bearingarms--2020-06-25--Recent Shooting In Minneapolis Latest Example Of Why They Need Cops

No one disputes that what happened to George Floyd wasn ’ t awful .
There may be debate about just how bad it was , but I haven ’ t seen a soul actually defending what happened .
I ’ m sure they can be found , but they ’ re a distinct minority .
Regardless of any of that , though , there ’ s been a ton of talk about defunding the police .
The Minneapolis city council even voted to disband their police department .
However , a recent shooting suggests that might have been a tad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Saturday night shooting in Uptown that sent a large crowd of people fleeing a hail of bullets .
The incident has sparked a conversation about public safety in the neighborhood and city .
The shooting happened around 12:30 a.m. on June 21 at Lagoon & Hennepin .
Some survivors were taken to Hennepin County Medical Center and others showed up at local hospitals in private cars .
Police say none of their injuries are life-threatening .
Arradondo said the department has seen a surge of violent crime and shootings in recent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis.
” More than 100 people have been shot in the city since May 26 , according to the Star Tribune .
Arradondo said the Minneapolis Police Department would be looking for help from the FBI and other outside law enforcement agencies .
“ Make no doubt , the gun violence has to stop , ” he said .
Hennepin County Sheriff Dave Hutchinson said deputies will provide patrol assistance in Minneapolis and investigative resources to help arrest those committing violent crimes .
“ Our communities are engaged in a dangerous spate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Hutchinson said in a statement .
“ It might be easier for police , in these turbulent times , to keep a low profile and fly under the radar .
But it isn ’ t the right thing to do.
” Now , despite the votes , the Minneapolis Police Department is still on the job .
However , I can ’ t help but wonder just how many people are taking advantage of the situation under the belief that the department won ’ t actually do anything to stop them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that police usually can ’ t stop such crimes from taking place , making things an even bigger mess .
Honestly , it sounds like now is the worst time possible to talk about defunding the police department there in Minneapolis .
Reforming ?
Sure .
I ’ ve said before that there are serious issues with the department .
They need some definite reform .
I don ’ t know who would dispute such a thing .
At least , I can ’ t think of anyone who doesn ’ t work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , though , it ’ s clear that the need for law enforcement is as strong as ever .
The last thing anyone needs is for criminals like this to feel emboldened by the belief that the police are on their way out and Minneapolis will become a free-fire zone .
That way gets a lot of people hurt and killed .
No one wants to see that happen .
The question is , will anyone with any authority there have the cajones to actually say as much ?

No one disputes that what happened to George Floyd wasn’t awful. There may be debate about just how bad it was, but I haven’t seen a soul actually defending what happened. I’m sure they can be found, but they’re a distinct minority.
Regardless of any of that, though, there’s been a ton of talk about defunding the police. The Minneapolis city council even voted to disband their police department.
However, a recent shooting suggests that might have been a tad premature.
Eleven people were wounded in a Saturday night shooting in Uptown that sent a large crowd of people fleeing a hail of bullets. The incident has sparked a conversation about public safety in the neighborhood and city. The shooting happened around 12:30 a.m. on June 21 at Lagoon & Hennepin. Some survivors were taken to Hennepin County Medical Center and others showed up at local hospitals in private cars. Police say none of their injuries are life-threatening. Police Chief Medaria Arradondo called the shooting “tragic and senseless violence.” … Arradondo said the department has seen a surge of violent crime and shootings in recent months that amounts to “a public health crisis.” More than 100 people have been shot in the city since May 26, according to the Star Tribune. Arradondo said the Minneapolis Police Department would be looking for help from the FBI and other outside law enforcement agencies. “Make no doubt, the gun violence has to stop,” he said. Hennepin County Sheriff Dave Hutchinson said deputies will provide patrol assistance in Minneapolis and investigative resources to help arrest those committing violent crimes. “Our communities are engaged in a dangerous spate of violence, disproportionately affecting communities of color,” Hutchinson said in a statement. “It might be easier for police, in these turbulent times, to keep a low profile and fly under the radar. But it isn’t the right thing to do.”
Now, despite the votes, the Minneapolis Police Department is still on the job. However, I can’t help but wonder just how many people are taking advantage of the situation under the belief that the department won’t actually do anything to stop them.
That gets emboldened by the fact that police usually can’t stop such crimes from taking place, making things an even bigger mess.
Honestly, it sounds like now is the worst time possible to talk about defunding the police department there in Minneapolis. Reforming? Sure. I’ve said before that there are serious issues with the department. They need some definite reform. I don’t know who would dispute such a thing. At least, I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t work for the Minneapolis Police Department.
That said, though, it’s clear that the need for law enforcement is as strong as ever. The last thing anyone needs is for criminals like this to feel emboldened by the belief that the police are on their way out and Minneapolis will become a free-fire zone. That way gets a lot of people hurt and killed. No one wants to see that happen.
The question is, will anyone with any authority there have the cajones to actually say as much?


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Gun Rights Activists Get Key Win In Pennsylvania

As a nation , we ’ ve mostly come out of a national emergency and there ’ s some indication we may be heading back into COVID Emergency Part Deaux .
It ’ s the last thing any of us want or need right now , of course , but one particular problem highlighted during the earlier lockdown is just how vulnerable our gun rights are in many places .
Under emergency orders , many gun stores were unable to sell firearms at all , despite the massive demand .
Guns are often explicitly prohibited from sale during so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it doesn ’ t make a lot of sense .
Then there are the laws that prohibit the carry of firearms in various ways , even open carry when that ’ s ordinarily not an issue .
In Pennsylvania , though , steps are underway to try and stop that kind of thing from being an issue .
Legislation that would limit the governor ’ s ability to restrict access to guns during a disaster emergency declaration is moving through the Pennsylvania General Assembly .
The bill passed out of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition from CeaseFirePA and the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America , two groups that advocate for increased gun restrictions .
Under current law , people are banned from openly carrying a gun during a disaster emergency declaration , unless they have a concealed carry license , are exempt from having such a license , or are actively defending their life or property .
The bill from state Rep. Matthew Dowling ( R-Fayette ) would eliminate that ban .
The bill also would change the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a list of items or activities that the governor can restrict .
In other words , it simply makes it so people can do the same thing during an emergency they can do any other time .
Not such a big deal , right ?
Well , for some , it was a huge deal .
Leaders of CeaseFirePA and the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action said loosening restrictions would make people less safe .
“ It will put our communities at a greater risk of preventable gun violence during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislative lead for the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action .
Adam Garber , executive director of CeaseFirePA , said he wasn ’ t aware of law enforcement officers using the disaster emergency powers to seize guns from people choosing to openly carry firearms , but he said it ’ s important for law enforcement to have the option .
In other words , your rights don ’ t actually matter to these people .
Not exactly a shocker , to be sure .
However , I will say that unless someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of crime , there ’ s never a reason to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights .
Then again , people like Garber don ’ t actually believe we have any rights under the Second Amendment .
Firearm Owners Against Crime sent out a press release earlier today : PA House Passes HB 1747 Removing Draconian Powers of the Governor and Mayors to Suspend Civil Rights/2nd Amendment FOAC wishes to thank Representative Matt Dowling and all the members of the House of Representatives who supported HB 1747 !
Passage of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PA law , in Title 18 ’ s Uniform Firearms Act , that currently disarms EVERY PA Citizen who does not have a License To Carry Concealed Firearms ( LTCF ) during declared Emergencies .
The portions of Sections 6107 and 7301 that HB 1747 seeks to remove are unconstitutional , as they prohibit law-abiding individuals from being able to exercise their constitutional rights and defend their lives .
The curtailment of constitutional rights is never authorized , especially in a time of emergency , when the exercise of those rights is of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court Justice Wecht , joined by Justices Donohue and Dougherty , recently wrote , “ In light of the regulatory framework attending the sale and transfer of firearms , the inability of licensed firearm dealers to conduct any physical operations amounts to a complete prohibition upon the retail sale of firearms—an activity in which the citizens of this Commonwealth recently have been engaging on a large scale , and one guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of this Commonwealth.
” The opinion goes on to explain that the restriction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a Federal Firearms Licensee “ amounts to an absolute and indefinite prohibition upon the acquisition of firearms by the citizens of this Commonwealth—a result in clear tension with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I , Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
” Restricting a citizen ’ s right to self-defense as well as the lawful exercise of their 2nd Amendment/Article 1 , Section 21 rights , under the US and PA Constitutions , can not and should not be condoned and HB 1747 addresses these issues definitively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his opioid proclamation ( s ) , as well as , a state of emergency regarding COVID-19 ; pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S § 6107 , prohibits an individual from carrying/possessing ANY firearm on “ public streets or upon any public property ” during the state of emergency , unless one has an LTCF .
Further , the public has been misled as to the consequences of a violation of 18 Pa.C.S § 6107 because pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S .
§ 6119 , it is a misdemeanor of the first degree – our highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if an individual would be convicted of a violation of Section 6107 , it triggers the federal prohibition of 18 U.S.C .
§ 922 ( g ) ( 1 ) ; whereby , that individual will be prohibited for the remainder of his/her life from possessing ( current firearms ) and purchasing any firearms and ammunition .
It is important to remember , this IS CURRENT LAW right now and HB 1747 will ‘ repeal ’ the problematic sections of law thus shrinking the power of government to violate civil rights and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun control organizations such as Everytown , Mom ’ s demand action , and cease-fire PA are on record supporting continuing the framework of denying civil rights and the right to self-defense to millions of Pennsylvania citizens and placing them in legal jeopardy .
The misleading rhetoric coming from these gun control organizations reveals that they have no respect whatsoever for the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens .
Pennsylvania is the 11th most restrictive state in the nation for the exercise of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens .
We have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covering every aspect of firearms ownership , acquisition , and possession .
While we question the veracity of many of those laws this is one law that the public in this debate can do without .
Realistically , I don ’ t see this bill becoming law , unfortunately .
Governor Tom Wolf has come out in opposition to the bill–shocking , I know–and it doesn ’ t look like there are quite enough votes to override that veto .
Still , I ’ d love to be wrong because bills like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is nothing more than repealing some troubling sections of law that only hurt law-abiding citizens during a particularly tense time but does nothing during the rest of people ’ s lives .
If that ’ s not sufficient reason to repeal a law , what is ?

