bearingarms--2020-06-30--Brady Prez Claims Protesters Could Have Shot St. Louis Homeowners In Self-Defense

Gun control advocates , like everyone else in the country , are weighing in on Mark and Patricia McCloskey , the St. Louis homeowners who displayed their firearms after they say they were threatened by protesters who were trespassing while marching to the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson .
As you can imagine , anti-gun activists are appalled , and not only by the admittedly poor firearms handling displayed by the pair .
Kris Brown , the head of the gun control group Brady , took to Twitter with this hot take alleging that the McCloskeys could have been legally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of impressive how much Brown got wrong in just one tweet .
First , since the protesters were trespassing on private property , Stand Your Ground doesn ’ t apply to them , because they had no legal right to be there .
In fact , not a single protester contacted police about the McCloskeys , likely because they didn ’ t want to admit to trespassing .
What about the racial impact of Stand Your Ground laws ?
Are they really inherently racist laws that typically only benefit white gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Cato Institute ’ s Ilya Shapiro actually testified about this a few years ago , and pointed out that black gun owners and white gun owners both benefit from the law .
In August 2012 , John Roman of the Urban Institute published an article entitled “ Do Stand Your Ground Laws Worsen Racial Disparities ?
” After examining the FBI ’ s Supplemental Homicide data for the years 2005-2009 , he concluded that when white defenders kill black attackers , “ the justifiable homicide rate is 34 percent.
” If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , the “ justifiable homicide rate ” is only 3 percent .
Roman concluded that SYG laws make racial disparities “ more pronounced ” and are “ bad laws.
” Considering that Supplemental Homicide data for the years 2000-2011 were available at the time of Roman ’ s study , it ’ s telling that he chose only a limited dataset .
Researchers call this sampling error , where an abridged dataset contradicts the findings from all available data .
The entire Supplemental Homicide dataset for the years 2000-2011 clearly shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right of self-defense , that blacks benefit from SYG at least as much as whites .
Then , in February 2013 , the Tampa Bay Times examined more than 200 Florida court cases involving SYG , concluding : “ Defendants claiming ‘ stand your ground ’ are more likely to prevail if the victim is black.
” Second Amendment scholar David Hardy analyzed the Times dataset , however , and found that Florida courts applied SYG without racial bias : Two-thirds of white and black defendants claiming SYG protection were exonerated .
Shapiro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debunking the idea that Stand Your Ground laws are racist and are used far more frequently to exonerate white gun owners .
It turns out that SYG states are far more racially egalitarian than non-enacting states , because black defenders account for nearly as many justifiable homicides as whites—46 % and 49 % , respectively .
In non-SYG states exhibit racial disparity , because blacks account for 35 % of all justifiable homicides while whites account for 58 % , disproving the conclusions of the flawed anti-self-defense studies .
Black defenders in SYG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides after enactment , experiencing an increase in justifiable homicides in 11 of 17 states .
Six SYG states experienced increased justifiable homicides against white attackers after enactment , compared to only two non-enacting states .
This clearly shows that SYG laws resulted in more law-abiding black citizens defending themselves .
Indeed , if fewer black defenders killing white attackers indicates racism , then it ’ s the non-enacting states that are “ racist ” because black defense against white attackers declined 4 % between 2006 and 2011 , while increasing slightly ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , if Kris Brown really wants to talk about racist gun laws , she shouldn ’ t point fingers at Stand Your Ground laws .
Instead , she might want to take a look at the racial impact of , say , New York City ’ s gun licensing laws .
As was detailed in a case called Thomas vs. O ’ Neill , the NYPD considers any arrest when determining whether or not someone should be granted a pistol license , even if the arrest didn ’ t lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Tilem , from 2010 to 2016 black defendants had their cases dismissed at twice the rate of white defendants .
Those dismissals still served as prohibitory factor in denying black New Yorkers their gun license , which Tilem called a clear sign of racial disparity in the NPYD policy .
In fact , Tilem said he only became aware of the issue because of the large number of black clients who told him that their license was either revoked or denied because of dismissed arrests .
If Brady is really concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should pay less attention to Stand Your Ground and begin the hard work of undoing their own gun control regimes in “ may issue ” places like New York City and Los Angeles .
Something tells me , however , that ’ s not going to be a top priority for the anti-gun groups , which are still working as hard as they can to uphold those laws in court , and to put more of them on the books in states across the country .

Gun control advocates, like everyone else in the country, are weighing in on Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis homeowners who displayed their firearms after they say they were threatened by protesters who were trespassing while marching to the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson. As you can imagine, anti-gun activists are appalled, and not only by the admittedly poor firearms handling displayed by the pair. Kris Brown, the head of the gun control group Brady, took to Twitter with this hot take alleging that the McCloskeys could have been legally shot by protesters.
And let's be clear: since Patricia McCloskey & her husband pointed guns first, "Stand Your Ground" might also have allowed the protesters to shoot in their own self-defense. But of course, we know that SYG laws are inherently racist and typically only serve white individuals. https://t.co/U00oDeg9ds — Kris Brown | President, bradyunited.org (@KrisB_Brown) June 29, 2020
It’s kind of impressive how much Brown got wrong in just one tweet. First, since the protesters were trespassing on private property, Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply to them, because they had no legal right to be there. In fact, not a single protester contacted police about the McCloskeys, likely because they didn’t want to admit to trespassing.
What about the racial impact of Stand Your Ground laws? Are they really inherently racist laws that typically only benefit white gun owners?
In a word, no. The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro actually testified about this a few years ago, and pointed out that black gun owners and white gun owners both benefit from the law.
In August 2012, John Roman of the Urban Institute published an article entitled “Do Stand Your Ground Laws Worsen Racial Disparities?” After examining the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide data for the years 2005-2009, he concluded that when white defenders kill black attackers, “the justifiable homicide rate is 34 percent.” If the defender is black and the attacker white, however, the “justifiable homicide rate” is only 3 percent. Roman concluded that SYG laws make racial disparities “more pronounced” and are “bad laws.” Considering that Supplemental Homicide data for the years 2000-2011 were available at the time of Roman’s study, it’s telling that he chose only a limited dataset. Researchers call this sampling error, where an abridged dataset contradicts the findings from all available data. The entire Supplemental Homicide dataset for the years 2000-2011 clearly shows, like most laws liberalizing the civil right of self-defense, that blacks benefit from SYG at least as much as whites. Then, in February 2013, the Tampa Bay Times examined more than 200 Florida court cases involving SYG, concluding: “Defendants claiming ‘stand your ground’ are more likely to prevail if the victim is black.” Second Amendment scholar David Hardy analyzed the Times dataset, however, and found that Florida courts applied SYG without racial bias: Two-thirds of white and black defendants claiming SYG protection were exonerated.
Shapiro went on to lay out more data debunking the idea that Stand Your Ground laws are racist and are used far more frequently to exonerate white gun owners.
It turns out that SYG states are far more racially egalitarian than non-enacting states, because black defenders account for nearly as many justifiable homicides as whites—46% and 49%, respectively. In non-SYG states exhibit racial disparity, because blacks account for 35% of all justifiable homicides while whites account for 58%, disproving the conclusions of the flawed anti-self-defense studies. Black defenders in SYG states accounted for 2.2% more justifiable homicides after enactment, experiencing an increase in justifiable homicides in 11 of 17 states. Six SYG states experienced increased justifiable homicides against white attackers after enactment, compared to only two non-enacting states. This clearly shows that SYG laws resulted in more law-abiding black citizens defending themselves. Indeed, if fewer black defenders killing white attackers indicates racism, then it’s the non-enacting states that are “racist” because black defense against white attackers declined 4% between 2006 and 2011, while increasing slightly (0.3%) in SYG states.
In other words, if Kris Brown really wants to talk about racist gun laws, she shouldn’t point fingers at Stand Your Ground laws. Instead, she might want to take a look at the racial impact of, say, New York City’s gun licensing laws. As was detailed in a case called Thomas vs. O’Neill, the NYPD considers any arrest when determining whether or not someone should be granted a pistol license, even if the arrest didn’t lead to a prosecution.
According to attorney Peter Tilem, from 2010 to 2016 black defendants had their cases dismissed at twice the rate of white defendants. Those dismissals still served as prohibitory factor in denying black New Yorkers their gun license, which Tilem called a clear sign of racial disparity in the NPYD policy. In fact, Tilem said he only became aware of the issue because of the large number of black clients who told him that their license was either revoked or denied because of dismissed arrests.
If Brady is really concerned about the racial disparities of gun laws, they should pay less attention to Stand Your Ground and begin the hard work of undoing their own gun control regimes in “may issue” places like New York City and Los Angeles. Something tells me, however, that’s not going to be a top priority for the anti-gun groups, which are still working as hard as they can to uphold those laws in court, and to put more of them on the books in states across the country.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--NYPD Unsure How To Address Soaring Crime Amid Police Reform Debate

