bearingarms--2020-10-23--Anti-Gun Dems Launch Last Ditch Effort To Block Barrett Nomination

Let me state right up front that I don ’ t think this is going to effect the vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
In fact , today ’ s stunt with Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse alongside a bevy of anti-gun groups was the political equivalent of a toddler stomping their feet as opposed to a genuinely serious effort to convince senators to change their minds on confirmation .
Barrett is almost certain to become the newest member of SCOTUS next week , but in the meantime anti-gun groups and politicians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of pre-election grandstanding .
Sens .
Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) and Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-R.I. ) called out the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) on Friday for working to reshape the federal judiciary while Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court advances in the Senate .
The Democrats were joined by gun violence advocacy groups Giffords , Everytown for Gun Safety , Brady and March for Our Lives to discuss a new report led by Blumenthal that details the gun industry ’ s funding of judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This report shows how beholden Republicans have become to the NRA , how corrupt the funneling of money has become , how there is coordination between consultants and media groups used by the NRA and Republican candidates and especially the Trump campaign .
We believe that the public should be aware of this alarming campaign to capture the courts and it will have effect on American justice , ” Blumenthal said on a press call on Friday .
It ’ s incredibly amusing to me to see Blumenthal complaining about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA when anti-gun activists like Michael Bloomberg are spending hundreds of millions of dollars this cycle to elect pro-gun control candidates .
Bloomberg himself is dropping $ 100-million just in Florida in an attempt to get the state to go for Joe Biden , and Democrats from the presidential candidate to those running for state House and Senate seats have been the beneficiaries of a flood of campaign cash from gun control groups .
Blumenthal , Whitehouse , and the anti-gun groups are trying to make it seem incredibly nefarious that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Second Amendment is secure .
He added that the report found that the NRA has funneled money from a collection of dark money groups , blocked state legislation and legislation in Congress for gun safety and launched a campaign to strike down legislation through the courts .
The NRA has sought to reshape the courts with “ an extreme , radical view of the Second Amendment , ” Blumenthal said .
“ Dark money groups ” sounds awfully scary , doesn ’ t it ?
Of course , if Blumenthal was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have to reveal their donors ( which is what “ dark money ” means ) , he probably wouldn ’ t have stood on stage with Shannon Watts from the Bloomberg-funded group Moms Demand Action .
After all , the sugar daddy of the gun control movement has a “ dark money group ” all his own , and even Moms Demand Action itself has a political action committee .
Take away the scary phrase , and you ’ re left with Blumenthal complaining that the NRA works to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and challenges them in court once they ’ ve taken effect .
Sheldon Whitehouse calls that “ unpatriotic and inappropriate , ” but most of us would call it exercising our civic duties .
What ’ s more , every one of the gun control groups represented on stage with Blumenthal and Whitehouse lobby against pro-Second Amendment bills , and Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords both have in-house law firms that work directly with cities and states to both challenge existing Second Amendment protections like firearms preemption statutes , and defend localities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gun ordinances or laws .
In the view of Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse , lobbying and litigation efforts are fine as long as it ’ s to support gun control efforts .
Doing the same in defense of the right to keep and bear arms , however , is “ unpatriotic.
” Personally , I think it ’ s much more unpatriotic to try to strip Americans of their constitutionally protected rights .
I think it ’ s unpatriotic to try to portray millions of Americans who are standing up for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it ’ s dishonest and despicable to try to portray an organization as acting in some shady manner when you ’ re standing next to representatives of groups that do the exact same things .
Ultimately today ’ s stunt won ’ t stop Amy Coney Barrett from being confirmed to the Supreme Court or the NRA from continuing to advocate , lobby , and litigate in support of the right to keep and bear arms .
It simply revealed once again the hollowness of the gun control argument and the shamelessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Let me state right up front that I don’t think this is going to effect the vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In fact, today’s stunt with Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse alongside a bevy of anti-gun groups was the political equivalent of a toddler stomping their feet as opposed to a genuinely serious effort to convince senators to change their minds on confirmation. Barrett is almost certain to become the newest member of SCOTUS next week, but in the meantime anti-gun groups and politicians will take advantage of circumstances for a little bit of pre-election grandstanding.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called out the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Friday for working to reshape the federal judiciary while Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court advances in the Senate. The Democrats were joined by gun violence advocacy groups Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady and March for Our Lives to discuss a new report led by Blumenthal that details the gun industry’s funding of judges in lower courts and now for Barrett. “This report shows how beholden Republicans have become to the NRA, how corrupt the funneling of money has become, how there is coordination between consultants and media groups used by the NRA and Republican candidates and especially the Trump campaign. We believe that the public should be aware of this alarming campaign to capture the courts and it will have effect on American justice,” Blumenthal said on a press call on Friday.
It’s incredibly amusing to me to see Blumenthal complaining about the Republican lawmakers being “beholden” to the NRA when anti-gun activists like Michael Bloomberg are spending hundreds of millions of dollars this cycle to elect pro-gun control candidates. Bloomberg himself is dropping $100-million just in Florida in an attempt to get the state to go for Joe Biden, and Democrats from the presidential candidate to those running for state House and Senate seats have been the beneficiaries of a flood of campaign cash from gun control groups.
Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and the anti-gun groups are trying to make it seem incredibly nefarious that a pro-Second Amendment organization is working to ensure that the Second Amendment is secure.
He added that the report found that the NRA has funneled money from a collection of dark money groups, blocked state legislation and legislation in Congress for gun safety and launched a campaign to strike down legislation through the courts. The NRA has sought to reshape the courts with “an extreme, radical view of the Second Amendment,” Blumenthal said. Whitehouse called the NRA’s efforts “unpatriotic and inappropriate.”
“Dark money groups” sounds awfully scary, doesn’t it? Of course, if Blumenthal was really bothered by political action committees that don’t have to reveal their donors (which is what “dark money” means), he probably wouldn’t have stood on stage with Shannon Watts from the Bloomberg-funded group Moms Demand Action. After all, the sugar daddy of the gun control movement has a “dark money group” all his own, and even Moms Demand Action itself has a political action committee.
Take away the scary phrase, and you’re left with Blumenthal complaining that the NRA works to defeat gun control bills before they become law and challenges them in court once they’ve taken effect. Sheldon Whitehouse calls that “unpatriotic and inappropriate,” but most of us would call it exercising our civic duties.
What’s more, every one of the gun control groups represented on stage with Blumenthal and Whitehouse lobby against pro-Second Amendment bills, and Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords both have in-house law firms that work directly with cities and states to both challenge existing Second Amendment protections like firearms preemption statutes, and defend localities or states that are sued over their anti-gun ordinances or laws.
In the view of Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse, lobbying and litigation efforts are fine as long as it’s to support gun control efforts. Doing the same in defense of the right to keep and bear arms, however, is “unpatriotic.”
Personally, I think it’s much more unpatriotic to try to strip Americans of their constitutionally protected rights. I think it’s unpatriotic to try to portray millions of Americans who are standing up for their rights as acting inappropriately, and I think it’s dishonest and despicable to try to portray an organization as acting in some shady manner when you’re standing next to representatives of groups that do the exact same things.
Ultimately today’s stunt won’t stop Amy Coney Barrett from being confirmed to the Supreme Court or the NRA from continuing to advocate, lobby, and litigate in support of the right to keep and bear arms. It simply revealed once again the hollowness of the gun control argument and the shamelessness of the anti-gun politicians who espouse it.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--Authorities Investigate Phony Gun Control Mailer

It seems that since candidates can ’ t canvas neighborhoods to try and secure your vote , they ’ re going to send out five million mailers instead .
Honestly , I ’ ve gotten so many I ’ m amazed the Amazon rain forest is still there , for crying out loud .
However , in Upstate New York , a mailer came in that was more than a little fishy .
This past June , in the Special Election for the 27th Congressional District and in the Primary Election for Niagara County Court Judge , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took place .
An organization that called itself the Coalition for Safe Schools sent a letter to residents across Niagara County advocating for very stringent gun control , while endorsing Nate McMurray and Caroline Wojtaszek .
McMurray was the endorsed Democrat candidate for Congress and Wojtaszek was the endorsed Republican for judge .
The mailer arrived in mailboxes of voters who are likely to support the Second Amendment the day before the election .
That ’ s right – a gun control group mailing endorsements of candidates to gun rights ’ voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Coalition of Safe Schools doesn ’ t exist .
The Executive Director of the group is fictional .
The return address is nonexistent .
The organization ’ s website was created two days before the mailer was sent , and no longer exists .
The mailer did not identify who paid for it , a violation of law .
Most problematic , the mailer was sent to voters who would be opposed to gun control .
In other words , it was an effort to sabotage specific candidates with a specific group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun rights advocate who spotted the questionable nature of the mailer .
The Reporter was able to obtain the original complaint filed with the DA ’ s office .
It is signed by Edward D. Pettitt , a pro second amendment advocate , who suspected the mailer was a phony .
Petit ’ s complaint reads , “ On Monday June 22 , 2020 I received a letter in the mail purportedly from Carl Enrique-Smith , Executive Director of ‘ Parents For Safe Schools.
’ The purpose of the letter was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caroline Wojtaszek for Niagara County Judge because she ‘ has prosecuted multiple dangerous criminals under the New York SAFE Act commonsense gun law .
The problem was , Mr. Pettitt or Petit ( the spelling discrepancy is in the original piece ) is a gun rights activist and had never heard of the organization .
He opted to do some digging .
What he found was the group simply didn ’ t exist .
Now , I ’ m not sure what charges could be filed on a case like this .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney .
What I do know , though , is that this is a major case of wrong .
A mailer by a fake organization sent specifically to those who would oppose the supposed organization ’ s mission isn ’ t routine campaigning .
It ’ s an attempt to sink a candidate by underhanded means .
Frankly , it sounds like someone who was anti-gun was trying to sabotaging the campaigns of those they figured would work against their efforts .
Then again , it ’ s also possible that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different issues .
Either way , it ’ s shady as hell .
This is something you need to look out for .
There are those who would try to present people as “ anti-gun ” for a number of reasons .
There are some who claim to be gun rights advocates that completely mischaracterize anything to frame people as being anti-gun for simply having insufficient zeal for pro-gun legislation .
Look , no matter what anyone tells you about a candidate , look for yourself .

