bearingarms--2020-05-26--Violent Crime Increased During Lockdowns In Many U.S. Cities

Aggravated assaults and robberies are also up in Cincinnati compared to the same time period in 2019 , and I ’ m not sure all that can be blamed on a lack of flyers and community sweeps .
In Baltimore , some categories of violent crime are actually down compared to last year , but the city is still on pace for more than 300 homicides for the sixth straight year after eight homicides over the Memorial Day weekend .
By Monday , Baltimore City Police Commissioner Michael Harrison held a press conference to address the violence .
“ Several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when police arrived and at the time of the incident which speaks to why we have to have smart enforcement and real consequences for people who are illegally carrying firearms because that is at the core of this culture of violence , ” he said .
“ We know that most of the persons or several of the persons are no strangers to our criminal justice system to include murder convictions , attempted murdered convictions , and robbery convictions , ” Harrison said .
“ Some of this was retaliatory violence.
” If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence are well known to law enforcement , doesn ’ t that beg the question as to why so many repeat offenders are still on the street after murder , attempted murder , and robbery convictions ?
And if city leaders are intent on cracking down on people illegally carrying firearms , perhaps the state of Maryland should get with the program and actually have concealed carry laws that enable the average resident to acquire a concealed carry license .
Currently , applicants must demonstrate a special need in order to receive a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem to be doing anything to reduce violent crime even as it infringes on the constitutional rights of Maryland gun owners .
In Denver , Colorado , both homicides and aggravated assaults dramatically increased beginning in March of this year , despite the state ’ s gun laws , which include a universal background check , ban on ammunition magazines that can accept more than 15-rounds , and a local “ assault weapon ” ban on the books in Denver .
According to police in the city , domestic violence calls are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in previous years , and Denver Police Chief Paul Pazen says he believes the increase in shootings is because many career criminals were set free from local jails over coronavirus concerns .
He said Denver police have caught the same people committing multiple crimes since pandemic guidelines have changed how the justice system does business : “ We have contacted and arrested several people for these high-level crimes and then rearrested them days later.
” Considering the crime spikes after the 2008 recession , Pazen said he ’ s concerned that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one for his officers .
A busy summer for police means a dangerous summer for citizens , and that ’ s probably the biggest factor driving up firearm sales for first-time gun owners in recent months .
Law-abiding Americans aren ’ t exercising their right to keep and bear arms because they ’ ve decided to become violent criminals themselves .
Instead , they ’ re simply trying to protect themselves and their families in an increasingly dangerous environment where career criminals are being put right back on the streets with no consequences @ @ @ @ @

Aggravated assaults and robberies are also up in Cincinnati compared to the same time period in 2019, and I’m not sure all that can be blamed on a lack of flyers and community sweeps.
In Baltimore, some categories of violent crime are actually down compared to last year, but the city is still on pace for more than 300 homicides for the sixth straight year after eight homicides over the Memorial Day weekend.
By Monday, Baltimore City Police Commissioner Michael Harrison held a press conference to address the violence. “Several of our victims had handguns on them when police arrived and at the time of the incident which speaks to why we have to have smart enforcement and real consequences for people who are illegally carrying firearms because that is at the core of this culture of violence,” he said. “We know that most of the persons or several of the persons are no strangers to our criminal justice system to include murder convictions, attempted murdered convictions, and robbery convictions,” Harrison said. “Some of this was retaliatory violence.”
If most of the victims and perpetrators of violence are well known to law enforcement, doesn’t that beg the question as to why so many repeat offenders are still on the street after murder, attempted murder, and robbery convictions? And if city leaders are intent on cracking down on people illegally carrying firearms, perhaps the state of Maryland should get with the program and actually have concealed carry laws that enable the average resident to acquire a concealed carry license. Currently, applicants must demonstrate a special need in order to receive a carry license, and that doesn’t seem to be doing anything to reduce violent crime even as it infringes on the constitutional rights of Maryland gun owners.
In Denver, Colorado, both homicides and aggravated assaults dramatically increased beginning in March of this year, despite the state’s gun laws, which include a universal background check, ban on ammunition magazines that can accept more than 15-rounds, and a local “assault weapon” ban on the books in Denver. According to police in the city, domestic violence calls are in line with what they’ve seen in previous years, and Denver Police Chief Paul Pazen says he believes the increase in shootings is because many career criminals were set free from local jails over coronavirus concerns.
He said Denver police have caught the same people committing multiple crimes since pandemic guidelines have changed how the justice system does business: “We have contacted and arrested several people for these high-level crimes and then rearrested them days later.” Considering the crime spikes after the 2008 recession, Pazen said he’s concerned that the summer of 2020 will be a busy one for his officers.
A busy summer for police means a dangerous summer for citizens, and that’s probably the biggest factor driving up firearm sales for first-time gun owners in recent months. Law-abiding Americans aren’t exercising their right to keep and bear arms because they’ve decided to become violent criminals themselves. Instead, they’re simply trying to protect themselves and their families in an increasingly dangerous environment where career criminals are being put right back on the streets with no consequences for their violent actions.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--Canadian Gun Instructor: Knife Ban Would Make More Sense

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is still patting himself on the back for delivering on his promise to ban AR-15s in Canada , a promise issued in an effort to deflect criticism following the wake of a photograph surfacing showing him in brownface .
Things like that are frowned upon and impossible to make up for…unless you ’ re liberal and you declare a jihad on people ’ s gun rights .
Unfortunately for Canadians , they don ’ t have the protections we Americans do , and Trudeau used the bodies of the slain in Nova Scotia as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the AR-15 in Canada .
Nevermind that the weapons were illegally obtained–something we American gun rights activists have been warning about for decades–all that mattered was that he finally had his chance .
There has been some backlash over the move , though .
Now , a firearm instructor from Canada argues that if saving lives is the goal , wouldn ’ t knife control make more sense ?
It would make more sense for the Liberal government to bring in knife control than gun control , says a Saskatchewan firearms instructor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who teaches the federal non-restricted and restricted firearms courses – slammed the Trudeau government ’ s gun ban saying knives are used more often than guns in homicides .
“ It would be more logical for the Liberals to have knife control where every man , woman and child would have to take an eight-hour course , pass a practical and written test ( 80 per cent ) , then buy a license to be permitted to handle and buy knives , ” said Dykstra , but added , “ This would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Statistics Canada , when a weapon is used in a violent crime , a knife is the most common choice .
That may be true , but it might not be a great idea to say that out loud .
I mean , Canada is still part of the British Empire , after all .
Though independent in pretty much every way that matters , it wouldn ’ t be surprising for Trudeau to look to England and think , “ You know , the man makes a point .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Honestly , we joked about it when England started their gun control ban , and then it happened .
Now , you have people in England pushing to ban points on knives because they don ’ t think you actually need that on a knife anymore .
Of course , as is obvious , Dykstra isn ’ t seriously suggesting the idea .
The problem is that the people who think that In addition , Dykstra said the Liberal gun ban – brought in May 1 , 2020 , and immediately banned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mass shooting in Nova Scotia where former denturist Gabriel Wortman went on a rampage murdering 22 people .
The Nova Scotia gunman didn ’ t have a firearms license and his weapons were obtained illegally .
The RCMP have said that three of the four semi-automatic weapons that Wortman used are believed to have come from the United States.
“ As usual , the Liberals are using a tragedy to fulfill their political agenda against guns.
” He ’ s not wrong here .
Not in the least .
Trudeau reacted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be vilified by the media if he were doing anything but banning guns .
But , the media doesn ’ t care .
They ’ re more than willing to let him get away with this kind of grandstanding simply because it ’ s beneficial to their own progressive ideas , and that ’ s pathetic .

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is still patting himself on the back for delivering on his promise to ban AR-15s in Canada, a promise issued in an effort to deflect criticism following the wake of a photograph surfacing showing him in brownface. Things like that are frowned upon and impossible to make up for…unless you’re liberal and you declare a jihad on people’s gun rights.
Unfortunately for Canadians, they don’t have the protections we Americans do, and Trudeau used the bodies of the slain in Nova Scotia as a soapbox from which to declare and end to the AR-15 in Canada.
Nevermind that the weapons were illegally obtained–something we American gun rights activists have been warning about for decades–all that mattered was that he finally had his chance.
There has been some backlash over the move, though.
Now, a firearm instructor from Canada argues that if saving lives is the goal, wouldn’t knife control make more sense?
It would make more sense for the Liberal government to bring in knife control than gun control, says a Saskatchewan firearms instructor. North Battleford resident Gordon Dykstra – who teaches the federal non-restricted and restricted firearms courses – slammed the Trudeau government’s gun ban saying knives are used more often than guns in homicides. “It would be more logical for the Liberals to have knife control where every man, woman and child would have to take an eight-hour course, pass a practical and written test (80 per cent), then buy a license to be permitted to handle and buy knives,” said Dykstra, but added, “This would be as stupid as gun control.” According to Statistics Canada, when a weapon is used in a violent crime, a knife is the most common choice.
That may be true, but it might not be a great idea to say that out loud. I mean, Canada is still part of the British Empire, after all. Though independent in pretty much every way that matters, it wouldn’t be surprising for Trudeau to look to England and think, “You know, the man makes a point. Let’s pass knife control too!”
Honestly, we joked about it when England started their gun control ban, and then it happened.
Now, you have people in England pushing to ban points on knives because they don’t think you actually need that on a knife anymore.
Of course, as is obvious, Dykstra isn’t seriously suggesting the idea. The problem is that the people who think that
Dykstra continued, however:
In addition, Dykstra said the Liberal gun ban – brought in May 1, 2020, and immediately banned about 1,500 rifles – politicizes last month’s mass shooting in Nova Scotia where former denturist Gabriel Wortman went on a rampage murdering 22 people. The Nova Scotia gunman didn’t have a firearms license and his weapons were obtained illegally. The RCMP have said that three of the four semi-automatic weapons that Wortman used are believed to have come from the United States.“ As usual, the Liberals are using a tragedy to fulfill their political agenda against guns.”
He’s not wrong here. Not in the least.
Trudeau reacted to a tragedy in a way that would be vilified by the media if he were doing anything but banning guns.
But, the media doesn’t care. They’re more than willing to let him get away with this kind of grandstanding simply because it’s beneficial to their own progressive ideas, and that’s pathetic.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--Mississippi Mayor Still Defending His Open Carry Ban