It ’ s a tough time to be a police officer in the United States .
While the majority do the job right and for all the right reasons , a few incidents have blown up to paint every officer as violent and just looking to kill minorities in this country .
That ’ s simply not the case .
However , recent history has shown us that police reform is probably needed .
Badly .
Unfortunately , between the talk of police reform and the profound anti-police bias sweeping the nation , the NYPD isn ’ t really sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime epidemic taking place on the streets of New York .
It ’ s like the wild west on the streets of the Big Apple , with instances of gun violence soaring .
Police say they ’ re between a rock and a hard place , CBS2 ’ s Andrea Grymes reported Monday .
The latest NYPD numbers show a whopping 142 percent increase in shootings last week , compared to the same time last year : 63 versus 26 .
“ These last three weeks have been really bad , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police say it ’ s a catch-22 ; protesters and lawmakers continue pushing for NYPD budget cuts and reforms , while gun violence is surging .
“ We need some clarity from the City Council and from the communities we serve , exactly how they want to be policed , ” said Monahan .
This comes amid talks of defunding the police .
Maybe it ’ s just me , but that ’ s probably not the best idea out there .
Mayor Bill de Blasio touted the role of the “ God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing crime .
“ We have so much work to do as a community , we have so much work to do as families , as mothers , as fathers , ” said Pastor Gil Monrose , president of The God Squad .
The squad responds to shootings , but also does preventative work , like meeting with gang members and the formerly incarcerated to try to get them on the right path .
“ We look in our community and we ’ re a little disheartened when we see that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Pastor Louis Straker , another God Squad member .
Now , I can ’ t stand de Blasio , but trying to take a preventative approach to violent crime is , ultimately a good thing .
I applaud him for making the effort .
However , that doesn ’ t mean leaving your police flapping in the wind .
Preventative efforts take time to show any kind of impact .
They should be done in conjunction with regular policing , not instead of them .
Especially when it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this precise instance isn ’ t yielding any real positive results .
The two have to go hand in hand for there to be any meaningful change .
Preventative measures to help guide people away from that kind of lifestyle–and yes , crime is a lifestyle choice–and policing to scoop up those who either don ’ t listen or didn ’ t get the message .
Plus , it ’ s dumb to put your faith in a preventative system that you don ’ t know will work .
The police need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In New York City , they ’ re not getting it .

It’s a tough time to be a police officer in the United States.
While the majority do the job right and for all the right reasons, a few incidents have blown up to paint every officer as violent and just looking to kill minorities in this country. That’s simply not the case.
However, recent history has shown us that police reform is probably needed. Badly.
Unfortunately, between the talk of police reform and the profound anti-police bias sweeping the nation, the NYPD isn’t really sure how to deal with the surging violent crime epidemic taking place on the streets of New York.
It’s like the wild west on the streets of the Big Apple, with instances of gun violence soaring. Police say they’re between a rock and a hard place, CBS2’s Andrea Grymes reported Monday. The latest NYPD numbers show a whopping 142 percent increase in shootings last week, compared to the same time last year: 63 versus 26. Month-to-date, there’s a 129 percent spike: 188 shootings compared to 82 in 2019. “These last three weeks have been really bad,” said NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan. Police say it’s a catch-22; protesters and lawmakers continue pushing for NYPD budget cuts and reforms, while gun violence is surging. “We need some clarity from the City Council and from the communities we serve, exactly how they want to be policed,” said Monahan.
This comes amid talks of defunding the police.
Maybe it’s just me, but that’s probably not the best idea out there.
Mayor Bill de Blasio touted the role of the “God Squad” will play going forward in reducing crime.
“We have so much work to do as a community, we have so much work to do as families, as mothers, as fathers,” said Pastor Gil Monrose, president of The God Squad. The squad responds to shootings, but also does preventative work, like meeting with gang members and the formerly incarcerated to try to get them on the right path. “We look in our community and we’re a little disheartened when we see that we’re taking each other’s lives,” said Pastor Louis Straker, another God Squad member.
Now, I can’t stand de Blasio, but trying to take a preventative approach to violent crime is, ultimately a good thing. I applaud him for making the effort.
However, that doesn’t mean leaving your police flapping in the wind. Preventative efforts take time to show any kind of impact. They should be done in conjunction with regular policing, not instead of them. Especially when it’s clear that what they’re doing in this precise instance isn’t yielding any real positive results.
The two have to go hand in hand for there to be any meaningful change. Preventative measures to help guide people away from that kind of lifestyle–and yes, crime is a lifestyle choice–and policing to scoop up those who either don’t listen or didn’t get the message.
Plus, it’s dumb to put your faith in a preventative system that you don’t know will work.
The police need the support of the city they serve. In New York City, they’re not getting it.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Joe Biden's Cannon Claim Shows He's Wrong On History And Gun Control

Joe Biden has once again demonstrated he knows little about U.S. history and the Second Amendment thanks to a recent sit down with Wired in which he was asked about his support for gun control .
Biden responded by launching into a rambling tirade directed at AR-15s , which he says “ should be outlawed.
” After all , he continued , “ From the very beginning you weren ’ t allowed to have certain weapons .
You weren ’ t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.
” Oh , Joe , you silly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War , not only could individuals own cannons , they could own an entire ship equipped with them .
Privateering was an important part of the war effort , especially since the new United States had virtually no real navy of its own .
As the National Park Service helpfully explains : Privateering encompassed two levels of participation .
A Letter of Marque authorized armed merchant ships to challenge any likely enemy vessel that crossed its path during the course of a commercial voyage .
A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective was to disrupt enemy shipping .
The ideal target was an unarmed , or lightly armed , commercial ship .
With the passage of an act on March 23 , 1776 , the Continental Congress formalized the commissioning process , and uniform rules of conduct were established .
Owners of privateers had to post monetary bonds to ensure their proper conduct under the regulations .
Although the documentation is incomplete , about 1,700 Letters of Marque , issued on a per-voyage basis , were granted during the American Revolution .
Nearly 800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credited with capturing or destroying about 600 British ships .
Vessels of every size and description were pressed into service as privateers .
At the upper end of the scale was the 600-ton , 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston .
At the other end was the 8-ton boat Defense of Falmouth , Massachusetts .
Crews ranged from a few men in a whaleboat to more than 200 aboard a large , fully equipped privateer .
Two-masted schooners and brigantines were most often used in privateering , reflecting the kind of vessels available to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s claim and reached out to several historians and experts on the right to bear arms in early America , but site couldn ’ t find anyone who actually agreed with Biden ’ s assertion .
Instead , they all agreed that it was highly unlikely that there were any laws on the books banning the possession of field pieces .
“ It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership ” of cannons , said Julie Anne Sweet , a historian and director of military studies at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute , agreed .
“ I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America , ” he said .
“ There were controls on people or locations , but not bans on types of arms.
” Politifact also reached out to Biden campaign to see if it could cite any specific example of cannons being banned during the Revolutionary War .
Instead of answering the question , the campaign simply resorted to boilerplate anti-gun talking points .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war , but they ’ re quite popular among civilians .
In fact , they ’ re the most commonly sold rifle in the country today .
When Biden talks about outlawing the possession of these rifles , he ’ s talking about turning tens of millions of Americans into criminals for simply maintaining possession of the guns they already own .
Biden ’ s grasp on American history may be tenuous , but his commitment to criminalizing the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right is firm .

Joe Biden has once again demonstrated he knows little about U.S. history and the Second Amendment thanks to a recent sit down with Wired in which he was asked about his support for gun control.
Biden responded by launching into a rambling tirade directed at AR-15s, which he says “should be outlawed.” After all, he continued, “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons. You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”
Oh, Joe, you silly, silly man. During the Revolutionary War, not only could individuals own cannons, they could own an entire ship equipped with them. Privateering was an important part of the war effort, especially since the new United States had virtually no real navy of its own. As the National Park Service helpfully explains:
Privateering encompassed two levels of participation. A Letter of Marque authorized armed merchant ships to challenge any likely enemy vessel that crossed its path during the course of a commercial voyage. A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping. The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship. With the passage of an act on March 23, 1776, the Continental Congress formalized the commissioning process, and uniform rules of conduct were established. Owners of privateers had to post monetary bonds to ensure their proper conduct under the regulations. Although the documentation is incomplete, about 1,700 Letters of Marque, issued on a per-voyage basis, were granted during the American Revolution. Nearly 800 vessels were commissioned as privateers and are credited with capturing or destroying about 600 British ships. Vessels of every size and description were pressed into service as privateers. At the upper end of the scale was the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston. At the other end was the 8-ton boat Defense of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Crews ranged from a few men in a whaleboat to more than 200 aboard a large, fully equipped privateer. Two-masted schooners and brigantines were most often used in privateering, reflecting the kind of vessels available to American seamen.
Politifact got wind of Biden’s claim and reached out to several historians and experts on the right to bear arms in early America, but site couldn’t find anyone who actually agreed with Biden’s assertion. Instead, they all agreed that it was highly unlikely that there were any laws on the books banning the possession of field pieces.
“It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership” of cannons, said Julie Anne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University. David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. “I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America,” he said. “There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.”
Politifact also reached out to Biden campaign to see if it could cite any specific example of cannons being banned during the Revolutionary War. Instead of answering the question, the campaign simply resorted to boilerplate anti-gun talking points.
But the Biden campaign was unable to point to a specific law. “The vice president’s point is that to help end the tragic epidemic of mass shootings that is taking so many American lives, we need to ban weapons of war from our streets,” the campaign told PolitiFact.
Of course semi-automatic AR-15s aren’t weapons of war, but they’re quite popular among civilians. In fact, they’re the most commonly sold rifle in the country today. When Biden talks about outlawing the possession of these rifles, he’s talking about turning tens of millions of Americans into criminals for simply maintaining possession of the guns they already own. Biden’s grasp on American history may be tenuous, but his commitment to criminalizing the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right is firm.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Magazine Ban Upheld By CO Supreme Court

