bearingarms--2020-02-18--Bernie Bro Brawls Over "Black Guns Matter" Shirt

A Bernie Sanders supporter in Colorado ended up attacking a fellow attendee at a campaign rally on Sunday when he became enraged by the man ’ s Black Guns Matter t-shirt , according to CBS4 in Denver , Colorado .
The station reports that their cameras were at the event when they spotted the tussle near the stage .
They pushed through a metal barrier fence toward the back near the media risers as they grappled with each other and one man knocked the other down onto the ground after lifting him up .
They both landed on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of delivering his speech from .
Friends of both people quickly intervened and after some more shoving successfully broke up the fight .
On Monday , two individuals claiming to be the men involved in the fight reached out separately to CBS4 to tell their side of the story .
“ Tyler ” says he ’ s a Bernie Sanders supporter who got upset when the man in the Black Guns Matter shirt and a couple of others were booing the Democrat front-runner near the stage .
He says when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smartphone , the man then pushed him through a barrier and the fight began .
The guy wearing the Black Guns Matter shirt , on the other hand , says it was that message that started the scuffle .
“ He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing , ” this man said .
“ I was recording the event , he walks up and calls me a racist .
But I thought , ‘ What ’ s he know about black lives , about discrimination , or , for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” Throughout American history , the man continued , “ Black people and their ability to own firearms has historically been very restricted .
The shirt I got from a conceal-carry class.
” He said he agrees with Sanders on a number of policies but definitely not on gun ownership .
CBS4 reports neither men were arrested or asked to leave the Sanders rally , but instead were simply separated while the candidate continued his speech .
The scuffle happened on the same day that topless protestors interrupted a Sanders campaign appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop propping up the dairy industry ” and animal agriculture .
Maybe they should have worn “ Black Angus Lives Matter ” t-shirts to better get their point across .
As for the incident in Denver , at this point it ’ s not 100 % certain who started the fight , but a video provided to CBS4 showing the moments before the brawl began indicates that “ Tyler , ” the Sanders supporter , approached and began arguing with the guy wearing the Black Guns Matter shirt .
Perhaps instead of jumping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man what the Black Guns Matter shirt was all about .
I ’ m guessing Tyler had no idea that Black Guns Matter is an organization founded by Maj Toure to educate “ people in urban communities in all 50 states on their 2nd amendment rights and responsibilities through firearms training and education , ” not to trigger Sanders supporters in Colorado .

A Bernie Sanders supporter in Colorado ended up attacking a fellow attendee at a campaign rally on Sunday when he became enraged by the man’s Black Guns Matter t-shirt, according to CBS4 in Denver, Colorado. The station reports that their cameras were at the event when they spotted the tussle near the stage.
They pushed through a metal barrier fence toward the back near the media risers as they grappled with each other and one man knocked the other down onto the ground after lifting him up. They both landed on the ground partially under the stage Sanders was in the middle of delivering his speech from. Friends of both people quickly intervened and after some more shoving successfully broke up the fight.
On Monday, two individuals claiming to be the men involved in the fight reached out separately to CBS4 to tell their side of the story. “Tyler” says he’s a Bernie Sanders supporter who got upset when the man in the Black Guns Matter shirt and a couple of others were booing the Democrat front-runner near the stage. He says when he tried to record the booing on his smartphone, the man then pushed him through a barrier and the fight began.
The guy wearing the Black Guns Matter shirt, on the other hand, says it was that message that started the scuffle.
“He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing,” this man said. “I was recording the event, he walks up and calls me a racist. But I thought, ‘What’s he know about black lives, about discrimination, or, for that matter, the representation of the shirt.’” Throughout American history, the man continued, “Black people and their ability to own firearms has historically been very restricted. The shirt I got from a conceal-carry class.” He said he agrees with Sanders on a number of policies but definitely not on gun ownership.
CBS4 reports neither men were arrested or asked to leave the Sanders rally, but instead were simply separated while the candidate continued his speech.
The scuffle happened on the same day that topless protestors interrupted a Sanders campaign appearance in Nevada to demand the candidate “stop propping up the dairy industry” and animal agriculture. Maybe they should have worn “Black Angus Lives Matter” t-shirts to better get their point across.
As for the incident in Denver, at this point it’s not 100% certain who started the fight, but a video provided to CBS4 showing the moments before the brawl began indicates that “Tyler,” the Sanders supporter, approached and began arguing with the guy wearing the Black Guns Matter shirt.
Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions, Tyler should have asked the man what the Black Guns Matter shirt was all about. I’m guessing Tyler had no idea that Black Guns Matter is an organization founded by Maj Toure to educate “people in urban communities in all 50 states on their 2nd amendment rights and responsibilities through firearms training and education,” not to trigger Sanders supporters in Colorado.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--How Lobby Day Protest May Have Encouraged Dem Defections

A particularly vile assault weapon ban bill failed to make it out of committee in Virginia , a state where it looked like gun control was a foregone conclusion just a few weeks ago , particular with regard to an assault weapon ban .
With Democrats taking the entire state and all the gun control rhetoric coming from the part and Governor Ralph Northam , it looked like a slam dunk .
Yesterday ’ s defeat , though , didn ’ t come out of the blue and it wasn ’ t a partisan thing .
Not by a longshot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a partisan thing when the party in control of every committee is the very same party agitating for these kinds of policies .
And yet , some of those Democrats voted against the measure .
Virginia ’ s Democratic governor seemed poised to make broad changes to his state ’ s gun control laws , but was dealt a stinging blow by his own party Monday when a state Senate committee blocked a bill that would have , among other things , banned sales of assault weapons .
Four Democrats on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranks with their party handing the Republican minority a victory in tabling the bill for the remainder of the year .
It also sent the measure to the state ’ s Crime Commission for further review .
The bill would have banned the sale or transfer of certain assault-style weapons in Virginia .
It also would have made it illegal to possess silencers and magazines holding more than 12 rounds .
After Monday ’ s 10-5 vote , state Sen. L. Louise Lucas , D-Portsmouth , called the four Democrats who voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wimps , ” according to The Washington Post .
Haas told Evans , “ It ’ s absolutely ridiculous that Democrats walked back on this issue when it got them the majority in November.
” With its rich gun culture , Virginia historically has been loath to pass gun control measures .
So what really happened .
Well , Virginians happened .
An estimated 22,000 of them descended on Richmond , VA on Lobby Day in an effort to have their collective voices heard .
Some in attendance balk at the estimate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , that ’ s a large chunk of the margin of victory Democrats had in the state .
It ’ s not surprising that some lawmakers looked at that and recognized that if they value their political careers , they ’ d best take it easy on the gun control .
While they might get away with something like a universal background check–polling suggests they might , though support for such measures shifts after the mechanics of the bills become public–so-called assault weapon bans are often a bridge too far .
Especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn people moving into the state into felons if they brought their legally purchased AR-15 and 30-round magazines with them .
It ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that some Democrats recognized back this bill was political suicide .
Meanwhile , the urban Democrats who don ’ t have to worry about any of that are continuing to try and pressure their colleagues into risking their political lives while facing no real threat .
I used to be stationed in Portsmouth , so I understand a bit about where Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces no repercussions for her gun control stance .
Not politically , anyway .
But that ’ s not true of all the Democrats .
Some represent at least some rural areas .
Some just did win their office and they know damn good and well that this bill was just the same as putting in retirement papers .
They knew it because tens of thousands of Virginians showed up on Lobby Day to make sure lawmakers knew damn good and well that they didn ’ t have universal support to push their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and company are left reeling after such a decisive blow to their agenda .
Who knows , this might be a portent of what ’ s to come for the rest of that agenda .
Here ’ s hoping .

A particularly vile assault weapon ban bill failed to make it out of committee in Virginia, a state where it looked like gun control was a foregone conclusion just a few weeks ago, particular with regard to an assault weapon ban. With Democrats taking the entire state and all the gun control rhetoric coming from the part and Governor Ralph Northam, it looked like a slam dunk.
It wasn’t.
Yesterday’s defeat, though, didn’t come out of the blue and it wasn’t a partisan thing. Not by a longshot. After all, it couldn’t be a partisan thing when the party in control of every committee is the very same party agitating for these kinds of policies.
And yet, some of those Democrats voted against the measure.
Virginia’s Democratic governor seemed poised to make broad changes to his state’s gun control laws, but was dealt a stinging blow by his own party Monday when a state Senate committee blocked a bill that would have, among other things, banned sales of assault weapons. Four Democrats on Virginia’s Senate Judiciary Committee broke ranks with their party handing the Republican minority a victory in tabling the bill for the remainder of the year. It also sent the measure to the state’s Crime Commission for further review. The bill would have banned the sale or transfer of certain assault-style weapons in Virginia. It also would have made it illegal to possess silencers and magazines holding more than 12 rounds. … After Monday’s 10-5 vote, state Sen. L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, called the four Democrats who voted to table the measure a “bunch of wimps,” according to The Washington Post. … Haas told Evans, “It’s absolutely ridiculous that Democrats walked back on this issue when it got them the majority in November.” With its rich gun culture, Virginia historically has been loath to pass gun control measures.
So what really happened.
Well, Virginians happened. An estimated 22,000 of them descended on Richmond, VA on Lobby Day in an effort to have their collective voices heard. Some in attendance balk at the estimate, saying at least 30,000 attended.
If so, that’s a large chunk of the margin of victory Democrats had in the state.
It’s not surprising that some lawmakers looked at that and recognized that if they value their political careers, they’d best take it easy on the gun control. While they might get away with something like a universal background check–polling suggests they might, though support for such measures shifts after the mechanics of the bills become public–so-called assault weapon bans are often a bridge too far.
Especially this one, a bill that would turn people moving into the state into felons if they brought their legally purchased AR-15 and 30-round magazines with them. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that some Democrats recognized back this bill was political suicide.
Meanwhile, the urban Democrats who don’t have to worry about any of that are continuing to try and pressure their colleagues into risking their political lives while facing no real threat. I used to be stationed in Portsmouth, so I understand a bit about where Sen. L. Louise Lucas is from. She faces no repercussions for her gun control stance. Not politically, anyway.
But that’s not true of all the Democrats. Some represent at least some rural areas. Some just did win their office and they know damn good and well that this bill was just the same as putting in retirement papers.
They knew it because tens of thousands of Virginians showed up on Lobby Day to make sure lawmakers knew damn good and well that they didn’t have universal support to push their gun control agenda.
Now, Northam and company are left reeling after such a decisive blow to their agenda.
Who knows, this might be a portent of what’s to come for the rest of that agenda. Here’s hoping.