As a nation, we’ve mostly come out of a national emergency and there’s some indication we may be heading back into COVID Emergency Part Deaux. It’s the last thing any of us want or need right now, of course, but one particular problem highlighted during the earlier lockdown is just how vulnerable our gun rights are in many places.
Under emergency orders, many gun stores were unable to sell firearms at all, despite the massive demand. Guns are often explicitly prohibited from sale during so-called “emergencies” for whatever reason, even if it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Then there are the laws that prohibit the carry of firearms in various ways, even open carry when that’s ordinarily not an issue.
In Pennsylvania, though, steps are underway to try and stop that kind of thing from being an issue.
Legislation that would limit the governor’s ability to restrict access to guns during a disaster emergency declaration is moving through the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The bill passed out of the House with a bipartsian 127-74 vote Wednesday despite opposition from CeaseFirePA and the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, two groups that advocate for increased gun restrictions. Under current law, people are banned from openly carrying a gun during a disaster emergency declaration, unless they have a concealed carry license, are exempt from having such a license, or are actively defending their life or property. The bill from state Rep. Matthew Dowling (R-Fayette) would eliminate that ban. … The bill also would change the state’s disaster emergency law, striking out firearms from a list of items or activities that the governor can restrict.
In other words, it simply makes it so people can do the same thing during an emergency they can do any other time.
Not such a big deal, right?
Well, for some, it was a huge deal.
Leaders of CeaseFirePA and the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action said loosening restrictions would make people less safe. “It will put our communities at a greater risk of preventable gun violence during a pandemic,” said Erin Buchner, state legislative lead for the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action. Adam Garber, executive director of CeaseFirePA, said he wasn’t aware of law enforcement officers using the disaster emergency powers to seize guns from people choosing to openly carry firearms, but he said it’s important for law enforcement to have the option.
In other words, your rights don’t actually matter to these people. Not exactly a shocker, to be sure.
However, I will say that unless someone is or has been guilty of some kind of crime, there’s never a reason to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. Then again, people like Garber don’t actually believe we have any rights under the Second Amendment.
Firearm Owners Against Crime sent out a press release earlier today:
PA House Passes HB 1747 Removing Draconian Powers of the Governor and Mayors to Suspend Civil Rights/2nd Amendment FOAC wishes to thank Representative Matt Dowling and all the members of the House of Representatives who supported HB 1747! Passage of this legislation removes a very onerous section of PA law, in Title 18’s Uniform Firearms Act, that currently disarms EVERY PA Citizen who does not have a License To Carry Concealed Firearms (LTCF) during declared Emergencies. The portions of Sections 6107 and 7301 that HB 1747 seeks to remove are unconstitutional, as they prohibit law-abiding individuals from being able to exercise their constitutional rights and defend their lives. The curtailment of constitutional rights is never authorized, especially in a time of emergency, when the exercise of those rights is of paramount importance. Recently, PA Supreme Court Justice Wecht, joined by Justices Donohue and Dougherty, recently wrote, “In light of the regulatory framework attending the sale and transfer of firearms, the inability of licensed firearm dealers to conduct any physical operations amounts to a complete prohibition upon the retail sale of firearms—an activity in which the citizens of this Commonwealth recently have been engaging on a large scale, and one guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of this Commonwealth.” The opinion goes on to explain that the restriction on the ability to purchase a firearm at a Federal Firearms Licensee “amounts to an absolute and indefinite prohibition upon the acquisition of firearms by the citizens of this Commonwealth—a result in clear tension with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Restricting a citizen’s right to self-defense as well as the lawful exercise of their 2nd Amendment/Article 1, Section 21 rights, under the US and PA Constitutions, cannot and should not be condoned and HB 1747 addresses these issues definitively! The Governor’s issuance of his opioid proclamation(s), as well as, a state of emergency regarding COVID-19; pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S § 6107, prohibits an individual from
carrying/possessing ANY firearm on “public streets or upon any public property” during the state of emergency, unless one has an LTCF. Further, the public has been misled as to the consequences of a violation of 18 Pa.C.S § 6107 because pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6119, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree – our highest grade misdemeanor. As a result, if an individual would be convicted of a violation of Section 6107, it triggers the federal prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); whereby, that individual will be prohibited for the remainder of his/her life from possessing (current firearms) and purchasing any firearms and ammunition. It is important to remember, this IS CURRENT LAW right now and HB 1747 will ‘repeal’ the problematic sections of law thus shrinking the power of government to violate civil rights and our Constitutions, both state and federal. Gun control organizations such as Everytown, Mom’s demand action, and cease-fire PA are on record supporting continuing the framework of denying civil rights and the right to self-defense to millions of Pennsylvania citizens and placing them in legal jeopardy. The misleading rhetoric coming from these gun control organizations reveals that they have no respect whatsoever for the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Pennsylvania is the 11th most restrictive state in the nation for the exercise of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. We have a vast array of laws that currently exist covering every aspect of firearms ownership, acquisition, and possession. While we question the veracity of many of those laws this is one law that the public in this debate can do without.
Realistically, I don’t see this bill becoming law, unfortunately. Governor Tom Wolf has come out in opposition to the bill–shocking, I know–and it doesn’t look like there are quite enough votes to override that veto. Still, I’d love to be wrong because bills like this are definitely needed. As FOAC notes, this is nothing more than repealing some troubling sections of law that only hurt law-abiding citizens during a particularly tense time but does nothing during the rest of people’s lives.
If that’s not sufficient reason to repeal a law, what is?


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Even CNN Can't Ignore Increase In Gun, Ammo Sales After Anti-Cop Rhetoric

It started with a horrible tragedy , one that was universally decried .
For a brief moment , we were united in common cause .
We all agreed that what happened to George Floyd was awful and that we should try and make sure it never happened again .
It was just a bit after that when the whole damn thing went off the rails .
Before long , we started hearing cries of “ defund the police ” from various sectors .
While some have tried to spin it as an effort to reallocate police funds for other things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , far too many others are calling for the outright abolition of various police departments .
Now , many of those who didn ’ t stock up on guns and ammo following the pandemic are doing so now .
It ’ s bad enough that even CNN can ’ t ignore it .
Coronavirus-fueled fears of social unrest already had Americans panic-buying guns and bullets at record rates earlier this year .
That was before the police killing of George Floyd caused an international uproar , leading to protests that , at times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting in cities across the United States .
Those circumstances and the rise of the Defund the Police movement championed by Black Lives Matter activists have led to higher sales for firearms and ammunition dealers .
Firearms dealers across the country have reported a recent spike in sales , citing the unrest following police brutality protests in support of George Floyd and calls to defund the police as catalysts , according to gun industry analyst Rob Southwick , founder of the market research firm Southwick Associates Inc. “ Anything that can cause people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical crime to self , others and property can drive firearm sales , ” Southwick told CNN Business .
And let ’ s be honest , defunding police departments is something that ’ s going to make folks feel a tad unsafe .
Again , while some activists are claiming that cries of defunding the police is really a call for serious reform of how we address crime as a whole , most people aren ’ t taking it that way .
Nor should they .
Let ’ s remember that Minneapolis voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have a plan for what came next , they just wanted to disband their department .
That doesn ’ t sound like reallocation of resources to try and help problem people before they require a police response or anything else .
So yeah , people are buying up guns and ammo because while many trusted the police to protect them , they ’ re now left wondering if there will even be a police department to call in the event of an emergency .
After all , while some don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , others want to disband every law enforcement agency in the country .
Do they think criminals will simply stop existing ?
Do they think those who would harm others will just vanish ?
They won ’ t .
As a result , people will need to defend themselves .
For those folks , though , I ’ ve got a news flash .
You ’ ve always needed to be the one to defend yourself .
The police can ’ t protect anyone but themselves .
They might want to , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be everywhere .
So even if the defund the police movement fades away , you ’ ll still be responsible for your own protection .
Just some food for thought .

