bearingarms--2020-01-27--Canadian Petition Against Gun Ban Draws Massive Support

As Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau moves forward with plans to ban semi-automatic firearms the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deem to be “ assault weapons , ” more than 100,000 Canadians have signed on to a petition objecting to the ban and how Trudeau plans to pass the measure .
The Edmonton Sun reports that the petition , which was created by Brad Manysiak of Medicine Hat in Alberta , has become hugely popular over the past few weeks , gathering thousands of signatures each day from gun owners angry over the proposed ban , but also upset that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ order in council ” as opposed to receiving debate and a vote in Parliament .
It would be kind of like a US president issuing a gun ban via executive order rather than the House and Senate voting on a gun ban bill .
Manysiak says the process shouldn ’ t be used for something as contentious as a gun ban .
“ That ’ s an egregious overreach of parliamentary power , ” he said .
“ When we change laws in Canada , historically , it ’ s debated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a specific path it has to take in order for something to become law .
Usually , there has to a lot of public support for it .
This is a slippery slope.
” … Ottawa is also looking at introducing a buyback program but the cost to do so is estimated to be in the hundreds of the millions .
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair told reporters months ago that there are about 250,000 semi-automatic assault rifles legally owned in Canada .
Manysiak called this a kneejerk reaction by the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of handguns used in Toronto-area shootings .
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised he would allow municipalities and provinces to implement handgun bans if they so choose .
“ It ’ s not being directed in the proper way , ” Manysiak said .
“ It ’ s not directed at the problem.
” Gun control advocates would disagree , because they think legal gun owners like Manysiak are a problem , and the solution is to have fewer legal gun owners who own fewer guns .
Alberta ’ s premier , Jason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the proposed gun bans , saying they won ’ t impact criminals , but will hurt legal gun owners instead .
“ Criminals do not respect gun bans .
By definition , they are already engaged in the lawless use of firearms .
I don ’ t see how criminalizing law-abiding firearms owners is a solution to the illegal misuse of firearms by criminals.
” “ I think we need much tougher enforcement of the laws against drug trafficking .
I regret that the ( Justin ) Trudeau government repealed the Harper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal possession of firearms and for serious narcotics offences .
I call on the government to bring back those tough penalties.
” Kenney also called on the feds to step up their game in the battle against drugs .
“ The U.S. Congress passed a law to impose sanctions on China if they do not crack down on fentanyl factories that are exporting poison to North America .
I would like to see the federal government do the same thing , ” he told reporters .
Kenney ’ s idea is a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t interested in cracking down on the drug trade and gang violence .
He ’ s intent on going after Canada ’ s law-abiding gun owners instead , and says the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms will be implemented soon , no matter how many Canadians might object .

As Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau moves forward with plans to ban semi-automatic firearms the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deem to be “assault weapons,” more than 100,000 Canadians have signed on to a petition objecting to the ban and how Trudeau plans to pass the measure.
The Edmonton Sun reports that the petition, which was created by Brad Manysiak of Medicine Hat in Alberta, has become hugely popular over the past few weeks, gathering thousands of signatures each day from gun owners angry over the proposed ban, but also upset that the ban will apparently be implemented through an “order in council” as opposed to receiving debate and a vote in Parliament. It would be kind of like a US president issuing a gun ban via executive order rather than the House and Senate voting on a gun ban bill. Manysiak says the process shouldn’t be used for something as contentious as a gun ban.
“That’s an egregious overreach of parliamentary power,” he said. “When we change laws in Canada, historically, it’s debated, it goes to the Senate, it has a specific path it has to take in order for something to become law. Usually, there has to a lot of public support for it. This is a slippery slope.” … Ottawa is also looking at introducing a buyback program but the cost to do so is estimated to be in the hundreds of the millions. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair told reporters months ago that there are about 250,000 semi-automatic assault rifles legally owned in Canada. Manysiak called this a kneejerk reaction by the government, especially in light of an increased amount of handguns used in Toronto-area shootings. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised he would allow municipalities and provinces to implement handgun bans if they so choose. “It’s not being directed in the proper way,” Manysiak said. “It’s not directed at the problem.”
Gun control advocates would disagree, because they think legal gun owners like Manysiak are a problem, and the solution is to have fewer legal gun owners who own fewer guns.
Alberta’s premier, Jason Kenney, has also voiced his objections to the proposed gun bans, saying they won’t impact criminals, but will hurt legal gun owners instead.
“Criminals do not respect gun bans. By definition, they are already engaged in the lawless use of firearms. I don’t see how criminalizing law-abiding firearms owners is a solution to the illegal misuse of firearms by criminals.” “I think we need much tougher enforcement of the laws against drug trafficking. I regret that the (Justin) Trudeau government repealed the Harper governments tough mandatory minimum sentences for the illegal possession of firearms and for serious narcotics offences. I call on the government to bring back those tough penalties.” Kenney also called on the feds to step up their game in the battle against drugs. “The U.S. Congress passed a law to impose sanctions on China if they do not crack down on fentanyl factories that are exporting poison to North America. I would like to see the federal government do the same thing,” he told reporters.
Kenney’s idea is a good one, but Justin Trudeau simply isn’t interested in cracking down on the drug trade and gang violence. He’s intent on going after Canada’s law-abiding gun owners instead, and says the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms will be implemented soon, no matter how many Canadians might object.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Virginians Flock To Concealed Carry Classes As Gun Control Advances

As Democrats in the state legislature continue their push to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia , more Virginians are responding by embracing their Second Amendment rights .
In Danville , Virginia over the weekend firearms instructor Barry Creasy reported one of the largest concealed carry classes he ’ s taught in thirty years .
From WSET-TV : He says his class size increases when people feel their gun rights are not being protected .
“ People are concerned because some of the proposals are actually going to restrict guns that people have owned for over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Virginians have every reason to be concerned , and not just about HB 961 , the sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban that ’ s been filed .
The state ’ s Democrats are also pushing bills that would ban common ammunition and make it harder for gun owners to access indoor and outdoor ranges .
In fact Del .
Dan Helmer , a northern Virginia Democrat , has not only authored legislation that would force the NRA range in Fairfax , Virginia to close , but is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements with two dozen states across the country .
At the moment , Virginia recognizes every state ’ s concealed carry license , but under Helmer ’ s legislation the state ’ s attorney general would have the authority to rescind recognition .
As Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner reported recently , if the bill becomes law it could have a devastating impact on the ability to bear arms in the state , and for Virginians who travel to other states as well .
“ This is certainly more restrictive than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s permit .
He can start saying , well , for this reason or that reason , I ’ m not going to recognize their permit now , ” Virginia lawyer George Lyon of Arsenal Attorneys told the Washington Examiner .
Lyon noted , ” There are provisions where people can be denied a permit .
For example , if they ’ ve had a stalking conviction or if they ’ ve had a drug conviction or possibly multiple DUI convictions.
” Other states may have different training requirements as well , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that ’ s needed to end reciprocity agreements with other states , and that could impact Virginians too .
If Virginia doesn ’ t recognize West Virginia ’ s concealed carry license , for example , West Virginia may not recognize Virginia ’ s concealed carry license .
That could ultimately drive down the number of concealed carry holders in the state .
On the other hand , a bill that would limit handgun purchases to one-per-month that ’ s passed out of Virginia ’ s senate contains a provision that exempts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan , which could lead to more Virginians obtaining their concealed carry license if the exemption remains in whatever bill gets to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s desk .
For now , the surge in attendance for concealed carry classes is another sign that Virginia gun owners don ’ t plan on surrendering their rights anytime soon , despite the efforts by Democrat lawmakers to turn those rights into privileges .
Expect more full classes and long lines at gun stores in response to the anti-gun efforts at the state capitol .