bearingarms--2020-02-20--WA State Mag Ban Defeated, Bad Bills Remain

Washington State gun owners got some good news Wednesday evening , as a legislative deadline came and went with several pieces of gun control legislation failing to cross out of their house of origin .
Two different magazines bans were defeated ; a House bill that would have banned the possession of magazines over 15-rounds and a Senate version that capped ammunition magazines to 10-rounds .
The House and Senate also had competing versions of legislation that would have mandated more state-approved firearms training for concealed carry holders , but both bills failed to cross over as well .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson , and its a credit to the gun owners in Washington State that these proposals failed in the legislature .
Unfortunately , as NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative action reports , there are still several bad bills that did cross over .
Senate Bill 5434 passed by a 27-20 vote .
It increases prohibited areas where law-abiding citizens can not possess firearms , including CPL holders carrying for self-defense .
The bill extended “ gun-free zones ” to public parks , libraries , and child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply to child care centers .
In addition to leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries , the bill requires child care centers to publicly indicate they are “ gun-free zones ” by posting signs outside the facilities .
Senate Bill 6288 passed by a 25-23 vote .
It creates an Office of Firearm Violence Prevention within the executive branch of state government .
Governor Jay Inslee and his administration have already made it clear where they stand on Second Amendment issues—they routinely sponsor and support gun ban legislation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This office would be nothing more than a tax-payer funded lobby group with the sole purpose of eroding self-defense rights in Washington .
House Bill 1010 passed by a 56-42 vote .
It allows the Washington State Patrol to waste taxpayer dollars destroying confiscated firearms rather than sell them to raise funds .
House Bill 2305 passed by a 55-42 vote .
It imposes a mandatory firearm prohibition for respondents of a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order .
This order , which removes someone ’ s Second Amendment rights for up to 5 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused , which results in more reliable proceedings .
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place .
House Bill 2622 passed by a 56-42 vote .
It modifies Washington ’ s existing firearm surrender provisions for individuals subject to a court order .
This bill compels a respondent to appear and provide proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complied with the surrender order .
This is a serious encroachment on the right against compelled self-incrimination in any criminal , civil , or other government proceedings .
Failure to appear results in the individual being in contempt of court , thereby putting the individual in a no-win situation .
House Bill 2623 passed by a 56-41 vote .
It prohibits an individual from possessing firearms if they are convicted of the misdemeanor crimes of unlawful aiming or discharge of a firearm .
This poorly conceived legislation even applies to airguns and slingshots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual aiming or discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes in location that would have otherwise not be authorized .
House Bill 2467 passed by a vote of 66-32 .
HB 2467 directs Washington State Patrol to create a centralized state system for all firearm transfers to allow firearm dealers to submit information electronically and receive feedback instantaneously .
This bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators who have recognized that background checks in Washington have imposed excessive delays on gun owners .
Background checks for handgun transfers are done in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement , who are tasked with manually checking databases .
CPL holders previously were able to avoid the archaic check for handguns and instead were allowed to go through the federal NICS as a courtesy , which provided instant feedback .
That exemption ceased in July , 2019 .
The enactment of I-1639 also added transfers of semi-automatic rifles to this system , with the addition of an $ 18 fee .
Though this archaic background check has a ten day waiting period to allow for completion , these factors , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has resulted in ever increasing strain on this system , creating delays that drag out up to 30 days .
Unfortunately , there will be a fee attached to the background check , which has been capped at $ 18 per transaction .
It was just a couple of months ago that Gov .
Inslee and AG Ferguson held a joint press conference calling for the passage of a magazine and “ assault weapon ” ban , and gun control advocates felt pretty good about the chances of the ban in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the proposals have failed in the past and the AG admits it may be a challenge to get some to the governor ’ s desk , but he is hopeful , as are the lawmakers putting their names on the legislation .
“ I think the time is now , I think we ’ re all cautiously optimistic , ” Kuderer said .
“ We have new legislators , we have new leadership.
” Rep. Valdez echoed Kuderer ’ s sentiment , pointing to the leadership change with Rep. Laurie Jinkins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is taking over as Speaker of the House in 2020 .
The governor ’ s biggest priorities won ’ t become law this year , but Washington State gun owners still need to keep in contact with their lawmakers to urge them to defeat the bills that did cross over .
The state legislature will adjourn its session on March 12th , and there ’ s still time for the gun control bills highlighted above to get to Gov .
Inslee ’ s desk .

Washington State gun owners got some good news Wednesday evening, as a legislative deadline came and went with several pieces of gun control legislation failing to cross out of their house of origin. Two different magazines bans were defeated; a House bill that would have banned the possession of magazines over 15-rounds and a Senate version that capped ammunition magazines to 10-rounds.
The House and Senate also had competing versions of legislation that would have mandated more state-approved firearms training for concealed carry holders, but both bills failed to cross over as well.
These were big priorities for both Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and its a credit to the gun owners in Washington State that these proposals failed in the legislature. Unfortunately, as NRA’s Institute for Legislative action reports, there are still several bad bills that did cross over.
Senate Bill 5434 passed by a 27-20 vote. It increases prohibited areas where law-abiding citizens cannot possess firearms, including CPL holders carrying for self-defense. The bill extended “gun-free zones” to public parks, libraries, and child care centers before being amended to only apply to child care centers. In addition to leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries, the bill requires child care centers to publicly indicate they are “gun-free zones” by posting signs outside the facilities. Senate Bill 6288 passed by a 25-23 vote. It creates an Office of Firearm Violence Prevention within the executive branch of state government. Governor Jay Inslee and his administration have already made it clear where they stand on Second Amendment issues—they routinely sponsor and support gun ban legislation and initiatives designed to disarm law-abiding citizens. This office would be nothing more than a tax-payer funded lobby group with the sole purpose of eroding self-defense rights in Washington. House Bill 1010 passed by a 56-42 vote. It allows the Washington State Patrol to waste taxpayer dollars destroying confiscated firearms rather than sell them to raise funds. House Bill 2305 passed by a 55-42 vote. It imposes a mandatory firearm prohibition for respondents of a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order. This order, which removes someone’s Second Amendment rights for up to 5 years, requires no criminal convictions or even charges. Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable proceedings. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place. House Bill 2622 passed by a 56-42 vote. It modifies Washington’s existing firearm surrender provisions for individuals subject to a court order. This bill compels a respondent to appear and provide proof on how and to what extent they complied with the surrender order. This is a serious encroachment on the right against compelled self-incrimination in any criminal, civil, or other government proceedings. Failure to appear results in the individual being in contempt of court, thereby putting the individual in a no-win situation. House Bill 2623 passed by a 56-41 vote. It prohibits an individual from possessing firearms if they are convicted of the misdemeanor crimes of unlawful aiming or discharge of a firearm. This poorly conceived legislation even applies to airguns and slingshots, and has no exceptions for an individual aiming or discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes in location that would have otherwise not be authorized. House Bill 2467 passed by a vote of 66-32. HB 2467 directs Washington State Patrol to create a centralized state system for all firearm transfers to allow firearm dealers to submit information electronically and receive feedback instantaneously. This bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators who have recognized that background checks in Washington have imposed excessive delays on gun owners. Background checks for handgun transfers are done in an archaic manner by mail to local law enforcement, who are tasked with manually checking databases. CPL holders previously were able to avoid the archaic check for handguns and instead were allowed to go through the federal NICS as a courtesy, which provided instant feedback. That exemption ceased in July, 2019. The enactment of I-1639 also added transfers of semi-automatic rifles to this system, with the addition of an $18 fee. Though this archaic background check has a ten day waiting period to allow for completion, these factors, along with I-594 requiring background checks on all transfers, has resulted in ever increasing strain on this system, creating delays that drag out up to 30 days. Unfortunately, there will be a fee attached to the background check, which has been capped at $18 per transaction.
It was just a couple of months ago that Gov. Inslee and AG Ferguson held a joint press conference calling for the passage of a magazine and “assault weapon” ban, and gun control advocates felt pretty good about the chances of the ban in the Democrat-controlled legislature at the time.
Some of the proposals have failed in the past and the AG admits it may be a challenge to get some to the governor’s desk, but he is hopeful, as are the lawmakers putting their names on the legislation. “I think the time is now, I think we’re all cautiously optimistic,” Kuderer said. “We have new legislators, we have new leadership.” Rep. Valdez echoed Kuderer’s sentiment, pointing to the leadership change with Rep. Laurie Jinkins, a strong supporter of gun safety reforms, who is taking over as Speaker of the House in 2020.
The governor’s biggest priorities won’t become law this year, but Washington State gun owners still need to keep in contact with their lawmakers to urge them to defeat the bills that did cross over. The state legislature will adjourn its session on March 12th, and there’s still time for the gun control bills highlighted above to get to Gov. Inslee’s desk.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--Ohio City Council Set To Allow Guns At Council Meetings