Magazine Ban Upheld By CO Supreme Court

For some reason , anti-gunners seem to find it troubling if a firearm can carry “ too many ” rounds .
I put that in quotes because , well , that number is completely arbitrary and varies from person to person to some degree .
After all , it wasn ’ t all that long ago that Oregon sought to limit round capacity to just five shots .
Anyway , they think that too many rounds somehow turns a firearm from an effective tool for self-defense into a murder-death-kill device , so they love to ban magazines they deem “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get challenged and are sometimes overturned .
Unfortunately , that didn ’ t happen in Colorado .
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the state ’ s ban on large-capacity gun magazines , finding the law does not violate the state constitution .
The court unanimously upheld the ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds , saying it is a “ reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense.
” The court ruled that the ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense because large-capacity gun magazines are not needed for self-defense .
Apparently , the court hasn ’ t been paying any damn attention to what the hell has been going on in the last month or so .
The truth is , such magazines aren ’ t just useful for self-defense , they can be downright vital .
Mobs are showing up in various places , burning down buildings they think are involved in criminal activity .
We ’ ve seen an untold number of riots , watched videos of people being severely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consist of more than 10 people .
Limited-capacity magazines aren ’ t likely to do nearly as much good as a 30-round magazine on an AR-15 or , at least , a 15-round mag in a semi-auto handgun .
If you have a lot of hostiles coming toward you , you need every advantage you can get .
But a court with probably zero expertise on firearms , self-defense , or any similar subject has decided what you need and what you don ’ t .
This is why the Second Amendment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” It ’ s because it ’ s not up to the state–and the courts are agents of the state–to determine what you need and what you don ’ t need to defend your home .
Your circumstances , environment , and numerous other factors have to be considered .
The court didn ’ t care about that .
They , as typical nanny-state judges , figure they know better than you do about what you need and what you don ’ t , despite lacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , people may well die because of that .
The civil unrest we see isn ’ t likely to go away any time soon .
People impacted by this decision may well find themselves facing a mob , all without nearly enough ammunition handy to protect themselves and others .
Of course , progressives such as those on the court don ’ t really care about those people .
They ’ re typically too busy making excuses for the rioters , anyway .
Blood will be on their hands , they just @ @ @ @ @

For some reason, anti-gunners seem to find it troubling if a firearm can carry “too many” rounds. I put that in quotes because, well, that number is completely arbitrary and varies from person to person to some degree. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that Oregon sought to limit round capacity to just five shots.
Anyway, they think that too many rounds somehow turns a firearm from an effective tool for self-defense into a murder-death-kill device, so they love to ban magazines they deem “high-capacity.”
Of course, these bans get challenged and are sometimes overturned.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in Colorado.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the state’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines, finding the law does not violate the state constitution. The court unanimously upheld the ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, saying it is a “reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense.” The court ruled that the ban does not violate residents’ rights to self-defense because large-capacity gun magazines are not needed for self-defense.
Apparently, the court hasn’t been paying any damn attention to what the hell has been going on in the last month or so.
The truth is, such magazines aren’t just useful for self-defense, they can be downright vital. Mobs are showing up in various places, burning down buildings they think are involved in criminal activity. We’ve seen an untold number of riots, watched videos of people being severely beaten by these mobs.
These mobs consist of more than 10 people. Limited-capacity magazines aren’t likely to do nearly as much good as a 30-round magazine on an AR-15 or, at least, a 15-round mag in a semi-auto handgun. If you have a lot of hostiles coming toward you, you need every advantage you can get.
But a court with probably zero expertise on firearms, self-defense, or any similar subject has decided what you need and what you don’t.
This is why the Second Amendment was written as “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s because it’s not up to the state–and the courts are agents of the state–to determine what you need and what you don’t need to defend your home. Your circumstances, environment, and numerous other factors have to be considered.
The court didn’t care about that. They, as typical nanny-state judges, figure they know better than you do about what you need and what you don’t, despite lacking any relevant expertise on the topic.
Now, people may well die because of that.
The civil unrest we see isn’t likely to go away any time soon. People impacted by this decision may well find themselves facing a mob, all without nearly enough ammunition handy to protect themselves and others.
Of course, progressives such as those on the court don’t really care about those people. They’re typically too busy making excuses for the rioters, anyway.
Blood will be on their hands, they just won’t care.


bearingarms--2020-06-29--Armed Citizens Defend Communities Amidst Growing Chaos

While the nation ’ s news media is fixated on the story of the couple in St. Louis who brought out their guns as protesters marched towards the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson ( more on that in a moment ) , there were several other stories of armed citizens turning out in force to protect war memorials and even a rural sheriff ’ s department from rumored threats of violence .
Earlier today we reported on what happened in Shannon County , Missouri , where about a hundred people showed up in the downtown area after the local sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the sheriff ’ s department .
The rumored unrest never materialized , and Sheriff Darrin Brawley says if peaceful protesters want to exercise their First Amendment rights , he ’ ll stand ready to protect them .
A similar message was put out by a group of armed veterans in Lebanon , Tennessee who stood guard over the Wilson County War Memorial over the weekend .
“ A show of force can be a very powerful deterrent .
We ’ re not here to fight , unless we have to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m not here to promote violence , I ’ m not here against any race whatsoever .
I ’ m for all good people and all good things in this country and preserving them , ” added Veteran Joe Hester .
Sikora and Hester both served in the United States Marine Corps and hold the Wilson County Veteran ’ s Memorial very near to their hearts .
“ It ’ s a big target because who else gave more for this country than the ones who gave their life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side and you hate this country , the way they ’ re portraying the way they hate it , this is the best target to hit , ” Sikora said .
Sikora started his watch five days ago and others like Hester have joined since .
By Saturday night , about a dozen veterans were standing guard at the memorial , which remains unmolested by vandals or protesters .
In St. Louis , meanwhile , the local prosecutor says her office is now investigating the couple who brought out their guns , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gardner is getting her information about a “ violent assault ” that took place .
It sure sounds like Gardner is going to do her best to try to bring charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey , who say they were threatened by the protesters Sunday evening .
Mark McCloskey reached out to News 4 Monday morning saying he was having dinner with his family outside of his home when the crowd went through wrought iron gates marked with “ No Trespassing ” and “ Private Street ” signs on Portland Place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place , destroying them , rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives , ” McCloskey said .
Despite his claims , video circulating on social media shows protesters opening and walking through the unbroken gate .
It is unclear when it was actually damaged or who destroyed it .
“ This is all private property .
There are no public sidewalks or public streets .
We were told that we would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dog killed .
We were all alone facing an angry mob , ” McCloskey told News 4 .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if Gardner does file charges against the McCloskeys , though I suspect that obtaining a conviction is going to be pretty difficult .
In an earlier post , I took a look at the most likely charges that the McCloskeys could be facing , but there are issues for prosecutors in both cases .
According to the Missouri statutes , most assault charge requires actual physical injury , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the case of assault in the 4th degree ( a misdemeanor charge ) , prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the McCloskeys either purposely placed another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person .
I suppose prosecutors could argue that pointing the guns at protesters created a risk of death or serious physical injury even though no one was actually harmed by the McCloskeys , but I ’ m guessing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting their property from hundreds of people who were trespassing in their gated community .
Others have claimed that the McCloskeys should be arrested for unlawful use of a weapon , for displaying “ in the presence of one or more persons , any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner , ” but the state statute has an exemption for those engaged in a lawful act of defense .
Mark McCloskey says that he and his family were in fear for their lives , and given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature during protests in the city over the past month , it ’ s going to be incredibly difficult for prosecutors to prove that their fears were unreasonable .
In fact , a good defense attorney may very well end up putting the city and its woeful handling of the riots and protests on trial while defending the McCloskey ’ s actions on their private property .
Be sure to check out today ’ s entire show in the video window above , and thanks as always for watching , listening , and @ @ @ @