As Democrats in the state legislature continue their push to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia, more Virginians are responding by embracing their Second Amendment rights. In Danville, Virginia over the weekend firearms instructor Barry Creasy reported one of the largest concealed carry classes he’s taught in thirty years. From WSET-TV:
He says his class size increases when people feel their gun rights are not being protected. “People are concerned because some of the proposals are actually going to restrict guns that people have owned for over 40 to 50 years,” Creasy said.
Virginians have every reason to be concerned, and not just about HB 961, the sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban that’s been filed. The state’s Democrats are also pushing bills that would ban common ammunition and make it harder for gun owners to access indoor and outdoor ranges.
In fact Del. Dan Helmer, a northern Virginia Democrat, has not only authored legislation that would force the NRA range in Fairfax, Virginia to close, but is also pushing a bill that would undo reciprocity agreements with two dozen states across the country. At the moment, Virginia recognizes every state’s concealed carry license, but under Helmer’s legislation the state’s attorney general would have the authority to rescind recognition. As Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner reported recently, if the bill becomes law it could have a devastating impact on the ability to bear arms in the state, and for Virginians who travel to other states as well.
“This is certainly more restrictive than the current process, which recognizes everyone’s permit. He can start saying, well, for this reason or that reason, I’m not going to recognize their permit now,” Virginia lawyer George Lyon of Arsenal Attorneys told the Washington Examiner. Lyon noted, ”There are provisions where people can be denied a permit. For example, if they’ve had a stalking conviction or if they’ve had a drug conviction or possibly multiple DUI convictions.”
Other states may have different training requirements as well, which under Helmer’s bill would be all that’s needed to end reciprocity agreements with other states, and that could impact Virginians too. If Virginia doesn’t recognize West Virginia’s concealed carry license, for example, West Virginia may not recognize Virginia’s concealed carry license. That could ultimately drive down the number of concealed carry holders in the state.
On the other hand, a bill that would limit handgun purchases to one-per-month that’s passed out of Virginia’s senate contains a provision that exempts concealed carry licensees from the gun rationing plan, which could lead to more Virginians obtaining their concealed carry license if the exemption remains in whatever bill gets to Gov. Ralph Northam’s desk.
For now, the surge in attendance for concealed carry classes is another sign that Virginia gun owners don’t plan on surrendering their rights anytime soon, despite the efforts by Democrat lawmakers to turn those rights into privileges. Expect more full classes and long lines at gun stores in response to the anti-gun efforts at the state capitol.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--CNN Lies About "Permitless Carry" In Kansas City Shooting

While I no longer expect the mainstream media to not be biased in their reporting , I do expect them to be factual .
They can be plenty biased in their reporting without mangling the actual facts available , after all .
However , CNN–an outfit that still likes to bill themselves as both trusted and trustworthy–has a habit of not necessarily doing that .
They routinely get labeled “ fake news ” by people like President Trump and it infuriates them .
The thing is , though , if they don ’ t want to be labeled fake news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff like this .
A CNN article on a recent Kansas City bar shooting mischaracterized the shooter ’ s criminal history to blame the killing on Missouri ’ s gun laws .
Police identified 29-year-old Jahron Swift as the shooter who killed one woman and injured 15 before he was killed by an armed guard January 19 .
CNN published a report Wednesday saying Swift likely would have gone to prison over a weapons charge if not for the state ’ s 2017 permitless carry law .
However , the report obfuscated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest the law let him off the hook for it .
All of Swift ’ s prior arrests and weapons charges came before Missouri ’ s gun law went into effect .
Even after it was enacted on Jan. 1 , 2017 , the permitless carry law would not have nullified Swift ’ s pending unlawful use of weapons charges .
But regardless of the permitless carry law , Swift was convicted of two felonies and therefore could not have legally carried a gun .
Court records show that Swift had two weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 charge was for unlawful use of a weapon and marijuana possession , according to court records , ” the CNN report reads .
“ Swift was charged in 2017 with unlawful concealed carry , which could have revoked his probation on the previous charge and increased his chances of going to prison.… However , the second charge came as [ the ] Missouri legislature adopted measures that permitted concealed weapons being carried without a permit.
” Swift was not on probation at the time of his second arrest , as the report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony charge in addition to the weapons charge allegedly nullified by the state ’ s gun laws .
In other words , they pushed wrong information on permitless carry and its applicability to this particular case .
Now , if I felt charitable , I ’ d argue that they simply don ’ t know anything about guns and gun laws , so they were just hilariously wrong .
I can ’ t do that , though .
I can ’ t do that because CNN has a history of letting their left-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to come from the top down .
Further , a reporters job is to check and make sure things are what they seem .
If they had , they ’ d have seen that Swift ’ s actions weren ’ t remotely protected .
The problem is that CNN has set themselves up as vehemently anti-gun .
Anyone who doubts that should go and rewatch the so-called town hall that they held right after Parkland .
That was a complete disaster with no attempt to have a calm , reasonable debate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or gun rights .
It was just shy of a lynch mob .
When you look at everything in totality , it ’ s extremely difficult to come to any conclusion other than CNN outright lied about the Kansas City shooting in an attempt to undermind constitutional carry , both in Missouri and throughout the nation .

While I no longer expect the mainstream media to not be biased in their reporting, I do expect them to be factual. They can be plenty biased in their reporting without mangling the actual facts available, after all.
However, CNN–an outfit that still likes to bill themselves as both trusted and trustworthy–has a habit of not necessarily doing that. They routinely get labeled “fake news” by people like President Trump and it infuriates them.
The thing is, though, if they don’t want to be labeled fake news, they probably should stop doing stupid stuff like this.
A CNN article on a recent Kansas City bar shooting mischaracterized the shooter’s criminal history to blame the killing on Missouri’s gun laws. Police identified 29-year-old Jahron Swift as the shooter who killed one woman and injured 15 before he was killed by an armed guard January 19. CNN published a report Wednesday saying Swift likely would have gone to prison over a weapons charge if not for the state’s 2017 permitless carry law. However, the report obfuscated the date of Swift’s charge to suggest the law let him off the hook for it. All of Swift’s prior arrests and weapons charges came before Missouri’s gun law went into effect. Even after it was enacted on Jan. 1, 2017, the permitless carry law would not have nullified Swift’s pending unlawful use of weapons charges. But regardless of the permitless carry law, Swift was convicted of two felonies and therefore could not have legally carried a gun. Court records show that Swift had two weapons charges in 2016 and 2017. The 2016 charge was for unlawful use of a weapon and marijuana possession, according to court records,” the CNN report reads. “Swift was charged in 2017 with unlawful concealed carry, which could have revoked his probation on the previous charge and increased his chances of going to prison.… However, the second charge came as [the] Missouri legislature adopted measures that permitted concealed weapons being carried without a permit.” Swift was not on probation at the time of his second arrest, as the report insinuates, and he received a drug felony charge in addition to the weapons charge allegedly nullified by the state’s gun laws.
In other words, they pushed wrong information on permitless carry and its applicability to this particular case.
Now, if I felt charitable, I’d argue that they simply don’t know anything about guns and gun laws, so they were just hilariously wrong. I can’t do that, though. I can’t do that because CNN has a history of letting their left-leaning bias color their reporting, something that seems to come from the top down.
Further, a reporters job is to check and make sure things are what they seem. If they had, they’d have seen that Swift’s actions weren’t remotely protected.
The problem is that CNN has set themselves up as vehemently anti-gun. Anyone who doubts that should go and rewatch the so-called town hall that they held right after Parkland. That was a complete disaster with no attempt to have a calm, reasonable debate on the subject of guns, gun control, or gun rights. It was just shy of a lynch mob.
When you look at everything in totality, it’s extremely difficult to come to any conclusion other than CNN outright lied about the Kansas City shooting in an attempt to undermind constitutional carry, both in Missouri and throughout the nation.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--What A Journalism Student Gets That His Future Colleagues Don't

