bearingarms--2020-10-13--Anti-Gun Activist Gets Firearm Preemption Laws All Wrong

The fight over local gun control laws in the state of Florida has taken place in city council chambers , courtrooms , and the state capitol in recent years as lawmakers sought to put some teeth behind a state statute that prohibits local governments from passing their own anti-gun legislation .
Gun control advocates fought the measure , which allows elected officials to be fined and even removed from office for violating the state ’ s firearms preemption laws , filing a lawsuit that challenges the new statute , but they ’ re also taking the fight to the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lives ’ Gowri Abhinanda argues in a new op/ed in the Orlando Sentinel for an end to the state ’ s preemption law , but her piece is long on “ wokeness ” and awfully short on actual facts .
We are living in unprecedented times .
We ’ ve found ourselves amid a global pandemic that has exacerbated historical disparities in our state while witnessing a movement for racial justice that demands we dismantle those same inequities .
And in this chaos , state “ leaders ” have taken this opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from implementing gun-violence prevention policies unique to their communities , costing lives .
In all of these events , we see systemic violence perpetuated by the state that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities — all for their bargain to protect corporate profits , mocking the lives lost to this epidemic .
What exactly are the prohibitions placed on local governments under Florida ’ s preemption law ?
According to state statute : This law isn ’ t new , by the way , despite Abhinanda ’ s claims .
Firearms preemption was first passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the law allowing for sanctions against local officials who violate the preemption law was approved by lawmakers back in 2011 .
Two years ago , well before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and protests over policing and criminal justice swept over the country , officials in ten Florida cities challenged the law , and the case has been making its way through the courts ever since ( it ’ s currently before a state appeals court ) .
Preemption is nothing new , but gun control activists like Abhinanda are desperate to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their push for all kinds of local gun control ordinances .
Oddly enough , however , even as Abhinanda pushes for more local laws , she and other activists argue against many existing public safety policies .
For years the gun lobby has called the shots , barring local powers that know their communities best from enacting life-saving legislation , even as we fear the increase of suicide attempts , domestic violence incidents , and homicides during the pandemic .
In our schools , police with their domineering guns patrol our campuses due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pipeline , the criminalization of kids for just being kids .
Even as Floridians demand common-sense legislation and research indicates stricter gun laws increase local safety , the gun lobby continues to pursue an anti-regulatory strategy that leads to more death .
Who exactly does Abhinanda think enforces local gun control laws ?
The gun control fairy ?
No , it ’ s “ police with their domineering guns ” that would be responsible for enforcement of any municipal ordinance that she and other activists might put on the books if the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Abhinanda seems fixated on the idea that the only reason Florida ’ s firearms preemption law exists is to somehow secure greater profits for gun companies , as opposed to protecting Floridians from a patchwork quilt of gun laws that vary from town to town .
The March for Our Lives activist spends so much of her column attacking capitalism and “ big business ” that she fails to mention even one local gun control law that she and other activists want to put on the books in cities and towns across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the only way to create safer communities is through local gun control laws , I suggest that Abhinanda take a look what ’ s actually happened to the state ’ s crime rate since preemption took effect in 1987 .
The homicide rate has dropped from 11.4 to 5.2 per 100,000 people , while violent crime overall has declined by nearly 66 % ; from 1,024 violent crimes per 100,000 people down to 378 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2019 .
In other words , Florida ’ s become a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
Abhinanda ’ s argument in favor of more local gun control laws falls flat , in part because she offers no specifics about what local laws are lacking , but also because she fails to acknowledge the truth about violent crime in the state .
Instead , she offers only a word salad of anti-corporate and anti-Second Amendment rhetoric that ignores the actual voters in Florida who know that public safety doesn ’ t involve preempting citizens of their right to keep and bear arms .

The fight over local gun control laws in the state of Florida has taken place in city council chambers, courtrooms, and the state capitol in recent years as lawmakers sought to put some teeth behind a state statute that prohibits local governments from passing their own anti-gun legislation. Gun control advocates fought the measure, which allows elected officials to be fined and even removed from office for violating the state’s firearms preemption laws, filing a lawsuit that challenges the new statute, but they’re also taking the fight to the court of public opinion.
March for Our Lives’ Gowri Abhinanda argues in a new op/ed in the Orlando Sentinel for an end to the state’s preemption law, but her piece is long on “wokeness” and awfully short on actual facts.
We are living in unprecedented times. We’ve found ourselves amid a global pandemic that has exacerbated historical disparities in our state while witnessing a movement for racial justice that demands we dismantle those same inequities. And in this chaos, state “leaders” have taken this opportunity to strengthen restrictive laws that prevent local officials from implementing gun-violence prevention policies unique to their communities, costing lives. In all of these events, we see systemic violence perpetuated by the state that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities — all for their bargain to protect corporate profits, mocking the lives lost to this epidemic.
What exactly are the prohibitions placed on local governments under Florida’s preemption law? According to state statute:
Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto.
This law isn’t new, by the way, despite Abhinanda’s claims. Firearms preemption was first passed in the state back in 1987, and the law allowing for sanctions against local officials who violate the preemption law was approved by lawmakers back in 2011. Two years ago, well before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and protests over policing and criminal justice swept over the country, officials in ten Florida cities challenged the law, and the case has been making its way through the courts ever since (it’s currently before a state appeals court).
Preemption is nothing new, but gun control activists like Abhinanda are desperate to see the law overturned so they can begin their push for all kinds of local gun control ordinances. Oddly enough, however, even as Abhinanda pushes for more local laws, she and other activists argue against many existing public safety policies.
For years the gun lobby has called the shots, barring local powers that know their communities best from enacting life-saving legislation, even as we fear the increase of suicide attempts, domestic violence incidents, and homicides during the pandemic. In our schools, police with their domineering guns patrol our campuses due to state preemption, fueling the school-to-prison pipeline, the criminalization of kids for just being kids. Even as Floridians demand common-sense legislation and research indicates stricter gun laws increase local safety, the gun lobby continues to pursue an anti-regulatory strategy that leads to more death.
Who exactly does Abhinanda think enforces local gun control laws? The gun control fairy? No, it’s “police with their domineering guns” that would be responsible for enforcement of any municipal ordinance that she and other activists might put on the books if the state’s preemption law were to disappear.
We, the people who live here, not big business, know what we need to be safe. We must have the right to pass local laws designed for our communities without fear of retribution. That’s why March for Our Lives Florida is proud to defend local democracy and stand with advocates demanding we redefine public safety by empowering the people. Right now, Florida is allowing the NRA to threaten the safety of our homes, our neighborhoods, and our schools. It’s time we all speak up and tell our lawmakers to put an end to firearm preemption laws and put people over profits. Only then can we create safer communities.
Abhinanda seems fixated on the idea that the only reason Florida’s firearms preemption law exists is to somehow secure greater profits for gun companies, as opposed to protecting Floridians from a patchwork quilt of gun laws that vary from town to town.
The March for Our Lives activist spends so much of her column attacking capitalism and “big business” that she fails to mention even one local gun control law that she and other activists want to put on the books in cities and towns across the state.
As for the idea that the only way to create safer communities is through local gun control laws, I suggest that Abhinanda take a look what’s actually happened to the state’s crime rate since preemption took effect in 1987. The homicide rate has dropped from 11.4 to 5.2 per 100,000 people, while violent crime overall has declined by nearly 66%; from 1,024 violent crimes per 100,000 people down to 378 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2019. In other words, Florida’s become a much safer state with firearms preemption laws in place.
Abhinanda’s argument in favor of more local gun control laws falls flat, in part because she offers no specifics about what local laws are lacking, but also because she fails to acknowledge the truth about violent crime in the state. Instead, she offers only a word salad of anti-corporate and anti-Second Amendment rhetoric that ignores the actual voters in Florida who know that public safety doesn’t involve preempting citizens of their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--Keith Olbermann Illustrates Why We Won't Give Up Our Guns