While the nation’s news media is fixated on the story of the couple in St. Louis who brought out their guns as protesters marched towards the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson (more on that in a moment), there were several other stories of armed citizens turning out in force to protect war memorials and even a rural sheriff’s department from rumored threats of violence.
Earlier today we reported on what happened in Shannon County, Missouri, where about a hundred people showed up in the downtown area after the local sheriff reported “credible threats” made against members of the sheriff’s department. The rumored unrest never materialized, and Sheriff Darrin Brawley says if peaceful protesters want to exercise their First Amendment rights, he’ll stand ready to protect them.
A similar message was put out by a group of armed veterans in Lebanon, Tennessee who stood guard over the Wilson County War Memorial over the weekend.
“A show of force can be a very powerful deterrent. We’re not here to fight, unless we have to,” Veteran Keith Sikora told News 2. “I’m not here to promote violence, I’m not here against any race whatsoever. I’m for all good people and all good things in this country and preserving them,” added Veteran Joe Hester. Sikora and Hester both served in the United States Marine Corps and hold the Wilson County Veteran’s Memorial very near to their hearts. “It’s a big target because who else gave more for this country than the ones who gave their life, and if youre on the other side and you hate this country, the way they’re portraying the way they hate it, this is the best target to hit,” Sikora said. Sikora started his watch five days ago and others like Hester have joined since.
By Saturday night, about a dozen veterans were standing guard at the memorial, which remains unmolested by vandals or protesters.
In St. Louis, meanwhile, the local prosecutor says her office is now investigating the couple who brought out their guns, though I’m not sure where Kimberly Gardner is getting her information about a “violent assault” that took place.
1/ I am alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protestors were met by guns and a violent assault. We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated. — Kimberly Gardner (@StLouisCityCA) June 29, 2020
It sure sounds like Gardner is going to do her best to try to bring charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who say they were threatened by the protesters Sunday evening.
Mark McCloskey reached out to News 4 Monday morning saying he was having dinner with his family outside of his home when the crowd went through wrought iron gates marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs on Portland Place. “A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives,” McCloskey said. Despite his claims, video circulating on social media shows protesters opening and walking through the unbroken gate. It is unclear when it was actually damaged or who destroyed it. “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey told News 4.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Gardner does file charges against the McCloskeys, though I suspect that obtaining a conviction is going to be pretty difficult. In an earlier post, I took a look at the most likely charges that the McCloskeys could be facing, but there are issues for prosecutors in both cases.
According to the Missouri statutes, most assault charge requires actual physical injury, which didn’t happen in this case. In the case of assault in the 4th degree (a misdemeanor charge), prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the McCloskeys either purposely placed another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. I suppose prosecutors could argue that pointing the guns at protesters created a risk of death or serious physical injury even though no one was actually harmed by the McCloskeys, but I’m guessing that the attorneys would argue that they were simply protecting their property from hundreds of people who were trespassing in their gated community. Others have claimed that the McCloskeys should be arrested for unlawful use of a weapon, for displaying “in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner,” but the state statute has an exemption for those engaged in a lawful act of defense.
Mark McCloskey says that he and his family were in fear for their lives, and given the violence that’s been a regular feature during protests in the city over the past month, it’s going to be incredibly difficult for prosecutors to prove that their fears were unreasonable. In fact, a good defense attorney may very well end up putting the city and its woeful handling of the riots and protests on trial while defending the McCloskey’s actions on their private property.
Be sure to check out today’s entire show in the video window above, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-06-29--Milwaukee Man Receives Probation After Shooting 5-Year Old Girl

A Wisconsin man who pleaded guilty to a road rage incident in which a 5-year old girl was shot has escaped any time behind bars for his crime .
36-year old Antony Jenkins could have spent several years behind bars for the violent crime , but was spared any prison time when a judge sentenced him to three years of probation earlier this month .
As Fox 6 in Milwaukee reports , Jenkins both instigated and escalated the incident in July of 2019 that left the little girl with a gunshot wound to her leg .
According to a criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 5-year-old girl , who was driving the silver sedan that day .
He said he was coming home from Burger King , with his daughter in the back seat , when he noticed the green van tailgating him .
He said he stopped his vehicle , and the van drove around him , and stopped near his driver ’ s side door .
He said the driver , later identified as Jenkins , “ began yelling ( at him ) about driving too slow.
” He said Jenkins got out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , and the father noticed a handgun in his waistband .
The father drove forward in an effort to get away from Jenkins , and Jenkins then pulled out the gun and began shooting .
The 5-year-old girl was struck in her left leg , and the vehicle was also hit , the complaint said .
Jenkins told authorities a slightly different version of events , but even in his telling he was the one who pulled out a gun and began firing as the sedan began pulling away .
Investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicle containing the 5-year-old girl , a Chrysler 3000 , “ was going slow ” and eventually “ came to an abrupt stop.
” He said when he heard someone yell from the Chrysler , he stopped his van .
He said the driver of the Chrysler pulled alongside his van and “ started to yell at him.
” He said an argument ensued , and he told the other driver to pull over if he wanted to argue .
He said the driver of the Chrysler was armed with a black , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of his van and said , “ You gon na shoot me ?
Go — just go then.
” He said he “ never saw the little girl in the car.
” He said when the Chrysler pulled away , he pulled out his pistol and fired .
He said he wasn ’ t sure how many times he fired .
In other words , this wasn ’ t a case of self-defense .
Jenkins may not have been aware that there was a little girl in the car , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adult driver when he began blasting off multiple rounds in the middle of the street at a car that was driving away .
This act of injustice likely won ’ t result in any protests in the streets of Milwaukee , though if it did , there ’ s a good chance that protesters would end up targeting the wrong guy anyway .
This case will soon disappear from the headlines , and unless Anthony Jenkins does something incredibly awful that would cause his probation to be revoked , he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after pleading guilty to his violent crime .

A Wisconsin man who pleaded guilty to a road rage incident in which a 5-year old girl was shot has escaped any time behind bars for his crime. 36-year old Antony Jenkins could have spent several years behind bars for the violent crime, but was spared any prison time when a judge sentenced him to three years of probation earlier this month.
As Fox 6 in Milwaukee reports, Jenkins both instigated and escalated the incident in July of 2019 that left the little girl with a gunshot wound to her leg.
According to a criminal complaint, investigators spoke with the father of the 5-year-old girl, who was driving the silver sedan that day. He said he was coming home from Burger King, with his daughter in the back seat, when he noticed the green van tailgating him. He said he stopped his vehicle, and the van drove around him, and stopped near his driver’s side door. He said the driver, later identified as Jenkins, “began yelling (at him) about driving too slow.” He said Jenkins got out of his van and walked to the front of it, and the father noticed a handgun in his waistband. The father drove forward in an effort to get away from Jenkins, and Jenkins then pulled out the gun and began shooting. The 5-year-old girl was struck in her left leg, and the vehicle was also hit, the complaint said.
Jenkins told authorities a slightly different version of events, but even in his telling he was the one who pulled out a gun and began firing as the sedan began pulling away.
Investigators spoke with Jenkins, who said the vehicle containing the 5-year-old girl, a Chrysler 3000, “was going slow” and eventually “came to an abrupt stop.” He said when he heard someone yell from the Chrysler, he stopped his van. He said the driver of the Chrysler pulled alongside his van and “started to yell at him.” He said an argument ensued, and he told the other driver to pull over if he wanted to argue. He said the driver of the Chrysler was armed with a black, semi-automatic pistol. Jenkins said he got out of his van and said, “You gonna shoot me? Go — just go then.” He said he “never saw the little girl in the car.” He said when the Chrysler pulled away, he pulled out his pistol and fired. He said he wasn’t sure how many times he fired.
In other words, this wasn’t a case of self-defense. Jenkins may not have been aware that there was a little girl in the car, but that just means he was trying to hit the adult driver when he began blasting off multiple rounds in the middle of the street at a car that was driving away.
This act of injustice likely won’t result in any protests in the streets of Milwaukee, though if it did, there’s a good chance that protesters would end up targeting the wrong guy anyway. This case will soon disappear from the headlines, and unless Anthony Jenkins does something incredibly awful that would cause his probation to be revoked, he’ll likely never serve a day behind bars after pleading guilty to his violent crime.


bearingarms--2020-06-29--Effort To Force Sanctuary Vote Fails In Norfolk, VA

When Democrats seized control of the state legislature , it was only a matter of time before the anti-gun laws came flying .
Sure enough , they did , but they didn ’ t have quite the impact that folks like Gov .
Ralph “ Blackface ” Northam intended .
Instead of being heralded throughout the state as the just culmination of whatever , more than 90 percent of the counties in the state passed sanctuary ordinances , clearly stating they won ’ t enforce such unconstitutional measures .
To say that Northam and company are less than pleased would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , VA , gun rights advocates recently failed to force a vote on their own sanctuary measure .
However , all is not lost on that front .
Brown has a point , though .
COVID-19 lockdowns kept a lot of people away from various places where petitions would normally be signed .
There were no gun shows or anything of the sort , for example , nor was there a good time to go door-to-door .
Gun stores were closed as well .
In other words , Northam ’ s lockdown orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signatures .
In a just world , the judge would rule in favor of the petitioners and extend the deadline .
Unfortunately , we don ’ t live in a particularly just world .
I mean , Keeping Up With The Kardashians has gotten 18 seasons and Firefly only got half of one .
Any world where that happens isn ’ t a just world .
I ’ m just sayin ’ .
Anyway , because we don ’ t live in an inherently just world < insert grumbling about gorram Fox executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance the judge may decide that lockdown or not , the deadline is the deadline and he ’ s not extending it for anyone , regardless of the cause .
It ’ s also possible that the judge just won ’ t do it because he thinks sanctuary ordinances are dumb or something .
Who knows .
As such , no one should get their hopes up just yet .
However , I think the case is sound enough that a judge has to at least consider it .
Our entire nation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to petition our government .
If the government can shut that down with a simple order , then we have no real right to petition our government .
As such , the deadline needs to be extended by at least as much time as is needed to counter the lockdown period .
Then , if advocates can ’ t get the signatures , so be it .
At least then , though , we ’ d know there just wasn ’ t enough support for the measure , rather than the deck being @ @ @ @