In the aftermath of the Richmond protest , we ’ ve seen a lot of…questionable takes .
It ’ s unsurprising , really , since you ’ ll be hardpressed to find a gun rights proponent who doesn ’ t feel like the media is against them .
Of course , they feel that way because every fiber of their being is taking in the plethora of evidence showing that to be the case .
However , one of the more interesting stories about Richmond comes from the Dallas Morning News .
In it , the writer , a Northwestern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made an important observation that many of his colleagues could learn from .
When asked for an interview , members of a militia group clad in tactical gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles declined .
“ Sorry , we don ’ t talk to the press , ” they said , “ you guys like to twist what we say.
” According to a Gallup poll , only 41 % of Americans have a “ great deal ” or “ fair amount ” of trust in the media to accurately report the news .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control efforts , just 15 % have a fair amount of trust in the press .
The coverage preceding the protest raises questions about how well members of the press understand the different factions within the country ’ s conservative communities , and how easy it can be to group conservatives like pro-gun rights activists with the fringe white supremacist and nationalist groups .
It would serve the country to give gun rights protesters like those in Richmond a fair hearing .
The danger is that in a deeply divided political climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swath of Americans , will only deepen resentment on both sides .
And , the misrepresentation of these groups will further their distrust of the press , making it increasingly difficult for journalists to relate to those Americans .
How many of us distrust the press because of just how often they ’ ve mischaracterized us ?
Personally , I recall just how many op-eds I saw between 2008 and 2016 characterizing disagreement with President Obama–disagreement I typically shared–as being motivated by nothing other than the melanin content of the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well my issues with Obama weren ’ t because of his race , but his policies .
The lily-whitest man on Earth could have presented those same positions and I would have opposed them just as vehemently .
The problem was , the media didn ’ t know how to relate to people like me .
They didn ’ t understand why I opposed Obama and they didn ’ t really care to .
They had their minds made up and didn ’ t want to be confused with the facts .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a problem that hasn ’ t changed during the Trump era .
It ’ s why I can find plenty of op-eds arguing that if a large number of blacks paraded down the streets armed like these same militias did in Richmond , we ’ d be singing a different tune .
Of course , that ’ s because they don ’ t actually know any of us .
They haven ’ t taken the time to talk to us to see what our take on how we feel about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Second Amendment rights in the same way .
Nevermind that a number of black gun owners became mini-celebrities during Richmond .
So , they just fill in the gaps with their own mindreading .
In the process , though , they ’ ve done more to alienate us and foster still more distrust .
Satter , a graduate student , seems to understand this far better than his future colleagues .

In the aftermath of the Richmond protest, we’ve seen a lot of…questionable takes. It’s unsurprising, really, since you’ll be hardpressed to find a gun rights proponent who doesn’t feel like the media is against them. Of course, they feel that way because every fiber of their being is taking in the plethora of evidence showing that to be the case.
However, one of the more interesting stories about Richmond comes from the Dallas Morning News.
In it, the writer, a Northwestern University graduate student named Mark Satter, made an important observation that many of his colleagues could learn from.
When asked for an interview, members of a militia group clad in tactical gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles declined. “Sorry, we don’t talk to the press,” they said, “you guys like to twist what we say.” According to a Gallup poll, only 41% of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media to accurately report the news. Among Republicans, many of whom oppose gun control efforts, just 15% have a fair amount of trust in the press. The coverage preceding the protest raises questions about how well members of the press understand the different factions within the country’s conservative communities, and how easy it can be to group conservatives like pro-gun rights activists with the fringe white supremacist and nationalist groups. It would serve the country to give gun rights protesters like those in Richmond a fair hearing. The danger is that in a deeply divided political climate, misrepresenting gun owners, a large swath of Americans, will only deepen resentment on both sides. And, the misrepresentation of these groups will further their distrust of the press, making it increasingly difficult for journalists to relate to those Americans.
Satter makes a pretty good point here.
How many of us distrust the press because of just how often they’ve mischaracterized us?
Personally, I recall just how many op-eds I saw between 2008 and 2016 characterizing disagreement with President Obama–disagreement I typically shared–as being motivated by nothing other than the melanin content of the president’s skin. I knew damn good and well my issues with Obama weren’t because of his race, but his policies. The lily-whitest man on Earth could have presented those same positions and I would have opposed them just as vehemently.
The problem was, the media didn’t know how to relate to people like me. They didn’t understand why I opposed Obama and they didn’t really care to. They had their minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. Their mind-reading was all they really needed.
It’s a problem that hasn’t changed during the Trump era. It’s why I can find plenty of op-eds arguing that if a large number of blacks paraded down the streets armed like these same militias did in Richmond, we’d be singing a different tune.
Of course, that’s because they don’t actually know any of us. They haven’t taken the time to talk to us to see what our take on how we feel about a group of black gun owners exercising their Second Amendment rights in the same way. Nevermind that a number of black gun owners became mini-celebrities during Richmond.
So, they just fill in the gaps with their own mindreading.
In the process, though, they’ve done more to alienate us and foster still more distrust.
Satter, a graduate student, seems to understand this far better than his future colleagues.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--Gun Control Advocates And Cherry-Picking Statistics

