bearingarms--2020-11-23--14-Year Old Armed Robber Stopped By 75-Year Old Armed Citizen

Police in Columbus , Ohio say a 14-year old is in custody and a 15-year old suspect is on the loose after an attempted armed robbery in the city that was thwarted when the intended victim pulled out a gun of his own .
Authorities haven ’ t released the name of the armed citizen but describe him as a 75-year old man who was volunteering with the local Meals on Wheels program when he was approached by the two armed teenagers on the city ’ s east side .
A 14-year-old boy pointed a gun at the 75-year-old and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car .
The teen then entered the car .
The second teenager , a 15-year-old boy , then stole the 75-year-old ’ s cell phone and wallet .
Meanwhile the 75-year-old , who was a concealed carry weapons license holder , pulled out a gun .
The 14-year-old also pulled out a gun .
The 75-year-old then fired shots at the 14-year-old striking him .
The teen was taken to a hospital for treatment , where he is listed in stable condition .
Once he ’ s released from the hospital the teen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 15-year old suspect took off after his buddy was shot , and so far police say they have not been able to identify the would-be robber .
As for the 14-year old , his identity is being withheld by authorities because of his age , but local law enforcement say this isn ’ t the first time they ’ ve encountered the teen .
Back in August the 14-year old was arrested for vehicle theft , and in July the teenager was taken into custody on kidnapping and robbery charges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this teenager doing out on the street if he was already facing multiple felony charges ?
Perhaps more importantly , what do prosecutors plan to do with the teenager now that he ’ s facing a second robbery charge ?
Will they attempt to hold him in custody without bail until trial , given the lengthy criminal charges he ’ s managed to accumulate over the past few months , or will they acquiesce without objection if a judge decides to set the 14-year old loose after he ’ s released from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise in Columbus , and the city is on pace for its deadliest year since 2017 .
Now ’ s the time for prosecutors and judges to send a message that violent crime will not be tolerated , and that there will be consequences for those engaged in criminal activities .
Of course there ’ s no guarantee that the criminal justice system is going to hold suspects like this 14-year old accountable for their actions , which is one reason why gun sales have been soaring in the Columbus area this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to feel safe and secure , and at the moment many folks are clearly worried that police don ’ t have a handle on the deteriorating situation on the streets .
“ It ’ s been a perfect storm to make people a little nervous , ” said Doug Vance , co-owner of Vance Outdoors in Columbus .
Vance said it ’ s been difficult to keep much ammunition is stock for long .
Almost as soon as an order comes in , customers are ready and waiting to buy it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been out , ” Vance said .
Thankfully , the 75-year old was able to get his hands on some ammo and wasn ’ t carrying an unloaded firearm when he was confronted by the pair of armed robbers .
Police say the armed citizen isn ’ t facing any charges because he was acting in self-defense , and I wouldn ’ t be surprised if this story leads to more residents getting their carry license after they learn about the senior citizen ’ s run in with the teenagers intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life .

Police in Columbus, Ohio say a 14-year old is in custody and a 15-year old suspect is on the loose after an attempted armed robbery in the city that was thwarted when the intended victim pulled out a gun of his own.
Authorities haven’t released the name of the armed citizen but describe him as a 75-year old man who was volunteering with the local Meals on Wheels program when he was approached by the two armed teenagers on the city’s east side.
A 14-year-old boy pointed a gun at the 75-year-old and demanded the victim get out of his car. The teen then entered the car. The second teenager, a 15-year-old boy, then stole the 75-year-old’s cell phone and wallet. Meanwhile the 75-year-old, who was a concealed carry weapons license holder, pulled out a gun. The 14-year-old also pulled out a gun. The 75-year-old then fired shots at the 14-year-old striking him. The teen was taken to a hospital for treatment, where he is listed in stable condition.
Once he’s released from the hospital the teen is expected to face armed robbery charges. The 15-year old suspect took off after his buddy was shot, and so far police say they have not been able to identify the would-be robber.
As for the 14-year old, his identity is being withheld by authorities because of his age, but local law enforcement say this isn’t the first time they’ve encountered the teen. Back in August the 14-year old was arrested for vehicle theft, and in July the teenager was taken into custody on kidnapping and robbery charges.
That begs the question; what was this teenager doing out on the street if he was already facing multiple felony charges? Perhaps more importantly, what do prosecutors plan to do with the teenager now that he’s facing a second robbery charge? Will they attempt to hold him in custody without bail until trial, given the lengthy criminal charges he’s managed to accumulate over the past few months, or will they acquiesce without objection if a judge decides to set the 14-year old loose after he’s released from the hospital?
Violent crime is on the rise in Columbus, and the city is on pace for its deadliest year since 2017. Now’s the time for prosecutors and judges to send a message that violent crime will not be tolerated, and that there will be consequences for those engaged in criminal activities.
Of course there’s no guarantee that the criminal justice system is going to hold suspects like this 14-year old accountable for their actions, which is one reason why gun sales have been soaring in the Columbus area this year. It’s human nature to want to feel safe and secure, and at the moment many folks are clearly worried that police don’t have a handle on the deteriorating situation on the streets.
“It’s been a perfect storm to make people a little nervous,” said Doug Vance, co-owner of Vance Outdoors in Columbus. Vance said it’s been difficult to keep much ammunition is stock for long. Almost as soon as an order comes in, customers are ready and waiting to buy it. “There are plenty of times we’ve been out,” Vance said.
Thankfully, the 75-year old was able to get his hands on some ammo and wasn’t carrying an unloaded firearm when he was confronted by the pair of armed robbers. Police say the armed citizen isn’t facing any charges because he was acting in self-defense, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this story leads to more residents getting their carry license after they learn about the senior citizen’s run in with the teenagers intent on taking his money and perhaps even his life.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Left Lashes Out At Links Between Police, Pro-Gun Ideology

Pro-gun advocates have long pointed out that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make us safer .
This runs contrary to what anti-gunners claim , of course–because why would they admit the truth and undermine their entire movement ?
–but it is the truth .
Armed citizens represent almost no threat to anyone while the problem really is criminals with guns , a problem that no new laws are ever going to solve .
I mean , they ’ re already criminals breaking the law , why would they obey new laws ?
While many like to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they forget that chiefs are political appointees .
Their politics are suspect at any given point .
Rank and file police officers , though , routinely take a pro-gun stance .
Now , the left is trying to figure out why .
Three years since Charlottesville , armed clashes at street protests over racial justice are still a defining feature of American politics , but the constellation of participants has changed .
The white supremacists who paraded in fascist sword-and-sandals kitsch with homemade shields and spears have sharply receded .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be neutral security are now represented in greater numbers .
Nazis are out , patriots are in .
And while cops sat on the sidelines in Charlottesville , they have welcomed “ good guys with guns ” to buttress “ law and order ” as they brutally suppress this year ’ s eruption of social justice protest , even though time and time again , the militias and armed citizens have provoked rather than deterred violence .
A new book from University of Arizona sociologist Jennifer Carlson goes a long way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 police chiefs , Policing the Second Amendment illuminates how central guns are to the ideology of police .
Firearms carriers , including police , Carlson argues , believe that guns don ’ t merely offer personal protection : The weapons produce a larger social order , enforcing the boundary between “ good guys ” and “ bad guys.
” Thus carrying a gun is a higher form of citizenship : a commitment to wield deadly force to protect fellow Americans , which Carlson likens to “ hardened care work.
” For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guy good , in a refraction of the old National Rifle Association adage that “ guns don ’ t kill , people do.
” It ’ s “ bad guys ” who commit criminal acts of violence , and only with guns can good people stop them .
The implication , of course , is that gun carriers are constantly preoccupied with fear of lethal threat from a social other .
Rarely do the police chiefs or concealed carriers whom Carlson interviews stop to consider if the ubiquity of firearms in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of danger .
Instead , their worldview is guided by twin instincts : what Carlson calls “ gun militarism ” and “ gun populism.
” Gun militarism , espoused by essentially every chief she interviewed , is synonymous with the infamous “ Warrior Cop ” training that conditions police to think of the world as filled with enemies at every corner who must be overpowered at all costs , necessitating an arms race with criminals .
Gun populism , meanwhile , aligns with the pro-gun dogma that lawful gun owners carrying in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responses to threats when police aren ’ t present or by deterring crime in the first place .
One is a top-down approach to meeting an ever-present threat , the other bottom-up .
Most of the chiefs Carlson interviewed argued that gun militarism and populism complement one another .
So , as usual , it ’ s the NRA ’ s fault .
Except , it ’ s really not .
See , the fact of the matter is that the rank and file cop on the street realizes that police can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same guns being arrested over and over again , a new gun each time despite having a record of felonies that stretches as long as my arm .
They know the bad guys are getting guns and they can ’ t protect every living person on their beat .
They want to , they just can ’ t .
So , they back those people having the means to defend themselves .
Yet because of what they see , they find common cause with groups like the NRA that also want to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend themselves with .
Plus , let ’ s be honest .
The guys screaming for gun control are also the ones screaming to defund the police .
Should anyone be surprised the officers won ’ t find common cause with these people ?
While the anti-gun left is trying desperately to understand why anyone would disagree with them , they can ’ t seem to bring themselves to understand that people disagree with them not because we ’ re stupid or manipulated , but because we believe their policy proposals to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots of battery acid than support them .
How is this a difficult concept to grasp ?
And yet , they continue to not grasp it .
Go figure .

