bearingarms--2020-10-28--ATF Potentially Rethinking AR-, AK-Based Pistols

For people interested in short-barreled rifles but who don ’ t want the hassle of NFA paperwork , there ’ s long been a legal solution .
You could simply get a pistol based on the AR or AK platform and call it a day .
They ’ re essentially short-barreled rifles in many ways , but because they don ’ t have a stock , they ’ re not classified as a rifle .
Throw on a pistol brace and you ’ ve got an SBR in all but name , at least as some people see it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe the ATF may be rethinking this to some degree , at least as it relates to importing firearms .
The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) has recently changed the manner in which it interprets the statutory and regulatory definition of “ handgun , ” thereby further limiting the types of firearms eligible for importation .
These determinations are not public , so it is difficult for the regulated community to assess and track shifting agency positions .
The Gun Control Act at 18 U.S.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importation of all firearms into the United States .
However , so long as a firearm is not military surplus nor subject to the National Firearms Act , section 925 ( d ) ( 3 ) provides a limited exception for those firearms considered by ATF to be “ generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
” Over the past half century , ATF has issued several studies and criteria on how it evaluates whether shotguns , rifles , or handguns qualify as “ sporting ” under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most straightforward of these , with a point tally system that rewards larger and bulkier handguns .
If a handgun receives 75 or more points , it is considered “ sporting ” and approved for importation .
However , there is no ATF-issued “ sporting purpose ” test for a firearm that fails to fit within the definition of handgun , rifle , or shotgun .
Accordingly , ATF has long held that such a firearm is not importable .
Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to qualify as “ sporting ” under section 925 ( d ) ( 3 ) , ATF private classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “ handgun.
” In company-specific letters , ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy , it fails to meet the definition of “ handgun ” under the Gun Control Act , as it is not “ designed to be held and fired by the use of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technology Division ( FATD ) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty .
Unfortunately , this has made some wonder if the ATF is going to start classifying these pistols as NFA items .
That doesn ’ t appear to be the case .
However , what it does mean is that certain firearms may not be imported .
While this won ’ t really hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad news for people wanting AK-pattern pistols .
Unfortunately , though , this reintroduces one of the big problems we currently see with regard to the firearm industry , namely that a single regulatory body has such broad powers that they can suddenly decide something that ’ s been legal for decades is now suddenly illegal .
Especially when there ’ s zero evidence as to why they ’ d change that determination .
Then again , it ’ s just our constitutionally-protected rights we ’ re talking about here .

For people interested in short-barreled rifles but who don’t want the hassle of NFA paperwork, there’s long been a legal solution. You could simply get a pistol based on the AR or AK platform and call it a day. They’re essentially short-barreled rifles in many ways, but because they don’t have a stock, they’re not classified as a rifle.
Throw on a pistol brace and you’ve got an SBR in all but name, at least as some people see it.
Unfortunately, there’s reason to believe the ATF may be rethinking this to some degree, at least as it relates to importing firearms.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has recently changed the manner in which it interprets the statutory and regulatory definition of “handgun,” thereby further limiting the types of firearms eligible for importation. These determinations are not public, so it is difficult for the regulated community to assess and track shifting agency positions. The Gun Control Act at 18 U.S.C. § 922(l) broadly prohibits the importation of all firearms into the United States. However, so long as a firearm is not military surplus nor subject to the National Firearms Act, section 925(d)(3) provides a limited exception for those firearms considered by ATF to be “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Over the past half century, ATF has issued several studies and criteria on how it evaluates whether shotguns, rifles, or handguns qualify as “sporting” under the law. The handgun factoring test is the most straightforward of these, with a point tally system that rewards larger and bulkier handguns. If a handgun receives 75 or more points, it is considered “sporting” and approved for importation. However, there is no ATF-issued “sporting purpose” test for a firearm that fails to fit within the definition of handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Accordingly, ATF has long held that such a firearm is not importable. Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how long or heavy a handgun should be to qualify as “sporting” under section 925(d)(3), ATF private classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “handgun.” In company-specific letters, ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy, it fails to meet the definition of “handgun” under the Gun Control Act, as it is not “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty.
Unfortunately, this has made some wonder if the ATF is going to start classifying these pistols as NFA items. That doesn’t appear to be the case.
However, what it does mean is that certain firearms may not be imported. While this won’t really hurt the AR market, it’s bad news for people wanting AK-pattern pistols.
Unfortunately, though, this reintroduces one of the big problems we currently see with regard to the firearm industry, namely that a single regulatory body has such broad powers that they can suddenly decide something that’s been legal for decades is now suddenly illegal. Especially when there’s zero evidence as to why they’d change that determination.
Then again, it’s just our constitutionally-protected rights we’re talking about here.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--Judge Strikes Down Open Carry Ban At MI Polls

The ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling sites in Michigan that was put in place by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was stopped by a Michigan judge late Tuesday afternoon when he granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of her new rule .
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray didn ’ t say whether the open carry ban violated the Second Amendment rights of residents who want to lawfully carry to the polls , because in Murray ’ s view Benson never had the authority to institute a ban in the first place , making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Benson “ smacks of an attempt at legislation ” and lacks public input instead of following the regular rule-making process , Murray said during a Tuesday emergency hearing .
Further , the state already has a law prohibiting voter intimidation , said Murray , an appointee of Republican former Gov .
John Engler .
“ The Legislature has said : Here are the places you can not carry a weapon , ” Murray said during the hearing .
“ The secretary has expanded that .
And so how is that in accordance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benson could have implemented such a rule over a months-long process , but Nessel ’ s office pushed back .
The need for this directive has grown during the last several weeks , specifically after the details of the alleged plot against Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer were revealed , Nessel ’ s representatives argued .
“ There ’ s no inconsistency , ” Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said .
“ There is no affirmative right to open carry in all places at all times.
” I ’ m not even an attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s argument is .
There is an affirmative right to open carry in those places that aren ’ t deemed off-limits , and under Michigan law that includes most polling places .
The state of Michigan ’ s position is that they shouldn ’ t have to follow the law if it ’ s too hard , and Judge Murray simply reminded Attorney General Dana Nessel and Benson that the law doesn ’ t work that way .
In his decision , Murray noted that the Democratic secretary of state ’ s prohibition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling places appeared to be more than an interpretation of existing statute .
It was a rule that should be subjected to the rule-making process , he wrote .
“ The directive itself covers a substantive policy area — where a resident can openly carry a firearm — and applies to every resident of this state , ” and implies that law enforcement will be expected to enforce it , Murray wrote .
While state law doesn ’ t grant the right to open carry a firearm , the Second Amendment does in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibitions , the judge said .
“ Even if defendant can place additional restrictions on where people can open carry a firearm beyond those contained in statute , it must be done through compliance with the ( Administrative Procedures Act ) , ” wrote Murray , noting the rule-making process would require public notice and public comment .
Without an injunction , Murray said , a “ single state officer ” would effectively be able “ to circumvent ( and essentially amend ) a valid and enforceable state law on the same subject.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public interest , which expects its public officials to follow the rule of law , ” he wrote .
Nessel ’ s office is vowing to appeal Murray ’ s decision , but given the fact that neither the AG nor the Secretary of State can point to any section of state law that allows Benson to arbitrarily invoke a gun ban , I don ’ t think they ’ re going to be successful .
As one local sheriff recently said , Benson ’ s open carry ban actually created a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist .
Now Benson is going to have to cope with the fact that she ’ s likely made open carry at the polls a more common occurrence than it would have been otherwise thanks to her unconstitutional attempt at a gun ban .

The ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling sites in Michigan that was put in place by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was stopped by a Michigan judge late Tuesday afternoon when he granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of her new rule.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray didn’t say whether the open carry ban violated the Second Amendment rights of residents who want to lawfully carry to the polls, because in Murray’s view Benson never had the authority to institute a ban in the first place, making the Second Amendment question moot.
The edict by Benson “smacks of an attempt at legislation” and lacks public input instead of following the regular rule-making process, Murray said during a Tuesday emergency hearing. Further, the state already has a law prohibiting voter intimidation, said Murray, an appointee of Republican former Gov. John Engler. “The Legislature has said: Here are the places you cannot carry a weapon,” Murray said during the hearing. “The secretary has expanded that. And so how is that in accordance with state law?” Murray argued Benson could have implemented such a rule over a months-long process, but Nessel’s office pushed back. The need for this directive has grown during the last several weeks, specifically after the details of the alleged plot against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were revealed, Nessel’s representatives argued. “There’s no inconsistency,” Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said. “There is no affirmative right to open carry in all places at all times.”
I’m not even an attorney and I know how awful Meingast’s argument is. There is an affirmative right to open carry in those places that aren’t deemed off-limits, and under Michigan law that includes most polling places. The state of Michigan’s position is that they shouldn’t have to follow the law if it’s too hard, and Judge Murray simply reminded Attorney General Dana Nessel and Benson that the law doesn’t work that way.
In his decision, Murray noted that the Democratic secretary of state’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms at polling places appeared to be more than an interpretation of existing statute. It was a rule that should be subjected to the rule-making process, he wrote. “The directive itself covers a substantive policy area — where a resident can openly carry a firearm — and applies to every resident of this state,” and implies that law enforcement will be expected to enforce it, Murray wrote. While state law doesn’t grant the right to open carry a firearm, the Second Amendment does in some form and state law provides some prohibitions, the judge said. “Even if defendant can place additional restrictions on where people can open carry a firearm beyond those contained in statute, it must be done through compliance with the (Administrative Procedures Act),” wrote Murray, noting the rule-making process would require public notice and public comment. Without an injunction, Murray said, a “single state officer” would effectively be able “to circumvent (and essentially amend) a valid and enforceable state law on the same subject.” “This is certainly not in the public interest, which expects its public officials to follow the rule of law,” he wrote.
Nessel’s office is vowing to appeal Murray’s decision, but given the fact that neither the AG nor the Secretary of State can point to any section of state law that allows Benson to arbitrarily invoke a gun ban, I don’t think they’re going to be successful.
As one local sheriff recently said, Benson’s open carry ban actually created a problem where one didn’t previously exist. Now Benson is going to have to cope with the fact that she’s likely made open carry at the polls a more common occurrence than it would have been otherwise thanks to her unconstitutional attempt at a gun ban.


bearingarms--2020-10-28--Philadelphia Looting Continues For A Second Night

If 2020 has anything going for it , it ’ s that it hasn ’ t been boring , at least not from a news perspective .
There ’ s been a global pandemic that essentially shut the world down for months , civil unrest and riots through much of the summer and fall , and a presidential election .
To call it dull isn ’ t really realistic .
Unfortunately , 2020 isn ’ t close to over yet , which means we ’ re probably looking at more of the same .
That includes a second night of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looted stores and clashed with police on Tuesday evening in a second successive night of unrest sparked by the police killing of Walter Wallace , a Black man .
Footage aired by local news channel KYW-TV showed people entering a Foot Locker store and a Walmart in the Port Richmond neighborhood , northeast of the city center , before re-emerging armed with televisions and other goods .
Police said that up to 1,000 people were involved in the looting and issued a warning for others to avoid the area of Castor and Aramingo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , Newsweek left out that the police shot Wallace because he was chasing officers with a freaking knife .
I guess that ’ s not remotely relevant to the story .
It does appear that the looting was smaller in scale this time around .
Further , it appears that , unlike on Monday , CNN at least reported on this second riot .
MSNBC still seems to have their head in the sand , though .
Regardless of whether the left-leaning media wants to report it or not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , though , they happened even though it was a clear cut case of self-defense .
The truth is , there are segments of our society that are ready to riot any time a police officer uses lethal force regardless of the reason .
They honestly seem to believe that it doesn ’ t matter .
Then again , with Joe Biden telling people police should just shoot people in the leg , is it any wonder people are rioting over what looks to be a justified shooting ?
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a simple decision .
They don ’ t understand any of the underlying thinking that went into training people to shoot center mass in the first place .
Without a doubt , we ’ ll now have to look at every officer-involved shooting of a black man as the potential spark for a riot .
It shouldn ’ t be this way .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I understand the desire to protest police abuses , but now they ’ re “ protesting ” law enforcement simply doing their jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a long-term negative impact for the people of those communities because the police did what they were supposed to do .
Unfortunately , some people who don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about ( *cough* Joe Biden *cough* ) have told them that it doesn ’ t have to be this way and they blindly accept it .
Who knows if there will be more rioting on Wednesday night or not .
Don ’ t be surprised to see it happen again , but if with the size of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a good chance the night will be peaceful .
We ’ ll just have to wait and see .

If 2020 has anything going for it, it’s that it hasn’t been boring, at least not from a news perspective. There’s been a global pandemic that essentially shut the world down for months, civil unrest and riots through much of the summer and fall, and a presidential election. To call it dull isn’t really realistic.
Unfortunately, 2020 isn’t close to over yet, which means we’re probably looking at more of the same.
That includes a second night of looting in Philadelphia.
Protesters in Philadelphia looted stores and clashed with police on Tuesday evening in a second successive night of unrest sparked by the police killing of Walter Wallace, a Black man. Footage aired by local news channel KYW-TV showed people entering a Foot Locker store and a Walmart in the Port Richmond neighborhood, northeast of the city center, before re-emerging armed with televisions and other goods. Police said that up to 1,000 people were involved in the looting and issued a warning for others to avoid the area of Castor and Aramingo altogether as a result of the developments.
Of course, Newsweek left out that the police shot Wallace because he was chasing officers with a freaking knife. I guess that’s not remotely relevant to the story.
It does appear that the looting was smaller in scale this time around. Further, it appears that, unlike on Monday, CNN at least reported on this second riot. MSNBC still seems to have their head in the sand, though.
Regardless of whether the left-leaning media wants to report it or not, these riots happened. What’s more, though, they happened even though it was a clear cut case of self-defense.
The truth is, there are segments of our society that are ready to riot any time a police officer uses lethal force regardless of the reason. They honestly seem to believe that it doesn’t matter.
Then again, with Joe Biden telling people police should just shoot people in the leg, is it any wonder people are rioting over what looks to be a justified shooting? After all, in their mind, it’s a simple decision. They don’t understand any of the underlying thinking that went into training people to shoot center mass in the first place.
Without a doubt, we’ll now have to look at every officer-involved shooting of a black man as the potential spark for a riot. It shouldn’t be this way.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the desire to protest police abuses, but now they’re “protesting” law enforcement simply doing their jobs. They’re destroying businesses and creating a long-term negative impact for the people of those communities because the police did what they were supposed to do.
Unfortunately, some people who don’t know what they’re talking about (*cough* Joe Biden *cough*) have told them that it doesn’t have to be this way and they blindly accept it.
Who knows if there will be more rioting on Wednesday night or not. Don’t be surprised to see it happen again, but if with the size of the riot dropping off, there’s a good chance the night will be peaceful.
We’ll just have to wait and see.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--A Lot Of Californians Among New Gun Buyers

Over the recent months , we ’ ve written a lot of stories about how there are a ton of new gun buyers out there .
After all , each month seems to set another record for most gun sales we ’ ve ever seen .
Further , with the election just days away , there ’ s no reason to imagine that will slow down before then , now is there ?
However , what about the most anti-gun state in the nation ?
Well , it seems they ’ ve seen a whole lot of new gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have risen to unprecedented levels during the COVID-19 pandemic , and experts say first-time buyers are driving the trend .
The FBI conducted 462,000 background checks related to handgun purchases in California from March through September , an increase of 209,000 , or 83 % , from the same period last year .
That ’ s more than in any other seven-month period on record .
People who study gun ownership think the increase means more people are buying guns for the first time .
Handguns , as opposed to rifles and shotguns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by someone looking for protection .
Background checks related to long gun or other gun sales also rose statewide , by 110,000 , or 54 % , from March through September compared with the same period in 2019 .
While that increase is steep , it does not match the rise in long gun sales seen in California during periods , often following mass shootings , when state leaders have considered legislation to sharply rein in access to military-style assault rifles .
I think they ’ ll also find , if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those long gun sales also went to new gun owners as well .
These join the estimated 4.2 million other gun owners in California .
This makes for a considerable dent in the almost 21 million registered voters in the state as well .
In fact , it makes up a quarter of that electorate .
That might just start making a difference in how Californians vote when it comes to gun rights .
After all , a lot of them learned the hard way that the rhetoric about how lax the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many tried to order a gun off the internet and found out that , contrary to what the media has told them , they can ’ t ?
How many found out that they couldn ’ t buy a gun and take it home that day , even as lockdowns loomed ever closer ?
A lot .
Some of them may not have ever actually managed to buy a gun , either , which means they ’ re outside the number of estimated gun owners , but they also remember how they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians .
The question then becomes just how many of them will remember that and have it change how they vote ?
After all , these guns were often bought by people who supported the same measures they ran face-first into .
Will it change their voting in any way ?
While I don ’ t think California is in danger of turning red , I think you might start seeing a few more moderate Democrats winning in places that are typically the domain of the far left .
Who knows , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more moderate on things like guns , the national party might follow suit .
Just don ’ t hold your breath on it .