It seems that since candidates can’t canvas neighborhoods to try and secure your vote, they’re going to send out five million mailers instead. Honestly, I’ve gotten so many I’m amazed the Amazon rain forest is still there, for crying out loud.
However, in Upstate New York, a mailer came in that was more than a little fishy.
Now, it’s being investigated.
This past June, in the Special Election for the 27th Congressional District and in the Primary Election for Niagara County Court Judge, one of the most egregious campaign violations we have seen took place. An organization that called itself the Coalition for Safe Schools sent a letter to residents across Niagara County advocating for very stringent gun control, while endorsing Nate McMurray and Caroline Wojtaszek. McMurray was the endorsed Democrat candidate for Congress and Wojtaszek was the endorsed Republican for judge. The mailer arrived in mailboxes of voters who are likely to support the Second Amendment the day before the election. That’s right – a gun control group mailing endorsements of candidates to gun rights’ voters. As the Reporter discovered, the organization, Coalition of Safe Schools doesn’t exist. The Executive Director of the group is fictional. The return address is nonexistent. The organization’s website was created two days before the mailer was sent, and no longer exists. The mailer did not identify who paid for it, a violation of law. Most problematic, the mailer was sent to voters who would be opposed to gun control.
In other words, it was an effort to sabotage specific candidates with a specific group of people.
However, it was a gun rights advocate who spotted the questionable nature of the mailer.
The Reporter was able to obtain the original complaint filed with the DA’s office. It is signed by Edward D. Pettitt, a pro second amendment advocate, who suspected the mailer was a phony. Petit’s complaint reads, “On Monday June 22, 2020 I received a letter in the mail purportedly from Carl Enrique-Smith, Executive Director of ‘Parents For Safe Schools.’ The purpose of the letter was to state that this pro-gun control group endorsed Caroline Wojtaszek for Niagara County Judge because she ‘has prosecuted multiple dangerous criminals under the New York SAFE Act commonsense gun law.
The problem was, Mr. Pettitt or Petit (the spelling discrepancy is in the original piece) is a gun rights activist and had never heard of the organization. He opted to do some digging. What he found was the group simply didn’t exist.
Now, I’m not sure what charges could be filed on a case like this. Then again, I’m not an attorney.
What I do know, though, is that this is a major case of wrong. A mailer by a fake organization sent specifically to those who would oppose the supposed organization’s mission isn’t routine campaigning. It’s an attempt to sink a candidate by underhanded means.
Frankly, it sounds like someone who was anti-gun was trying to sabotaging the campaigns of those they figured would work against their efforts. Then again, it’s also possible that it was someone who opposed these candidates on completely different issues.
Either way, it’s shady as hell.
This is something you need to look out for. There are those who would try to present people as “anti-gun” for a number of reasons. There are some who claim to be gun rights advocates that completely mischaracterize anything to frame people as being anti-gun for simply having insufficient zeal for pro-gun legislation.
Look, no matter what anyone tells you about a candidate, look for yourself.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--Trump Campaign Denies Sending Armed Men To Polling Place

President Trump has asked his supporters to keep an eye on polling locations .
Considering the concerns many have on the right regarding voter fraud–seriously , as a box of “ found ” ballots ever gone for the Republican candidate ?
–that ’ s not an unwarranted suggestion .
After all , poll watchers are nothing new .
However , something happened in Florida that went well beyond that .
The Trump campaign denied Wednesday that they hired two armed men who showed up to an early voting site in one of Florida ’ s most hotly-contested counties , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ army ” of poll-watchers to supposedly prevent election fraud .
Pinellas County elections supervisor Julie Marcus , a Republican , said that the men , dressed like security guards , arrived at an early voting site in St. Petersburg on Wednesday , pitched a tent , and told sheriff ’ s deputies they ’ d been hired by the Trump campaign , according to WFLA , NBC ’ s Tampa affiliate .
They also said they ’ d be back on Thursday .
Florida is one of only seven states that explicitly ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Company reported earlier this week .
In 2016 , 85 voters reported seeing guns at the polls in more than two dozen states , according to gun control advocacy group Guns Down America .
“ The sheriff and I take this very seriously , ” Marcus told WFLA .
“ Voter intimidation , deterring voters from voting , impeding a voter ’ s ability to cast a ballot in this election is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way , shape , or form.
” If that ’ s what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms is not , in and of itself , voter intimidation .
It ’ s how those firearms are used that may cross the line , which doesn ’ t appear to have been the case .
Of course , guns at polling places is illegal in Florida , as noted above .
The Trump campaign has denied sending these people , though that doesn ’ t matter because it ’ s still apparently Trump ’ s fault .
The Trump campaign flatly denied hiring the men .
“ The Campaign did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct them to go to the voting location , ” deputy press secretary Thea McDonald told WFLA .
But given Trump ’ s rhetoric over the course of the campaign , it ’ s hardly surprising that this is happening .
The campaign has boasted that it ’ s training 50,000 volunteer poll watchers , labeling the effort “ Army for Trump.
” Volunteer to be a Trump Election Poll Watcher .
Sign up today !
# MakeAmericaGreatAgainhttps : //t.co/3AnrRV7uSz During the first presidential debate last month , Trump said he was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls and watch very carefully , ” after falsely claiming that Philadelphia elections officials were engaging in corruption by barring unapproved poll-watchers from a satellite elections office .
There ’ s a big damned difference between telling supporters to keep a close eye on what ’ s happening at their polling place and hiring armed men to go to a poll in a state where it ’ s illegal .
Now , is it possible that these are Trump supporters who carried the president ’ s request way too far ?
Sure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what happened .
It ’ s also possible that anti-Trump folks took their guns , showed up to pretend to have been sent by the campaign in an effort to give Trump a black eye in the minds of local residents .
Either way , unless the president or his campaign actually did send these particular people to do this , it ’ s not on his head .
His words said nothing about showing up armed in states where it ’ s illegal .
Yet it ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to hang everything else on the president , so what else is new ?
Especially since it seems the men didn ’ t return on Thursday like they said they would .
If they were actually sent by the campaign , you ’ d think they ’ d have gone back .

President Trump has asked his supporters to keep an eye on polling locations. Considering the concerns many have on the right regarding voter fraud–seriously, as a box of “found” ballots ever gone for the Republican candidate?–that’s not an unwarranted suggestion. After all, poll watchers are nothing new.
However, something happened in Florida that went well beyond that.
The Trump campaign denied Wednesday that they hired two armed men who showed up to an early voting site in one of Florida’s most hotly-contested counties, after the president repeatedly called for an “army” of poll-watchers to supposedly prevent election fraud. Pinellas County elections supervisor Julie Marcus, a Republican, said that the men, dressed like security guards, arrived at an early voting site in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, pitched a tent, and told sheriff’s deputies they’d been hired by the Trump campaign, according to WFLA, NBC’s Tampa affiliate. They also said they’d be back on Thursday. Florida is one of only seven states that explicitly ban bringing guns to the polls, Fast Company reported earlier this week. In 2016, 85 voters reported seeing guns at the polls in more than two dozen states, according to gun control advocacy group Guns Down America. “The sheriff and I take this very seriously,” Marcus told WFLA. “Voter intimidation, deterring voters from voting, impeding a voter’s ability to cast a ballot in this election is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form.”
If that’s what was happening, sure. The presence of firearms is not, in and of itself, voter intimidation. It’s how those firearms are used that may cross the line, which doesn’t appear to have been the case.
Of course, guns at polling places is illegal in Florida, as noted above.
The Trump campaign has denied sending these people, though that doesn’t matter because it’s still apparently Trump’s fault.
The Trump campaign flatly denied hiring the men. “The Campaign did not hire these individuals nor did the Campaign direct them to go to the voting location,” deputy press secretary Thea McDonald told WFLA. But given Trump’s rhetoric over the course of the campaign, it’s hardly surprising that this is happening. The campaign has boasted that it’s training 50,000 volunteer poll watchers, labeling the effort “Army for Trump.” Volunteer to be a Trump Election Poll Watcher. Sign up today! #MakeAmericaGreatAgainhttps://t.co/3AnrRV7uSz — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2020 During the first presidential debate last month, Trump said he was “urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully,” after falsely claiming that Philadelphia elections officials were engaging in corruption by barring unapproved poll-watchers from a satellite elections office.
There’s a big damned difference between telling supporters to keep a close eye on what’s happening at their polling place and hiring armed men to go to a poll in a state where it’s illegal.
Now, is it possible that these are Trump supporters who carried the president’s request way too far? Sure. There’s even a high likelihood that’s what happened.
It’s also possible that anti-Trump folks took their guns, showed up to pretend to have been sent by the campaign in an effort to give Trump a black eye in the minds of local residents.
Either way, unless the president or his campaign actually did send these particular people to do this, it’s not on his head. His words said nothing about showing up armed in states where it’s illegal.
Yet it’s also not like the media hasn’t tried to hang everything else on the president, so what else is new?
Especially since it seems the men didn’t return on Thursday like they said they would. If they were actually sent by the campaign, you’d think they’d have gone back.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--Instagram Influencer Defends Her Family From Home Invaders