Guns at government meetings/buildings/whatever tends to be fairly contentious .
It seems the elected elites prefer to have laws surrounding them that disarm the rank and file , even if they know on some level those laws don ’ t actually keep them safe .
For some , it ’ s really nothing more than a power play .
That ’ s often especially true at the local level .
After all , there ’ s often very little power–at least as most people think of it–for city councilmen and women , so it becomes all the more important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one city council in Ohio may be heading in a very different direction .
Unfortunately , it ’ s not unanimous .
While five of the seven council members expressed support for the plan , the mayor was quite while another council member vocally opposed the measure .
Her reasons ?
Oh , the usual .
Ah , yes , the mythical “ lone ranger ” private citizen who has pretty much never existed except in the minds of people like Councilwoman Wyatt .
For me , the problem here isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the council chamber .
After all , Wyatt is correct that an officer could be stationed in the room to mitigate many of those threats .
Where the problem pops up , though , is the points between people ’ s homes and the council meeting and back again .
They ’ re essentially disarmed–either that or they have to leave their guns in their car , something many of us are uncomfortable with–for the entire trip .
All because one point on their day bans people from exercising their constitutionally-protected right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to mitigate that threat .
Wyatt and people like her , though , continue to hold up these near-mythical “ irresponsible gun owner ” looking to go Rambo at any moment as if they ’ re a clear and present danger to society .
Yet numerous states allow guns in so many places that if this were a real danger , we ’ d have mountains of evidence proving it .
No such thing exists because it just .
Doesn ’ t .
Happen .
Not that I ’ d expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People who prattle on about “ lone rangers ” and other such tripe rarely understand that what they fear is statistically unlikely to such an extreme as to make their point moot .
But moot points don ’ t allow the fear-mongering to end an infringement on civil liberties , so there ya go .

Guns at government meetings/buildings/whatever tends to be fairly contentious. It seems the elected elites prefer to have laws surrounding them that disarm the rank and file, even if they know on some level those laws don’t actually keep them safe. For some, it’s really nothing more than a power play.
That’s often especially true at the local level. After all, there’s often very little power–at least as most people think of it–for city councilmen and women, so it becomes all the more important to flex what power there is.
However, one city council in Ohio may be heading in a very different direction.
Lebanon City Council is leaning towards allowing holders of concealed carry permits to bring their guns to council meetings, says councilwoman Wendy Monroe. It’s a change few local governments have made in the state of Ohio. According to records on the city’s website, the topic has only gotten as far as council work sessions. “If there is a potential victim in this situation, the number-one way for that potential victim to end the situation in their favor is for them to introduce a firearm into the equation, and suddenly they’re okay, generally, never having to pull the trigger, which is really what we want,” Monroe said.
Unfortunately, it’s not unanimous. While five of the seven council members expressed support for the plan, the mayor was quite while another council member vocally opposed the measure.
Her reasons? Oh, the usual.
Krista Wyatt is the only council member to express opposition. She expressed concern this would enable irresponsible gun owners who think themselves “lone rangers.” Instead, she suggested Police Chief Jeff Mitchell or an officer be assigned, as is done in communities around the state.
Ah, yes, the mythical “lone ranger” private citizen who has pretty much never existed except in the minds of people like Councilwoman Wyatt.
For me, the problem here isn’t so much about what happens inside the council chamber. After all, Wyatt is correct that an officer could be stationed in the room to mitigate many of those threats.
Where the problem pops up, though, is the points between people’s homes and the council meeting and back again. They’re essentially disarmed–either that or they have to leave their guns in their car, something many of us are uncomfortable with–for the entire trip. All because one point on their day bans people from exercising their constitutionally-protected right.
No police officer assigned to attend meetings is going to mitigate that threat.
Wyatt and people like her, though, continue to hold up these near-mythical “irresponsible gun owner” looking to go Rambo at any moment as if they’re a clear and present danger to society. Yet numerous states allow guns in so many places that if this were a real danger, we’d have mountains of evidence proving it.
No such thing exists because it just. Doesn’t. Happen.
Not that I’d expect someone like Wyatt to understand that. People who prattle on about “lone rangers” and other such tripe rarely understand that what they fear is statistically unlikely to such an extreme as to make their point moot.
But moot points don’t allow the fear-mongering to end an infringement on civil liberties, so there ya go.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--Anti-Gun Politician Demands Police Arrest Gun-Carrying Protester

Virginia Del .
Mark Levine , author of the sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban known as HB961 , says an armed protester outside of his Alexandria , Virginia home over the weekend was there to intimidate him , and he ’ s demanding local police arrest the Second Amendment activist .
Brandon Howard took to Facebook last week and published Levine ’ s home address , encouraging other gun owners to protest outside of Levine ’ s home in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s vote on the gun ban legislation .
From all accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Howard up on his offer , but he still engaged in his solitary protest , much to Levine ’ s displeasure .
Last weekend , before the state Senate voted on the bill , Howard issued a call to action .
“ We ’ re going to tell Mark Levine : We know where you live and armed citizens of the Commonwealth are going to come to your house , to your doorstep , ” he said in a Facebook video .
Howard , of Hopewell , Virginia , heads a group called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video , he provided Levine ’ s home address in Old Town Alexandria and invited others to join him there .
“ We are going to take our destiny into our own hands , ” he said .
On Saturday afternoon , Levine looked out his kitchen window and saw a man with a long gun slung over his shoulder , a Virginia state flag and a sign reading “ Withdraw HB 961.
” Levine called police , who came and kept watch .
He was furious .
On Monday , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened .
“ What ’ s not appropriate is to come to my house with a loaded gun to coerce me to change my position on a bill , ” he said .
“ That will not work .
That will never work with me and I suggest it will never work with this body.
” I don ’ t know how effective Howard was at changing any hearts and minds in Old Town Alexandria with his protest , but I also don ’ t think he was intending to coerce or intimidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of open carrying as part of his political activity , dating back to at least 2013 , when he was detained by police in Hopewell , Virginia for carrying an AR-15 while protesting for the impeachment of Barack Obama on a highway overpass .
Howard sued the officer who detained him in that case , and ultimately settled with the city , but has continued both his Second Amendment and political activism in the years since .
In fact , Howard is the head of the Hopewell Republican Committee , and is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City Council .
The candidate made local headlines in the Richmond , Virginia area back in December for giving away guns on the campaign trail .
In other words , Howard ’ s been pretty good at generating headlines over the years , but it doesn ’ t sound like he posed a threat to Del .
Levine or anyone else with his one-man political protest last weekend .
Again , we can argue how wise or effective it was , but I don ’ t think it was illegal and the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime shows he ’ s just as opposed to our right to free speech as he is to our right to keep and bear arms .
I ’ m not a fan of stunts that are ostensibly in support of the Second Amendment , in part because all too often it ’ s very hard to tell whether the advocate is really interested in advancing the cause or their own ambitions .
That being said , there ’ s a big difference in doing something that ’ s not helpful and doing something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think Brandon Howard did much to move the needle of public opinion towards our side with his solitary show of political speech , but Del .
Levine is way off base in calling for his arrest .