Over the recent months, we’ve written a lot of stories about how there are a ton of new gun buyers out there. After all, each month seems to set another record for most gun sales we’ve ever seen. Further, with the election just days away, there’s no reason to imagine that will slow down before then, now is there?
However, what about the most anti-gun state in the nation?
Well, it seems they’ve seen a whole lot of new gun owners as well.
Handgun sales in California have risen to unprecedented levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, and experts say first-time buyers are driving the trend. The FBI conducted 462,000 background checks related to handgun purchases in California from March through September, an increase of 209,000, or 83%, from the same period last year. That’s more than in any other seven-month period on record. People who study gun ownership think the increase means more people are buying guns for the first time. Handguns, as opposed to rifles and shotguns, are often the first firearm purchase made by someone looking for protection. Background checks related to long gun or other gun sales also rose statewide, by 110,000, or 54%, from March through September compared with the same period in 2019. While that increase is steep, it does not match the rise in long gun sales seen in California during periods, often following mass shootings, when state leaders have considered legislation to sharply rein in access to military-style assault rifles.
I think they’ll also find, if they bother to look, that most of those long gun sales also went to new gun owners as well.
These join the estimated 4.2 million other gun owners in California. This makes for a considerable dent in the almost 21 million registered voters in the state as well. In fact, it makes up a quarter of that electorate.
That might just start making a difference in how Californians vote when it comes to gun rights.
After all, a lot of them learned the hard way that the rhetoric about how lax the gun laws are is absolute nonsense. How many tried to order a gun off the internet and found out that, contrary to what the media has told them, they can’t? How many found out that they couldn’t buy a gun and take it home that day, even as lockdowns loomed ever closer? A lot.
Some of them may not have ever actually managed to buy a gun, either, which means they’re outside the number of estimated gun owners, but they also remember how they were lied to by the media and anti-gun politicians.
The question then becomes just how many of them will remember that and have it change how they vote? After all, these guns were often bought by people who supported the same measures they ran face-first into. Will it change their voting in any way? While I don’t think California is in danger of turning red, I think you might start seeing a few more moderate Democrats winning in places that are typically the domain of the far left.
Who knows, though? If California can push their Democrats to be more moderate on things like guns, the national party might follow suit.
Just don’t hold your breath on it.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Is ATF Giving Trump An October Surprise Of Its Own?

Just days before the election , and after early voting has already begun , the ATF has quietly started re-interpreting the definition of “ handgun ” as defined by the Gun Control Act , at least as it applies to handguns that are imported from overseas , and it ’ s already starting to impact some AR and AK-style pistols .
The problem could grow exponentially worse , however , as one law firm is warning that a consistent application of the ATF ’ s apparent re-interpretation of a handgun could lead to major issues for many existing gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Cam & Co , Josh Savani , the director of research and information at NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action , says that the ATF ’ s new moves are a preview of the regulatory assault on the Second Amendment that we can expect if Joe Biden is elected president .
Others , including Gun Owners of America ’ s Erich Pratt , accuse the ATF of “ going rogue ” in an attempt to hurt Donald Trump ’ s support from gun owners right before the election .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of absurd private classification rulings represents a pro-Biden ‘ October Surprise ’ by an out-of-control , anti-gun ATF .
By disregarding orders to stand down , rogue ATF agents seem prepared to help usher in a Joe Biden Administration , especially because their actions appear to be purposefully timed to anger President Trump ’ s base immediately before an election .
“ ATF ’ s actions are just a taste of what is to come in Joe Biden ’ s gun controlled-America .
The Biden gun control plan seeks to treat many commonly-owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which endangers the freedom of tens of millions of peaceful individuals who own these guns , possession in and of itself should not be a crime , ” Pratt concluded .
As Savani explains , under the Gun Control Act of 1968 , firearms are not allowed to be imported into the U.S. unless the ATF determines they have a “ sporting purpose , ” but the ATF has suddenly changed their idea of what makes a handgun “ sporting.
” For many years , generally speaking , the heavier and bulkier the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be classified as “ sporting , ” in large part because the GCA aimed to crack down on small , easily concealable firearms .
Recently , however , the ATF has completely reversed course , and now appears to be targeting the larger , bulkier AR and AK-style pistols .
As the Wiley law firm recently put in an alert to clients : Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how long or heavy a handgun should be to qualify as “ sporting ” under section 925 ( d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “ handgun.
” In company-specific letters , ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy , it fails to meet the definition of “ handgun ” under the Gun Control Act , as it is not “ designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division ( FATD ) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty .
This approach is resulting in inconsistent determinations , of which the regulated community should take note .
Within the past few months , at least one HK91 pistol-style submission as light as 8 pounds , with a barrel length of 8-3/4 inches and an overall length of 21-3/4 inches , has been determined to fall outside the definition of “ handgun.
” This is a change from previous determinations where firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrels , and an overall length of approximately 31-1/2 inches were held by FATD to be “ handguns.
” Since the letters are not publicly available , it is impossible for regulated companies to know the full range of FATD ’ s determinations .
This has serious implications for regulated businesses .
And as both Wiley and Savani note , if the ATF decides that this new interpretation of what constitutes a handgun starts to be applied to domestically produced firearms , it could leave millions of existing gun owners in possession of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as AOW ( any other weapon ) .
If that happens , gun owners would have to register their newly-classified AOWs with the federal government or risk a decade behind bars .
Under the National Firearms Act , a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and is neither a pistol , rifle nor shotgun is classified as an “ Any Other Weapon ” ( AOW ) .2 This means that if a firearm under 26 inches in overall length is determined not to be a pistol , rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be classified as an AOW.3 AOWs require the payment of a tax and registration with the federal government .
Under ATF ’ s new reading of the definition , firearms previously classified as large-sized handguns by ATF may now require registration under the National Firearms Act as an AOW .
Possession of such a firearm without registration is punishable by up to ten years in prison .
Since ATF has not articulated a standard , it is difficult to definitively know whether a large handgun is now an AOW because it may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too large , or too heavy ” to fit within the statutory definition of handgun .
The only definitive way to know is to submit the firearm to ATF for evaluation , a process that can take over a year .
If President Trump is re-elected , one of the first things he needs to do is clean house over at the ATF .
Personally , I ’ d prefer to see the agency scrapped completely , but at the very least Trump should appoint a permanent ATF director that will crack down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish clear , transparent policies for firearms manufacturers and consumers alike .
On the other hand , if Joe Biden is elected , the recent moves by the ATF are just a taste of things to come .
I think Biden and Kamala Harris , along with their anti-gun allies in Congress , would move quickly to institute Biden ’ s gun ban and compensated confiscation efforts , but even before that he could use the regulatory power of the ATF to re-classify commonly-owned firearms as restricted arms that must be registered under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like some within the ATF are already signaling their willingness to impose new restrictions on gun owners via regulation in addition to any legislation that Democrats are dreaming up in the case of a Biden/Harris administration .