Jackson , Mississippi Mayor Chokwe Lumumba is still facing a federal lawsuit over his attempt to ban the open carrying of firearms in the city during the coronavirus-related state of emergency , and the mayor told a local TV station over the weekend that he believes the lawsuit will soon be resolved without “ any financial burden to the city.
” According to WLBT , Lumumba still claims that the ban , which was rejected by the Jackson City Council , the Mississippi Attorney General , the local U.S. Attorney , and several lawmakers , wasn ’ t aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to give law enforcement a tool to crack down on violent criminals .
I have no idea where the mayor pulled that statistic from , but I ’ ll take Lumumba at his word that he ’ s trying to reduce violent crime in Jackson .
Too bad for the mayor that his reasons for the ban don ’ t justify his unconstitutional actions .
The mayor simply doesn ’ t have the authority under Mississippi state law to enact any type of ban on the carrying of firearms , even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lumumba is telling the press that the city is likely to prevail in the lawsuit , there ’ s not much evidence to back up his claims .
There is an easy step for Lumumba to take that would reduce violent crime while respecting the Second Amendment rights of residents and visitors to Jackson .
The mayor says that many firearms seized over the past few weeks were in the hands of convicted felons .
The city should work with the local District Attorney to refer the most serious of these cases to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would send a real message to the gang members and drug dealers fueling the violence in Jackson ’ s high-crime neighborhoods , while also removing the most prolific offenders from the streets for as long as possible .
If Lumumba is serious about making Jackson a safer place , his focus needs to be on fighting criminals , not waging a legal battle against the constitutional rights of Mississippians .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Chokwe Lumumba is still facing a federal lawsuit over his attempt to ban the open carrying of firearms in the city during the coronavirus-related state of emergency, and the mayor told a local TV station over the weekend that he believes the lawsuit will soon be resolved without “any financial burden to the city.”
According to WLBT, Lumumba still claims that the ban, which was rejected by the Jackson City Council, the Mississippi Attorney General, the local U.S. Attorney, and several lawmakers, wasn’t aimed at legal gun owners, but was instead meant to give law enforcement a tool to crack down on violent criminals.
Mayor Lumumba said, “day after day I’m getting calls from residents talking about people shooting guns up in the air in their neighborhoods. People hearing gunshots continuously.” Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba says he is a proud gun owner and his ban on the open carry law during a civil emergency was never about law abiding gun owners. Mayor Lumumba said, “since 2013 when many of the open carry laws were introduced, childhood deaths by firearm increased by 72% in the South. And so we need to dive into that and we need to care enough to figure out why that is happening and make the changes.” Jackson police were able to confiscate dozens of illegal weapons in the last few weeks. Many of them in the possession of convicted felons.
I have no idea where the mayor pulled that statistic from, but I’ll take Lumumba at his word that he’s trying to reduce violent crime in Jackson. Too bad for the mayor that his reasons for the ban don’t justify his unconstitutional actions. The mayor simply doesn’t have the authority under Mississippi state law to enact any type of ban on the carrying of firearms, even in a state of emergency, and while Lumumba is telling the press that the city is likely to prevail in the lawsuit, there’s not much evidence to back up his claims.
There is an easy step for Lumumba to take that would reduce violent crime while respecting the Second Amendment rights of residents and visitors to Jackson. The mayor says that many firearms seized over the past few weeks were in the hands of convicted felons. The city should work with the local District Attorney to refer the most serious of these cases to the U.S. Attorney for federal prosecution. That would send a real message to the gang members and drug dealers fueling the violence in Jackson’s high-crime neighborhoods, while also removing the most prolific offenders from the streets for as long as possible. If Lumumba is serious about making Jackson a safer place, his focus needs to be on fighting criminals, not waging a legal battle against the constitutional rights of Mississippians.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--DeWine's Gun Reform Attempts Languish Amid COVID-19

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine was feeling some heat last year .
Following the Dayton shooting , he was getting pressured to enact some kind of gun reform in the state .
Nevermind that the shooter was a habitual drug user who couldn ’ t legally purchase a firearm .
Nevermind that he also broke all those laws on murder .
No , anti-gunners wanted DeWine to do something .
So , he put together a plan .
It was a desperate bid to try and balance pro-gun concerns and anti-gun desires in a way that probably wasn ’ t going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it really didn ’ t .
Now , though , that effort has amounted to nothing because of a pesky little bug called COVID-19 .
Wait , really ?
I mean , it ’ s not like there ’ s nothing else going on right now that would warrant attention from lawmakers .
There ’ s no pandemic killing tens of thousands of people coupled with a hamstrung economy that could kill hundreds of thousands more or anything .
I mean , why wouldn ’ t they focus on a gun “ reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place ?
Which , of course , didn ’ t actually make anyone happy and everyone with even a lick of sense knows just how pointless such a measure would actually be .
DeWine , however , argues that the bill is reasonable and should be passed .
The problem is that background checks have never stopped the majority of armed criminals from getting a gun in the first place .
More than that , they never will .
Criminals don ’ t buy guns from places where they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they turn to the black market .
They purchase firearms from some guy on the street , someone who knows damn well that the person buying it can ’ t get one legally .
That ’ s OK , though , because the seller didn ’ t get it legally either .
Guns on the black market are generally stolen firearms , which means the last lawful owner usually did undergo a background check , but after it ’ s stolen , all bets are off .
That ’ s what anti-gunners continually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what DeWine has failed to comprehend .
Yes , Dayton was freaking awful .
There ’ s just no words to express how horrific it must have been for those who were there .
I won ’ t pretend there are and I won ’ t minimize their experiences .
But on the same token , Dayton was a black swan event .
While we can point to a number of these events , they ’ re scattered and random .
We see them because we ’ re looking at the macro level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll likely never experience another thing like that .
In a way , I take comfort in that fact since it means the odds of me being impacted by a mass shooting are even more in my favor .
It also means there is less of a chance of Ohio being rocked by something like this again .
It still exists , but there isn ’ t as great a probability .
And that ’ s without doing a thing , especially nothing that will infringe on the Second Amendment rights for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at as great a risk as some went to believe .

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine was feeling some heat last year. Following the Dayton shooting, he was getting pressured to enact some kind of gun reform in the state. Nevermind that the shooter was a habitual drug user who couldn’t legally purchase a firearm. Nevermind that he also broke all those laws on murder. No, anti-gunners wanted DeWine to do something.
So, he put together a plan. It was a desperate bid to try and balance pro-gun concerns and anti-gun desires in a way that probably wasn’t going to make anyone happy.
And, it really didn’t.
Now, though, that effort has amounted to nothing because of a pesky little bug called COVID-19.
Wait, really? I mean, it’s not like there’s nothing else going on right now that would warrant attention from lawmakers. There’s no pandemic killing tens of thousands of people coupled with a hamstrung economy that could kill hundreds of thousands more or anything.
I mean, why wouldn’t they focus on a gun “reform” effort that they thought was stupid in the first place?
DeWine’s plan would create a voluntary state-level background check process for gun sales between private sellers and expand the state’s existing “pink-slip” law to allow authorities to send people with drug or alcohol problems to a psychiatric hospital, where they cannot legally have access to guns. It would also increase Ohio’s penalty for illegally selling a firearm from a fourth-degree felony to a third-degree felony.
Which, of course, didn’t actually make anyone happy and everyone with even a lick of sense knows just how pointless such a measure would actually be. DeWine, however, argues that the bill is reasonable and should be passed.
The problem is that background checks have never stopped the majority of armed criminals from getting a gun in the first place. More than that, they never will. Criminals don’t buy guns from places where they’ll be denied a gun, so they turn to the black market. They purchase firearms from some guy on the street, someone who knows damn well that the person buying it can’t get one legally. That’s OK, though, because the seller didn’t get it legally either.
Guns on the black market are generally stolen firearms, which means the last lawful owner usually did undergo a background check, but after it’s stolen, all bets are off.
That’s what anti-gunners continually fail to comprehend and that’s what DeWine has failed to comprehend.
Yes, Dayton was freaking awful. There’s just no words to express how horrific it must have been for those who were there. I won’t pretend there are and I won’t minimize their experiences.
But on the same token, Dayton was a black swan event. While we can point to a number of these events, they’re scattered and random. We see them because we’re looking at the macro level, but for those individuals, they’ll likely never experience another thing like that. In a way, I take comfort in that fact since it means the odds of me being impacted by a mass shooting are even more in my favor.
It also means there is less of a chance of Ohio being rocked by something like this again. It still exists, but there isn’t as great a probability.
And that’s without doing a thing, especially nothing that will infringe on the Second Amendment rights for ordinary Americans, people aren’t at as great a risk as some went to believe.