It started with a horrible tragedy, one that was universally decried. For a brief moment, we were united in common cause. We all agreed that what happened to George Floyd was awful and that we should try and make sure it never happened again.
It was just a bit after that when the whole damn thing went off the rails.
Before long, we started hearing cries of “defund the police” from various sectors. While some have tried to spin it as an effort to reallocate police funds for other things that might reduce crime without police involvement, far too many others are calling for the outright abolition of various police departments.
Now, many of those who didn’t stock up on guns and ammo following the pandemic are doing so now. It’s bad enough that even CNN can’t ignore it.
Coronavirus-fueled fears of social unrest already had Americans panic-buying guns and bullets at record rates earlier this year. That was before the police killing of George Floyd caused an international uproar, leading to protests that, at times, descended into riots, arson and looting in cities across the United States. Those circumstances and the rise of the Defund the Police movement championed by Black Lives Matter activists have led to higher sales for firearms and ammunition dealers. Firearms dealers across the country have reported a recent spike in sales, citing the unrest following police brutality protests in support of George Floyd and calls to defund the police as catalysts, according to gun industry analyst Rob Southwick, founder of the market research firm Southwick Associates Inc. “Anything that can cause people to feel unsafe in relation to possible physical crime to self, others and property can drive firearm sales,” Southwick told CNN Business.
And let’s be honest, defunding police departments is something that’s going to make folks feel a tad unsafe.
Again, while some activists are claiming that cries of defunding the police is really a call for serious reform of how we address crime as a whole, most people aren’t taking it that way. Nor should they.
Let’s remember that Minneapolis voted to disband their police department. They didn’t have a plan for what came next, they just wanted to disband their department. That doesn’t sound like reallocation of resources to try and help problem people before they require a police response or anything else.
So yeah, people are buying up guns and ammo because while many trusted the police to protect them, they’re now left wondering if there will even be a police department to call in the event of an emergency. After all, while some don’t want to go that far, others want to disband every law enforcement agency in the country.
Do they think criminals will simply stop existing? Do they think those who would harm others will just vanish?
They won’t. As a result, people will need to defend themselves.
For those folks, though, I’ve got a news flash. You’ve always needed to be the one to defend yourself. The police can’t protect anyone but themselves. They might want to, but they can’t. They can’t be everywhere. So even if the defund the police movement fades away, you’ll still be responsible for your own protection.
Just some food for thought.


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Media Matters Accidently Proves Gun Control Not Needed

Anti-gunners have a tendency to present the world as an incredibly dangerous place .
They use any number they can to scare you , hoping that the fear will make you call for gun control .
That ’ s why they lump suicides in with “ gun fatalities ” every single year .
They know the number of homicides won ’ t do it alone , so they take suicides and add it in there and hope no one will notice .
Now , though , many of these same people are screaming about defunding the police , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how crime is getting worse amid these calls .
Over at Media Matters , though , they did their usual schtick of claiming we ’ re doing something sneaky and underhanded .
They even took issue with a couple of things Cam wrote .
• In a June 21 article , Bearing Arms ’ Cam Edwards covered the gun violence in New York City and across the state before slamming Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s commitment to gun safety laws and complaining that “ officials are still doubling down on … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the street.
” • In a June 23 article for Bearing Arms , Edwards briefly mentioned the Minneapolis mass shooting while covering the amount of gun violence in the city over the last month .
Edwards criticized the city council ’ s push to disband their police department , writing : “ They need a law enforcement agency empowered to make arrests , and a criminal justice system that will treat violence seriously .
You can ’ t have that if your police department ’ s been abolished and replaced with social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-meaning they might be.
” To be clear , Cam wasn ’ t the only one they wrote about , but he ’ s kind of relevant to us here .
Now , Cam ’ s a big boy and he can defend himself , but what I found amusing was how Media Matters tried to justify this one .
Here ’ s the paragraph right before their little list .
Conservative and pro-gun media ignored the bulk of these shootings , covering only Chicago , Minneapolis , and New York City to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ defunding the police.
” But data shows that police departments spend very little percentage of their time responding to calls about violent crimes , and no city — including those where the shootings occurred — has dismantled its police department at this point .
But these media figures still suggested that there ’ s more violence to come if police reforms are enacted : Now , look at the bolded part in the first paragraph and the second paragraph .
Both make it clear that violent crime makes up a small amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a small portion of crime in total .
These are the same people who routinely present guns as this massive threat ; as if only the truly fortunate can die of old age rather than be gunned down on the streets of an American city .
So , which is it ?
Is violent crime a virtually non-existent problem that doesn ’ t require nearly as much policing–and Cam never said that these departments had been defunded , but we do know they ’ re being heavily restrained by liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them–or are guns a plague that will amount to genocide ?
Again , which is it , because it can ’ t be both .
On the other hand , we ’ ve never argued that guns are a problem .
We ’ ve acknowledged time and time again that the odds of you being involved in a violent crime is low , but that we still think you should carry a gun because it ’ s not non-existent .
This is a point we ’ ve remained consistent on through the years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at once responsible for pretending that guns are a scourge that needs to be wiped from the Earth because of violent crime while also saying that violent crime isn ’ t really a threat .
However , what Media Matters is also missing is that even without defunding , these departments are seeing a huge surge in violent crime , well about that 4 percent of what they normally see on a shift , because people are already thinking of a time when the department simply isn ’ t there .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s unlikely we ’ d see anything like this taking place .
Not that I ’ d expect them to acknowledge this tidbit .
Nor will they acknowledge that they ’ ve now provided sufficient evidence that maybe , just maybe , violent crime isn ’ t the problem the and people like them have tried to paint it as .

Anti-gunners have a tendency to present the world as an incredibly dangerous place. They use any number they can to scare you, hoping that the fear will make you call for gun control. That’s why they lump suicides in with “gun fatalities” every single year. They know the number of homicides won’t do it alone, so they take suicides and add it in there and hope no one will notice.
Now, though, many of these same people are screaming about defunding the police, and a lot of us have had to point out how crime is getting worse amid these calls.
Over at Media Matters, though, they did their usual schtick of claiming we’re doing something sneaky and underhanded.
They even took issue with a couple of things Cam wrote.
In a June 21 article, Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards covered the gun violence in New York City and across the state before slamming Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s commitment to gun safety laws and complaining that “officials are still doubling down on … more gun control and fewer police officers on the street.”
…
In a June 23 article for Bearing Arms, Edwards briefly mentioned the Minneapolis mass shooting while covering the amount of gun violence in the city over the last month. Edwards criticized the city council’s push to disband their police department, writing: “They need a law enforcement agency empowered to make arrests, and a criminal justice system that will treat violence seriously. You can’t have that if your police department’s been abolished and replaced with social workers, no matter how hard-working and well-meaning they might be.”
To be clear, Cam wasn’t the only one they wrote about, but he’s kind of relevant to us here. Now, Cam’s a big boy and he can defend himself, but what I found amusing was how Media Matters tried to justify this one.
Here’s the paragraph right before their little list.
Conservative and pro-gun media ignored the bulk of these shootings, covering only Chicago, Minneapolis, and New York City to claim this is the inevitable result of “defunding the police.” But data shows that police departments spend very little percentage of their time responding to calls about violent crimes, and no city — including those where the shootings occurred — has dismantled its police department at this point. But these media figures still suggested that there’s more violence to come if police reforms are enacted:
And after:
In actuality, police departments spend a very small amount of time responding to violent crime calls. According to The New York Times, a “handful of cities post data online showing how their police departments spend their time” and in the three cities analyzed, responding to violent crime calls made up just 4% of the officers’ shifts on average, while responding to noncriminal calls made up between 32-37%.
Now, look at the bolded part in the first paragraph and the second paragraph. Both make it clear that violent crime makes up a small amount of what officers deal with, meaning it’s a small portion of crime in total.
These are the same people who routinely present guns as this massive threat; as if only the truly fortunate can die of old age rather than be gunned down on the streets of an American city.
So, which is it? Is violent crime a virtually non-existent problem that doesn’t require nearly as much policing–and Cam never said that these departments had been defunded, but we do know they’re being heavily restrained by liberal government officials who would love to defund them–or are guns a plague that will amount to genocide?
Again, which is it, because it can’t be both.
On the other hand, we’ve never argued that guns are a problem. We’ve acknowledged time and time again that the odds of you being involved in a violent crime is low, but that we still think you should carry a gun because it’s not non-existent. This is a point we’ve remained consistent on through the years.
Media Matters, however, is at once responsible for pretending that guns are a scourge that needs to be wiped from the Earth because of violent crime while also saying that violent crime isn’t really a threat.
However, what Media Matters is also missing is that even without defunding, these departments are seeing a huge surge in violent crime, well about that 4 percent of what they normally see on a shift, because people are already thinking of a time when the department simply isn’t there. If the rhetoric wasn’t out there, it’s unlikely we’d see anything like this taking place.
Not that I’d expect them to acknowledge this tidbit.
Nor will they acknowledge that they’ve now provided sufficient evidence that maybe, just maybe, violent crime isn’t the problem the and people like them have tried to paint it as.