When Democrats seized control of the state legislature, it was only a matter of time before the anti-gun laws came flying. Sure enough, they did, but they didn’t have quite the impact that folks like Gov. Ralph “Blackface” Northam intended.
Instead of being heralded throughout the state as the just culmination of whatever, more than 90 percent of the counties in the state passed sanctuary ordinances, clearly stating they won’t enforce such unconstitutional measures. To say that Northam and company are less than pleased would be an understatement.
Down in Norfolk, VA, gun rights advocates recently failed to force a vote on their own sanctuary measure. However, all is not lost on that front.
An effort by gun-rights advocates in Norfolk to force the City Council to consider a measure preventing staff from enforcing some state gun laws has failed to net enough signatures. That means the ordinance pushed by advocates won’t appear on the City Council’s agenda any time soon, and there’s no public hearing scheduled on the matter But that may not be the end of the effort. Bob Brown, the chief petitioner and chairman of Norfolk’s Republican Party, said the group went to court seeking an injunction to extend the deadline for them to collect voter signatures, arguing coronavirus-related lockdowns had inhibited them from getting enough people to sign during the four-month period allowed by the city code. As of Thursday, a judge had not made a determination or set a date for any hearing.
Brown has a point, though. COVID-19 lockdowns kept a lot of people away from various places where petitions would normally be signed. There were no gun shows or anything of the sort, for example, nor was there a good time to go door-to-door. Gun stores were closed as well. In other words, Northam’s lockdown orders made it virtually impossible to garner enough signatures.
In a just world, the judge would rule in favor of the petitioners and extend the deadline.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a particularly just world. I mean, Keeping Up With The Kardashians has gotten 18 seasons and Firefly only got half of one. Any world where that happens isn’t a just world. I’m just sayin’.
Anyway, because we don’t live in an inherently just world , there’s a chance the judge may decide that lockdown or not, the deadline is the deadline and he’s not extending it for anyone, regardless of the cause. It’s also possible that the judge just won’t do it because he thinks sanctuary ordinances are dumb or something. Who knows.
As such, no one should get their hopes up just yet.
However, I think the case is sound enough that a judge has to at least consider it. Our entire nation is hinged on rights such as being able to petition our government. If the government can shut that down with a simple order, then we have no real right to petition our government. As such, the deadline needs to be extended by at least as much time as is needed to counter the lockdown period.
Then, if advocates can’t get the signatures, so be it. At least then, though, we’d know there just wasn’t enough support for the measure, rather than the deck being stacked against it.


bearingarms--2020-06-29--NH Red Flag Bill Passes Committee Vote

NH Red Flag Bill Passes Committee Vote

New Hampshire ’ s state motto is “ Live Free or Die , ” a sentiment that many a Bearing Arms reader can relate to .
After all , that ’ s all most gun owners really want , to live free .
We don ’ t like the idea of the state taking away our rights , including our right to keep and bear arms .
For a long time , New Hampshire has been a rare beacon of freedom in the Northeast .
They have lived up to their motto in most ways .
However , a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require a serious examination of that motto .
Several dozen supporters and opponents squared off remotely Wednesday over red flag legislation that would permit the temporary confiscation of guns if a judge determines a person poses an “ extreme risk ” of violence to himself or others .
After a two-hour hearing , the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted , 3-2 , in support of HB 687 , which the House of Representatives approved in January .
All three Democrats backed it .
The two Republicans opposed it .
The full Senate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meets Monday .
Margaret Tilton , a retired physician from Exeter , said such a law would have permitted her family to take a gun away from her son , who suffered from depression and shot himself to death in 2017 .
Before his death , Exeter police officials convinced him to turn over a gun he had bought earlier .
He went back to a gun store and bought a second handgun , which he used to commit suicide , she said .
“ The evidence was there .
It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Of course , it ’ s clear that if Tilton ’ s son hadn ’ t been able to get a gun , he ’ d have tried some other manner of suicide .
While guns tend to be more effective as a method of suicide , that shouldn ’ t be taken to mean non-firearm methods are ineffective .
Not only that , but involuntary psychiatric holds are already a thing .
If there ’ s sufficient reason to believe someone represents a risk to themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should be pursued .
Especially since someone hospitalized for treatment isn ’ t just being kept from shooting themselves , they ’ re also being prevented from pretty much every other method of suicide out there as well .
The problem with red flag laws , and why people like Tilton advocate for them , is that they don ’ t have as high of a burden when presenting a case to the court .
They don ’ t have to really prove someone is a danger to themselves or others , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we ’ re talking about a constitutionally protected right here .
If you ’ re going to strip it from someone , it should require a much higher burden of evidence than what red flag laws require .
Luckily , there ’ s an upside to all of this .
While it looks like Democrats revived this bill for partisan purposes , it ’ s not likely to get signed into law even if it passes .
Gov .
Chris Sununu vetoed a number of gun bills last year and while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back , that doesn ’ t mean he ’ ll sign this particular zombie bill .
That ’ s good news for Granite Staters , but they may also want to start dealing with the anti-gun lawmakers in their midst so they won ’ t have to rely on a governor ’ s veto .
I mean , that ’ s what I think they should do if they really still believe in “ Live Free or Die .
”

New Hampshire’s state motto is “Live Free or Die,” a sentiment that many a Bearing Arms reader can relate to. After all, that’s all most gun owners really want, to live free. We don’t like the idea of the state taking away our rights, including our right to keep and bear arms.
For a long time, New Hampshire has been a rare beacon of freedom in the Northeast. They have lived up to their motto in most ways.
However, a bill recently passed out of committee would definitely require a serious examination of that motto.
Several dozen supporters and opponents squared off remotely Wednesday over red flag legislation that would permit the temporary confiscation of guns if a judge determines a person poses an “extreme risk” of violence to himself or others. After a two-hour hearing, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted, 3-2, in support of HB 687, which the House of Representatives approved in January. All three Democrats backed it. The two Republicans opposed it. The full Senate is likely to pass the measure when it meets Monday. Margaret Tilton, a retired physician from Exeter, said such a law would have permitted her family to take a gun away from her son, who suffered from depression and shot himself to death in 2017. Before his death, Exeter police officials convinced him to turn over a gun he had bought earlier. He went back to a gun store and bought a second handgun, which he used to commit suicide, she said. “The evidence was there. It was a repeated pattern of behavior,” Tilton told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Of course, it’s clear that if Tilton’s son hadn’t been able to get a gun, he’d have tried some other manner of suicide. While guns tend to be more effective as a method of suicide, that shouldn’t be taken to mean non-firearm methods are ineffective.
Not only that, but involuntary psychiatric holds are already a thing. If there’s sufficient reason to believe someone represents a risk to themselves or others, that is the method that should be pursued. Especially since someone hospitalized for treatment isn’t just being kept from shooting themselves, they’re also being prevented from pretty much every other method of suicide out there as well.
The problem with red flag laws, and why people like Tilton advocate for them, is that they don’t have as high of a burden when presenting a case to the court. They don’t have to really prove someone is a danger to themselves or others, only that someone thinks they might be, but we’re talking about a constitutionally protected right here. If you’re going to strip it from someone, it should require a much higher burden of evidence than what red flag laws require.
Luckily, there’s an upside to all of this.
While it looks like Democrats revived this bill for partisan purposes, it’s not likely to get signed into law even if it passes. Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed a number of gun bills last year and while he welcomed some of those bills coming back, that doesn’t mean he’ll sign this particular zombie bill. That’s good news for Granite Staters, but they may also want to start dealing with the anti-gun lawmakers in their midst so they won’t have to rely on a governor’s veto.
I mean, that’s what I think they should do if they really still believe in “Live Free or Die.”


bearingarms--2020-06-29--Sacha Baron Cohen's Attempt To Paint Gun Advocates As Racists Fails

