bearingarms--2020-07-08--Subway's New Open Carry Policy Not A Ban, Despite Anti-Gun Claims

Gun control advocates are still out self-congratulatory press releases and tweets patting themselves on the backs for getting fast food chain Subway to “ do something ” about the open carrying of firearms in the company ’ s restaurants , but as it turns out , rumors of an outright ban on open carry haven ’ t come to pass .
Instead , a couple of months after several Second Amendment activists openly carrying in a Raleigh Subway store became fodder for the national news media and anti-gun activists , the chain has revised its policy and is “ respectfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re eating while armed .
Many news outlets originally reported that the chain had banned the practice , but apparently that information from the Raleigh-Apex NAACP wasn ’ t correct , but WRAL-TV in Raleigh has been one of the few media outlets to acknowledge that the company ’ s new policy doesn ’ t amount to a ban .
Subway restaurants will ask customers to refrain from open carry of weapons at all restaurants , even in states where open carry is allowed .
The announcement came the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrated its grand reopening .
The store was destroyed in late May when George Floyd protests in downtown Raleigh turned into riots and looting .
Store owner Rashid Salahat and Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown were in attendance along with the NAACP and the Islamic Association .
The groups talked about how the community came together to clean up Salahat ’ s restaurant and the more than 175 other businesses that were vandalized in Raleigh .
Salahat thanked the volunteers that cleaned up his store and offered to feed everyone who attended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the money later , ” he said .
“ I am just overwhelmed with the support I get from our community.
” Salahat said his store sustained about $ 80,000 worth of damages in May when rioters broke windows , stole his TV and vandalized the restaurant .
It ’ s important to note that the Second Amendment activists had nothing to do with the damage done to the Subway store .
In fact , their lunch stop happened several weeks before rioters in downtown Raleigh trashed dozens of businesses in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a few individuals exercising their right to keep and bear arms at the sandwich shop , it likely wouldn ’ t have been trashed to begin with .
Gun control groups and anti-gun politicians have been pushing for Subway to ban open carry ever since the gunowners , dubbed “ Meal Team Six ” by some online wags , dined in back in early May .
In fact , The Hill reported just a few days ago that Connecticut senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy penned an open letter to Subway ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enacted faster than you can say “ five dollar foot long.
” “ No person should have to fear gun violence while visiting or working in Subway restaurants , ” the senators wrote .
“ Photographs of these demonstrators published by the News & Observer are as striking as they are intimidating , and , regrettably , reflect more than this one incident.
” “ The public health challenges that we face , as a nation , due to this global pandemic are great , but neither excuse nor absolve us of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mounting public safety crisis—posed by the tremendous proliferation of firearms sales—in the making , ” they wrote .
So , no ban on the carrying of firearms , and a request not to open carry .
Considering the amount of corporate wokeness we ’ ve seen lately , this almost counts as a courageous stand in support of the Second Amendment by the corporation .
Almost .
Really , this is just Subway paying lip service to the idea of banning open carry , while recognizing that it ’ s really not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce a prohibition on the practice .
They just want the issue to go away , and the language of their policy allows gun control advocates to claim victory without the company having to enact a real ban .
As far as I ’ m concerned , if the company doesn ’ t want me open-carrying in their restaurant , I ’ ll try to abide by their wishes to the best of my ability .
After all , their property rights are equally as valid as my Second Amendment rights , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their stores entirely ( though again , I don ’ t think they have any desire to try to enforce that policy ) .
I don ’ t eat at Subway that often , and I doubt that changes , but I ’ m not going to launch some sort of boycott the store simply because they ’ re requesting people not open carry .
Would I have preferred to see Subway tell gun control advocates to pound sand ?
Of course .
But given the corporate cowardice displayed on a daily basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mob , I do think it ’ s worth noting that Subway didn ’ t give the gun control crowd what they wanted .
Actually , it looks like Subway gave the gun control activists exactly what they wanted , and what Igor Volsky wanted was the ability to claim a victory .
Actually achieving one was secondary .
In fact , it ’ s better not just for gun owners but for gun control advocates that Subway didn ’ t actually enact a ban .
Enforcement would be a nightmare , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there would be claims that the ban was being subjectively enforced , perhaps even caught on camera .
That would be a PR nightmare for the company , and put gun control advocates in the awkward position of lobbying for policies that call for a police response to a misdemeanor non-violent firearms offense .
The Left is all about de-policing right now , but Volsky ’ s push for a gun ban at Subway is another reminder that gun control not only relies on policing for enforcement , it actually creates gun crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity for conflict between law enforcement and gun owners , and according to many police reform advocates , puts black and brown gun owners at the greatest risk .
Gun control and the defund police movement can only comfortably exist together on the Left as long as both groups are willing to ignore the fact that by criminalizing the Second Amendment in a system that they say is systemically racist , they are automatically consigning more black and brown men to prison for non-violent crimes .
If systemic racism is real , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to ensure that black Americans have the same Second Amendment rights as white Americans is for there to be fewer opportunities for the criminal justice system to target black men for exercising their rights .
Discretionary-issue gun licensing laws create illegal gun possession .
Magazine bans create sentence enhancements .
Gun-free zones create jail sentences .
Thankfully , Subway ’ s request to gun owners does not , and that ’ s a good thing , even if it ’ s allowed gun control advocates to claim a victory lap without actually @ @ @ @ @

Gun control advocates are still out self-congratulatory press releases and tweets patting themselves on the backs for getting fast food chain Subway to “do something” about the open carrying of firearms in the company’s restaurants, but as it turns out, rumors of an outright ban on open carry haven’t come to pass. Instead, a couple of months after several Second Amendment activists openly carrying in a Raleigh Subway store became fodder for the national news media and anti-gun activists, the chain has revised its policy and is “respectfully requesting” customers to conceal their firearms if they’re eating while armed.
Many news outlets originally reported that the chain had banned the practice, but apparently that information from the Raleigh-Apex NAACP wasn’t correct, but WRAL-TV in Raleigh has been one of the few media outlets to acknowledge that the company’s new policy doesn’t amount to a ban.
Subway restaurants will ask customers to refrain from open carry of weapons at all restaurants, even in states where open carry is allowed. The announcement came the same day a Subway store on Fayetteville Street celebrated its grand reopening. The store was destroyed in late May when George Floyd protests in downtown Raleigh turned into riots and looting. Store owner Rashid Salahat and Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown were in attendance along with the NAACP and the Islamic Association. The groups talked about how the community came together to clean up Salahat’s restaurant and the more than 175 other businesses that were vandalized in Raleigh. Salahat thanked the volunteers that cleaned up his store and offered to feed everyone who attended the event for free. “We can make the money later,” he said. “I am just overwhelmed with the support I get from our community.” Salahat said his store sustained about $80,000 worth of damages in May when rioters broke windows, stole his TV and vandalized the restaurant.
It’s important to note that the Second Amendment activists had nothing to do with the damage done to the Subway store. In fact, their lunch stop happened several weeks before rioters in downtown Raleigh trashed dozens of businesses in late May. In fact, had there been a few individuals exercising their right to keep and bear arms at the sandwich shop, it likely wouldn’t have been trashed to begin with.
Gun control groups and anti-gun politicians have been pushing for Subway to ban open carry ever since the gunowners, dubbed “Meal Team Six” by some online wags, dined in back in early May. In fact, The Hill reported just a few days ago that Connecticut senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy penned an open letter to Subway’s CEO demanding that such a ban be enacted faster than you can say “five dollar foot long.”
“No person should have to fear gun violence while visiting or working in Subway restaurants,” the senators wrote. “Photographs of these demonstrators published by the News & Observer are as striking as they are intimidating, and, regrettably, reflect more than this one incident.” “The public health challenges that we face, as a nation, due to this global pandemic are great, but neither excuse nor absolve us of our obligation to respond to the related and mounting public safety crisis—posed by the tremendous proliferation of firearms sales—in the making,” they wrote.
Here’s the language from Subway’s website:
For the consideration and comfort of restaurant employees and guests, Subway respectfully requests that guests (other than authorized law enforcement) refrain from openly displaying firearms inside restaurants — even in states where “open carry” is permitted.
So, no ban on the carrying of firearms, and a request not to open carry. Considering the amount of corporate wokeness we’ve seen lately, this almost counts as a courageous stand in support of the Second Amendment by the corporation. Almost.
Really, this is just Subway paying lip service to the idea of banning open carry, while recognizing that it’s really not worth the hassle or trouble to actually enforce a prohibition on the practice. They just want the issue to go away, and the language of their policy allows gun control advocates to claim victory without the company having to enact a real ban.
As far as I’m concerned, if the company doesn’t want me open-carrying in their restaurant, I’ll try to abide by their wishes to the best of my ability. After all, their property rights are equally as valid as my Second Amendment rights, and the company could legally ban firearms from their stores entirely (though again, I don’t think they have any desire to try to enforce that policy). I don’t eat at Subway that often, and I doubt that changes, but I’m not going to launch some sort of boycott the store simply because they’re requesting people not open carry.
Would I have preferred to see Subway tell gun control advocates to pound sand? Of course. But given the corporate cowardice displayed on a daily basis in order to avoid the angry online mob, I do think it’s worth noting that Subway didn’t give the gun control crowd what they wanted.
Oh… wait a minute.
BREAKING: I’m so proud to announce that our campaign urging @Subway to ban the open carry of firearms at their restaurants has succeeded!! Subway has adopted a policy asking their customers to keep their firearms at home! pic.twitter.com/mBpBG7EBFv — igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) July 7, 2020
Actually, it looks like Subway gave the gun control activists exactly what they wanted, and what Igor Volsky wanted was the ability to claim a victory. Actually achieving one was secondary. In fact, it’s better not just for gun owners but for gun control advocates that Subway didn’t actually enact a ban. Enforcement would be a nightmare, and it wouldn’t be long before there would be claims that the ban was being subjectively enforced, perhaps even caught on camera. That would be a PR nightmare for the company, and put gun control advocates in the awkward position of lobbying for policies that call for a police response to a misdemeanor non-violent firearms offense.
The Left is all about de-policing right now, but Volsky’s push for a gun ban at Subway is another reminder that gun control not only relies on policing for enforcement, it actually creates gun crimes out of legal behavior. It increases the opportunity for conflict between law enforcement and gun owners, and according to many police reform advocates, puts black and brown gun owners at the greatest risk. Gun control and the defund police movement can only comfortably exist together on the Left as long as both groups are willing to ignore the fact that by criminalizing the Second Amendment in a system that they say is systemically racist, they are automatically consigning more black and brown men to prison for non-violent crimes.
If systemic racism is real, then until it is eliminated the only way to ensure that black Americans have the same Second Amendment rights as white Americans is for there to be fewer opportunities for the criminal justice system to target black men for exercising their rights. Discretionary-issue gun licensing laws create illegal gun possession. Magazine bans create sentence enhancements. Gun-free zones create jail sentences.
Thankfully, Subway’s request to gun owners does not, and that’s a good thing, even if it’s allowed gun control advocates to claim a victory lap without actually winning anything at all.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--The Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Is Back