Just days before the election, and after early voting has already begun, the ATF has quietly started re-interpreting the definition of “handgun” as defined by the Gun Control Act, at least as it applies to handguns that are imported from overseas, and it’s already starting to impact some AR and AK-style pistols. The problem could grow exponentially worse, however, as one law firm is warning that a consistent application of the ATF’s apparent re-interpretation of a handgun could lead to major issues for many existing gun owners.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Josh Savani, the director of research and information at NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, says that the ATF’s new moves are a preview of the regulatory assault on the Second Amendment that we can expect if Joe Biden is elected president. Others, including Gun Owners of America’s Erich Pratt, accuse the ATF of “going rogue” in an attempt to hurt Donald Trump’s support from gun owners right before the election.
“The recent Honey Badger gun ban and revelation of absurd private classification rulings represents a pro-Biden ‘October Surprise’ by an out-of-control, anti-gun ATF. By disregarding orders to stand down, rogue ATF agents seem prepared to help usher in a Joe Biden Administration, especially because their actions appear to be purposefully timed to anger President Trump’s base immediately before an election. “ATF’s actions are just a taste of what is to come in Joe Biden’s gun controlled-America. The Biden gun control plan seeks to treat many commonly-owned, semi-automatic rifles as NFA weapons, which endangers the freedom of tens of millions of peaceful individuals who own these guns, possession in and of itself should not be a crime,” Pratt concluded.
As Savani explains, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms are not allowed to be imported into the U.S. unless the ATF determines they have a “sporting purpose,” but the ATF has suddenly changed their idea of what makes a handgun “sporting.” For many years, generally speaking, the heavier and bulkier the pistol, the more likely it was to be classified as “sporting,” in large part because the GCA aimed to crack down on small, easily concealable firearms.
Recently, however, the ATF has completely reversed course, and now appears to be targeting the larger, bulkier AR and AK-style pistols. As the Wiley law firm recently put in an alert to clients:
Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how long or heavy a handgun should be to qualify as “sporting” under section 925(d)(3), ATF private classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “handgun.” In company-specific letters, ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy, it fails to meet the definition of “handgun” under the Gun Control Act, as it is not “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty. This approach is resulting in inconsistent determinations, of which the regulated community should take note. Within the past few months, at least one HK91 pistol-style submission as light as 8 pounds, with a barrel length of 8-3/4 inches and an overall length of 21-3/4 inches, has been determined to fall outside the definition of “handgun.” This is a change from previous determinations where firearms weighing over 8 pounds, with 20-inch barrels, and an overall length of approximately 31-1/2 inches were held by FATD to be “handguns.” Since the letters are not publicly available, it is impossible for regulated companies to know the full range of FATD’s determinations. This has serious implications for regulated businesses.
And as both Wiley and Savani note, if the ATF decides that this new interpretation of what constitutes a handgun starts to be applied to domestically produced firearms, it could leave millions of existing gun owners in possession of pistols that the ATF would now classify as AOW (any other weapon). If that happens, gun owners would have to register their newly-classified AOWs with the federal government or risk a decade behind bars.
Under the National Firearms Act, a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and is neither a pistol, rifle nor shotgun is classified as an “Any Other Weapon” (AOW).2 This means that if a firearm under 26 inches in overall length is determined not to be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, it would necessarily be classified as an AOW.3 AOWs require the payment of a tax and registration with the federal government. Under ATF’s new reading of the definition, firearms previously classified as large-sized handguns by ATF may now require registration under the National Firearms Act as an AOW. Possession of such a firearm without registration is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Since ATF has not articulated a standard, it is difficult to definitively know whether a large handgun is now an AOW because it may be deemed by the agency to be “too large, or too heavy” to fit within the statutory definition of handgun. The only definitive way to know is to submit the firearm to ATF for evaluation, a process that can take over a year.
If President Trump is re-elected, one of the first things he needs to do is clean house over at the ATF. Personally, I’d prefer to see the agency scrapped completely, but at the very least Trump should appoint a permanent ATF director that will crack down on the arbitrary and capricious rulemaking and establish clear, transparent policies for firearms manufacturers and consumers alike.
On the other hand, if Joe Biden is elected, the recent moves by the ATF are just a taste of things to come. I think Biden and Kamala Harris, along with their anti-gun allies in Congress, would move quickly to institute Biden’s gun ban and compensated confiscation efforts, but even before that he could use the regulatory power of the ATF to re-classify commonly-owned firearms as restricted arms that must be registered under the National Firearms Act. It sure looks like some within the ATF are already signaling their willingness to impose new restrictions on gun owners via regulation in addition to any legislation that Democrats are dreaming up in the case of a Biden/Harris administration.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Steve Kerr Goes Off On Stuff He Doesn't Understand Again

Golden State Warriors ’ Coach Steve Kerr doesn ’ t like guns .
In fairness to him , he has a reason .
His father was shot and killed , which can push someone to not like firearms , particularly if they ’ re inclined in that direction anyway .
However , the problem is that Kerr likes to pontificate on the topic of guns and police procedure , even though he doesn ’ t know what the hell he ’ s talking about .
Steve Kerr wasn ’ t shocked to hear of another Black man killed by law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re NBA coaches , Kerr with the Warriors and Pierce with the Hawks .
They ’ re also activists .
They ’ re achingly familiar with such incidents as that which took place Monday in Philadelphia .
Walter Wallace Jr. , 27 , was shot multiple times by multiple police officers in Philadelphia .
He was waving a knife while experiencing a mental health crisis when he was killed by officers standing at least 10 feet away .
His mother went from begging the officers not to shoot to wailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pavement .
The incident was , of course , caught on video .
It ’ s nauseating .
It ’ s too routine in America .
“ We ’ ve come to expect this sort of thing , ” Kerr said .
“ The disturbing thing , the most disturbing thing , that is even after the social justice movement , all the protests and even after all the anger and the outrage , these incidents are still happening .
“ There ’ s got to be an alternative way of meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than going in with a SWAT team , guns blazing.
” Alright , there ’ s a lot going on that Kerr and people like him don ’ t even begin to comprehend .
First , let ’ s address the fact that Wallace was having a “ mental health crisis.
” That may well be the complete and honest truth .
However , it also doesn ’ t matter nearly as much as some people want to think .
If someone is having a mental health issue , they may need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secondary to the safety of other people .
I know it sounds harsh , but it ’ s true .
You can try to talk them down , but you ’ re simply not going to have time to do it if they ’ ve decided instead to hurt someone for whatever reason .
Further , law enforcement isn ’ t remotely able to judge whether it ’ s a mental health episode that will fizzle out in a few seconds or if the subject is going to kill people .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t and people die , what do you think the headlines would say ?
Honestly , the cops were in a no-win situation .
Second , let ’ s address the whole “ officers standing at least 10 feet away.
” Folks , it takes no time at all to clear 10 feet .
For example , a slow time in the 40-yard sprint is about six to seven seconds .
That ’ s slow for the NFL , at least , but probably decent for most people .
A good time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , that ’ s 40 yards .
10 feet is just a smidge over three yards .
Almost any able-bodied person can cover that in a second .
To put that in perspective for someone like Kerr , think of the distance between the baseline and the free-throw line on a basketball court .
That ’ s 19 feet , so just under twice that distance .
How long does it take someone to cover that distance ?
Not long at all .
In gun training , we talk about something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is that someone inside 21 feet can get to you fast enough that a knife has a chance of potentially beating a gun .
Wallace was around 10 feet away .
So yes , the police shot him when he wouldn ’ t put down the knife .
His mental health state wasn ’ t relevant since he represented a danger to other people at that moment .
The fact that he had a knife was relevant , but only because it was a lethal weapon and thus justified lethal force .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still close enough to cover the distance quickly and injure or kill someone else .
Look , there will be an investigation and they may find that the officers did something wrong .
What I will say , though , is that what people like Kerr are focusing on ?
That ’ s not where the problem is going to be .

Golden State Warriors’ Coach Steve Kerr doesn’t like guns. In fairness to him, he has a reason. His father was shot and killed, which can push someone to not like firearms, particularly if they’re inclined in that direction anyway.
However, the problem is that Kerr likes to pontificate on the topic of guns and police procedure, even though he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
Steve Kerr wasn’t shocked to hear of another Black man killed by law enforcement, and neither was Lloyd Pierce. They’re NBA coaches, Kerr with the Warriors and Pierce with the Hawks. They’re also activists. They’re achingly familiar with such incidents as that which took place Monday in Philadelphia. Walter Wallace Jr., 27, was shot multiple times by multiple police officers in Philadelphia. He was waving a knife while experiencing a mental health crisis when he was killed by officers standing at least 10 feet away. His mother went from begging the officers not to shoot to wailing in agony as her son dropped to the pavement. The incident was, of course, caught on video. It’s nauseating. It’s too routine in America. “We’ve come to expect this sort of thing,” Kerr said. “The disturbing thing, the most disturbing thing, that is even after the social justice movement, all the protests and even after all the anger and the outrage, these incidents are still happening. “There’s got to be an alternative way of meeting the needs of mental health issues, rather than going in with a SWAT team, guns blazing.”
Alright, there’s a lot going on that Kerr and people like him don’t even begin to comprehend.
First, let’s address the fact that Wallace was having a “mental health crisis.” That may well be the complete and honest truth. However, it also doesn’t matter nearly as much as some people want to think. If someone is having a mental health issue, they may need help, but that has to come secondary to the safety of other people.
I know it sounds harsh, but it’s true. You can try to talk them down, but you’re simply not going to have time to do it if they’ve decided instead to hurt someone for whatever reason.
Further, law enforcement isn’t remotely able to judge whether it’s a mental health episode that will fizzle out in a few seconds or if the subject is going to kill people. They have to act. If they don’t and people die, what do you think the headlines would say? Honestly, the cops were in a no-win situation.
Second, let’s address the whole “officers standing at least 10 feet away.”
Folks, it takes no time at all to clear 10 feet. For example, a slow time in the 40-yard sprint is about six to seven seconds. That’s slow for the NFL, at least, but probably decent for most people. A good time in that is around 4.5 seconds or faster. Now, that’s 40 yards.
10 feet is just a smidge over three yards.
Almost any able-bodied person can cover that in a second.
To put that in perspective for someone like Kerr, think of the distance between the baseline and the free-throw line on a basketball court. That’s 19 feet, so just under twice that distance. How long does it take someone to cover that distance? Not long at all.
In gun training, we talk about something called the 21-foot rule. The basic idea is that someone inside 21 feet can get to you fast enough that a knife has a chance of potentially beating a gun.
Wallace was around 10 feet away.
So yes, the police shot him when he wouldn’t put down the knife. His mental health state wasn’t relevant since he represented a danger to other people at that moment. The fact that he had a knife was relevant, but only because it was a lethal weapon and thus justified lethal force. The distance was irrelevant because he was still close enough to cover the distance quickly and injure or kill someone else.
Look, there will be an investigation and they may find that the officers did something wrong. What I will say, though, is that what people like Kerr are focusing on? That’s not where the problem is going to be.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Massachusetts 2A Group Sues Cities Over Gun License Delays