“ Comedian ” Sacha Baron Cohen has tried to make gun rights advocates look ridiculous in the past .
He has a habit of pretending to be someone he ’ s not , saying ridiculous things to ordinary people , then filming the reaction .
That ’ s apparently the totality of his “ comedy.
” No , I didn ’ t find it funny even before he targeted gun owners .
However , Cohen tried to target the gun rights crowd yet again .
After making a donation to organizers of a rally to hire a particular singer–Cohen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be described as “ problematic.
” Twitter , of course , has footage of people whooping and hollering in support of the song…but that ’ s only part of the story .
According to Vanity Fair , Sacha Baron Cohen crashed a pro-gun rally in Washington on Saturday , taking the stage in disguise and performing what seems to be an extremely racist and just generally offensive song that advocated for attacking people in masks , killing people in Asia , and injecting Barack Obama and Dr. Anthony Fauci with the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with “ hollerin ’ ” from the attendees of the rally , while local news outlet The Olympian quotes a man named James Blair who is apparently a city councilman in the area as saying that the crowd turned on the bearded , overall-wearing singer after they “ realized what he was saying ” and tried to rush the stage .
He also categorizes the song in a Facebook post as a “ bullshit stunt ” and suggests that people in the crowd who were singing along were paid actors and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other attendees or the event itself .
And , really , that ’ s not difficult to imagine happening .
After all , some of what I heard on video was references to the “ Wuhan Flu ” and things like that , things that the left has determined to be horribly racist but shouldn ’ t be .
COVID-19 came from Wuhan , China , after all , though many on the left are trying to rewrite history to cover that up .
However , at some point , if Cohen went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so you know he did–they probably would turn on him .
Now , I ’ m not going to say that these were paid actors .
While I wouldn ’ t put it past Cohen to use plants to get a response , I don ’ t have any evidence he did so in this case .
Sure , some were apparently singing along with the son , a song they ’ d never heard before , which lends some credibility to the claim , but they may have also picked up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what got recorded .
We need more evidence either way .
The thing is , if you ’ re a gun rights advocate and you ’ re contacted out of the blue with something like this , you need to be very careful .
Performers need to be vetted .
Interviewers need to be checked out .
You need to make damn sure you ’ re not setting yourself up for something like this .
Cohen has apparently decided to target gun owners , making it some kind of a personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad .
Well , we know he ’ s up to this crap , so it behooves all of us to be on guard because he will try this crap again .
Don ’ t let him .
As for Cohen , I can ’ t help but wonder if he ’ ll get any flak for his supposedly racist song .
I mean , if you can ’ t even say certain things these days , how do you get away with it just because you ’ re pretending to be someone @ @

“Comedian” Sacha Baron Cohen has tried to make gun rights advocates look ridiculous in the past. He has a habit of pretending to be someone he’s not, saying ridiculous things to ordinary people, then filming the reaction. That’s apparently the totality of his “comedy.”
No, I didn’t find it funny even before he targeted gun owners.
However, Cohen tried to target the gun rights crowd yet again. After making a donation to organizers of a rally to hire a particular singer–Cohen in disguise–he began singing a song that could only be described as “problematic.”
Twitter, of course, has footage of people whooping and hollering in support of the song…but that’s only part of the story.
According to Vanity Fair, Sacha Baron Cohen crashed a pro-gun rally in Washington on Saturday, taking the stage in disguise and performing what seems to be an extremely racist and just generally offensive song that advocated for attacking people in masks, killing people in Asia, and injecting Barack Obama and Dr. Anthony Fauci with the coronavirus. Vanity Fair says the song was met with “hollerin’” from the attendees of the rally, while local news outlet The Olympian quotes a man named James Blair who is apparently a city councilman in the area as saying that the crowd turned on the bearded, overall-wearing singer after they “realized what he was saying” and tried to rush the stage. He also categorizes the song in a Facebook post as a “bullshit stunt” and suggests that people in the crowd who were singing along were paid actors and that they “DO NOT” represent the other attendees or the event itself.
And, really, that’s not difficult to imagine happening. After all, some of what I heard on video was references to the “Wuhan Flu” and things like that, things that the left has determined to be horribly racist but shouldn’t be. COVID-19 came from Wuhan, China, after all, though many on the left are trying to rewrite history to cover that up.
However, at some point, if Cohen went too far–and it’s Cohen, so you know he did–they probably would turn on him.
Now, I’m not going to say that these were paid actors. While I wouldn’t put it past Cohen to use plants to get a response, I don’t have any evidence he did so in this case. Sure, some were apparently singing along with the son, a song they’d never heard before, which lends some credibility to the claim, but they may have also picked up the chorus after the first few and that’s what got recorded. We need more evidence either way.
The thing is, if you’re a gun rights advocate and you’re contacted out of the blue with something like this, you need to be very careful. Performers need to be vetted. Interviewers need to be checked out. You need to make damn sure you’re not setting yourself up for something like this. Cohen has apparently decided to target gun owners, making it some kind of a personal crusade to try and make us look bad.
Well, we know he’s up to this crap, so it behooves all of us to be on guard because he will try this crap again. Don’t let him.
As for Cohen, I can’t help but wonder if he’ll get any flak for his supposedly racist song. I mean, if you can’t even say certain things these days, how do you get away with it just because you’re pretending to be someone else?


bearingarms--2020-06-29--St. Louis Couple Protects Home With Guns, Activists Call For Arrests

While the national news media has completely ignored the mob violence in Milwaukee that left ten officers injured , three people shot , and a family homeless after a crowd burned down their home in the mistaken belief that it was a den for sex traffickers , cable news outlets and papers like the Washington Post have fixated on a husband and wife in St. Louis , Missouri who stood guard outside of their home in a gated community over the weekend as protesters entered the private community to gather outside of the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing a rifle and a handgun in the general direction of the protesters as they yelled at the crowd to leave the private property .
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that no shots were fired , and protesters continued their march to Krewson ’ s home about a block away .
At least 500 people demonstrated in the Central West End , chanting “ Resign Lyda , take the cops with you.
” They are upset that the mayor released names and addresses of residents who suggested defunding the police department .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and held rallies to close the St. Louis Medium Security Institution known as the workhouse .
While giving a briefing Friday on Facebook Live , Krewson read the names and addresses of several protesters who had given her letters suggesting changes to the city budget .
“ As a leader , you don ’ t do stuff like that … it ’ s only right that we visit her at her home , ” said State Rep. Rasheen Aldridge , D-St. Louis , speaking into a megaphone at the protest Sunday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a political mistake for Krewson to publicly give out the names and addresses of some of those who ’ ve been advocating to defund the police , but that information is also subject to Freedom of Information Act requests , meaning that it ’ s not privileged information .
The response by protesters , including a state representative , to enter the private , gated community to protest outside of the mayor ’ s home only exacerbated the tensions .
The couple , identified as personal injury attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property , but some have alleged that the McCloskey ’ s violated state law by pointing their firearms towards protesters .
According to the Missouri statutes , most assault charge requires actual physical injury , which didn ’ t happen in this case .
In the case of assault in the 4th degree ( a misdemeanor charge ) , prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the McCloskeys either purposely placed another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors could argue that pointing the guns at protesters created a risk of death or serious physical injury even though no one was actually harmed by the McCloskeys , but I ’ m guessing that the attorneys would argue that they were simply protecting their property from hundreds of people who were trespassing in their gated community .
Others have claimed that the McCloskeys should be arrested for unlawful use of a weapon , for displaying “ in the presence of one or more persons , any weapon readily capable of lethal use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but the state statute has an exemption for those engaged in a lawful act of defense .
It ’ s clear that the couple didn ’ t leave their property , and while I would have preferred to see the McCloskeys keep their firearms at a low ready position with their fingers off the trigger , I have a very hard time seeing how their actions rise to the level of a criminal offense .

While the national news media has completely ignored the mob violence in Milwaukee that left ten officers injured, three people shot, and a family homeless after a crowd burned down their home in the mistaken belief that it was a den for sex traffickers, cable news outlets and papers like the Washington Post have fixated on a husband and wife in St. Louis, Missouri who stood guard outside of their home in a gated community over the weekend as protesters entered the private community to gather outside of the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson.
The couple were caught on multiple video streams pointing a rifle and a handgun in the general direction of the protesters as they yelled at the crowd to leave the private property.
A couple has come out of their house and is pointing guns at protesters in their neighborhood #StLouis #lydakrewson pic.twitter.com/ZJ8a553PAU — Daniel Shular (@xshularx) June 29, 2020
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that no shots were fired, and protesters continued their march to Krewson’s home about a block away.
At least 500 people demonstrated in the Central West End, chanting “Resign Lyda, take the cops with you.” They are upset that the mayor released names and addresses of residents who suggested defunding the police department. For weeks, demonstrators have marched against police violence and held rallies to close the St. Louis Medium Security Institution known as the workhouse. While giving a briefing Friday on Facebook Live, Krewson read the names and addresses of several protesters who had given her letters suggesting changes to the city budget. “As a leader, you don’t do stuff like that … it’s only right that we visit her at her home,” said State Rep. Rasheen Aldridge, D-St. Louis, speaking into a megaphone at the protest Sunday.
This whole thing is idiotic. It was a political mistake for Krewson to publicly give out the names and addresses of some of those who’ve been advocating to defund the police, but that information is also subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, meaning that it’s not privileged information. The response by protesters, including a state representative, to enter the private, gated community to protest outside of the mayor’s home only exacerbated the tensions.
The couple, identified as personal injury attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey, had every right to protect their property, but some have alleged that the McCloskey’s violated state law by pointing their firearms towards protesters.
A fellow lawyer from Missouri, a guy I know named Mark McCloskey committed an assault tonight in STL by pointing his AR 15 at peaceful protesters. He should be arrested and charged with assault immediately. The MO Bar should revoke their licenses. https://t.co/6N75iFLDtT — doncalloway (@dcstl) June 29, 2020
According to the Missouri statutes, most assault charge requires actual physical injury, which didn’t happen in this case. In the case of assault in the 4th degree (a misdemeanor charge), prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the McCloskeys either purposely placed another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. I suppose prosecutors could argue that pointing the guns at protesters created a risk of death or serious physical injury even though no one was actually harmed by the McCloskeys, but I’m guessing that the attorneys would argue that they were simply protecting their property from hundreds of people who were trespassing in their gated community.
Others have claimed that the McCloskeys should be arrested for unlawful use of a weapon, for displaying “in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner,” but the state statute has an exemption for those engaged in a lawful act of defense. It’s clear that the couple didn’t leave their property, and while I would have preferred to see the McCloskeys keep their firearms at a low ready position with their fingers off the trigger, I have a very hard time seeing how their actions rise to the level of a criminal offense.