After coronavirus closures put many public meetings on hold over the past few months , it was starting to look like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement might have come to an end .
As local governments begin to open up again , however , gun owners are back to push for pro-2A resolutions and ordinances , and are once again seeing success .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a look at some of the recent developments in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , including a big vote in South Carolina this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S.C. voted 5-1 in favor of a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance ( as opposed to a resolution that doesn ’ t carry the force of law ) empowering the county sheriff to use his discretion in enforcing ( or not ) gun control laws he believes are unconstitutional .
The ordinance says county funds and resources will not be used to enforce any state or federal laws that the Anderson County sheriff deems to be an infringement upon the right to keep and bear firearms , firearm accessories and ammunition .
The ordinance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Second Amendment to the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions , which protects a person ’ s right to bear arms .
The ordinance also opposes any new regulations “ that violate the Second , Fourth , Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of South Carolina.
” While commissioners in Anderson County have given the green light to an ordinance with some teeth to it , other counties considering Second Amendment Sanctuary language have de-fanged their resolutions .
In Floyd County , Indiana for example , commissioners did approve a measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , but backed off the original language sought by Second Amendment supporters .
Titled the Constitutional Assurance Resolution , the measure recognizes a “ higher authority ” and the commissioners inability to supersede existing laws and hierarchy .
It also supports the Constitution , the Bill of Rights and state and national laws .
“ We only have so much authority in the state of Indiana .
All three of us heavily support the Second Amendment and all other amendments , ” said Commissioner Tim Kamer , sponsor of the resolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what had been requested by Floyd County 2A , but “ we ’ re looking at this in a much more broad , contextual manner , ” Kamer said after reading the resolution aloud during the commissioner ’ s first in-person meeting in over three months .
One of the founders of Floyd County 2A , Greenville resident Marty Schindler , said the resolution lacked some of the wording that had initially been proposed .
“ It ’ s way watered down from what I submitted to them , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state group and they ’ ll make the final decision if they consider it to be enough to say ‘ Floyd County supports it ’ to use it for the state run .
If not , I guess we ’ ll give it another run to see what we can do.
” The state group is Indiana 2A .
The goal is to galvanize enough support at local levels to make a case before state officials to rebuke any attempts to limit or change gun rights protected by the Second Amendment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the entire show above for more news on the 2A Sanctuary front , as well as more stories , including a convicted felon facing murder charges who was released from jail last year after serving just two months for being a felon in possession of a firearm ; an Ohio couple who were forced to defend themselves in a bizarre attack on their lives , and an off-duty police officer in New York in the right place and at the right time to save the life of a drowning girl .
Cam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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/

After coronavirus closures put many public meetings on hold over the past few months, it was starting to look like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement might have come to an end. As local governments begin to open up again, however, gun owners are back to push for pro-2A resolutions and ordinances, and are once again seeing success.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a look at some of the recent developments in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, including a big vote in South Carolina this week. County commissioners in Anderson County, S.C. voted 5-1 in favor of a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance (as opposed to a resolution that doesn’t carry the force of law) empowering the county sheriff to use his discretion in enforcing (or not) gun control laws he believes are unconstitutional.
The ordinance says county funds and resources will not be used to enforce any state or federal laws that the Anderson County sheriff deems to be an infringement upon the right to keep and bear firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition. The ordinance expresses the county’s strong support for the Second Amendment to the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions, which protects a person’s right to bear arms. The ordinance also opposes any new regulations “that violate the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of South Carolina.”
While commissioners in Anderson County have given the green light to an ordinance with some teeth to it, other counties considering Second Amendment Sanctuary language have de-fanged their resolutions. In Floyd County, Indiana for example, commissioners did approve a measure supporting the right to keep and bear arms, but backed off the original language sought by Second Amendment supporters.
Titled the Constitutional Assurance Resolution, the measure recognizes a “higher authority” and the commissioners inability to supersede existing laws and hierarchy. It also supports the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and state and national laws. “We only have so much authority in the state of Indiana. All three of us heavily support the Second Amendment and all other amendments,” said Commissioner Tim Kamer, sponsor of the resolution. The resolution is similar in nature to what had been requested by Floyd County 2A, but “we’re looking at this in a much more broad, contextual manner,” Kamer said after reading the resolution aloud during the commissioner’s first in-person meeting in over three months. One of the founders of Floyd County 2A, Greenville resident Marty Schindler, said the resolution lacked some of the wording that had initially been proposed. “It’s way watered down from what I submitted to them,” he said. “I’ll submit it to the state group and they’ll make the final decision if they consider it to be enough to say ‘Floyd County supports it’ to use it for the state run. If not, I guess we’ll give it another run to see what we can do.” The state group is Indiana 2A. The goal is to galvanize enough support at local levels to make a case before state officials to rebuke any attempts to limit or change gun rights protected by the Second Amendment, Schindler said.
Be sure to check out the entire show above for more news on the 2A Sanctuary front, as well as more stories, including a convicted felon facing murder charges who was released from jail last year after serving just two months for being a felon in possession of a firearm; an Ohio couple who were forced to defend themselves in a bizarre attack on their lives, and an off-duty police officer in New York in the right place and at the right time to save the life of a drowning girl.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--Meet The Pro-2A Trauma Surgeon Gunning For A U.S. Senate Seat

We ’ re less than a month away from the GOP primary in Tennessee , and it ’ s worth keeping an eye on the race for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Lamar Alexander , who ’ s retiring this year .
Because this is an open seat , there are a whopping 15 candidates running in the Republican primary , but most of the attention so far has focused on Bill Hagerty , a Tennessee businessman who was appointed U.S .
Ambassador to Japan by President Donald Trump .
Hagerty has the endorsement of the president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Dr. Manny Sethi , an orthopedic trauma surgeon from Nashville has been running a strong campaign as well , and his campaign says internal polling shows the race between the two within the margin of error .
The Independent-Herald recently ran a lengthy profile of Sethi , delving into his childhood as the son of Indian immigrants in rural Tennessee , his recent work fighting COVID-19 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center , and his support for the Second Amendment .
On Sethi ’ s campaign website , the candidate adds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for debate , ” and once again objects to red flag laws being pushed at the state and federal level .
During a townhall in Tennessee last year , Sethi also spoke out about his opposition to any new gun control laws .
“ ( Changing ) the way we do background checks , these crazy red flag laws — I don ’ t think that ’ s going to change anything , ” he said .
“ The problem is not our guns .
The problem is our phones.
” He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mental health issues .
He suggests , instead of gun control , placing an emphasis on mentoring programs in schools and making children feel loved .
Sethi has long believed that the answer to addressing youth violence involves helping the individuals in need , rather than simply slapping another law on the books .
Back in 2013 , a conflict resolution program that Sethi and a Vanderbilt colleague developed was rolled out in a central Tennessee middle school .
The program was pretty simple , yet according to Sethi , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior and beliefs .
In the study , 122 students completed the conflict resolution program and described their behavior and experiences with violence in a pre-test/post-test self-rate questionnaire .
Results showed a significant decrease in violent behavior and an increase in students ’ competencies to deal with violence .
The pilot ’ s pre- and post-test scores showed that students who were “ sometimes ” getting hit or pushed by others , went to “ almost never ” getting hit or pushed ; students also reported after the program that they “ never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun by others , even as a joke , which was a decrease in victimization .
It would be pretty difficult for gun control groups to portray Sethi as an uncaring “ tool of the gun lobby ” when his job involves helping to heal those injured by violent individuals with firearms , though I ’ m sure they ’ ll try if Sethi wins the Republican primary on August 6th .
I reached out to Sethi ’ s campaign earlier today , because I was curious to get his position on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control issues like banning so-called assault weapons and “ large capacity ” magazines , which aren ’ t mentioned on his campaign website .
Within an hour or so , I had the following statement by Dr. Sethi in my inbox .
“ I will always stand up for our Second Amendment rights , even against moderate Republicans who compromise on this issue .
Any law or policy that inhibits any law-abiding citizen from owning or carrying guns in any way is unconstitutional .
This includes laws limiting or banning so-called “ assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazines .
A few years ago , I had a death threat made against me and my family .
I went out , got my concealed carry and immediately did extra training with my 9mm .
That ’ s what the Second Amendment is about – ensuring we ’ re able to protect ourselves and our families.
” Amen to that .
Hopefully Dr. Sethi will be joining me on an upcoming edition of Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , and I ’ m looking forward to a deeper discussion about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental right of self-defense .