Back in the days when Keith Olbermann was on ESPN , I liked him well enough .
After all , it was sports .
That was one of those topics that transcended politics , that united us in various ways .
Olbermann , as an ESPN host , was part of that .
Then he left sports and began focusing on politics .
Since then , he ’ s been one of a legion of left-leaning screeching harpies who continues to insert their unqualified opinion at hysterical decibels under the belief that loud makes right or something .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes that amount to ridiculous overreactions before , but the problem is that a lot of people have listened to him and take him seriously .
His latest , though , is that anyone who supports Trump is guilty of criminal activity .
Longtime sportscaster-turned-far-left-pundit-turned-sportscaster Keith Olbermann is a far-left pundit again , leaving ESPN for the fourth time in order to host a YouTube show dedicated to helping Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden defeat President Donald Trump in the general election .
But Olbermann told his audience on Thursday that the battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for the president and his supporters to be “ prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.
” What are the details ?
Olbermann announced Tuesday that he would be leaving ESPN amicably in order to launch his new political show in an effort to impact the upcoming election .
During his second show that aired Thursday , Olbermann went on a tirade , declaring that “ Trump can be , and must be , expunged .
The hate he has triggered , Pandora ’ s boxes he has opened , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So , let us brace ourselves , ” he continued , saying , “ The task is two-fold : the terrorist Trump must be defeated , must be destroyed , must be devoured at the ballot box , and then he , and his enablers , and his supporters , and his collaborators , and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs , and Sean Hannitys , and the Mike Pences , and the Rudy Gullianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus.
” Olbermann was less than forthcoming about precisely what charges should be filed .
In the process , though , he illustrates precisely why we ’ re not interested in giving up our guns–any of our guns–at any point in time .
Olbermann basically called for the arrest of people he disagrees with politically so they can be “ removed from our society.
” Now , whether he means prison or a more permanent removal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t trust someone like Olbermann with that kind of power .
Granted , it ’ s Keith Olbermann .
No one is going to take him seriously .
The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of people who believe similarly to Olbermann .
They think Trump supporters–any Trump supporter–deserves imprisonment at the very least .
And since they label “ Trump supporter ” on anyone they disagree with , that will include a lot more people .
They want to round up political opposition and herd them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Well , we ain ’ t going .
If they try to start rounding up all of those who support the president , you ’ re going to see something that will make the riots of 2020 look like a Boy Scout Jamboree .
At that point , they will have cross an uncrossable line and they ’ ll deserve the unleashed hell that will come .
Americans aren ’ t giving up our guns because there are people like Olbermann who simply believe that disagreement is sufficient grounds for imprisonment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Remember when President Trump talked about the need to arrest Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified materials ?
Remember , this was an actual , concrete crime .
Despite that , the left went nuts , accusing Trump of wanting to imprison his opponents .
Now , we ’ ve got Olbermann looking to imprison opponents who haven ’ t committed any concrete , actual crimes .
What ’ s worse is that he doesn ’ t see the outright hypocrisy involved .
Besides , Trump was talking about one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of innocent people .
Yeah , I ’ m not giving up my guns any time soon .
Especially not so long as there are people like Olbermann out there .

Back in the days when Keith Olbermann was on ESPN, I liked him well enough. After all, it was sports. That was one of those topics that transcended politics, that united us in various ways. Olbermann, as an ESPN host, was part of that.
Then he left sports and began focusing on politics.
Since then, he’s been one of a legion of left-leaning screeching harpies who continues to insert their unqualified opinion at hysterical decibels under the belief that loud makes right or something. He’s been known for his hysterical hot takes that amount to ridiculous overreactions before, but the problem is that a lot of people have listened to him and take him seriously.
His latest, though, is that anyone who supports Trump is guilty of criminal activity.
Longtime sportscaster-turned-far-left-pundit-turned-sportscaster Keith Olbermann is a far-left pundit again, leaving ESPN for the fourth time in order to host a YouTube show dedicated to helping Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden defeat President Donald Trump in the general election. But Olbermann told his audience on Thursday that the battle extends far beyond Election Day, and called for the president and his supporters to be “prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.” What are the details? Olbermann announced Tuesday that he would be leaving ESPN amicably in order to launch his new political show in an effort to impact the upcoming election. During his second show that aired Thursday, Olbermann went on a tirade, declaring that “Trump can be, and must be, expunged. The hate he has triggered, Pandora’s boxes he has opened, they will not be so easily destroyed.” “So, let us brace ourselves,” he continued, saying, “The task is two-fold: the terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box, and then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs, and Sean Hannitys, and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Gullianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus.”
Olbermann was less than forthcoming about precisely what charges should be filed.
In the process, though, he illustrates precisely why we’re not interested in giving up our guns–any of our guns–at any point in time. Olbermann basically called for the arrest of people he disagrees with politically so they can be “removed from our society.” Now, whether he means prison or a more permanent removal is up to interpretation, but I don’t trust someone like Olbermann with that kind of power.
Granted, it’s Keith Olbermann. No one is going to take him seriously.
Are they?
The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of people who believe similarly to Olbermann. They think Trump supporters–any Trump supporter–deserves imprisonment at the very least. And since they label “Trump supporter” on anyone they disagree with, that will include a lot more people. They want to round up political opposition and herd them into gulags or line them against the wall.
Well, we ain’t going.
If they try to start rounding up all of those who support the president, you’re going to see something that will make the riots of 2020 look like a Boy Scout Jamboree. At that point, they will have cross an uncrossable line and they’ll deserve the unleashed hell that will come.
Americans aren’t giving up our guns because there are people like Olbermann who simply believe that disagreement is sufficient grounds for imprisonment.
Perhaps the worst part is the hypocrisy. Remember when President Trump talked about the need to arrest Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified materials? Remember, this was an actual, concrete crime. Despite that, the left went nuts, accusing Trump of wanting to imprison his opponents.
Now, we’ve got Olbermann looking to imprison opponents who haven’t committed any concrete, actual crimes. What’s worse is that he doesn’t see the outright hypocrisy involved.
Besides, Trump was talking about one person while Olbermann is literally talking about millions of innocent people.
Yeah, I’m not giving up my guns any time soon. Especially not so long as there are people like Olbermann out there.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--Activist Investors Push Smith & Wesson To Consider Gun Violence Impact

Activist investors have been trying for some time to change the shape of the firearm industry .
In their mind , they can buy enough stock to pressure gun companies to take steps to embrace gun control , they just need to throw enough money into the mix .
In theory , they ’ re right .
They ’ d need to purchase a lot of stock of all the different companies , but then it ’ s certainly possible .
At least in theory .
However , right now , it seems that a group of activist investors made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith & Wesson to do “ something ” about gun violence .
With $ 2,000 worth of stock , a network of nuns and a Catholic health care organizations are once again asking gunmaker Smith & Wesson to adopt a statement on human rights and to make a public accounting of the cost of gun violence .
Company management — remembering the strong backlash to Smith & Wesson ’ s Clinton-era overtures to gun safety advocates — said adopting the sort of human rights policy the nuns are looking for would alienate supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” according to Smith & Wesson documents filed in the run-up to the vote .
The request for a human rights policy modeled on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights goes before stockholders Tuesday , Oct. 13 , at Smith & Wesson ’ s annual shareholders meeting .
This isn ’ t the first time the group has tried to pressure the company to adopt such a statement .
In fact , they tried it a year ago and it didn ’ t go anywhere .
In its report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying mass shootings don ’ t hurt the company ’ s reputation , and that the company would not endorse any gun restrictions .
And , the company said , its gun customers wouldn ’ t stand for the actions the religious groups were seeking .
“ The Company ’ s reputation as a strong defender of the Second Amendment is not worth risking for a vague goal of improving the company ’ s reputation among non-customers or special interest groups with an anti-Second Amendment agenda , ” the company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why damage your reputation with your customers over the promise of improving that relationship with people who are literally never going to buy your products ?
At the end of the day , though , we really need to question just what these activist investors really think they ’ re going to accomplish .
Smith & Wesson , as well as every other firearm manufacturer in the nation , make guns that are then sold to people who undergo NICS checks .
Every single one .
Either the company sells directly–in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FFL who conducts the background check–or they ’ re sold to a distributor who then sells them to gun stores…who then perform an NICS on prospective buyers .
There ’ s literally nothing a gun company can do to prevent guns getting into criminal hands that they ’ re not already doing .
Literally nothing .
So why keep tilting at these particular windmills ?
Why continue to push for this ?
Honestly , I can ’ t even imagine why , but it ’ s understandable that Smith & Wesson has decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ear .
They know how the gun crowd can be when it comes to capitulating to anti-gunners ’ demands and there ’ s zero reason for them to consider it .

Activist investors have been trying for some time to change the shape of the firearm industry. In their mind, they can buy enough stock to pressure gun companies to take steps to embrace gun control, they just need to throw enough money into the mix.
In theory, they’re right. They’d need to purchase a lot of stock of all the different companies, but then it’s certainly possible. At least in theory.
However, right now, it seems that a group of activist investors made up mostly of nuns seeks to pressure Smith & Wesson to do “something” about gun violence.
With $2,000 worth of stock, a network of nuns and a Catholic health care organizations are once again asking gunmaker Smith & Wesson to adopt a statement on human rights and to make a public accounting of the cost of gun violence. Company management — remembering the strong backlash to Smith & Wesson’s Clinton-era overtures to gun safety advocates — said adopting the sort of human rights policy the nuns are looking for would alienate supporters in the “firearms enthusiast community,” according to Smith & Wesson documents filed in the run-up to the vote. The request for a human rights policy modeled on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights goes before stockholders Tuesday, Oct. 13, at Smith & Wesson’s annual shareholders meeting.
This isn’t the first time the group has tried to pressure the company to adopt such a statement. In fact, they tried it a year ago and it didn’t go anywhere.
In its report American Outdoor Brands rebuffed the Interfaith Center, saying mass shootings don’t hurt the company’s reputation, and that the company would not endorse any gun restrictions. And, the company said, its gun customers wouldn’t stand for the actions the religious groups were seeking. “The Company’s reputation as a strong defender of the Second Amendment is not worth risking for a vague goal of improving the company’s reputation among non-customers or special interest groups with an anti-Second Amendment agenda,” the company’s report said.
Makes sense, really. Why damage your reputation with your customers over the promise of improving that relationship with people who are literally never going to buy your products?
At the end of the day, though, we really need to question just what these activist investors really think they’re going to accomplish. Smith & Wesson, as well as every other firearm manufacturer in the nation, make guns that are then sold to people who undergo NICS checks. Every single one. Either the company sells directly–in which case the weapon is shipped to an FFL who conducts the background check–or they’re sold to a distributor who then sells them to gun stores…who then perform an NICS on prospective buyers.
There’s literally nothing a gun company can do to prevent guns getting into criminal hands that they’re not already doing. Literally nothing.
So why keep tilting at these particular windmills? Why continue to push for this?
Honestly, I can’t even imagine why, but it’s understandable that Smith & Wesson has decided to basically ignore the mosquito buzzing in their ear. They know how the gun crowd can be when it comes to capitulating to anti-gunners’ demands and there’s zero reason for them to consider it.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--Officer Charged After His Weapon Fires, Strikes Bystander