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Illinois State Police Report 500% Increase In Permit Applications

The civil unrest and increasing violent crime in Chicago and other Illinois cities have prompted tens of thousands of Illinois residents to arm themselves in self-defense for the very first time .
The Illinois State Police reports that in the first two weeks of June , more than 42,000 residents applied for a Firearms Owner ID card .
That ’ s a 500 % increase from the same time period in 2019 , and gun store owners and firearms instructors in the state say they expect the demand to continue , at least in the near future .
At Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , owner Mark Galvin says he ’ s gone from selling ten guns per day last year to as many as 200 per day in recent weeks .
According to the Chicago Tribune , the flood of new gun owners has resulted in further backlogs to the state ’ s background check system .
The mandatory 72-hour background check — required by the state before getting a gun — has stretched to more than a week for some of his customers .
On Monday , he was still waiting on five backgrounds he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 17 and seven from Thursday .
The firearms services bureau of the Illinois State Police is taking an average of 94 business hours — not counting holidays , weekends , the day the gun is purchased , or the day the sale is approved or denied — to process background checks , roughly a day longer than usual , according to state police spokeswoman Beth Hundsdorfer .
The bureau is responsible for issuing firearm owner ’ s identification cards and concealed carry licenses , as well as conducting background checks for licensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its work started to pick up in March and has spiked in June , Hundsdorfer said .
While background checks for gun sales delayed at the moment , the wait for a FOID card is even longer , with many prospective gun owners now waiting for months to be approved before they can legally purchase a firearm .
I can ’ t help but wonder if this self-described “ very liberal Democrat ” has changed his mind about the state ’ s FOID card requirement , given that he ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect himself and his family .
The Tribune found plenty of other Illinois residents who ’ ve been waiting since March to get their FOID cards , even though the state has supposedly increased the number of staff handling the flood of requests and has also automatically extended current FOID cards and concealed carry licenses for a year .
Still , the system can ’ t keep up with demand at the moment , leaving many would-be gun owners to twiddle their thumbs when they could be exercising their right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spike in applications , the Illinois State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation had sued the state over long delays in processing FOID cards , arguing that the wait amounts to a deprivation of the Second Amendment rights of applicants .
With the delays now reaching epidemic proportions , that argument is even stronger .
A right delayed is a right denied , and at the moment there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights but are being prevented from doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws in Illinois .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

The civil unrest and increasing violent crime in Chicago and other Illinois cities have prompted tens of thousands of Illinois residents to arm themselves in self-defense for the very first time. The Illinois State Police reports that in the first two weeks of June, more than 42,000 residents applied for a Firearms Owner ID card. That’s a 500% increase from the same time period in 2019, and gun store owners and firearms instructors in the state say they expect the demand to continue, at least in the near future.
At Fox Valley Gun Range in Elgin, Illinios, owner Mark Galvin says he’s gone from selling ten guns per day last year to as many as 200 per day in recent weeks. According to the Chicago Tribune, the flood of new gun owners has resulted in further backlogs to the state’s background check system.
The mandatory 72-hour background check — required by the state before getting a gun — has stretched to more than a week for some of his customers. On Monday, he was still waiting on five backgrounds he submitted on June 16, eight from June 17 and seven from Thursday. The firearms services bureau of the Illinois State Police is taking an average of 94 business hours — not counting holidays, weekends, the day the gun is purchased, or the day the sale is approved or denied — to process background checks, roughly a day longer than usual, according to state police spokeswoman Beth Hundsdorfer. The bureau is responsible for issuing firearm owner’s identification cards and concealed carry licenses, as well as conducting background checks for licensed gun dealers when a sale is made. Its work started to pick up in March and has spiked in June, Hundsdorfer said.
While background checks for gun sales delayed at the moment, the wait for a FOID card is even longer, with many prospective gun owners now waiting for months to be approved before they can legally purchase a firearm.
A 38-year-old man from Dixon — who didn’t want his name used, citing employment reasons — described himself as “a very liberal Democrat” who for decades has been “for most forms of gun control politically.” But since March, he’s been waiting for his first gun permit to arrive so he can keep his family safe, he said. “My views have recently changed, and I have accepted that the Second Amendment provides for the personal ownership and use of a firearm,” he said in an email. “The recent social unrest of a divisive president, the pandemic and dramatic rise in unemployment, and the more recent social unrest because of the way we police in this country have all been reasons that have prompted my recent application.”


bearingarms--2020-06-25--First Amendment Fight Brewing Over Uncle Sam Billboard In WA State

Amid attempts to remove and even burn down a local signboard festooned with an image of Uncle Sam , about 100 residents in Lewis County , Washington rallied on Tuesday vowing to protect the space from any attempts to mess with the highly visible landmark along Interstate 5 .
The Hamilton Corner Uncle Sam has been around for 53 years now , and the messages regularly posted on the space have been bugging some people ( mostly on the Left ) ever since .
The first news story about the billboard ran on Nov. 24 , 1967 , in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , population 76,000 .
It showed a photo of the billboard carrying the message , “ THERE ARE NO BILLBOARDS IN RUSSIA !
” The caption explained that turkey rancher Alfred Hamilton , “ who owns property adjacent to Interstate 5 , ” had put up the billboard “ in apparent protest against a federal-state move to rid sections of interstate highway of billboards.
” And so ensued a legal battle that went from Lewis County Superior Court to the state Court of Appeals and finally to the state ’ s Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ruled in favor of Hamilton , further cementing the legend of the Uncle Sam Billboard .
The state had argued that the billboard broke the Scenic Vistas Act of 1971 .
Hamilton said he was simply advertising his 200-acre farm ’ s product , which was not only turkeys , but also cattle , corn , grain , peas and hay .
That was allowed by the vistas law .
And it was true .
In small letters , the billboard would state , “ Hamilton Farms , ” or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hamilton ’ s 7+ , ” the registered brand of his livestock .
In the past , the objections have centered over the politically incorrect and sometimes outrageous comments on the billboard , not the image of Uncle Sam itself .
Frankly , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if those now trying to remove the billboard aren ’ t just upset about Uncle Sam himself .
In recent weeks there ’ ve been several online petitions calling for the removal of the Hamilton Corner Uncle Sam that have garnered tens of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s signed up to speak about removing the billboard at the local city council meetings .
Given the fact that the courts have already ruled the Hamiltons can have the sign on their own property , I don ’ t know how the local government could try to remove it anyway .
Unfortunately , at least one individual ’ s attempted to take down the billboard on their own .
Actually , “ burn it down ” is more accurate .
With that as the backdrop , supporters of the Hamiltons and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billboard Tuesday .
Among those addressing the crowd was Lewis County Sheriff Rob Snaza , who riled up local media when he referenced Gov .
Jay Inslee ’ s mask mandate , and told those in attendance , “ don ’ t be a sheep.
” I appreciate the shoutout to the Second Amendment , and I ’ m sure many in the crowd did as well , given that the local paper seemed to be fascinated by the number of armed citizens in attendance .
And I actually agree with the sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to wearing a mask .
It cuts both ways , however .
You should do what makes you most comfortable , not what people on the Left or on the Right are shouting at you to do .
After all , being a free thinker means ignoring the bleating coming from all of the flocks in the field .
I doubt the Uncle Sam billboard is going to come down via a city council or court decision , but it ’ s clearly become a target of the angry Left , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree with is yet another glaring example of the illiberal nature of the current protesters .
Their idea of freedom of speech is the right to get in the face of a police officer and call them a piece of sh*t and a disappointment to their mother ; the right to destroy property that offends them ; and the right to shut up those they disagree with .
Like the Second Amendment , the First Amendment exists for all , or it doesn ’ t really exist at all .
Freedom of speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind without government interference .
It doesn ’ t cover angry mobs destroying an abolitionist newspaper , and it doesn ’ t protect arsonists from setting fire to a billboard that offends them .
Those are simply crimes .
Taking an unpopular position is not .
It may not be protected in the court of public opinion , but it is protected by our Bill of Rights .