Pro-gun advocates have long pointed out that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make us safer. This runs contrary to what anti-gunners claim, of course–because why would they admit the truth and undermine their entire movement?–but it is the truth. Armed citizens represent almost no threat to anyone while the problem really is criminals with guns, a problem that no new laws are ever going to solve.
I mean, they’re already criminals breaking the law, why would they obey new laws?
While many like to point out how police chiefs support these news laws, they forget that chiefs are political appointees. Their politics are suspect at any given point.
Rank and file police officers, though, routinely take a pro-gun stance. Now, the left is trying to figure out why.
Three years since Charlottesville, armed clashes at street protests over racial justice are still a defining feature of American politics, but the constellation of participants has changed. The white supremacists who paraded in fascist sword-and-sandals kitsch with homemade shields and spears have sharply receded. But the paramilitaries who showed up that August claiming to be neutral security are now represented in greater numbers. Nazis are out, patriots are in. And while cops sat on the sidelines in Charlottesville, they have welcomed “good guys with guns” to buttress “law and order” as they brutally suppress this year’s eruption of social justice protest, even though time and time again, the militias and armed citizens have provoked rather than deterred violence. A new book from University of Arizona sociologist Jennifer Carlson goes a long way to explaining why. Drawing on interviews with 80 police chiefs, Policing the Second Amendment illuminates how central guns are to the ideology of police. Firearms carriers, including police,Carlson argues, believe that guns don’t merely offer personal protection: The weapons produce a larger social order, enforcing the boundary between “good guys” and “bad guys.” Thus carrying a gun is a higher form of citizenship: a commitment to wield deadly force to protect fellow Americans, which Carlson likens to “hardened care work.” For the subjects of her book, guns make the guy good, in a refraction of the old National Rifle Association adage that “guns don’t kill, people do.” It’s “bad guys” who commit criminal acts of violence, and only with guns can good people stop them. The implication, of course, is that gun carriers are constantly preoccupied with fear of lethal threat from a social other. Rarely do the police chiefs or concealed carriers whom Carlson interviews stop to consider if the ubiquity of firearms in America is the source of that constant sense of danger. Instead, their worldview is guided by twin instincts: what Carlson calls “gun militarism” and “gun populism.” Gun militarism, espoused by essentially every chief she interviewed, is synonymous with the infamous “Warrior Cop” training that conditions police to think of the world as filled with enemies at every corner who must be overpowered at all costs, necessitating an arms race with criminals. Gun populism, meanwhile, aligns with the pro-gun dogma that lawful gun owners carrying in public make America safer either by providing quick responses to threats when police aren’t present or by deterring crime in the first place. One is a top-down approach to meeting an ever-present threat, the other bottom-up. Most of the chiefs Carlson interviewed argued that gun militarism and populism complement one another.
So, as usual, it’s the NRA’s fault.
Except, it’s really not.
See, the fact of the matter is that the rank and file cop on the street realizes that police can’t be everywhere. They see the same guns being arrested over and over again, a new gun each time despite having a record of felonies that stretches as long as my arm. They know the bad guys are getting guns and they can’t protect every living person on their beat. They want to, they just can’t.
So, they back those people having the means to defend themselves.
It’s just that simple.
Yet because of what they see, they find common cause with groups like the NRA that also want to make sure those people can have guns to defend themselves with.
Plus, let’s be honest. The guys screaming for gun control are also the ones screaming to defund the police. Should anyone be surprised the officers won’t find common cause with these people?
While the anti-gun left is trying desperately to understand why anyone would disagree with them, they can’t seem to bring themselves to understand that people disagree with them not because we’re stupid or manipulated, but because we believe their policy proposals to be an absolute trainwreck and would rather do shots of battery acid than support them.
How is this a difficult concept to grasp? And yet, they continue to not grasp it. Go figure.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Black Rifle Coffee Company Thrust Into Rittenhouse Story

There ’ s no such thing as bad publicity , but there ’ s definitely unwanted publicity , and I ’ m pretty sure the folks at Black Rifle Coffee Company would be happy to spend this week talking about stuffing Christmas stockings with packages of freshly ground beans from a veteran-owned company instead of fielding questions about their position on Kyle Rittenhouse , the 17-year old charged with murder and assault in the shootings of three demonstrators in Kenosha , Wisconsin in late August .
Rittenhouse , who maintains he was acting in self-defense , was released on $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney L. Lin Wood celebrated with a photo on Twitter featuring Rittenhouse in Black Rifle Coffee Company shirt .
The coffee company would likely have faced at least a few media inquiries based on Rittenhouse ’ s shirt , but it became an even bigger story when Blaze Media reporter Elijah Schaffer retweeted the photo and used it as a promotion for the company .
Conceivably , the issue could have stopped there .
BRCC doesn ’ t want to use an ongoing legal case as a promotional tool , and Schaffer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in line with the company ’ s values .
Full stop , end of story .
Except , of course , that ’ s not where the story ends .
BRCC faced continuing calls on social media from the Left to explain themselves or condemn Rittenhouse , which ultimately led to the company ’ s CEO issuing a statement trying to extricate the brand from this particular fight in the culture war .
As a veteran-owned and operated coffee company , Black Rifle Coffee Company exists to serve premium coffee while supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Black Rifle Coffee ’ s values is to support and bring awareness to the millions of veterans who have proudly served our nation and we will not waver from that mission .
The Black Rifle brand is a symbol of service , of strength , and of goodness that has carried over from our military origins .
It ’ s why we support active duty service members and veterans , prioritize veteran hiring , and advocate for individual liberty and personal responsibility .
We do not support legal advocacy efforts .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a relationship with the 17-year-old facing charges in Kenosha , WI .
We believe in the integrity of the legal justice system , and support law enforcement officials .
We ’ re grateful for the continued support of the Black Rifle Coffee community and eager to continue serving those who serve .
As you might have guessed , this has opened up the company to even more criticism , this time from those who feel like the coffee company should issue some sort of statement of support for Rittenhouse alongside those on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t done enough to condemn the teenager .
I ’ ve been very open about the fact that I believe Kyle Rittenhouse has a very strong claim to self-defense , and that the evidence that we ’ ve seen to date shows that Rittenhouse was not the initial aggressor but was in fact being chased by an angry mob and only fired when he was in fear for his life .
I also don ’ t really care if Black Rifle Coffee Company agrees , disagrees , or stays silent on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Folgers or Maxwell House to weigh in on the prospective validity of Rittenhouse ’ s self-defense argument .
They ’ re a coffee company , not a law firm .
How many times have you rolled your eyes when a company decides to get woke and inserts itself into the culture war battle of the day ?
Can you really be annoyed when a company decides instead to stay out of a particular fight ?
On the other hand , when Hafer has boasted in the past that BRCC encourages “ strength and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying within our society , ” are some customers right to expect that the company might weigh in on the Rittenhouse case , given that the teen says he went to Kenosha to protect businesses and serve as a volunteer medic before he was beset by the mob ?
Is that not the type of honorable activity that Hafer believes is dying within our society ?
Again , I don ’ t personally care whether or not BRCC takes a public stand in support of Kyle Rittenhouse , but I kind of understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In large part Black Rifle Coffee Company exists because of the culture wars , and the company ’ s statements may sound to some like BRCC is going AWOL , at least when it comes to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse .
If the company just wants to sell good coffee , okay .
But if BRCC is actively courting customers by appealing to a shared lack of political correctness , then shying away from controversies like the Rittenhouse case is decidedly off-brand .