I ’ ve said many times that police have a very hard job .
As a result , I ’ m probably a bit more willing to cut them some slack in a lot of cases than I probably should .
They ’ re human , after all , and they ’ re doing a difficult job .
Plus , unlike most of us , when they make a mistake , it ’ s in a fishbowl where an entire community will look at it .
However , that doesn ’ t mean I think they should get a pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , a police officer is in hot water after his firearm discharged .
Sgt .
Michael Sturek faces a trio of charges , including second-degree recklessly endangering safety , possession of a firearm while intoxicated , and endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon , stemming from the incident , which happened on August 26 outside Sturek ’ s home .
According to the criminal complaint , the shooting followed a night of drinking at a local bar by Sturek and the victim , during which the former told investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A detective who was investigating the case reported being able to smell the alcohol on Sturek and could tell he had been drinking by the way he talked .
Later , at Sturek ’ s home , the off-duty sergeant was showing the victim his gun collection and selected a pistol that his guest had shown an interest in .
When they went outside , Sturek claims he went to clear the weapon and it fired .
He told the detective they were both surprised it went off .
Sturek told the detective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picker on the bang switch , ” the criminal complaint quoted him saying .
Investigators figure that Sturek hit the magazine release , but the mag didn ’ t drop free .
Then he racked the slide , intending to clear the weapon , only it didn ’ t .
But I don ’ t care what he said , his booger picker was probably on the bang switch .
Even racking the slide doesn ’ t tend to cause a half-way decent firearm to just go off .
Then again , being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and simply didn ’ t remember it .
Honestly , a cop should know better than to do virtually any of this crap .
Unfortunately , the people most likely to have a negligent discharge are those who are around firearms literally all the time .
Police officers and firearm instructors , of which Sturek claims to have been both .
Now he ’ s facing criminal charges , as he should .
After all , his negligence resulted in another person being injured , and that ’ s where people need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , folks screw up and I get that .
Anyone can screw up and have a negligent discharge if they ’ re not careful .
However , when someone gets hurt because of that negligence , that ’ s crossing a big line .
For what it ’ s worth , the injured were described as non-life threatening , which is a good thing .
That doesn ’ t excuse what happened , though .
“ Oh , but what if it happened precisely as Sturek said ?
” Look , if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his gun is a piece of crap .
Not only that , but he should have been paying attention to where his muzzle was pointing .
He didn ’ t and someone else got shot because of it .
Now , he ’ s looking at charges because of it .
Sorry , but I ’ m not feeling much sympathy right now .

I’ve said many times that police have a very hard job. As a result, I’m probably a bit more willing to cut them some slack in a lot of cases than I probably should. They’re human, after all, and they’re doing a difficult job. Plus, unlike most of us, when they make a mistake, it’s in a fishbowl where an entire community will look at it.
However, that doesn’t mean I think they should get a pass when they cross the line, either.
Now, a police officer is in hot water after his firearm discharged.
Sgt. Michael Sturek faces a trio of charges, including second-degree recklessly endangering safety, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, and endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon, stemming from the incident, which happened on August 26 outside Sturek’s home. According to the criminal complaint, the shooting followed a night of drinking at a local bar by Sturek and the victim, during which the former told investigators he had about a dozen beers. A detective who was investigating the case reported being able to smell the alcohol on Sturek and could tell he had been drinking by the way he talked. Later, at Sturek’s home, the off-duty sergeant was showing the victim his gun collection and selected a pistol that his guest had shown an interest in. When they went outside, Sturek claims he went to clear the weapon and it fired. He told the detective they were both surprised it went off. Sturek told the detective he did not have his “booger picker on the bang switch,” the criminal complaint quoted him saying.
Investigators figure that Sturek hit the magazine release, but the mag didn’t drop free. Then he racked the slide, intending to clear the weapon, only it didn’t.
But I don’t care what he said, his booger picker was probably on the bang switch. Even racking the slide doesn’t tend to cause a half-way decent firearm to just go off. Then again, being fairly drunk, he probably had it there and simply didn’t remember it.
Honestly, a cop should know better than to do virtually any of this crap.
Unfortunately, the people most likely to have a negligent discharge are those who are around firearms literally all the time. Police officers and firearm instructors, of which Sturek claims to have been both.
Now he’s facing criminal charges, as he should. After all, his negligence resulted in another person being injured, and that’s where people need to be stepped on. I mean, folks screw up and I get that. Anyone can screw up and have a negligent discharge if they’re not careful. However, when someone gets hurt because of that negligence, that’s crossing a big line.
For what it’s worth, the injured were described as non-life threatening, which is a good thing. That doesn’t excuse what happened, though.
“Oh, but what if it happened precisely as Sturek said?”
I. Don’t. Care.
Look, if it did, I hate it for him, but his gun is a piece of crap. Not only that, but he should have been paying attention to where his muzzle was pointing. He didn’t and someone else got shot because of it.
Now, he’s looking at charges because of it. Sorry, but I’m not feeling much sympathy right now.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--2A Leaders Impressed By ACB Testimony

2A Leaders Impressed By ACB Testimony

The questioning of Amy Coney Barrett by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will wrap up on Wednesday , though a vote by the committee likely won ’ t take place until next Thursday , and the full Senate isn ’ t expected to vote on her confirmation until the waning days of October .
Already , though , Second Amendment advocates are envisioning a Supreme Court with Barrett on the bench , and they like what they see .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , the Second Amendment Foundation ’ s Alan Gottlieb joins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s seen from the Barrett hearings , as well as an update on a Second Amendment-related case that was turned away by the Supreme Court earlier this week .
When it comes to Barrett , Gottlieb says he ’ s been impressed by her command of the issues , and he was thrilled to see Barrett ’ s handling of questions over her dissenting opinion in the case Kanter vs. Barr , in which she opined that a non-violent felony conviction shouldn ’ t automatically result in a lifetime prohibition on the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that Barrett clearly understands that the Second Amendment protects a natural right , one that predates the Constitution .
The arguments at the time of the Constitution ’ s ratification didn ’ t revolve around whether or not Americans possessed the right to keep and bear arms , but whether or not that right , along with several others , should be specifically protected in a Bill of Rights .
While that doesn ’ t guarantee that a Justice Barrett would move to strike down every gun control law that came before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that Amy Coney Barrett views the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental right of Americans as opposed to an anachronism or constitutional anomaly that can be ignored at will by governments .
That alone would be a sea change from the position taken by Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who declared that the Second Amendment had no function any more because “ we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home ” .
As for the current makeup of the Supreme Court and its reluctance to hear any Second Amendment challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Court ’ s decision this week not to grant cert to a case called Rodriguez vs. San Jose , which involved a woman suing the city of San Jose , California over the seizure of her lawfully owned firearms .
Lower courts had concluded in essence that Rodriguez was legally eligible to go out and purchase new firearms to replace the ones seized by police in the city , but that the city wasn ’ t required to give her guns back to her .
The Second Amendment Foundation supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gottlieb says they ’ re not done yet .
You ’ ll have to watch today ’ s show to find out the organization ’ s next step , but suffice it to say that Lori Rodriguez may ultimately get her day before the Supreme Court , and if she does , it ’ s likely that Amy Coney Barrett will there to weigh in .