We’re less than a month away from the GOP primary in Tennessee, and it’s worth keeping an eye on the race for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Lamar Alexander, who’s retiring this year. Because this is an open seat, there are a whopping 15 candidates running in the Republican primary, but most of the attention so far has focused on Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee businessman who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Japan by President Donald Trump.
Hagerty has the endorsement of the president and much of the GOP establishment in Tennessee, but Dr. Manny Sethi, an orthopedic trauma surgeon from Nashville has been running a strong campaign as well, and his campaign says internal polling shows the race between the two within the margin of error.
The Independent-Herald recently ran a lengthy profile of Sethi, delving into his childhood as the son of Indian immigrants in rural Tennessee, his recent work fighting COVID-19 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and his support for the Second Amendment.
On the 2nd Amendment, he said he has a carry permit and “nobody will stand up for the 2nd Amendment more than I will,” adding that so-called “red flag laws” are unconstitutional and should be repealed.
On Sethi’s campaign website, the candidate adds that “our Constitutional Rights are not up for debate,” and once again objects to red flag laws being pushed at the state and federal level. During a townhall in Tennessee last year, Sethi also spoke out about his opposition to any new gun control laws.
“(Changing) the way we do background checks, these crazy red flag laws — I don’t think that’s going to change anything,” he said. “The problem is not our guns. The problem is our phones.” He said smartphones cause isolation, which can lead to mental health issues. He suggests, instead of gun control, placing an emphasis on mentoring programs in schools and making children feel loved.
Sethi has long believed that the answer to addressing youth violence involves helping the individuals in need, rather than simply slapping another law on the books. Back in 2013, a conflict resolution program that Sethi and a Vanderbilt colleague developed was rolled out in a central Tennessee middle school.
The program was pretty simple, yet according to Sethi, it was also incredibly effective at reducing both violent behavior and beliefs.
In the study, 122 students completed the conflict resolution program and described their behavior and experiences with violence in a pre-test/post-test self-rate questionnaire. Results showed a significant decrease in violent behavior and an increase in students’ competencies to deal with violence. The pilot’s pre- and post-test scores showed that students who were “sometimes” getting hit or pushed by others, went to “almost never” getting hit or pushed; students also reported after the program that they “never” got beaten up or threatened with a gun by others, even as a joke, which was a decrease in victimization.
It would be pretty difficult for gun control groups to portray Sethi as an uncaring “tool of the gun lobby” when his job involves helping to heal those injured by violent individuals with firearms, though I’m sure they’ll try if Sethi wins the Republican primary on August 6th.
I reached out to Sethi’s campaign earlier today, because I was curious to get his position on a couple of other hot button gun control issues like banning so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines, which aren’t mentioned on his campaign website. Within an hour or so, I had the following statement by Dr. Sethi in my inbox.
“I will always stand up for our Second Amendment rights, even against moderate Republicans who compromise on this issue.
Any law or policy that inhibits any law-abiding citizen from owning or carrying guns in any way is unconstitutional. This includes laws limiting or banning so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines. A few years ago, I had a death threat made against me and my family. I went out, got my concealed carry and immediately did extra training with my 9mm. That’s what the Second Amendment is about – ensuring we’re able to protect ourselves and our families.”
Amen to that. Hopefully Dr. Sethi will be joining me on an upcoming edition of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and I’m looking forward to a deeper discussion about his views on the Second Amendment and our fundamental right of self-defense.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--Iowa City Lifts Ban On Guns In Public Buildings, Buses

Iowa isn ’ t the kind of place one would associate with gun control .
After all , it ’ s a state known for its rural culture .
Mostly , it ’ s known for corn .
That and the Iowa Caucuses , when every presidential candidate pretends they know about corn .
OK , there ’ s more to the state than that .
There always is , after all , but it ’ s the perception many have of it .
What they don ’ t think about is a love of gun control .
Yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution in 2011 that banned guns from public buildings and city buses .
The Iowa City City Council approved 5-2 to rescind a resolution that prohibited weapons inside public buildings and transportation in order to comply with Iowa law , despite citing danger to the community and concern over open carry .
Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds signed House File 2502 , an amendment that prohibits cities , counties , and townships from banning weapons from public buildings and transportation on June 25 .
City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes said that if Iowa City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city could be liable for damages , costs , and attorney fees if lawsuits against it were successful .
Weapons will be allowed in all city buildings and transportation for the first time in nine years since the city council initially approved a resolution banning them in February 2011 .
Many city councilors said in a meeting Tuesday night they were disappointed that the state legislature passed this new law and forced the city to approve .
One problem , however , is that laws like this have a disproportionate effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go for weeks or months without ever needing to set foot in a public building .
Not a private building open to the public , mind you , but an actual public building .
And , when I do , I can secure my gun in the car , conduct my business , then leave .
Yet many poor folks may not have a car .
They rely on public transportation to go where they need to go .
Not only does that preclude them from locking a gun up in their non-existent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually barred them from carrying guns anywhere unless they traveled on foot , something that ’ s not always practical for most folks .
Stuff like this is why preemption was passed in Iowa in the first place .
Meanwhile , the city council will preen about how they had no choice , yet you also know they ’ ll also go on and on about how much they care for the poor .
It seems that only applies to those poor folks who know their place and don ’ t try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the city council was quite content to make life difficult for .
It makes me wonder how many lives may have been lost over the last nine years because of this kind of stupidity .
How many people who would have had the means to protect themselves didn ’ t because they were trying to obey an unjust law ?
We ’ ll likely ever know , but at least now that number will be zero .

Iowa isn’t the kind of place one would associate with gun control. After all, it’s a state known for its rural culture. Mostly, it’s known for corn. That and the Iowa Caucuses, when every presidential candidate pretends they know about corn.
OK, there’s more to the state than that. There always is, after all, but it’s the perception many have of it.
What they don’t think about is a love of gun control. Yet, despite that, Iowa City passed a resolution in 2011 that banned guns from public buildings and city buses.
Now, they’ve rescinded that resolution.
The Iowa City City Council approved 5-2 to rescind a resolution that prohibited weapons inside public buildings and transportation in order to comply with Iowa law, despite citing danger to the community and concern over open carry. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed House File 2502, an amendment that prohibits cities, counties, and townships from banning weapons from public buildings and transportation on June 25. City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes said that if Iowa City did not comply with the amendment, the city could be liable for damages, costs, and attorney fees if lawsuits against it were successful. Weapons will be allowed in all city buildings and transportation for the first time in nine years since the city council initially approved a resolution banning them in February 2011. Many city councilors said in a meeting Tuesday night they were disappointed that the state legislature passed this new law and forced the city to approve.
One problem, however, is that laws like this have a disproportionate effect on the poor.
Look, I can go for weeks or months without ever needing to set foot in a public building. Not a private building open to the public, mind you, but an actual public building. And, when I do, I can secure my gun in the car, conduct my business, then leave.
Yet many poor folks may not have a car. They rely on public transportation to go where they need to go. Not only does that preclude them from locking a gun up in their non-existent car, but the Iowa City rule actually barred them from carrying guns anywhere unless they traveled on foot, something that’s not always practical for most folks.
Stuff like this is why preemption was passed in Iowa in the first place.
Meanwhile, the city council will preen about how they had no choice, yet you also know they’ll also go on and on about how much they care for the poor. It seems that only applies to those poor folks who know their place and don’t try to carry a firearm for protection. Those, the city council was quite content to make life difficult for.
It makes me wonder how many lives may have been lost over the last nine years because of this kind of stupidity. How many people who would have had the means to protect themselves didn’t because they were trying to obey an unjust law?
We’ll likely ever know, but at least now that number will be zero.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--What The Guardian Fails To Ask About 'Two Americas'

The United States of America is an odd nation in a lot of ways .
While we ’ re one country , we ’ re made up of such different regional cultures that we could easily be any number of countries .
Even the South with the antebellum mansions and southern sensibilities is quite different from , say , New Orleans which has a culture all its own .
So , when someone says we ’ re “ two Americas , ” they may actually be right in many ways .
However , at The Guardian , that phrase is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plaguing so many of our cities .
The headline lays it all out .
“ Gun violence kills 160 as holiday weekend exposes tale of ‘ two Americas ‘ , ” it reads .
As the story proceeds , it tries to lay a finger for our current strife .
There are , of course , the obligatory claims of racism , of course : Livingston called on Lightfoot to tackle racism and policing problems “ head on ” .
“ There is an individual responsibility [ among those shooting ] , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate of violence , ” he said .
He accused the New York mayor , Bill de Blasio , of being “ scared ” of confronting racism in the New York police department .
“ There is no courage in city hall , ” he said .
There ’ s also an attempt to tie the violence into the surge of gun sales we ’ ve seen in recent months .
Yet The Guardian missed one thing all of these cities have in common .
It failed to mention that every single one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why is that ?
Well , I ’ m sure the writer would argue that she didn ’ t think it was particularly relevant , that instead a pastor ’ s claims of racism and a report that has questionable conclusions at best are far more important than the fact that every single city suffering from this violence are run by a single political party .
For some reason , if these were Republican strongholds , I can ’ t help but believe it would be quite relevant .
However , I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places is kind of important .
After all , these are the parties that ultimately control many of the states these cities are in .
Their out-sized impact on state politics means there ’ s more likely to be gun control passed in the state , more likely to be any number of progressive policies passed by the state , and virtually none of the conservative or libertarian policies even being considered .
And yet , they want to make the case that the problem is , in part , guns ?
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled cities in the nation and they ’ re seeing a massive surge in violent crime .
Chicago , by virtue of his impact on Illinois politics , is surrounded by anti-gun laws that make it difficult for citizens to purchase firearms .
No , there ’ s something else , but until the media has the guts to look at the leadership of all these cities with a critical eye , it ’ ll be passed over again and again .
The violence will continue because no one is ready to slay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over our cities .
And I ’ m sorry , but I won ’ t allow them to place the blame on the rest of us simply because it ’ s convenient for them .