Amid attempts to remove and even burn down a local signboard festooned with an image of Uncle Sam, about 100 residents in Lewis County, Washington rallied on Tuesday vowing to protect the space from any attempts to mess with the highly visible landmark along Interstate 5. The Hamilton Corner Uncle Sam has been around for 53 years now, and the messages regularly posted on the space have been bugging some people (mostly on the Left) ever since.
The first news story about the billboard ran on Nov. 24, 1967, in The Chronicle, the newspaper that serves Lewis County, population 76,000. It showed a photo of the billboard carrying the message, “THERE ARE NO BILLBOARDS IN RUSSIA!” The caption explained that turkey rancher Alfred Hamilton, “who owns property adjacent to Interstate 5,” had put up the billboard “in apparent protest against a federal-state move to rid sections of interstate highway of billboards.” And so ensued a legal battle that went from Lewis County Superior Court to the state Court of Appeals and finally to the state’s Supreme Court. On Dec. 20, 1979, it ruled in favor of Hamilton, further cementing the legend of the Uncle Sam Billboard. The state had argued that the billboard broke the Scenic Vistas Act of 1971. Hamilton said he was simply advertising his 200-acre farm’s product, which was not only turkeys, but also cattle, corn, grain, peas and hay. That was allowed by the vistas law. And it was true. In small letters, the billboard would state, “Hamilton Farms,” or “Angus-Holstein Springers,” or even “Hamilton’s 7+,” the registered brand of his livestock.
In the past, the objections have centered over the politically incorrect and sometimes outrageous comments on the billboard, not the image of Uncle Sam itself. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if those now trying to remove the billboard aren’t just upset about Uncle Sam himself. In recent weeks there’ve been several online petitions calling for the removal of the Hamilton Corner Uncle Sam that have garnered tens of thousands of signatures, though so far nobody’s signed up to speak about removing the billboard at the local city council meetings. Given the fact that the courts have already ruled the Hamiltons can have the sign on their own property, I don’t know how the local government could try to remove it anyway. Unfortunately, at least one individual’s attempted to take down the billboard on their own. Actually, “burn it down” is more accurate.
According to Lewis County Fire District 5 Chief Dan Mahoney, there was an attempt to set fire to the base of the sign at 2:30 a.m. Saturday morning. He said the fire wasn’t extensive and it remained in the grass around the wooden support poles.
With that as the backdrop, supporters of the Hamiltons and their freedom of speech converged on the billboard Tuesday. Among those addressing the crowd was Lewis County Sheriff Rob Snaza, who riled up local media when he referenced Gov. Jay Inslee’s mask mandate, and told those in attendance, “don’t be a sheep.”
The video, shot by the Daily Chronicle newspaper is short. In it, Sheriff Robert Snaza addresses a small crowd through a bullhorn. “In case you guys didn’t hear, Governor Jay Inslee, in his infinite wisdom, had decided after over a hundred some-odd days that we should all wear face masks inside and out. Here’s what I say. Don’t be a sheep,” Snaza said to applause. Afterward, he shook hands, no one wore a mask and there was no social distancing. On Wednesday, Snaza went into more detail about his statement. “When I said don’t be a sheep it means you don’t have to be a follower, it’s OK to be a free thinker. It’s OK to ask questions. It’s OK to say why,” Snaza said in an interview in his office in Chehalis, where he wore a protective face mask. Snaza said his comment wasn’t just about Inslee’s order to wear protective face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus even when outside, if social distancing isn’t possible. He says it came after a wide-ranging conversation with the crowd that included discussion of the Hamilton Corner “Uncle Sam” sign just outside Chehalis that was recently the subject of an online petition to remove it and an attempt to burn it down, to the occupation of Capitol Hill in Seattle known as CHOP. “And I just want them to know it’s OK to speak up, it’s OK to say how you feel, it’s OK to say you support the First Amendment, it’s OK to support the Second Amendment. It’s OK to say I don’t like what’s going on right now,” Snaza said. “Now I understand where he’s coming from. He saying science and data. But then to say outside in the environment every day when they’re just walking down the sidewalk? I kind of have disagreements with that.”


bearingarms--2020-06-25--What Does The Future Hold For The CHOP? Lawsuits, For One

Now that someone has died from the lawlessness in the CHOP , Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan has decided enough was enough .
Finally , the supposed grownups were going to take charge and the absolute stupidity of the CHOP was coming to an end .
The problem was , Durkan never gave a deadline .
Luckily for her , a lot are taking their cue anyway .
Some people , however , intend on remaining behind to continue protesting , which in and of itself is fine .
Protesting is constitutionally protected , after all .
What isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ segment of a city as an autonomous zone and declaring U.S. law has no application there .
Of course , for all their bluster , the CHOP seems inclined to fold pretty quickly once it became clear that Durkan didn ’ t have their back anymore .
Not that this ends Durkan ’ s CHOP-related problems in the least .
It seems that a number of businesses are less than pleased by the CHOP and Durkan ’ s refusal to do anything about it until someone died .
They ’ ve filed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents located in and around Seattle ’ s autonomous protest zone sued the city Wednesday — arguing their constitutional rights to property are being violated .
The class-action suit claims the group have had their rights “ overrun by the city of Seattle ’ s unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city neighborhood.
” The so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone , which sprouted up on June 8 , has been “ unchecked by police , unserved by fire and emergency health services , and inaccessible to the public at large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses were careful to argue that they don ’ t want to undermine the supposed anti-police brutality message of the CHOP , but did go on to highlight some particularly serious issues .
The group said in the suit that on occasions they have been threatened by protesters for photographing them or cleaning graffiti from their property .
One of the businesses included the suit — auto shop Car Tender — said a protester broke into his shop on June 14 , started a fire and attacked his son with a knife .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the burglar , but police did not respond and other protesters forced them to release the attacker , the suit says .
And this is why I had a problem with the CHOP in the first place .
Police brutality is one of those things we should all hope never happens to anyone .
However , the response has been to vilify the police and for many to act like there ’ s never a time or place for the police .
The CHOP was made up almost entirely of those people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a deadly weapon , and when the business owner and his son detained the criminal , these dipsticks forced them to let a dangerous individual go .
What if that guy with the knife turned out to be the shooter that later killed someone ?
Of course , it ’ s also possible that there were just a number of violent predators taking advantage of the lawlessness inside the CHOP , but that doesn ’ t excuse making someone release a violent criminal .
So now , Durkan and her city have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the police have no duty to protect you as an individual , they do have a duty to protect society as a whole .
This lawsuit appears to allege that the police were held back from performing that duty .
This should be an interesting case to watch going forward .

Now that someone has died from the lawlessness in the CHOP, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan has decided enough was enough. Finally, the supposed grownups were going to take charge and the absolute stupidity of the CHOP was coming to an end.
The problem was, Durkan never gave a deadline.
Luckily for her, a lot are taking their cue anyway.
More changes are happening at the CHOP. People are packing up their tents and many say they’re not sure what’s next. On Wednesday morning, it was clear fewer people were at the protest area and it was quiet. Traffic was flowing one-way on E. 12th Ave, as intended when SDOT moved in barricades last week. One Twitter account that claims to be an official account for the protest said “The CHOP project is now concluded,” but others who have been recognized as CHOP leaders in the beginning of the movement say they aren’t sure who is behind the account. The tweet claimed that “we have been briefed that full rehousing SPD East Precinct staff into the station will occur no later than early next week.” Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s office said in a statement to KIRO7: “Since the CHOP was established, City leaders have been onsite and in constant communication with demonstrators. Discussions are ongoing concerning SPD’s return to East Precinct.” The city did not provide a timeline as of noon on Wednesday.
Some people, however, intend on remaining behind to continue protesting, which in and of itself is fine. Protesting is constitutionally protected, after all. What isn’t, however, is declaring an entire segment of a city as an autonomous zone and declaring U.S. law has no application there.
Of course, for all their bluster, the CHOP seems inclined to fold pretty quickly once it became clear that Durkan didn’t have their back anymore.
Not that this ends Durkan’s CHOP-related problems in the least.
It seems that a number of businesses are less than pleased by the CHOP and Durkan’s refusal to do anything about it until someone died. They’ve filed a lawsuit.
About a dozen businesses and residents located in and around Seattle’s autonomous protest zone sued the city Wednesday — arguing their constitutional rights to property are being violated. The class-action suit claims the group have had their rights “overrun by the city of Seattle’s unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city neighborhood.” The so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, which sprouted up on June 8, has been “unchecked by police, unserved by fire and emergency health services, and inaccessible to the public at large,” the lawsuit said.
These businesses were careful to argue that they don’t want to undermine the supposed anti-police brutality message of the CHOP, but did go on to highlight some particularly serious issues.
The group said in the suit that on occasions they have been threatened by protesters for photographing them or cleaning graffiti from their property. One of the businesses included the suit — auto shop Car Tender — said a protester broke into his shop on June 14, started a fire and attacked his son with a knife. The father-son duo were able to detain the burglar, but police did not respond and other protesters forced them to release the attacker, the suit says.
And this is why I had a problem with the CHOP in the first place.
Police brutality is one of those things we should all hope never happens to anyone. However, the response has been to vilify the police and for many to act like there’s never a time or place for the police. The CHOP was made up almost entirely of those people. You had a burglar threaten an individual with a deadly weapon, and when the business owner and his son detained the criminal, these dipsticks forced them to let a dangerous individual go.
What if that guy with the knife turned out to be the shooter that later killed someone?
Of course, it’s also possible that there were just a number of violent predators taking advantage of the lawlessness inside the CHOP, but that doesn’t excuse making someone release a violent criminal.
So now, Durkan and her city have to worry about a lawsuit, and while the police have no duty to protect you as an individual, they do have a duty to protect society as a whole. This lawsuit appears to allege that the police were held back from performing that duty.
This should be an interesting case to watch going forward.


bearingarms--2020-06-26--What Impact Will Millions Of New Gun Owners Have On The 2020 Election?