In the debate over guns and gun rights , statistics are important .
People want to know how big the problem is .
They want to know if it ’ s really a problem and how well solutions work , if at all .
The problem , though , is the public doesn ’ t get a real picture .
They don ’ t get a full understanding of what ’ s transpiring because they ’ re being given some bogus statistics that , on the surface , look scary , but aren ’ t if you understand the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ op-ed , some gun control advocates try to use some widely-used and utterly fecal statistics to try and score gun control points .
The sad truth is that gun violence is a reality – it is not some ephemeral ideation that crops up after the all-too-familiar mass shooting .
It ’ s an everyday fact of life in our country .
Ask the families of the 40,000 who die from gun violence annually in America .
The fact is that a gun in the home is more likely to be used in domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child than it will ever be used to defend one ’ s home .
A recent Harvard University study noted “ the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.
” A gun in the home triples the risk of suicide by gun and doubles the risk of homicide .
In fact , a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least , not made up by the writers , anyway .
These are real and common stats thrown around by anti-gunners with alarming regularity .
First , the 40,000 people who die from gun violence annually .
What they fail to mention is that two-thirds of that number or more are suicides .
Suicide can be committed in any number of ways and would hardly be impacted by gun control measures .
Even the red flag laws that are touted as a solution to suicide aren ’ t .
Besides , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health issue , since that pathway leads to not just a prevention of suicides regardless of method use but also increases the quality of life for the better for the person in question .
But what about the idea that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar ?
Is that one made up ?
Not really , but there are a lot of problems with the study .
First and foremost , though , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life without taking human life .
Wounding a burglar or even just showing you have a gun is often enough to scare off a criminal intending to do harm to you and yours .
That won ’ t show up on any statistic if you ’ re simply looking for dead bad guys .
Second , the study didn ’ t really account for lawfully-owned weapons versus criminally-owned weapons .
That matters .
You see , criminals who have guns also have questionable relationships .
As a result , they ’ re more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend or family member .
That ’ s going to skew those numbers upward .
However , there ’ s a statistic you ’ re not likely to hear in op-eds like this , and that ’ s how an estimated 2.5 million people use a firearm to defend their lives annually .
That statistic , long claimed to be invalidated , was recently found to have been validated by the CDC .
Now , any sane person can do a basic analysis and see that even if you include suicide , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily outstripped by the number of lives saved by guns .
Why doesn ’ t that ever work into the discussion of gun control ?
Probably because it ’ s not easy for them to counter , so they completely dismiss it .
They ignore it and keep repeating the same talking points in hopes that the undecideds in our society don ’ t learn the truth .
But if you ’ re having to ignore inconvenient studies , then maybe the problem is that your entire movement is on shaky ground to @ @ @

In the debate over guns and gun rights, statistics are important. People want to know how big the problem is. They want to know if it’s really a problem and how well solutions work, if at all.
The problem, though, is the public doesn’t get a real picture. They don’t get a full understanding of what’s transpiring because they’re being given some bogus statistics that, on the surface, look scary, but aren’t if you understand the reality a bit better.
In a recent op-ed, some gun control advocates try to use some widely-used and utterly fecal statistics to try and score gun control points.
The sad truth is that gun violence is a reality – it is not some ephemeral ideation that crops up after the all-too-familiar mass shooting. It’s an everyday fact of life in our country. Ask the families of the 40,000 who die from gun violence annually in America. The fact is that a gun in the home is more likely to be used in domestic violence, suicide or accidentally by a child than it will ever be used to defend one’s home. A recent Harvard University study noted “the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.” A gun in the home triples the risk of suicide by gun and doubles the risk of homicide. In fact, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar.
Now, these aren’t made up statistics. At least, not made up by the writers, anyway. These are real and common stats thrown around by anti-gunners with alarming regularity.
However, they’re also blatantly misrepresenting reality.
First, the 40,000 people who die from gun violence annually. What they fail to mention is that two-thirds of that number or more are suicides. Suicide can be committed in any number of ways and would hardly be impacted by gun control measures. Even the red flag laws that are touted as a solution to suicide aren’t.
Besides, suicide is better dealt with as a mental health issue, since that pathway leads to not just a prevention of suicides regardless of method use but also increases the quality of life for the better for the person in question.
But what about the idea that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar? Is that one made up?
Not really, but there are a lot of problems with the study. First and foremost, though, is the fact that a gun can defend human life without taking human life. Wounding a burglar or even just showing you have a gun is often enough to scare off a criminal intending to do harm to you and yours. That won’t show up on any statistic if you’re simply looking for dead bad guys.
Second, the study didn’t really account for lawfully-owned weapons versus criminally-owned weapons. That matters.
You see, criminals who have guns also have questionable relationships. As a result, they’re more likely to kill someone they considered a friend or family member. That’s going to skew those numbers upward.
However, there’s a statistic you’re not likely to hear in op-eds like this, and that’s how an estimated 2.5 million people use a firearm to defend their lives annually. That statistic, long claimed to be invalidated, was recently found to have been validated by the CDC.
Now, any sane person can do a basic analysis and see that even if you include suicide, the number of lives taken by guns is easily outstripped by the number of lives saved by guns.
Why doesn’t that ever work into the discussion of gun control?
Probably because it’s not easy for them to counter, so they completely dismiss it. They ignore it and keep repeating the same talking points in hopes that the undecideds in our society don’t learn the truth.
But if you’re having to ignore inconvenient studies, then maybe the problem is that your entire movement is on shaky ground to begin with?


bearingarms--2020-01-28--WV Gov Joins Push To Annex VA's 2A Sanctuary Counties

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell , Jr. held a press conference Tuesday afternoon to announce their support for Virginia counties to leave their current state and be annexed by West Virginia .
Bearing Arms first told you about the push in the West Virginia legislature a couple of weeks ago , but since then support has only grown in the Mountaineer State , and Gov .
Justice ’ s involvement ensures that the movement will be talked about in both states .
“ A long time ago , the infringement of fundamental values is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia .
Now , in doing so the government of Virginia was probably significantly out of step , and therefore all of a sudden counties moved and West Virginia was formed , ” the governor said during today ’ s press conference .
“ In 1861 West Virginia ’ s first constitutional convention included 39 counties within the borders of the proposed new state , but also named an additional seven counties , all of those and all of those that were adjacent to those seven counties that would be eligible for inclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a part of the new state .
When West Virginia ’ s constitution was drafted later that year , the number of counties was intentionally unlimited , with an invitation to Virginia counties to vote to join West Virginia along with a statement that ‘ additional territory may be admitted into and become a part of the state with the consent of the legislature.
” Gov .
Justice pointed out that a number of West Virginia lawmakers have recently introduced resolutions inviting Virginia counties to “ come on down , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you ’ re not truly happy where you are , we stand with open arms to take you from Virginia or anywhere you may be .
We stand strongly for the Second Amendment and we stand strongly for the unborn .
There are so many great things about West Virginia , and we ’ re on the verge of moving in a way that you can ’ t fathom.
” Gov .
Justice said that each locality in Virginia would have to put a referendum on the ballot in November and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he was told that there has to be a petition , that would then go to the Board of Supervisors or City Council , then would be added to the ballot in November .
Then it would go to the General Assembly .
“ If the groundswell of support grows for counties and cities to leave , what ’ s also certain is that they will be joining the Mountain State miracle that Governor Jim Justice has engineered with the help of his good friend , President Donald Trump , ” Falwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia General Assembly would have to give approval for any county to be annexed by West Virginia , I ’ d say this movement is more aspirational than practical , but that doesn ’ t mean I ’ m necessarily opposed to it .
Heck , it would be interesting to see how many of the 91 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties would choose to leave the state if given the chance via a referendum .
I ’ d sign a petition to hold a referendum in my county , but I also plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted to electing pro-2A candidates in Virginia this November .
We ’ ll soon see if the # VAexit movement has legs , because it ’ s going to take backers of the idea showing up at county supervisors and city council meetings to make it happen .
If we start seeing the same type of crowds that were showing up to push for Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions , we ’ ll know that the support for the idea isn ’ t just coming from West Virginia lawmakers .