With the help of her legally-owned firearm , a Florida woman was able to protect herself and her family after several armed robbers stormed her Miami home earlier this month , and newly released surveillance footage captures the tense moments that ended with the intruders fleeing the home after they exchanged fire with the armed citizen .
26-year old Ansley Pacheco , an Instagram influencer and model on the adult site OnlyFans , told WPLG-TV that the intruders easily could have killed her family if she hadn ’ t acted her husband and son .
“ While I was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commotion , I started hearing , ‘ Get down , get down , give me everything you got , ’ ” she recalled .
“ I went to the nightstand ; I grabbed the gun and I opened the door .
I saw one if they guys face to face with me .
He told me to put my gun down .
I just shook my head no , and then I said , ‘ Don ’ t shoot me , my son is in here.
’ ” After an eruption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They finally just ran out , ” Pacheco said .
“ My husband ran and got the gun and shot back at the vehicle that was leaving.
” Pacheco says she was shot at six or seven times before she returned fire .
Moments later , Pacheco ’ s husband ran into the bedroom and took the gun from his wife before running outside to try to stop the home invaders , who were able to get away in a waiting vehicle .
In the weeks since the October 4th home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any arrests in the case .
Pacheco says she doesn ’ t believe she knows the suspects , and it ’ s unclear whether her home was specifically targeted , or if the criminals were in the neighborhood looking for whatever opportunity they could find to gain entry into one of the many homes in the upscale community .
No one was injured in the home invasion , thankfully , and hopefully with the renewed media attention the case is receiving police will get some tips that will allow them to arrest those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pacheco , I hope that she ’ ll use this story and her platform to encourage others to exercise their right to keep and bear arms , as well as get the training they need in order to effectively defend themselves in a similar situation .
Her defensive gun use is likely to resonate with many of her followers , and the fact that she and her family are alive today because they were able to fight back is worth talking about .

With the help of her legally-owned firearm, a Florida woman was able to protect herself and her family after several armed robbers stormed her Miami home earlier this month, and newly released surveillance footage captures the tense moments that ended with the intruders fleeing the home after they exchanged fire with the armed citizen.
26-year old Ansley Pacheco, an Instagram influencer and model on the adult site OnlyFans, told WPLG-TV that the intruders easily could have killed her family if she hadn’t acted her husband and son.
“While I was in the bathroom, I started to hear the commotion, I started hearing, ‘Get down, get down, give me everything you got,’” she recalled. “I went to the nightstand; I grabbed the gun and I opened the door. I saw one if they guys face to face with me. He told me to put my gun down. I just shook my head no, and then I said, ‘Don’t shoot me, my son is in here.’” After an eruption of gunfire, the intruders finally took off. “They finally just ran out,” Pacheco said. “My husband ran and got the gun and shot back at the vehicle that was leaving.”
Pacheco says she was shot at six or seven times before she returned fire. Moments later, Pacheco’s husband ran into the bedroom and took the gun from his wife before running outside to try to stop the home invaders, who were able to get away in a waiting vehicle.
In the weeks since the October 4th home invasion, Miami-Dade police have not made any arrests in the case. Pacheco says she doesn’t believe she knows the suspects, and it’s unclear whether her home was specifically targeted, or if the criminals were in the neighborhood looking for whatever opportunity they could find to gain entry into one of the many homes in the upscale community.
No one was injured in the home invasion, thankfully, and hopefully with the renewed media attention the case is receiving police will get some tips that will allow them to arrest those responsible for the crime.
As for Pacheco, I hope that she’ll use this story and her platform to encourage others to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as well as get the training they need in order to effectively defend themselves in a similar situation. Her defensive gun use is likely to resonate with many of her followers, and the fact that she and her family are alive today because they were able to fight back is worth talking about.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--Dan Crenshaw Right About What 2A Community Needs

I ’ ve long believed that it ’ s possible to criticize someone ’ s actions without arguing to remove their right to carry out those acts .
For example , you can call someone any manner of vile name you wish , but that doesn ’ t mean you should do so .
Another example is that I don ’ t think open carry is a great idea , but I ’ ll fight with everything I have to preserve the right to do so .
Along a similar line , Rep. Dan Crenshaw and the rest of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a NSSF town hall , and he hit on a couple of points I really have to agree with .
Rep. Crenshaw cut to the chase about how the Second Amendment movement can continue the momentum and the importance for the industry and existing gun owners to change the way they recruit and welcome new firearm owners into the community .
“ We need a lot less guys dressing up in their Call of Duty outfits , marching through the streets and we need a lot more women who are talking about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a larger man .
That ’ s the argument – and it ’ s a good argument.
” Rep. Crenshaw said .
“ We should really take advantage of this current environment where people understand that self-defense is important .
The right to self-defense is an individual right , a God-given right , it does not get taken away.
” Now , I know that a lot of Second Amendment advocates are still upset with Crenshaw ’ s willingness to entertain the idea of red flag laws , but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See , the thing is , he ’ s right .
While I support the right for people to take to the streets in camo with their AR-15s , let ’ s also understand that they may be doing more harm than good .
Just because you can do something , it doesn ’ t mean you necessarily should .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong , I get the allure .
I get how it can be a warning that Second Amendment advocates stand ready to literally defend our right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives and all that .
I also know that it freaks the norms , so to speak .
They don ’ t see those folks as ordinary people .
They seem them as a violent militia that might start shooting at any given moment .
They ’ re terrified of what that means .
Now , that doesn ’ t mean they don ’ t serve a purpose .
That kind of thing most definitely can .
However , if that ’ s the image people have of gun owners , do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen ?
On the flip side , Crenshaw talks about women who have decided to be armed so they can defeat a larger , more aggressive foe .
This , I also agree with .
Women of all ethnicities talking about how afraid they ’ ve been , how they ’ ve understood the terror so many American women report , but they got a gun and now feel empowered not to hide from living their lives .
The American public needs to see people they can relate to .
Guys in camo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scary .
They ’ re not relatable for most people .
They ’ re too terrifying , what with the way the media has been beating the “ right wing threat ” drum lately .
There needs to be a balance in what we show the world .
That means we have to account for the biased media in what we present .
That means a lot less ( but not zero ) G.I .
Joe and a lot more suburban housewife .

I’ve long believed that it’s possible to criticize someone’s actions without arguing to remove their right to carry out those acts. For example, you can call someone any manner of vile name you wish, but that doesn’t mean you should do so. Another example is that I don’t think open carry is a great idea, but I’ll fight with everything I have to preserve the right to do so.
Along a similar line, Rep. Dan Crenshaw and the rest of this Texas “Dream Team” spoke at a NSSF town hall, and he hit on a couple of points I really have to agree with.
Rep. Crenshaw cut to the chase about how the Second Amendment movement can continue the momentum and the importance for the industry and existing gun owners to change the way they recruit and welcome new firearm owners into the community. “We need a lot less guys dressing up in their Call of Duty outfits, marching through the streets and we need a lot more women who are talking about how they need the right to defend themselves against a larger man. That’s the argument – and it’s a good argument.” Rep. Crenshaw said. “We should really take advantage of this current environment where people understand that self-defense is important. The right to self-defense is an individual right, a God-given right, it does not get taken away.”
Now, I know that a lot of Second Amendment advocates are still upset with Crenshaw’s willingness to entertain the idea of red flag laws, but that’s kind of irrelevant to the point.
See, the thing is, he’s right.
While I support the right for people to take to the streets in camo with their AR-15s, let’s also understand that they may be doing more harm than good. Just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean you necessarily should.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I get the allure. I get how it can be a warning that Second Amendment advocates stand ready to literally defend our right to keep and bear arms with our lives and all that.
I also know that it freaks the norms, so to speak.
They don’t see those folks as ordinary people. They seem them as a violent militia that might start shooting at any given moment. They’re terrified of what that means.
Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t serve a purpose. That kind of thing most definitely can.
However, if that’s the image people have of gun owners, do you really think they’re going to listen?
On the flip side, Crenshaw talks about women who have decided to be armed so they can defeat a larger, more aggressive foe. This, I also agree with. Women of all ethnicities talking about how afraid they’ve been, how they’ve understood the terror so many American women report, but they got a gun and now feel empowered not to hide from living their lives.
The American public needs to see people they can relate to. Guys in camo, masks, and tactical gear are scary. They’re not relatable for most people. They’re too terrifying, what with the way the media has been beating the “right wing threat” drum lately. There needs to be a balance in what we show the world. That means we have to account for the biased media in what we present.
That means a lot less (but not zero) G.I. Joe and a lot more suburban housewife.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--2A Groups Sue Over MI Open Carry Ban Near Polls

The ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places in Michigan announced by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was already drawing criticism from police groups across the state who say that Benson ’ s order doesn ’ t have the force of law .
Now several Second Amendment organizations are asking the courts to reach the same conclusion , filing a lawsuit in state court accusing Benson of issuing her order without “ any legal basis or authorization under Michigan law.
” The suit , filed by gun owner Thomas Lambert along with the groups Michigan Open Carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Responsible Gun Owners , alleges that the open carry ban forces some gun owners to either give up their right to bear arms or give up their right to vote .
In response to the suits , Benson spokesman Jake Rollow said the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the right to vote is foundational to our democratic society and preservative of our other basic rights.
” Benson ’ s “ narrowly tailored directive does not infringe upon the right to bear arms , ” Rollow said .
“ It simply protects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity on the existing state and federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation , harassment and coercion.
” I suspect that the argument that Benson ’ s order amounts to a violation of the Second Amendment is going to be a tough one to win in court , since her directive doesn ’ t preclude concealed carry licensees from lawfully carrying .
It ’ s not a total ban on bearing arms , in other words .
The argument that Benson doesn ’ t have the authority to issue her edict in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on stronger legal ground .
Many law enforcement officials across the state say that Benson simply doesn ’ t have the authority to issue any orders banning firearms from polling locations , and that means don ’ t have the authority to enforce her ban .
“ The feedback I ’ ve been getting from our police agencies is that they ’ re uncomfortable trying to enforce something they clearly don ’ t have the authority to enforce , ” said Robert Stevenson , director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will get resolved and there ’ ll be some clear guidance .
“ … But as it stands now , there ’ s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce the Secretary of State ’ s edict.
” Michigan Sheirff ’ s Association CEO Matt Saxton said Benson ’ s directive appeared to be a “ solution in search of a problem.
” The association was directing its members to consult with corporate counsel and their local prosecutor on enforcement decisions .
Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that her stay-at-home orders were unconstitutional , and there ’ s a good chance that before Election Day at least one judge is going to say the same thing about the Secretary of State ’ s open carry ban at or near polling locations .
After posting the original story , I was reminded by the folks at Fenix Ammunition about a quirk of Michigan ’ s carry laws ; concealed carry is banned in places like churches and schools , but open carry is allowed for those who possess a concealed pistol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be located in schools or churches , Benson ’ s open carry ban actually serves as a complete prohibition on the right to carry for some gun owners who have to cast their vote in locations where concealed carry is off limits .
That certainly increases the chances of a successful ruling on Second Amendment grounds , though a judge might not have to reach that conclusion if they find that the Secretary of State didn ’ t the authority to issue the ban in the first place .

The ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places in Michigan announced by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was already drawing criticism from police groups across the state who say that Benson’s order doesn’t have the force of law. Now several Second Amendment organizations are asking the courts to reach the same conclusion, filing a lawsuit in state court accusing Benson of issuing her order without “any legal basis or authorization under Michigan law.”
The suit, filed by gun owner Thomas Lambert along with the groups Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners and Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, alleges that the open carry ban forces some gun owners to either give up their right to bear arms or give up their right to vote.
In response to the suits, Benson spokesman Jake Rollow said the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the right to vote is foundational to our democratic society and preservative of our other basic rights.” Benson’s “narrowly tailored directive does not infringe upon the right to bear arms,” Rollow said. “It simply protects voters and election workers by providing much-needed clarity on the existing state and federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, harassment and coercion.”
I suspect that the argument that Benson’s order amounts to a violation of the Second Amendment is going to be a tough one to win in court, since her directive doesn’t preclude concealed carry licensees from lawfully carrying. It’s not a total ban on bearing arms, in other words. The argument that Benson doesn’t have the authority to issue her edict in the first place, however, appears to be on stronger legal ground.
While both Benson, the former dean of the Wayne State University law school, and [Dana] Nessel, the AG, say the secretary of state has the authority to issue such a directive, neither official has been able to cite a specific portion of state law giving this power to the secretary.
Many law enforcement officials across the state say that Benson simply doesn’t have the authority to issue any orders banning firearms from polling locations, and that means don’t have the authority to enforce her ban.
“The feedback I’ve been getting from our police agencies is that they’re uncomfortable trying to enforce something they clearly don’t have the authority to enforce,” said Robert Stevenson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. “Our hope is that this will get resolved and there’ll be some clear guidance. “… But as it stands now, there’s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce the Secretary of State’s edict.” Michigan Sheirff’s Association CEO Matt Saxton said Benson’s directive appeared to be a “solution in search of a problem.” The association was directing its members to consult with corporate counsel and their local prosecutor on enforcement decisions.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has already been told by the state Supreme Court that her stay-at-home orders were unconstitutional, and there’s a good chance that before Election Day at least one judge is going to say the same thing about the Secretary of State’s open carry ban at or near polling locations.
**UPDATE**
After posting the original story, I was reminded by the folks at Fenix Ammunition about a quirk of Michigan’s carry laws; concealed carry is banned in places like churches and schools, but open carry is allowed for those who possess a concealed pistol license. Since some polling places may be located in schools or churches, Benson’s open carry ban actually serves as a complete prohibition on the right to carry for some gun owners who have to cast their vote in locations where concealed carry is off limits.
That certainly increases the chances of a successful ruling on Second Amendment grounds, though a judge might not have to reach that conclusion if they find that the Secretary of State didn’t the authority to issue the ban in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-10-23--San Francisco "CAREN Act" May Make People Less Safe

I think most of us get infuriated by those videos we see of people calling the police on seemingly innocent goings on .
Barbecue Becky being the most prominent example of the species .
The idea seems to be that a group of minorities , usually black , are doing something that hurts absolutely no one and a busybody Karen swoops in to try and make them stop and will call the police over it .
Most people hate this crap because it ’ s absolutely stupid .
Either it ’ s racially motivated , in which case it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not in which it ’ s just garden-variety stupid .
Either way , though , the idea that someone making use of public facilities or otherwise going about a normal life is grounds for calling the police is beyond idiotic .
In San Francisco , though , they ’ ve decided it needs to be more than dumb .
It needs to be criminal .
It may soon be illegal to make discriminatory , racially biased 911 calls in San Francisco .
The “ CAREN Act ” ( Caution Against Racially Exploitative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting by Supervisor Shamann Walton .
The ordinance is one step closer to becoming a law .
On Tuesday , the board unanimously passed the act on first read .
Next week , the bill has to be voted on again by the board , and then it will be sent to Mayor London Breed to sign .
The ordinance ’ s name is a twist on “ Karen , ” the name social media gives people making racially biased 911 calls .
Which , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would .
The term “ Karen ” has been described as “ sexist.
” They also claim it targets people named Karen .
Except , that ’ s precisely what ’ s going to happen .
While white criminals won ’ t get much of a shield from this , minorities of any stripe will .
As a result of facing potential criminal penalties , they ’ ll be able to engage in all kinds of suspicious activity and trust that many in the city will be too afraid to call the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , frankly , how are the going to determine if the call was racially motivated or just motivated by someone being a freaking moron ?
This is about trying to penalize what someone is thinking , rather than penalizing their actions .
Then again , penalizing these actions might not be the best course either .
See , while we often see the headlines of those who make…let ’ s call them “ ill-advised 911 calls , ” there are a plethora more cases of ordinary citizens seeing something that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , who come out and investigate .
If it ’ s nothing , well , nothing happens .
If it is something , though , that ’ s a different matter .
We ’ re all safer when the police can prevent a crime , rather than respond to one .
Early calls help the police to prevent those crimes .
And especially in such an anti-gun state as California where having the means to defend yourself is so strongly discouraged .
Unfortunately , San Francisco has taken a minute quantity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scourge out there , and passed a law to address it without really thinking about how this can impact legitimate concerns being addressed .
No one wants to be thought of as racist , after all , but now with penalties attached , things get dicey for many .
It ’ s not enough to fear being labeled because of a valid concern–screw those who have invalid concerns–but now they could face sanctions because of those concerns simply because some else decided those concerns weren ’ t valid enough .
People are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short of a crime in progress .
That ’ s not likely to help the crime rate there .
But , then again , it ’ s not supposed to .
It ’ s supposed to signal that they ’ re all “ good ” people who hold the right opinions .