With gun sales soaring , and the National Shooting Sports Foundation reporting that as many as 2-million Americans have purchased their first gun in just the past six months , some folks are starting to think about the impact that these new Second Amendment enthusiasts could have on the November elections .
Alan Gottlieb , the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation , believes that the influx of new gun owners could signal a “ sea change ” in Second Amendment politics .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we dig a little deeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the might effect this year ’ s elections as well as the broader debate over gun ownership in this country .
As much as I ’ d love to think that every new gun owner is going to turn into a single issue voter , we know that isn ’ t going to be the case .
There will be plenty of left-leaning new gun owners who cast their votes for anti-gun Democrats in November , even if they now object to a candidate ’ s position on the Second Amendment .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only come to understand the importance of voting to protect their right to keep and bear arms sooner rather than later , but that they ’ ll push Democrats to undo the damage done by gun control laws .
As I wrote yesterday , it ’ s time to decriminalize the 2A as part of criminal justice reform efforts , and left-leaning gun owners may be able to make these arguments to Democrats who would ignore the same thing if it came out of the mouth of a conservative gun owner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun licensing and discretionary carry laws may be just as unpopular on the Left as the national anthem or Abraham Lincoln seem to be at the moment .
Having said that , Gottlieb is right that some of these new gun owners will be voting to protect their newly exercised right to keep and bear arms .
For instance , at the moment there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who ’ ve been waiting for months for the state to issue their Firearms Owned ID card so they can legally purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners may still be so ticked off by the process that they vote in favor of candidates in November who want to scrap the FOID system entirely .
New gun owners in California who ’ ve now been exposed to the absurdities of the state ’ s gun control regime could also have an impact on some races , though Biden will still win the state handily .
In swing districts , however , new gun owners could help tilt races for the state Assembly and state Senate .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to flip to being a pro-2A body , but if the gun vote does turn out in large numbers in November we might be able to at least remove the veto-proof anti-gun supermajority in the state .
In other words , I think the influx of new gun owners could very well play a key role in deciding some elections , but increased political activism by the nearly 100-million Americans who ’ ve owned firearms for years could have an even bigger impact .
Regardless of when you became a gun owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you vote like your rights depend on it this fall , because they absolutely do .
Increased gun ownership on the Left may help defuse or undo gun control legislation over the long-term , but in the near future , Democrat control of Congress and the White House would lead to a gutting of the right to keep and bear arms for all of us .

With gun sales soaring, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation reporting that as many as 2-million Americans have purchased their first gun in just the past six months, some folks are starting to think about the impact that these new Second Amendment enthusiasts could have on the November elections. Alan Gottlieb, the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, believes that the influx of new gun owners could signal a “sea change” in Second Amendment politics.
“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we dig a little deeper into those new gun owners and how the might effect this year’s elections as well as the broader debate over gun ownership in this country.
As much as I’d love to think that every new gun owner is going to turn into a single issue voter, we know that isn’t going to be the case. There will be plenty of left-leaning new gun owners who cast their votes for anti-gun Democrats in November, even if they now object to a candidate’s position on the Second Amendment. My hope is that these gun owners will not only come to understand the importance of voting to protect their right to keep and bear arms sooner rather than later, but that they’ll push Democrats to undo the damage done by gun control laws.
As I wrote yesterday, it’s time to decriminalize the 2A as part of criminal justice reform efforts, and left-leaning gun owners may be able to make these arguments to Democrats who would ignore the same thing if it came out of the mouth of a conservative gun owner. One day before long the idea of gun licensing and discretionary carry laws may be just as unpopular on the Left as the national anthem or Abraham Lincoln seem to be at the moment.
Having said that, Gottlieb is right that some of these new gun owners will be voting to protect their newly exercised right to keep and bear arms. For instance, at the moment there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who’ve been waiting for months for the state to issue their Firearms Owned ID card so they can legally purchase a firearm. Many of these would-be gun owners may still be so ticked off by the process that they vote in favor of candidates in November who want to scrap the FOID system entirely.
New gun owners in California who’ve now been exposed to the absurdities of the state’s gun control regime could also have an impact on some races, though Biden will still win the state handily. In swing districts, however, new gun owners could help tilt races for the state Assembly and state Senate. I don’t think California’s legislature is going to flip to being a pro-2A body, but if the gun vote does turn out in large numbers in November we might be able to at least remove the veto-proof anti-gun supermajority in the state.
In other words, I think the influx of new gun owners could very well play a key role in deciding some elections, but increased political activism by the nearly 100-million Americans who’ve owned firearms for years could have an even bigger impact. Regardless of when you became a gun owner, it’s critically important that you vote like your rights depend on it this fall, because they absolutely do. Increased gun ownership on the Left may help defuse or undo gun control legislation over the long-term, but in the near future, Democrat control of Congress and the White House would lead to a gutting of the right to keep and bear arms for all of us.


bearingarms--2020-06-26--CA Lawmakers Can't Decide If Gun Is Rifle Or Pistol, But Want To Ban It Anyway

Anti-gun politicians in Sacramento appear set to ban a new firearm offered by a California and Nevada-based gunmaker , and pro-Second Amendment lawmakers are crying foul over the backdoor route that the gun banners are using to try to prevent any sales in the state .
The Sacramento Bee reports that officials from Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s office appeared before a Senate Budget Committee hearing this week urging state senators to approve a provision that would ban the Title 1 Firearm from Franklin Armory by including the measure in the state ’ s massive budget bill , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aaron Edwards , a representative from the governor ’ s Department of Finance , said that the administration had pushed to include the provision because the budget includes funding to regulate the weapons .
Under questioning from lawmakers , Edwards said he wasn ’ t prepared to describe the type of firearm the administration wants to ban .
“ I ’ d like someone to explain to me exactly what these weapons are , and referring to them as similar to assault weapons frankly doesn ’ t cut it for me , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Riverside .
“ I want to know what I ’ m voting on.
” Later in the hearing , Edwards and other administration officials provided more information on the weapons , which are not currently for sale in California .
Edwards pointed to the Franklin Armory Title 1 , saying it “ would fall under any reasonable person ’ s definition of an assault weapon ” but does not fall under the state ’ s assault weapons bans because it does not meet the definition of either a pistol or a rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more people may be able to obtain these weapons , ” Edwards said .
“ We think that they ’ re a public safety threat and we feel there ’ s an urgency to act now.
” In other words , it ’ s not an “ assault weapon ” under California law , but the governor wants to define as one anyway because he feels like that ’ s what it should be called .
Unlike a rifle , the Title 1 doesn ’ t have a shoulder stock , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long to be considered a pistol .
Whatever you want to call it , Gavin Newsom doesn ’ t think Californians should be able to own it .
With an anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature , Newsom could easily get a standalone bill banning the gun approved , but enforcement of the new law wouldn ’ t take effect until January 1st of 2021 .
If the gun ban provision is included in the state budget , the Franklin Armory Title 1 would be illegal for sale in the state starting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 1st .
Jay Jacobson , president of the company that manufactures the firearm , disputed the administration ’ s characterization of the gun .
He said the gun his company Franklin Armory manufactures , called a Title 1 , is in a separate category from rifles and pistols and that the company has worked for years to ensure the weapon would be legal to sell in California .
Several lawmakers raised concerns about the move at the Wednesday hearing , arguing the ban should have been considered in a standalone bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal that encompasses 19 pieces of complicated legislation .
“ It should be a policy bill — banning of a new class of firearm , ” said Republican Sen. Melissa Melendez from Lake Elsinore .
“ This isn ’ t a budget matter.
” Jacobson says his company is currently suing the state to sell the Title 1 in California , and added that he ’ ll file additional litigation if the backdoor gun ban does become law after the “ dirty tricks ” played by anti-gun legislators .
As for the Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment you can put down a deposit for the firearm , but it ’ s not yet available for purchase .
I wish Jay Jacobson the best in his fight with the state , because odds are he ’ s going to need to file that new lawsuit when Newsom signs the state budget here in the next few days .

Anti-gun politicians in Sacramento appear set to ban a new firearm offered by a California and Nevada-based gunmaker, and pro-Second Amendment lawmakers are crying foul over the backdoor route that the gun banners are using to try to prevent any sales in the state. The Sacramento Bee reports that officials from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office appeared before a Senate Budget Committee hearing this week urging state senators to approve a provision that would ban the Title 1 Firearm from Franklin Armory by including the measure in the state’s massive budget bill, rather than a standalone piece of legislation.
Aaron Edwards, a representative from the governor’s Department of Finance, said that the administration had pushed to include the provision because the budget includes funding to regulate the weapons. Under questioning from lawmakers, Edwards said he wasn’t prepared to describe the type of firearm the administration wants to ban. “I’d like someone to explain to me exactly what these weapons are, and referring to them as similar to assault weapons frankly doesn’t cut it for me,” said Sen. Richard Roth, a Democrat from Riverside. “I want to know what I’m voting on.” Later in the hearing, Edwards and other administration officials provided more information on the weapons, which are not currently for sale in California. Edwards pointed to the Franklin Armory Title 1, saying it “would fall under any reasonable person’s definition of an assault weapon” but does not fall under the state’s assault weapons bans because it does not meet the definition of either a pistol or a rifle. “The longer we wait, the more people may be able to obtain these weapons,” Edwards said. “We think that they’re a public safety threat and we feel there’s an urgency to act now.”
In other words, it’s not an “assault weapon” under California law, but the governor wants to define as one anyway because he feels like that’s what it should be called. Unlike a rifle, the Title 1 doesn’t have a shoulder stock, but it’s 16-inch barrel is too long to be considered a pistol. Whatever you want to call it, Gavin Newsom doesn’t think Californians should be able to own it.
With an anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature, Newsom could easily get a standalone bill banning the gun approved, but enforcement of the new law wouldn’t take effect until January 1st of 2021. If the gun ban provision is included in the state budget, the Franklin Armory Title 1 would be illegal for sale in the state starting in just a a few days, on July 1st.
Jay Jacobson, president of the company that manufactures the firearm, disputed the administration’s characterization of the gun. He said the gun his company Franklin Armory manufactures, called a Title 1, is in a separate category from rifles and pistols and that the company has worked for years to ensure the weapon would be legal to sell in California. Several lawmakers raised concerns about the move at the Wednesday hearing, arguing the ban should have been considered in a standalone bill, not as part of the sprawling budget deal that encompasses 19 pieces of complicated legislation. “It should be a policy bill — banning of a new class of firearm,” said Republican Sen. Melissa Melendez from Lake Elsinore. “This isn’t a budget matter.”
Jacobson says his company is currently suing the state to sell the Title 1 in California, and added that he’ll file additional litigation if the backdoor gun ban does become law after the “dirty tricks” played by anti-gun legislators. As for the Title 1 itself, it looks like for the moment you can put down a deposit for the firearm, but it’s not yet available for purchase. I wish Jay Jacobson the best in his fight with the state, because odds are he’s going to need to file that new lawsuit when Newsom signs the state budget here in the next few days.