The United States of America is an odd nation in a lot of ways. While we’re one country, we’re made up of such different regional cultures that we could easily be any number of countries. Even the South with the antebellum mansions and southern sensibilities is quite different from, say, New Orleans which has a culture all its own.
So, when someone says we’re “two Americas,” they may actually be right in many ways.
However, at The Guardian, that phrase is used to describe the violence that is plaguing so many of our cities. The headline lays it all out. “Gun violence kills 160 as holiday weekend exposes tale of ‘two Americas‘,” it reads.
As the story proceeds, it tries to lay a finger for our current strife.
There are, of course, the obligatory claims of racism, of course:
Livingston called on Lightfoot to tackle racism and policing problems “head on”. “There is an individual responsibility [among those shooting], but there are also conditions that create a climate of violence,” he said. He accused the New York mayor, Bill de Blasio, of being “scared” of confronting racism in the New York police department. “There is no courage in city hall,” he said.
There’s also an attempt to tie the violence into the surge of gun sales we’ve seen in recent months.
The Trace, a non-profit news website covering gun violence in the US, which tallied the weekend toll of shootings in the US, reported that preliminary research from the University of California, Davis, has found a potential link between the rise in violence and a surge in gun-buying during the coronavirus pandemic, of more than 2.1 million more guns than usual between March and May.
Yet The Guardian missed one thing all of these cities have in common. It failed to mention that every single one of them is under Democratic leadership.
Why is that?
Well, I’m sure the writer would argue that she didn’t think it was particularly relevant, that instead a pastor’s claims of racism and a report that has questionable conclusions at best are far more important than the fact that every single city suffering from this violence are run by a single political party.
For some reason, if these were Republican strongholds, I can’t help but believe it would be quite relevant.
However, I do think the party in power in these places is kind of important. After all, these are the parties that ultimately control many of the states these cities are in. Their out-sized impact on state politics means there’s more likely to be gun control passed in the state, more likely to be any number of progressive policies passed by the state, and virtually none of the conservative or libertarian policies even being considered.
And yet, they want to make the case that the problem is, in part, guns? New York is one of the most gun controlled cities in the nation and they’re seeing a massive surge in violent crime. Chicago, by virtue of his impact on Illinois politics, is surrounded by anti-gun laws that make it difficult for citizens to purchase firearms.
No, there’s something else, but until the media has the guts to look at the leadership of all these cities with a critical eye, it’ll be passed over again and again. The violence will continue because no one is ready to slay the sacred beast that is Democratic control over our cities.
And I’m sorry, but I won’t allow them to place the blame on the rest of us simply because it’s convenient for them.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--Progressives Think People Buying Guns Is A Loophole

Not too long before the entire nation shut down due to COVID-19 , gun stores started seeing a surge in sales .
Many people who had never considered buying a gun in the first place decided maybe they should rethink it .
Some were concerned about crime increasing due to the virus .
Still others , Asian-Americans , were concerned ignorant morons would blame them for the disease .
Still others had different concerns .
Regardless , gun sales soared and have been consistently high ever since .
Now , we know that many of these gun buyers went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re required to undergo a background check and have any required permits before buying .
For some , that ’ s not enough .
The increase in gun sales is somehow evidence that our gun laws are too lax .
Almost immediately after governors began to issue orders in early March directing nonessential businesses to close and individuals to stay at home to prevent the spread of the coronavirus , news stories began to emerge of increased traffic at gun stores .
One photo of a line of buyers outside of a California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most recognizable images from this moment in modern American history .
Anecdotes emerged of individuals who had never considered buying guns before rushing to gun stores to make their first purchase , motivated by the fear and uncertainty of this unprecedented moment .
Since this early reporting , data have confirmed a dramatic increase in the number of guns purchased during the pandemic .
The Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) , the federal agency responsible for conducting background checks for gun sales , revealed that nearly 2 million guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number since these data have been tracked .
April gun sales were nearly as high , with an estimated 1.6 million guns sold—a 71 percent increase over April 2019 .
The trend in gun sales continued in May and June ; June saw the biggest increase yet , with an estimated 2.3 million guns sold .
Just as the coronavirus pandemic has exposed gaps within the U.S. health care and economic systems , the surge in gun sales during this period brings to the forefront weaknesses in the current laws and systems governing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammunition .
Far too many gun sales are allowed to proceed without background checks , and gun owners face minimal legal requirements to ensure that guns are handled and stored safely .
These gaps in the law create risks for all U.S. communities vulnerable to gun violence , and both federal and state policymakers should take this opportunity to strengthen these laws to help reduce gun violence .
In addition , policymakers should use this moment to consider enacting a system of gun licensing that would address many gun law gaps at once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laws that require individuals to obtain a government-issued firearm license prior to purchasing a gun could minimize the risks associated with delays in the background check system , as well as require that all sales proceed only after a background check has been completed and the purchaser has completed a gun safety training class , which includes instruction on methods of safe storage .
A comprehensive system of gun licensing , whether enacted at the federal level or by individual states , would alleviate many of the weaknesses in current gun laws that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among the complaints is that the background check system couldn ’ t withstand the onslaught of so many requests , thus backing up to the point that many guns were released without completed background checks .
However , what we haven ’ t seen is any appreciable number of these guns going to criminals .
Further , once those background checks come back , law enforcement either is or should be notified .
Convicted felons attempting to buy guns is a criminal offense , after all .
Actually buying one is as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the real problem isn ’ t that the NICS wasn ’ t robust enough to handle the surge .
No , the problem was that millions of Americans decided to buy guns .
They recognized that it was on them to protect themselves and now they wanted the means to do so .
And progressives don ’ t like that .
In their mind , the state should be the sole provider of just about everything .
That includes security .
A quick look at their list of supposed loopholes makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can buy guns .
Period .
They advocate for things like licensing , waiting periods , and an end to the so-called “ Charleston Loophole ” which is nothing more than their desire to hold up your ability to buy a gun indefinitely for whatever reason .
I ’ m sorry , but the gun buying surge wasn ’ t an indication of a broken system , but proof that at the end of the day , Americans value the ability to protect themselves over most anything else .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Not too long before the entire nation shut down due to COVID-19, gun stores started seeing a surge in sales. Many people who had never considered buying a gun in the first place decided maybe they should rethink it. Some were concerned about crime increasing due to the virus. Still others, Asian-Americans, were concerned ignorant morons would blame them for the disease. Still others had different concerns.
Regardless, gun sales soared and have been consistently high ever since.
Now, we know that many of these gun buyers went to gun stores, which means they’re required to undergo a background check and have any required permits before buying.
For some, that’s not enough. The increase in gun sales is somehow evidence that our gun laws are too lax.
Almost immediately after governors began to issue orders in early March directing nonessential businesses to close and individuals to stay at home to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, news stories began to emerge of increased traffic at gun stores. One photo of a line of buyers outside of a California gun shop is likely to become one of the most recognizable images from this moment in modern American history. Anecdotes emerged of individuals who had never considered buying guns before rushing to gun stores to make their first purchase, motivated by the fear and uncertainty of this unprecedented moment. Since this early reporting, data have confirmed a dramatic increase in the number of guns purchased during the pandemic. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the federal agency responsible for conducting background checks for gun sales, revealed that nearly 2 million guns were sold in March—the second highest monthly number since these data have been tracked. April gun sales were nearly as high, with an estimated 1.6 million guns sold—a 71 percent increase over April 2019. The trend in gun sales continued in May and June; June saw the biggest increase yet, with an estimated 2.3 million guns sold. Just as the coronavirus pandemic has exposed gaps within the U.S. health care and economic systems, the surge in gun sales during this period brings to the forefront weaknesses in the current laws and systems governing the sale and ownership of firearms and ammunition. Far too many gun sales are allowed to proceed without background checks, and gun owners face minimal legal requirements to ensure that guns are handled and stored safely. These gaps in the law create risks for all U.S. communities vulnerable to gun violence, and both federal and state policymakers should take this opportunity to strengthen these laws to help reduce gun violence. In addition, policymakers should use this moment to consider enacting a system of gun licensing that would address many gun law gaps at once, rather than through piecemeal legislation. Laws that require individuals to obtain a government-issued firearm license prior to purchasing a gun could minimize the risks associated with delays in the background check system, as well as require that all sales proceed only after a background check has been completed and the purchaser has completed a gun safety training class, which includes instruction on methods of safe storage. A comprehensive system of gun licensing, whether enacted at the federal level or by individual states, would alleviate many of the weaknesses in current gun laws that are being exacerbated by the pandemic.
Among the complaints is that the background check system couldn’t withstand the onslaught of so many requests, thus backing up to the point that many guns were released without completed background checks.
However, what we haven’t seen is any appreciable number of these guns going to criminals. Further, once those background checks come back, law enforcement either is or should be notified. Convicted felons attempting to buy guns is a criminal offense, after all. Actually buying one is as well.
At the end of the day, the real problem isn’t that the NICS wasn’t robust enough to handle the surge.
No, the problem was that millions of Americans decided to buy guns. They recognized that it was on them to protect themselves and now they wanted the means to do so.
And progressives don’t like that. In their mind, the state should be the sole provider of just about everything. That includes security.
A quick look at their list of supposed loopholes makes it quite clear that their problem is that people can buy guns. Period.
They advocate for things like licensing, waiting periods, and an end to the so-called “Charleston Loophole” which is nothing more than their desire to hold up your ability to buy a gun indefinitely for whatever reason.
I’m sorry, but the gun buying surge wasn’t an indication of a broken system, but proof that at the end of the day, Americans value the ability to protect themselves over most anything else.
And that’s what’s really the issue.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--Some Officials Unhappy About Losing Local "Gun-Free Zones"