bearingarms--2020-05-26--Louisiana Church Carry Bill Headed To Senate

A Louisiana bill that will allow individuals to carry guns in church without first getting permission has been a little controversial .
Unsurprisingly , anti-gunners strongly oppose the measure as they oppose anything that doesn ’ t make life difficult for law-abiding citizens who are no threat to anyone .
Oh no , they never register in their minds that the people who intend evil are generally not deterred by such laws .
The measure also has supporters .
In Louisiana , it seems the supporters outnumber the doomsayers .
At least enough to send the bill to the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to carry guns in churches cleared the House of Representatives in Baton Rouge .
It cleared despite strong opposition from faith-based groups .
The bill , backed by State Rep. Bryan Fontenot from Lafourche Parish , would repeal a law that allows churches , synagogues , mosques and other places of worship from banning concealed weapons on their property .
While faith-based groups may well oppose the measure , I find it rather hypocritical .
After all , they ’ re the direct beneficiary of the First Amendment , which protects them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet so many seem willing to jump on the bandwagon with anti-gunners to infringe on people ’ s Second Amendment rights .
Nothing about that seems remotely right .
Of course , it doesn ’ t appear that the measure changes any of the criminal trespass laws , and that ’ s important .
It still allows churches to tell people they know to be carrying to leave .
Failure to do so would result in a criminal charge .
That ’ s still on the table .
What ’ s really going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding citizens who carry can now carry in church and be available to act in case a madman comes in with the intent to slaughter the faithful .
Yes , gun owners can stop bad people .
We ’ ve seen it happen .
White Settlement , TX , for example .
As it stands , there were likely members of many congregations carrying anyway .
They just didn ’ t tell anyone they were doing it .
Don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell is still in effect , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now that the bill has passed the House , the Senate will take it up where it ’ s likely to pass as well .
It ’ s not until it gets to the governor ’ s desk that I expect to see an issue .
Governor John Bel Edwards is a Democrat , after all .
However , he bills himself as a pro-gun Democrat , so I can see him going either way on this one .
He may well sign the bill , but he may use the faith-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover for vetoing it .
That remains to be seen .
However , two years ago , he did sign another bill that loosened restrictions on carrying guns in churches .
As such , it ’ s not unreasonable to believe he may well do so again .
Unfortunately , it ’ s impossible to tell with Edwards being a Democrat , even a pro-gun one .
I ’ m inclined to believe he ’ ll sign this one , which will make churches much more secure throughout the state .
For better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which churches don ’ t allow guns and take advantage of that .
Removing the ability for churches to refuse to allow firearms means those bad people will never know .
That means they ’ ll likely seek out an easier target .

A Louisiana bill that will allow individuals to carry guns in church without first getting permission has been a little controversial. Unsurprisingly, anti-gunners strongly oppose the measure as they oppose anything that doesn’t make life difficult for law-abiding citizens who are no threat to anyone. Oh no, they never register in their minds that the people who intend evil are generally not deterred by such laws.
The measure also has supporters. In Louisiana, it seems the supporters outnumber the doomsayers. At least enough to send the bill to the Senate.
A controversial bill that would allow people to carry guns in churches cleared the House of Representatives in Baton Rouge. It cleared despite strong opposition from faith-based groups. The bill, backed by State Rep. Bryan Fontenot from Lafourche Parish, would repeal a law that allows churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship from banning concealed weapons on their property.
While faith-based groups may well oppose the measure, I find it rather hypocritical.
After all, they’re the direct beneficiary of the First Amendment, which protects them from all kinds of government intrusion, yet so many seem willing to jump on the bandwagon with anti-gunners to infringe on people’s Second Amendment rights. Nothing about that seems remotely right.
Of course, it doesn’t appear that the measure changes any of the criminal trespass laws, and that’s important. It still allows churches to tell people they know to be carrying to leave. Failure to do so would result in a criminal charge.
That’s still on the table.
What’s really going to happen, though, is that law-abiding citizens who carry can now carry in church and be available to act in case a madman comes in with the intent to slaughter the faithful. Yes, gun owners can stop bad people. We’ve seen it happen. White Settlement, TX, for example.
As it stands, there were likely members of many congregations carrying anyway. They just didn’t tell anyone they were doing it. Don’t ask, don’t tell is still in effect, it just covers entirely different issues these days.
Now that the bill has passed the House, the Senate will take it up where it’s likely to pass as well.
It’s not until it gets to the governor’s desk that I expect to see an issue. Governor John Bel Edwards is a Democrat, after all. However, he bills himself as a pro-gun Democrat, so I can see him going either way on this one.
He may well sign the bill, but he may use the faith-based groups’ opposition to this as political cover for vetoing it. That remains to be seen.
However, two years ago, he did sign another bill that loosened restrictions on carrying guns in churches. As such, it’s not unreasonable to believe he may well do so again.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to tell with Edwards being a Democrat, even a pro-gun one. I’m inclined to believe he’ll sign this one, which will make churches much more secure throughout the state. For better or worse, bad people can find which churches don’t allow guns and take advantage of that. Removing the ability for churches to refuse to allow firearms means those bad people will never know.
That means they’ll likely seek out an easier target.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Canadian Gun Group Files Lawsuit Challenging Trudeau Gun Grab

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s ban on commonly-owned firearms hasn ’ t been received well in many parts of the country .
The province of Saskatchewan announced on Wednesday that it will hire its own chief firearms officer in a rebuke to Trudeau , and the first lawsuit over the prime minister ’ s executive action has now been filed as well .
The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights argues in a new federal lawsuit that Trudeau ’ s Order in Council to ban thousands of makes and models of commonly owned firearms is unlawful , is asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the order .
Following the Order in Council , the RCMP began making amendments to the Firearms Reference Table ( “ FRT ” ) , changing the classification of hundreds of firearms to “ prohibited ” , thereby unilaterally writing law and creating criminals out of law-abiding Canadians .
Accordingly , the CCFR is asking the Court to declare that these purported “ bans by FRT ” are of no force or effect , both for similar reasons as applied to the regulation above , as well as the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unilaterally make laws reclassifying firearms in Canada and creating criminals out of Canadians .
This is especially troubling given that the RCMP aren ’ t even notifying the affected Canadians about these unilateral reclassifications .
Not only did Trudeau bypass Parliament by using an Order in Council to pursue his gun ban , he left it up to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to actually determine which firearms should be banned .
That way he can claim that he ’ s just leaving it up to the “ experts ” to decide what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because the firearms affected by the regulation and the “ bans by FRT ” are in fact reasonable for use in Canada for hunting and sporting purposes , the CCFR is asking the Court for a declaration of that , and also for a consequential declaration that all of these firearms are to be deemed to be classified as non-restricted for all purposes , and therefore may be enjoyed by Canadians for both hunting and sporting purposes .
In order to protect the interests of Canadians from irreparable harm in the interim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court to grant an injunction staying the effect of both the regulation and the “ ban by FRT ” , until these matters can be properly adjudicated .
I won ’ t even pretend to be an expert in Canadian law , so I have no idea what the prospects of success might be for the new lawsuit , but I ’ m glad to see that gun owners are taking the Trudeau administration to court even as many provinces struggle to figure out ways to push back against the new ban .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new chief firearms officer may be able to better “ articulate Saskatchewan ’ s concerns to the federal government , ” according to Christine Tell , the province ’ s Minister of Corrections and Policing .
The Saskatchewan government has openly opposed the ban on “ previously legal firearms , ” saying it ’ s unfair to “ law-abiding ” gun owners .
The province added it was not consulted on the ban and that it would rather criminals be targeted in the effort to stem gun violence .
“ Saskatchewan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms legislation will continue , ” Tell ’ s ministry said in an emailed statement Tuesday that went on to mention the move toward the new provincial CFO .
Trudeau still hasn ’ t explained how Canada ’ s compensated confiscation program is supposed to work , and given that it comes with a price tag , it ’ s highly unlikely that he ’ ll be able to avoid a vote in Parliament forever .
Critics have accused the prime minister of exploiting the recent active assailant attack in Nova Scotia as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trudeau has resisted calls for a federal investigation into the attack , including why the RCMP used social media instead of an automated alert system to inform residents of the attack , which lasted for about twelve hours .
Some victims and their families also want to know why the suspect in the attack never faced any real consequences for a series of domestic violence incidents stretching back for several years before the attack took place .
Sadly , Trudeau seems far more interested in taking guns from law-abiding Canadians than delivering answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nova Scotia attack .
Canada ’ s court system probably can ’ t compel Trudeau to launch and investigation , but it does have the power to put a stop to his unconscionable gun grab .