Three Massachusetts cities are now facing a federal lawsuit over refusals to process gun license applications while a COVID-19 state of emergency is in place .
The state ’ s Gun Owners Action League says state law makes it clear that localities have no more than 40 days to process applications for gun licenses , which are required to both own and carry a firearm in Massachusetts , but several police departments have had licenses in limbo since March .
“ During this COVID era when folks need to be cautious , we are able to get our favorite coffee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these local authorities can ’ t figure out how to safely fingerprint people , ” said Jim Wallace , Executive Director of GOAL .
“ It is bad enough that we have to get permission from our state government to exercise our civil rights , but now they are telling us the system can ’ t work during a health crisis when citizens may need it the most.
” Wallace notes that the city of Lowell was previously sued by the organization , but after the city was served with the lawsuit is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume processing applications from would-be gun owners .
Unfortunately , in Cambridge , Weymouth , and Stoughton , the application process remains on hold .
Brandon Alves submitted his application to the Stoughton Police Department back in February , according to the new suit , but heard nothing back from the department for months .
In May Alves reached out to the department himself and was told that his application was delayed because of the coronavirus .
Alves called in June , July , August , and September only to repeatedly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two named plaintiffs in the lawsuit haven ’ t been waiting as long as Alves to exercise their Second Amendment rights , but both Nicholas Bernat and Nathan Pierce have still been twiddling their thumbs since August and late July waiting for police in Wemouth and Cambridge to approve their applications .
Bernat dropped off his application on August 25th , but the Weymouth PD website says applications are only being accepted by appointment .
When Bernat called to set up an appointment on August 28th , he was told to come in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 .
Pierce , meanwhile , can ’ t submit his application at all because the Cambridge police are refusing to fingerprint applicants , which is required before a license can be issued .
He and others who wish to legally own a firearm in the city have no way of doing so , and have no idea when police will resume accepting applications again .
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock , a Reagan appointee who ’ s served on the bench since 1986 .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injunction blocking Gov .
Charlie Baker ’ s order to shut down gun stores , declaring that even in a state of emergency our individual rights don ’ t disappear .
“ We don ’ t surrender our constitutional rights .
These plaintiffs have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication , and it becomes necessary for a court to do that rather than the executive when the executive declines , ” the judge said .
He added : “ I don ’ t have anything like a substantial fit between the goals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the burdening of the constitutional rights.
” Now , Woodlock ’ s opinion in the challenge to gun store closures doesn ’ t automatically mean he ’ s going to side with the plaintiffs in this new suit , but the fact that he specifically said that we don ’ t surrender our constitutional rights during a state of emergency is a very good sign .
After all , the three individuals who are challenging their local police departments are being completely deprived of their right to keep and bear arms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rights than not being able to operate or patronize a gun store in the state .
There ’ s a chance that these three cities will follow Lowell ’ s lead and resume processing gun license applications without the need for a federal judge to get involved .
In my opinion , that would be the wiser course of action for the police chiefs in Weymouth , Cambridge , and Stoughton , but given the anti-gun attitudes from far too many politicians and political appointees in the state , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chiefs named in the new federal lawsuit will choose to argue in court that a right delayed does not amount to a right denied .

Three Massachusetts cities are now facing a federal lawsuit over refusals to process gun license applications while a COVID-19 state of emergency is in place. The state’s Gun Owners Action League says state law makes it clear that localities have no more than 40 days to process applications for gun licenses, which are required to both own and carry a firearm in Massachusetts, but several police departments have had licenses in limbo since March.
“During this COVID era when folks need to be cautious, we are able to get our favorite coffee, burger, and pizza, but these local authorities can’t figure out how to safely fingerprint people,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “It is bad enough that we have to get permission from our state government to exercise our civil rights, but now they are telling us the system can’t work during a health crisis when citizens may need it the most.”
Wallace notes that the city of Lowell was previously sued by the organization, but after the city was served with the lawsuit is miraculously managed to figure out a way to resume processing applications from would-be gun owners. Unfortunately, in Cambridge, Weymouth, and Stoughton, the application process remains on hold.
Brandon Alves submitted his application to the Stoughton Police Department back in February, according to the new suit, but heard nothing back from the department for months. In May Alves reached out to the department himself and was told that his application was delayed because of the coronavirus. Alves called in June, July, August, and September only to repeatedly be put off by authorities.
The other two named plaintiffs in the lawsuit haven’t been waiting as long as Alves to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but both Nicholas Bernat and Nathan Pierce have still been twiddling their thumbs since August and late July waiting for police in Wemouth and Cambridge to approve their applications. Bernat dropped off his application on August 25th, but the Weymouth PD website says applications are only being accepted by appointment. When Bernat called to set up an appointment on August 28th, he was told to come in to get fingerprinted on February 19th, 2021.
Pierce, meanwhile, can’t submit his application at all because the Cambridge police are refusing to fingerprint applicants, which is required before a license can be issued. He and others who wish to legally own a firearm in the city have no way of doing so, and have no idea when police will resume accepting applications again.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock, a Reagan appointee who’s served on the bench since 1986. It was Woodlock who earlier this year issued an injunction blocking Gov. Charlie Baker’s order to shut down gun stores, declaring that even in a state of emergency our individual rights don’t disappear.
“We don’t surrender our constitutional rights. These plaintiffs have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication, and it becomes necessary for a court to do that rather than the executive when the executive declines,” the judge said. He added: “I don’t have anything like a substantial fit between the goals of the emergency declared by the commonwealth and the burdening of the constitutional rights.”
Now, Woodlock’s opinion in the challenge to gun store closures doesn’t automatically mean he’s going to side with the plaintiffs in this new suit, but the fact that he specifically said that we don’t surrender our constitutional rights during a state of emergency is a very good sign. After all, the three individuals who are challenging their local police departments are being completely deprived of their right to keep and bear arms, which is arguably a bigger burden on their rights than not being able to operate or patronize a gun store in the state.
There’s a chance that these three cities will follow Lowell’s lead and resume processing gun license applications without the need for a federal judge to get involved. In my opinion, that would be the wiser course of action for the police chiefs in Weymouth, Cambridge, and Stoughton, but given the anti-gun attitudes from far too many politicians and political appointees in the state, it’s quite possible one or more of the chiefs named in the new federal lawsuit will choose to argue in court that a right delayed does not amount to a right denied.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Seattle City Council Considers Insane Proposal On Crimes