The questioning of Amy Coney Barrett by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will wrap up on Wednesday, though a vote by the committee likely won’t take place until next Thursday, and the full Senate isn’t expected to vote on her confirmation until the waning days of October. Already, though, Second Amendment advocates are envisioning a Supreme Court with Barrett on the bench, and they like what they see.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb joins me to talk about what he’s seen from the Barrett hearings, as well as an update on a Second Amendment-related case that was turned away by the Supreme Court earlier this week.
When it comes to Barrett, Gottlieb says he’s been impressed by her command of the issues, and he was thrilled to see Barrett’s handling of questions over her dissenting opinion in the case Kanter vs. Barr, in which she opined that a non-violent felony conviction shouldn’t automatically result in a lifetime prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms.
Gottlieb notes that Barrett clearly understands that the Second Amendment protects a natural right, one that predates the Constitution. The arguments at the time of the Constitution’s ratification didn’t revolve around whether or not Americans possessed the right to keep and bear arms, but whether or not that right, along with several others, should be specifically protected in a Bill of Rights.
While that doesn’t guarantee that a Justice Barrett would move to strike down every gun control law that came before the Supreme Court, it does tell us that Amy Coney Barrett views the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental right of Americans as opposed to an anachronism or constitutional anomaly that can be ignored at will by governments. That alone would be a sea change from the position taken by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who declared that the Second Amendment had no function any more because “we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home”.
As for the current makeup of the Supreme Court and its reluctance to hear any Second Amendment challenges, Gottlieb says he was incredibly disappointed by the Court’s decision this week not to grant cert to a case called Rodriguez vs. San Jose, which involved a woman suing the city of San Jose, California over the seizure of her lawfully owned firearms. Lower courts had concluded in essence that Rodriguez was legally eligible to go out and purchase new firearms to replace the ones seized by police in the city, but that the city wasn’t required to give her guns back to her.
The Second Amendment Foundation supported the case almost from its inception, and Gottlieb says they’re not done yet. You’ll have to watch today’s show to find out the organization’s next step, but suffice it to say that Lori Rodriguez may ultimately get her day before the Supreme Court, and if she does, it’s likely that Amy Coney Barrett will there to weigh in.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--Return Of The Black Gun-Rights Movement

Return Of The Black Gun-Rights Movement

There have always been black men and women who seek to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
That ’ s why early gun control laws sought to restrict them from doing so , after all .
It ’ s not like you need a law to prevent someone from doing something they weren ’ t going to do anyway , right ?
Over the years , black men and women have continued to embrace their gun rights , and for good reason .
Black Americans account for nearly half of the homicide victims while only making up about 13 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a black person would want to have a gun .
However , for quite some time , the anti-gunners seemed to have done a pretty good job convincing many black Americans that they should embrace gun control as an answer to all their ills .
These days , though , it seems more and more black folks are choosing a different path .
When Second Amendment activist Brent Holmes started showing up at police brutality protests in Richmond , Virginia , over the summer while carrying an assault rifle across his chest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Yes , yes , he gets it , ’ ” Holmes says .
“ He knows that he has those rights , too.
’ ” Holmes , who also wears a red baseball cap with the words “ I CAN ’ T BREATHE ” embroidered across the front , is part of a community of black gun-rights activists who have been showing up armed to protests in several American cities .
At the end of the day , there are probably a lot of folks within the black gun rights camp that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a whole lot of stuff .
However , I also don ’ t believe that gun rights are the exclusive purview of conservatives or libertarians .
You don ’ t have to hold specific political opinions in order to have the right to keep and bear arms .
That ’ s kind of the point of rights , after all .
Frankly , I ’ m glad to see more African-American men and women embracing their gun rights .
If they are actually afraid for their lives every day as we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then they should be armed .
Based on the homicide rates alone , I sure as hell would .
However , there ’ s an upside to those conservatives and libertarians I mentioned previously .
See , Democrats have been courting minority votes for ages now .
They don ’ t want to lose their lock on minorities .
Yet , if the black community truly embraces their gun rights , then Democrats will likely stop talking so much about gun control .
After all , they don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Democrats drop gun control , who would really be left to pick it up ?
Sure , a handful of Democrats would still push that narrative .
They ’ re from heavily white , anti-gun regions where it ’ s unlikely to hurt them anyway , but the party itself–especially its presidential candidates–would drop the anti-gun narrative so fast it ’ ll make your head spin .
As they should .
Look , gun rights exist for everyone .
I ’ m personally glad to see more people come to embrace them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re worried about hate coming their way .

There have always been black men and women who seek to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s why early gun control laws sought to restrict them from doing so, after all. It’s not like you need a law to prevent someone from doing something they weren’t going to do anyway, right?
Over the years, black men and women have continued to embrace their gun rights, and for good reason. Black Americans account for nearly half of the homicide victims while only making up about 13 percent of the population. I get why a black person would want to have a gun.
However, for quite some time, the anti-gunners seemed to have done a pretty good job convincing many black Americans that they should embrace gun control as an answer to all their ills.
These days, though, it seems more and more black folks are choosing a different path.
When Second Amendment activist Brent Holmes started showing up at police brutality protests in Richmond, Virginia, over the summer while carrying an assault rifle across his chest, passersby would cheer him on. “‘Yes, yes, he gets it,’” Holmes says. “He knows that he has those rights, too.’” Holmes, who also wears a red baseball cap with the words “I CAN’T BREATHE” embroidered across the front, is part of a community of black gun-rights activists who have been showing up armed to protests in several American cities.
Here’s the whole video:
At the end of the day, there are probably a lot of folks within the black gun rights camp that I’m going to disagree with on a whole lot of stuff. However, I also don’t believe that gun rights are the exclusive purview of conservatives or libertarians. You don’t have to hold specific political opinions in order to have the right to keep and bear arms.
That’s kind of the point of rights, after all.
Frankly, I’m glad to see more African-American men and women embracing their gun rights. If they are actually afraid for their lives every day as we’ve been told time and time again, then they should be armed. Based on the homicide rates alone, I sure as hell would.
However, there’s an upside to those conservatives and libertarians I mentioned previously.
See, Democrats have been courting minority votes for ages now. They don’t want to lose their lock on minorities. Yet, if the black community truly embraces their gun rights, then Democrats will likely stop talking so much about gun control. After all, they don’t want to lose that key demographic, right?
If Democrats drop gun control, who would really be left to pick it up?
Sure, a handful of Democrats would still push that narrative. They’re from heavily white, anti-gun regions where it’s unlikely to hurt them anyway, but the party itself–especially its presidential candidates–would drop the anti-gun narrative so fast it’ll make your head spin.
As they should.
Look, gun rights exist for everyone. I’m personally glad to see more people come to embrace them. They should embrace them, especially if they’re worried about hate coming their way.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--Giffords Launches New Group Of Anti-Gun Gun Owners

The National Rifle Association has long been the boogieman for anti-gunners .
They ’ re perpetually convinced that if the NRA were gone , or at least countered , they could usher in their anti-gun Utopia and all would be right with the world .
That ’ s not remotely likely , of course , but they ’ re free to dream .
It ’ s to that end that Gabby Giffords unveiled her latest effort .
Giffords , the gun control advocacy organization founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords ( D-Ariz. ) after her attempted assassination , is set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to take on the power and influence of the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) .
Gun Owners for Safety will be launched off of a coalition that was founded in 2018 with chapters in Colorado , Minnesota and Texas .
It seeks to offer gun owners an alternative to the NRA , which remains stringently opposed to most anti-gun violence proposals .
“ I think whether you ’ re talking about politics , whether you ’ re talking about lobbying , whether you ’ re talking about culture change , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the millions of Americans at the center of our politics .
If we ’ re going to have long-term durable change in this country , it can ’ t just be the activists on the left and the activists on the right .
We really have to move the center , ” Giffords Executive Director Peter Ambler said .
Organizers have already connected with nearly 50,000 gun owners in all 50 states as well as Washington , D.C. , and some serving abroad “ who are fed up with the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunters , collectors , veterans , former law enforcement and others who value firearm ownership but also want to reduce gun violence .
“ These men and women were eager , at a time when our values of our country are being debated , to raise their hand and show politicians , show the country , that the vast majority of gun owners support safer gun laws , ” Ambler said , calling expanded background checks a main focus of the group .
I ’ m sure the NRA and their five million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , the timing of this is intended so as to take advantage of an embattled NRA as the group takes criticism from both the left and even other pro-gun folks who don ’ t agree with decisions made by the organization ’ s leadership .
However , it ’ s important to note that none of these 50,000 people are remotely likely to be members of the NRA or other pro-gun group in the first place .
After all , Gun Owners for Safety isn ’ t about firearm safety at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control , plain and simple , and those who have already joined his anti-gun jihadist group are in it for the gun control .
Everyone can see through the euphemisms , after all .
The thing that gets me , though , is that Giffords was supposedly started to push for gun control , but they ’ ve been so damn ineffective that now they ’ re starting another group to try and push for gun control .
It ’ s a little ironic to me .
Regardless , I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giffords is hoping for .
After all , most gun owners are either luke warm on politics in general or are vehemently pro-gun .
Don ’ t be surprised if those membership numbers never go up .