There’s no such thing as bad publicity, but there’s definitely unwanted publicity, and I’m pretty sure the folks at Black Rifle Coffee Company would be happy to spend this week talking about stuffing Christmas stockings with packages of freshly ground beans from a veteran-owned company instead of fielding questions about their position on Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year old charged with murder and assault in the shootings of three demonstrators in Kenosha, Wisconsin in late August.
Rittenhouse, who maintains he was acting in self-defense, was released on $2-million bond on Friday, and his attorney L. Lin Wood celebrated with a photo on Twitter featuring Rittenhouse in Black Rifle Coffee Company shirt.
https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1329966680991264769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329966680991264769%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepostmillennial.com%2Fblack-rifle-coffee-disavows-kyle-rittenhouse
The coffee company would likely have faced at least a few media inquiries based on Rittenhouse’s shirt, but it became an even bigger story when Blaze Media reporter Elijah Schaffer retweeted the photo and used it as a promotion for the company.
Schaffer posted a discount code for the coffee under the post with the photo. And online, commenters questioned whether the coffee company had a sponsorship deal with Rittenhouse and accused it of supporting murder and hate. But Black Rifle Coffee, a sponsor of Schaffer’s Slightly Offens*ve podcast, said in a statement Saturday that it is not sponsoring or supporting Rittenhouse. A spokesperson for the coffee company told The Salt Lake Tribune on Saturday afternoon that the company was terminating its sponsorship of Slightly Offens*ve, but late Saturday, she said she had misunderstood. “We are not fluctuating our ad spend,” she said in a text message. “We did have a conversation with Schaffer, and he understands that the post was a mistake.”
Conceivably, the issue could have stopped there. BRCC doesn’t want to use an ongoing legal case as a promotional tool, and Schaffer’s use of a discount code was not in line with the company’s values. Full stop, end of story.
Except, of course, that’s not where the story ends. BRCC faced continuing calls on social media from the Left to explain themselves or condemn Rittenhouse, which ultimately led to the company’s CEO issuing a statement trying to extricate the brand from this particular fight in the culture war.
As a veteran-owned and operated coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee Company exists to serve premium coffee while supporting the veteran Community. At the core of Black Rifle Coffee’s values is to support and bring awareness to the millions of veterans who have proudly served our nation and we will not waver from that mission. The Black Rifle brand is a symbol of service, of strength, and of goodness that has carried over from our military origins. It’s why we support active duty service members and veterans, prioritize veteran hiring, and advocate for individual liberty and personal responsibility. We do not support legal advocacy efforts. We do not sponsor nor do we have a relationship with the 17-year-old facing charges in Kenosha, WI. We believe in the integrity of the legal justice system, and support law enforcement officials. We’re grateful for the continued support of the Black Rifle Coffee community and eager to continue serving those who serve.
As you might have guessed, this has opened up the company to even more criticism, this time from those who feel like the coffee company should issue some sort of statement of support for Rittenhouse alongside those on the Left who feel like BRCC hasn’t done enough to condemn the teenager.
I’ve been very open about the fact that I believe Kyle Rittenhouse has a very strong claim to self-defense, and that the evidence that we’ve seen to date shows that Rittenhouse was not the initial aggressor but was in fact being chased by an angry mob and only fired when he was in fear for his life.
I also don’t really care if Black Rifle Coffee Company agrees, disagrees, or stays silent on the issue. I also don’t expect Folgers or Maxwell House to weigh in on the prospective validity of Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument. They’re a coffee company, not a law firm.
How many times have you rolled your eyes when a company decides to get woke and inserts itself into the culture war battle of the day? Can you really be annoyed when a company decides instead to stay out of a particular fight?
On the other hand, when Hafer has boasted in the past that BRCC encourages “strength and honor and those things that are almost dying within our society,” are some customers right to expect that the company might weigh in on the Rittenhouse case, given that the teen says he went to Kenosha to protect businesses and serve as a volunteer medic before he was beset by the mob? Is that not the type of honorable activity that Hafer believes is dying within our society?
Again, I don’t personally care whether or not BRCC takes a public stand in support of Kyle Rittenhouse, but I kind of understand the perspective of those who do. In large part Black Rifle Coffee Company exists because of the culture wars, and the company’s statements may sound to some like BRCC is going AWOL, at least when it comes to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. If the company just wants to sell good coffee, okay. But if BRCC is actively courting customers by appealing to a shared lack of political correctness, then shying away from controversies like the Rittenhouse case is decidedly off-brand.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Toledo Mayor's Attempt At Gun Control Fails Spectacularly

In many states , there isn ’ t much a local government can do to create gun control .
Preemption in these states prevents them from doing it , and there are very good reasons for these laws to exist .
Not every state has preemption , but many others do .
One such state is Ohio .
Local communities in the state don ’ t get to pass their own gun control laws .
However , the mayor of Toledo thought he found a way around it .
He sent out questionnaires to all the suppliers his police department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned .
Toledo , Ohio , Democratic Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz ’ s attempts to cancel licensed firearm retailers who don ’ t accept his purity tests is backfiring on him , his city ’ s law enforcement and his community .
Mayor Kapszukiewicz announced he was forcing his own version of gun control after 2018 ’ s tragic murders at a synagogue in Pittsburgh .
His action didn ’ t address criminal misuse of firearms .
Instead , he sent a questionnaire to every firearm and ammunition dealer that supplied the Toledo police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer-funded city contracts .
Mayor Kapszukiewicz ’ s questionnaire was to “ weed out bad suppliers , ” and make sure the city was only buying from “ responsible companies.
” To little surprise , the leading phrasing of the questionnaire wasn ’ t taken seriously .
The questions included things like whether a company makes or sells “ assault weapons ” for civilian use or asks which firearms they refuse to sell to civilians .
The thing is , none of the suppliers agree with Kapszukiewicz ’ s premise and thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play his game .
That made things interesting for the mayor .
The mayor already had the “ right ” answers in mind , threatening to cancel law enforcement contracts and placing citizens in further danger from violence .
Retailers didn ’ t cave though , recognizing their critical importance to legally provide firearms to citizens lawfully exercising their rights .
They knew they had the high ground .
The mayor knew it too .
“ We do have to purchase the weapons for our police department from companies that we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no other choice , ” Mayor Kapszukiewicz said .
“ While I might not say I ’ m not going to buy from you anymore , but I ’ m also not going to encourage anybody to buy from you anymore.
’ ” The problem is , most of these cities are too small to actually exert any real pressure on these companies .
They make the lion ’ s share of their revenue from private citizens .
That means they ’ re not willing to just roll over and let the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t sell to other people .
Not without a damn good reason .
In fact , if every supplier refuses to play that game , guess what happens ?
Nothing .
No police department can function without weapons and ammunition , so while they might like to have a fat government contract for a good-size department , they ’ re not going to sink their business over it , especially when no one else will do the same either .
Anti-gun mayors need to come to understand that their departments are but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed citizens of this country .
You ’ re not going to pressure companies to completely ignore those private citizens so you can pat yourself on the back and pretend you ’ re doing the responsible thing .
Besides , real responsibility is to put guns in the hands of any law-abiding citizens who want one and can afford one .
That allows those citizens to make a stand against the tyranny of the thug , thus making it far less likely the police will even need to be called .
Something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it that way .

In many states, there isn’t much a local government can do to create gun control. Preemption in these states prevents them from doing it, and there are very good reasons for these laws to exist. Not every state has preemption, but many others do.
One such state is Ohio. Local communities in the state don’t get to pass their own gun control laws.
However, the mayor of Toledo thought he found a way around it. He sent out questionnaires to all the suppliers his police department used.
It did not go as planned.
Toledo, Ohio, Democratic Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz’s attempts to cancel licensed firearm retailers who don’t accept his purity tests is backfiring on him, his city’s law enforcement and his community. Mayor Kapszukiewicz announced he was forcing his own version of gun control after 2018’s tragic murders at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. His action didn’t address criminal misuse of firearms. Instead, he sent a questionnaire to every firearm and ammunition dealer that supplied the Toledo police department, trying to influence and steer taxpayer-funded city contracts. Mayor Kapszukiewicz’s questionnaire was to “weed out bad suppliers,” and make sure the city was only buying from “responsible companies.” To little surprise, the leading phrasing of the questionnaire wasn’t taken seriously.
The questions included things like whether a company makes or sells “assault weapons” for civilian use or asks which firearms they refuse to sell to civilians.
The thing is, none of the suppliers agree with Kapszukiewicz’s premise and thus, absolutely none of them were willing to play his game.
That made things interesting for the mayor.
The mayor already had the “right” answers in mind, threatening to cancel law enforcement contracts and placing citizens in further danger from violence. Retailers didn’t cave though, recognizing their critical importance to legally provide firearms to citizens lawfully exercising their rights. They knew they had the high ground. The mayor knew it too. “We do have to purchase the weapons for our police department from companies that we don’t believe are responsible. We have no other choice,” Mayor Kapszukiewicz said. “While I might not say I’m not going to buy from you anymore, but I’m also not going to encourage anybody to buy from you anymore.’”
The problem is, most of these cities are too small to actually exert any real pressure on these companies. They make the lion’s share of their revenue from private citizens. That means they’re not willing to just roll over and let the city tell them what they can and can’t sell to other people. Not without a damn good reason.
In fact, if every supplier refuses to play that game, guess what happens? Nothing. No police department can function without weapons and ammunition, so while they might like to have a fat government contract for a good-size department, they’re not going to sink their business over it, especially when no one else will do the same either.
Anti-gun mayors need to come to understand that their departments are but a tiny fraction in number compared to the armed citizens of this country. You’re not going to pressure companies to completely ignore those private citizens so you can pat yourself on the back and pretend you’re doing the responsible thing.
Besides, real responsibility is to put guns in the hands of any law-abiding citizens who want one and can afford one. That allows those citizens to make a stand against the tyranny of the thug, thus making it far less likely the police will even need to be called.
Something tells me Kapszukiewicz doesn’t see it that way.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Wauwatosa Mall Shooting Took Place In Gun-Free Zone

A shooting at a mall in Wauwatosa , Wisconsin over the weekend left eight people injured and a 15-year old in police custody after he initially fled the mall in the chaotic aftermath of the shots that were fired .
Inexplicably , Wauwatosa Mayor Dennis McBride decided to focus his initial comments on trying to shame the gunman for not respecting the mall ’ s no-guns allowed policy .
Mayfair has a strict no-gun policy , McBride shared and said , “ guns have no place in shopping malls or other places in which crowds of people gather… If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one would have been hurt yesterday.
” McBride went on to thank the Wauwatosa Police Department as well as nearby police departments for the protection they provided to those inside the mall , the Wauwatosa Fire Department for their attention to those injured , and the community “ for their strength and determination .
We have survived past challenges and we will survive this one.
” Of course McBride ’ s correct that if the shooter had complied with the mall ’ s no-guns allowed policy , the shooting wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect allegedly shot eight people , which would indicate he didn ’ t care about following the law , much less a mall policy .
And that ’ s the problem with gun-free zones ; they ’ re not really gun-free at all .
Most law-abiding gun owners will respect a gun-free zone sign , though for many of us that means we ’ ll go find another place to shop .
Criminals , on the other hand , view the signs as just a pieces of plastic , unworthy of attention or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ guns have no place in which crowds of people gather , ” but that only ensures that in the case of an attack on that large crowd there ’ ll be few , in any , individuals in a position to fight back .
That appears to be the case at the Mayfair Mall , where the shooter blasted away without fear of anyone firing back before fleeing the mall amongst the crowd of panicked shoppers .
In this case , officers were on scene within 30 seconds , but that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get away .
If an armed citizen had been present , it ’ s possible that they could have stopped the attack after the first few shots , saving innocent lives .
Of course it ’ s also possible that an armed citizen wouldn ’ t have been able to safely engage the attacker .
It ’ s possible that the armed citizen would have shot and missed , and could even have hit an innocent civilian themselves .
It ’ s even possible that police would have mistaken the armed citizen for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fatal consequences .
All of things are possible , because carrying a gun for self-defense doesn ’ t guarantee a successful outcome .
Not being allowed to carry a gun , on the other hand , ensures the impossibility of engaging a guy who ’ s opening fire on a crowd of people in a shopping mall .
There are no guarantees in life , but I ’ d still prefer the scenario where the innocent victims have the opportunity to fight back .