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ban on commonly-owned firearms hasn’t been received well in many parts of the country. The province of Saskatchewan announced on Wednesday that it will hire its own chief firearms officer in a rebuke to Trudeau, and the first lawsuit over the prime minister’s executive action has now been filed as well. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights argues in a new federal lawsuit that Trudeau’s Order in Council to ban thousands of makes and models of commonly owned firearms is unlawful, is asking Canada’s judicial system to strike down the order.
Following the Order in Council, the RCMP began making amendments to the Firearms Reference Table (“FRT”), changing the classification of hundreds of firearms to “prohibited”, thereby unilaterally writing law and creating criminals out of law-abiding Canadians. Accordingly, the CCFR is asking the Court to declare that these purported “bans by FRT” are of no force or effect, both for similar reasons as applied to the regulation above, as well as the fact that the RCMP simply have no legal power to unilaterally make laws reclassifying firearms in Canada and creating criminals out of Canadians. This is especially troubling given that the RCMP aren’t even notifying the affected Canadians about these unilateral reclassifications.
Not only did Trudeau bypass Parliament by using an Order in Council to pursue his gun ban, he left it up to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to actually determine which firearms should be banned. That way he can claim that he’s just leaving it up to the “experts” to decide what firearms Canadians should be allowed to own.
Because the firearms affected by the regulation and the “bans by FRT” are in fact reasonable for use in Canada for hunting and sporting purposes, the CCFR is asking the Court for a declaration of that, and also for a consequential declaration that all of these firearms are to be deemed to be classified as non-restricted for all purposes, and therefore may be enjoyed by Canadians for both hunting and sporting purposes. In order to protect the interests of Canadians from irreparable harm in the interim, the CCFR is also asking the Court to grant an injunction staying the effect of both the regulation and the “ban by FRT”, until these matters can be properly adjudicated.
I won’t even pretend to be an expert in Canadian law, so I have no idea what the prospects of success might be for the new lawsuit, but I’m glad to see that gun owners are taking the Trudeau administration to court even as many provinces struggle to figure out ways to push back against the new ban. In Saskatchewan, officials are hoping that a new chief firearms officer may be able to better “articulate Saskatchewan’s concerns to the federal government,” according to Christine Tell, the province’s Minister of Corrections and Policing.
The Saskatchewan government has openly opposed the ban on “previously legal firearms,” saying it’s unfair to “law-abiding” gun owners. The province added it was not consulted on the ban and that it would rather criminals be targeted in the effort to stem gun violence. “Saskatchewan’s opposition to changes made to federal firearms legislation will continue,” Tell’s ministry said in an emailed statement Tuesday that went on to mention the move toward the new provincial CFO.
Trudeau still hasn’t explained how Canada’s compensated confiscation program is supposed to work, and given that it comes with a price tag, it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be able to avoid a vote in Parliament forever. Critics have accused the prime minister of exploiting the recent active assailant attack in Nova Scotia as a pretext for the ban, and Trudeau has resisted calls for a federal investigation into the attack, including why the RCMP used social media instead of an automated alert system to inform residents of the attack, which lasted for about twelve hours. Some victims and their families also want to know why the suspect in the attack never faced any real consequences for a series of domestic violence incidents stretching back for several years before the attack took place.
Sadly, Trudeau seems far more interested in taking guns from law-abiding Canadians than delivering answers to the families of those killed in the Nova Scotia attack. Canada’s court system probably can’t compel Trudeau to launch and investigation, but it does have the power to put a stop to his unconscionable gun grab.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Moms Demand Action Push Anti-Gun Agenda Through Food Banks

Right now , a lot of people are hungry .
People have lost jobs and the grocery stores are still not stocked like they were before the pandemic .
It ’ s not a fun situation to be in for any of us .
Yet for millions of Americans , it ’ s worse .
They ’ re actually one of those poor , suffering souls .
However , as bad as that is , it ’ s an opportunity for anti-gun jihadists .
At least , that ’ s how Moms Demand Action in Arkansas looked at it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their anti-gun agenda through local food banks .
n the first week of April , a 14-year-old girl in Jonesboro , Arkansas , found her father ’ s rifle during a game of hide-and-seek .
The gun went off , killing her friend .
It was exactly the kind of tragic accident Rebekah Evans had worried about since the coronavirus crisis forced schools to close in her community .
Arkansas has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the United States , and the pandemic has driven millions of Americans to purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With kids cooped up at home , and looking for ways to entertain themselves , the conditions for tragedy were ripe .
Evans , who is the volunteer group leader in Jonesboro ’ s chapter of Moms Demand Action , a gun violence prevention advocacy group , was spurred to act .
She convened a Zoom meeting with a handful of other local activists to brainstorm about ways to distribute information about the importance of safely storing guns — especially if a child is around .
Recalling reports of a high demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called local food pantries and asked to distribute pamphlets from the Mom ’ s Demand Be Smart program , which promotes safe gun storage , alongside food and other emergency supplies .
“ It ’ s hard to know how to be helpful in our communities right now , so it was gratifying to do something concrete and something I hope will keep children safe in their homes , ” Evans said .
( Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety , which provides grants to The Trace through its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pantries have handed out more than 200 pamphlets and are asking for more .
Now , one might figure that pamphlets pushing gun safety are a good thing , right ?
Well , they would be…if Moms Demand Action actually knew anything about firearms , how to use one defensively , or much of anything else other than how to be deathly afraid of them .
You see , their “ Be Smart ” program advocates for people keeping guns in a state where they can not be used for home defense at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons and ammunition not just locked but to store them separately .
In other words , don ’ t just lock your gun up , lock it up in a state where it ’ s completely useless as another other than a paperweight or a poorly-designed club .
And really , Moms Demand Action wouldn ’ t see a problem with that .
After all , they don ’ t understand firearms as anything other than “ instruments of death ” or whatever .
They don ’ t understand the demands of personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just things you have for specific recreational occasions , and that ’ s at best .
So , in their minds , they don ’ t see a problem with expecting people to hear to sound of glass breaking in the middle of the night then get up and fumble with a lock as the adrenaline courses through their veins , then finally get a safe open only to have to fumble with ammunition or a magazine to load the weapon , then–in the case of a semi-automatic–to remember to rack the slide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the slowed Mofos on the freaking planet .
This is what they ’ re trying to cram down people ’ s throats .
Time and time again , I ’ ve argued that if these groups actually cared about real gun safety , they ’ d try to work with the NRA on that topic , not vilify them .
At least they could learn what so many gun owners need out of a safety program .
But , then they ’ d have to recognize us as real people .

Right now, a lot of people are hungry. People have lost jobs and the grocery stores are still not stocked like they were before the pandemic. It’s not a fun situation to be in for any of us.
Yet for millions of Americans, it’s worse. They’re actually one of those poor, suffering souls.
However, as bad as that is, it’s an opportunity for anti-gun jihadists. At least, that’s how Moms Demand Action in Arkansas looked at it. That’s why they started pushing their anti-gun agenda through local food banks.
n the first week of April, a 14-year-old girl in Jonesboro, Arkansas, found her father’s rifle during a game of hide-and-seek. The gun went off, killing her friend. It was exactly the kind of tragic accident Rebekah Evans had worried about since the coronavirus crisis forced schools to close in her community. Arkansas has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the United States, and the pandemic has driven millions of Americans to purchase weapons, often for the first time. With kids cooped up at home, and looking for ways to entertain themselves, the conditions for tragedy were ripe. Evans, who is the volunteer group leader in Jonesboro’s chapter of Moms Demand Action, a gun violence prevention advocacy group, was spurred to act. She convened a Zoom meeting with a handful of other local activists to brainstorm about ways to distribute information about the importance of safely storing guns — especially if a child is around. Recalling reports of a high demand for food in the area, they called local food pantries and asked to distribute pamphlets from the Mom’s Demand Be Smart program, which promotes safe gun storage, alongside food and other emergency supplies. “It’s hard to know how to be helpful in our communities right now, so it was gratifying to do something concrete and something I hope will keep children safe in their homes,” Evans said. (Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, which provides grants to The Trace through its nonpolitical arm.) Evans said food pantries have handed out more than 200 pamphlets and are asking for more.
Now, one might figure that pamphlets pushing gun safety are a good thing, right? Well, they would be…if Moms Demand Action actually knew anything about firearms, how to use one defensively, or much of anything else other than how to be deathly afraid of them.
You see, their “Be Smart” program advocates for people keeping guns in a state where they cannot be used for home defense at all. They tell people to start weapons and ammunition not just locked but to store them separately. In other words, don’t just lock your gun up, lock it up in a state where it’s completely useless as another other than a paperweight or a poorly-designed club.
And really, Moms Demand Action wouldn’t see a problem with that. After all, they don’t understand firearms as anything other than “instruments of death” or whatever. They don’t understand the demands of personal defense. To them, guns are just things you have for specific recreational occasions, and that’s at best.
So, in their minds, they don’t see a problem with expecting people to hear to sound of glass breaking in the middle of the night then get up and fumble with a lock as the adrenaline courses through their veins, then finally get a safe open only to have to fumble with ammunition or a magazine to load the weapon, then–in the case of a semi-automatic–to remember to rack the slide, all while hoping these intruders are the slowed Mofos on the freaking planet.
This is what they’re trying to cram down people’s throats.
Time and time again, I’ve argued that if these groups actually cared about real gun safety, they’d try to work with the NRA on that topic, not vilify them. At least they could learn what so many gun owners need out of a safety program.
But, then they’d have to recognize us as real people.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--TN Dem Senate Candidate Claims To Be Pro-Gun, But Is He?