bearingarms--2020-07-01--Yep, Loeffler's Comments About Armed Protest Were Wrong

Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to fill the seat of Johnny Isakson , the Georgia senator who resigned due to health reasons last year .
Loeffler ’ s tenure has been filled with a bit of controversy after she allegedly dumped a bunch of stocks just prior to the stock market crashing .
No charges are being filed against her for that , but it ’ s a black eye she really didn ’ t need heading into an election .
Recently , I applauded Loeffler over a pro-Second Amendment bill she introduced .
It ’ s a good bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see made into law .
However , Loeffler also made some comments last week , comments I missed , that are out of line .
You know who she sounds like here ?
She sounds like those who took issue with armed protestors in Richmond during the Lobby Day protests earlier this year .
Look , I get the fact that many of these protests have turned violent .
However , unless these people are breaking a law , they have a right to open carry just as much as the next person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice of issues to support , exempts them from the Second Amendment .
The only thing that possibly could is their actions .
Those that commit crimes while armed should be arrested and charged accordingly , of course , but any others should be left alone .
Loeffler likes to bill herself as pro-Second Amendment , but that kind of talk doesn ’ t benefit gun rights .
Instead , it makes gun-rights advocates look like hypocrites .
I missed Loeffler ’ s comments until today , but not everyone did .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American Gun Association formed with the intention to “ promote self-protection.
” Since the 2016 election , this organization has seen its membership soar , in some measure due to the concern ( I would argue the fact ) that the president of the United Sates is a racist who is emboldening racism in our society .
The more black Americans embrace or utilize their Second Amendment rights in public , however , the more you see alarm being expressed by people who are traditionally “ pro-gun.
” The most recent example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently described Americans who were lawfully , and peacefully , carrying weapons as “ totally unacceptable ” and an example of “ mob rule.
” As Scott Shackford points out in his piece in Reason , it is not against the law to carry guns openly in public in Georgia , where Loeffler serves as a senator .
In fact , Loeffler never accuses the armed individuals of breaking any laws , and in the very recent past , she has been an outspoken proponent of gun rights and expressed the need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment .
So , asks Shackford , “ [ w ] hat could possibly make a pro-gun-rights senator suddenly take such a dim view of citizens ’ rights to bear arms ?
” The only logical , and rather obvious answer is that in Georgia , the people legally carrying guns in public happened to be black .
It is simply stunning how the narrative around the right to bear arms can still change today , on national television no less , depending on the race of the gun owner .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Michigan who were protesting in their state capitol building , the president offered praise and a message of support .
Yet , when the group is Black Lives Matter , even unarmed protests are described by this same president as “ hate coming down the street.
” Again , the inference for why there is such a difference in reaction between the two protests is absurdly obvious .
Here ’ s where I think Loeffler screwed up .
You see , it ’ s easy to not feel threatened by armed people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know you ’ re not likely to be a target , so you don ’ t worry .
When the other side has the guns , though ?
That ’ s when things feel different .
It ’ s not panic about the guns then , it ’ s about the individuals and their motivations .
But that works both ways , really .
Look , I don ’ t think Loeffler was upset that they were carrying while black .
That ’ s the “ skim until offended ” version of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that was what bothered her in and of itself .
I think her issue was more that they were leftists carrying guns .
Regardless , though , the Second Amendment has to protect those with which we vehemently disagree or else it stands for nothing .
Plain and simple .
As such , Loeffler was wrong and should issue an apology for her comments immediately .

Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to fill the seat of Johnny Isakson, the Georgia senator who resigned due to health reasons last year. Loeffler’s tenure has been filled with a bit of controversy after she allegedly dumped a bunch of stocks just prior to the stock market crashing.
No charges are being filed against her for that, but it’s a black eye she really didn’t need heading into an election.
Recently, I applauded Loeffler over a pro-Second Amendment bill she introduced. It’s a good bill and one I’d like to see made into law.
However, Loeffler also made some comments last week, comments I missed, that are out of line.
Joined @edhenry on @AmericaNewsroom to discuss my efforts to end the defund the police movement & pass the #JusticeAct. Enough with the political games from Democrats in Washington. Americans deserve better. #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/uopR5jiJHU — Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) June 24, 2020
You know who she sounds like here? She sounds like those who took issue with armed protestors in Richmond during the Lobby Day protests earlier this year.
Look, I get the fact that many of these protests have turned violent. However, unless these people are breaking a law, they have a right to open carry just as much as the next person. Their skin color, nor their choice of issues to support, exempts them from the Second Amendment. The only thing that possibly could is their actions. Those that commit crimes while armed should be arrested and charged accordingly, of course, but any others should be left alone.
Loeffler likes to bill herself as pro-Second Amendment, but that kind of talk doesn’t benefit gun rights. Instead, it makes gun-rights advocates look like hypocrites.
I missed Loeffler’s comments until today, but not everyone did.
In 2015, a group called the National African American Gun Association formed with the intention to “promote self-protection.” Since the 2016 election, this organization has seen its membership soar, in some measure due to the concern (I would argue the fact) that the president of the United Sates is a racist who is emboldening racism in our society. The more black Americans embrace or utilize their Second Amendment rights in public, however, the more you see alarm being expressed by people who are traditionally “pro-gun.” The most recent example came from Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler recently described Americans who were lawfully, and peacefully, carrying weapons as “totally unacceptable” and an example of “mob rule.” As Scott Shackford points out in his piece in Reason, it is not against the law to carry guns openly in public in Georgia, where Loeffler serves as a senator. In fact, Loeffler never accuses the armed individuals of breaking any laws, and in the very recent past, she has been an outspoken proponent of gun rights and expressed the need to “protect and defend” the Second Amendment. So, asks Shackford, “[w]hat could possibly make a pro-gun-rights senator suddenly take such a dim view of citizens’ rights to bear arms?” The only logical, and rather obvious answer is that in Georgia, the people legally carrying guns in public happened to be black. It is simply stunning how the narrative around the right to bear arms can still change today, on national television no less, depending on the race of the gun owner. For example, when it was white armed Americans in Michigan who were protesting in their state capitol building, the president offered praise and a message of support. Yet, when the group is Black Lives Matter, even unarmed protests are described by this same president as “hate coming down the street.” Again, the inference for why there is such a difference in reaction between the two protests is absurdly obvious.
Here’s where I think Loeffler screwed up. You see, it’s easy to not feel threatened by armed people when you agree with them. You know you’re not likely to be a target, so you don’t worry.
When the other side has the guns, though? That’s when things feel different. It’s not panic about the guns then, it’s about the individuals and their motivations.
But that works both ways, really.
Look, I don’t think Loeffler was upset that they were carrying while black. That’s the “skim until offended” version of what transpired, but I don’t think that was what bothered her in and of itself. I think her issue was more that they were leftists carrying guns.
Regardless, though, the Second Amendment has to protect those with which we vehemently disagree or else it stands for nothing. Plain and simple.
As such, Loeffler was wrong and should issue an apology for her comments immediately.


bearingarms--2020-07-01--New Gun Control Laws Take Effect In VA As Sales Soar Nationwide