A shooting at a mall in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin over the weekend left eight people injured and a 15-year old in police custody after he initially fled the mall in the chaotic aftermath of the shots that were fired. Inexplicably, Wauwatosa Mayor Dennis McBride decided to focus his initial comments on trying to shame the gunman for not respecting the mall’s no-guns allowed policy.
Mayfair has a strict no-gun policy, McBride shared and said, “guns have no place in shopping malls or other places in which crowds of people gather… If the shooter had complied with that policy, no one would have been hurt yesterday.” McBride went on to thank the Wauwatosa Police Department as well as nearby police departments for the protection they provided to those inside the mall, the Wauwatosa Fire Department for their attention to those injured, and the community “for their strength and determination. We have survived past challenges and we will survive this one.”
Of course McBride’s correct that if the shooter had complied with the mall’s no-guns allowed policy, the shooting wouldn’t have happened. But the 15-year old suspect allegedly shot eight people, which would indicate he didn’t care about following the law, much less a mall policy.
And that’s the problem with gun-free zones; they’re not really gun-free at all. Most law-abiding gun owners will respect a gun-free zone sign, though for many of us that means we’ll go find another place to shop. Criminals, on the other hand, view the signs as just a pieces of plastic, unworthy of attention or respect.
The mayor may believe that “guns have no place in which crowds of people gather,” but that only ensures that in the case of an attack on that large crowd there’ll be few, in any, individuals in a position to fight back. That appears to be the case at the Mayfair Mall, where the shooter blasted away without fear of anyone firing back before fleeing the mall amongst the crowd of panicked shoppers.
In this case, officers were on scene within 30 seconds, but that was still enough time for the suspect to get away. If an armed citizen had been present, it’s possible that they could have stopped the attack after the first few shots, saving innocent lives.
Of course it’s also possible that an armed citizen wouldn’t have been able to safely engage the attacker. It’s possible that the armed citizen would have shot and missed, and could even have hit an innocent civilian themselves. It’s even possible that police would have mistaken the armed citizen for the attacker, which could have led to fatal consequences.
All of things are possible, because carrying a gun for self-defense doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome. Not being allowed to carry a gun, on the other hand, ensures the impossibility of engaging a guy who’s opening fire on a crowd of people in a shopping mall. There are no guarantees in life, but I’d still prefer the scenario where the innocent victims have the opportunity to fight back.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Matthew McConaughey Considering Run For TX Governor

Actors in politics are an odd mix .
Many actors like to throw their hats in the political ring , and a few have achieved some degree of success .
Most famously , of course , is President Ronald Reagan .
He ’ s not the only one .
Arnold Swarzenegger was also governor of California .
Most , however , are just contented to sit on Twitter these days and tell everyone what to think .
However , another actor appears to be considering a run for office at some point in the future , and that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news this week by indicating during an interview that he was open to the possibility of running for political office in Texas one day in the future .
News that McConaughey could be interested in running for office came out during an interview that he had with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt .
The two had the following interaction : HEWITT : … you ’ re kind of center-right in the view of people , you could be governor of Texas .
Are you ever going to run for anything ?
MCCONAUGHEY : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , that wouldn ’ t be up to me .
It would be up to the people more than it would me .
I would say this .
Look , politics seems to be a broken business to me right now .
And when politics redefines its purpose , I could be a hell of a lot more interested .
Now , Hewitt referring to McConaughey as “ center-right ” may make it seem like this wouldn ’ t be too bad of a thing .
Plus , a center-right actor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows , it might lead others on the right to consider careers in Tinsel Town and shift that industry a little closer toward the center .
While McConaughey might be center-right in a lot of ways , there ’ s a bit of baggage that isn ’ t likely to play well with folks on the right .
Sounding like Beto O ’ Rourke , McConaughey said at a rally for the anti-gun March For Our Lives group in Austin , Texas , that law-abiding gun owners needed to “ take one for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their gun rights , including the ability to own semi-automatic long guns and magazines that have the ability to carry certain amounts of ammunition .
“ One , let ’ s ban the assault weapons for civilians .
This is a no-brainer , ” he said .
“ And to my friends out there , that are responsible owners of these assault weapons that they use for recreation , please let ’ s take one for the team and set it down.
” Except , that wouldn ’ t be taking one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking one for the other team .
Yes , politics is a team sport , for better or worse .
I ’ m not remotely interested in setting down my AR-15 just so the anti-gunners can get a win , especially since I don ’ t believe the answer to mass shootings is gun control .
It never has been and never will be .
That ’ s likely to be a millstone around candidate McConaughey ’ s neck should he try to run for office in Texas , as it should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he needs to back off on that one big time .
Especially since it ’ s not a “ no-brainer ” by any stretch of the imagination .
Am I telling McConaughey not to stand for what he believes ?
Nah .
I ’ m just telling him to take one for the team .

Actors in politics are an odd mix. Many actors like to throw their hats in the political ring, and a few have achieved some degree of success. Most famously, of course, is President Ronald Reagan. He’s not the only one. Arnold Swarzenegger was also governor of California. Most, however, are just contented to sit on Twitter these days and tell everyone what to think.
However, another actor appears to be considering a run for office at some point in the future, and that’s Matthew McConaughey.
Actor Matthew McConaughey made news this week by indicating during an interview that he was open to the possibility of running for political office in Texas one day in the future. News that McConaughey could be interested in running for office came out during an interview that he had with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. The two had the following interaction: HEWITT: … you’re kind of center-right in the view of people, you could be governor of Texas. Are you ever going to run for anything? MCCONAUGHEY: I don’t know. I mean, that wouldn’t be up to me. It would be up to the people more than it would me. I would say this. Look, politics seems to be a broken business to me right now. And when politics redefines its purpose, I could be a hell of a lot more interested.
Now, Hewitt referring to McConaughey as “center-right” may make it seem like this wouldn’t be too bad of a thing. Plus, a center-right actor is still pretty right-wing for Hollywood. Who knows, it might lead others on the right to consider careers in Tinsel Town and shift that industry a little closer toward the center.
However, there’s a problem.
While McConaughey might be center-right in a lot of ways, there’s a bit of baggage that isn’t likely to play well with folks on the right.
Sounding like Beto O’Rourke, McConaughey said at a rally for the anti-gun March For Our Lives group in Austin, Texas, that law-abiding gun owners needed to “take one for the team” and give up some of their gun rights, including the ability to own semi-automatic long guns and magazines that have the ability to carry certain amounts of ammunition. “One, let’s ban the assault weapons for civilians. This is a no-brainer,” he said. “And to my friends out there, that are responsible owners of these assault weapons that they use for recreation, please let’s take one for the team and set it down.”
Except, that wouldn’t be taking one for the team. It would be taking one for the other team.
Yes, politics is a team sport, for better or worse. I’m not remotely interested in setting down my AR-15 just so the anti-gunners can get a win, especially since I don’t believe the answer to mass shootings is gun control. It never has been and never will be.
That’s likely to be a millstone around candidate McConaughey’s neck should he try to run for office in Texas, as it should be. If he wants to consider this, he needs to back off on that one big time. Especially since it’s not a “no-brainer” by any stretch of the imagination.
Am I telling McConaughey not to stand for what he believes?
Nah. I’m just telling him to take one for the team.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Virginia Gun Owners Plan To Send A "Moving Message" To Northam