In the South , even a lot of our Democrats like to argue they ’ re pro-gun .
After all , guns are such a part of our life down here that it ’ s impossible to be elected to office without at least paying lip service to gun rights .
In Tennessee , the Senate race is going and the Democrat running for the seat is quite adamant that he ’ s pro-gun .
No , seriously , he is .
The problem is , I don ’ t think he knows just what that actually means .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mackler had to say about guns .
Mackler brought up the trade war , rural hospital closures and the opioid crisis more than once , saying they require problem solving based on evidence .
A gun owner , Mackler said that on the issue of firearms he would be “ laser-focused ” on trying to help pass stricter background check requirements .
“ I know we can protect the Second Amendment and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – domestic abusers , the dangerously mentally ill , people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 86 percent of Tennesseans who believe we need to expand background checks.
” Moving outside of that focus to include banning certain types of weapons , Mackler said , would play into the National Rifle Association ’ s “ well worn playbook ” by adding objectives with less widespread backing .
So , Mackler has no opposition to banning certain types of weapons on principle , just from a strategic standpoint .
Perhaps more alarmingly though–I won ’ t lose too much sleep worrying about why someone opposes a category ban , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s insistence on “ stricter background check requirements.
” By now , we all know that this translates to “ universal background checks.
” Mackler wants to get in the way of law-abiding citizens and their ability to do what they wish with their firearms .
As we ’ ve seen , universal background check requirements almost always translate into something that is either completely unenforceable or else so draconian that people can ’ t even loan a firearm to another party who might be in need for a short period of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds of measures and has the gall to argue that doing so would still be protecting the Second Amendment .
That ’ s like protecting someone from a headache by performing a cranial amputation .
Of course , there is good news .
In particular , the fact that Mackler is polling so far behind his Republican opponent , Bill Hagerty , that there seems little chance of him making much of an impact in the race .
It ’ s also worth noting that Tennessee isn ’ t one of the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be at risk for flipping .
In other words , the only voice Mackler is going to have is as a voter following the election .
That ’ s a saving grace , not just for Tennessee , but for the rest of us as well .
With some luck , there will be a lot of other anti-gun candidates in the same position when all else is said and done .

In the South, even a lot of our Democrats like to argue they’re pro-gun. After all, guns are such a part of our life down here that it’s impossible to be elected to office without at least paying lip service to gun rights.
In Tennessee, the Senate race is going and the Democrat running for the seat is quite adamant that he’s pro-gun.
No, seriously, he is. The problem is, I don’t think he knows just what that actually means. After all, check out what candidate James Mackler had to say about guns.
Mackler brought up the trade war, rural hospital closures and the opioid crisis more than once, saying they require problem solving based on evidence. A gun owner, Mackler said that on the issue of firearms he would be “laser-focused” on trying to help pass stricter background check requirements. “I know we can protect the Second Amendment and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, people on the terrorism watch list. I stand with 86 percent of Tennesseans who believe we need to expand background checks.” Moving outside of that focus to include banning certain types of weapons, Mackler said, would play into the National Rifle Association’s “well worn playbook” by adding objectives with less widespread backing.
So, Mackler has no opposition to banning certain types of weapons on principle, just from a strategic standpoint.
Sure…that sounds like someone who’s pro-gun.
Perhaps more alarmingly though–I won’t lose too much sleep worrying about why someone opposes a category ban, so long as they oppose it–is Mackler’s insistence on “stricter background check requirements.”
By now, we all know that this translates to “universal background checks.” Mackler wants to get in the way of law-abiding citizens and their ability to do what they wish with their firearms.
As we’ve seen, universal background check requirements almost always translate into something that is either completely unenforceable or else so draconian that people can’t even loan a firearm to another party who might be in need for a short period of time. And yet, Mackler backs these kinds of measures and has the gall to argue that doing so would still be protecting the Second Amendment.
That’s like protecting someone from a headache by performing a cranial amputation.
Of course, there is good news. In particular, the fact that Mackler is polling so far behind his Republican opponent, Bill Hagerty, that there seems little chance of him making much of an impact in the race. It’s also worth noting that Tennessee isn’t one of the states I wrote about earlier today that may be at risk for flipping.
In other words, the only voice Mackler is going to have is as a voter following the election. That’s a saving grace, not just for Tennessee, but for the rest of us as well. With some luck, there will be a lot of other anti-gun candidates in the same position when all else is said and done.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Virginia GOP Weighing Lawsuit Over Northam Mask Mandate

Virginia ’ s House Minority Leader , Del .
C. Todd Gilbert ( R-Shenandoah ) doesn ’ t want to get into specifics , but says that attorneys are looking at Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s new mask mandate and weighing the possibility of litigation over the measure , which is set to take effect on Friday .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I had the chance to ask Gilbert about Northam ’ s mask mandate , the upcoming gun control laws that are set to take effect in the state on July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state that saw a stunning upset in the college town of Staunton , where every Democrat incumbent was sent packing in favor of more conservative and pro-Second Amendment candidates .
On the mask mandate , Gilbert says the governor made a mistake by trying to require masks be worn , rather than encouraging the practice .
Gilbert also says it ’ s completely unclear at this point how Northam thinks his order will be enforced .
During a press conference on Tuesday , the governor said that the state health department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he wants to put people in jail over violations .
“ This is about people ’ s health , it ’ s not about locking people up in jail and giving them large fines , ” Northam said .
“ If we were to enforce this through law enforcement , the only authority we have at this time is through a Class 1 misdemeanor , which actually can carry jail time and a large fine .
And that ’ s not what we ’ re trying to do here.
” Yet when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order was posted online a few hours later , it turned out that ’ s exactly what the governor is trying to do .
The Virginia Department of Health shall have authority to enforce this Order .
Any willful violation or refusal , failure , or neglect to comply with this Order , issued pursuant to § 32.1-13 of the Code of Virginia , is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to § 32.1-27 of the Code of Virginia .
The State Health Commissioner may also seek injunctive relief in circuit court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to § 32.1-27 of the Code of Virginia .
No minor shall be subject to criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering .
Northam either has no idea what he ’ s talking about or was incredibly duplicitous in his answer to reporters and the people of Virginia .
The state health department may be the body that the governor ’ s tasked with enforcing his pointless mask mandate , but the punishment is still a criminal violation that carries a possible jail sentence and a large fine .
Gilbert says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give Northam the benefit of the doubt in his early handling of the coronavirus , in part because of his background as a physician .
However , the House Minority Leader continued , Northam has lost whatever moral authority he once possessed , especially after wandering around the state ’ s beaches over Memorial Day weekend posing for selfies and getting up close and personal with strangers while his mask was back in his car .
The Republican leader adds that Northam ’ s mask mandate will only turn the issue into another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and he ’ s absolutely right .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Del .
Todd Gilbert in the video window above , and stick around for more news , including a self-defense shooting involving a concealed carry holder in Washington , D.C. , a violent criminal let loose from jail over coronavirus concerns who ’ s now accused of vehicular homicide , and an Indiana barber in the right place at the right time to help save a customer ’ s life .

Virginia’s House Minority Leader, Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) doesn’t want to get into specifics, but says that attorneys are looking at Gov. Ralph Northam’s new mask mandate and weighing the possibility of litigation over the measure, which is set to take effect on Friday.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I had the chance to ask Gilbert about Northam’s mask mandate, the upcoming gun control laws that are set to take effect in the state on July 1st, and the recent local elections in the state that saw a stunning upset in the college town of Staunton, where every Democrat incumbent was sent packing in favor of more conservative and pro-Second Amendment candidates.
On the mask mandate, Gilbert says the governor made a mistake by trying to require masks be worn, rather than encouraging the practice. Gilbert also says it’s completely unclear at this point how Northam thinks his order will be enforced. During a press conference on Tuesday, the governor said that the state health department would enforce the measure, and denied that he wants to put people in jail over violations.
“This is about people’s health, it’s not about locking people up in jail and giving them large fines,” Northam said. “If we were to enforce this through law enforcement, the only authority we have at this time is through a Class 1 misdemeanor, which actually can carry jail time and a large fine. And that’s not what we’re trying to do here.”
Yet when the text of the governor’s order was posted online a few hours later, it turned out that’s exactly what the governor is trying to do.
The Virginia Department of Health shall have authority to enforce this Order. Any willful violation or refusal, failure, or neglect to comply with this Order, issued pursuant to § 32.1-13 of the Code of Virginia, is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to § 32.1-27 of the Code of Virginia. The State Health Commissioner may also seek injunctive relief in circuit court for violation of this Order, pursuant to § 32.1-27 of the Code of Virginia. No minor shall be subject to criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.
Northam either has no idea what he’s talking about or was incredibly duplicitous in his answer to reporters and the people of Virginia. The state health department may be the body that the governor’s tasked with enforcing his pointless mask mandate, but the punishment is still a criminal violation that carries a possible jail sentence and a large fine.
Gilbert says that he and other Republicans wanted to give Northam the benefit of the doubt in his early handling of the coronavirus, in part because of his background as a physician. However, the House Minority Leader continued, Northam has lost whatever moral authority he once possessed, especially after wandering around the state’s beaches over Memorial Day weekend posing for selfies and getting up close and personal with strangers while his mask was back in his car. The Republican leader adds that Northam’s mask mandate will only turn the issue into another political and culture war fight in the state, and he’s absolutely right.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Del. Todd Gilbert in the video window above, and stick around for more news, including a self-defense shooting involving a concealed carry holder in Washington, D.C., a violent criminal let loose from jail over coronavirus concerns who’s now accused of vehicular homicide, and an Indiana barber in the right place at the right time to help save a customer’s life.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--What The Hill's List Of Senate Seats That Might Flip Means For Guns