I think most of us get infuriated by those videos we see of people calling the police on seemingly innocent goings on. Barbecue Becky being the most prominent example of the species. The idea seems to be that a group of minorities, usually black, are doing something that hurts absolutely no one and a busybody Karen swoops in to try and make them stop and will call the police over it.
Most people hate this crap because it’s absolutely stupid. Either it’s racially motivated, in which case it’s hatefully stupid, or it’s not in which it’s just garden-variety stupid.
Either way, though, the idea that someone making use of public facilities or otherwise going about a normal life is grounds for calling the police is beyond idiotic.
In San Francisco, though, they’ve decided it needs to be more than dumb. It needs to be criminal.
It may soon be illegal to make discriminatory, racially biased 911 calls in San Francisco. The “CAREN Act” (Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies) was introduced in July at a San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting by Supervisor Shamann Walton. The ordinance is one step closer to becoming a law. On Tuesday, the board unanimously passed the act on first read. Next week, the bill has to be voted on again by the board, and then it will be sent to Mayor London Breed to sign. The ordinance’s name is a twist on “Karen,” the name social media gives people making racially biased 911 calls.
Which, of course, sparked problems because of course it would. The term “Karen” has been described as “sexist.” They also claim it targets people named Karen.
Only in San Francisco, folks.
Moving on…
The ordinance is similar to the statewide AB 1550 bill introduced by California Assemblyman Rob Bonta, making it unlawful and accountable for a caller to “fabricate false racially biased emergency reports.”. “Using 911 as a tool for your prejudice towards marginalized communities is unjust and wrong!” Bonta tweeted … Bonta said the intent of AB 1550 isn’t to discourage Californians in real danger from calling 911.
Except, that’s precisely what’s going to happen.
While white criminals won’t get much of a shield from this, minorities of any stripe will. As a result of facing potential criminal penalties, they’ll be able to engage in all kinds of suspicious activity and trust that many in the city will be too afraid to call the police for fear of appearing racist.
Plus, frankly, how are the going to determine if the call was racially motivated or just motivated by someone being a freaking moron? This is about trying to penalize what someone is thinking, rather than penalizing their actions.
Then again, penalizing these actions might not be the best course either.
See, while we often see the headlines of those who make…let’s call them “ill-advised 911 calls,” there are a plethora more cases of ordinary citizens seeing something that doesn’t look quite right. They call the police, who come out and investigate. If it’s nothing, well, nothing happens. If it is something, though, that’s a different matter.
We’re all safer when the police can prevent a crime, rather than respond to one. Early calls help the police to prevent those crimes. And especially in such an anti-gun state as California where having the means to defend yourself is so strongly discouraged.
Unfortunately, San Francisco has taken a minute quantity of calls, treated them like the biggest scourge out there, and passed a law to address it without really thinking about how this can impact legitimate concerns being addressed.
No one wants to be thought of as racist, after all, but now with penalties attached, things get dicey for many. It’s not enough to fear being labeled because of a valid concern–screw those who have invalid concerns–but now they could face sanctions because of those concerns simply because some else decided those concerns weren’t valid enough.
People are going to stop calling the police for anything short of a crime in progress. That’s not likely to help the crime rate there.
But, then again, it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to signal that they’re all “good” people who hold the right opinions.


bearingarms--2020-10-24--Everytown Spending Down, But Bloomberg's PAC Spending Big

Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon has a great story about the fact that Everytown for Gun Safety isn ’ t going to spend nearly as much money on the elections as the group claimed it would .
Boasting that the organization would drop $ 60-million into 2020 races up and down the ticket , Everytown hasn ’ t even spent half that , and has less than $ 5-million in cash on hand .
Everytown did not respond to a request for comment on its political activities , but the spending picture in late October is much grimmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million goal in January .
The group said it would spend double what it did in 2018 and even surpass the $ 50 million the National Rifle Association spent helping elect Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2016 .
“ The gun-safety movement has never been stronger or larger—and we ’ re going to meet this moment with our most aggressive , well resourced , and grassroots-powered electoral program ever , ” Shannon Watts , founder of Everytown subsidiary Moms Demand Action , said when announcing the program .
Instead , Everytown is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA ’ s PAC—which raised two-thirds of its haul from small donors—brought in more cash than Everytown in September .
When combined with the NRA ’ s super PAC , the gun-rights group had a roughly $ 3 million cash-on-hand advantage over Everytown as of October .
I think there are a couple of factors at play here .
First , the fact that we ’ ve seen record numbers of gun purchases and millions of new gun owners over the past few months has undoubtably changed Everytown ’ s political calculations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ads that Everytown has funded don ’ t focus on gun control at all , but on issues like climate change and healthcare .
Gun control isn ’ t the winning issue that Everytown ’ s primary funder thought it was going to be back in January , when he was still running for president .
Michael Bloomberg himself is the biggest factor in Everytown ’ s spending , since it ’ s his pet gun control group .
And Bloomberg has been spending on the elections .
He just hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money into Everytown ’ s PAC .
Instead , he donated $ 15-million to his Independence USA PAC in October , and the PAC has spent $ 20-million on the elections to date .
That ’ s actually slightly less than Everytown ’ s spent so far , but my guess is that when the final reporting figures come in , Independence USA will have spent more to elect Joe Biden than Everytown for Gun Safety .
At the end of the day though , both groups are largely funded by Michael Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shell game , allowing him to craft messages for different voting demographics without them ever realizing that they ’ re all ultimately hearing from the same anti-gun billionaire .
Now , there are a couple more factors in Everytown ’ s deflated campaign spending ; the possibility that Bloomberg , who did drop more $ 1-billion on his own presidential run this year , decided that he could actually spend a little less on his anti-gun campaigns than what he ’ d planned on .
It doesn ’ t mean he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Iowa to Texas , just that he ’ s looking to be a little more cost-effective in doing so .
Finally , Bloomberg could also just be lying about how much money he plans to spend .
He said he was dropping $ 100-million in Florida to elect Biden , for example , but so far there ’ s no evidence that he ’ s actually done so , either through Everytown or Independence USA .
Less spending doesn ’ t mean no spending , however , and Bloomberg ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as the NRA is with its spending .
I think it ’ s absolutely worth pointing out that Everytown is spending far less on the elections than it vowed to do , but I don ’ t want gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to become complacent because of it .
The Bloomberg bucks are still flowing , and the goal is still the same ; to turn our right to keep and bear arms into a privilege of the select and chosen few .

Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon has a great story about the fact that Everytown for Gun Safety isn’t going to spend nearly as much money on the elections as the group claimed it would. Boasting that the organization would drop $60-million into 2020 races up and down the ticket, Everytown hasn’t even spent half that, and has less than $5-million in cash on hand.
Everytown did not respond to a request for comment on its political activities, but the spending picture in late October is much grimmer than when it announced the $60 million goal in January. The group said it would spend double what it did in 2018 and even surpass the $50 million the National Rifle Association spent helping elect Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2016. “The gun-safety movement has never been stronger or larger—and we’re going to meet this moment with our most aggressive, well resourced, and grassroots-powered electoral program ever,” Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown subsidiary Moms Demand Action, said when announcing the program. Instead, Everytown is being outspent by the NRA. The NRA’s PAC—which raised two-thirds of its haul from small donors—brought in more cash than Everytown in September. When combined with the NRA’s super PAC, the gun-rights group had a roughly $3 million cash-on-hand advantage over Everytown as of October.
I think there are a couple of factors at play here. First, the fact that we’ve seen record numbers of gun purchases and millions of new gun owners over the past few months has undoubtably changed Everytown’s political calculations. As Gutowski points out, some of the ads that Everytown has funded don’t focus on gun control at all, but on issues like climate change and healthcare. Gun control isn’t the winning issue that Everytown’s primary funder thought it was going to be back in January, when he was still running for president.
Michael Bloomberg himself is the biggest factor in Everytown’s spending, since it’s his pet gun control group. And Bloomberg has been spending on the elections. He just hasn’t been putting as much of his money into Everytown’s PAC. Instead, he donated $15-million to his Independence USA PAC in October, and the PAC has spent $20-million on the elections to date.
That’s actually slightly less than Everytown’s spent so far, but my guess is that when the final reporting figures come in, Independence USA will have spent more to elect Joe Biden than Everytown for Gun Safety. At the end of the day though, both groups are largely funded by Michael Bloomberg himself. His various PACs are just a shell game, allowing him to craft messages for different voting demographics without them ever realizing that they’re all ultimately hearing from the same anti-gun billionaire.
Now, there are a couple more factors in Everytown’s deflated campaign spending; the possibility that Bloomberg, who did drop more $1-billion on his own presidential run this year, decided that he could actually spend a little less on his anti-gun campaigns than what he’d planned on. It doesn’t mean he’s suddenly uninterested in flipping state houses from Iowa to Texas, just that he’s looking to be a little more cost-effective in doing so.
Finally, Bloomberg could also just be lying about how much money he plans to spend. He said he was dropping $100-million in Florida to elect Biden, for example, but so far there’s no evidence that he’s actually done so, either through Everytown or Independence USA. Less spending doesn’t mean no spending, however, and Bloomberg’s still very much trying to impact the elections just as the NRA is with its spending.
I think it’s absolutely worth pointing out that Everytown is spending far less on the elections than it vowed to do, but I don’t want gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to become complacent because of it. The Bloomberg bucks are still flowing, and the goal is still the same; to turn our right to keep and bear arms into a privilege of the select and chosen few.