A new law in Iowa allows concealed carry holders to lawfully carry in local government buildings , with limited exceptions , and already some local officials in several cities are freaking out about the change .
As the local DeWitt Observer reported , the board of supervisors in Jackson County reacted strongly to the idea , in large part because of an incident that occurred six years ago at the county courthouse .
“ Well , the idea of having a whole room full of people here ( in the supervisors ’ office ) almost yelling at each other , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larry McDevitt said during last week ’ s Jackson County Board of Supervisors regular meeting .
“ Knowing that they can actually have their guns on them , that ’ s a scary situation , ” especially when people aren ’ t correctly informed about the topic that is upsetting them , he added .
The supervisors and people in the Jackson County Courthouse experienced such a “ scary situation ” firsthand Sept. 9 , 2014 , when the county resolution banning firearms in the courthouse was still in place .
During a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Gus ” Glaser , 71 , a former Maquoketa city manager angry about his property taxes increasing , opened his briefcase , pulled out a gun , and shot it in the direction of then-county assessor Deb Lane .
Glaser was tackled as he headed toward the door and fatally wounded himself , according to law enforcement statements .
I do understand why the supervisors may have some negative feelings about the new law , but at the same time , the ban that was in place did absolutely nothing to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courthouse and using it .
What good is a policy that doesn ’ t work ?
After the shooting in 2014 , the county closed off all but one of the public entrances to the courthouse and hired a security guard .
Under Iowa ’ s new law , if the county wants to keep its ban in place , all it has to do is install a metal detector at the entrance to the courthouse and have the security guard screen people as they enter .
“ The point is , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not going to make sure people are not bringing in weapons , then the Legislature wants to allow the general population to protect themselves by bringing in their own weapons , ” the county attorney explained .
“ Somebody who is not going to follow the law brings in a weapon , then the general population should be allowed to protect themselves.
” “ I just think it ’ s ridiculous … a mistake , ” Jackson County Supervisor Jack Willey said the day before the law took effect .
“ Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have a choice , ” Willey said after listening to Davenport .
He ’ s actually wrong on both counts .
The county does have a choice , and the policy isn ’ t ridiculous .
This week , Jackson County supervisors voted to take down the no-guns allowed signs instead of ponying up for a metal detector , though it ’ s a moot point at the moment since government buildings are currently closed to the public .
As for the supposed ridiculousness of the new law , in my opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind is going to be dissuaded by a toothless and unenforced “ no-guns allowed ” policy is a much more ridiculous position to take .
The county attorney is right ; if the county is doing nothing to prevent someone with ill-intent from coming into the building with a firearm , then those law-abiding gun owners should absolutely have the ability to carry for their own protection inside that same facility .
The choice is simple ; either provide real security or recognize the right of self-defense .

A new law in Iowa allows concealed carry holders to lawfully carry in local government buildings, with limited exceptions, and already some local officials in several cities are freaking out about the change. As the local DeWitt Observer reported, the board of supervisors in Jackson County reacted strongly to the idea, in large part because of an incident that occurred six years ago at the county courthouse.
“Well, the idea of having a whole room full of people here (in the supervisors’ office) almost yelling at each other, that’s intense,” Supervisor Larry McDevitt said during last week’s Jackson County Board of Supervisors regular meeting. “Knowing that they can actually have their guns on them, that’s a scary situation,” especially when people aren’t correctly informed about the topic that is upsetting them, he added. The supervisors and people in the Jackson County Courthouse experienced such a “scary situation” firsthand Sept. 9, 2014, when the county resolution banning firearms in the courthouse was still in place. During a supervisors’ meeting that morning, Francis “Gus” Glaser, 71, a former Maquoketa city manager angry about his property taxes increasing, opened his briefcase, pulled out a gun, and shot it in the direction of then-county assessor Deb Lane. Glaser was tackled as he headed toward the door and fatally wounded himself, according to law enforcement statements.
I do understand why the supervisors may have some negative feelings about the new law, but at the same time, the ban that was in place did absolutely nothing to stop Glaser from bringing his gun into the courthouse and using it. What good is a policy that doesn’t work?
After the shooting in 2014, the county closed off all but one of the public entrances to the courthouse and hired a security guard. Under Iowa’s new law, if the county wants to keep its ban in place, all it has to do is install a metal detector at the entrance to the courthouse and have the security guard screen people as they enter.
“The point is, the way I see it, if we are not going to make sure people are not bringing in weapons, then the Legislature wants to allow the general population to protect themselves by bringing in their own weapons,” the county attorney explained. “Somebody who is not going to follow the law brings in a weapon, then the general population should be allowed to protect themselves.” “I just think it’s ridiculous … a mistake,” Jackson County Supervisor Jack Willey said the day before the law took effect. “Well, it sounds like we don’t have a choice,” Willey said after listening to Davenport.
He’s actually wrong on both counts. The county does have a choice, and the policy isn’t ridiculous. This week, Jackson County supervisors voted to take down the no-guns allowed signs instead of ponying up for a metal detector, though it’s a moot point at the moment since government buildings are currently closed to the public.
As for the supposed ridiculousness of the new law, in my opinion thinking that someone with murder on their mind is going to be dissuaded by a toothless and unenforced “no-guns allowed” policy is a much more ridiculous position to take. The county attorney is right; if the county is doing nothing to prevent someone with ill-intent from coming into the building with a firearm, then those law-abiding gun owners should absolutely have the ability to carry for their own protection inside that same facility. The choice is simple; either provide real security or recognize the right of self-defense.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--Bill Over Armed Citizens In Emergencies Stirs Things Up A Bit

The state of Pennsylvania has a bit of law that should be concerning to anyone who values the Second Amendment .
In state law , there ’ s language that prohibits the carrying of firearms without a permit .
Now , for many of us , this doesn ’ t sound like too big of a deal .
There are several states that don ’ t allow that sort of thing , after all .
However , Pennsylvania has unlicensed open carry .
Individuals can openly carry a firearm without a permit under normal circumstances .
The problem arises when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , only those who are actively defending their lives or who have a permit can carry a firearm anywhere that ’ s not private property .
A bill was recently introduced to try and fix this .
Now , the debate on that bill is starting to heat up .
As Pennsylvanians have taken to the Capitol steps in recent months to protest their government , some decided to take a shotgun or assault rifle along for the ride .
But many of those demonstrators may have been breaking a rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms during an official disaster declaration .
That potential collision of the right to bear arms and the state ’ s police power was eliminated by a bill that passed the state House in late June .
Legal observers say the law , as written , is on solid constitutional ground , but their opponents strenuously disagree .
Gov .
Tom Wolf has declared two states of emergencies in the past months — the ongoing statewide COVID-19 emergency declaration , as well as a temporary declaration because of Black Lives Matter protests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh .
A bill sponsored by Rep. Matt Dowling , R-Fayette , would remove these provisions from law .
The legislation passed the House on 127-74 on June 24 and is now in the Senate .
All but two of the House ’ s 109 Republicans , and 21 of 93 Democrats , supported it .
“ Unfortunately , in the last few months , we ’ ve seen how easy it is for one person to choose to declare a state of emergency , ” Dowling said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s critical gun rights “ remain in place , even if the governor announces an emergency declaration.
” This isn ’ t the first time a bill like this has been introduced , either .
Two years ago , gubernatorial candidate Scott Wagner introduced a similar bill after Gov .
Tom Wolf declared a state of emergency to address the opioid epidemic .
Now , he ’ s declared two more states of emergency in recent months .
With the governor being able to declare states of emergency so easily , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about gun rights in the state .
Of course , Wolf has no such concerns because , well , he ’ s an anti-gunner and doesn ’ t give a damn about those particular rights .
He ’ s fine with infringing on the liberties of Pennsylvanians .
No , he doesn ’ t need that kind of authority .
With Wolf ’ s anti-gun sentiment , this is the kind of authority I could see him abusing if the mood struck .
I think the only reason he hasn ’ t yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought about it .
Infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of his state has been a side benefit thus far , not a goal .
All this bill seeks to do is maintain the status quo that exists outside of states of emergency .
That ’ s what Wolf is objecting to by objecting to this bill–and he is objecting .
Which is more than enough reason to support it all on its own .