The National Rifle Association has long been the boogieman for anti-gunners. They’re perpetually convinced that if the NRA were gone, or at least countered, they could usher in their anti-gun Utopia and all would be right with the world.
That’s not remotely likely, of course, but they’re free to dream.
It’s to that end that Gabby Giffords unveiled her latest effort.
Giffords, the gun control advocacy organization founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) after her attempted assassination, is set to launch a new national firearms group intended to take on the power and influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Gun Owners for Safety will be launched off of a coalition that was founded in 2018 with chapters in Colorado, Minnesota and Texas. It seeks to offer gun owners an alternative to the NRA, which remains stringently opposed to most anti-gun violence proposals. “I think whether you’re talking about politics, whether you’re talking about lobbying, whether you’re talking about culture change, what’s vitally important is that we focus on the millions of Americans at the center of our politics. If we’re going to have long-term durable change in this country, it can’t just be the activists on the left and the activists on the right. We really have to move the center,” Giffords Executive Director Peter Ambler said. … Organizers have already connected with nearly 50,000 gun owners in all 50 states as well as Washington, D.C., and some serving abroad “who are fed up with the NRA,” Ambler said. Members include hunters, collectors, veterans, former law enforcement and others who value firearm ownership but also want to reduce gun violence. “These men and women were eager, at a time when our values of our country are being debated, to raise their hand and show politicians, show the country, that the vast majority of gun owners support safer gun laws,” Ambler said, calling expanded background checks a main focus of the group.
Oh, wow, a whole 50,000?
I’m sure the NRA and their five million members are shaking in their boots.
Of course, the timing of this is intended so as to take advantage of an embattled NRA as the group takes criticism from both the left and even other pro-gun folks who don’t agree with decisions made by the organization’s leadership.
However, it’s important to note that none of these 50,000 people are remotely likely to be members of the NRA or other pro-gun group in the first place. After all, Gun Owners for Safety isn’t about firearm safety at all. It’s about gun control, plain and simple, and those who have already joined his anti-gun jihadist group are in it for the gun control. Everyone can see through the euphemisms, after all.
The thing that gets me, though, is that Giffords was supposedly started to push for gun control, but they’ve been so damn ineffective that now they’re starting another group to try and push for gun control. It’s a little ironic to me.
Regardless, I don’t think this group will have the impact Giffords is hoping for. After all, most gun owners are either luke warm on politics in general or are vehemently pro-gun. Don’t be surprised if those membership numbers never go up.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--McCloskeys Plead Not Guilty To Gun, Evidence Tampering Charges

Mark and Patricia McCloskey , the St. Louis couple who gained national attention after displaying firearms from their front yard as hundreds of protesters marched through their private neighborhood earlier this year , entered “ not guilty ” pleas to charges of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering on Wednesday .
Joel Schwartz , who ’ s representing the trial attorneys in their criminal case , spoke to reporters outside the St. Louis courthouse where today ’ s hearing took place , telling the press that “ The fact that Kim Gardner and the Circuit Attorney ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to prosecute the McCloskeys , who were clearly innocent of any crime , committed no crime whatsoever , is sort of a travesty.
” Schwartz went on to say that the McCloskeys would not consider entering into pre-trial diversion , which Gardner had originally recommended before a grand jury indicted the pair .
Schwartz says that since Gardner ’ s comments this summer , he ’ s had no offers from the Circuit Attorney ’ s office to allow the couple to enter into the program , but it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the McCloskeys plan on fighting the charges in court .
Schwartz was asked whether he believed that Gardner ’ s prosecution of the couple was based on politics and not justice , and the attorney responded by saying there was “ no doubt ” in his mind that Gardner ’ s case has been infused from the start with political gamesmanship , noting that the couple ’ s case “ was used in at least three of the Circuit Attorney ’ s ads when she was campaigning to run for Circuit Attorney.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a pre-trial hearing on October 28th .
In the meantime , Gardner is still facing some questions of her own regarding the charges filed against the couple , including the charge of tampering with evidence .
What evidence did Gardner provide to the grand jury that would indicate McCloskey ’ s pistol was , in fact , operable when when displayed it , as opposed to already being rendered inert as the McCloskeys maintain ?
So far , Gardner hasn ’ t said what motivated her to pursue those charges , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of contention when the couple ’ s preliminary hearing takes place .
In the meantime , Missouri Gov .
Mike Parson has reiterated his support for the couple and his pledge to pardon the couple if they ’ re convicted .
I still doubt that it comes to that , but with Gardner and the McCloskeys both seemingly intent to take the case before a jury , it ’ s definitely a possibility .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who gained national attention after displaying firearms from their front yard as hundreds of protesters marched through their private neighborhood earlier this year, entered “not guilty” pleas to charges of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering on Wednesday.
Joel Schwartz, who’s representing the trial attorneys in their criminal case, spoke to reporters outside the St. Louis courthouse where today’s hearing took place, telling the press that “The fact that Kim Gardner and the Circuit Attorney’s office have chosen to use their judicial resources to prosecute the McCloskeys, who were clearly innocent of any crime, committed no crime whatsoever, is sort of a travesty.”
Schwartz went on to say that the McCloskeys would not consider entering into pre-trial diversion, which Gardner had originally recommended before a grand jury indicted the pair. Schwartz says that since Gardner’s comments this summer, he’s had no offers from the Circuit Attorney’s office to allow the couple to enter into the program, but it’s a moot point since Schwartz is adamant that the McCloskeys plan on fighting the charges in court.
“It’s time to remove the noise, to attempt to remove the politics from this case. Deal with the facts. The facts speak for themselves. The facts will indicate that neither Patricia or Mark McCloskey committed any offense.”
Schwartz was asked whether he believed that Gardner’s prosecution of the couple was based on politics and not justice, and the attorney responded by saying there was “no doubt” in his mind that Gardner’s case has been infused from the start with political gamesmanship, noting that the couple’s case “was used in at least three of the Circuit Attorney’s ads when she was campaigning to run for Circuit Attorney.”
The McCloskeys will be back in court for a pre-trial hearing on October 28th. In the meantime, Gardner is still facing some questions of her own regarding the charges filed against the couple, including the charge of tampering with evidence.
Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab workers to fix the pistol Patricia McCloskey pointed at protesters, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side. Patricia McCloskey told police the gun was inoperable because it was used as a prop during a trial in a federal court. The McCloskeys are attorneys. But in the grand jury indictments, prosecutors say it was Patricia McCloskey who tampered with the pistol to “impair and obstruct” her prosecution sometime between the date of the confrontation and the day her attorney turned the gun over to police, according to court documents.
What evidence did Gardner provide to the grand jury that would indicate McCloskey’s pistol was, in fact, operable when when displayed it, as opposed to already being rendered inert as the McCloskeys maintain? So far, Gardner hasn’t said what motivated her to pursue those charges, but that will certainly be a key point of contention when the couple’s preliminary hearing takes place.
In the meantime, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has reiterated his support for the couple and his pledge to pardon the couple if they’re convicted. I still doubt that it comes to that, but with Gardner and the McCloskeys both seemingly intent to take the case before a jury, it’s definitely a possibility.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--New Trump Ad Reminds Voters: Biden's Coming For Your Guns

Throughout their campaign , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven ’ t been saying much about their plan to ban commonly-owned firearms and ammunition magazines if elected .
Heck , even gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are running ads in support of Democratic politicians that don ’ t don ’ t mention gun control at all .
That ’ s smart politics in a year when Americans are buying firearms in record numbers , but the Trump campaign is out with a new ad this week reminding gun owners what ’ s at stake in this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper asking Biden , “ To gun owners out there who say , well , a Biden administration means they ’ re gon na come for my guns , ” before Biden interrupts to respond with “ Bingo .
You ’ re right.
” That exchange took place in August of 2019 , and Cooper was asking specifically about Biden ’ s plans to ban so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines .
Under Biden ’ s proposal , current owners of those firearms would either be required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government in a compensated confiscation scheme , or else register each firearm and banned magazine under the National Firearms Act ; paying a $ 200 tax for each item registered .
Failure to comply could result in a 10-year federal prison sentence and up to $ 250,000 in fines .
The Trump ad continues with images of unrest and violence on the streets of American cities while a voice over intones that “ As Antifa terrorizes our cities and radical Leftists call to defund the police , Biden and Harris would enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever to defend yourself.
” That ’ s true .
For instance , under the Biden/Harris plan , online sales of ammunition would be made illegal .
That places a severe burden on legal gun owners , particularly right now when ammunition is in short supply everywhere .
If I had to rely on the one gun shop in Farmville , Virginia for all of my ammunition needs , I ’ d be hosed .
Thankfully , however , I can still shop online , and even though it ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a box of 9mm or a brick of .22LR are better on the Internet than at my local gun shop .
The ad concludes with the ominous warning that “ your family and your rights won ’ t be safe in Joe Biden ’ s America , ” before Biden pops up on the screen to deliver one last “ Bingo.
” With Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in charge ( and if Democrats claw back control of the U.S. Senate along with the House ) we can expect an all-out assault on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gun and magazine ban wasn ’ t bad enough , there ’ ll be a push to pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices that will rubber-stamp every gun control law signed by Biden , his administration will work to empower gun control groups to target the firearms industry with junk lawsuits designed to bankrupt manufacturers , and his Department of Justice will hand out tens of millions of dollars in grants to states that adopt restrictive and subjective gun licensing laws .
Obviously Joe Biden would dispute that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less safe , but there ’ s no question that our right to keep and bear arms would be less secure .
In fact , by the time Biden ’ s finished our right to keep and bear arms wouldn ’ t be a right at all ; just a privilege granted to a chosen few .