The city of Seattle is a strange place .
There ’ s really no other way I can think to phrase it , really .
This is a city that allowed the CHOP to exist for far too long and even encouraged it by placing concrete barriers to help secure the area…right up until they decided it was too much of an embarrassment to let it remain .
To say the city ’ s leadership may not be playing with a full deck is putting it mildly .
Now , they ’ re considering a proposal that may actually make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattle City Council is considering new legislation that would create a legal loophole that would make substance addiction , mental illness or poverty a valid legal defense for nearly all misdemeanor crimes committed in the city .
The council ’ s consideration of the plan has occurred with virtually no public discussion about the proposal , which has been included in the municipal budgeting process .
The council has not , so far , conducted a standalone meeting to discuss the idea .
Scott Lindsay , the former public safety advisor for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a class of its own if it ultimately enacted the ordinance .
“ I ’ m not aware of any legislation like this anywhere in the United States ( or ) even globally , ” he said Monday .
“ All cities have criminal codes to protect their citizens from criminal acts .
This would essentially create a legal loophole that swallows all those codes and creates a green light for crime.
” See , of the three “ defenses ” described , the only one that kind of makes sense to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentally ill may not necessarily even understand what they ’ re doing .
We already have an exception in the law for such a thing , though it ’ s severely limited in how it can apply .
Perhaps expanding that might make a bit of sense…if those people were going to get treatment instead of being put back out on the streets .
As for poverty or substance abuse…holy crap , that ’ s weapons-grade stupid right there .
Of course a lot of crime is perpetrated by people with substance abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their drug habits .
This has been well-known for some time .
Now , though , Seattle is considering giving these people a free pass for it so long as they don ’ t pass some arbitrary threshold between misdemeanors and felonies .
Further , a lot of people blame their criminal activities on poverty .
They say they sell drugs because they ’ re poor and need money .
They steal because they ’ re poor and need money .
They ’ ve long argued that their poverty forces them into crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force any of them into a freaking job is what ’ s surprising .
Yet here ’ s a problem that I don ’ t think Seattle has considered .
The line between misdemeanor and felony can be razor-thin .
There ’ s a point where stealing X dollars is a misdemeanor , but stealing X+1 is a felony .
Does anyone really believe that those who figure they can get off because they ’ re using drugs or because they ’ re poor will count their stolen money and return the excess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet they ’ ll still feel empowered to commit crimes because they know they can get away with so many of them .
They ’ ll be emboldened to carry out more and more crimes because they know they can walk .
What happens when someone gets killed by one of these people who should have been in jail but wasn ’ t because he played the “ I ’ m just a poor boy , nobody loves me ” defense ?
Maybe then people in Seattle will wake up to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The city of Seattle is a strange place. There’s really no other way I can think to phrase it, really. This is a city that allowed the CHOP to exist for far too long and even encouraged it by placing concrete barriers to help secure the area…right up until they decided it was too much of an embarrassment to let it remain.
To say the city’s leadership may not be playing with a full deck is putting it mildly.
Now, they’re considering a proposal that may actually make the city even less safe.
The Seattle City Council is considering new legislation that would create a legal loophole that would make substance addiction, mental illness or poverty a valid legal defense for nearly all misdemeanor crimes committed in the city. The council’s consideration of the plan has occurred with virtually no public discussion about the proposal, which has been included in the municipal budgeting process. The council has not, so far, conducted a standalone meeting to discuss the idea. Scott Lindsay, the former public safety advisor for the city, said Seattle would be in a class of its own if it ultimately enacted the ordinance. “I’m not aware of any legislation like this anywhere in the United States (or) even globally,” he said Monday. “All cities have criminal codes to protect their citizens from criminal acts. This would essentially create a legal loophole that swallows all those codes and creates a green light for crime.”
That’s putting it mildly.
See, of the three “defenses” described, the only one that kind of makes sense to me is mental illness. Those who are mentally ill may not necessarily even understand what they’re doing. We already have an exception in the law for such a thing, though it’s severely limited in how it can apply. Perhaps expanding that might make a bit of sense…if those people were going to get treatment instead of being put back out on the streets.
As for poverty or substance abuse…holy crap, that’s weapons-grade stupid right there.
Of course a lot of crime is perpetrated by people with substance abuse problems. They rob people to support their drug habits. This has been well-known for some time. Now, though, Seattle is considering giving these people a free pass for it so long as they don’t pass some arbitrary threshold between misdemeanors and felonies.
Further, a lot of people blame their criminal activities on poverty. They say they sell drugs because they’re poor and need money. They steal because they’re poor and need money. They’ve long argued that their poverty forces them into crime.
The fact it never seems to force any of them into a freaking job is what’s surprising.
Yet here’s a problem that I don’t think Seattle has considered. The line between misdemeanor and felony can be razor-thin. There’s a point where stealing X dollars is a misdemeanor, but stealing X+1 is a felony. Does anyone really believe that those who figure they can get off because they’re using drugs or because they’re poor will count their stolen money and return the excess?
No, they won’t. Yet they’ll still feel empowered to commit crimes because they know they can get away with so many of them. They’ll be emboldened to carry out more and more crimes because they know they can walk.
What happens when someone gets killed by one of these people who should have been in jail but wasn’t because he played the “I’m just a poor boy, nobody loves me” defense?
Maybe then people in Seattle will wake up to what they’ve elected to lead them.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Looters Now Targeting Philly ATMs With Explosives

More than 30 ATMs in Philadelphia have been targeted by looters using explosives to try to break into the machines over the past few nights , and police are expressing growing concern after more than a dozen U-Haul trucks and several propane canisters were stolen from a business Wednesday evening .
Fox 29 reporter Steve Keeley alerted residents to the fact that the riots and looting have taken an even more destructive turn in a series of tweets on Thursday morning .
The escalation in tactics on the part of rioters shouldn ’ t surprise those who ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Going back to March and the first surge in COVID cases , Chief Danielle Outlaw , Mayor Jim Kenney , and D.A .
Larry Krasner have all taken a hands-off approach to crime that ’ s left criminals emboldened and law-abiding residents afraid for their own safety .
Concealed carry applications have surged in Philly in recent months , though the city ’ s been accused of slow-walking applications and is currently being sued by Gun Owners of America over the year-long wait to apply for a concealed carry license .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet by Fox 29 ’ s Keeley that demonstrates the unwillingness of city leaders to take the threat to public safety seriously .
Steve Keeley ’ s wording is significant in a couple of ways .
First of all , he ’ s not just hearing complaints about this order from rank and file officers out on the streets .
He ’ s also hearing carping from police commanders .
So who would have the authority to give this sort of a “ stand down ” order to the entire Philadelphia Police force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from “ CAR-2 ” but that ’ s Melvin Singleton , the Deputy Police Commissioner .
Does anyone honestly think the Deputy would issue an order like that on his own ?
No , that order had to come from the Commissioner herself , Danielle Outlaw , who we ’ ve discussed here on many occasions .
It had to be either her or Mayor Jim Kenney , possibly a joint decision between the two of them .
As you may recall , Danielle Outlaw took the office of Police Commissioner on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incarceration nation ” that we all supposedly live in .
She ’ s been one of the biggest proponents of the “ empty the jails ” movement in the country .
When the pandemic hit , she quickly used that as an excuse to speed up her efforts to put as many convicts back out on the streets as possible .
Back in March , Outlaw said that police would no longer be making arrests for “ low-level crimes ” like theft , so this new directive to disperse looters instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nowhere .
It ’ s also unlikely to reduce tensions .
Things seem to be getting worse in Philadelphia , not better , over the past few nights , and though federal officials are making some arrests in the city , it ’ s ultimately going to be up to local officials to deal with the growing violence .
Honestly , if I lived in Philadelphia , I ’ d be looking to leave , because it ’ s clear that city leaders have absolutely no plan or desire to stop the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for rioters and looters .

More than 30 ATMs in Philadelphia have been targeted by looters using explosives to try to break into the machines over the past few nights, and police are expressing growing concern after more than a dozen U-Haul trucks and several propane canisters were stolen from a business Wednesday evening.
Fox 29 reporter Steve Keeley alerted residents to the fact that the riots and looting have taken an even more destructive turn in a series of tweets on Thursday morning.
3/3 Van “with M-type explosives, kind being used to blow up ATMs”stopped at Logan Circle by Basilica&Franklin Institute. MAJOR concern among local&federal law enforcement “Were the U-Haul &propane tank thefts possibly linked? If so, What were they planning/thinking? @FOX29philly pic.twitter.com/5raKo7SAaM — Steve Keeley (@KeeleyFox29) October 29, 2020
The escalation in tactics on the part of rioters shouldn’t surprise those who’ve been paying close attention to Philadelphia this year. Going back to March and the first surge in COVID cases, Chief Danielle Outlaw, Mayor Jim Kenney, and D.A. Larry Krasner have all taken a hands-off approach to crime that’s left criminals emboldened and law-abiding residents afraid for their own safety. Concealed carry applications have surged in Philly in recent months, though the city’s been accused of slow-walking applications and is currently being sued by Gun Owners of America over the year-long wait to apply for a concealed carry license.
Over at HotAir, Jazz Shaw notes another tweet by Fox 29’s Keeley that demonstrates the unwillingness of city leaders to take the threat to public safety seriously.
Yesterday when police announced the number of arrests in the Mon-Tues looting,charges were for “burglary”. And in the directive, @phillypolice point out no calls for burglary will be responded to by the dept.&officers think that leaves no deterrent to stop looting @FOX29philly pic.twitter.com/2AyhIyV7O7 — Steve Keeley (@KeeleyFox29) October 28, 2020
As Jazz says:
Steve Keeley’s wording is significant in a couple of ways. First of all, he’s not just hearing complaints about this order from rank and file officers out on the streets. He’s also hearing carping from police commanders. So who would have the authority to give this sort of a “stand down” order to the entire Philadelphia Police force? The announcement says that it came from “CAR-2” but that’s Melvin Singleton, the Deputy Police Commissioner. Does anyone honestly think the Deputy would issue an order like that on his own? No, that order had to come from the Commissioner herself, Danielle Outlaw, who we’ve discussed here on many occasions. It had to be either her or Mayor Jim Kenney, possibly a joint decision between the two of them. As you may recall, Danielle Outlaw took the office of Police Commissioner on a promise to “put an end to the incarceration nation” that we all supposedly live in. She’s been one of the biggest proponents of the “empty the jails” movement in the country. When the pandemic hit, she quickly used that as an excuse to speed up her efforts to put as many convicts back out on the streets as possible.
Back in March, Outlaw said that police would no longer be making arrests for “low-level crimes” like theft, so this new directive to disperse looters instead of arresting them isn’t coming out of nowhere.
It’s also unlikely to reduce tensions. Things seem to be getting worse in Philadelphia, not better, over the past few nights, and though federal officials are making some arrests in the city, it’s ultimately going to be up to local officials to deal with the growing violence. Honestly, if I lived in Philadelphia, I’d be looking to leave, because it’s clear that city leaders have absolutely no plan or desire to stop the mayhem through arrests and swift legal consequences for rioters and looters.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Borat Star Releases Footage Of Mob Coming After Him

