why would anti-gun politicians be any different? Especially in a case like this?
You see, I’ve always argued that the money generally flows from a candidate’s position on the issue. If they are pro-gun, groups like the NRA will donate. If they’re not, Bloomberg will. In that regard, no one is really paid to maintain a pro- or anti-gun position.
But with Bloomberg’s situation, it’s a little different. Here’s someone who has doled out millions over the years to get politicians elected. It’s not a nameless, faceless organization but an individual. Now he’s running for president. It’s hard not to look at any and all endorsements he gets and wonder whether or not there’s a little quid pro quo going on there.
Rep. Lucy McBath is just the first of potentially many who will have to justify any endorsement for Bloomberg after he funneled a lot of money into their campaign.
In truth, though, how much justification can you really accept from someone whose entire political existence arguably hinges on that money coming in?


bearingarms--2020-02-14--Growing Legal Pushback Against ATF's Rules On Bump Stocks, Receivers

Is the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives overstepping its bounds in banning bump stocks ?
Is the agency wrongly defining lower receivers for AR-15 ’ s as “ firearms , ” and if so , what does it mean for hundreds if not thousands of cases decided over the past 50 years ?
These are some pretty big questions , and we try to tackle them on today ’ s Cam & Co. with the help of Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance , which is representing Utah resident Clark Aposhian in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning bump stocks after the agency had , for several years , determined that the items were lawful .
Kruckenberg says the lawsuit isn ’ t about whether or not bump stocks are protected under the Constitution , but about whether the agency had the authority to do what it did , or whether it was up to Congress to ban bump stocks through legislation .
As the New Civil Liberties Alliance put it last June , when it filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit : Rightly or wrongly , Congress has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a deranged gunman opened fire on a crowd in Las Vegas , Nevada on October 1 , 2017 , using weapons equipped with scopes , 100-round magazines and bump stocks , a legislative response certainly could have been considered .
What transpired instead was a Bump Stock Final Rule banning the devices—an administrative shortcut by ATF that violates basic constitutional principles concerning who makes the law .
Even if ATF ’ s goal is laudable , this Court has a constitutional obligation of its own to strike down the administrative agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Executive Branch will usurp Congress ’ legislative function in other areas , and the Constitution ’ s careful limits on how laws are made will be undone.
“ The ATF has attempted to rewrite the law and declared that as many as 500,000 Americans are now federal felons even though they lawfully purchased bump stocks with the ATF ’ s prior approval .
The Constitution doesn ’ t allow prosecutors to change the criminal laws to suit their sense of what the law should say .
The bump stock ban threatens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not lawmakers , have the final say about what makes something a crime .
We also spend some time on today ’ s show delving into the story of Dan O ’ Kelly , a former ATF agent who ’ s now serving as an expert witness and a whistleblower who says the agency has been wrongly interpreting the definition of a firearm in federal statutes for years , and has helped get several cases tossed out of federal court in recent years .
As O ’ Kelly sees it , the ATF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control regulation for decades because officials fear that following the letter of the law would allow criminals to build AR-15s and other firearms piece by piece with unregulated parts .
He said he voiced his concerns to an ATF official two decades ago , but was rebuffed .
Now , however , his view is gaining traction in courtrooms around the country .
In December , a federal judge in Ohio dismissed weapons-related charges against two men after O ’ Kelly testified that the AR-15 part at issue in their case was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US District Court Judge James G. Carr for the Northern District of Ohio called the ATF ’ s long-standing interpretation of the regulation “ unreasonable and legally unacceptable.
” Basically , O ’ Kelly says that a lower receiver of an AR-15 doesn ’ t actually meet the federal definition of a firearm , which says the frame or receiver is “ That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer , bolt or breechblock , and firing mechanism , and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the firearm that the federal government cares about , and it ’ s what must be serialized before it ’ s sold .
O ’ Kelly says AR-15 ’ s and other firearms don ’ t actually have one part that meets that standard , which means a lower receiver can ’ t be considered a firearm , even though that ’ s how the ATF has been interpreting the law for decades .
Several judges have sided with O ’ Kelly ’ s take and have dismissed cases brought in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former AG Loretta Lynch even got involved after one dismissal .
As CNN notes , the agency did neither .
O ’ Kelly says it ’ s because of institutional arrogance , but I wonder if there ’ s not something larger at stake here .
If people ’ s cases are being dismissed because of the ATF ’ s “ legally unacceptable ” regulation , how many people are in prison right now because of it ?
If the agency acknowledges their error , what happens to those currently in prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time based on this legally unacceptable regulation ?
It also sounds like , despite what Lynch said , that Congress would need to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 or come up with a new definition of a firearm to truly “ fix ” the issue .
If the ATF were to just try and interpret the law again , it would be evidence of what Caleb Kruckenberg calls the agency ’ s desire “ to usurp the Constitution and Congress ’ s lawmaking authority ” .