Right now , there hasn ’ t been nearly as much election coverage as one might expect in the lead up to a presidential election year .
That ’ s because COVID-19 has killed a lot of campaigning efforts , particularly the more spontaneous moments that tell you what a candidate might really think on various issues , such as guns and gun control .
However , campaigns do actually continue , and as it stands right now , there are some incumbents who are fighting for their political life .
Over at The Hill , they took a look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to flip in November .
I ’ m not about to list them because , well , then I ’ d have to lift the entire article .
However , the important takeaway is that they list eight Republicans and two Democrats who are among those most likely to find themselves out of office .
Yes , it could be wishful thinking on their part , but it ’ s safer from our perspective to assume they have at least some kind of a valid point .
Now , one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open seat , so there ’ s no incumbent to defend .
Another two are incumbents by appointment , such as Arizona ’ s Martha McSally and Georgia ’ s Kelly Loeffler .
McSally took office following the death of Sen. John McCain and Loeffler was appointed to finish out the term of retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson .
The problem is that Republicans only hold a three-seat edge over the Democrats .
While the Dems only have 45 seats , the two independents in the chamber caucus with the Democrats .
As such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant ramifications on the Second Amendment .
First , let ’ s assume a scenario where Democrats just take the Senate , but lose the House and fail to take the White House .
What could possibly happen then ?
Well , to start with , let ’ s remember the role federal judges play in defending the Second Amendment .
More importantly , remember the role federal judges have had in systematically dismantling the protections our Founding Fathers intended .
Yet every federal judge has to go through the confirmation process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully block judges who would help restore our rights and even potentially force President Trump to appoint judges who would back further encroachment .
It ’ s not just that , either .
As it stands , the ATF is without a director .
That ’ s a position that also has to go through a confirmation process .
Unless one is appointed and confirmed prior to any flip , a Democrat-controlled Senate would be responsible for confirming anyone to the office responsible for many of our firearm regulations .
Do you really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And remember , that ’ s with them only having one chamber .
If they have the House , they can continue to try and hammer through gun control even more forcefully than they have been .
They can continue to try and cram their dream list of infringements down our throats and we would be powerless legislatively to do much of anything .
If they have the White House as well , it ’ s game over .
Yet with just the Senate , Democrats can cause serious repercussions on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his , though is quite simple .
Basically , get out there and fight to not just hold ground , but take more of it .
With the Senate , our gun rights have been preserved in the wake of an unprecedented assault by Nancy Pelosi and her fellow travelers .
Without it , we ’ ll likely find ourselves screwed .
It ’ s up to you to not let that happen .

Right now, there hasn’t been nearly as much election coverage as one might expect in the lead up to a presidential election year. That’s because COVID-19 has killed a lot of campaigning efforts, particularly the more spontaneous moments that tell you what a candidate might really think on various issues, such as guns and gun control.
However, campaigns do actually continue, and as it stands right now, there are some incumbents who are fighting for their political life.
Over at The Hill, they took a look and listed the 10 Senate seats most likely to flip in November.
I’m not about to list them because, well, then I’d have to lift the entire article. However, the important takeaway is that they list eight Republicans and two Democrats who are among those most likely to find themselves out of office. Yes, it could be wishful thinking on their part, but it’s safer from our perspective to assume they have at least some kind of a valid point.
Now, one of those seats (Kansas) is actually an open seat, so there’s no incumbent to defend. Another two are incumbents by appointment, such as Arizona’s Martha McSally and Georgia’s Kelly Loeffler. McSally took office following the death of Sen. John McCain and Loeffler was appointed to finish out the term of retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson.
The problem is that Republicans only hold a three-seat edge over the Democrats. While the Dems only have 45 seats, the two independents in the chamber caucus with the Democrats.
As such, just four seats flipping could have significant ramifications on the Second Amendment.
First, let’s assume a scenario where Democrats just take the Senate, but lose the House and fail to take the White House. What could possibly happen then?
Well, to start with, let’s remember the role federal judges play in defending the Second Amendment. More importantly, remember the role federal judges have had in systematically dismantling the protections our Founding Fathers intended. Yet every federal judge has to go through the confirmation process. A Democrat-controlled Senate would be able to successfully block judges who would help restore our rights and even potentially force President Trump to appoint judges who would back further encroachment.
It’s not just that, either. As it stands, the ATF is without a director. That’s a position that also has to go through a confirmation process. Unless one is appointed and confirmed prior to any flip, a Democrat-controlled Senate would be responsible for confirming anyone to the office responsible for many of our firearm regulations.
Do you really want the Democrats having that much power?
And remember, that’s with them only having one chamber. If they have the House, they can continue to try and hammer through gun control even more forcefully than they have been. They can continue to try and cram their dream list of infringements down our throats and we would be powerless legislatively to do much of anything.
If they have the White House as well, it’s game over.
Yet with just the Senate, Democrats can cause serious repercussions on our Second Amendment rights. The takeaway from his, though is quite simple. Basically, get out there and fight to not just hold ground, but take more of it. With the Senate, our gun rights have been preserved in the wake of an unprecedented assault by Nancy Pelosi and her fellow travelers.
Without it, we’ll likely find ourselves screwed. It’s up to you to not let that happen.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Physician, Defend Thyself: Healthcare Workers Among First Time Gun Buyers

We know that gun sales in the United States have been sky-high over the past couple of months , and anecdotally gun stores are reporting a huge number of first-time gun buyers .
Who are these first-timers ?
At the Washington Free Beacon , reporter Stephen Gutowski has profiled a half-dozen new gun owners , including IT professional Scott Kane , who lives in the Bay area of California .
Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman ’ s Warehouse in Milpitas , Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period was complete .
No end date was given for the order , but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect .
Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse .
Unable to do business , the store went belly-up in May .
Kane had no way to pick up his gun .
He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county .
He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed a background check and paid for a gun .
“ I ’ m seriously thinking of running for office or something , ” Kane said .
“ This state ’ s gun laws are insane.
” Kane is one of many new gun owners who don ’ t exactly fit the stereotype , and that ’ s a great thing .
The more people exercising their right to keep and bear arms , the stronger it becomes , and new gun owners can be some of our most outspoken advocates .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin Cummings says he too has seen a lot of new gun owners , and among them , there ’ ve been a surprising number of healthcare workers .
“ Because they ’ re going into these hospitals now that are closed to the public , you don ’ t have the normal traffic going in and out like you had before , ” says Kevin Cummins , President and chief instructor at Advantage Firearms Education and Training .
“ So when they ’ re leaving , sometimes at night , sometimes during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a somewhat vacant parking garage where someone could be lurking and they ’ ve got fears of that.
” After reading the piece at KMOX , I reached out to Rob Province , St. Louis-area healthcare worker and Second Amendment supporter , to ask him if he ’ s seen any increased interest in firearms among coworkers .
Not only did he agree with Cummings , but he said he first noticed an increased interest a couple of years ago .
The coronavirus pandemic has only been the latest peak , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in new gun owners among the doctors , nurses , and other frontline healthcare workers that he knows .
As for what ’ s driving the interest , Province says in a word : “ Instability.
” It ’ s just the unknown , and I think some of it has to do with people seeing that police aren ’ t going to protect you .
The flooding in Louisiana under Bush , you had the flooding in Houston .
I think people understand that when the sh*t hits the fan you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there ’ s a sense that COVID has changed the way the world works .
I think this has taught people a very valuable life lesson to be prepared .
Whether you work in IT or as an RN , you probably are feeling a little unsettled at the moment .
Violent crime may be going up in your city , even before lockdown restrictions started going away , and the unemployment rate is probably higher than you ’ ve ever seen it in your lifetime .
Does that mean that society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s time to hunker down in your bunker ?
No , and that ’ s not what most of these first-time gun owners are doing .
They ’ re simply taking a commonsense and reasonable position : I choose to be responsible for my own protection .
I know some gun control advocates try to push the idea that there ’ s no such thing as a pro-Second Amendment doctor or nurse , but the truth is that plenty of healthcare workers would rather buy guns than ban them , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ER nurses .
That number appears to be growing by the day , and that ’ s a very good thing for our right to keep and bear arms .
By the way , if you happen to be one of those healthcare workers who ’ s recently purchased a firearm , I encourage you to check out Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership ; a group of pro-Second Amendment physicians engaged in outreach and advocacy that does some fantastic work and could always use new recruits .