The 2021 Lobby Day rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League is going to look a little different than it has in years past , with a massive mobile caravan planned to deliver a pro-2A message to state lawmakers and Gov .
Ralph Northam .
As I explained in an an earlier post , the VCDL has been jerked around by the state in terms of getting a permit for their annual event , with gun control groups snagging the necessary permits required to hold rallies on the grounds of the state Capitol building before the VCDL ever had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email alert to members , the VCDL laid out the attempts to derail this year ’ s Lobby Day rally .
VCDL was told years ago that an application to use the Bell Tower for an event more than six months out would not even be accepted .
We have followed that rule , booked six months out , and gotten the 11 am slot .
This year , when we applied exactly six months out , we were told that the 11 am slot was already booked !
In fact , every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 6 pm slots .
How was that even possible ?
We had booked right at the six month mark .
We got a copy of a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) document containing the applications that had been accepted by the Department of General Services ( DGS ) for Lobby Day on January 18 , 2021 .
Lo and behold – the 11am slot had been requested by Andrew Goddard and Lori Haas with the Virginia Center For Public Safety ( a gun-control group with ties to Michael Bloomberg ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DGS accepted the application , which had been filed OVER A YEAR IN ADVANCE ( January 14 , 2020 ) !
That was even before the VCDL ’ s 2020 Lobby Day event !
If Lori Haas ’ s name sounds familiar , she ’ s the paid gun-control lobbyist who the Democrats put on the supposedly non-partisan Crime Commission a few months ago , destroying the Commission ’ s credibility on any gun-related items .
The other slots were taken by the following organizations ( note the dates the applications were submitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magically within a few days of Goddard ’ s application , and all before VCDL ’ s Lobby Day 2020 ! )
: 9 am : Care in Action .
Applied on January 17 , 2020 .
1 pm : Progress Virginia ( another gun-control rally ) .
Applied on January 17 , 2020 .
3 pm : New Virginia Majority .
Applied on January 19 , 2020 .
DGS ’ s own rules say they will grant the venues to the first applicant with a valid application .
That would have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 am slot ( or any of the slots for that matter ) .
But that ’ s not what is being done .
And that ’ s not all : notification of who has actually gotten the slots won ’ t be known until mid-December , making planning for such an event very difficult .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , VCDL president Philip Van Cleave joins me to talk about their revised plans for the Lobby Day rally on January 18th .
He ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from around the state and across the country , but this time they ’ ll be in their vehicles as they drive through the Richmond streets showing their support for the Second Amendment .
Van Cleave says that speakers for Lobby Day will be streaming their speeches live so that the drivers and passengers can tune in and listen as they convoy through the city , but he also notes that those who want to park their cars and go for a stroll downtown will be able to do so if they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no official rally site , Richmond ’ s prohibition on lawful carrying of firearms during events that require a permit won ’ t apply to those individual gun owners who want to carry if they decide to take a break from the caravan and go for a walk .
When tens of thousands of gun owners converged on the state Capitol this past January , we were rallying against a half-dozen gun control proposals , most of which ended up passing in a watered-down form .
The centerpiece of Gov .
Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeated in the state Senate , however , after several rural Democrats decided they couldn ’ t vote for the sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban in its current form .
We ’ re not sure what the legislative priorities for Democrats will be in 2021 , but Van Cleave says gun control activists in the state have indicated that they want to go after the carrying of firearms ; both openly and concealed .
Northam ’ s gun ban bill will almost certainly be revived as well , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further attempts to erode the state ’ s firearm preemption laws and reciprocity agreements when lawmakers begin their next session in early January .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Philip Van Cleave in the video window above , and if you ’ ve got the time , I hope that you ’ ll make plans to join thousands of your fellow gun owners in Richmond on January 18th , 2021 for what promises to be a Lobby Day to remember .

The 2021 Lobby Day rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League is going to look a little different than it has in years past, with a massive mobile caravan planned to deliver a pro-2A message to state lawmakers and Gov. Ralph Northam.
As I explained in an an earlier post, the VCDL has been jerked around by the state in terms of getting a permit for their annual event, with gun control groups snagging the necessary permits required to hold rallies on the grounds of the state Capitol building before the VCDL ever had the opportunity to apply.
In an email alert to members, the VCDL laid out the attempts to derail this year’s Lobby Day rally.
VCDL was told years ago that an application to use the Bell Tower for an event more than six months out would not even be accepted . We have followed that rule, booked six months out, and gotten the 11 am slot for 17 years . This year, when we applied exactly six months out, we were told that the 11 am slot was already booked! In fact, every slot was filled except the 6 am and 6 pm slots. How was that even possible? We had booked right at the six month mark. We got a copy of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document containing the applications that had been accepted by the Department of General Services (DGS) for Lobby Day on January 18, 2021. Lo and behold – the 11am slot had been requested by Andrew Goddard and Lori Haas with the Virginia Center For Public Safety (a gun-control group with ties to Michael Bloomberg). Here’s the kicker – DGS accepted the application, which had been filed OVER A YEAR IN ADVANCE (January 14, 2020)! That was even before the VCDL’s 2020 Lobby Day event! If Lori Haas’s name sounds familiar, she’s the paid gun-control lobbyist who the Democrats put on the supposedly non-partisan Crime Commission a few months ago, destroying the Commission’s credibility on any gun-related items. The other slots were taken by the following organizations (note the dates the applications were submitted – all self-proclaimed progressive organizations, all magically within a few days of Goddard’s application, and all before VCDL’s Lobby Day 2020!): 9 am: Care in Action. Applied on January 17, 2020.
1 pm: Progress Virginia (another gun-control rally). Applied on January 17, 2020.
3 pm: New Virginia Majority. Applied on January 19, 2020. DGS’s own rules say they will grant the venues to the first applicant with a valid application. That would have made VCDL the first valid applicant for the 11 am slot (or any of the slots for that matter). But that’s not what is being done. And that’s not all: notification of who has actually gotten the slots won’t be known until mid-December, making planning for such an event very difficult.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, VCDL president Philip Van Cleave joins me to talk about their revised plans for the Lobby Day rally on January 18th. He’s still expecting tens of thousands of gun owners from around the state and across the country, but this time they’ll be in their vehicles as they drive through the Richmond streets showing their support for the Second Amendment.
Van Cleave says that speakers for Lobby Day will be streaming their speeches live so that the drivers and passengers can tune in and listen as they convoy through the city, but he also notes that those who want to park their cars and go for a stroll downtown will be able to do so if they want. In fact, because there’s no official rally site, Richmond’s prohibition on lawful carrying of firearms during events that require a permit won’t apply to those individual gun owners who want to carry if they decide to take a break from the caravan and go for a walk.
When tens of thousands of gun owners converged on the state Capitol this past January, we were rallying against a half-dozen gun control proposals, most of which ended up passing in a watered-down form. The centerpiece of Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda was defeated in the state Senate, however, after several rural Democrats decided they couldn’t vote for the sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban in its current form.
We’re not sure what the legislative priorities for Democrats will be in 2021, but Van Cleave says gun control activists in the state have indicated that they want to go after the carrying of firearms; both openly and concealed. Northam’s gun ban bill will almost certainly be revived as well, and it’s likely we’ll see further attempts to erode the state’s firearm preemption laws and reciprocity agreements when lawmakers begin their next session in early January.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Philip Van Cleave in the video window above, and if you’ve got the time, I hope that you’ll make plans to join thousands of your fellow gun owners in Richmond on January 18th, 2021 for what promises to be a Lobby Day to remember.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Ohio Court Strikes Down Cincinnati's Bump Stock Ban

Cincinnati ’ s ban on “ trigger activators ” like bump stocks , originally approved by city officials in April of 2018 , is unconstitutional according to the state ’ s First Appellate Court .
The decision , handed down on Wednesday , is a blow to anti-gun activists in the Buckeye State who cheered when the mayor signed the ordinance making possession of the devices a misdemeanor crime in the city .
It ’ s also the right call , as the appellate court upheld the original decision by a trial court and noted that the local law clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep and bear arms .
The opinion not only hands Second Amendment advocates a legal victory , but will take some cash out of the city ’ s coffers as well .
Cincinnati was ordered to pay attorneys ’ fees by the appellate court ( over the city ’ s objections ) .
Most importantly , however , the decision makes it clear that in Ohio , the right to keep and bear arms is real , recognized , and fundamentally important .
At issue was whether or not trigger activators should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms or “ components ” of guns themselves .
Under Ohio law , components of firearms are specifically protected against local gun control laws , but the state ’ s home-rule language is silent on whether or not localities can impose restrictions on firearm accessories .
The attorneys for the city of Cincinnati argued that trigger activators aren ’ t really necessary to the functionality of a firearm and should therefore be considered accessories that can be banned .
Writing for the majority , Judge Robert Winkler declared that the evidence in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory .
R.C .
9.68 makes clear that “ [ e ] xcept as specifically provided by the United States Constitution , Ohio Constitution , state law , or federal law , a person , without further license , permission , restriction , delay , or process , may own , possess , purchase , sell , transfer , transport , store , or keep any firearm , part of a firearm , its components , and its ammunition.
” A “ component ” as that term is commonly used means “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to form , compose , or make up a unit or whole.
” Trigger activators , such as bump stocks and trigger cranks , combine with other parts to make up a firearm , and are thus “ parts ” or “ components ” as those terms are commonly used .
Because Ordinance 91-2018 bans trigger activators , which R.C .
9.68 permits , Ordinance 91-2018 conflicts with R.C .
9.68 .
Therefore , the city exceeded its home-rule authority under Mendenhall in enacting Ordinance 91-2018 .
We agree with the trial court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Buckeye Firearms Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry on the legal victory .
I suspect that city officials will appeal today ’ s decision to the state Supreme Court , but I would be shocked if the court overturned the opinion of the appellate and trial courts .
The language of Ohio ’ s home-rule provisions is crystal clear , and Cincinnati ’ s argument is more about playing games with language rather than a true legal rationale .
The city ’ s ban on trigger activators deserved to be struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the dustbin of history once the state ’ s high court hears the city ’ s appeal .