Is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives overstepping its bounds in banning bump stocks? Is the agency wrongly defining lower receivers for AR-15’s as “firearms,” and if so, what does it mean for hundreds if not thousands of cases decided over the past 50 years?
These are some pretty big questions, and we try to tackle them on today’s Cam & Co. with the help of Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Utah resident Clark Aposhian in his bid to overturn an ATF rule retroactively banning bump stocks after the agency had, for several years, determined that the items were lawful.
Kruckenberg says the lawsuit isn’t about whether or not bump stocks are protected under the Constitution, but about whether the agency had the authority to do what it did, or whether it was up to Congress to ban bump stocks through legislation. As the New Civil Liberties Alliance put it last June, when it filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit:
Rightly or wrongly, Congress has not yet prohibited bump stocks. But when a deranged gunman opened fire on a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 1, 2017, using weapons equipped with scopes, 100-round magazines and bump stocks, a legislative response certainly could have been considered. What transpired instead was a Bump Stock Final Rule banning the devices—an administrative shortcut by ATF that violates basic constitutional principles concerning who makes the law. Even if ATF’s goal is laudable, this Court has a constitutional obligation of its own to strike down the administrative agency’s attempted legislative rewrite. Otherwise, the Executive Branch will usurp Congress’ legislative function in other areas, and the Constitution’s careful limits on how laws are made will be undone.“The ATF has attempted to rewrite the law and declared that as many as 500,000 Americans are now federal felons even though they lawfully purchased bump stocks with the ATF’s prior approval. The Constitution doesn’t allow prosecutors to change the criminal laws to suit their sense of what the law should say. The bump stock ban threatens to set a dangerous precedent that prosecutors, not lawmakers, have the final say about what makes something a crime.
We also spend some time on today’s show delving into the story of Dan O’Kelly, a former ATF agent who’s now serving as an expert witness and a whistleblower who says the agency has been wrongly interpreting the definition of a firearm in federal statutes for years, and has helped get several cases tossed out of federal court in recent years.
As O’Kelly sees it, the ATF has been deliberately misinterpreting a key gun control regulation for decades because officials fear that following the letter of the law would allow criminals to build AR-15s and other firearms piece by piece with unregulated parts. He said he voiced his concerns to an ATF official two decades ago, but was rebuffed. Now, however, his view is gaining traction in courtrooms around the country. In December, a federal judge in Ohio dismissed weapons-related charges against two men after O’Kelly testified that the AR-15 part at issue in their case was not subject to federal law or regulation. US District Court Judge James G. Carr for the Northern District of Ohio called the ATF’s long-standing interpretation of the regulation “unreasonable and legally unacceptable.”
Basically, O’Kelly says that a lower receiver of an AR-15 doesn’t actually meet the federal definition of a firearm, which says the frame or receiver is “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”
That’s the part of the firearm that the federal government cares about, and it’s what must be serialized before it’s sold. O’Kelly says AR-15’s and other firearms don’t actually have one part that meets that standard, which means a lower receiver can’t be considered a firearm, even though that’s how the ATF has been interpreting the law for decades.
Several judges have sided with O’Kelly’s take and have dismissed cases brought in federal court for illegal firearm possession, and former AG Loretta Lynch even got involved after one dismissal.
In wake of the dismissal, then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch wrote a letter to Congress outlining the issues. She advised lawmakers that the judge’s order was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition of a receiver should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.
As CNN notes, the agency did neither. O’Kelly says it’s because of institutional arrogance, but I wonder if there’s not something larger at stake here. If people’s cases are being dismissed because of the ATF’s “legally unacceptable” regulation, how many people are in prison right now because of it? If the agency acknowledges their error, what happens to those currently in prison or those who’ve done their time based on this legally unacceptable regulation?
It also sounds like, despite what Lynch said, that Congress would need to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 or come up with a new definition of a firearm to truly “fix” the issue. If the ATF were to just try and interpret the law again, it would be evidence of what Caleb Kruckenberg calls the agency’s desire “to usurp the Constitution and Congress’s lawmaking authority”.