bearingarms--2020-10-24--NY Congressional Candidate Can't Keep Thoughts On Guns Straight

Tedra Cobb is a name I haven ’ t written about in a couple of years .
Back in 2018 , Cobb was running for Congress against Rep. Elise Stefanik .
During the campaign , though , she decided to admit to some gun control advocates that she actually supported an assault weapon ban , even as she tried to pretend her position was otherwise .
Now , she ’ s back and it seems , once again , she can ’ t keep from tripping over her anti-gun opinions .
The Democratic nominee for New York ’ s 21st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun bans during a Wednesday-night debate .
Tedra Cobb , who is again facing off against Rep. Elise Stefanik ( R. ) , appeared to contradict herself while discussing whether she supports banning guns like the popular AR-15 .
After attacking Stefanik ’ s opposition to several gun-control bills , Cobb initially said she did not support banning “ assault rifle [ s ] ” before saying she wants some sort of ban .
“ I believe that we should respect responsible gun owners ’ rights but I also believe that we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cobb said before pausing .
The slip-up could put her campaign in hot water with gun owners—a group she alienated in her unsuccessful 2018 run after admitting to volunteers she was concealing her support for a ban from the public .
Her fumble comes with less than two weeks until the election .
Stefanik interjected to say Cobb ’ s comments showed that the Democrat supports banning AR-15s and other firearms .
“ She said it herself , banning assault weapons , ” Stefanik said .
This isn ’ t likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sure .
However , Cobb opted to try and deflect .
She accused Stefanik of being childish and lying about her .
Unfortunately for Cobb , she ’ s the one who brought up the word “ banning.
” Additionally , she admits to supporting universal background checks , an anti-gun position all on its own .
So , even if Stefanik happens to be wrong about an assault weapon ban–something unlikely since Cobb was recorded saying as much just two years ago–Cobb has only herself to blame for the mistake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cobb will say whatever she can to get elected .
While she claims she listens to her constituents , that remains to be seen .
Instead , she appears to morph into whatever she thinks will best put her in office and keep her there .
Especially since she admitted two years ago that she wanted to ban guns but couldn ’ t say so or else she wouldn ’ t get elected .
Well , she didn ’ t .
Now she ’ s back and seems to think that voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem is , she has already proven herself to be a liar .
Meanwhile , she blames Stefanik for calling her out over it .
No , Rep. Stefanik is right to do so .
I ’ d argue she ’ s morally-obligated to make a state for her constituents ’ right to keep and bear arms , a right that no one can trust Cobb to uphold .
Frankly , Cobb would do well to remove the word “ ban ” from her vocabulary completely , but at this point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running for Congress .

Tedra Cobb is a name I haven’t written about in a couple of years.
Back in 2018, Cobb was running for Congress against Rep. Elise Stefanik. During the campaign, though, she decided to admit to some gun control advocates that she actually supported an assault weapon ban, even as she tried to pretend her position was otherwise.
Well, she lost.
Now, she’s back and it seems, once again, she can’t keep from tripping over her anti-gun opinions.
The Democratic nominee for New York’s 21st Congressional District stumbled over a question about gun bans during a Wednesday-night debate. Tedra Cobb, who is again facing off against Rep. Elise Stefanik (R.), appeared to contradict herself while discussing whether she supports banning guns like the popular AR-15. After attacking Stefanik’s opposition to several gun-control bills, Cobb initially said she did not support banning “assault rifle[s]” before saying she wants some sort of ban. “I believe that we should respect responsible gun owners’ rights but I also believe that we should pass meaningful legislation banning … uh,” Cobb said before pausing. The slip-up could put her campaign in hot water with gun owners—a group she alienated in her unsuccessful 2018 run after admitting to volunteers she was concealing her support for a ban from the public. Her fumble comes with less than two weeks until the election. Stefanik interjected to say Cobb’s comments showed that the Democrat supports banning AR-15s and other firearms. “She said it herself, banning assault weapons,” Stefanik said.
This isn’t likely to work out well for Cobb, to be sure.
However, Cobb opted to try and deflect. She accused Stefanik of being childish and lying about her.
Unfortunately for Cobb, she’s the one who brought up the word “banning.”
Additionally, she admits to supporting universal background checks, an anti-gun position all on its own. So, even if Stefanik happens to be wrong about an assault weapon ban–something unlikely since Cobb was recorded saying as much just two years ago–Cobb has only herself to blame for the mistake.
The truth of the matter is that Cobb will say whatever she can to get elected. While she claims she listens to her constituents, that remains to be seen. Instead, she appears to morph into whatever she thinks will best put her in office and keep her there. Especially since she admitted two years ago that she wanted to ban guns but couldn’t say so or else she wouldn’t get elected.
Well, she didn’t. Now she’s back and seems to think that voters in the district should trust her words. The problem is, she has already proven herself to be a liar.
Meanwhile, she blames Stefanik for calling her out over it.
No, Rep. Stefanik is right to do so. I’d argue she’s morally-obligated to make a state for her constituents’ right to keep and bear arms, a right that no one can trust Cobb to uphold.
Frankly, Cobb would do well to remove the word “ban” from her vocabulary completely, but at this point, she really should consider giving up on running for Congress.


bearingarms--2020-10-25--11-Year Old Faced Criminal Charges For BB Gun In Bedroom

Since the closure of many public schools over COVID-19 concerns back in March , we ’ ve reported on several incidents where kids have been punished by their local schools and in some cases law enforcement after they were spotted with a toy gun or a BB gun in their homes during online classes .
In Louisiana , the case of Ka ’ Mauri Harrison has received so much attention that lawmakers have approved a bill that would guarantee students like Harrison have the ability to appeal any disciplinary measures from their school district , and though the bill has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Bel Edwards , it ’ s already having an impact on cases around the state .
WDSU-TV in Baton Rouge reports that , with the help of attorney Chelsea Cusimano ( who ’ s also representing Harrison and his family in litigation against the Jefferson Parish schools ) , another elementary school student who was facing serious consequences after a teacher spotted a BB gun during an online class session has now been cleared of all charges and can return to school .
According to a school incident report reviewed by WDSU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ System reported 11-year-old Rondell Coleman to the Sheriff ’ s Department Sept. 18 when a gun was seen in his bedroom during a virtual class .
The incident report said Rondell “ was brandishing a gun on camera.
” According to the report , the deputy went to the child ’ s home , was allowed inside and brought a BB gun back to the school .
“ It ( the BB gun ) was confiscated and Rondell was charged , ” the report says .
Evette Coleman said her grandson was traumatized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Coleman said .
“ You ’ re going to come and read a kid rights because he has a BB gun ?
” She said her daughter-in-law was also read her Miranda rights and was interrogated with her son .
“ I don ’ t know if they ’ re confused that we ’ re not on campus , ” Coleman said .
“ We ’ re in our home .
We are in our private home.
” Coleman contacted Cusimano , who reached out to state officials , and eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping Rondell Coleman .
After she reached out to authorities in the East Baton Rouge school district , charges against Rondell Coleman were dropped and the 4th grader was allowed to return to his regular school after being forced to attend classes in an alternative school for several weeks .
“ I was very disturbed when I found that the child was cooling his heels in alternative school , and I was worried for the child , but they did react very quickly when they found out … something had fallen through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I give them credit for reacting and for acting and for acknowledging that they had not updated their policies and done the right thing.
” Coleman said her grandson is back at his elementary school but is quiet and reserved .
“ He doesn ’ t understand what he did wrong , ” she said .
Murrill said Jefferson Parish Public Schools is the only district in the state that her office is aware of that has not reversed virtual school violations involving BB guns seen in students ’ homes .
She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and families affected until their school records are wiped clean .
As Evette Coleman pointed out , school districts are literally viewing private homes as an extension of the classroom , which is bound to cause problems for students and staff alike .
For students , they risk disciplinary action or even criminal charges for “ displaying a weapon on school grounds , ” while the school districts face the possibility of lawsuits over the heavy-handed response to the sight of a toy gun in a private home .
The Ka ’ Mauri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses by school districts in Louisiana , but the issue isn ’ t confined to just one state .
Similar abuses have been seen in states from Maryland to Colorado , and ultimately it ’ s up to parents everywhere to ensure that their local school districts don ’ t have similar policies in place that would allow them to punish kids for simply being kids in their own home .