I don ’ t like Sacha Baron Cohen .
If you ’ ve been reading my work here for a little while , you may have already gotten that impression .
I don ’ t think his schtick is funny–he was the least funny thing in Talladega Nights , for the record–and I find him pretty obnoxious .
That said , some people disagree and enough have done so that he ’ s making a killing .
Yet it seems that regardless of whether I find him funny or not , I owe him an apology .
See , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liar .
He claimed he was chased off stage at a pro-gun rally and people were trying to force the door of his vehicle open to get to him .
I called BS on that .
Now , I don ’ t know how afraid he actually was at that rally , but we do know that at least part of his story is true .
It appears that people really did try to open the door of his ride to get to him .
That ’ s based on footage he just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s possible that he just edited that moment in well after the fact to lend credence to his claims , but I ’ m going to take him at his word here and admit that I was wrong .
At least in part .
Sure , there ’ s been some indication that Cohen returned in a different disguise later to watch the aftermath which would suggest he wasn ’ t too terrified , but whatever .
Cohen , however , claims the problem wasn ’ t gun rights folks , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter-protest .
n a new interview with Stephen Colbert , Sacha Baron Cohen stated that the March for Our Rights scene from Borat 2 was pretty hard to pull off .
Singing a song about injecting liberals with the “ Wuhan Flu ” was going over well with his gun-toting audience at first , but things went south when the Black Lives Matter movement showed up to protest the rally .
According to Cohen , he was immediately recognized by the newcomers to the rally , which forced him to flee .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crowd got very angry , ” Baron Cohen said .
“ They tried to storm the stage .
Luckily for me , I had hired the security .
So it took them a while to actually storm the stage.
” Sacha Baron Cohen then shared footage of his escape , and it is intense , to put it lightly .
We can see Borat dressed as Country Steve running from the stage when people start to approach the barricade .
He is then rushed to a waiting vehicle , though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen staying low , but the rally organizers and attendees know he ’ s in there .
Someone tries to open the van door , which Cohen has to hold shut while yelling , “ Drive , go , go , go !
” Honestly , I ’ m still not sure how much of that crap to believe .
Especially since the story keeps seeming to shift from when it first happened .
Regardless , though , I called him a liar when he said that he was chased and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he proved me wrong .
I ’ m man enough to admit I was wrong on that one .
I don ’ t have to like it or him , but I try my damnedest to be a man of principle , so I have to acknowledge that I was wrong .
About that , at least .

I don’t like Sacha Baron Cohen. If you’ve been reading my work here for a little while, you may have already gotten that impression. I don’t think his schtick is funny–he was the least funny thing in Talladega Nights, for the record–and I find him pretty obnoxious. That said, some people disagree and enough have done so that he’s making a killing.
Yet it seems that regardless of whether I find him funny or not, I owe him an apology.
See, a while back, I called him a liar. He claimed he was chased off stage at a pro-gun rally and people were trying to force the door of his vehicle open to get to him. I called BS on that.
Now, I don’t know how afraid he actually was at that rally, but we do know that at least part of his story is true. It appears that people really did try to open the door of his ride to get to him. That’s based on footage he just released.
This was not the easiest movie to make. #BoratSubsequentMoviefilm pic.twitter.com/oagfJoGjNt — Sacha Baron Cohen (@SachaBaronCohen) October 27, 2020
Now, sure, it’s possible that he just edited that moment in well after the fact to lend credence to his claims, but I’m going to take him at his word here and admit that I was wrong. At least in part.
Sure, there’s been some indication that Cohen returned in a different disguise later to watch the aftermath which would suggest he wasn’t too terrified, but whatever.
Cohen, however, claims the problem wasn’t gun rights folks, but because Black Lives Matter showed up to counter-protest.
n a new interview with Stephen Colbert, Sacha Baron Cohen stated that the March for Our Rights scene from Borat 2 was pretty hard to pull off. Singing a song about injecting liberals with the “Wuhan Flu” was going over well with his gun-toting audience at first, but things went south when the Black Lives Matter movement showed up to protest the rally. According to Cohen, he was immediately recognized by the newcomers to the rally, which forced him to flee. “The organizers and a lot of people in the crowd got very angry,” Baron Cohen said. “They tried to storm the stage. Luckily for me, I had hired the security. So it took them a while to actually storm the stage.” Sacha Baron Cohen then shared footage of his escape, and it is intense, to put it lightly. We can see Borat dressed as Country Steve running from the stage when people start to approach the barricade. He is then rushed to a waiting vehicle, though it does not immediately leave. Cohen can be seen staying low, but the rally organizers and attendees know he’s in there. Someone tries to open the van door, which Cohen has to hold shut while yelling, “Drive, go, go, go!”
Honestly, I’m still not sure how much of that crap to believe. Especially since the story keeps seeming to shift from when it first happened.
Regardless, though, I called him a liar when he said that he was chased and people tried to open the vehicle door, and he proved me wrong. I’m man enough to admit I was wrong on that one. I don’t have to like it or him, but I try my damnedest to be a man of principle, so I have to acknowledge that I was wrong.
About that, at least.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Spokane City Council's Hypocritical Stance On Protesters

City council members in Spokane , Washington are considering a resolution asking the city ’ s police department to boot armed protesters out of the city or arrest them for violating state law , even though the resolution ’ s author has been highly critical of what he calls an overzealous police response to other protests in the city .
“ The City Council believes that the appearance of armed private militias marching with firearms , including rifles such as AR-15s , during the protests in May 2020 were crimes under state law , ” the resolution states .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meidl did not condone the militia groups but said they have the right to bear arms .
They moved along when asked to by police , he said .
Washington law prohibits private militias from bringing “ themselves together as a military company ” to “ organize or parade in public with firearms.
” City Council President Breean Beggs told The Spokesman-Review on Tuesday it appears police were not aware of the state law .
“ We ’ re bringing it to their very public attention , ” Beggs said .
Meidl asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interpretation of the law , according to police spokeswoman Julie Humphreys .
She said police have discouraged militias from responding to protests , but that people have the right to bear arms unless they are specifically threatening someone else .
It ’ s Breean Beggs ’ hypocrisy that really needs to be brought to the public ’ s attention .
Beggs is eager to see law enforcement crack down on those exercising their Second Amendment rights , even as he ’ s advocated for de-escalation on the part of police when responding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t calling for social workers to go out and talk to any of the armed protesters .
He ’ s all about de-escalation when it comes to actual crimes , but when dealing with people who are lawfully carrying while they protest , it ’ s time for some escalation .
According to police spokesperson Julie Humphreys , Police Chief Craig Meidl has asked the city ’ s legal department to take a closer look at the language of the non-binding resolution .
“ SPD does not interfere with the lawful exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second amendment , just as we would not interfere with the lawful exercise of other liberties such as free speech and peaceful assembly , ” Humphreys wrote in an email .
“ SPD has interacted with armed individuals in the past at large gatherings and has emphasized the desire for citizens to be prudent and judicious in their decisions regarding the carrying of firearms.
” In a statement to The Spokesman-Review , Meidl said he is unaware of any cities that have charged people with crimes based on the law cited in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a solid statement by the Spokane police , and it demonstrates far more fealty to the law and respect for our individual rights than the resolution that will be considered by the Spokane city council on Monday .
I have no doubt that the resolution will pass handily next week , but I hope that council members get an earful from the public before their vote is cast .
If the city is truly interested in de-escalation , they ’ ll back off their desire for police to arrest those exercising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a peaceful manner .