Virginia Del. Mark Levine, author of the sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban known as HB961, says an armed protester outside of his Alexandria, Virginia home over the weekend was there to intimidate him, and he’s demanding local police arrest the Second Amendment activist.
Brandon Howard took to Facebook last week and published Levine’s home address, encouraging other gun owners to protest outside of Levine’s home in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on the gun ban legislation. From all accounts, it looks like no one took Howard up on his offer, but he still engaged in his solitary protest, much to Levine’s displeasure.
Last weekend, before the state Senate voted on the bill, Howard issued a call to action. “We’re going to tell Mark Levine: We know where you live and armed citizens of the Commonwealth are going to come to your house, to your doorstep,” he said in a Facebook video. Howard, of Hopewell, Virginia, heads a group called Right to Bear Arms Virginia. In the video, he provided Levine’s home address in Old Town Alexandria and invited others to join him there. “We are going to take our destiny into our own hands,” he said. On Saturday afternoon, Levine looked out his kitchen window and saw a man with a long gun slung over his shoulder, a Virginia state flag and a sign reading “Withdraw HB 961.” Levine called police, who came and kept watch. He was furious. On Monday, he vented to his House colleagues about what happened. “What’s not appropriate is to come to my house with a loaded gun to coerce me to change my position on a bill,” he said. “That will not work. That will never work with me and I suggest it will never work with this body.”
I don’t know how effective Howard was at changing any hearts and minds in Old Town Alexandria with his protest, but I also don’t think he was intending to coerce or intimidate Levine. Howard has a long history of open carrying as part of his political activity, dating back to at least 2013, when he was detained by police in Hopewell, Virginia for carrying an AR-15 while protesting for the impeachment of Barack Obama on a highway overpass.
Howard sued the officer who detained him in that case, and ultimately settled with the city, but has continued both his Second Amendment and political activism in the years since. In fact, Howard is the head of the Hopewell Republican Committee, and is also running for a seat on the Hopewell City Council. The candidate made local headlines in the Richmond, Virginia area back in December for giving away guns on the campaign trail.
“Last Sunday, when I did my campaign kickoff, we gave away our first firearm which was a Diamondback AR-15.” He’s partnered with local businesses to perform background checks on the spot to ensure the guns get in the hands of those who are eligible. “I believe every citizen who wants a firearm, who is a law-abiding citizen, should have a firearm so I’m helping them do it,” Howard said. If it sounds outrageous, Howard says the real rage should come from courts dropping gun charges for criminals for plea bargains. “Prosecute the laws on the books. Put these people in a prison cell in the cage where they belong. They’re going to get out, they’re going to re-offend and have a gun. Our law enforcement officers are going to go back and have to re-capture this person. Now their lives are in danger,” Howard added.
In other words, Howard’s been pretty good at generating headlines over the years, but it doesn’t sound like he posed a threat to Del. Levine or anyone else with his one-man political protest last weekend. Again, we can argue how wise or effective it was, but I don’t think it was illegal and the fact that Levine wants to make it a crime shows he’s just as opposed to our right to free speech as he is to our right to keep and bear arms.
I’m not a fan of stunts that are ostensibly in support of the Second Amendment, in part because all too often it’s very hard to tell whether the advocate is really interested in advancing the cause or their own ambitions. That being said, there’s a big difference in doing something that’s not helpful and doing something that’s illegal. I don’t think Brandon Howard did much to move the needle of public opinion towards our side with his solitary show of political speech, but Del. Levine is way off base in calling for his arrest.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--"Do Not Sell" List Bill Advances In Virginia

How stupid would it be to create a list where certain people couldn ’ t buy cars ?
Most would think it ’ s pretty dumb , though some might see some wisdom in barring auto sales to people who have a history of dangerous driving .
Now , let ’ s say the only way to have your name added to that list was to ask for it to be put there yourself .
How stupid would that be ?
Pretty damn dumb , right ?
I mean , all you have to do is just not buy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a law to prevent you from buying something when you say you don ’ t want it .
Yet some think such a bill is great…when we ’ re talking about guns instead of cars .
In fact , a bill just like that has advanced in the Virginia legislature .
I get that Vars is saying .
He was afraid that in a moment of weakness , he ’ d walk into a gun store and buy a gun to take his own life with .
It ’ s a horrifying thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you ’ re having those kinds of issues , maybe it makes more sense to step into a psychologist ’ s office instead .
After all , a gun isn ’ t the only way to end a life .
And that ’ s probably why many Republicans aren ’ t siding with the bill .
It adds to the stigma that guns equals suicides when that ’ s not the case .
Further , there ’ s also the fact that if the situation changes and someone needs a firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lists like this provide a stumbling block that could cost them their lives .
As the above-linked article notes , this is a new concept so there ’ s absolutely no research on whether a program like this works or not .
Also , because of that , we don ’ t know how secure these efforts actually would be .
Could someone fraudulently add another ’ s name to the database , making it so they couldn ’ t purchase a firearm ?
Hell , I know a lot of guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow down the rate of firearm acquisition .
You can ’ t tell me someone won ’ t at least try it .
However , at the end of the day , my biggest issue is that it ’ s still a law that requires taxpayer money in an effort to stop people from buying guns .
I don ’ t care if they put their names there voluntarily .
They can voluntarily take themselves to get help instead , admitting themselves for treatment if it ’ s really that bad .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry about guns , razor blades , rope , or gravity either .
No , this list is more about virtue signaling than anything else when it ’ s all said and done .

How stupid would it be to create a list where certain people couldn’t buy cars? Most would think it’s pretty dumb, though some might see some wisdom in barring auto sales to people who have a history of dangerous driving.
Now, let’s say the only way to have your name added to that list was to ask for it to be put there yourself. How stupid would that be?
Pretty damn dumb, right? I mean, all you have to do is just not buy a car. You don’t need a law to prevent you from buying something when you say you don’t want it.
Yet some think such a bill is great…when we’re talking about guns instead of cars. In fact, a bill just like that has advanced in the Virginia legislature.
That’s probably because it’s stupid.
I get that Vars is saying. He was afraid that in a moment of weakness, he’d walk into a gun store and buy a gun to take his own life with. It’s a horrifying thought, I’m sure. However, if you’re having those kinds of issues, maybe it makes more sense to step into a psychologist’s office instead. After all, a gun isn’t the only way to end a life.
And that’s probably why many Republicans aren’t siding with the bill. It adds to the stigma that guns equals suicides when that’s not the case.
Further, there’s also the fact that if the situation changes and someone needs a firearm due to a threat against their person, lists like this provide a stumbling block that could cost them their lives.
As the above-linked article notes, this is a new concept so there’s absolutely no research on whether a program like this works or not. Also, because of that, we don’t know how secure these efforts actually would be. Could someone fraudulently add another’s name to the database, making it so they couldn’t purchase a firearm?
Hell, I know a lot of guys whose wives would consider it just to slow down the rate of firearm acquisition. You can’t tell me someone won’t at least try it.
That’s another concern.
However, at the end of the day, my biggest issue is that it’s still a law that requires taxpayer money in an effort to stop people from buying guns. I don’t care if they put their names there voluntarily. They can voluntarily take themselves to get help instead, admitting themselves for treatment if it’s really that bad.
Then, they won’t need to worry about guns, razor blades, rope, or gravity either.
No, this list is more about virtue signaling than anything else when it’s all said and done.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--VA Sheriff Says Gun Owners Can't Let Down Their Guard

Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins has been on the front lines of the fight over our Second Amendment rights in Virginia over the past few months .
He generated a lot of headlines when he vowed to deputize county residents so that they would be exempt from any ban on civilian possession of semi-automatic firearms , ammunition magazines , or suppressors , but the sheriff has also been a familiar face at the legislative hearings on many gun bills as well .
In fact , Sheriff Jenkins was in the room when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Virginia Crime Commission to be studied , effectively killing the legislation for the rest of the session .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , Jenkins tells me he had no idea how lawmakers were going to vote when he showed up Monday morning , but he knew it was important to be there .
Jenkins says even with the defeat of HB961 , there are plenty of bills that he ’ s concerned about in the legislature , including “ red flag ” legislation that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although in different forms .
Jenkins believes that neither version respects the constitutional rights of Virginians , including their right to due process .
The sheriff also says the bill does nothing to address a personal who ’ s actually in a mental crisis , and notes that while things are slowly getting better , state lawmakers are still not moving quickly enough to address the crisis in the state ’ s mental health system .
All too often , Jenkins says , those in need of mental health treatment end up cooling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , Jenkins tells me that even if had no constitutional concerns about Northam ’ s gun bills ( which is not the case ) , none of the proposals that he ’ s seen are supportable from a law enforcement perspective .
Jenkins says instead of zeroing in on the state ’ s legal gun owners , the governor and Democrats in control of the state legislature should be looking at laws that would impact the state ’ s violent criminals instead .
Be sure to check out the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick around for even more news , including an armed citizen story involving an off-duty husband and wife who stopped an armed robbery during their date night , a career criminal in Nashville who ’ s now behind bars after allegedly beating his wife while out on bond , and a team of good Samaritans who came to the aid of a family after their SUV plunged into a rain-swollen river in South Carolina .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word , and be sure to tune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic debate in Las Vegas from a Second Amendment perspective .

Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins has been on the front lines of the fight over our Second Amendment rights in Virginia over the past few months. He generated a lot of headlines when he vowed to deputize county residents so that they would be exempt from any ban on civilian possession of semi-automatic firearms, ammunition magazines, or suppressors, but the sheriff has also been a familiar face at the legislative hearings on many gun bills as well.
In fact, Sheriff Jenkins was in the room when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Ralph Northam’s gun ban bill to the Virginia Crime Commission to be studied, effectively killing the legislation for the rest of the session. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., Jenkins tells me he had no idea how lawmakers were going to vote when he showed up Monday morning, but he knew it was important to be there.
Jenkins says even with the defeat of HB961, there are plenty of bills that he’s concerned about in the legislature, including “red flag” legislation that’s passed both the House and Senate, although in different forms. Jenkins believes that neither version respects the constitutional rights of Virginians, including their right to due process. The sheriff also says the bill does nothing to address a personal who’s actually in a mental crisis, and notes that while things are slowly getting better, state lawmakers are still not moving quickly enough to address the crisis in the state’s mental health system. All too often, Jenkins says, those in need of mental health treatment end up cooling their heels in a jail cell instead.
In fact, Jenkins tells me that even if had no constitutional concerns about Northam’s gun bills (which is not the case), none of the proposals that he’s seen are supportable from a law enforcement perspective. Jenkins says instead of zeroing in on the state’s legal gun owners, the governor and Democrats in control of the state legislature should be looking at laws that would impact the state’s violent criminals instead.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with the sheriff above, and stick around for even more news, including an armed citizen story involving an off-duty husband and wife who stopped an armed robbery during their date night, a career criminal in Nashville who’s now behind bars after allegedly beating his wife while out on bond, and a team of good Samaritans who came to the aid of a family after their SUV plunged into a rain-swollen river in South Carolina.
Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word, and be sure to tune in tomorrow for complete analysis of the Democratic debate in Las Vegas from a Second Amendment perspective.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--RI Asks For Stay In Stun Gun Ban Lawsuit

The state of Rhode Island is a fairly bizarre place .
While I have no doubt there are some wonderful people there , there ’ s also an awful lot of stupid for such a small state .
After all , this is the state that requires you to take a gun safety class before exercising your constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms .
However , they also have a stun gun ban in place .
In other words , they make it as hard as they can for you to buy a firearm while also banning non-guns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law , of course .
Especially since the Supreme Court already ruled on the topic and stun guns are , indeed , covered by the Second Amendment .
Not that Rhode Island gives a damn .
They not only still have a ban in place , but also are now asking for a stay in the lawsuit .
The state is asking a federal judge to put on hold a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state ’ s ban on the sale and possession of stun guns and Tasers as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons .
Michael P. O ’ Neil , vice president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition , and Nicola Grasso , former president of the Rhode Island Federated Sportsmen ’ s Association , sued Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and Rhode Island State Police Col. James M. Manni in November over a state law barring the possession and attempted use of stun guns and electric arms .
Both gun-rights advocates , they argued that it infringes on their rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment .
Neronha and Manni on Feb. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ E. Smith to stay the proceedings for 60 days as the legislature considers a bill that would make it legal for anyone 18 years or older to use a licensed stun gun for self defense .
Carrying an unlicensed Taser or stun gun would be a crime .
Legislation to enact safety regulations for electronic weapons is expected to be filed in the coming weeks .
Of course , the keyword here is “ licensed.
” What they want to do is change the law while still keeping an effective ban in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moot since there ’ s no real ban .
After all , they ’ ll say , the law allows people to have stun guns .
This is a state where they make it as difficult as possible to own the most efficient means of self-defense currently on the market , they also want to basically keep a ban on what is arguably the second most efficient means to defend yourself .
And the kicker ?
Stun guns aren ’ t used in crime nearly as often as laws such as these would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not federally restricted , which means even a licensing scheme wouldn ’ t actually keep such items out of the hands of those who would use them for nefarious purposes .
If Rhode Island wants to change the law , change it .
They don ’ t need the court to hold off on the case while they decide .
Frankly , I ’ d love for the courts to not just rule against the stay , but also make it clear that you can ’ t require a license in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not that Governor Gina Raimondo actually cares anything about that .
I suspect she ’ s too busy trying to suck up to certain anti-gun presidential candidates in search of a VP slot .
Besides , when has she shown she gives a damn about anyone ’ s rights in the first place ?

The state of Rhode Island is a fairly bizarre place. While I have no doubt there are some wonderful people there, there’s also an awful lot of stupid for such a small state. After all, this is the state that requires you to take a gun safety class before exercising your constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
However, they also have a stun gun ban in place.
In other words, they make it as hard as they can for you to buy a firearm while also banning non-guns.
There’s a lawsuit to overturn the law, of course. Especially since the Supreme Court already ruled on the topic and stun guns are, indeed, covered by the Second Amendment.
Not that Rhode Island gives a damn. They not only still have a ban in place, but also are now asking for a stay in the lawsuit.
The state is asking a federal judge to put on hold a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on the sale and possession of stun guns and Tasers as the General Assembly considers proposals to legalize electronic weapons. Michael P. O’Neil, vice president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition, and Nicola Grasso, former president of the Rhode Island Federated Sportsmen’s Association, sued Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and Rhode Island State Police Col. James M. Manni in November over a state law barring the possession and attempted use of stun guns and electric arms. Both gun-rights advocates, they argued that it infringes on their rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Neronha and Manni on Feb. 14 asked U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith to stay the proceedings for 60 days as the legislature considers a bill that would make it legal for anyone 18 years or older to use a licensed stun gun for self defense. Carrying an unlicensed Taser or stun gun would be a crime. Legislation to enact safety regulations for electronic weapons is expected to be filed in the coming weeks.
Of course, the keyword here is “licensed.” What they want to do is change the law while still keeping an effective ban in place, then argue that the lawsuit is moot since there’s no real ban. After all, they’ll say, the law allows people to have stun guns.
This is a state where they make it as difficult as possible to own the most efficient means of self-defense currently on the market, they also want to basically keep a ban on what is arguably the second most efficient means to defend yourself.
And the kicker? Stun guns aren’t used in crime nearly as often as laws such as these would suggest. Further, they’re not federally restricted, which means even a licensing scheme wouldn’t actually keep such items out of the hands of those who would use them for nefarious purposes.
If Rhode Island wants to change the law, change it. They don’t need the court to hold off on the case while they decide. Frankly, I’d love for the courts to not just rule against the stay, but also make it clear that you can’t require a license in order to engage in a constitutionally-protected individual right.
Not that Governor Gina Raimondo actually cares anything about that. I suspect she’s too busy trying to suck up to certain anti-gun presidential candidates in search of a VP slot.
Besides, when has she shown she gives a damn about anyone’s rights in the first place?


bearingarms--2020-02-19--VA Dem: 2A Activists "Helpful" In Defeating Northam Gun Ban

We reported Tuesday that House Democrats in Virginia voted to kill a bill by Sen. Chap Petersen as punishment after the Democrat from the D.C. suburbs voted to pass by Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban .
Also on Tuesday , Petersen went on Fox News to explain why he voted against the bill , which probably annoyed anti-gun Democrats almost as much as the vote itself .
According to Petersen , the first problem was that the categories of weapons and component parts that were impacted were too broad .
Secondly , he said that the retroactive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In other words , if you went out and legally purchased a weapon or legally purchased a particular part , just simply by owning that you could become a class VI felon or class I misdemeanant .
And that , to me , it ’ s not fair , it ’ s not due process , and that was what really bothered me the most , ” he told Hegseth .
While I ’ m very appreciative of the vote cast by Petersen , it ’ s worth noting that his problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solved by narrowing the definition of an “ assault weapon ” and by grandfathering in firearm magazines .
Don ’ t be surprised if the gun ban introduced by Virginia Democrats in 2021 do both of those things .
As I ’ ve explained before , grandfather clauses still turn a right into a privilege by denying anyone other than the existing owners of such arms the ability to lawfully possess them .
There are plenty of people living in Virginia right now who don ’ t own an AR-15 , but may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are owners of AR-15 ’ s who may choose to move to Virginia , who would not be allowed to do so even with a grandfather clause .
Petersen ’ s concerns with the bill were largely technical , not philosophical , or at least not that he ’ s willing to state publicly .
Having said that , Petersen has worked to make several bills slightly less awful , and even though I disagree with how he ’ s ultimately voted on many issues , he ’ s also helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HB961 .
He also comes across as someone that you can talk to , even if you disagree , and Petersen says he talked to many gun owners during the fight over HB961 .
Democratic Sen. L. Louise Lucas audibly referred to the defectors as a “ bump of wimps ” from the dais , according to The Washington Post .
However , Petersen said that listening to his constituents and pro-Second Amendment activists were very “ helpful ” and mattered to his decision-making process .
“ I probably would have voted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to hear from people , ” he concluded .
If you ’ re a Virginia gun owner , reach out to Sen. Petersen and thank him for his vote on HB961 , as well as the other Democrat senators who voted to send the bill off to be studied , rather than enacted into law .
John Edwards , Creigh Deeds , and Scott Surovell were the other committee members who joined Republicans in defeating the measure , and even though they too have largely voted for most of the other gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let them know you appreciate their vote , while also encouraging them to take a second look at the red flag bill , legislation to undo firearms preemption , gun rationing , and other gun control bills that will soon be coming before them .