We know that gun sales in the United States have been sky-high over the past couple of months, and anecdotally gun stores are reporting a huge number of first-time gun buyers. Who are these first-timers? At the Washington Free Beacon, reporter Stephen Gutowski has profiled a half-dozen new gun owners, including IT professional Scott Kane, who lives in the Bay area of California.
Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman’s Warehouse in Milpitas, Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane’s 10-day waiting period was complete. No end date was given for the order, but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect. Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse. Unable to do business, the store went belly-up in May. Kane had no way to pick up his gun. He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county. He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29, 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun. “I’m seriously thinking of running for office or something,” Kane said. “This state’s gun laws are insane.”
Kane is one of many new gun owners who don’t exactly fit the stereotype, and that’s a great thing. The more people exercising their right to keep and bear arms, the stronger it becomes, and new gun owners can be some of our most outspoken advocates.
In St. Louis, Missouri, firearms instructor Kevin Cummings says he too has seen a lot of new gun owners, and among them, there’ve been a surprising number of healthcare workers.
“Because they’re going into these hospitals now that are closed to the public, you don’t have the normal traffic going in and out like you had before,” says Kevin Cummins, President and chief instructor at Advantage Firearms Education and Training. “So when they’re leaving, sometimes at night, sometimes during the day, they’re going into a somewhat vacant parking garage where someone could be lurking and they’ve got fears of that.”
After reading the piece at KMOX, I reached out to Rob Province, St. Louis-area healthcare worker and Second Amendment supporter, to ask him if he’s seen any increased interest in firearms among coworkers. Not only did he agree with Cummings, but he said he first noticed an increased interest a couple of years ago. The coronavirus pandemic has only been the latest peak, according to Province, in a steady uptick in new gun owners among the doctors, nurses, and other frontline healthcare workers that he knows.
As for what’s driving the interest, Province says in a word: “Instability.”
It’s just the unknown, and I think some of it has to do with people seeing that police aren’t going to protect you. The flooding in Louisiana under Bush, you had the flooding in Houston. I think people understand that when the sh*t hits the fan you have to be able to protect yourself. And there’s a sense that COVID has changed the way the world works. I think this has taught people a very valuable life lesson to be prepared.
Whether you work in IT or as an RN, you probably are feeling a little unsettled at the moment. Violent crime may be going up in your city, even before lockdown restrictions started going away, and the unemployment rate is probably higher than you’ve ever seen it in your lifetime. Does that mean that society is on the verge of collapse and it’s time to hunker down in your bunker? No, and that’s not what most of these first-time gun owners are doing. They’re simply taking a commonsense and reasonable position: I choose to be responsible for my own protection.
I know some gun control advocates try to push the idea that there’s no such thing as a pro-Second Amendment doctor or nurse, but the truth is that plenty of healthcare workers would rather buy guns than ban them, including those who work as trauma surgeons and ER nurses. That number appears to be growing by the day, and that’s a very good thing for our right to keep and bear arms.
By the way, if you happen to be one of those healthcare workers who’s recently purchased a firearm, I encourage you to check out Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership; a group of pro-Second Amendment physicians engaged in outreach and advocacy that does some fantastic work and could always use new recruits.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Stop Equating Opposition To Gun Control With Being Pro-Murder

One thing I generally try to do , though I ’ m not always successful , is to try and at least understand where my opposition is coming from .
On the subject of guns , I understand that most gun control activists really do believe that gun control will reduce violence somehow .
I even understand the mechanisms they think it will put into effect to make that happen .
I just get more than a little annoyed that the opposition never tries to return the favor .
Looking at the news this morning , I came across this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s The Guardian , which I don ’ t expect to provide quality journalism , much less opinion , but in a story bashing President Trump ’ s response to the coronavirus , there ’ s a paragraph that absolutely infuriated me .
“ The coronavirus scenario I can ’ t stop thinking about is the one where we simply get used to all the dying , ” the New York Times columnist Charlie Warzel wrote earlier this month .
Just as America has grown resigned to school shootings and preventable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks as if it is becoming numb to Covid-19 deaths .
Just as the US has prioritised the rallying call of “ freedom ” over common sense gun control , it looks set to prioritise “ freedom ” over public health .
Looking at images from the crowded pool parties in Missouri over the weekend , looking at Trump ’ s calls for schools to reopen “ ASAP ” , it seems as if that is exactly what ’ s happening .
But here ’ s the thing the US might soon find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : it doesn ’ t travel well .
You see , this entire paragraph–this entire mode of “ thinking , ” actually–is predicated on the idea that gun control is a definitive good .
You see , the opposition to gun control is only about “ freedom , ” complete with scare quotes , and nothing at all about the idea that gun control does .
Not .
Work .
That argument is completely ignored , glossed over so that they don ’ t have to address the substantive arguments against it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to address the fact that criminals obtain guns on the black market or that guns are used more often to defend human life than to take it by an order of magnitude .
Instead , they just hear what they want to hear .
When someone pro-gun shares a meme that answers the question of how many have to die before they support gun control with “ Everyone , ” it ’ s because they don ’ t see gun control as accomplishing anything .
It ’ s not that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s that they know many of those people are going to die regardless , but many others will die because of gun control .
Yet those arguments are never heard , never listened to by so many anti-gun op-ed writers who instead prefer to debate the straw versions of us that screech in their heads .
If they actually listened to our arguments , addressed the substantive nature of our claims , they might find they ’ re not on morally stable soil as they like to believe .

One thing I generally try to do, though I’m not always successful, is to try and at least understand where my opposition is coming from. On the subject of guns, I understand that most gun control activists really do believe that gun control will reduce violence somehow. I even understand the mechanisms they think it will put into effect to make that happen.
I just get more than a little annoyed that the opposition never tries to return the favor.
Looking at the news this morning, I came across this story from The Guardian. Now, it’s The Guardian, which I don’t expect to provide quality journalism, much less opinion, but in a story bashing President Trump’s response to the coronavirus, there’s a paragraph that absolutely infuriated me.
“The coronavirus scenario I can’t stop thinking about is the one where we simply get used to all the dying,” the New York Times columnist Charlie Warzel wrote earlier this month. Just as America has grown resigned to school shootings and preventable gun violence, he suggests, it looks as if it is becoming numb to Covid-19 deaths. Just as the US has prioritised the rallying call of “freedom” over common sense gun control, it looks set to prioritise “freedom” over public health. Looking at images from the crowded pool parties in Missouri over the weekend, looking at Trump’s calls for schools to reopen “ASAP”, it seems as if that is exactly what’s happening. But here’s the thing the US might soon find out about its highly individualistic freedom fetish: it doesn’t travel well.
Holy crap, that’s rich.
You see, this entire paragraph–this entire mode of “thinking,” actually–is predicated on the idea that gun control is a definitive good. You see, the opposition to gun control is only about “freedom,” complete with scare quotes, and nothing at all about the idea that gun control does. Not. Work.
That argument is completely ignored, glossed over so that they don’t have to address the substantive arguments against it. This way, anti-gun zealots don’t have to address the fact that criminals obtain guns on the black market or that guns are used more often to defend human life than to take it by an order of magnitude.
Instead, they just hear what they want to hear.
When someone pro-gun shares a meme that answers the question of how many have to die before they support gun control with “Everyone,” it’s because they don’t see gun control as accomplishing anything. It’s not that they’re uncaring of human life, it’s that they know many of those people are going to die regardless, but many others will die because of gun control.
Yet those arguments are never heard, never listened to by so many anti-gun op-ed writers who instead prefer to debate the straw versions of us that screech in their heads. If they actually listened to our arguments, addressed the substantive nature of our claims, they might find they’re not on morally stable soil as they like to believe.
Heaven forbid.


bearingarms--2020-05-27--WaPo Editors Desperately Argue For SCOTUS To Ignore 2A Cases

We ’ ve known for a while now that gun control advocates are terrified about the prospect of the Supreme Court getting ahold of another case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms .
That ’ s why New York City changed a gun transportation law in a successful attempt to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny , and it ’ s why gun control advocates pleaded with lawmakers in Washington , D.C. , and Illinois not to appeal adverse rulings in cases dealing with the right to carry in recent years .
Anti-gun advocates know that given the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are good that gun owners would get another legal victory , and that could pose a crippling blow to the gun prohibition movement in the United States .
Of course , gun control advocates don ’ t like to admit that they ’ re terrified that the Supreme Court , or at least five of the justices , could look at the Second Amendment and determine that it means what it says : the people have a right to both keep and bear arms , and that right shall not be infringed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and invent arguments out of thin air , as the editorial board of the Washington Post has done with their editorial urging the Supreme Court to reject every Second Amendment-related case that it ’ s currently considering in conference .
The justices will decide , perhaps as soon as Thursday , whether to hear a handful of gun cases that have emerged from various appellate courts .
One is a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to have a permit to carry firearms in public , unless they are going hunting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another concerns a California law that requires guns sold in the state to come with safety features to , for example , prevent accidental discharge .
Yet another is a dispute over a Massachusetts ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines .
Each of these laws is modest and carefully tailored to respect the Second Amendment as the court interpreted it a decade ago .
While highly favorable to pro-gun interests , the court ’ s decision in its landmark 2008 gun case , District of Columbia v. Heller , declared that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not unlimited , ” and it does not guarantee that people can “ keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
” If these laws were “ narrowly tailored , ” the Court wouldn ’ t be considering them at all .
In fact , the cases under consideration for review by SCOTUS deals with some pretty broad issues , like whether or not states can require applicants for a concealed carry license to show “ good cause ” or a “ justifiable need , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold rifle in the United States , and whether a state can impose a mandate on firearm manufacturers that is impossible to meet , resulting in a piecemeal gun ban .
The Washington Post editorial board claims that none of these laws are really controversial , and therefore there ’ s no need for the Court to weigh in .
Certainly on the issue of the right to carry , there ’ s a split in the circuit courts , which the Washington Post completely ignores .
The D.C .
Circuit Court of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the District ’ s requirement that concealed carry applicants demonstrate a good reason to carry a gun ( with “ it ’ s my right ” not considered a valid reason ) back in 2017 , but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Maryland ’ s good cause requirement .
That alone is enough to dismiss the WaPo ‘ s claims that there ’ s no reason for the Supreme Court to hear any of the cases it ’ s currently considering .
The paper ’ s editors end their piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now more conservative than it was when the Heller case was decided , and bizarrely assert that if the Court were to accept a Second Amendment case now , it would be a “ naked power play ” that “ would only imperil the court ’ s fragile credibility.
” Give me a break .
The simple truth is that the Washington Post editors know that there is indeed a split among the circuits on the right to carry , but they can ’ t tell their readers about the split because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the Post ‘ s editors had the stones to be honest with their subscribers , they would ’ ve written a piece called “ We Don ’ t Want SCOTUS To Take a Gun Case Because We ’ re Afraid Gun Control Advocates Will Lose Again .
”