Since the closure of many public schools over COVID-19 concerns back in March, we’ve reported on several incidents where kids have been punished by their local schools and in some cases law enforcement after they were spotted with a toy gun or a BB gun in their homes during online classes. In Louisiana, the case of Ka’Mauri Harrison has received so much attention that lawmakers have approved a bill that would guarantee students like Harrison have the ability to appeal any disciplinary measures from their school district, and though the bill has yet to be signed by Gov. John Bel Edwards, it’s already having an impact on cases around the state.
WDSU-TV in Baton Rouge reports that, with the help of attorney Chelsea Cusimano (who’s also representing Harrison and his family in litigation against the Jefferson Parish schools), another elementary school student who was facing serious consequences after a teacher spotted a BB gun during an online class session has now been cleared of all charges and can return to school.
According to a school incident report reviewed by WDSU, the East Baton Rouge Parish School System reported 11-year-old Rondell Coleman to the Sheriff’s Department Sept. 18 when a gun was seen in his bedroom during a virtual class. The incident report said Rondell “was brandishing a gun on camera.” According to the report, the deputy went to the child’s home, was allowed inside and brought a BB gun back to the school. “It (the BB gun) was confiscated and Rondell was charged,” the report says. Evette Coleman said her grandson was traumatized. “This is a BB gun,” Coleman said. “You’re going to come and read a kid rights because he has a BB gun?” She said her daughter-in-law was also read her Miranda rights and was interrogated with her son. “I don’t know if they’re confused that we’re not on campus,” Coleman said. “We’re in our home. We are in our private home.”
Coleman contacted Cusimano, who reached out to state officials, and eventually Solicitor General Liz Murrill got involved in helping Rondell Coleman. After she reached out to authorities in the East Baton Rouge school district, charges against Rondell Coleman were dropped and the 4th grader was allowed to return to his regular school after being forced to attend classes in an alternative school for several weeks.
“I was very disturbed when I found that the child was cooling his heels in alternative school, and I was worried for the child, but they did react very quickly when they found out … something had fallen through the cracks,” Murrill said. “I give them credit for reacting and for acting and for acknowledging that they had not updated their policies and done the right thing.” Coleman said her grandson is back at his elementary school but is quiet and reserved. “He doesn’t understand what he did wrong,” she said. Murrill said Jefferson Parish Public Schools is the only district in the state that her office is aware of that has not reversed virtual school violations involving BB guns seen in students’ homes. She said her office will advocate for the students and families affected until their school records are wiped clean.
As Evette Coleman pointed out, school districts are literally viewing private homes as an extension of the classroom, which is bound to cause problems for students and staff alike. For students, they risk disciplinary action or even criminal charges for “displaying a weapon on school grounds,” while the school districts face the possibility of lawsuits over the heavy-handed response to the sight of a toy gun in a private home.
The Ka’Mauri Harrison Act should cut down on the abuses by school districts in Louisiana, but the issue isn’t confined to just one state. Similar abuses have been seen in states from Maryland to Colorado, and ultimately it’s up to parents everywhere to ensure that their local school districts don’t have similar policies in place that would allow them to punish kids for simply being kids in their own home.


bearingarms--2020-10-25--Why Guns Have Nothing To Do With Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is one of those things where we can all agree to some extent .
We all agree it ’ s bad .
We agree that it shouldn ’ t happen .
We also agree that those who engage in it should be punished for it .
However , there are a lot of points of difference .
In particular , there ’ s a claim that seems to say that if a gun is present , then the problems amplify .
That simply doesn ’ t hold water , and an incident in Tennessee shows just how .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a home in the 2100 block of Steadman Street after getting a call from a woman who said her brother , Bryan Hicks , had assaulted her with a baseball bat .
Police said when they arrived , Hicks exited the residence and approached them with his hands up saying , “ I give up.
” The victim told officials that the home belonged to their dead parents and she had been staying there with her brother .
According to the police report , the victim said she was collecting several guns left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ siblings began arguing .
She claimed her brother wanted her to give him two of the guns .
In other words , guns were present in the home , yet the alleged attacker didn ’ t use them .
Sure , it ’ s a brother and not a husband , but these two cohabitated and there were guns in the house .
The truth is , guns aren ’ t the issue when it comes to domestic violence .
Everytown for Gun Safety argues that over half of all women killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 67 percent of all homicides are from folks who were shot .
In other words , guns are less likely to be used in murder if it ’ s domestic violence .
Let that sink in a bit .
However , that kind of makes sense if you think about it .
See , those who commit domestic violence tend to have anger management issues to some degree .
They become enraged far too easily .
When they do , they don ’ t necessarily think clearly .
All they see is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue they don ’ t really think much at all even without being enraged , but… As a result , though , they ’ ll use a weapon that ’ s close at hand .
Like , say , a baseball bat .
Or a knife .
Or their bare hands .
That ’ s probably why homicides by firearms are lower among domestic violence homicides than other murders as a whole .
At the end of the day , it takes thinking to even remember that you have a gun .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m not trying to make light of domestic violence .
It ’ s a real problem and one that I really wish we could just purge from our society .
Yet , at the same time , let ’ s also not pretend that women are the only perpetrators of domestic violence .
They ’ re not .
Women might be the majority , but not the totality , of victims .
In just the same way , though , guns aren ’ t nearly the issue with domestic violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to pretend it to be .

Domestic violence is one of those things where we can all agree to some extent. We all agree it’s bad. We agree that it shouldn’t happen. We also agree that those who engage in it should be punished for it.
However, there are a lot of points of difference.
In particular, there’s a claim that seems to say that if a gun is present, then the problems amplify. That simply doesn’t hold water, and an incident in Tennessee shows just how.
Kingsport police said officers were called to a home in the 2100 block of Steadman Street after getting a call from a woman who said her brother, Bryan Hicks, had assaulted her with a baseball bat. Police said when they arrived, Hicks exited the residence and approached them with his hands up saying, “I give up.” … The victim told officials that the home belonged to their dead parents and she had been staying there with her brother. According to the police report, the victim said she was collecting several guns left to her by their father when the siblings began arguing. She claimed her brother wanted her to give him two of the guns.
In other words, guns were present in the home, yet the alleged attacker didn’t use them. Sure, it’s a brother and not a husband, but these two cohabitated and there were guns in the house.
Hmmmmm.
The truth is, guns aren’t the issue when it comes to domestic violence. Everytown for Gun Safety argues that over half of all women killed by an intimate partner are shot. However, 67 percent of all homicides are from folks who were shot. In other words, guns are less likely to be used in murder if it’s domestic violence.
Let that sink in a bit.
However, that kind of makes sense if you think about it.
See, those who commit domestic violence tend to have anger management issues to some degree. They become enraged far too easily. When they do, they don’t necessarily think clearly. All they see is red.
In fact, I could argue they don’t really think much at all even without being enraged, but…
As a result, though, they’ll use a weapon that’s close at hand. Like, say, a baseball bat. Or a knife. Or their bare hands.
That’s probably why homicides by firearms are lower among domestic violence homicides than other murders as a whole. At the end of the day, it takes thinking to even remember that you have a gun.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to make light of domestic violence. It’s a real problem and one that I really wish we could just purge from our society. Yet, at the same time, let’s also not pretend that women are the only perpetrators of domestic violence. They’re not. Women might be the majority, but not the totality, of victims.
In just the same way, though, guns aren’t nearly the issue with domestic violence that many on the anti-gun side would like to pretend it to be.


bearingarms--2020-10-26--Indiana Student's Death Put Human Face On NYC Violence

New York City hasn ’ t been as violent in recent years as many felt it to be .
The city managed to do a pretty good job on clamping down on violence from the 70s and 80s and making the Big Apple one of the safest major cities in the nation .
That held for quite some time , despite insane leadership coming and going .
Unfortunately , it ’ s 2020 and all of that is going out the window .
Now , New York has a real growing problem with violence .
The recent murder of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A young man visiting New York City was shot and killed outside an Airbnb in Brooklyn early Saturday morning .
Twenty-year-old Ethan Williams ’ parents say he and his friends put their money together to visit New York City , specifically Brooklyn , a place they dreamed of seeing .
While they were here , they planned to record skateboarding videos .
Williams and his friends were sitting out on the stoop outside their rented Airbnb apartment in Bushwick around 2:30 a.m. when shots were fired , hitting the Indiana University student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams for 10 years .
“ We were smoking cigs , man .
Like , I don ’ t know .
My heart ’ s broke , ” Cromley said .
Police say Williams tried running inside but was hit in the chest by at least one bullet .
He was taken to Wycoff Heights Medical Center , where he died .
None of Williams ’ friends were hurt .
His parents told CBS2 ’ s Cory James they can not believe this happened to a young man who worked with their local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See , this is what I have a problem with .
If gangbangers or other criminals are just killing each other , I honestly don ’ t care .
Filth taking out other filth isn ’ t something I ’ m going to lose any sleep over .
The problem is that their violence doesn ’ t stay contained .
They hurt innocent people all the time .
Williams is hardly the first by any stretch of the imagination .
Yet it ’ s important to remember that despite all the laws on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing stopped this from happening .
New York has laws on its books that would never fly at the federal level , laws that wouldn ’ t pass even a Democratic-majority Congress .
Despite that , though , nothing has stopped the violence from escalating .
New York ’ s fortunes when it comes to violent crime has ebbed and flowed over the years , usually without any significant new gun control laws being enacted or repealed .
In fact , while anti-gunners have pointed to NYC ’ s gun laws as evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did before everything went to hell there–the truth is that New York tried other policies to address violence because they really couldn ’ t pass anymore gun control .
Not without having the Supreme Court hammer them , anyway .
Ethan Williams isn ’ t the first innocent person to be killed in New York .
He won ’ t be the last .
However , for all the talk of gun control as a way to address this , we need to remember that none of it saved Ethan Williams ’ life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try something else .