We reported Tuesday that House Democrats in Virginia voted to kill a bill by Sen. Chap Petersen as punishment after the Democrat from the D.C. suburbs voted to pass by Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban. Also on Tuesday, Petersen went on Fox News to explain why he voted against the bill, which probably annoyed anti-gun Democrats almost as much as the vote itself.
According to Petersen, the first problem was that the categories of weapons and component parts that were impacted were too broad. Secondly, he said that the retroactive portion of the bill was unfair. “In other words, if you went out and legally purchased a weapon or legally purchased a particular part, just simply by owning that you could become a class VI felon or class I misdemeanant. And that, to me, it’s not fair, it’s not due process, and that was what really bothered me the most,” he told Hegseth.
While I’m very appreciative of the vote cast by Petersen, it’s worth noting that his problems with the bill could have been presumably solved by narrowing the definition of an “assault weapon” and by grandfathering in firearm magazines. Don’t be surprised if the gun ban introduced by Virginia Democrats in 2021 do both of those things.
As I’ve explained before, grandfather clauses still turn a right into a privilege by denying anyone other than the existing owners of such arms the ability to lawfully possess them. There are plenty of people living in Virginia right now who don’t own an AR-15, but may choose to do so in the future. There are owners of AR-15’s who may choose to move to Virginia, who would not be allowed to do so even with a grandfather clause. Petersen’s concerns with the bill were largely technical, not philosophical, or at least not that he’s willing to state publicly.
Having said that, Petersen has worked to make several bills slightly less awful, and even though I disagree with how he’s ultimately voted on many issues, he’s also helped beat a few bad bills, including HB961. He also comes across as someone that you can talk to, even if you disagree, and Petersen says he talked to many gun owners during the fight over HB961.
Democratic Sen. L. Louise Lucas audibly referred to the defectors as a “bump of wimps” from the dais, according to The Washington Post. However, Petersen said that listening to his constituents and pro-Second Amendment activists were very “helpful” and mattered to his decision-making process. “I probably would have voted the same way anyhow, but it was important to hear from people,” he concluded.
If you’re a Virginia gun owner, reach out to Sen. Petersen and thank him for his vote on HB961, as well as the other Democrat senators who voted to send the bill off to be studied, rather than enacted into law. John Edwards, Creigh Deeds, and Scott Surovell were the other committee members who joined Republicans in defeating the measure, and even though they too have largely voted for most of the other gun control bills, it’s good to let them know you appreciate their vote, while also encouraging them to take a second look at the red flag bill, legislation to undo firearms preemption, gun rationing, and other gun control bills that will soon be coming before them.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--Racists Who Allegedly Planned Lobby Day Violence Plead Not Guilty

Just days before the Lobby Day rally in Richmond , Virginia , a group of individuals was arrested .
These men were members of a racist extremist group called The Base .
There was much talk about their plans for Lobby Day , enough so that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam had all the excuse he needed to step up security at the capitol .
Now , those men have pleaded not guilty to the charges facing them .
Three men accused of being members of a violent white supremacist group called The Base pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian Armed Forces reservist Patrik Mathews , 27 ; and Brian Mark Lemley Jr. , 33 , of Elkton , Maryland ; entered their pleas during separate arraignments on charges including transporting a firearm and ammunition with the intent to commit a felony .
William Garfield Bilbrough IV , a 19-year-old pizza delivery driver who lived with his grandmother in Denton , Maryland , before his arrest , pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy to “ transport and harbor certain aliens.
” In a court filing , Justice Department prosecutors said Lemley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence ” at a gun rights rally in Richmond , Virginia , in January .
A closed-circuit television camera and microphone installed by investigators in a Delaware home captured Mathews talking about the Virginia rally as a “ boundless ” opportunity , prosecutors said .
“ And the thing is you ’ ve got tons of guys who … should be radicalized enough to know that all you got ta do is start making things go wrong and if Virginia can spiral out to … full blown civil war , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paint us with the same brush as these guys , there ’ s something important to remember .
Gun rights activists were their targets .
Their plan was to open fire into the crowd , eliciting the armed activists to return fire .
They hoped to create enough confusion to spark off a civil war , but they wanted to start it by killing our people .
These are not our friends .
They ’ re not our allies .
They ’ re nothing but scum who can ’ t see beyond skin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a lot of things , and I ’ m not about to defend him against jack squat , but there had been a threat .
The problem is , the threat wasn ’ t against lawmakers or public officials .
The threat was against gun rights activists who these three turdnuggets allegedly believed were so eager for a civil war that they ’ d just start shooting the moment bullets flew .
I think , had they carried out their attack , they ’ d have been in for a rude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that quote above , they seemed to believe that being prepared for war somehow meant not only were people eager for it but would also side with racist nutjobs like these three .
The truth of the matter is , most of us don ’ t give a damn about a person ’ s race , but the quality of their character .
Not only that , though , but we ’ re also all trained to not shoot blindly , to identify our targets as threats first .
They could have opened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have survived to see sundown .
The confusion they hoped to create wouldn ’ t have gone down like they planned .
But while the anti-gun left continues to try and pretend those are “ our ” people , it ’ s important to remind them that we weren ’ t their allies , but their targets .

Just days before the Lobby Day rally in Richmond, Virginia, a group of individuals was arrested. These men were members of a racist extremist group called The Base. There was much talk about their plans for Lobby Day, enough so that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam had all the excuse he needed to step up security at the capitol.
Now, those men have pleaded not guilty to the charges facing them.
Three men accused of being members of a violent white supremacist group called The Base pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges in a federal indictment in Maryland. Former Canadian Armed Forces reservist Patrik Mathews, 27; and Brian Mark Lemley Jr., 33, of Elkton, Maryland; entered their pleas during separate arraignments on charges including transporting a firearm and ammunition with the intent to commit a felony. William Garfield Bilbrough IV, a 19-year-old pizza delivery driver who lived with his grandmother in Denton, Maryland, before his arrest, pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy to “transport and harbor certain aliens.” In a court filing, Justice Department prosecutors said Lemley and Mathews discussed “the planning of violence” at a gun rights rally in Richmond, Virginia, in January. A closed-circuit television camera and microphone installed by investigators in a Delaware home captured Mathews talking about the Virginia rally as a “boundless” opportunity, prosecutors said. “And the thing is you’ve got tons of guys who … should be radicalized enough to know that all you gotta do is start making things go wrong and if Virginia can spiral out to … full blown civil war,” he said.
While the anti-gun left wants to paint us with the same brush as these guys, there’s something important to remember. Gun rights activists were their targets.
Their plan was to open fire into the crowd, eliciting the armed activists to return fire. They hoped to create enough confusion to spark off a civil war, but they wanted to start it by killing our people.
These are not our friends. They’re not our allies. They’re nothing but scum who can’t see beyond skin color.
Northam’s response may have been a lot of things, and I’m not about to defend him against jack squat, but there had been a threat. The problem is, the threat wasn’t against lawmakers or public officials. The threat was against gun rights activists who these three turdnuggets allegedly believed were so eager for a civil war that they’d just start shooting the moment bullets flew.
I think, had they carried out their attack, they’d have been in for a rude awakening.
You see, based on that quote above, they seemed to believe that being prepared for war somehow meant not only were people eager for it but would also side with racist nutjobs like these three. The truth of the matter is, most of us don’t give a damn about a person’s race, but the quality of their character.
Not only that, though, but we’re also all trained to not shoot blindly, to identify our targets as threats first. They could have opened fire, but I suspect they wouldn’t have survived to see sundown. The confusion they hoped to create wouldn’t have gone down like they planned.
But while the anti-gun left continues to try and pretend those are “our” people, it’s important to remind them that we weren’t their allies, but their targets.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--NY Career Criminal Arrested Three Times In One Day

Police officers in Troy , New York are complaining that the state ’ s new bail reform law is empowering criminals , and they ’ re pointing to the recent arrests of a local man named Scott Nolan as an example of the law putting criminals back on the streets to re-offend when they should be behind bars .
The new laws are allowing suspects like Nolan to be released with an appearance ticket instead of being taken into custody .
The Troy Police Union believes this is putting an unnecessary burden on their officers by having to repeatedly catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new laws diminish the power of arrest .
The states new bail laws tangled up Troy Police in a game loop of catch and release .
They arrested Scott Nolan three times in seven hours yesterday .
Around 9am they arrested him and charged him for shoplifting .
He was released with an appearance ticket .
Hours later , they say he assaulted a man just before 2:30pm .
He was arrested and released again .
Then just before 4:30pm they say he hit another person with a brick .
Police charged him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree criminal possession of a weapon , which kept him in custody .
I can understand a quick release on a shoplifting charge , but the fact that Nolan was arrested twice in two hours for assault is ridiculous .
It ’ s also worth noting that what eventually allowed police to keep Nolan behind bars was the arrest for possessing a brick , not actually physically assaulting someone .
Nolan wasn ’ t just a prolific offender one day this week .
According to Nicholas Laviano , who ’ s the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s well known to law enforcement in the area .
Back in January police charged him with criminal mischief and released him .
They say they caught him committing the same crime hours later .
Laviano says his criminal history is 50 pages long , and that has to be printed out every time he ’ s arrested .
He says that process uses uses up time and taxpayer money .
“ It ’ s a morale killer , ” Laviano says .
“ They know that they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they want to be doing.
” Perhaps this issue isn ’ t just with the state ’ s new bail reform law , given the fact that Nolan ’ s rap sheet runs to 50 pages .
Why , given his lengthy criminal history , does it appear that Nolan has never been sentenced to serious prison time for any of his crimes ?
The idea behind ending cash bail for misdemeanors and some felonies in New York is that forcing defendants to pay high cash bonds in order to be released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poor , and leads to mass incarceration for non-violent offenses .
Supporters say that ending cash bail can be done without negative consequences , like an increase in the those who fail to show up for their court date , or an increase in violent crime .
Bail is not supposed to be a form of punishment .
After all , it ’ s applied before a defendant is even found guilty or acquitted of a crime .
It ’ s supposed to be used to keep those behind bars who a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community or is a flight risk .
Typically , the more serious the crime , the higher the amount of bail .
The problem is that for many people , even raising a few thousand dollars to bail a family member out of jail is beyond their means .
The bail reform movement in New York really caught fire when the case of Kalief Browder became national news .
Browder was 16-years old when he was arrested on robbery charges , accused of stealing another teen ’ s backpack in Brooklyn .
Bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his family didn ’ t have the money , so Browder remained behind bars for more than three years ( including 400 days in solitary confinement ) before prosecutors ultimately dropped the charge .
Three years after his release , Browder committed suicide .
Browder ’ s ordeal was an injustice that rightfully angered many New Yorkers .
However , the failures of the criminal justice system that allow someone like Scott Nolan to wrack up a rap sheet that runs to 50 pages also angers people , and rightfully so .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow judges to allow bail for individuals that have been arrested a certain number of times within a certain time period , as well as something like a 2-convictions rule that would allow for bail to be considered for those who have multiple and separate felony convictions on their record .
That would help cut down on violent , career criminals who may be benefitting from the new law .
But New York needs to address the failures in the criminal justice system that allow those career criminals to persist in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doing anything like that , however , Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and Democrat lawmakers have an ambitious legislative agenda that targets the state ’ s legal gun owners instead of violent criminals and the state ’ s broken criminal justice system .