Cincinnati’s ban on “trigger activators” like bump stocks, originally approved by city officials in April of 2018, is unconstitutional according to the state’s First Appellate Court. The decision, handed down on Wednesday, is a blow to anti-gun activists in the Buckeye State who cheered when the mayor signed the ordinance making possession of the devices a misdemeanor crime in the city. It’s also the right call, as the appellate court upheld the original decision by a trial court and noted that the local law clearly conflicts with state law protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
The opinion not only hands Second Amendment advocates a legal victory, but will take some cash out of the city’s coffers as well. Cincinnati was ordered to pay attorneys’ fees by the appellate court (over the city’s objections). Most importantly, however, the decision makes it clear that in Ohio, the right to keep and bear arms is real, recognized, and fundamentally important.
At issue was whether or not trigger activators should be considered as “accessories” to firearms or “components” of guns themselves. Under Ohio law, components of firearms are specifically protected against local gun control laws, but the state’s home-rule language is silent on whether or not localities can impose restrictions on firearm accessories.
The attorneys for the city of Cincinnati argued that trigger activators aren’t really necessary to the functionality of a firearm and should therefore be considered accessories that can be banned. Writing for the majority, Judge Robert Winkler declared that the evidence in the case debunks the city’s legal theory.
R.C. 9.68 makes clear that “[e]xcept as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.” A “component” as that term is commonly used means “a constituent part,” which serves “to form, compose, or make up a unit or whole.” Trigger activators, such as bump stocks and trigger cranks, combine with other parts to make up a firearm, and are thus “parts” or “components” as those terms are commonly used. Because Ordinance 91-2018 bans trigger activators, which R.C. 9.68 permits, Ordinance 91-2018 conflicts with R.C. 9.68. Therefore, the city exceeded its home-rule authority under Mendenhall in enacting Ordinance 91-2018. We agree with the trial court that Ordinance 91-2018 is invalid.
Congratulations to the Buckeye Firearms Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry on the legal victory. I suspect that city officials will appeal today’s decision to the state Supreme Court, but I would be shocked if the court overturned the opinion of the appellate and trial courts. The language of Ohio’s home-rule provisions is crystal clear, and Cincinnati’s argument is more about playing games with language rather than a true legal rationale. The city’s ban on trigger activators deserved to be struck down, and it should be consigned to the dustbin of history once the state’s high court hears the city’s appeal.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Saginaw Officials Call For Thugs To "Put Down The Guns"

All throughout the nation , it seems that every community is being gripped by violence .
It ’ s like everyone lost their damned mind during the lockdown and now that they ’ re a little freer to move around , they ’ re going to shoot anything that moves .
Of course , that ’ s not really the case .
The vast majority of Americans aren ’ t hurting anyone , after all .
It ’ s just the same handful that normally causes the issues .
It ’ s just that now , they ’ re causing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , city officials have a surefire plan to address the problem .
They ’ re asking really nicely .
Saginaw City Council members on Monday discussed the city ’ s rising violence and number of homicides occurring in 2020 .
“ I just really want to see our city become the city that we should be and we can ’ t do that by killing each other off , ” council member Reggie Williams said Monday , Nov. 23 .
Williams , who works as police chief in Buena Vista Township and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wanted to reach out to the community about the spike in violence .
“ I would ask that we step up and work with our police department in these investigations .
I would also add that we put the guns down , ” he said .
“ Come together during this holiday season and moving it forward into 2021 so that we can help make 2021 a better year.
” Newly elected council member Michael Flores said that he did not want Saginaw to revert back to having a dangerous reputation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Put down the guns and can we all work together , ” she said .
Oh , well , since a city council member and the mayor want them to put the guns down , I ’ m sure every criminal in town will trip all over themselves .
I ’ m sure that right now , a bunch of gangbangers is sitting there , chatting , and saying , “ You know , I was going to shoot that dude who looked at me funny , but the mayor and the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , so I guess I won ’ t do that at all.
” Don ’ t get me wrong , it makes a nice soundbite .
It ’ s something the people of Saginaw are probably glad to hear and it makes them feel warm and tingly to know that the city recognizes the issue .
But what are they doing about it ?
Nothing They ’ re telling the bad guys to put down the guns .
Or what , though ?
There ’ s nothing I ’ ve seen so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the demand .
That ’ s probably because it ’ s nothing but a platitude , a virtue signal that anyone can agree with , but doesn ’ t require anyone to actually do anything to address the issue .
The Kumbaya approach sounds good , but the criminals don ’ t give a damn what city officials have to say about anything .
They never have .
If they did , those pesky little things called “ laws ” would prevent most of their activities .
Those even come with actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals simply don ’ t care .
I somehow doubt this will do anything .
These officials would be better served by being proactive and looking at addressing the underlying issues rather than offering platitudes and pretending they ’ re doing something .

All throughout the nation, it seems that every community is being gripped by violence. It’s like everyone lost their damned mind during the lockdown and now that they’re a little freer to move around, they’re going to shoot anything that moves.
Of course, that’s not really the case. The vast majority of Americans aren’t hurting anyone, after all. It’s just the same handful that normally causes the issues. It’s just that now, they’re causing bigger issues.
In Saginaw, Michigan, city officials have a surefire plan to address the problem. They’re asking really nicely.
Saginaw City Council members on Monday discussed the city’s rising violence and number of homicides occurring in 2020. “I just really want to see our city become the city that we should be and we can’t do that by killing each other off,” council member Reggie Williams said Monday, Nov. 23. … Williams, who works as police chief in Buena Vista Township and is a former Saginaw police officer, said he wanted to reach out to the community about the spike in violence. “I would ask that we step up and work with our police department in these investigations. I would also add that we put the guns down,” he said. “Come together during this holiday season and moving it forward into 2021 so that we can help make 2021 a better year.” Newly elected council member Michael Flores said that he did not want Saginaw to revert back to having a dangerous reputation. … Mayor Brenda Moore agreed with the council’s sentiments. “My message is real simple. Put down the guns and can we all work together,” she said.
Oh, well, since a city council member and the mayor want them to put the guns down, I’m sure every criminal in town will trip all over themselves. I’m sure that right now, a bunch of gangbangers is sitting there, chatting, and saying, “You know, I was going to shoot that dude who looked at me funny, but the mayor and the city council said we should put the guns down, so I guess I won’t do that at all.”
Don’t get me wrong, it makes a nice soundbite. It’s something the people of Saginaw are probably glad to hear and it makes them feel warm and tingly to know that the city recognizes the issue.
But what are they doing about it? Nothing They’re telling the bad guys to put down the guns. Or what, though? There’s nothing I’ve seen so far that suggests there are any teeth to the demand.
That’s probably because it’s nothing but a platitude, a virtue signal that anyone can agree with, but doesn’t require anyone to actually do anything to address the issue.
The Kumbaya approach sounds good, but the criminals don’t give a damn what city officials have to say about anything. They never have. If they did, those pesky little things called “laws” would prevent most of their activities. Those even come with actual punishments for breaking them, yet the criminals simply don’t care. I somehow doubt this will do anything.
These officials would be better served by being proactive and looking at addressing the underlying issues rather than offering platitudes and pretending they’re doing something.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Philly Heads To Court Over COVID-19 Carry Permit Holdups

Far too many jurisdictions seemed to look at COVID-19 as a blessing .
Suddenly , they figured they had an excuse not to issue carry permits anymore or , at a minimum , to delay the ever-loving crap out of them .
One such jurisdiction was Philadelphia .
The City of Brotherly Love doesn ’ t particularly love a citizen ’ s right to keep and bear arms , but their hands have been tied as to whether or not they could issue the permits .
Then COVID-19 came and they could drag their feet all they wanted and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s what they may have thought , anyway .
They were very wrong .
A federal judge heard arguments Monday afternoon that Philadelphia trampled gun rights after a resurgence of Covid-19 cases struck the police unit that handles permit requests .
The Firearm Policy Coalition brought the suit Friday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , joined by two young men , 29-year-old Keith Fetsurka and 35-year-old Timothy Sieck , who have been waiting months on Philadelphia ’ s massive backlog just to apply for a permit to carry a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Permit Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department in March during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic when only essential business was permitted .
The office reopened in July , but appointments are backlogged through 2022 .
Fetsurka says his long-awaited appointment was supposed to be Nov. 19 , but the office abruptly closed the day before .
As explained in a tweet from the city ’ s police department , the permit unit is closed until at least Dec. 7 because of an outbreak in its own office .
Fetsurka and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling it unconstitutional that the city is effectively banning loaded handguns with no exemption for law-abiding citizens .
And that ’ s exactly what ’ s going on .
In my own state of Georgia , all probate courts were shut down early in the pandemic , but the attorney general ’ s office noted that police can ’ t actually ask to see your permit without probable cause and carrying a firearm isn ’ t probable cause on its own , which kind of makes Georgia an almost constitutional carry state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem to have that kind of protection .
They have unlicensed open carry…except in Philadelphia .
So people in the city are , effectively , banned from carrying a firearm until the city decides to open their office back up .
Now , I ’ m sympathetic regarding concerns over COVID-19 showing up in their office , but to be less than sensitive , that ’ s their problem , not Fetsurka ’ s .
They should have put a plan in place to handle this early in the pandemic , understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t , and they expect Fetsurka and others to pay the price .
Sorry , but that dog don ’ t hunt .
We ’ ll have to wait and see just how this pans out , but my hope is that the courts recognize that a right delayed is a right denied and will step up and do the right thing .
The citizens of Philadelphia deserve to have their right to keep and bear arms protected , not restricted like we ’ re seeing now .