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. held a press conference Tuesday afternoon to announce their support for Virginia counties to leave their current state and be annexed by West Virginia.
Bearing Arms first told you about the push in the West Virginia legislature a couple of weeks ago, but since then support has only grown in the Mountaineer State, and Gov. Justice’s involvement ensures that the movement will be talked about in both states.
“A long time ago, the infringement of fundamental values is what really created the beginning of West Virginia. Now, in doing so the government of Virginia was probably significantly out of step, and therefore all of a sudden counties moved and West Virginia was formed,” the governor said during today’s press conference.
“In 1861 West Virginia’s first constitutional convention included 39 counties within the borders of the proposed new state, but also named an additional seven counties, all of those and all of those that were adjacent to those seven counties that would be eligible for inclusion if the people in those areas voted to be a part of the new state. When West Virginia’s constitution was drafted later that year, the number of counties was intentionally unlimited, with an invitation to Virginia counties to vote to join West Virginia along with a statement that ‘additional territory may be admitted into and become a part of the state with the consent of the legislature.”
Gov. Justice pointed out that a number of West Virginia lawmakers have recently introduced resolutions inviting Virginia counties to “come on down,” and said he echoes that sentiment.
“If you’re not truly happy where you are, we stand with open arms to take you from Virginia or anywhere you may be. We stand strongly for the Second Amendment and we stand strongly for the unborn. There are so many great things about West Virginia, and we’re on the verge of moving in a way that you can’t fathom.”
Gov. Justice said that each locality in Virginia would have to put a referendum on the ballot in November and voters would have to decide. Falwell said he was told that there has to be a petition, that would then go to the Board of Supervisors or City Council, then would be added to the ballot in November. Then it would go to the General Assembly. “If the groundswell of support grows for counties and cities to leave, what’s also certain is that they will be joining the Mountain State miracle that Governor Jim Justice has engineered with the help of his good friend, President Donald Trump,” Falwell said.
Given the fact that the Virginia General Assembly would have to give approval for any county to be annexed by West Virginia, I’d say this movement is more aspirational than practical, but that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily opposed to it. Heck, it would be interesting to see how many of the 91 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties would choose to leave the state if given the chance via a referendum. I’d sign a petition to hold a referendum in my county, but I also plan on spending most of my activism time devoted to electing pro-2A candidates in Virginia this November.
We’ll soon see if the #VAexit movement has legs, because it’s going to take backers of the idea showing up at county supervisors and city council meetings to make it happen. If we start seeing the same type of crowds that were showing up to push for Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, we’ll know that the support for the idea isn’t just coming from West Virginia lawmakers.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--Is Ralph Northam's Gun Ban In Trouble?

Is Ralph Northam's Gun Ban In Trouble?

On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I talk with Second Amendment advocate , consultant , and podcaster Gabriella Hoffman about her experience at Lobby Day in Richmond last week , as well as the curious lack of movement with Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s biggest gun control bill ; HB 961 , a sweeping gun , magazine , suppressor , and trigger activator ban that was introduced back on January 7th but hasn ’ t even had a committee vote in the weeks since .
Other bills have already crossed over from state Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originating on the House side have cleared committee and also await floor votes .
Not HB 961 , though .
So what gives ?
My sources in the capitol say that , given the opposition to the bill in its current form by four Democrats in the state Senate , there ’ s an effort underway to “ fix ” the bill and bring them on board .
Note that none of these Democrats say they ’ re opposed to the idea of a gun ban in general .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A lot of people don ’ t really understand assault weapons and how complicated the issue really is , ” said Democratic Sen. John Edwards .
“ It ’ s going to be very difficult to figure out a way to do it .
But we ’ re studying it , that ’ s all I can say.
” He ’ s one of at least four moderate senators – the others are Sens .
Chap Petersen , Creigh Deeds and Lynwood Lewis – who are skeptical of plans to ban assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out voting for an assault weapon ban , but all have said they aren ’ t impressed with any of the drafts of proposed bans they ’ ve seen .
“ I ’ ve not seen an enforceable bill that makes sense yet , ” Deeds said .
It ’ s also worth noting that none of them have actually proposed any “ fixes ” yet either , at least not publicly .
The easiest proposal to moderate HB 961 would be to grandfather in all existing magazines , suppressors , and trigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ assault weapons ” to be grandfathered in , but only after the owner and the firearm are both registered with the state police ) .
As Hoffman pointed out to me during today ’ s show , however , that still infringes on the rights of Virginians , because new gun owners and those moving into the state would still be prohibited from possessing some of the most commonly held arms in the country today .
Personally , I think the only way you can “ fix ” a bill as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply throw it away , or maybe set it on fire first and sweep up the ashes .
I also suspect , however , that Democrats are going to do whatever they have to do to get some form of a gun ban bill to Gov .
Northam ’ s desk , even if that means watering the bill down to near meaninglessness .
The best chance of blocking the bill at this point looks to be with the four Democrat state senators mentioned above , and continued positive pressure and constituent engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anti-gun lawmakers have a deadline of February 11th to pass HB 961 out of the House of Delegates in whatever form it eventually takes .
The bill could also be amended once it gets to the state Senate , so Democrats have plenty of opportunities to modify the bill in an attempt to secure the votes of the Democrat holdouts in the Senate , and gun owners still have plenty of chances to make their objections known to their representatives in both chambers .
Also on today ’ s program we have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Texas involving a 13-year old who had to use a gun to protect his grandmother , who was being beaten .
There are a couple of bills in Virginia that , if enacted , would mean that if a situation like this happened in Farmville or Culpeper , the 13-year old ’ s grandmother or mom would likely be facing charges for allowing the teenager access to a firearm .
In fact , under those bills any parent who allows a child under the age of 18 to have unsupervised access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home defense ) would be committing a crime .
It ’ s just another part of Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda that will have some terrible unintended consequences .
Don ’ t forget you can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and the Townhall.com podcast page .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I talk with Second Amendment advocate, consultant, and podcaster Gabriella Hoffman about her experience at Lobby Day in Richmond last week, as well as the curious lack of movement with Gov. Ralph Northam’s biggest gun control bill; HB 961, a sweeping gun, magazine, suppressor, and trigger activator ban that was introduced back on January 7th but hasn’t even had a committee vote in the weeks since.
Other bills have already crossed over from state Senate into the House, while several bills originating on the House side have cleared committee and also await floor votes. Not HB 961, though. So what gives?
My sources in the capitol say that, given the opposition to the bill in its current form by four Democrats in the state Senate, there’s an effort underway to “fix” the bill and bring them on board. Note that none of these Democrats say they’re opposed to the idea of a gun ban in general. It’s the specific language they have issues with.
“A lot of people don’t really understand assault weapons and how complicated the issue really is,” said Democratic Sen. John Edwards. “It’s going to be very difficult to figure out a way to do it. But we’re studying it, that’s all I can say.” He’s one of at least four moderate senators – the others are Sens. Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds and Lynwood Lewis – who are skeptical of plans to ban assault weapons. None of them has ruled out voting for an assault weapon ban, but all have said they aren’t impressed with any of the drafts of proposed bans they’ve seen. “I’ve not seen an enforceable bill that makes sense yet,” Deeds said.
It’s also worth noting that none of them have actually proposed any “fixes” yet either, at least not publicly.
The easiest proposal to moderate HB 961 would be to grandfather in all existing magazines, suppressors, and trigger activators (the current language allows for so-called “assault weapons” to be grandfathered in, but only after the owner and the firearm are both registered with the state police). As Hoffman pointed out to me during today’s show, however, that still infringes on the rights of Virginians, because new gun owners and those moving into the state would still be prohibited from possessing some of the most commonly held arms in the country today.
Personally, I think the only way you can “fix” a bill as fundamentally flawed as HB 961 is to simply throw it away, or maybe set it on fire first and sweep up the ashes. I also suspect, however, that Democrats are going to do whatever they have to do to get some form of a gun ban bill to Gov. Northam’s desk, even if that means watering the bill down to near meaninglessness. The best chance of blocking the bill at this point looks to be with the four Democrat state senators mentioned above, and continued positive pressure and constituent engagement from gun owners in their districts.
Anti-gun lawmakers have a deadline of February 11th to pass HB 961 out of the House of Delegates in whatever form it eventually takes. The bill could also be amended once it gets to the state Senate, so Democrats have plenty of opportunities to modify the bill in an attempt to secure the votes of the Democrat holdouts in the Senate, and gun owners still have plenty of chances to make their objections known to their representatives in both chambers.
Also on today’s program we have an armed citizen story out of Brown County, Texas involving a 13-year old who had to use a gun to protect his grandmother, who was being beaten. There are a couple of bills in Virginia that, if enacted, would mean that if a situation like this happened in Farmville or Culpeper, the 13-year old’s grandmother or mom would likely be facing charges for allowing the teenager access to a firearm. In fact, under those bills any parent who allows a child under the age of 18 to have unsupervised access to a firearm (including for hunting or home defense) would be committing a crime. It’s just another part of Northam’s anti-gun agenda that will have some terrible unintended consequences.
Don’t forget you can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and the Townhall.com podcast page. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-01-28--PA Town Voted Down Gun Store Free Zones Around Schools