The state of Pennsylvania has a bit of law that should be concerning to anyone who values the Second Amendment. In state law, there’s language that prohibits the carrying of firearms without a permit. Now, for many of us, this doesn’t sound like too big of a deal. There are several states that don’t allow that sort of thing, after all.
However, Pennsylvania has unlicensed open carry. Individuals can openly carry a firearm without a permit under normal circumstances.
The problem arises when the governor declares a state of emergency. Then, only those who are actively defending their lives or who have a permit can carry a firearm anywhere that’s not private property.
A bill was recently introduced to try and fix this. Now, the debate on that bill is starting to heat up.
As Pennsylvanians have taken to the Capitol steps in recent months to protest their government, some decided to take a shotgun or assault rifle along for the ride. But many of those demonstrators may have been breaking a rarely enforced state law that bans openly carrying firearms during an official disaster declaration. That potential collision of the right to bear arms and the state’s police power was eliminated by a bill that passed the state House in late June. Legal observers say the law, as written, is on solid constitutional ground, but their opponents strenuously disagree. Gov. Tom Wolf has declared two states of emergencies in the past months — the ongoing statewide COVID-19 emergency declaration, as well as a temporary declaration because of Black Lives Matter protests in some of the Commonwealth’s cities, such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. … A bill sponsored by Rep. Matt Dowling, R-Fayette, would remove these provisions from law. The legislation passed the House on 127-74 on June 24 and is now in the Senate. All but two of the House’s 109 Republicans, and 21 of 93 Democrats, supported it. “Unfortunately, in the last few months, we’ve seen how easy it is for one person to choose to declare a state of emergency,” Dowling said in a statement. He added that it’s critical gun rights “remain in place, even if the governor announces an emergency declaration.”
This isn’t the first time a bill like this has been introduced, either. Two years ago, gubernatorial candidate Scott Wagner introduced a similar bill after Gov. Tom Wolf declared a state of emergency to address the opioid epidemic.
Now, he’s declared two more states of emergency in recent months.
With the governor being able to declare states of emergency so easily, there’s reason to be concerned about gun rights in the state. Of course, Wolf has no such concerns because, well, he’s an anti-gunner and doesn’t give a damn about those particular rights. He’s fine with infringing on the liberties of Pennsylvanians.
No, he doesn’t need that kind of authority. With Wolf’s anti-gun sentiment, this is the kind of authority I could see him abusing if the mood struck. I think the only reason he hasn’t yet is that he just hasn’t thought about it. Infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of his state has been a side benefit thus far, not a goal.
All this bill seeks to do is maintain the status quo that exists outside of states of emergency. That’s what Wolf is objecting to by objecting to this bill–and he is objecting.
Which is more than enough reason to support it all on its own.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--White Gun Control Activists Just Can't Deal With Armed Black Protesters

I discussed this a little bit with the Washington Examiner ‘ s Kerry Picket on yesterday ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , but our conversation was almost completely focused on the media and it ’ s double standard of covering “ right wing militias ” and “ left wing militias ” very differently .
Gun owners on the right , whether or not they have anything to do with a militia , are scary , dangerous , and probably racist to boot .
Gun owners on the left ?
Well , they ’ re just gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even “ battlefield weapons of war , ” just plain old “ rifles .
Gun control advocates , on the other hand , won ’ t even acknowledge that these left-wing armed protesters , many of whom are black , even exist .
To do so would put them into a terrible bind on the Left , which is all about lifting up black voices right now .
How on earth could Shannon Watts scold Grand Master Jay of the Not F*cking Around Coalition for his black armed militia at a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roasted as a Karen as soon as she hit send on her tweet .
So instead , she and other anti-gun advocates just refuse to see or hear these black gun owners at all .
Not only that , some gun control advocates are actually going so far as to deny black Americans their history of using firearms in self and community defense .
At Crooked , Ken Harbaugh gave Shannon Watts a shout-out for helping with his recent stab at American history that completely ignores the tradition and experience of black gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should you expect from a piece called “ Guns Are The Inextinguishable Symbol Of White Supremacy ” ?
“ Almost always ” is another way of saying “ I don ’ t want to talk about those gun owners who don ’ t fit my premise that gun ownership is all about white supremacy.
” In an instant , the voices of literally millions of black gun owners are dismissed by a white guy in Ohio , who apparently has such a simplistic view of American history that there ’ s no room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wells , Dr. Ossian Sweet , Hartman Turnbow , Fannie Lou Hamer , and the untold number of black Americans who protected themselves and their families from armed oppressors over the course of our nation ’ s history .
Yes , white supremacists used guns to subjugate minorities .
They also used gun control laws to do the same .
And despite those gun control laws , some black Americans used firearms to ward off , and in many cases , shoot and kill their attackers .
They didn ’ t always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t always done .
Our history isn ’ t simple , and there are plenty of unhappy endings to be found , but , perhaps because the heroes in many of these stories were black Americans who defied the gun control laws on the books , Harbaugh simply chooses to leave them out of his brief history of the gun in America .
Harbaugh ’ s version of history isn ’ t just one sided , in some cases it ’ s laughably and demonstrably false , attempting to portray conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control movement .
Since at least the Civil War , America has racialized its approach to firearms .
The Ku Klux Klan was founded , in part , to ensure the disarmament of newly freed southern black citizens .
In California , open carry is illegal today not because of some triumph of progressive politics , but because the Black Panther Party in the 1960s dared carry their weapons in public .
Then-Gov .
Ronald Reagan ( R-CA ) signed legislation ensuring that could never happen again .
When black protesters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are mainstays at backlash protests , Fox News invited a Republican senator on air to stoke panic about lawless marauders .
Yet fanatics on the right are routinely given free rein to express their paranoia—even derail democracy itself—at the point of a gun .
In the case of armed militias who shut down the Michigan legislature , they were encouraged by the president himself .
I don ’ t know if Harbaugh realizes it , but he just described the Ku Klux Klan as a post-Civil War gun control organization , which isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomplete definition .
He ’ s also wrong about the impact of the Mulford Act on open carry in California .
It ’ s true that Ronald Reagan banned the open carry of loaded firearms , but it took Democrats to ban the unloaded carrying of firearms in the state decades later .
Unfortunately , Second Amendment restrictions have a bipartisan history in this country , but for some reason Harbaugh seems unwilling to acknowledge the perfectly obvious role that Democrats and the Left have played in restricting the rights of minority Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harbaugh thanked his pal Shannon Watts for all her help with the “ framing ” of his piece .
So , uh , does this apply to all protesters ?
Black Lives Matter protesters ?
III % ers ?
Black protesters , white protesters , brown protesters ?
Or is this another one of those instances where white gun control advocates simply choose to pretend that black gun owners don ’ t exist ?
We just saw hundreds of armed black gun owners marching in Georgia with AR-15s this past weekend , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for a ban on the open carry of rifles .
It ’ s the gun control crowd that believes these men and women should be charged with a crime for simply owning an AR-15 , much less carrying it in public .
It would have been much more accurate for Harbaugh to call his piece “ Guns Control Laws Are The Inextinguishable Symbol Of White Supremacy , ” because that ’ s not only been the case throughout U.S. history , it ’ s true today .
Want to put fewer black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment .
End the prosecution of non-violent firearms offenses .
Make it possible for the average American , black or white , to lawfully exercise their right to keep and bear arms .
Restore a culture of lawful gun ownership in these deep-blue , Democrat-controlled cities .
For decades politicians in these cities have done whatever they could to ensure that guns are taboo .
There are few voices teaching responsible gun ownership .
There ’ s almost no one preaching the four rules of gun safety .
Instead of the gun-free society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have fostered a culture of unlawful gun ownership instead , and folks like Harbaugh and his buddy Shannon Watts want to keep it that way .