Police officers in Troy, New York are complaining that the state’s new bail reform law is empowering criminals, and they’re pointing to the recent arrests of a local man named Scott Nolan as an example of the law putting criminals back on the streets to re-offend when they should be behind bars.
The new laws are allowing suspects like Nolan to be released with an appearance ticket instead of being taken into custody. The Troy Police Union believes this is putting an unnecessary burden on their officers by having to repeatedly catch this man. They also say the new laws diminish the power of arrest. The states new bail laws tangled up Troy Police in a game loop of catch and release. They arrested Scott Nolan three times in seven hours yesterday. Around 9am they arrested him and charged him for shoplifting. He was released with an appearance ticket. Hours later, they say he assaulted a man just before 2:30pm. He was arrested and released again. Then just before 4:30pm they say he hit another person with a brick. Police charged him with second degree attempted assault and third degree criminal possession of a weapon, which kept him in custody.
I can understand a quick release on a shoplifting charge, but the fact that Nolan was arrested twice in two hours for assault is ridiculous. It’s also worth noting that what eventually allowed police to keep Nolan behind bars was the arrest for possessing a brick, not actually physically assaulting someone.
Nolan wasn’t just a prolific offender one day this week. According to Nicholas Laviano, who’s the head of the Troy police officers union, he’s well known to law enforcement in the area.
Back in January police charged him with criminal mischief and released him. They say they caught him committing the same crime hours later. Laviano says his criminal history is 50 pages long, and that has to be printed out every time he’s arrested. He says that process uses uses up time and taxpayer money. “It’s a morale killer,” Laviano says. “They know that they’re not out there doing the real police work that they want to be doing.”
Perhaps this issue isn’t just with the state’s new bail reform law, given the fact that Nolan’s rap sheet runs to 50 pages. Why, given his lengthy criminal history, does it appear that Nolan has never been sentenced to serious prison time for any of his crimes?
The idea behind ending cash bail for misdemeanors and some felonies in New York is that forcing defendants to pay high cash bonds in order to be released from jail before their trial disproportionately impacts the poor, and leads to mass incarceration for non-violent offenses. Supporters say that ending cash bail can be done without negative consequences, like an increase in the those who fail to show up for their court date, or an increase in violent crime.
Bail is not supposed to be a form of punishment. After all, it’s applied before a defendant is even found guilty or acquitted of a crime. It’s supposed to be used to keep those behind bars who a judge believes poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk. Typically, the more serious the crime, the higher the amount of bail.
The problem is that for many people, even raising a few thousand dollars to bail a family member out of jail is beyond their means. The bail reform movement in New York really caught fire when the case of Kalief Browder became national news. Browder was 16-years old when he was arrested on robbery charges, accused of stealing another teen’s backpack in Brooklyn. Bail was set at $3,000, but his family didn’t have the money, so Browder remained behind bars for more than three years (including 400 days in solitary confinement) before prosecutors ultimately dropped the charge. Three years after his release, Browder committed suicide.
Browder’s ordeal was an injustice that rightfully angered many New Yorkers. However, the failures of the criminal justice system that allow someone like Scott Nolan to wrack up a rap sheet that runs to 50 pages also angers people, and rightfully so. The bail reform law could easily be modified to allow judges to allow bail for individuals that have been arrested a certain number of times within a certain time period, as well as something like a 2-convictions rule that would allow for bail to be considered for those who have multiple and separate felony convictions on their record. That would help cut down on violent, career criminals who may be benefitting from the new law.
But New York needs to address the failures in the criminal justice system that allow those career criminals to persist in their crimes in the first place. Instead of doing anything like that, however, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democrat lawmakers have an ambitious legislative agenda that targets the state’s legal gun owners instead of violent criminals and the state’s broken criminal justice system.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--WaPo Tries To Spin Defeat Of Northam's Gun Ban Bill

The editorial board of the Washington Post is reacting to the legislative demise of HB961 in Virginia , and as you might expect , they ’ re spinning furiously to try to portray the defeat of Northam ’ s biggest anti-gun bill as no big deal .
In a new editorial , the Post editors claim that the failure of the gun , magazine , and suppressor ban is just a temporary setback , and that before long Virginia Democrats will be successful in imposing the prohibition on commonly owned arms and magazines .
The assault weapons ban seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative session , but gun-control advocates had not made it their priority .
Certainly they supported a ban on assault weapons , similar to one that saved lives when it was in effect on a federal level from 1994 to 2004 .
But volunteers from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense , for example , spent more energy lobbying for an expansion of background checks and adoption of legislation that would allow judges to order people to turn in their guns if they are deemed after a hearing to be a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with reimposition of a one-per-month limit on handgun purchases , and power for cities and towns to establish their own gun ordinances — appear headed for final approval from the House and Senate .
Mr. Northam has said he will sign them into law .
Something tells me if HB961 had actually passed the state Senate in Virginia , instead of dying in committee , the editors of the Washington Post wouldn ’ t have written anything about the bill not being a big priority for gun control activists .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to come up with some reason why it wasn ’ t successfully rammed through the legislature like the other gun control bills they mentioned .
Even though the Post claims the ban on modern sporting rifles , magazines with a capacity of more than 12-rounds , and suppressors wasn ’ t something gun control activists were focused on , the editors say they expect similar legislation to become law in Virginia soon .
The “ grass-roots ” gun control movement in Virginia has been almost entirely funded by Michael Bloomberg , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2019 elections backing anti-gun candidates in vulnerable swing districts .
His money paid off , but it ’ s important to note that if 6,000 votes spread out across dozens of state legislative races had gone the other way , anti-gun politicians would still be in the minority in Virginia .
I don ’ t think the 2019 elections were a reflection of a permanent anti-gun majority , in other words .
In fact , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if some of those Democrats who eagerly accepted Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running away from his support in 2021 .
Bloomberg ’ s presidential aspirations have deepened the divide in the Democrat party between those who are happy to throw their support behind the billionaire in exchange for some campaign cash and those who say Bloomberg is simply trying to buy off politicians to get his way .
Washington Post is right about one thing in its editorial ; several bad bills are indeed likely to become bad laws in Virginia , even if the centerpiece of Ralph Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda was defeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country simply must remain engaged and involved , not only in the legislative fights we ’ re currently facing , but in the battle for the White House and Congress that will be decided on Election Day in November .

The editorial board of the Washington Post is reacting to the legislative demise of HB961 in Virginia, and as you might expect, they’re spinning furiously to try to portray the defeat of Northam’s biggest anti-gun bill as no big deal.
In a new editorial, the Post editors claim that the failure of the gun, magazine, and suppressor ban is just a temporary setback, and that before long Virginia Democrats will be successful in imposing the prohibition on commonly owned arms and magazines.
The assault weapons ban seemed to attract the most attention during the Virginia legislative session, but gun-control advocates had not made it their priority. Certainly they supported a ban on assault weapons, similar to one that saved lives when it was in effect on a federal level from 1994 to 2004. But volunteers from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, for example, spent more energy lobbying for an expansion of background checks and adoption of legislation that would allow judges to order people to turn in their guns if they are deemed after a hearing to be a threat to themselves or others. Those measures — along with reimposition of a one-per-month limit on handgun purchases, and power for cities and towns to establish their own gun ordinances — appear headed for final approval from the House and Senate. Mr. Northam has said he will sign them into law.
Something tells me if HB961 had actually passed the state Senate in Virginia, instead of dying in committee, the editors of the Washington Post wouldn’t have written anything about the bill not being a big priority for gun control activists. With the bill failing, however, the editors have to come up with some reason why it wasn’t successfully rammed through the legislature like the other gun control bills they mentioned.
Even though the Post claims the ban on modern sporting rifles, magazines with a capacity of more than 12-rounds, and suppressors wasn’t something gun control activists were focused on, the editors say they expect similar legislation to become law in Virginia soon.
That Virginia, home to the National Rifle Association, would advance such an ambitious reform agenda is testament to the strength of the grass-roots movement for gun control. It suggests that a ban on assault-style weapons will be in place before too long, in Virginia and maybe beyond.
The “grass-roots” gun control movement in Virginia has been almost entirely funded by Michael Bloomberg, who spent millions of dollars in the state in the 2019 elections backing anti-gun candidates in vulnerable swing districts. His money paid off, but it’s important to note that if 6,000 votes spread out across dozens of state legislative races had gone the other way, anti-gun politicians would still be in the minority in Virginia.
I don’t think the 2019 elections were a reflection of a permanent anti-gun majority, in other words. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those Democrats who eagerly accepted Bloomberg’s help last fall aren’t running away from his support in 2021. Bloomberg’s presidential aspirations have deepened the divide in the Democrat party between those who are happy to throw their support behind the billionaire in exchange for some campaign cash and those who say Bloomberg is simply trying to buy off politicians to get his way.
Washington Post is right about one thing in its editorial; several bad bills are indeed likely to become bad laws in Virginia, even if the centerpiece of Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda was defeated. Gun owners in the state and across the country simply must remain engaged and involved, not only in the legislative fights we’re currently facing, but in the battle for the White House and Congress that will be decided on Election Day in November.