For some reason , areas around schools are often treated like sacred spaces .
Certain businesses aren ’ t allowed to be conducted within so many feet of a school , sometimes for good reason .
Adult-themed stores , for example , are probably not the ideal business a parent would like their child to walk past twice a day .
Liquor stores might have drunks driving recklessly in the area as well .
I don ’ t necessarily agree with the reasoning , of course , but I can kind of understand it .
Well , a Pennsylvania town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat gun stores the exact same way .
Lancaster Country Day School Administrators firmly believe they are trying to protect anyone who walks through their doors .
“ Without students feeling safe , they won ’ t be at their best during school day and neither will teachers and staff , ” Assistant Head Todd Trout said .
The school submitted a proposal to Manheim Township Commissioners in September that would create a one-thousand-foot buffer zone around schools .
Gun shops and even images of guns would be prohibited inside the zones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of concerns with the Gun Gallery , a firearm retailer that opened near the school in 2018 .
“ There was a heightened concern about safety and security , ” Trout said .
“ There have been numerous mass shootings through the country .
There was one just before [ Gun Gallery ] opened up .
You could tell people were concerned and asking , ‘ Is that what we want near our school ?
’ ” The town council voted not to proceed , thankfully , but I can ’ t help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that it got this close in the first place .
First , proximity to a gun store has never been indicative of anything , especially in regard to crime .
Trust me , if it was , the anti-gunners would be beating that drum endlessly .
The fact that they ’ re not tells me there ’ s been no study to even hint at such a thing .
No , what happened is that guns and gun owners are so acceptable to demonize and that people like Mr. Trout are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bought into this nonsense , then tried to get the town to pass this .
The presence of a gun store is nothing more than the presence of a retail business that caters to law-abiding adults .
Guns have played a roll in protecting not just this great nation as a whole , but countless individuals since colonial times .
This isn ’ t something that should have even been considered in the first place .
However , it was .
What that tells us is that anti-gun smear campaigns have been very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as other parts of the nation .
The anti-gunners have done a fantastic job of convincing people that lawful gun sales lead to violence and violent crime , so much so that law-abiding businesses are being threatened and restricted because of irrational fears .
That just helps feed the gun control beast even further , especially as there ’ s rarely any pushback .
Yes , the town didn ’ t proceed with the proposal , but how much was that it was idiotic and how much of it had to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s preemption law ?

For some reason, areas around schools are often treated like sacred spaces. Certain businesses aren’t allowed to be conducted within so many feet of a school, sometimes for good reason. Adult-themed stores, for example, are probably not the ideal business a parent would like their child to walk past twice a day. Liquor stores might have drunks driving recklessly in the area as well.
I don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning, of course, but I can kind of understand it.
Well, a Pennsylvania town is voted on a measure that would treat gun stores the exact same way.
Lancaster Country Day School Administrators firmly believe they are trying to protect anyone who walks through their doors. “Without students feeling safe, they won’t be at their best during school day and neither will teachers and staff,” Assistant Head Todd Trout said. The school submitted a proposal to Manheim Township Commissioners in September that would create a one-thousand-foot buffer zone around schools. Gun shops and even images of guns would be prohibited inside the zones. … Trout said they submitted the proposal because of concerns with the Gun Gallery, a firearm retailer that opened near the school in 2018. “There was a heightened concern about safety and security,” Trout said. “There have been numerous mass shootings through the country. There was one just before [Gun Gallery] opened up. You could tell people were concerned and asking, ‘Is that what we want near our school?’”
The town council voted not to proceed, thankfully, but I can’t help but get a little hung up on the fact that it got this close in the first place.
First, proximity to a gun store has never been indicative of anything, especially in regard to crime. Trust me, if it was, the anti-gunners would be beating that drum endlessly. The fact that they’re not tells me there’s been no study to even hint at such a thing.
No, what happened is that guns and gun owners are so acceptable to demonize and that people like Mr. Trout are so easy to manipulate that they actually bought into this nonsense, then tried to get the town to pass this.
The presence of a gun store is nothing more than the presence of a retail business that caters to law-abiding adults. Guns have played a roll in protecting not just this great nation as a whole, but countless individuals since colonial times. This isn’t something that should have even been considered in the first place.
However, it was.
What that tells us is that anti-gun smear campaigns have been very successful in parts of Pennsylvania as well as other parts of the nation. The anti-gunners have done a fantastic job of convincing people that lawful gun sales lead to violence and violent crime, so much so that law-abiding businesses are being threatened and restricted because of irrational fears.
That just helps feed the gun control beast even further, especially as there’s rarely any pushback.
Yes, the town didn’t proceed with the proposal, but how much was that it was idiotic and how much of it had to do with concerns of running afoul of Pennsylvania’s preemption law?


bearingarms--2020-01-28--Feinstein Op-Ed Pushes Red Flag Orders

Feinstein Op-Ed Pushes Red Flag Orders

Dianne Feinstein has been a United States Senator for a long time now .
During her entire time there , though , she ’ s pushed for one thing more than anything else , and that was gun control .
She ’ s tried for it time and time again , but through most of her career in that chamber , she ’ s been downright ineffectual .
Now , though , she ’ s taking to the pages of The Hillextoll the virtues of extreme risk protective orders to , also known as red flag orders .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence that all Americans should agree on : Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns .
Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns .
Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence , and on average guns kill seven children every day .
I ’ ll address some of these “ facts ” in a post later today , just for the record .
Before many incidents of gun violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , family and friends – those in the best position to recognize troubling signs – are too often powerless to stop it .
That ’ s why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act , Sen. Feinstein ’ s bill to help states enact laws that allow for extreme risk protection orders .
Extreme risk protection orders , often referred to as red flag laws , allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from dangerous individuals .
These laws help save lives without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights .
By their very design , red flag laws take guns from people on shaky evidence .
That is a violation of an individual ’ s Second Amendment rights by depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms .
It ’ s also a violation of their due process rights because those guns are taken without the person in question getting to face their accuser or even the judge that makes the determination .
In what demented universe is that not treading on someone ’ s rights .
Feinstein goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that red flag laws work , but she fails to mention how it didn ’ t stop the Gilroy shooting , the Thousand Oaks shooting , or any of a number of other mass shootings that took place within their borders .
The problem is , though , Feinstein and company are continually using the number of times the law is used to justify the existence .
They count every red flag order issued as a win , with no regard to how many innocent people have had their rights trampled on by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not like Feinstein actually cares about those rights , though .
She and people like her routinely distort reality in an effort to push a narrative that would see each and every one of us beholden to the government for our personal safety , a safety they can not and will not guarantee , it should be noted .
Extreme risk protective orders empower far too many people to trample on individual rights .
As we saw in Colorado , it ’ s far too easy for people to make a claim and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feinstein doesn ’ t care about that .
She doesn ’ t care about how many of those “ successes ” in her beloved California were maliciously motivated , either .
She just cares about finding ways to separate you from your guns .