City council members in Spokane, Washington are considering a resolution asking the city’s police department to boot armed protesters out of the city or arrest them for violating state law, even though the resolution’s author has been highly critical of what he calls an overzealous police response to other protests in the city.
“The City Council believes that the appearance of armed private militias marching with firearms, including rifles such as AR-15s, during the protests in May 2020 were crimes under state law,” the resolution states. At the time, Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl did not condone the militia groups but said they have the right to bear arms. They moved along when asked to by police, he said. Washington law prohibits private militias from bringing “themselves together as a military company” to “organize or parade in public with firearms.” City Council President Breean Beggs told The Spokesman-Review on Tuesday it appears police were not aware of the state law. “We’re bringing it to their very public attention,” Beggs said. Meidl asked the city’s legal department for an interpretation of the law, according to police spokeswoman Julie Humphreys. She said police have discouraged militias from responding to protests, but that people have the right to bear arms unless they are specifically threatening someone else.
It’s Breean Beggs’ hypocrisy that really needs to be brought to the public’s attention. Beggs is eager to see law enforcement crack down on those exercising their Second Amendment rights, even as he’s advocated for de-escalation on the part of police when responding to calls.
I do not believe we need more commissioned police officers — people who carry a gun and are ready at a moment’s notice to use their guns. We do need people who will de-escalate conflict. They don’t have to have a gun to de-escalate conflict. Actually, not having a gun usually works better. We do need more social workers. We don’t have to send an armed commissioned officer to every call. We don’t have to do that anymore. Having someone commissioned and well-trained and the ability to use firearms costs more than other types of positions in our current economy.Do we need more people doing the work that makes our community safer? Yes. But it’s probably a different mix that has been done before.
Funny how Beggs isn’t calling for social workers to go out and talk to any of the armed protesters. He’s all about de-escalation when it comes to actual crimes, but when dealing with people who are lawfully carrying while they protest, it’s time for some escalation.
According to police spokesperson Julie Humphreys, Police Chief Craig Meidl has asked the city’s legal department to take a closer look at the language of the non-binding resolution.
“SPD does not interfere with the lawful exercise of a citizen’s liberty regarding the second amendment, just as we would not interfere with the lawful exercise of other liberties such as free speech and peaceful assembly,” Humphreys wrote in an email. “SPD has interacted with armed individuals in the past at large gatherings and has emphasized the desire for citizens to be prudent and judicious in their decisions regarding the carrying of firearms.” In a statement to The Spokesman-Review, Meidl said he is unaware of any cities that have charged people with crimes based on the law cited in the council’s resolution.
That’s a solid statement by the Spokane police, and it demonstrates far more fealty to the law and respect for our individual rights than the resolution that will be considered by the Spokane city council on Monday. I have no doubt that the resolution will pass handily next week, but I hope that council members get an earful from the public before their vote is cast. If the city is truly interested in de-escalation, they’ll back off their desire for police to arrest those exercising their First and Second Amendment rights in a peaceful manner.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--"Push" To Allow Guns At Polls Is No Such Thing

Leave it to the left to try and reframe reality .
See , by now , most of you are familiar with the fact that the Michigan governor has tried to ban guns at polling places .
She tried to do it by decree , something she completely lacks the authority to do , which sparked a lot of debate on the topic .
Yet some are not just supporting it , but trying to reframe reality to scare people into backing the measure .
Take this post from the Huffington Post titled , “ The Push To Allow Guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There is an unmistakable effort underway to intimidate voters — specifically Democratic voters — when they go to the polls .
The president himself has repeatedly threatened to send law enforcement to voting locations to hunt for supposed voter fraud , while more organic efforts include bullhorns , honking cars with Trump flags , and shouting confrontations directed at people lined up at early polling stations in blue or purple areas .
Bringing and displaying weapons at voting sites is one facet of potential intimidation that ’ s emerged in the weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an organized push from right-wing groups to show up at the polls with guns : a development election officials fear will create an unsafe environment for other voters to cast their ballots .
In one swing state , an effort to limit the presence of guns at polling locations was met with a court fight and a standoff between the state ’ s election officials and some members of law enforcement .
Each state has specific laws around whether guns are permitted at voting locations — but only about a dozen states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms at the polls .
The legality of bringing a gun to vote can hinge on a technicality , like whether the polling place is a church , school or government building .
But the legal wrangling over who is allowed to arm themselves at which polling locations obscures a more straightforward point : voter intimidation is a federal crime everywhere in the U.S. , and many voters would feel intimidated by visibly armed people at their polling places .
First , let ’ s address the title of this screed .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns .
There ’ s a push-back at an attempt to block people from carrying guns at polling places .
After all , in a world where we ’ re supposed to be terrified of mass shootings , it ’ s a small wonder we haven ’ t seen one in a polling place yet .
It ’ s only a matter of time .
Further , there ’ s no attempt to push for guns to be allowed at places they ’ re normally not allowed .
States that forbid the carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches don ’ t suddenly become areas where guns are permitted simply because there ’ s an election going on .
All anyone is trying to do is maintain the status quo .
And Whitmer ’ s attempt to bar guns from polling places is attempted voter suppression .
After all , plenty of gun folks have talked about how they don ’ t go places they can ’ t carry , so it seems a logical place to reduce Trump ’ s support is to bar guns from polling places .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been allowed at polling places in most states for many election cycles .
These would include elections won by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama .
It also includes states taken by Hillary Clinton four years ago .
The mere presence of a firearm in a polling place does not constitute voter intimidation and to claim otherwise is ridiculous .
Now , if someone is armed and tries to intimidate anyone for any reason–even if it ’ s not related to voting–then that needs to be investigated .
More importantly , I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Black Panther Party got by Attorney General Eric Holder .
However , I don ’ t believe there will be an issue .
After all , we tend to carry guns for protection , not intimidation , and we ’ re not the ones who have been burning cities to the ground every time we don ’ t like something over the last four years .

Leave it to the left to try and reframe reality.
See, by now, most of you are familiar with the fact that the Michigan governor has tried to ban guns at polling places. She tried to do it by decree, something she completely lacks the authority to do, which sparked a lot of debate on the topic.
Yet some are not just supporting it, but trying to reframe reality to scare people into backing the measure.
Take this post from the Huffington Post titled, “The Push To Allow Guns At Polling Places Is Straightforward Voter Intimidation.”
There is an unmistakable effort underway to intimidate voters — specifically Democratic voters — when they go to the polls. The president himself has repeatedly threatened to send law enforcement to voting locations to hunt for supposed voter fraud, while more organic efforts include bullhorns, honking cars with Trump flags, and shouting confrontations directed at people lined up at early polling stations in blue or purple areas. Bringing and displaying weapons at voting sites is one facet of potential intimidation that’s emerged in the weeks leading up to Election Day. There is an organized push from right-wing groups to show up at the polls with guns: a development election officials fear will create an unsafe environment for other voters to cast their ballots. In one swing state, an effort to limit the presence of guns at polling locations was met with a court fight and a standoff between the state’s election officials and some members of law enforcement. Each state has specific laws around whether guns are permitted at voting locations — but only about a dozen states explicitly ban open and/or concealed carry of firearms at the polls. The legality of bringing a gun to vote can hinge on a technicality, like whether the polling place is a church, school or government building. But the legal wrangling over who is allowed to arm themselves at which polling locations obscures a more straightforward point: voter intimidation is a federal crime everywhere in the U.S., and many voters would feel intimidated by visibly armed people at their polling places.
First, let’s address the title of this screed. There is no “push” to allow guns. There’s a push-back at an attempt to block people from carrying guns at polling places.
After all, in a world where we’re supposed to be terrified of mass shootings, it’s a small wonder we haven’t seen one in a polling place yet. It’s only a matter of time.
Further, there’s no attempt to push for guns to be allowed at places they’re normally not allowed. States that forbid the carry of a firearm on school property or churches don’t suddenly become areas where guns are permitted simply because there’s an election going on.
All anyone is trying to do is maintain the status quo.
“Oh, but it’s voter intimidation!” they scream.
And Whitmer’s attempt to bar guns from polling places is attempted voter suppression. After all, plenty of gun folks have talked about how they don’t go places they can’t carry, so it seems a logical place to reduce Trump’s support is to bar guns from polling places.
Let’s also note that guns have been allowed at polling places in most states for many election cycles. These would include elections won by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It also includes states taken by Hillary Clinton four years ago.
The mere presence of a firearm in a polling place does not constitute voter intimidation and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Now, if someone is armed and tries to intimidate anyone for any reason–even if it’s not related to voting–then that needs to be investigated. More importantly, I hope they get a deeper investigation than the New Black Panther Party got by Attorney General Eric Holder.
However, I don’t believe there will be an issue. After all, we tend to carry guns for protection, not intimidation, and we’re not the ones who have been burning cities to the ground every time we don’t like something over the last four years.