Far too many jurisdictions seemed to look at COVID-19 as a blessing. Suddenly, they figured they had an excuse not to issue carry permits anymore or, at a minimum, to delay the ever-loving crap out of them. One such jurisdiction was Philadelphia.
The City of Brotherly Love doesn’t particularly love a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, but their hands have been tied as to whether or not they could issue the permits.
Then COVID-19 came and they could drag their feet all they wanted and there was nothing anyone could do.
Well, that’s what they may have thought, anyway. They were very wrong.
A federal judge heard arguments Monday afternoon that Philadelphia trampled gun rights after a resurgence of Covid-19 cases struck the police unit that handles permit requests. The Firearm Policy Coalition brought the suit Friday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, joined by two young men, 29-year-old Keith Fetsurka and 35-year-old Timothy Sieck, who have been waiting months on Philadelphia’s massive backlog just to apply for a permit to carry a loaded handgun. Philadelphia shut down the Gun Permit Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department in March during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic when only essential business was permitted. The office reopened in July, but appointments are backlogged through 2022. Fetsurka says his long-awaited appointment was supposed to be Nov. 19, but the office abruptly closed the day before. As explained in a tweet from the city’s police department, the permit unit is closed until at least Dec. 7 because of an outbreak in its own office. Fetsurka and the others filed for an injunction Monday, calling it unconstitutional that the city is effectively banning loaded handguns with no exemption for law-abiding citizens.
And that’s exactly what’s going on.
In my own state of Georgia, all probate courts were shut down early in the pandemic, but the attorney general’s office noted that police can’t actually ask to see your permit without probable cause and carrying a firearm isn’t probable cause on its own, which kind of makes Georgia an almost constitutional carry state.
Pennsylvania, however, doesn’t seem to have that kind of protection. They have unlicensed open carry…except in Philadelphia. So people in the city are, effectively, banned from carrying a firearm until the city decides to open their office back up.
Now, I’m sympathetic regarding concerns over COVID-19 showing up in their office, but to be less than sensitive, that’s their problem, not Fetsurka’s. They should have put a plan in place to handle this early in the pandemic, understanding that this was a potentiality. They didn’t, and they expect Fetsurka and others to pay the price.
Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt.
We’ll have to wait and see just how this pans out, but my hope is that the courts recognize that a right delayed is a right denied and will step up and do the right thing. The citizens of Philadelphia deserve to have their right to keep and bear arms protected, not restricted like we’re seeing now.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--RCMP Union Warns Canadian Gun Ban Unlikely To Work

Ordinarily , Americans pay little attention to gun laws in Canada .
Canadians have long suffered far more restriction on their right to keep and bear arms–a right not explicitly protected in the Great White North–than Americans would ever consider .
As such , there ’ s not a lot of interest in what they do .
However , the recent ban on so-called assault weapons is something Americans should pay attention to .
American politicians , however , should pay attention to what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Union has to say about such a ban .
The union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s firearms ban is unlikely to curb gun violence in Canada , and is calling on Ottawa to instead introduce “ evidence-based ” measures to ensure public safety .
The National Police Federation , representing 20,000 RCMP members , issued a statement Monday expressing concern over the rising levels of gun violence in Canada in recent years .
The group is seeking increased funding commitments from the federal government , largely to bolster protection measures along the Canada-U.S. border as a way to stem the smuggling of firearms into Canada .
Brian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federation , said policies like the firearms ban introduced by Public Safety Minister Bill Blair earlier this year tend to be politically popular , but fail to address the root cause of gun violence .
Blair in May introduced a sweeping prohibition on 1,500 “ military-style ” gun variants , effectively giving gun owners two years to turn in their now-illegal firearms .
“ The narrative is that we need to restrict gun ownership because that will curtail crime , when really the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms , ” Sauvé said .
“ So really , we need to look at the source of the problem.
” Criticism of the Liberal gun ban comes as the federal government has so far failed to secure a private-sector contractor to design a federal buyback program , in which Ottawa will reimburse owners for the firearms that it deemed prohibited .
The federal procurement office has issued two separate requests for proposals ( RFPs ) to administer the program , but received no interested bidders in response , even after it explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bid on the contract , including accountancy firms Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP and Ernst & Young LLP .
Sauvé is absolutely correct , though .
Criminals don ’ t obtain firearms through legal means .
They get them through illegal means , which tells us that the law is unlikely to have any impact on crime in Canada at all .
On the same token , such a measure in the United States won ’ t have much impact either , and for the same reasons .
While the illegal methods for obtaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that criminals will break laws to obtain guns isn ’ t .
That ’ s just how criminals roll .
I mean , they ’ re criminals .
It ’ s kind of part of the job description .
If you want to address violent crime , restricting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens isn ’ t the way to do it .
Instead , officials should look at programs that have worked in the past and can work in the future .
Destroy the causes of violence and you @ @ @ @ @ @

Ordinarily, Americans pay little attention to gun laws in Canada. Canadians have long suffered far more restriction on their right to keep and bear arms–a right not explicitly protected in the Great White North–than Americans would ever consider. As such, there’s not a lot of interest in what they do.
However, the recent ban on so-called assault weapons is something Americans should pay attention to.
American politicians, however, should pay attention to what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Union has to say about such a ban.
The union representing the RCMP says the Liberal government’s firearms ban is unlikely to curb gun violence in Canada, and is calling on Ottawa to instead introduce “evidence-based” measures to ensure public safety. The National Police Federation, representing 20,000 RCMP members, issued a statement Monday expressing concern over the rising levels of gun violence in Canada in recent years. The group is seeking increased funding commitments from the federal government, largely to bolster protection measures along the Canada-U.S. border as a way to stem the smuggling of firearms into Canada. Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, said policies like the firearms ban introduced by Public Safety Minister Bill Blair earlier this year tend to be politically popular, but fail to address the root cause of gun violence. Blair in May introduced a sweeping prohibition on 1,500 “military-style” gun variants, effectively giving gun owners two years to turn in their now-illegal firearms. “The narrative is that we need to restrict gun ownership because that will curtail crime, when really the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms,” Sauvé said. “So really, we need to look at the source of the problem.” Criticism of the Liberal gun ban comes as the federal government has so far failed to secure a private-sector contractor to design a federal buyback program, in which Ottawa will reimburse owners for the firearms that it deemed prohibited. The federal procurement office has issued two separate requests for proposals (RFPs) to administer the program, but received no interested bidders in response, even after it explicitly named companies that it hoped might offer a bid on the contract, including accountancy firms Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP and Ernst & Young LLP.
Sauvé is absolutely correct, though. Criminals don’t obtain firearms through legal means. They get them through illegal means, which tells us that the law is unlikely to have any impact on crime in Canada at all.
On the same token, such a measure in the United States won’t have much impact either, and for the same reasons. While the illegal methods for obtaining guns differ between the two nations, the fact that criminals will break laws to obtain guns isn’t. That’s just how criminals roll. I mean, they’re criminals. It’s kind of part of the job description.
If you want to address violent crime, restricting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens isn’t the way to do it. Instead, officials should look at programs that have worked in the past and can work in the future. Destroy the causes of violence and you solve the problem of violence.
It’s not rocket science.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Biden Eyes Anti-Gunners For Health & Human Services Secretary