Throughout their campaign, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven’t been saying much about their plan to ban commonly-owned firearms and ammunition magazines if elected. Heck, even gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are running ads in support of Democratic politicians that don’t don’t mention gun control at all. That’s smart politics in a year when Americans are buying firearms in record numbers, but the Trump campaign is out with a new ad this week reminding gun owners what’s at stake in this year’s election.
The ad starts with CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking Biden, “To gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re gonna come for my guns,” before Biden interrupts to respond with “Bingo. You’re right.”
That exchange took place in August of 2019, and Cooper was asking specifically about Biden’s plans to ban so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Under Biden’s proposal, current owners of those firearms would either be required to turn their guns over to the federal government in a compensated confiscation scheme, or else register each firearm and banned magazine under the National Firearms Act; paying a $200 tax for each item registered. Failure to comply could result in a 10-year federal prison sentence and up to $250,000 in fines.
The Trump ad continues with images of unrest and violence on the streets of American cities while a voice over intones that “As Antifa terrorizes our cities and radical Leftists call to defund the police, Biden and Harris would enact unconstitutional gun control measures making it harder than ever to defend yourself.”
That’s true. For instance, under the Biden/Harris plan, online sales of ammunition would be made illegal. That places a severe burden on legal gun owners, particularly right now when ammunition is in short supply everywhere. If I had to rely on the one gun shop in Farmville, Virginia for all of my ammunition needs, I’d be hosed. Thankfully, however, I can still shop online, and even though it’s still a crapshoot, my odds of finding a box of 9mm or a brick of .22LR are better on the Internet than at my local gun shop.
The ad concludes with the ominous warning that “your family and your rights won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” before Biden pops up on the screen to deliver one last “Bingo.”
With Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in charge (and if Democrats claw back control of the U.S. Senate along with the House) we can expect an all-out assault on the Second Amendment. As if Biden’s gun and magazine ban wasn’t bad enough, there’ll be a push to pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices that will rubber-stamp every gun control law signed by Biden, his administration will work to empower gun control groups to target the firearms industry with junk lawsuits designed to bankrupt manufacturers, and his Department of Justice will hand out tens of millions of dollars in grants to states that adopt restrictive and subjective gun licensing laws.
Obviously Joe Biden would dispute that a Democratic win in November would make Americans less safe, but there’s no question that our right to keep and bear arms would be less secure. In fact, by the time Biden’s finished our right to keep and bear arms wouldn’t be a right at all; just a privilege granted to a chosen few.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--"NRA Has Blood On Its Hands" Says Man Who Tried To Profit From It

Joshua Powell was highly placed in the National Rifle Association for some time .
He knew all the organization ’ s deepest , darkest secrets .
He knew where the proverbial bodies were buried .
He knew it all .
And yet , he kept working there .
In fact , if he ’ d had his way , he ’ d still be working there .
After all , he wasn ’ t let go until it was time for his contract to come up for renewal , at which point he wanted a hefty raise and the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now the NRA is a problem .
Joshua Powell , 47 , is the author of “ Inside the NRA : A Tell-All Account of Corruption , Greed , and Paranoia Within the Most Powerful Political Group in America , ” published in September .
From 2016 to 2019 he served as senior strategist to the National Rifle Association and chief of staff to Wayne LaPierre , chief executive of the NRA .
In your book , you describe the corruption , greed and gross mismanagement you saw while at the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower ?
Of course .
And I hope it ’ s much more than that .
I hope we can actually move this debate [ on guns ] a bit .
Look , as I described in my book , I became caught up in the fight to save Wayne [ LaPierre ] .
I mean , I poured the lemonade and stirred it .
I was the guy kind of strategizing how we defend all this garbage .
And looking at friends that are gun owners and put money into the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really have the truth , that wasn ’ t comfortable for me .
And it took me some time to sort through that , personally .
You talked about Wayne LaPierre ’ s tendency to cater to that fringe and throw gasoline on the fire , famously saying after Sandy Hook , “ The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is [ with ] a good guy with a gun.
” Right .
Which is absurd .
That is the quintessential example of pouring gas on the fire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was a way of doing business .
It ’ s really easy to raise money on fear .
It ’ s a lot harder to raise money on solutions .
They ’ re coming for your guns .
Put a stamp on it .
Send it out .
It ’ ll come back with money in it .
It was really easy .
Like , I got a letter in the mail the other day : Gun Confiscation Coming .
[ Laughs . ]
Which is from the NRA raising money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo Is Shutting Down the NRA .
You would think the next thing is going to be black helicopters and Joe Biden and Hillary [ Clinton ] coming to get your gun .
It was a real lost opportunity ; it could have been a time to move on some of these background check bills , et cetera .
So when I say , the NRA has blood on its hands , which people are outraged that I ’ m saying now , that ’ s what I ’ m referring to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right — who ’ s lost ?
The human toll of that decision .
See , for me , the problem is that Powell was more than willing to keep working at the NRA .
He was let go .
He didn ’ t walk away because his sense of morality could no longer take what he was doing .
No , he wanted to stay and was shown the door .
If the NRA has blood on its hands , then Powell does too .
Take the post-Sandy Hook example brought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years before Powell went to work for the NRA .
If he found the statement so objectionable–despite plenty of examples of just how a good guy with a gun stops bad guys with a gun–why did he take the job ?
That ’ s my biggest problem with Powell .
Everything about this smacks of sour grapes .
He didn ’ t get his way , so now he ’ s storming off and is trying to burn the house behind him .
He ’ s playing like the moral crusader , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things went against his morals , why did he take the job ?
Why did he try to keep the job ?
Instead , he ’ s continuing to push this idea that he ’ s a whistleblower when , in reality , he ’ s a disgruntled employee trying to belittle the name of an employer he feels slighted him .
Now , that doesn ’ t mean there ’ s not some validity to anything he says .
No organization does everything perfectly and I ’ m sure there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is that the media is eating up Powell ’ s crap with a spoon because it feeds into their preferred narrative of “ NRA Bad.
” Powell knows this and is playing it up .
He knew that he could bring up the state of New York trying to shut down the NRA , spin it as a conspiracy theory , and get zero pushback over it .
So , he played it up .
Powell is nothing but a grifter who found a new crowd to grift .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired from Brady under similar circumstances and was now spreading all the dirt , they ’ d be eviscerating him and we all know it .
As it is , though , they ’ re lapping up everything he says as uncritically as it comes .
American journalism at its finest these days , apparently .

Joshua Powell was highly placed in the National Rifle Association for some time. He knew all the organization’s deepest, darkest secrets. He knew where the proverbial bodies were buried. He knew it all.
And yet, he kept working there. In fact, if he’d had his way, he’d still be working there. After all, he wasn’t let go until it was time for his contract to come up for renewal, at which point he wanted a hefty raise and the group balked.
Now, though? Oh, now the NRA is a problem.
Joshua Powell, 47, is the author of “Inside the NRA: A Tell-All Account of Corruption, Greed, and Paranoia Within the Most Powerful Political Group in America,” published in September. From 2016 to 2019 he served as senior strategist to the National Rifle Association and chief of staff to Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the NRA. In your book, you describe the corruption, greed and gross mismanagement you saw while at the NRA. Do you see yourself as a whistleblower? Of course. And I hope it’s much more than that. I hope we can actually move this debate [on guns] a bit. Look, as I described in my book, I became caught up in the fight to save Wayne [LaPierre]. I mean, I poured the lemonade and stirred it. I was the guy kind of strategizing how we defend all this garbage. And looking at friends that are gun owners and put money into the NRA, knowing that they didn’t really have the truth, that wasn’t comfortable for me. And it took me some time to sort through that, personally. … You talked about Wayne LaPierre’s tendency to cater to that fringe and throw gasoline on the fire, famously saying after Sandy Hook, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is [with] a good guy with a gun.” Right. Which is absurd. That is the quintessential example of pouring gas on the fire. And it was more than a tendency. It was a way of doing business. It’s really easy to raise money on fear. It’s a lot harder to raise money on solutions. They’re coming for your guns. Put a stamp on it. Send it out. It’ll come back with money in it. It was really easy. Like, I got a letter in the mail the other day: Gun Confiscation Coming. [Laughs.] Which is from the NRA raising money. Last year, it was Andrew Cuomo Is Shutting Down the NRA. You would think the next thing is going to be black helicopters and Joe Biden and Hillary [Clinton] coming to get your gun. It was a real lost opportunity; it could have been a time to move on some of these background check bills, et cetera. So when I say, the NRA has blood on its hands, which people are outraged that I’m saying now, that’s what I’m referring to. Because what happens in the meantime, right — who’s lost? The human toll of that decision.
See, for me, the problem is that Powell was more than willing to keep working at the NRA. He was let go. He didn’t walk away because his sense of morality could no longer take what he was doing.
No, he wanted to stay and was shown the door.
If the NRA has blood on its hands, then Powell does too.
Take the post-Sandy Hook example brought up. That shooting was in 2012, four years before Powell went to work for the NRA. If he found the statement so objectionable–despite plenty of examples of just how a good guy with a gun stops bad guys with a gun–why did he take the job?
That’s my biggest problem with Powell. Everything about this smacks of sour grapes. He didn’t get his way, so now he’s storming off and is trying to burn the house behind him. He’s playing like the moral crusader, of course, but if any of these things went against his morals, why did he take the job? Why did he try to keep the job?
Instead, he’s continuing to push this idea that he’s a whistleblower when, in reality, he’s a disgruntled employee trying to belittle the name of an employer he feels slighted him.
Now, that doesn’t mean there’s not some validity to anything he says. No organization does everything perfectly and I’m sure there are things the NRA can legitimately do better.
The problem is that the media is eating up Powell’s crap with a spoon because it feeds into their preferred narrative of “NRA Bad.” Powell knows this and is playing it up. He knew that he could bring up the state of New York trying to shut down the NRA, spin it as a conspiracy theory, and get zero pushback over it.
So, he played it up.
Powell is nothing but a grifter who found a new crowd to grift. If this was someone who’d been fired from Brady under similar circumstances and was now spreading all the dirt, they’d be eviscerating him and we all know it. As it is, though, they’re lapping up everything he says as uncritically as it comes.
American journalism at its finest these days, apparently.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--Illinois Facing A Dozen Lawsuits Over FOID Card Delays