bearingarms--2020-02-19--Bloomberg School Of Public Health: Assault Weapon Bans Don't Reduce Mass Shootings

If you hear the name “ Bloomberg , ” you have every reason to believe there will be a profound anti-gun bias .
After all , Michael Bloomberg has been the financial thorn in the side of the gun rights movement for years now .
He ’ s funded a plethora of anti-gun candidates and organizations , so the name is justifiably synonymous with anti-gun bias .
However , a recent study by the Bloomberg School of Public health had some findings that are quite inconvenient for candidate Bloomberg , to say nothing of the rest of the Democratic field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that there is no evidence that “ assault weapon bans ” have any impact on “ the incidence of fatal mass shootings.
” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , named after notorious anti-Second Amendment activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg , released the results of its study last week .
The study “ did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.
” Of course , the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gunners .
One part of the study , in particular , did find in favor of one gun control proposal .
Now , let ’ s also be clear that this is correlation , not causation .
It ’ s impossible to determine if that percentage is because of licensing laws or because of any number of other factors that might exist in those states .
Culture can play a greater factor than many on the anti-gun side want to acknowledge .
However , since the big push from the gun control crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this should let the wind out of their sails a bit .
If they even acknowledge it , anyway .
I suspect this is yet another inconvenient fact that will be completely ignored during the Democratic primary process .
The candidates won ’ t mention it and the voters aren ’ t particularly likely to care .
Still , this is likely to come up during the general election , especially if Bloomberg is the candidate .
The truth is , though , there ’ s no reason for demonizing so-called assault weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime–something that ’ s a much bigger threat than mass shootings–and they ’ re not even the preferred firearm for mass shootings .
In fact , 62 percent of all mass shootings are carried out with a handgun .
Another 13 percent are carried out with shotguns .
In other words , three-quarters of all mass shootings don ’ t happen with a rifle of any kind .
Hell , even higher capacity magazines were only used in about half of all mass shootings .
So , with that in mind , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much impact on mass shootings in the first place ?
It wouldn ’ t .
In other words , the Bloomberg School of Public Health ’ s findings in this regard shouldn ’ t surprise anyone .
Then again , a whole lot of low-information voters out there think mass shootings almost require an AR-15 or similar rifle , so while this new data shouldn ’ t be surprising , it likely will be to many .

If you hear the name “Bloomberg,” you have every reason to believe there will be a profound anti-gun bias. After all, Michael Bloomberg has been the financial thorn in the side of the gun rights movement for years now. He’s funded a plethora of anti-gun candidates and organizations, so the name is justifiably synonymous with anti-gun bias.
However, a recent study by the Bloomberg School of Public health had some findings that are quite inconvenient for candidate Bloomberg, to say nothing of the rest of the Democratic field.
A new study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that there is no evidence that “assault weapon bans” have any impact on “the incidence of fatal mass shootings.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, named after notorious anti-Second Amendment activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg, released the results of its study last week. The study “did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.”
Of course, the study wasn’t all bad news for anti-gunners.
One part of the study, in particular, did find in favor of one gun control proposal.
The study, which analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017, did find that “firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them.”
Now, let’s also be clear that this is correlation, not causation. It’s impossible to determine if that percentage is because of licensing laws or because of any number of other factors that might exist in those states.
Culture can play a greater factor than many on the anti-gun side want to acknowledge.
However, since the big push from the gun control crowd is actually for assault weapon bans, this should let the wind out of their sails a bit. If they even acknowledge it, anyway. I suspect this is yet another inconvenient fact that will be completely ignored during the Democratic primary process. The candidates won’t mention it and the voters aren’t particularly likely to care.
Still, this is likely to come up during the general election, especially if Bloomberg is the candidate.
The truth is, though, there’s no reason for demonizing so-called assault weapons. They’re rarely used in crime–something that’s a much bigger threat than mass shootings–and they’re not even the preferred firearm for mass shootings. In fact, 62 percent of all mass shootings are carried out with a handgun. Another 13 percent are carried out with shotguns. In other words, three-quarters of all mass shootings don’t happen with a rifle of any kind.
Hell, even higher capacity magazines were only used in about half of all mass shootings.
So, with that in mind, just why would an assault weapon ban have much impact on mass shootings in the first place? It wouldn’t.
In other words, the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s findings in this regard shouldn’t surprise anyone. Then again, a whole lot of low-information voters out there think mass shootings almost require an AR-15 or similar rifle, so while this new data shouldn’t be surprising, it likely will be to many.


bearingarms--2020-02-20--Armed Farmer Thwarts Late Night Goat Grab

I ’ ve had several people ask me if this story out of Virginia about a farmer who stopped a thief from stealing his goats is me , and no , it ’ s not , though I ’ m definitely on # TeamGoat .
The two guys above are Casper the Friendly Goat and Sharkboy ; two of the eight goats that are currently living on my small farm in central Virginia .
In this case , however , it was a farmer in Stafford County , about forty miles south of Washington , D.C. who alerted authorities to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goat rustler at gunpoint in one of his fields the other night .
The farmer told deputies his wife had gone outside to check on their goats and discovered they ’ d been let out of their pen .
The farmer tracked the suspect to the field , where he found the man apparently intoxicated and slurring his words , the department said .
Three goats were tied up next to the suspect ’ s truck .
According to the sheriff ’ s office , the suspect actually passed a breathalyzer test and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I guess the thinking was getting drunk and trying to steal goats was going to look better than trying to abscond with the animals while stone-cold sober .
The farmer eventually recognized the suspect as someone he had sold goats to in the past .
19-year old Cole Schrock was allegedly looking for a five-fingered discount this time around , but instead of goating.. er , getting away with it , he ’ s now facing charges of larceny of animals , identity theft to avoid arrest and unlawful entry with the intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t had any two-legged intruders try to take any of my livestock in the seven years I ’ ve lived in rural Virginia , but like everyone else who raises chickens , goats , or other small farm animals , we ’ ve had to deal with everything from foxes and snakes to raccoons and coyotes , and I ’ m kind of surprised that Schrock apparently thought it was a good idea to go wandering across someone ’ s property late at night in a rural area to mess with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is armed , but chances were good that Schrock was going to run up against an armed citizen prepared to defend his herd .
Thankfully it sounds like no harm was done to the farmer , his family , or his goats , and hopefully Schrock will learn a lesson from his attempted late night goat grab .
Now if you ’ ll excuse me , I have this sudden urge to go check on Casper , Sharkboy , and the rest of my goats for some reason .

I’ve had several people ask me if this story out of Virginia about a farmer who stopped a thief from stealing his goats is me, and no, it’s not, though I’m definitely on #TeamGoat. The two guys above are Casper the Friendly Goat and Sharkboy; two of the eight goats that are currently living on my small farm in central Virginia.
In this case, however, it was a farmer in Stafford County, about forty miles south of Washington, D.C. who alerted authorities to tell them he was holding a would-be goat rustler at gunpoint in one of his fields the other night.
The farmer told deputies his wife had gone outside to check on their goats and discovered they’d been let out of their pen. The farmer tracked the suspect to the field, where he found the man apparently intoxicated and slurring his words, the department said. Three goats were tied up next to the suspect’s truck.
According to the sheriff’s office, the suspect actually passed a breathalyzer test and was only pretending to be intoxicated. I guess the thinking was getting drunk and trying to steal goats was going to look better than trying to abscond with the animals while stone-cold sober.
The farmer eventually recognized the suspect as someone he had sold goats to in the past. 19-year old Cole Schrock was allegedly looking for a five-fingered discount this time around, but instead of goating.. er, getting away with it, he’s now facing charges of larceny of animals, identity theft to avoid arrest and unlawful entry with the intent to commit larceny.
Thankfully, I haven’t had any two-legged intruders try to take any of my livestock in the seven years I’ve lived in rural Virginia, but like everyone else who raises chickens, goats, or other small farm animals, we’ve had to deal with everything from foxes and snakes to raccoons and coyotes, and I’m kind of surprised that Schrock apparently thought it was a good idea to go wandering across someone’s property late at night in a rural area to mess with their livestock. Certainly not everyone out here is armed, but chances were good that Schrock was going to run up against an armed citizen prepared to defend his herd.
Thankfully it sounds like no harm was done to the farmer, his family, or his goats, and hopefully Schrock will learn a lesson from his attempted late night goat grab. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have this sudden urge to go check on Casper, Sharkboy, and the rest of my goats for some reason.