I discussed this a little bit with the Washington Examiner‘s Kerry Picket on yesterday’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., but our conversation was almost completely focused on the media and it’s double standard of covering “right wing militias” and “left wing militias” very differently. Gun owners on the right, whether or not they have anything to do with a militia, are scary, dangerous, and probably racist to boot. Gun owners on the left? Well, they’re just gun owners. Their AR-15’s aren’t even “battlefield weapons of war,” just plain old “rifles.
Gun control advocates, on the other hand, won’t even acknowledge that these left-wing armed protesters, many of whom are black, even exist. To do so would put them into a terrible bind on the Left, which is all about lifting up black voices right now. How on earth could Shannon Watts scold Grand Master Jay of the Not F*cking Around Coalition for his black armed militia at a time like this? She’d be roasted as a Karen as soon as she hit send on her tweet. So instead, she and other anti-gun advocates just refuse to see or hear these black gun owners at all.
Not only that, some gun control advocates are actually going so far as to deny black Americans their history of using firearms in self and community defense. At Crooked, Ken Harbaugh gave Shannon Watts a shout-out for helping with his recent stab at American history that completely ignores the tradition and experience of black gun owners. Of course, what else should you expect from a piece called “Guns Are The Inextinguishable Symbol Of White Supremacy”?
Twenty years ago, when NRA President Charlton Heston said, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands,” he was waving a muzzle-loading musket in the air. The updated version of that is a gang of insurrectionists riding in armored vehicles and brandishing grenade launchers. For the zealot, there is no room for moderation. Today, that gun-wielding zealot is almost always white.
“Almost always” is another way of saying “I don’t want to talk about those gun owners who don’t fit my premise that gun ownership is all about white supremacy.” In an instant, the voices of literally millions of black gun owners are dismissed by a white guy in Ohio, who apparently has such a simplistic view of American history that there’s no room for men and women like Ida B. Wells, Dr. Ossian Sweet, Hartman Turnbow, Fannie Lou Hamer, and the untold number of black Americans who protected themselves and their families from armed oppressors over the course of our nation’s history.
Yes, white supremacists used guns to subjugate minorities. They also used gun control laws to do the same. And despite those gun control laws, some black Americans used firearms to ward off, and in many cases, shoot and kill their attackers. They didn’t always receive a fair trial afterwards. Justice wasn’t always done. Our history isn’t simple, and there are plenty of unhappy endings to be found, but, perhaps because the heroes in many of these stories were black Americans who defied the gun control laws on the books, Harbaugh simply chooses to leave them out of his brief history of the gun in America.
Harbaugh’s version of history isn’t just one sided, in some cases it’s laughably and demonstrably false, attempting to portray conservatives as the real architects of the modern gun control movement.
Since at least the Civil War, America has racialized its approach to firearms. The Ku Klux Klan was founded, in part, to ensure the disarmament of newly freed southern black citizens. In California, open carry is illegal today not because of some triumph of progressive politics, but because the Black Panther Party in the 1960s dared carry their weapons in public. Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-CA) signed legislation ensuring that could never happen again. When black protesters in Georgia carried the kind of firearms that are mainstays at backlash protests, Fox News invited a Republican senator on air to stoke panic about lawless marauders. Yet fanatics on the right are routinely given free rein to express their paranoia—even derail democracy itself—at the point of a gun. In the case of armed militias who shut down the Michigan legislature, they were encouraged by the president himself.
I don’t know if Harbaugh realizes it, but he just described the Ku Klux Klan as a post-Civil War gun control organization, which isn’t wrong, though certainly an incomplete definition. He’s also wrong about the impact of the Mulford Act on open carry in California. It’s true that Ronald Reagan banned the open carry of loaded firearms, but it took Democrats to ban the unloaded carrying of firearms in the state decades later. Unfortunately, Second Amendment restrictions have a bipartisan history in this country, but for some reason Harbaugh seems unwilling to acknowledge the perfectly obvious role that Democrats and the Left have played in restricting the rights of minority Americans to own guns.
On Twitter, Harbaugh thanked his pal Shannon Watts for all her help with the “framing” of his piece.
2/2 – “Guns get attention, which is what this is really about. Those protesters are not actually trying to open up barber shops. They just want to be seen, and feared. Because nobody saw or feared them before they had a gun.” — Ken Harbaugh (@Team_Harbaugh) July 7, 2020
So, uh, does this apply to all protesters? Black Lives Matter protesters? III%ers? Black protesters, white protesters, brown protesters? Or is this another one of those instances where white gun control advocates simply choose to pretend that black gun owners don’t exist?
We just saw hundreds of armed black gun owners marching in Georgia with AR-15s this past weekend, and Gov. Brian Kemp isn’t calling for a ban on the open carry of rifles. It’s the gun control crowd that believes these men and women should be charged with a crime for simply owning an AR-15, much less carrying it in public. It would have been much more accurate for Harbaugh to call his piece “Guns Control Laws Are The Inextinguishable Symbol Of White Supremacy,” because that’s not only been the case throughout U.S. history, it’s true today.
Want to put fewer black Americans in prison? Decriminalize the Second Amendment. End the prosecution of non-violent firearms offenses. Make it possible for the average American, black or white, to lawfully exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Restore a culture of lawful gun ownership in these deep-blue, Democrat-controlled cities.
For decades politicians in these cities have done whatever they could to ensure that guns are taboo. There are few voices teaching responsible gun ownership. There’s almost no one preaching the four rules of gun safety. Instead of the gun-free society they’ve been aiming for, Democrats have fostered a culture of unlawful gun ownership instead, and folks like Harbaugh and his buddy Shannon Watts want to keep it that way.


bearingarms--2020-07-08--NY Post: Economic Crisis Could Lead To Increased Suicides

For some time , anti-gunners have looked at the influx of guns into private hands and decried it .
Their allies in the media have jumped all over it and tried to argue that the increase in guns would lead to , of all things , an increase in suicides .
We ’ ve argued that no , the increase in gun sales would have little to nothing to do with suicides .
Instead , the wrecked economy would have a better claim as to the cause of many of these deaths .
It seems the New York Post agrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well ?
And yet , people commit suicide with a wide assortment of implements .
Guns aren ’ t the only one and if someone doesn ’ t have a gun , they ’ ll use another method to take their own life .
While those who use guns tend to be more successful in their attempts , but that shouldn ’ t be interpreted to mean that those who don ’ t use guns aren ’ t particularly successful when killing themselves .
I mean , it ’ s almost like Everytown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with numerous potential factors that could lead to someone taking their own life .
It ’ s like they can see that the lockdown had real , lasting consequences for millions of Americans and that some people are likely to be horribly impacted by what transpired .
One might also think they ’ d advocate efforts to increase employment and to speed up the economic recovery .
But , of course , they don ’ t .
Because nothing makes a depressed person feel better than having their civil liberties ripped away by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That won ’ t have damaging consequences to anyone , now would it ?
It seems that all Everytown really sees when they look at the increased risk of suicide is an opportunity .
For them–the very people who use the bodies of children as a soapbox every chance they get–it ’ s nothing more than a chance to push for the policy changes they wanted regardless of the impact it might have on people .

For some time, anti-gunners have looked at the influx of guns into private hands and decried it. Their allies in the media have jumped all over it and tried to argue that the increase in guns would lead to, of all things, an increase in suicides.
We’ve argued that no, the increase in gun sales would have little to nothing to do with suicides. Instead, the wrecked economy would have a better claim as to the cause of many of these deaths.
It seems the New York Post agrees. It seems that Everytown does as well?
The financial stresses surrounding the coronavirus pandemic could result in a significant uptick in firearm suicides this year, according to a new study. The global health crisis could lead to a 20 to 30% increase in such suicides as the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic negatively affects the mental health of many, increasing their anxiety and depression, according to gun control nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety’s research hub. Everytown also noted unemployment increases the risk for suicide and pointed to the uptick of about 2.6 million gun sales during the pandemic. “At the same time that gun purchases are surging, unemployment in the United States is approaching levels not seen since the Great Depression,” reads the study. “Research indicates that both access to a gun and economic stress significantly increase the risk of adult suicide.”
And yet, people commit suicide with a wide assortment of implements. Guns aren’t the only one and if someone doesn’t have a gun, they’ll use another method to take their own life.
While those who use guns tend to be more successful in their attempts, but that shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that those who don’t use guns aren’t particularly successful when killing themselves.
However, the story continues:
The potential uptick could result in 5,000 to 7,000 more gun deaths this year alone “solely as a result of the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the study said. The estimates don’t consider “the impact on gun suicide of social isolation and increased access to guns, but they do illustrate the strong link between unemployment, job insecurity, financial loss, and suicide around the world, especially for men of working age.”
Wow.
I mean, it’s almost like Everytown recognizes that suicide is a complex issue with numerous potential factors that could lead to someone taking their own life. It’s like they can see that the lockdown had real, lasting consequences for millions of Americans and that some people are likely to be horribly impacted by what transpired.
One might also think they’d advocate efforts to increase employment and to speed up the economic recovery.
But, of course, they don’t.
In order to reduce the risk, Everytown advises people securely store their firearms, encouraged economic support programs and supported Extreme Risk laws, which allow loved ones or law enforcement to step in to temporarily stop someone in a crisis from gaining access to firearms.
Because nothing makes a depressed person feel better than having their civil liberties ripped away by a faceless entity like the courts. That won’t have damaging consequences to anyone, now would it?
It seems that all Everytown really sees when they look at the increased risk of suicide is an opportunity. For them–the very people who use the bodies of children as a soapbox every chance they get–it’s nothing more than a chance to push for the policy changes they wanted regardless of the impact it might have on people.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Alabama Arrests Signal Why Gun Control Will ALWAYS Fail

Right now , millions of new gun owners probably have a lot of gun control advocates on their heels .
After all , many of those have now found out just how much the anti-gunners have lied with regard to how easy it is to get a gun .
Buy a gun on the internet ?
Nope , it still has to go through an FFL .
Just grab and go ?
Nope , you have to get a background check .
So many lies it ’ s not even funny .
Yet gun control fans are going to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
They ’ ll argue that gun control can and will work .
Of course , many think the best way for it to work is to disarm everyone .
After all , then the criminals won ’ t have guns to steal .
Except , as a case in Alabama shows us , they will .
Muscle Shoals Police Chief Clint Reck said Brandon Pryor and a juvenile are facing charges for a series of burglaries overnight in Cottonwood Estates and Nathan Estates , including the theft from the sheriff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An M-16 and a 12 gauge shotgun were taken from the patrol vehicle , the sheriff ’ s office said .
The break-in happened sometime between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m .
So , if all of us private citizens are disarmed , who is going to stand up to the criminals that steal guns from the police ?
The truth is that anti-gunners don ’ t really think about things in a big-picture kind of way .
They don ’ t like guns–some , admittedly , for what seems to them like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them go away .
They work to make that world happen , which is their God-given right .
Yet their myopic worldview ignores the myriad of ways criminals get guns .
They call for limiting our ability to purchase guns , but ignore that criminals obtain their guns either through theft or the black market , which tends to involve theft .
They call for limiting the capacity of our firearms while ignoring that criminals both ignore those capacity limits buy either modifying or buying higher-capacity magazines from elsewhere .
They seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t buying from people concerned with what guns are legal and which aren ’ t .
Over and over again , this same tune keeps playing , and yet gun control advocates fail to notice .
At the end of the day , even if you stripped guns from every law-abiding man and woman , criminals would still obtain guns .
They ’ d make them .
They ’ d modify non-functioning guns until they work .
They ’ d steal them from sheriff ’ s office cars .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to get guns .
Preventing that from happening is damn near tilting at windmills .
Instead , making sure law-abiding citizens are empowered to meet these threats should they occur and protect the lives of innocent people , namely themselves , is the only sane response .
Yet it ’ s a response anti-gunners can ’ t seem to grasp , mostly because they just don ’ t want to .
At the end of the day , yes , these two were caught , but others haven ’ t been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will be for quite some time , regardless of any gun control laws .