You may have heard the cries of “ voter suppression !
” in response to long lines for early voting around the country , or seen the tweets complaining about the lines from folks like former Senator Claire McCaskill .
If waiting in line for a few hours in order to vote counts as “ voter suppression , ” then what do you call having to wait for several months simply to apply for your government permission slip to keep a gun in your home or to carry it in public ?
That ’ s the situation in Illinois at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police continue to struggle with a growing backlog of Firearms Owner ID card and concealed carry applications from would-be gun owners in the state .
As the Center Square reports , the ISP was already unable to keep up with the demand for FOID cards even before the onslaught of applications began in March and have continued unabated ever since .
The backlog of FOID applications stood at roughly 60,000 back in January , but as of Tuesday , the number had more than doubled to 142,000 .
Again , if folks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours to cast a ballot during early voting amounts to voter suppression , then what do they think about having to wait five or six months ( or even longer in places like Philly ) to exercise your Second Amendment rights ?
Actually , I ’ m pretty sure that McCaskill is just fine with those delays , given her support for gun control .
Hopefully the many judges at both the state and federal level that will be weighing in on the failures of the Illinois State Police to process FOID and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it deserves .
Richard Pearson is correct when he says that a right delayed is a right denied , and there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who ’ ve been denied their ability to protect themselves or their families even as shootings and homicides have dramatically increased across the state .

You may have heard the cries of “voter suppression!” in response to long lines for early voting around the country, or seen the tweets complaining about the lines from folks like former Senator Claire McCaskill.
This is a picture of voter suppression. Why do Americans have to wait in lines this long? This is the line in Suwannee Georgia today to vote. pic.twitter.com/rHl4Gr5kEi — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) October 12, 2020
If waiting in line for a few hours in order to vote counts as “voter suppression,” then what do you call having to wait for several months simply to apply for your government permission slip to keep a gun in your home or to carry it in public?
That’s the situation in Illinois at the moment, as the Illinois State Police continue to struggle with a growing backlog of Firearms Owner ID card and concealed carry applications from would-be gun owners in the state.
As the Center Square reports, the ISP was already unable to keep up with the demand for FOID cards even before the onslaught of applications began in March and have continued unabated ever since. The backlog of FOID applications stood at roughly 60,000 back in January, but as of Tuesday, the number had more than doubled to 142,000.
ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said it’s been months for some and “a right delayed is a right denied.”
Again, if folks like Claire McCaskill believes that waiting a few hours to cast a ballot during early voting amounts to voter suppression, then what do they think about having to wait five or six months (or even longer in places like Philly) to exercise your Second Amendment rights?
Actually, I’m pretty sure that McCaskill is just fine with those delays, given her support for gun control. Hopefully the many judges at both the state and federal level that will be weighing in on the failures of the Illinois State Police to process FOID and CCW applications treat the issue as seriously as it deserves. Richard Pearson is correct when he says that a right delayed is a right denied, and there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who’ve been denied their ability to protect themselves or their families even as shootings and homicides have dramatically increased across the state.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--"Paramilitary Groups" Reportedly Planned To Kidnap Northam

As our regular readers know , we have no love for Virginia Governor Ralph “ Blackface ” Northam .
The anti-gun zealot turn to gun control in an effort to ( successfully ) deflect media attention away from his blackface scandal and onto something else .
The media , ever distracted by shiny objects , obliged perfectly and provided a roadmap for other politicians who wish to avoid answering for the same past misdeeds they ’ d eviscerate their opponents for .
Yet , despite our dislike of Northam , it seems that some people who are reportedly on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very naughty plans for Gov .
Northam .
In other words , though , these numbskulls at least considered taking Northam .
Whether it was taking him in addition to Whitmer or instead of is kind of irrelevant .
Look , I ’ m going to be clear .
I can ’ t stand either governor .
I think both are tyrannical dictators in the making .
They both have an awful view of our civil liberties and think they don ’ t matter .
Yet the moment you start talking about taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means to address their nonsense , you ’ re giving them a gift .
Look at Northam ’ s quote above .
Here it is again : Congrats , you morons .
Now both he and Whitmer get to look like brave champions for continuing to do what they were doing in the fact of personal peril .
There are threats against him by their biggest enemies , so now they get to leverage that and make them look like heroes .
And that ’ s not even delving into just how wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t have to get into .
If these are supposedly pro-gun people doing this , then someone needs to tell them to stop trying to help .
They ’ re just going to make it worse .

As our regular readers know, we have no love for Virginia Governor Ralph “Blackface” Northam. The anti-gun zealot turn to gun control in an effort to (successfully) deflect media attention away from his blackface scandal and onto something else. The media, ever distracted by shiny objects, obliged perfectly and provided a roadmap for other politicians who wish to avoid answering for the same past misdeeds they’d eviscerate their opponents for.
Yet, despite our dislike of Northam, it seems that some people who are reportedly on this side of the political aisle has some very naughty plans for Gov. Northam.
Members of anti-government paramilitary groups discussed kidnapping Gov. Ralph Northam during a June meeting, an FBI agent testified Tuesday during a court hearing in Michigan. Special Agent Richard Trask also revealed more detail about investigators’ use of confidential informants, undercover agents and encrypted communication to arrest and charge six men last week with plotting to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. At an unrelated press conference Tuesday in Richmond, Northam told reporters the threat would not change how he governs. “I will not work under a cloud of intimidation,” he said. “That’s not who I am.” … The June meeting was part of the FBI’s investigation of various anti-government groups, leading to the monthslong case in Michigan relying on confidential sources, undercover agents and clandestine recordings to foil the alleged kidnapping conspiracy. … It was not immediately clear whether talk of targeting Virginia’s Democratic governor went beyond the June meeting of anti-government groups in Dublin, Ohio. Trask said members of anti-government groups from “four or five” states attended that meeting. “They discussed possible targets, taking a sitting governor, specifically issues with the governor of Michigan and Virginia based on the lockdown orders,” Trask said. He said the people at the meeting were unhappy with the governors’ responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Trask did not discuss further planning aimed at Northam.
In other words, though, these numbskulls at least considered taking Northam. Whether it was taking him in addition to Whitmer or instead of is kind of irrelevant.
Look, I’m going to be clear. I can’t stand either governor. I think both are tyrannical dictators in the making. They both have an awful view of our civil liberties and think they don’t matter.
Yet the moment you start talking about taking unilateral action when there are still legal means to address their nonsense, you’re giving them a gift. Look at Northam’s quote above. Here it is again:
“I will not work under a cloud of intimidation,” he said. “That’s not who I am.”
Congrats, you morons. Now both he and Whitmer get to look like brave champions for continuing to do what they were doing in the fact of personal peril. There are threats against him by their biggest enemies, so now they get to leverage that and make them look like heroes.
And that’s not even delving into just how wrong all of this is, which I shouldn’t have to get into.
If these are supposedly pro-gun people doing this, then someone needs to tell them to stop trying to help. They’re just going to make it worse.


bearingarms--2020-10-14--Lake Henry Prosecutor Declines Weapons Charges For Rittenhouse