bearingarms--2020-06-26--Parkland Dad Continues Fight For Armed Response In Schools

In the current debate over policing reforms , one of the steps that we ’ re seeing some cities take is ending the practice of having school resource officers as a daily presence in public schools .
Minneapolis , Minnesota school board members have already cancelled the contract with the city ’ s police department , and the Oakland , California school board voted to remove school resource officers earlier this week .
Several large school districts across the country , including in Minneapolis , St Paul , Portland , Denver , and San Francisco , have moved towards getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsing the concerns of activists who have long argued that having law enforcement in an educational setting harms black and brown students and fuels a “ school to prison pipeline ” .
Federal education data shows that black students are disproportionately likely to be both disciplined and arrested at school .
Black students represented 15 % of the total student enrollment , but 31 % of students who were referred to law enforcement or arrested during the 2015-2016 school year .
In Oakland , black students made up 26 % of the enrollment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests in schools , according to the school board ’ s resolution to eliminate the school police department .
Over the last four years , it noted , there have been 9,000 calls for service to the police to deal with Oakland schoolchildren .
In Los Angeles , the country ’ s second-largest school district , the school board heard nearly 12 hours of public comment this week , with most speakers calling for reducing or eliminating the 460 officers currently inside the city ’ s public schools .
Ryan Petty , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida in 2018 , says in a new piece at CNN that these cities are making a mistake .
…given the current environment , it may be natural for some to question why school districts spend scarce resources to have police on campus .
It is because SROs are effective .
These programs build relationships that make students and teachers feel safe and improve the climate and culture in our schools .
SROs also collaborate with school officials to get students the help they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % decline , between 1996 and 2018 , in juvenile arrests depicted in US Department of Justice data .
As we mentioned , seconds count , and the 2019 NTAC report shows “ No attacks were ended by outside law enforcement agencies responding to the scene from off-campus.
” Stand with Parkland — The National Association of Families for Safe Schools believes we must preserve the progress we have made together to make our nation ’ s schools safer as we honor those lost .
The threats to schools are real .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s children and educators are devastating to families and communities alike .
Petty has also co-authored a new column at Newseek in which he lays out his argument in more personal terms .
As one of us can tell you from personal experience , there is nothing worse than sending a child to school in the morning and not having her ever come home .
It would be one thing if these school districts were putting forward plans to replace SROs with other armed staff .
But the districts that are defunding school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arm teachers—no matter how much rigorous training might be required—as anathema .
If parents believe that an extremely slight decrease in the odds of their children coming home at the end of the day is a price worth paying in exchange for the benefits ( imagined or real ) of removing police from schools , then it is a school board ’ s prerogative to respect and potentially act on that perspective .
But school boards aren ’ t doing this because of parents .
Rather , they are tripping over themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fides by conforming to the news cycle-ordained , groupthink , knee-jerk reaction of the month .
If you have a child in a public school , call or email your school board member today to demand that they take no action on SROs without public comment and debate .
And if you live in a district that has already made a decision affecting the safety of your kids without your input , our only advice is : Get your children out .
It ’ s good advice , though I suspect that Petty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on deaf ears in many cities where police are viewed by most politicians and activists with suspicion and hostility .
Still , Petty not only knows firsthand the deadly consequences that can arise when police are delayed in their response to an active assailant attack , he ’ s spent the past two years learning about and studying the issue .
I ’ ve had the opportunity to speak with Ryan on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co on several occasions over the past two years , and I feel comfortable stating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to the conclusion that SROs are doing more harm than good , he ’ d be advocating to take them out of schools .
His intent is non-political and focused simply on making schools as safe as they can be for our children and the adults who work there .
If he says it ’ s a mistake to pull these police from schools , educators should listen .

In the current debate over policing reforms, one of the steps that we’re seeing some cities take is ending the practice of having school resource officers as a daily presence in public schools. Minneapolis, Minnesota school board members have already cancelled the contract with the city’s police department, and the Oakland, California school board voted to remove school resource officers earlier this week.
Several large school districts across the country, including in Minneapolis, St Paul, Portland, Denver, and San Francisco, have moved towards getting police officers out of schools entirely, endorsing the concerns of activists who have long argued that having law enforcement in an educational setting harms black and brown students and fuels a “school to prison pipeline”. Federal education data shows that black students are disproportionately likely to be both disciplined and arrested at school. Black students represented 15% of the total student enrollment, but 31% of students who were referred to law enforcement or arrested during the 2015-2016 school year. In Oakland, black students made up 26% of the enrollment and yet made up 73% of arrests in schools, according to the school board’s resolution to eliminate the school police department. Over the last four years, it noted, there have been 9,000 calls for service to the police to deal with Oakland schoolchildren. In Los Angeles, the country’s second-largest school district, the school board heard nearly 12 hours of public comment this week, with most speakers calling for reducing or eliminating the 460 officers currently inside the city’s public schools.
Ryan Petty, whose daughter Alaina was murdered in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018, says in a new piece at CNN that these cities are making a mistake.
…given the current environment, it may be natural for some to question why school districts spend scarce resources to have police on campus. It is because SROs are effective. These programs build relationships that make students and teachers feel safe and improve the climate and culture in our schools. SROs also collaborate with school officials to get students the help they need which has aided in a 74% decline, between 1996 and 2018, in juvenile arrests depicted in US Department of Justice data. As we mentioned, seconds count, and the 2019 NTAC report shows “No attacks were ended by outside law enforcement agencies responding to the scene from off-campus.” Stand with Parkland — The National Association of Families for Safe Schools believes we must preserve the progress we have made together to make our nation’s schools safer as we honor those lost. The threats to schools are real. The consequences of not protecting our nation’s children and educators are devastating to families and communities alike.
Petty has also co-authored a new column at Newseek in which he lays out his argument in more personal terms.
As one of us can tell you from personal experience, there is nothing worse than sending a child to school in the morning and not having her ever come home. It would be one thing if these school districts were putting forward plans to replace SROs with other armed staff. But the districts that are defunding school police would almost certainly deem any proposal to arm teachers—no matter how much rigorous training might be required—as anathema. If parents believe that an extremely slight decrease in the odds of their children coming home at the end of the day is a price worth paying in exchange for the benefits (imagined or real) of removing police from schools, then it is a school board’s prerogative to respect and potentially act on that perspective. But school boards aren’t doing this because of parents. Rather, they are tripping over themselves in order to signal their woke bona fides by conforming to the news cycle-ordained, groupthink, knee-jerk reaction of the month. If you have a child in a public school, call or email your school board member today to demand that they take no action on SROs without public comment and debate. And if you live in a district that has already made a decision affecting the safety of your kids without your input, our only advice is: Get your children out.
It’s good advice, though I suspect that Petty’s plea is going to fall on deaf ears in many cities where police are viewed by most politicians and activists with suspicion and hostility. Still, Petty not only knows firsthand the deadly consequences that can arise when police are delayed in their response to an active assailant attack, he’s spent the past two years learning about and studying the issue.
I’ve had the opportunity to speak with Ryan on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co on several occasions over the past two years, and I feel comfortable stating that if Petty’s research had led him to the conclusion that SROs are doing more harm than good, he’d be advocating to take them out of schools. His intent is non-political and focused simply on making schools as safe as they can be for our children and the adults who work there. If he says it’s a mistake to pull these police from schools, educators should listen.