Dianne Feinstein has been a United States Senator for a long time now. During her entire time there, though, she’s pushed for one thing more than anything else, and that was gun control. She’s tried for it time and time again, but through most of her career in that chamber, she’s been downright ineffectual.
Thankfully.
Now, though, she’s taking to the pages of The Hillextoll the virtues of extreme risk protective orders to , also known as red flag orders.
There is one point in the national conversation about gun violence that all Americans should agree on: Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns. Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns. Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average guns kill seven children every day.
I’ll address some of these “facts” in a post later today, just for the record.
Before many incidents of gun violence, shooters display warning signs of impending violence. However, family and friends – those in the best position to recognize troubling signs – are too often powerless to stop it. That’s why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, Sen. Feinstein’s bill to help states enact laws that allow for extreme risk protection orders. Extreme risk protection orders, often referred to as red flag laws, allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from dangerous individuals. These laws help save lives without treading on Second Amendment or due process rights.
Well…that last paragraph is a bald-faced lie.
By their very design, red flag laws take guns from people on shaky evidence. That is a violation of an individual’s Second Amendment rights by depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. It’s also a violation of their due process rights because those guns are taken without the person in question getting to face their accuser or even the judge that makes the determination.
In what demented universe is that not treading on someone’s rights.
Feinstein goes on to argue that California is proof that red flag laws work, but she fails to mention how it didn’t stop the Gilroy shooting, the Thousand Oaks shooting, or any of a number of other mass shootings that took place within their borders.
The problem is, though, Feinstein and company are continually using the number of times the law is used to justify the existence. They count every red flag order issued as a win, with no regard to how many innocent people have had their rights trampled on by an oppressive government.
It’s not like Feinstein actually cares about those rights, though. She and people like her routinely distort reality in an effort to push a narrative that would see each and every one of us beholden to the government for our personal safety, a safety they cannot and will not guarantee, it should be noted.
Extreme risk protective orders empower far too many people to trample on individual rights. As we saw in Colorado, it’s far too easy for people to make a claim and try to punish those they dislike. Feinstein doesn’t care about that. She doesn’t care about how many of those “successes” in her beloved California were maliciously motivated, either.
She just cares about finding ways to separate you from your guns.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--The Currency Of Death Threats In Gun Control Crowd

By now , you ’ ve probably heard of Dr. Joseph Sakran .
He ’ s the trauma surgeon who posted a photo on Twitter of a supposed death threat .
The image , in a now-deleted tweet , was a cartoonish hand holding a cartoonish gun and the caption reading , “ The End Is Near… ” Sakran swarmed to Twitter , though , and posted the photo .
He then spoke with the Baltimore Sun about what happened .
The problem , of course , is that his tweet featured the flier on the windshield of his car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reflection .
It was taken inside of a house garage , not outside his parents ’ home .
Not unless he ’ s alleging someone went there–an illogical place to look for someone , really–and then snuck into their garage to put a piece of 1998-era clip art on his windshield .
Sakran says he removed the tweet after being advised to do so by the police .
The problem , folks who ’ ve checked with law enforcement say that no report has been made .
The good folks at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for your amusement , of course .
So , he likely made the sign himself–it ’ s not rocket science-level photoshopping here–and then placed it on his own car , then called attention to it .
Note , for example , that he claims it was placed there around the day of the Lobby Day protest when 22,000 gun rights supporters were in town , but he didn ’ t even look at a strange piece of paper on his windshield ?
Advertising fliers are often left on car windshields , sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit retail spaces for that kind of thing and so most anyone would at least look at what was left .
But not the good doctor .
He ignores it until days later ?
I ’ m not buying it .
Of course , this raises the question of just why would a respected physician feel the need to manufacture such a thing .
Why risk so much on such a ridiculous effort ?
The answer is simple .
You see , for the politically active , death threats are almost currency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ important you not only feel but the more important your fellow travelers feel you are .
The other side doesn ’ t go after nobodies , now do they ?
The problem is , Sakran just isn ’ t important enough for anyone to care about him .
So , he has to raise his profile .
He manufactures a death threat so he can claim to be a victim .
He can raise his profile , become a champion for the cause .
He can then portray the image of a brave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever because he refused to buckle under the threats from gun rights proponents .
I ’ ve told people not to send death threats to folks before , and I ’ ll reiterate it yet again here .
However , there ’ s no counter to the false threats except to call it out when we see it .
Just like with Dr. Sakran .

By now, you’ve probably heard of Dr. Joseph Sakran. He’s the trauma surgeon who posted a photo on Twitter of a supposed death threat. The image, in a now-deleted tweet, was a cartoonish hand holding a cartoonish gun and the caption reading, “The End Is Near…”
Sakran swarmed to Twitter, though, and posted the photo.
He then spoke with the Baltimore Sun about what happened.
In an interview with The Baltimore Sun, he said he believed the paper was placed on his car, parked near his parents’ home in Northern Virginia, sometime on or before Jan. 20 — which was the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the same day as a gun rights rally in Richmond, the state’s capital. … Virginia Capitol Police tasked with staffing officers for the rally said they were not aware of any threats against gun control activists. Sakran declined to say what agency — if any — is investigating the incident. Sakran, 42, said he recalls grabbing what he thought was a flier off his windshield on the morning of Jan. 21 as he made his way into work at the U.S. Capitol, where he is serving as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy fellow. Sakran took a sabbatical from his position as director of emergency general surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital to take the fellowship. He said he took no notice of what was on the paper that morning, distracted by thoughts about his new job. But days later, as he was cleaning out his car, he took a closer look and realized what it was with a jolt, he said. “I was like, ‘Oh my gosh,’” he said. “A lot of emotions went through me, to be honest with you, having been a survivor — and also for my family.”
The problem, of course, is that his tweet featured the flier on the windshield of his car, a house door clearly visible in the reflection. It was taken inside of a house garage, not outside his parents’ home. Not unless he’s alleging someone went there–an illogical place to look for someone, really–and then snuck into their garage to put a piece of 1998-era clip art on his windshield.
Sakran says he removed the tweet after being advised to do so by the police. The problem, folks who’ve checked with law enforcement say that no report has been made.
The good folks at The Truth About Guns have plenty of screenshots for your amusement, of course.
So, he likely made the sign himself–it’s not rocket science-level photoshopping here–and then placed it on his own car, then called attention to it.
Note, for example, that he claims it was placed there around the day of the Lobby Day protest when 22,000 gun rights supporters were in town, but he didn’t even look at a strange piece of paper on his windshield? Advertising fliers are often left on car windshields, sure, but not in residential areas. They hit retail spaces for that kind of thing and so most anyone would at least look at what was left.
But not the good doctor. He ignores it until days later? I’m not buying it.
Of course, this raises the question of just why would a respected physician feel the need to manufacture such a thing. Why risk so much on such a ridiculous effort?
The answer is simple. You see, for the politically active, death threats are almost currency. The more you get, the more important you not only feel but the more important your fellow travelers feel you are. The other side doesn’t go after nobodies, now do they?
The problem is, Sakran just isn’t important enough for anyone to care about him. So, he has to raise his profile. He manufactures a death threat so he can claim to be a victim. He can raise his profile, become a champion for the cause. He can then portray the image of a brave activist fighting the forces of evil or whatever because he refused to buckle under the threats from gun rights proponents.
I’ve told people not to send death threats to folks before, and I’ll reiterate it yet again here. However, there’s no counter to the false threats except to call it out when we see it.
Just like with Dr. Sakran.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--Texas Church Hero Fights Back Against Bloomberg's Anti-Gun Agenda