As Joe Biden puts together his picks for his cabinet , the Democrat is allegedly considering two people for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services , and both have a long history of gun control activism .
According to Politico , New Mexico Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are the top contenders for the job , and Biden could make his pick public as early as Monday of next week .
Of the two , Grisham has a longer anti-gun record , but that ’ s because she ’ s actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might remember , caused a stir during his confirmation hearings in the Obama administration by declaring that gun control was a issue of public health .
Once he was confirmed , Murthy tried to downplay his comments , as evidenced by this NPR interview from 2017 when he was specifically asked if he was calling for more gun control laws .
Here ’ s what I would say – and here ’ s what I meant when I wrote that tweet – violence of all kinds is a public health issue .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from preventable causes , that ’ s a health care issue .
That ’ s a public health issue .
That ’ s what I said .
That ’ s , in fact , what C. Everett Koop said when he was Surgeon General , and that ’ s what the leading medical and nursing organizations have said for many years .
I want to find a way that we can reduce violence in America .
And I think you wouldn ’ t be hard-pressed to find parents or families of victims or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politico quotes unnamed sources close to Biden who swear that Murthy has changed his views on guns as a public health issue , but I highly doubt that ’ s the case .
Gun control organizations and groups like the American Medical Association still embrace the idea of using public health as a way to push for more gun control laws , and Murthy hasn ’ t said anything publicly over the past few years to indicate he ’ s now opposed to the idea .
While Murthy ’ s pro-gun control comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years ago , it ’ s the actions taken by Gov .
Grisham that have generated controversy in New Mexico .
Back in 2019 , Grisham and Democrats in control of the state legislature rammed through a universal background check law over the objections of most sheriffs in the state , which prompted 25 of the 33 counties in the state to declare themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries .
Earlier this year Grisham and her anti-gun cohorts followed up by passing a red flag gun seizure law , again over the protests by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither law appears to be used with any frequency .
There ’ ve been no reported arrests for violations of the universal background check law , and I ’ ve been unable to find a single news story from New Mexico reporting on a red flag case .
That doesn ’ t mean it hasn ’ t been used at all , but there ’ s clearly continued resistance to the gun control measures in most counties across the state .
Grisham also used the COVID-19 pandemic to shut down gun stores by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a lawsuit brought by the NRA , SAF , and Firearms Police Coalition .
Grisham ended up reversing her decision and allowed some gun stores to re-open , but gun stores in the northwestern part of the state were ordered to remain closed for several more weeks .
If Grisham does get the nod to join Biden ’ s cabinet and steps down as governor , Lt. Gov .
Howie Morales would fill the remainder of her term , which expires in 2022 .
Morales has been a staunch defender of Grisham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped shepherd the red flag bill through a divided state Senate , where it was approved on a narrow 22-20 vote .
In other words , gun owners in the Land of Enchantment aren ’ t going to get a reprieve from the Democrats ’ anti-gun agenda if Grisham moves on to Washington .
Biden ’ s been yammering on about trying to unify the country , but his rumored shortlist for Health & Human Services is just another bit of evidence that he has no plans or desire to reach out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to grab their guns .
Both Grisham and Murthy have displayed a hostility towards our right to keep and bear arms , and something tells me they won ’ t be the last potential cabinet picks with a history of supporting an anti-gun agenda .

As Joe Biden puts together his picks for his cabinet, the Democrat is allegedly considering two people for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, and both have a long history of gun control activism.
According to Politico, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are the top contenders for the job, and Biden could make his pick public as early as Monday of next week.
Of the two, Grisham has a longer anti-gun record, but that’s because she’s actually been in office. Murthy, you might remember, caused a stir during his confirmation hearings in the Obama administration by declaring that gun control was a issue of public health. Once he was confirmed, Murthy tried to downplay his comments, as evidenced by this NPR interview from 2017 when he was specifically asked if he was calling for more gun control laws.
Here’s what I would say – and here’s what I meant when I wrote that tweet – violence of all kinds is a public health issue. When you have large numbers of people dying from preventable causes, that’s a health care issue. That’s a public health issue. That’s what I said. That’s, in fact, what C. Everett Koop said when he was Surgeon General, and that’s what the leading medical and nursing organizations have said for many years. I want to find a way that we can reduce violence in America. And I think you wouldn’t be hard-pressed to find parents or families of victims or health care practitioners who would disagree.
Politico quotes unnamed sources close to Biden who swear that Murthy has changed his views on guns as a public health issue, but I highly doubt that’s the case. Gun control organizations and groups like the American Medical Association still embrace the idea of using public health as a way to push for more gun control laws, and Murthy hasn’t said anything publicly over the past few years to indicate he’s now opposed to the idea.
While Murthy’s pro-gun control comments caused him trouble with his confirmation a few years ago, it’s the actions taken by Gov. Grisham that have generated controversy in New Mexico. Back in 2019, Grisham and Democrats in control of the state legislature rammed through a universal background check law over the objections of most sheriffs in the state, which prompted 25 of the 33 counties in the state to declare themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries.
Earlier this year Grisham and her anti-gun cohorts followed up by passing a red flag gun seizure law, again over the protests by many sheriffs and citizens.
So far neither law appears to be used with any frequency. There’ve been no reported arrests for violations of the universal background check law, and I’ve been unable to find a single news story from New Mexico reporting on a red flag case. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t been used at all, but there’s clearly continued resistance to the gun control measures in most counties across the state.
Grisham also used the COVID-19 pandemic to shut down gun stores by declaring them non-essential businesses, which led to a lawsuit brought by the NRA, SAF, and Firearms Police Coalition. Grisham ended up reversing her decision and allowed some gun stores to re-open, but gun stores in the northwestern part of the state were ordered to remain closed for several more weeks.
If Grisham does get the nod to join Biden’s cabinet and steps down as governor, Lt. Gov. Howie Morales would fill the remainder of her term, which expires in 2022. Morales has been a staunch defender of Grisham’s gun control proposals, and helped shepherd the red flag bill through a divided state Senate, where it was approved on a narrow 22-20 vote. In other words, gun owners in the Land of Enchantment aren’t going to get a reprieve from the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda if Grisham moves on to Washington.
Biden’s been yammering on about trying to unify the country, but his rumored shortlist for Health & Human Services is just another bit of evidence that he has no plans or desire to reach out to gun owners, unless it’s to grab their guns. Both Grisham and Murthy have displayed a hostility towards our right to keep and bear arms, and something tells me they won’t be the last potential cabinet picks with a history of supporting an anti-gun agenda.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Feinstein Backs Off From Role As Judiciary Committee Top Democrat

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has long been a thorn in the side of gun rights advocates .
She hasn ’ t always been in a position to actually do much of anything , but she was always there , always ready to offer up some anti-gun piece of legislation .
As the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee , she was in a place to provide resistance to any pro-gun legislation and to grease the skids for any anti-gun legislation .
Now , though , the Californian senator is stepping down from that role .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday , opening the high-profile role for a more aggressive or partisan approach as the Senate moves on from President Donald Trump ’ s administration .
Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois has an interest in the job , and said he will seek that role with an eye for oversight of actions that were taken taken by the outgoing Trump administration and a to-do list for “ future progress of our country.
” He would also keep his position in Senate Democratic leadership .
The next Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitehouse of Rhode Island .
So what does this mean for gun rights ?
Well , much of that will be determined in Georgia .
After all , the state has two Senate seats up for grabs .
If even one of the incumbents wins re-election , the GOP will maintain their majority and it may well be enough to prevent too much from going through .
However , in the event of a 50-50 split , things can get interesting .
Still , whoever steps into Feinstein ’ s role will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
It would also be the path for legislation on gun control , immigration , voting rights and other Democratic priorities .
In a news release , Feinstein mentioned climate issues facing her home state of California , as well as defeating COVID-19 and protecting access to health care , which she called “ critical national priorities that require even more concentration.
” “ California is a huge state confronting two existential threats — wildfire and drought — that are only getting worse with climate change , ” Feinstein said in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing to serve as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary , Intelligence , Appropriations and Rules committees as we work with the Biden administration on priorities like gun safety , immigration reform and addressing inequities in criminal justice , ” Feinstein said .
“ I will continue to do my utmost to bring about positive change in the coming years.
” As bad as Feinstein might be on guns , the idea of someone more aggressive on the issue should cause your sphincter to pucker up something fierce .
As bad as Feinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well be worse .
This just steps up the importance of the races left here in Georgia .
The last thing we need to give anyone the power to help push through Biden ’ s radical anti-gun agenda .
I know , I know , the courts are still working on it , but I ’ m skeptical anything will come of it , which means I figure we should dig and hope I ’ m wrong .
That means we need to face the possibility that Feinstein ’ s replacement will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has long been a thorn in the side of gun rights advocates. She hasn’t always been in a position to actually do much of anything, but she was always there, always ready to offer up some anti-gun piece of legislation. As the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was in a place to provide resistance to any pro-gun legislation and to grease the skids for any anti-gun legislation.
Now, though, the Californian senator is stepping down from that role.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California stepped aside as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, opening the high-profile role for a more aggressive or partisan approach as the Senate moves on from President Donald Trump’s administration. Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois has an interest in the job, and said he will seek that role with an eye for oversight of actions that were taken taken by the outgoing Trump administration and a to-do list for “future progress of our country.” He would also keep his position in Senate Democratic leadership. The next Democrat in line after Durbin is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
So what does this mean for gun rights?
Well, much of that will be determined in Georgia. After all, the state has two Senate seats up for grabs. If even one of the incumbents wins re-election, the GOP will maintain their majority and it may well be enough to prevent too much from going through.
However, in the event of a 50-50 split, things can get interesting.
Still, whoever steps into Feinstein’s role will likely be part of a push on gun control.
It would also be the path for legislation on gun control, immigration, voting rights and other Democratic priorities. In a news release, Feinstein mentioned climate issues facing her home state of California, as well as defeating COVID-19 and protecting access to health care, which she called “critical national priorities that require even more concentration.” “California is a huge state confronting two existential threats — wildfire and drought — that are only getting worse with climate change,” Feinstein said in the release. “I look forward to continuing to serve as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary, Intelligence, Appropriations and Rules committees as we work with the Biden administration on priorities like gun safety, immigration reform and addressing inequities in criminal justice,” Feinstein said. “I will continue to do my utmost to bring about positive change in the coming years.”
As bad as Feinstein might be on guns, the idea of someone more aggressive on the issue should cause your sphincter to pucker up something fierce. As bad as Feinstein was, whoever comes after her may well be worse.
This just steps up the importance of the races left here in Georgia. The last thing we need to give anyone the power to help push through Biden’s radical anti-gun agenda.
I know, I know, the courts are still working on it, but I’m skeptical anything will come of it, which means I figure we should dig and hope I’m wrong. That means we need to face the possibility that Feinstein’s replacement will be even more anti-gun than she is.