The first pieces of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda are now officially law in Virginia , though several of them are already subject to litigation in state court .
As of July 1st , Virginians are subject to things like one-gun-a-month rations on handgun sales ( not much of an issue at the moment given the run on firearms taking place across the country ) , new restrictions on concealed carry licensing , a “ Red Flag ” firearms seizure law , and so-called universal background checks .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforceability of these new laws coming into effect , and how the surge in gun sales and new gun owners might impact Northam ’ s ability to enact the rest of his anti-gun agenda in the next session of the state legislature .
Northam , remember , failed to pass the centerpiece of his gun control package this past session ; a sweeping ban on the possession of modern sporting rifles , magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition , and lawfully owned and acquired suppressors .
The governor has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming months , but with tens of thousands of Virginians estimated to have become a gun owner for the first time in their lives over the past few months , could Northam ’ s agenda be dead on arrival ?
In today ’ s Norfolk Virginian-Pilot , the National Shooting Sports Foundation ’ s Larry Keane opines that there ’ s a “ gaping disconnect ” between the governor ’ s legislative agenda and the reality of public safety in the state .
His agenda , and that of the Democrats who took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last election , has been defined by gun control .
This past January , Northam ’ s administration quickly backed measures such as universal background checks on private sales and passing a “ red flag ” law lacking meaningful due process , just to name a few .
Only a month later , and after continual protests from law abiding gun owners at the state capitol , Gov .
Northam ’ s flagship legislation to outlaw commonly owned modern sporting rifles was defeated in a bipartisan manner .
In the face of defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be back ” and insisted that his sweeping gun control agenda represented “ historic steps forward in keeping Virginians safe from gun violence .
Make no mistake—they will save lives.
” The only problem is that crime reports from 2019 and many years previous show that the popular rifles Gov .
Northam so desperately wants to ban are misused in a minuscule number of crimes .
In 2019 , rifles of all types were used in less than five percent of murder and manslaughter cases , and in only three percent of aggravated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if Northam wants to ban his way to safety , he ’ s going to have to start at the hardware store , not the gun store .
More surprising still , in all of Virginia ’ s 2019 murder cases , rifles of any type were misused in a total of 3.4 percent of cases while a “ knife or cutting instrument ” was used in over 10 % of cases .
Not only are rifles misused in a fraction of these crimes , but criminal misuse has also decreased significantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were “ around 400 ” [ that number is nationwide-ed ] When examining aggravated assault cases in 2019 , rifles were misused in a total of 1 percent of cases while “ hands , fists , feet , arms , teeth etc.
” were used in 25 % of instances , and blunt objects were used 7.8 percent of the time .
In other words , Virginians face a lethal threat from knives that is three times greater than the one they face from misused rifles of any kind , and the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blunt object ” is 26 times higher .
There are of course no calls to ban knifes and hammers , nor should there be .
Not that Northam and anti-gun advocates are going to let a little thing like data stand in the way of criminalizing the Second Amendment even as they push for things like reducing the penalty for assaulting a police officer from a felony to a misdemeanor .
Their agenda is clear , but whether or not its going to be enforced in the dozens of Virginia counties and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment sanctuaries is still very much an open question .

The first pieces of Gov. Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda are now officially law in Virginia, though several of them are already subject to litigation in state court. As of July 1st, Virginians are subject to things like one-gun-a-month rations on handgun sales (not much of an issue at the moment given the run on firearms taking place across the country), new restrictions on concealed carry licensing, a “Red Flag” firearms seizure law, and so-called universal background checks.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we dig into the constitutionality and enforceability of these new laws coming into effect, and how the surge in gun sales and new gun owners might impact Northam’s ability to enact the rest of his anti-gun agenda in the next session of the state legislature. Northam, remember, failed to pass the centerpiece of his gun control package this past session; a sweeping ban on the possession of modern sporting rifles, magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, and lawfully owned and acquired suppressors. The governor has vowed to push the ban in the coming months, but with tens of thousands of Virginians estimated to have become a gun owner for the first time in their lives over the past few months, could Northam’s agenda be dead on arrival?
In today’s Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane opines that there’s a “gaping disconnect” between the governor’s legislative agenda and the reality of public safety in the state.
His agenda, and that of the Democrats who took control of the state legislature during the last election, has been defined by gun control. This past January, Northam’s administration quickly backed measures such as universal background checks on private sales and passing a “red flag” law lacking meaningful due process, just to name a few. Only a month later, and after continual protests from law abiding gun owners at the state capitol, Gov. Northam’s flagship legislation to outlaw commonly owned modern sporting rifles was defeated in a bipartisan manner. In the face of defeat, Northam vowed that “they would be back” and insisted that his sweeping gun control agenda represented “historic steps forward in keeping Virginians safe from gun violence. Make no mistake—they will save lives.” The only problem is that crime reports from 2019 and many years previous show that the popular rifles Gov. Northam so desperately wants to ban are misused in a minuscule number of crimes. In 2019, rifles of all types were used in less than five percent of murder and manslaughter cases, and in only three percent of aggravated assault cases.
As it turns out, if Northam wants to ban his way to safety, he’s going to have to start at the hardware store, not the gun store.
More surprising still, in all of Virginia’s 2019 murder cases, rifles of any type were misused in a total of 3.4 percent of cases while a “knife or cutting instrument” was used in over 10% of cases. Not only are rifles misused in a fraction of these crimes, but criminal misuse has also decreased significantly since 2017 when murders committed with rifles were “around 400” [that number is nationwide-ed] When examining aggravated assault cases in 2019, rifles were misused in a total of 1 percent of cases while “hands, fists, feet, arms, teeth etc.” were used in 25% of instances, and blunt objects were used 7.8 percent of the time. In other words, Virginians face a lethal threat from knives that is three times greater than the one they face from misused rifles of any kind, and the threat of assault involving a hammer or other “blunt object” is 26 times higher. There are of course no calls to ban knifes and hammers, nor should there be.
Not that Northam and anti-gun advocates are going to let a little thing like data stand in the way of criminalizing the Second Amendment even as they push for things like reducing the penalty for assaulting a police officer from a felony to a misdemeanor. Their agenda is clear, but whether or not its going to be enforced in the dozens of Virginia counties and towns that have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries is still very much an open question.


bearingarms--2020-07-01--MI Commission Says It CAN Ban Guns In Capitol, Doesn't

Government is often a dangerous thing .
If they think they can do something , they generally do it .
As people , we tend to ignore that reality when it ’ s something we like , of course , but it ’ s still a dangerous thing .
A government that grows too big can eventually devour everything .
Look at how great a shape Venezuela is in , just for an example .
It ’ s rare for a governmental entity to say they have the power to do something , but then simply opt not to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened with the Michigan State Capitol Commission .
The Michigan State Capitol Commission does indeed have the power to decide whether guns are allowed inside the Capitol building , members agreed Tuesday .
But whether they ’ ll move to exercise that authority remains unclear .
An independent legal review requested by members at their last meeting concurred with Attorney General Dana Nessel ’ s opinion that the commission – which manages the state Capitol ’ s grounds and facilities – has the authority to set rules banning or regulating the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came as a surprise to some Republican members of the commission , which is made up of the Secretary of the Senate , the Clerk of the House , two members appointed by the governor and two members jointly appointed by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House .
“ Clearly , from what we ’ ve been given now on two occasions , ( the decision ) is thrown to us , ” said John Truscott , the panel ’ s vice-chair .
“ We have to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a final decision on the matter at its Tuesday meeting , instead opting to mull over various options and return to the question at a July 13 meeting .
Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer must be loving this one .
Of course , as noted , that doesn ’ t mean the commission won ’ t reach a decision at a later date , which is why I can ’ t really chalk this up as a win .
A real win would have closed the door on this kind of foolishness indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan have to sit and wait for almost two weeks to see if they ’ ll need to file a lawsuit or not .
That ’ s right , this isn ’ t over by any stretch .
If the commission moves to ban guns within the capitol , gun rights groups will file lawsuits seeking to overturn the decision .
That can be a bit of a craps shoot , but the worst-case scenario for pro-Second Amendment groups is that nothing changes .
That ’ s it .
That means it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight , even if you lose .
After all , the upside is a big win for the Second Amendment and a slap in the face of Whitmer and her buddies who have been pushing this foolishness .
Big upside and almost no downside .
Why wouldn ’ t they sue ?
With luck , the commission will simply refuse to do anything about guns in the capitol .
That saves everyone a lot of time and effort .
I don ’ t think Whitmer and company will be satisfied with that , @ @

Government is often a dangerous thing. If they think they can do something, they generally do it. As people, we tend to ignore that reality when it’s something we like, of course, but it’s still a dangerous thing. A government that grows too big can eventually devour everything. Look at how great a shape Venezuela is in, just for an example.
It’s rare for a governmental entity to say they have the power to do something, but then simply opt not to do it. Yet that’s just what happened with the Michigan State Capitol Commission.
The Michigan State Capitol Commission does indeed have the power to decide whether guns are allowed inside the Capitol building, members agreed Tuesday. But whether they’ll move to exercise that authority remains unclear. An independent legal review requested by members at their last meeting concurred with Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion that the commission – which manages the state Capitol’s grounds and facilities – has the authority to set rules banning or regulating the use of guns in the Capitol. That came as a surprise to some Republican members of the commission, which is made up of the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House, two members appointed by the governor and two members jointly appointed by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. “Clearly, from what we’ve been given now on two occasions, (the decision) is thrown to us,” said John Truscott, the panel’s vice-chair. “We have to deal with it.” Commission members demurred on making a final decision on the matter at its Tuesday meeting, instead opting to mull over various options and return to the question at a July 13 meeting.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer must be loving this one.
Of course, as noted, that doesn’t mean the commission won’t reach a decision at a later date, which is why I can’t really chalk this up as a win. A real win would have closed the door on this kind of foolishness indefinitely. Instead, gun rights advocates in Michigan have to sit and wait for almost two weeks to see if they’ll need to file a lawsuit or not.
That’s right, this isn’t over by any stretch.
If the commission moves to ban guns within the capitol, gun rights groups will file lawsuits seeking to overturn the decision. That can be a bit of a craps shoot, but the worst-case scenario for pro-Second Amendment groups is that nothing changes. That’s it. That means it’s worth it to put up a fight, even if you lose.
After all, the upside is a big win for the Second Amendment and a slap in the face of Whitmer and her buddies who have been pushing this foolishness.
Big upside and almost no downside. Why wouldn’t they sue?
With luck, the commission will simply refuse to do anything about guns in the capitol. That saves everyone a lot of time and effort. I don’t think Whitmer and company will be satisfied with that, though.