We’ve known for a while now that gun control advocates are terrified about the prospect of the Supreme Court getting ahold of another case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. That’s why New York City changed a gun transportation law in a successful attempt to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny, and it’s why gun control advocates pleaded with lawmakers in Washington, D.C., and Illinois not to appeal adverse rulings in cases dealing with the right to carry in recent years. Anti-gun advocates know that given the current makeup of the court, the chances are good that gun owners would get another legal victory, and that could pose a crippling blow to the gun prohibition movement in the United States.
Of course, gun control advocates don’t like to admit that they’re terrified that the Supreme Court, or at least five of the justices, could look at the Second Amendment and determine that it means what it says: the people have a right to both keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Instead, they’ll simply rewrite history and invent arguments out of thin air, as the editorial board of the Washington Post has done with their editorial urging the Supreme Court to reject every Second Amendment-related case that it’s currently considering in conference.
The justices will decide, perhaps as soon as Thursday, whether to hear a handful of gun cases that have emerged from various appellate courts. One is a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to have a permit to carry firearms in public, unless they are going hunting or engaging in other similar activities. Another concerns a California law that requires guns sold in the state to come with safety features to, for example, prevent accidental discharge. Yet another is a dispute over a Massachusetts ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. Each of these laws is modest and carefully tailored to respect the Second Amendment as the court interpreted it a decade ago. While highly favorable to pro-gun interests, the court’s decision in its landmark 2008 gun case, District of Columbia v. Heller, declared that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and it does not guarantee that people can “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
If these laws were “narrowly tailored,” the Court wouldn’t be considering them at all. In fact, the cases under consideration for review by SCOTUS deals with some pretty broad issues, like whether or not states can require applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good cause” or a “justifiable need,” whether states can ban the most commonly sold rifle in the United States, and whether a state can impose a mandate on firearm manufacturers that is impossible to meet, resulting in a piecemeal gun ban.
The Washington Post editorial board claims that none of these laws are really controversial, and therefore there’s no need for the Court to weigh in.
Since Heller, there has been virtually no disagreement among lower courts about how to apply these principles. Appeals courts have established a working consensus on how to evaluate gun measures, carefully following the Supreme Court’s guidance. When there is no disagreement among circuit courts, the Supreme Court typically declines to step in.
Certainly on the issue of the right to carry, there’s a split in the circuit courts, which the Washington Post completely ignores. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, threw out the District’s requirement that concealed carry applicants demonstrate a good reason to carry a gun (with “it’s my right” not considered a valid reason) back in 2017, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Maryland’s good cause requirement. That alone is enough to dismiss the WaPo‘s claims that there’s no reason for the Supreme Court to hear any of the cases it’s currently considering.
The paper’s editors end their piece by stating-without any evidence- that the court is now more conservative than it was when the Heller case was decided, and bizarrely assert that if the Court were to accept a Second Amendment case now, it would be a “naked power play” that “would only imperil the court’s fragile credibility.” Give me a break. The simple truth is that the Washington Post editors know that there is indeed a split among the circuits on the right to carry, but they can’t tell their readers about the split because it completely undercuts their own strawman argument. If the Post‘s editors had the stones to be honest with their subscribers, they would’ve written a piece called “We Don’t Want SCOTUS To Take a Gun Case Because We’re Afraid Gun Control Advocates Will Lose Again.”


bearingarms--2020-05-27--Despite Lockdown, Chicago Has Deadliest Memorial Day In 5 Years

Well , let me rephrase that .
Parts of Chicago aren ’ t safe places .
Much of the Windy City is just as safe as pretty much anywhere else .
Millions walk down those streets every day and are never witness to violence and lawlessness , despite what we tend to see in the news .
That ’ s because much of that lawlessness is confined to specific neighborhoods , and those are places most people don ’ t really go .
But people don ’ t look at violence as a neighborhood issue .
They look at it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at it as a community issue .
After all , reports aren ’ t generated about violence in specific neighborhoods , but in particular cities , and in that regard , Chicago sure looks like it ’ s not a very safe place .
Especially after Memorial Day weekend , which was so deadly the new police commissioner had to speak out about it .
In his first press conference confronting the grim realities of Chicago gun violence , new Police Superintendent David Brown promised some familiar-sounding solutions on Tuesday , the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years .
Ten people were killed and at least 39 people wounded in shootings over the three-day weekend , according to police .
Brown called the violence “ alarming , and “ unacceptable ” and lamented that the statewide stay-at-home order , in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic , did not seem to impact the gunshots that echoed in historically high-crime neighborhoods .
“ The stay-at-home order did little to prevent violence , particularly in the parts of the West and South side [ s ] , ” Brown said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival gang factions , as well as clashes involving the sale of illegal drugs.
” What , Brown thought that the very people who routinely ignore laws regarding shooting people and buying guns despite the copious gun control laws that infect the state of Illinois would follow a simple stay-at-home order ?
At some point , people have to come to understand that the criminals that infest our inner cities don ’ t respect the rule of law .
They respect force .
They respect strength .
They respect violence .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
Keep in mind that these are generally younger people .
That ’ s a demographic that ’ s notorious for acting like they believe they ’ re immortal .
Does anyone really think they ’ re going to be concerned about a virus that doesn ’ t actually have that high of a mortality rate , particularly for young , healthy people ?
Which means they ’ re going to do the kind of thing they normally would .
Expect , because of the virus , there are likely fewer witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets .
It ’ s like a Memorial Day wonderland for the Chicago criminal , so they made the most of it .
Couple that with heightened tensions due to months of quarantine , stress stemming from economic concerns , and the virus and yeah , you ’ ve got a recipe for violence .
In fact , the stay-at-home order was never going to prevent it .
How could it ?
After all , at this point , it might well have been the cause of some of it .

Chicago isn’t a safe place.
Well, let me rephrase that. Parts of Chicago aren’t safe places. Much of the Windy City is just as safe as pretty much anywhere else. Millions walk down those streets every day and are never witness to violence and lawlessness, despite what we tend to see in the news. That’s because much of that lawlessness is confined to specific neighborhoods, and those are places most people don’t really go.
But people don’t look at violence as a neighborhood issue. They look at it as a community issue. We look at it as a community issue.
After all, reports aren’t generated about violence in specific neighborhoods, but in particular cities, and in that regard, Chicago sure looks like it’s not a very safe place.
Especially after Memorial Day weekend, which was so deadly the new police commissioner had to speak out about it.
In his first press conference confronting the grim realities of Chicago gun violence, new Police Superintendent David Brown promised some familiar-sounding solutions on Tuesday, the day after the deadliest Memorial Day weekend in five years. Ten people were killed and at least 39 people wounded in shootings over the three-day weekend, according to police. Brown called the violence “alarming, and “unacceptable” and lamented that the statewide stay-at-home order, in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, did not seem to impact the gunshots that echoed in historically high-crime neighborhoods. “The stay-at-home order did little to prevent violence, particularly in the parts of the West and South side[s],” Brown said. “These incidents primarily involved disputes between rival gang factions, as well as clashes involving the sale of illegal drugs.”
What, Brown thought that the very people who routinely ignore laws regarding shooting people and buying guns despite the copious gun control laws that infect the state of Illinois would follow a simple stay-at-home order?
Really?
Oh, that’s adorable.
At some point, people have to come to understand that the criminals that infest our inner cities don’t respect the rule of law. They respect force. They respect strength. They respect violence.
That’s about it.
They’re not going to worry about some virus. Keep in mind that these are generally younger people. That’s a demographic that’s notorious for acting like they believe they’re immortal. Does anyone really think they’re going to be concerned about a virus that doesn’t actually have that high of a mortality rate, particularly for young, healthy people?
Probably not.
Which means they’re going to do the kind of thing they normally would. Expect, because of the virus, there are likely fewer witnesses around and fewer police officers actually patrolling the streets. It’s like a Memorial Day wonderland for the Chicago criminal, so they made the most of it.
Couple that with heightened tensions due to months of quarantine, stress stemming from economic concerns, and the virus and yeah, you’ve got a recipe for violence.
In fact, the stay-at-home order was never going to prevent it. How could it? After all, at this point, it might well have been the cause of some of it.