New York City hasn’t been as violent in recent years as many felt it to be. The city managed to do a pretty good job on clamping down on violence from the 70s and 80s and making the Big Apple one of the safest major cities in the nation.
That held for quite some time, despite insane leadership coming and going.
Unfortunately, it’s 2020 and all of that is going out the window. Now, New York has a real growing problem with violence. The recent murder of an Indiana college student illustrates that unfortunately well.
A young man visiting New York City was shot and killed outside an Airbnb in Brooklyn early Saturday morning. Twenty-year-old Ethan Williams’ parents say he and his friends put their money together to visit New York City, specifically Brooklyn, a place they dreamed of seeing. While they were here, they planned to record skateboarding videos. Williams and his friends were sitting out on the stoop outside their rented Airbnb apartment in Bushwick around 2:30 a.m. when shots were fired, hitting the Indiana University student. Blaine Cromley says he had known Williams for 10 years. “We were smoking cigs, man. Like, I don’t know. My heart’s broke,” Cromley said. … Police say Williams tried running inside but was hit in the chest by at least one bullet. He was taken to Wycoff Heights Medical Center, where he died. None of Williams’ friends were hurt. His parents told CBS2’s Cory James they cannot believe this happened to a young man who worked with their local officials for years to combat violence.
See, this is what I have a problem with.
If gangbangers or other criminals are just killing each other, I honestly don’t care. Filth taking out other filth isn’t something I’m going to lose any sleep over. The problem is that their violence doesn’t stay contained. They hurt innocent people all the time. Williams is hardly the first by any stretch of the imagination.
Yet it’s important to remember that despite all the laws on the books in New York City, nothing stopped this from happening. New York has laws on its books that would never fly at the federal level, laws that wouldn’t pass even a Democratic-majority Congress. Despite that, though, nothing has stopped the violence from escalating.
New York’s fortunes when it comes to violent crime has ebbed and flowed over the years, usually without any significant new gun control laws being enacted or repealed. In fact, while anti-gunners have pointed to NYC’s gun laws as evidence of gun control working–at least, they did before everything went to hell there–the truth is that New York tried other policies to address violence because they really couldn’t pass anymore gun control. Not without having the Supreme Court hammer them, anyway.
Ethan Williams isn’t the first innocent person to be killed in New York. He won’t be the last.
However, for all the talk of gun control as a way to address this, we need to remember that none of it saved Ethan Williams’ life. Maybe it’s time to try something else.


bearingarms--2020-10-26--Biden's 'Evolution' On Gun Control Went In The Wrong Direction

The Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control news site The Trace is out with a look at Joe Biden ’ s “ evolution ” on gun control over his 47 years in Washington , D.C. , portraying the Democratic presidential candidate as a politician who ’ s always been in the mainstream when it comes to new gun laws .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a closer look at Biden ’ s record as a senator , vice president , and now presidential candidate , and it ’ s pretty clear that not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decades , he ’ s been moving in the wrong direction .
As The Trace notes , 1980s Joe Biden wasn ’ t a big fan of gun control .
In the debate over the Firearms Owner Protection Act back in 1986 , Biden made it clear that he didn ’ t believe criminals were going to pay any attention to new gun control measures .
Proponents of FOPA sold it as a rolling back of extreme gun measures , removing restrictions on buying , selling , and transporting guns across state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA later called it “ the law that saved gun rights , ” even though the group had supported portions of the 1968 Gun Control Act .
Any way you look at it , the passage of FOPA , with Biden ’ s support , went down as one of the first major gun rights victories for an NRA that was already on the path to becoming more partisan , more politicized , and less willing to compromise on gun legislation as it had in 1968 .
“ During my twelve-and-half years as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime , ” Biden said on the floor of the Senate in July 1985 .
“ I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal , untraceable , unregistered sources , with or without gun control.
” Less than a decade later , however , Biden was singing a different tune as he urged passage of his 1994 crime bill , which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends will not spend too much time with what has been the issue on this legislation since the beginning , ” Biden said in 1994 .
“ Six years ago , it was guns .
Five years ago , it was guns .
Four years ago , it was guns .
Last night it was guns .
This morning it was guns .
And right now , it ’ s guns .
It ’ s been guns , guns , guns , guns , guns ever since for Biden , despite the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already declining by the time his crime bill and gun ban became law .
Violent crime continued to fall after Biden ’ s gun ban expired in 2004 , and in 2019 the violent crime and homicide rate in the United States were near 50-year lows .
Biden believes that the best way to reduce crime is by going after guns , but even as the number of privately-owned firearms surpassed 400-million in the United States , the crime rate continued to fall .
If “ more guns equals more crime , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent crime rates should have soared over the past decade .
Instead , it kept moving in the right direction until this year , when the coronavirus shut down courts caused authorities to empty out jails to avoid a pandemic behind bars .
Just a few months after those first shutdown orders took effect , riots erupted over George Floyd ’ s death in Minneapolis , and police departments around the country were told to ditch their efforts targeting violent offenders .
The Trace argues that , far from being an anti-gun extremist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician who tries to embrace the positions held by a majority of his party .
In the 1980s , that meant rejecting gun control laws , while in 2020 it means embracing the most anti-gun agenda of any presidential candidate in U.S. history ; from banning commonly-owned firearms and ammunition magazines to banning the online sale of ammunition and gun parts to trying to bribe states into imposing subjective and restrictive gun licensing laws on existing gun owners .
Joe Biden ’ s evolved on gun control all right , but he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was right in the 1980s when he said that criminals would find a way to illegally get a gun , but now he seems much more concerned with legal gun owners exercising their Second Amendment rights .

The Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control news site The Trace is out with a look at Joe Biden’s “evolution” on gun control over his 47 years in Washington, D.C., portraying the Democratic presidential candidate as a politician who’s always been in the mainstream when it comes to new gun laws. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a closer look at Biden’s record as a senator, vice president, and now presidential candidate, and it’s pretty clear that not only has Biden shifted his positions considerably over the decades, he’s been moving in the wrong direction.
As The Trace notes, 1980s Joe Biden wasn’t a big fan of gun control. In the debate over the Firearms Owner Protection Act back in 1986, Biden made it clear that he didn’t believe criminals were going to pay any attention to new gun control measures.
Proponents of FOPA sold it as a rolling back of extreme gun measures, removing restrictions on buying, selling, and transporting guns across state lines and limiting ATF inspections. The NRA later called it “the law that saved gun rights,” even though the group had supported portions of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Any way you look at it, the passage of FOPA, with Biden’s support, went down as one of the first major gun rights victories for an NRA that was already on the path to becoming more partisan, more politicized, and less willing to compromise on gun legislation as it had in 1968. “During my twelve-and-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime,” Biden said on the floor of the Senate in July 1985. “I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, untraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
Less than a decade later, however, Biden was singing a different tune as he urged passage of his 1994 crime bill, which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
“I hope that my Republican friends will not spend too much time with what has been the issue on this legislation since the beginning,” Biden said in 1994. “Six years ago, it was guns. Five years ago, it was guns. Four years ago, it was guns. Last night it was guns. This morning it was guns. And right now, it’s guns. “It’s guns, guns, guns, guns, guns.”
It’s been guns, guns, guns, guns, guns ever since for Biden, despite the fact that violent crime and homicide rates were already declining by the time his crime bill and gun ban became law. Violent crime continued to fall after Biden’s gun ban expired in 2004, and in 2019 the violent crime and homicide rate in the United States were near 50-year lows. Biden believes that the best way to reduce crime is by going after guns, but even as the number of privately-owned firearms surpassed 400-million in the United States, the crime rate continued to fall.
If “more guns equals more crime,” as anti-gun activists claim, then our violent crime rates should have soared over the past decade. Instead, it kept moving in the right direction until this year, when the coronavirus shut down courts caused authorities to empty out jails to avoid a pandemic behind bars. Just a few months after those first shutdown orders took effect, riots erupted over George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, and police departments around the country were told to ditch their efforts targeting violent offenders.
The Trace argues that, far from being an anti-gun extremist, Joe Biden is a typical Democrat politician who tries to embrace the positions held by a majority of his party. In the 1980s, that meant rejecting gun control laws, while in 2020 it means embracing the most anti-gun agenda of any presidential candidate in U.S. history; from banning commonly-owned firearms and ammunition magazines to banning the online sale of ammunition and gun parts to trying to bribe states into imposing subjective and restrictive gun licensing laws on existing gun owners.
Joe Biden’s evolved on gun control all right, but he’s moved in the wrong direction. He was right in the 1980s when he said that criminals would find a way to illegally get a gun, but now he seems much more concerned with legal gun owners exercising their Second Amendment rights.