Based on the video we ’ ve seen , Kyle Rittenhouse doesn ’ t appear to have done anything wrong when he shot three rioters who attacked him in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
Regardless , though , he ’ s facing a number of charges including first degree murder .
If convicted , his life as he currently knows it will be over .
However , at least his legal team got a little good news on Tuesday .
Lake County prosecutors said that the gun Kyle Rittenhouse used in the Kenosha shooting was bought , stored and used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him in Lake County .
Rittenhouse , 17 , of Antioch , is facing charges in Wisconsin of first-degree intentional homicide , two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety , first-degree reckless homicide , attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 .
The Lake County State ’ s Attorney ’ s Office announced Tuesday that an extensive investigation was conducted by the Antioch Police Department .
The investigation revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased , stored and used in Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be facing charges in his home state of Illinois .
Unfortunately , he still faces prosecution in Wisconsin .
All that the prosecutors determined in this case is that they had no authority to charge Rittenhouse on a weapons charge based on one state ’ s laws when the weapon had never been in the state .
Unfortunately , some people will see the original headlines and assume all charges against Rittenhouse were being dropped .
While I feel they should be , that doesn ’ t mean Kenosha prosecutors feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s clear they don ’ t .
Yet far too many people are already sharing these stories and not bothering to actually read the stories .
However , this is still good news because it means Rittenhouse ’ s legal team can focus their attention on just one set of charges , not two .
Since there ’ s ample evidence that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense , it ’ s likely he ’ ll beat the murder charges as well as most of the other charges .
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , because I ’ ve gotten some conflicting reports on that .
Regardless , it ’ s clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense , and now that he doesn ’ t have to worry about charges from his home state as well as in Wisconsin , attorneys can go about defending him .
Of course , let ’ s also remember that Rittenhouse is just the latest example of a good guy who acted appropriately being prosecuted for those actions .
Right now , too many prosecutors are bending over backwards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecuting Americans who are acting in what appears to be clear cases of self-defense all in an attempt to make it so the mob will devour them last .
Appeasement doesn ’ t work with these people .
Instead , prosecutors should follow the law .
That would mean no charges against either Rittenhouse or the McCloskeys , who are also falling victim to this nonsense .
I ’ d love to say that Tuesday ’ s decision was a buck in this trend , but I can ’ t .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew there was zero charges they could file that wouldn ’ t be completely frivolous , so they declined .
After all , just one witness saying it was his rifle , he lived in Wisconsin where the weapon was stored , and that it never came into Illinois would be enough , so it wasn ’ t worth the bother .
Regardless , it ’ s still good news for Kyle .
May he have more good news down the road .

Based on the video we’ve seen, Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong when he shot three rioters who attacked him in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Regardless, though, he’s facing a number of charges including first degree murder. If convicted, his life as he currently knows it will be over.
However, at least his legal team got a little good news on Tuesday.
Lake County prosecutors said that the gun Kyle Rittenhouse used in the Kenosha shooting was bought, stored and used in Wisconsin. No charges will be filed against him in Lake County. Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, is facing charges in Wisconsin of first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office announced Tuesday that an extensive investigation was conducted by the Antioch Police Department. The investigation revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin.
In other words, Rittenhouse won’t be facing charges in his home state of Illinois. Unfortunately, he still faces prosecution in Wisconsin. All that the prosecutors determined in this case is that they had no authority to charge Rittenhouse on a weapons charge based on one state’s laws when the weapon had never been in the state.
Unfortunately, some people will see the original headlines and assume all charges against Rittenhouse were being dropped. While I feel they should be, that doesn’t mean Kenosha prosecutors feel the same way. In fact, it’s clear they don’t. Yet far too many people are already sharing these stories and not bothering to actually read the stories.
However, this is still good news because it means Rittenhouse’s legal team can focus their attention on just one set of charges, not two. Since there’s ample evidence that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, it’s likely he’ll beat the murder charges as well as most of the other charges. I’m not sure about the Wisconsin weapons charge, though, because I’ve gotten some conflicting reports on that.
Regardless, it’s clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, and now that he doesn’t have to worry about charges from his home state as well as in Wisconsin, attorneys can go about defending him.
Of course, let’s also remember that Rittenhouse is just the latest example of a good guy who acted appropriately being prosecuted for those actions. Right now, too many prosecutors are bending over backwards to appease the mob. They’re prosecuting Americans who are acting in what appears to be clear cases of self-defense all in an attempt to make it so the mob will devour them last.
Appeasement doesn’t work with these people. Instead, prosecutors should follow the law. That would mean no charges against either Rittenhouse or the McCloskeys, who are also falling victim to this nonsense.
I’d love to say that Tuesday’s decision was a buck in this trend, but I can’t. It’s just far more likely that prosecutors knew there was zero charges they could file that wouldn’t be completely frivolous, so they declined. After all, just one witness saying it was his rifle, he lived in Wisconsin where the weapon was stored, and that it never came into Illinois would be enough, so it wasn’t worth the bother.
Regardless, it’s still good news for Kyle. May he have more good news down the road.


bearingarms--2020-10-15--Grand Rapids Shouldn't Expect Much Out Of Gun Buyback

Gun buybacks are probably one of the dumber things I ’ ve seen done by anti-gun jihadists .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I do understand the thinking involved .
If people have guns and are using those guns for crime , offering them money in exchange for the gun , no questions asked , may offer them an incentive to give up the gun .
It rarely , if ever , works that way .
Instead , you get a handful of guns that don ’ t even work anymore , a handful that were just sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the occasional gun used in a crime that ’ s now too hot for the bad guy to hang onto .
Now , Grand Rapids is going to try their hand at it .
As part of its new strategic plan , the Grand Rapids Police Department will have a gun buyback program that will include two days of buyback periods .
The buyback is partially funded by a contribution of the Safe Alliances for Everyone Task Force .
“ Removing these weapons will make the community safer by limiting access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in criminal acts , ” said GRPD Chief Eric Payne in a release .
He noted the buyback is a good opportunity for people to get rid of weapons they legally possess but no longer want to have in their homes .
Oh , look at that quote .
That ’ s adorably naive .
Look , they ’ re free to do whatever they want in this regard .
I think it ’ s colossally stupid , but they ’ re absolutely free to give it a try .
No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all , so whatever .
I just don ’ t think anyone in Grand Rapids should get their hopes up .
See , between two buyback in a much , much larger city–one in New York overall and specifically in Brooklyn–brought in fewer than 100 guns .
That ’ s in a city of almost 8.4 million people .
Grand Rapids has just over 200,000 people , so I wouldn ’ t be holding my breath that this will even net more than a couple dozen guns at most .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ample evidence that gun buybacks simply don ’ t work and are just a waste of time and resources , money that could be used to actually combat violent crime with preventative measures rather than making life easier for the criminals .
In fact , there has been some studies that suggested buybacks made gun violence even worse .
Even if you don ’ t buy into that , though , the truth of the matter is that gun buybacks have been going on for decades and there ’ s little to no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide terrified people a way to dispose of their gun without having to go into an icky gun store .
That ’ s about all they do .
The criminals are still getting guns because they steal them from people who don ’ t actually want to get rid of their guns .
The small handful who are fearful enough to use a buyback aren ’ t enough to make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things .
Again , they ’ re free to do it , just don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Gun buybacks are probably one of the dumber things I’ve seen done by anti-gun jihadists.
Don’t get me wrong, I do understand the thinking involved. If people have guns and are using those guns for crime, offering them money in exchange for the gun, no questions asked, may offer them an incentive to give up the gun.
It rarely, if ever, works that way. Instead, you get a handful of guns that don’t even work anymore, a handful that were just sitting in closets not doing a damn thing, and the occasional gun used in a crime that’s now too hot for the bad guy to hang onto.
Now, Grand Rapids is going to try their hand at it.
As part of its new strategic plan, the Grand Rapids Police Department will have a gun buyback program that will include two days of buyback periods. The buyback is partially funded by a contribution of the Safe Alliances for Everyone Task Force. … “Removing these weapons will make the community safer by limiting access to firearms by those emboldened to use them in criminal acts,” said GRPD Chief Eric Payne in a release. He noted the buyback is a good opportunity for people to get rid of weapons they legally possess but no longer want to have in their homes.
Oh, look at that quote. That’s adorably naive.
Look, they’re free to do whatever they want in this regard. I think it’s colossally stupid, but they’re absolutely free to give it a try. No one is obligated to turn anything in, after all, so whatever.
I just don’t think anyone in Grand Rapids should get their hopes up.
See, between two buyback in a much, much larger city–one in New York overall and specifically in Brooklyn–brought in fewer than 100 guns. That’s in a city of almost 8.4 million people. Grand Rapids has just over 200,000 people, so I wouldn’t be holding my breath that this will even net more than a couple dozen guns at most.
Then, of course, there’s the ample evidence that gun buybacks simply don’t work and are just a waste of time and resources, money that could be used to actually combat violent crime with preventative measures rather than making life easier for the criminals. In fact, there has been some studies that suggested buybacks made gun violence even worse.
Even if you don’t buy into that, though, the truth of the matter is that gun buybacks have been going on for decades and there’s little to no evidence that the actually do anything except provide terrified people a way to dispose of their gun without having to go into an icky gun store. That’s about all they do.
The criminals are still getting guns because they steal them from people who don’t actually want to get rid of their guns. The small handful who are fearful enough to use a buyback aren’t enough to make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things.
Again, they’re free to do it, just don’t expect anything out of it.