bearingarms--2020-06-26--FL Sheriffs Warn Citizens: Be Prepared And Get Armed

A trio of sheriffs in the Sunshine State are speaking out publicly amidst rising violent crime in many cities across the country , and their message is simple : exercise your Second Amendment rights .
A couple of weeks ago Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivy got the ball rolling with a Facebook video encouraging residents to obtain their concealed carry license , telling them , “ No matter your position on guns.. the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun or knife is an armed and well prepared citizen or law enforcement officer.
” This week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd and Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood , who spoke to the Fox affiliate in Orlando about his support for the right to carry .
“ There ’ s not enough police in America to stop all of the threats , ” said Chitwood .
Chitwood adds that in his experience licensed gun owners tend to be some of the most law abiding citizens he encounters , and that just one citizen prepared for a bad situation could make all the difference .
Floridians seem to be following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is home to more than 2-million licensed concealed carry holders , and the state has added tens of thousands more in recent months .
Gun sales too are soaring , with more than 100,000 background checks performed since over the past month .
In the week after George Floyd ’ s death , Florida processed more than twice the number of background checks than it did in the same week in 2019 .
The number of Floridians who sought voluntary background checks so they could buy guns surged in the days and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of George Floyd on May 25 .
Since June 1 , Florida has processed 30,657 background checks .
The peak was reached the following day on June 2 , when the state processed 10,318 background checks in one day .
From May 26 to June 14 , the state processed 117,669 background checks .
After the June 2 peak , background checks processed daily dropped to 2,620 by June 14 , but were still almost twice the number processed the Sunday before Floyd ’ s death .
So far , Florida cities like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dramatic spike in violent crime taking place in cities like New York and Philadelphia , where shootings have soared in recent weeks .
That may be because the riots and unrest that have been regular features over the past month in those places haven ’ t been as widespread in Florida , allowing law enforcement to continue their focus in high-crime neighborhoods .
It may also have something to do with the fact that there are so many armed citizens ready and willing to defend their life against life-threatening acts of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on target , and I suspect that now that online applications for concealed carry licenses are once again being processed after being suspended for several months , the number of Floridians obtaining their carry license will be at record highs in the weeks to come .

A trio of sheriffs in the Sunshine State are speaking out publicly amidst rising violent crime in many cities across the country, and their message is simple: exercise your Second Amendment rights.
A couple of weeks ago Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivy got the ball rolling with a Facebook video encouraging residents to obtain their concealed carry license, telling them, “No matter your position on guns.. the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun or knife is an armed and well prepared citizen or law enforcement officer.”
This week, that call to arms has been echoed by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd and Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood, who spoke to the Fox affiliate in Orlando about his support for the right to carry.
“There’s not enough police in America to stop all of the threats,” said Chitwood. Chitwood adds that in his experience licensed gun owners tend to be some of the most law abiding citizens he encounters, and that just one citizen prepared for a bad situation could make all the difference.
Floridians seem to be following the sheriffs’ advice. Already the state is home to more than 2-million licensed concealed carry holders, and the state has added tens of thousands more in recent months. Gun sales too are soaring, with more than 100,000 background checks performed since over the past month.
From FloridaInsider:
In the week after George Floyd’s death, Florida processed more than twice the number of background checks than it did in the same week in 2019. The number of Floridians who sought voluntary background checks so they could buy guns surged in the days and weeks after protests started following the death of George Floyd on May 25. Since June 1, Florida has processed 30,657 background checks. The peak was reached the following day on June 2, when the state processed 10,318 background checks in one day. From May 26 to June 14, the state processed 117,669 background checks. After the June 2 peak, background checks processed daily dropped to 2,620 by June 14, but were still almost twice the number processed the Sunday before Floyd’s death.
So far, Florida cities like Miami and Orlando seem to have avoided the dramatic spike in violent crime taking place in cities like New York and Philadelphia, where shootings have soared in recent weeks. That may be because the riots and unrest that have been regular features over the past month in those places haven’t been as widespread in Florida, allowing law enforcement to continue their focus in high-crime neighborhoods. It may also have something to do with the fact that there are so many armed citizens ready and willing to defend their life against life-threatening acts of violence.
The sheriffs’ advice is right on target, and I suspect that now that online applications for concealed carry licenses are once again being processed after being suspended for several months, the number of Floridians obtaining their carry license will be at record highs in the weeks to come.


bearingarms--2020-06-26--Virginia Judge Rules Gun Rationing Law Can Take Effect July 1

A legal challenge to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s “ one-gun-a-month ” law was turned aside by a judge in Goochland County on Thursday afternoon , making it likely that the new gun control scheme will go into effect on July 1st .
Judge Timothy Sanner said in his ruling that the commonwealth of Virginia has a substantial interest in limiting gun trafficking , and that the new law limiting handgun purchases to one per month ( with a few exceptions ) doesn ’ t violate Article I , Section 13 of the state constitution .
During oral arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local gun enthusiast Valerie Trojan in the lawsuit against Col. Gary Settle , Superintendent of the Virginia State Police , said the handgun purchase limit violated both the U.S. and Virginia Constitution under the right to bear arms .
He further suggested the limit was an arbitrary numerical limit and compared it to limiting the purchase of a bible to once a month .
“ It ’ s the right to bear arms : plural , ” Browne , who works for the Richmond-based DC-based Spiro and Brown , said .
But Toby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , argued the law , which allows additional purchases under certain conditions , amounted more to an enhanced background check .
He also noted the lack of court intervention in similar laws , saying “ no other court in the country ” had considered ruling on such purchase limits .
And the nature of the purchase makes a difference as well , he argued .
Heytens said it was not a prohibition limiting access to firearms , but rather a “ modest restriction on commercial sales of firearms.
” Modest in practice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As attorney David Browne noted , this limit is indeed arbitrary .
What if next year the legislature comes back and hands Gov .
Northam a bill limiting handgun purchases to one per year , instead of one per month ?
What if the law is expanded to include long guns and not just handguns ?
Of course that ’ s an argument better suited for the broader legal challenge against the new law , rather than the request to grant an injunction barring the law from going into effect .
Phillip Van @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense League , noted that there was a high bar set in order for the judge to grant the requested injunction , but he ’ s vowing to continue the legal challenge even without the injunction .
Van Cleave is also involved in a second lawsuit that aims to block a new universal background check law .
Filed in the similarly rural Lynchburg County Circuit Court , the challenge is still awaiting a hearing date .
A call to the courthouse Wednesday suggested the case might not get heard before the law goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge has since been assigned : Judge Patrick Yeatts .
Van Cleave and friends already know Yeatts to be an ally ; the judge granted an injunction blocking Governor Ralph Northam ’ s executive order which closed gun ranges during the early days of the outbreak of Covid-19 .
These legal challenges are likely to be joined by several others once Northam ’ s package of a half-dozen gun control bills goes into effect on July 1st .
In addition to the background check and gun rationing measures , gun owners will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new “ red flag ” law ; changes to the state ’ s concealed carry licensing process ; and the establishment of new local restrictions on the possession of legally owned firearms on government-owned property .

A legal challenge to Gov. Ralph Northam’s “one-gun-a-month” law was turned aside by a judge in Goochland County on Thursday afternoon, making it likely that the new gun control scheme will go into effect on July 1st. Judge Timothy Sanner said in his ruling that the commonwealth of Virginia has a substantial interest in limiting gun trafficking, and that the new law limiting handgun purchases to one per month (with a few exceptions) doesn’t violate Article I, Section 13 of the state constitution.
During oral arguments, attorney David Browne, who represented local gun enthusiast Valerie Trojan in the lawsuit against Col. Gary Settle, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, said the handgun purchase limit violated both the U.S. and Virginia Constitution under the right to bear arms. He further suggested the limit was an arbitrary numerical limit and compared it to limiting the purchase of a bible to once a month. “It’s the right to bear arms: plural,” Browne, who works for the Richmond-based DC-based Spiro and Brown, said. But Toby Heytens, Solicitor General for the state, argued the law, which allows additional purchases under certain conditions, amounted more to an enhanced background check. He also noted the lack of court intervention in similar laws, saying “no other court in the country” had considered ruling on such purchase limits. And the nature of the purchase makes a difference as well, he argued. Heytens said it was not a prohibition limiting access to firearms, but rather a “modest restriction on commercial sales of firearms.”
Modest in practice, perhaps, but not in theory. As attorney David Browne noted, this limit is indeed arbitrary. What if next year the legislature comes back and hands Gov. Northam a bill limiting handgun purchases to one per year, instead of one per month? What if the law is expanded to include long guns and not just handguns?
Of course that’s an argument better suited for the broader legal challenge against the new law, rather than the request to grant an injunction barring the law from going into effect. Phillip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, noted that there was a high bar set in order for the judge to grant the requested injunction, but he’s vowing to continue the legal challenge even without the injunction.
Van Cleave is also involved in a second lawsuit that aims to block a new universal background check law. Filed in the similarly rural Lynchburg County Circuit Court, the challenge is still awaiting a hearing date. A call to the courthouse Wednesday suggested the case might not get heard before the law goes into effect next week, but a judge has since been assigned: Judge Patrick Yeatts. Van Cleave and friends already know Yeatts to be an ally; the judge granted an injunction blocking Governor Ralph Northam’s executive order which closed gun ranges during the early days of the outbreak of Covid-19.
These legal challenges are likely to be joined by several others once Northam’s package of a half-dozen gun control bills goes into effect on July 1st. In addition to the background check and gun rationing measures, gun owners will have to deal with the state’s new “red flag” law; changes to the state’s concealed carry licensing process; and the establishment of new local restrictions on the possession of legally owned firearms on government-owned property.