Right now, millions of new gun owners probably have a lot of gun control advocates on their heels. After all, many of those have now found out just how much the anti-gunners have lied with regard to how easy it is to get a gun. Buy a gun on the internet? Nope, it still has to go through an FFL. Just grab and go? Nope, you have to get a background check. So many lies it’s not even funny.
Yet gun control fans are going to keep pushing. They’re persistent that way.
They’ll argue that gun control can and will work. Of course, many think the best way for it to work is to disarm everyone. After all, then the criminals won’t have guns to steal.
Except, as a case in Alabama shows us, they will.
Muscle Shoals Police Chief Clint Reck said Brandon Pryor and a juvenile are facing charges for a series of burglaries overnight in Cottonwood Estates and Nathan Estates, including the theft from the sheriff’s office vehicle on Luanne Street. An M-16 and a 12 gauge shotgun were taken from the patrol vehicle, the sheriff’s office said. The break-in happened sometime between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.
So, if all of us private citizens are disarmed, who is going to stand up to the criminals that steal guns from the police?
Asking for a friend.
The truth is that anti-gunners don’t really think about things in a big-picture kind of way. They don’t like guns–some, admittedly, for what seems to them like very good reasons–and they want to see them go away. They work to make that world happen, which is their God-given right.
Yet their myopic worldview ignores the myriad of ways criminals get guns. They call for limiting our ability to purchase guns, but ignore that criminals obtain their guns either through theft or the black market, which tends to involve theft. They call for limiting the capacity of our firearms while ignoring that criminals both ignore those capacity limits buy either modifying or buying higher-capacity magazines from elsewhere. They seek to ban certain guns while missing that criminals aren’t buying from people concerned with what guns are legal and which aren’t.
Over and over again, this same tune keeps playing, and yet gun control advocates fail to notice.
At the end of the day, even if you stripped guns from every law-abiding man and woman, criminals would still obtain guns. They’d make them. They’d modify non-functioning guns until they work. They’d steal them from sheriff’s office cars. They’ll do whatever they had to in order to get guns.
Preventing that from happening is damn near tilting at windmills.
Instead, making sure law-abiding citizens are empowered to meet these threats should they occur and protect the lives of innocent people, namely themselves, is the only sane response. Yet it’s a response anti-gunners can’t seem to grasp, mostly because they just don’t want to.
At the end of the day, yes, these two were caught, but others haven’t been. Those guns are still on the street and will be for quite some time, regardless of any gun control laws.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--An Open Letter To 6 North Carolina Democrats

I ’ m writing to you hoping to get an answer to a simple question : why did you change your vote on the Second Amendment Protection Act ?
During the legislative session , you voted for the measure , but after Gov .
Roy Cooper vetoed the bill , you switched your vote and opposed the act during a veto override vote this week .
Why ?
Was it simple partisanship ?
After all , Cooper hasn ’ t had a veto overturned since you and your fellow Democrats were able to end the Republican-controlled legislature ’ s veto-proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
You ’ ve so far allowed Gov .
Cooper to get his way , even if it means switching your votes so that the veto override fails .
Does it just boil down to red versus blue ?
If so , why not simply vote against the bill the first time around ?
Did you think that Gov .
Roy Cooper might actually sign the bill , since its provisions were entirely uncontroversial ?
House Bill 652 would have allowed law-abiding citizens who hold a concealed handgun permit to carry a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones when attending religious worship taking place on private property that is both a school and place of worship if it does not prohibit firearms .
This would have empowered private property owners to set their own security policy rather than the state imposing a one-size-fits-all solution .
Last year , an armed citizen defended his church against an individual in Texas .
This worshiper , Jack Wilson , was able to take action because of similar NRA-backed legislation in Texas .
The final bill also would have required sheriffs to accept a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course for individuals who have let their concealed handgun permit lapse , so long as it is more than 60 days and less than 180 .
The bill also would have allowed certain first responders to lawfully carry on the job when assisting some law enforcement like SWAT , but Gov .
Cooper didn ’ t say anything about that portion of the bill in his veto message .
No , his entire objection was that HB 652 would put students and faculty at risk by allowing gun owners to lawfully carry in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private property that includes a school .
This is a fairly minor bill , all things considered , but it ’ s still a good piece of legislation .
After all , churchgoers can already lawfully carry in houses of worship that don ’ t have schools attached or aren ’ t held in a school building outside of classroom hours .
This would simply extend that same right to parishioners in some smaller congregations , as well as recognize the private property owner ’ s rights to allow concealed carry if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with the fact that Roy Cooper used to be pretty good on Second Amendment issues , I can possibly buy the argument that you believed he ’ d sign the bill .
That still leaves the question of why you switched your vote .
Did you tell yourself that of course you ’ d override the governor if it were something that was truly important , but this bill just wasn ’ t worth the fuss ?
Did you think about how some of your constituents might feel about that attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have been covered under this bill ?
I ’ m guessing not .
To each of you representatives ; Chaz Michael Beasley , Jean Farmer-Butterfield , Joseph John , Sr. , Marvin Lucas , Garland Pierce , and Brian Mills Turner.. congratulations on keeping Gov .
Cooper ’ s veto streak intact at the expense of the Second Amendment rights of your constituents .
I ’ m just not convinced that whatever benefits you derive from towing the party line will outweigh the risks to some of the churchgoing members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owe your constituents an explanation .
If it ’ s “ At the end of the day , I ’ m going with Party over principle , ” so be it .
The voters will decide whether or not they want that type of politician electing them when they go to the polls in November .
If there ’ s some other compelling reason as to why you decided to switch your vote at the last possible minute , I ’ m sure they ’ d love to hear it .

Dear Representatives,
I’m writing to you hoping to get an answer to a simple question: why did you change your vote on the Second Amendment Protection Act? During the legislative session, you voted for the measure, but after Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, you switched your vote and opposed the act during a veto override vote this week. Why?
Was it simple partisanship? After all, Cooper hasn’t had a veto overturned since you and your fellow Democrats were able to end the Republican-controlled legislature’s veto-proof majority with your pickups in the 2018 elections. You’ve so far allowed Gov. Cooper to get his way, even if it means switching your votes so that the veto override fails. Does it just boil down to red versus blue?
If so, why not simply vote against the bill the first time around? Did you think that Gov. Roy Cooper might actually sign the bill, since its provisions were entirely uncontroversial?
House Bill 652 would have allowed law-abiding citizens who hold a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun to defend themselves and their loved ones when attending religious worship taking place on private property that is both a school and place of worship if it does not prohibit firearms. This would have empowered private property owners to set their own security policy rather than the state imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. Last year, an armed citizen defended his church against an individual in Texas. This worshiper, Jack Wilson, was able to take action because of similar NRA-backed legislation in Texas. The final bill also would have required sheriffs to accept a refresher training course rather than a full course for individuals who have let their concealed handgun permit lapse, so long as it is more than 60 days and less than 180.
The bill also would have allowed certain first responders to lawfully carry on the job when assisting some law enforcement like SWAT, but Gov. Cooper didn’t say anything about that portion of the bill in his veto message. No, his entire objection was that HB 652 would put students and faculty at risk by allowing gun owners to lawfully carry in a church service that takes place on private property that includes a school.
This is a fairly minor bill, all things considered, but it’s still a good piece of legislation. After all, churchgoers can already lawfully carry in houses of worship that don’t have schools attached or aren’t held in a school building outside of classroom hours. This would simply extend that same right to parishioners in some smaller congregations, as well as recognize the private property owner’s rights to allow concealed carry if they choose to do so.
Given that, along with the fact that Roy Cooper used to be pretty good on Second Amendment issues, I can possibly buy the argument that you believed he’d sign the bill.
That still leaves the question of why you switched your vote. Did you tell yourself that of course you’d override the governor if it were something that was truly important, but this bill just wasn’t worth the fuss? Did you think about how some of your constituents might feel about that attitude, especially if they attend a church that would have been covered under this bill? I’m guessing not.
To each of you representatives; Chaz Michael Beasley, Jean Farmer-Butterfield, Joseph John, Sr., Marvin Lucas, Garland Pierce, and Brian Mills Turner.. congratulations on keeping Gov. Cooper’s veto streak intact at the expense of the Second Amendment rights of your constituents.
I’m just not convinced that whatever benefits you derive from towing the party line will outweigh the risks to some of the churchgoing members of your district, and I think you owe your constituents an explanation. If it’s “At the end of the day, I’m going with Party over principle,” so be it. The voters will decide whether or not they want that type of politician electing them when they go to the polls in November. If there’s some other compelling reason as to why you decided to switch your vote at the last possible minute, I’m sure they’d love to hear it.