Jack Wilson , the church deacon who shot and killed an attacker at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement , Texas in December , is now taking a vocal stand in opposition to Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign and anti-gun activism .
Speaking at a church safety seminar in Hurst , Texas on Sunday , Wilson advocated for other houses of worship to have an armed security team in place , but warned that if Bloomberg gets his way , armed parishioners won ’ t be an option for those who want to protect the flock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s position , we wouldn ’ t have had any guns in there , ” Wilson said in an interview .
“ The outcome would have been extremely more severe than it was.
” Wilson said the attacker , who police identified as 43-year-old Keith Thomas Kinnunen , had seven more rounds in his shotgun and three more in his pocket .
“ Mr .
Wilson certainly acted bravely , but the killer had a history of violence and mental health issues and under Mike ’ s plan , he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Elizabeth Lewis , a spokeswoman for his Bloomberg ’ s campaign , said in a statement Monday .
That ’ s just a flat-out lie , frankly .
Even in Mike Bloomberg ’ s New York , criminals can still get ahold of guns .
In fact , it ’ s easier for them to do so than it is for the average New Yorker to buy a firearm legally .
As for the suspect in the White Settlement shooting , he had a lengthy criminal history but managed to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including illegal gun possession in New Jersey in 2016 .
Mike Bloomberg ’ s gun control plans wouldn ’ t have stopped this guy from getting a gun .
Actually prosecuting him for his many crimes would have , because he would have been behind bars instead of inside the West Freeway Church of Christ on that Sunday morning in December .
Despite Elizabeth Lewis ’ claim , the only people who would have been disarmed by Bloomberg ’ s policies were the church ’ s security team , including Jack Wilson .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said in response to Wilson ’ s heroism that the “ average American ” shouldn ’ t be allowed to bear arms in public spaces .
In other words , the right to bear arms shouldn ’ t be treated as a right at all , according to Bloomberg .
I hope Jack Wilson stays engaged and uses his voice even more in support of pro-Second Amendment candidates this election year .
The armed citizen who stopped evil in its tracks is a perfect foil to the anti-gun billionaire with his armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful story can help remind voters that today ’ s “ gun safety ” movement isn ’ t about safety at all .
It ’ s about disarming the American public and turning a right into a privilege to be doled out by guys like Mike Bloomberg .

Jack Wilson, the church deacon who shot and killed an attacker at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas in December, is now taking a vocal stand in opposition to Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign and anti-gun activism.
Speaking at a church safety seminar in Hurst, Texas on Sunday, Wilson advocated for other houses of worship to have an armed security team in place, but warned that if Bloomberg gets his way, armed parishioners won’t be an option for those who want to protect the flock.
“If we were operating under Bloomberg’s position, we wouldn’t have had any guns in there,” Wilson said in an interview. “The outcome would have been extremely more severe than it was.” Wilson said the attacker, who police identified as 43-year-old Keith Thomas Kinnunen, had seven more rounds in his shotgun and three more in his pocket. “Mr. Wilson certainly acted bravely, but the killer had a history of violence and mental health issues and under Mike’s plan, he would never (have) had a gun,” Elizabeth Lewis, a spokeswoman for his Bloomberg’s campaign, said in a statement Monday.
That’s just a flat-out lie, frankly. Even in Mike Bloomberg’s New York, criminals can still get ahold of guns. In fact, it’s easier for them to do so than it is for the average New Yorker to buy a firearm legally.
As for the suspect in the White Settlement shooting, he had a lengthy criminal history but managed to avoid prosecution on the most serious charges, including illegal gun possession in New Jersey in 2016. Mike Bloomberg’s gun control plans wouldn’t have stopped this guy from getting a gun. Actually prosecuting him for his many crimes would have, because he would have been behind bars instead of inside the West Freeway Church of Christ on that Sunday morning in December.
Despite Elizabeth Lewis’ claim, the only people who would have been disarmed by Bloomberg’s policies were the church’s security team, including Jack Wilson. After all, it was Michael Bloomberg who said in response to Wilson’s heroism that the “average American” shouldn’t be allowed to bear arms in public spaces. In other words, the right to bear arms shouldn’t be treated as a right at all, according to Bloomberg.
I hope Jack Wilson stays engaged and uses his voice even more in support of pro-Second Amendment candidates this election year. The armed citizen who stopped evil in its tracks is a perfect foil to the anti-gun billionaire with his armed security squad, and Wilson’s powerful story can help remind voters that today’s “gun safety” movement isn’t about safety at all. It’s about disarming the American public and turning a right into a privilege to be doled out by guys like Mike Bloomberg.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--Bloomberg Just Gave Gun Owners 60 Million Reasons To Get Involved This Year

Michael Bloomberg has already spent more than $ 200-million in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination , but the former New York mayor and current gun control sugar daddy is also promising to nearly double what the NRA spent in the 2016 election in order to push anti-gun candidates around the country in this election cycle .
Everytown for Gun Safety , the Bloomberg-created gun control group , announced Monday that it plans on spending $ 60-million in the 2020 elections in a bid to do to the United States as a whole what the group did to Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the executive and legislative branches of government .
Mostly it ’ s fueled by Michael Bloomberg ’ s bank account , but gun owners can ’ t ignore the threat that this spending campaign poses to our right to keep and bear arms .
The tens of millions that Bloomberg will be pouring into congressional and senate campaigns will play an outsized roll in aiding anti-gun candidates across the country , but gun owners can blunt the effects of the Bloomberg bucks by getting involved now .
While media outlets have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups as attempts to buy elections , so far most news outlets appear to be simply enthralled by the prospect of Bloomberg spending gobs of cash to advance his anti-gun agenda .
NBC News , for example , described Bloomberg ’ s bid to become president in glowing terms earlier this week .
“ Money is the No .
1 factor in most elections , ” said former Rep. Carlos Curbelo , a Republican from Florida who , until the 2018 blue wave sent him packing , represented a Democratic-leaning district that includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the data , candidates that have the most resources at their disposal tend to win.
” Curbelo said Bloomberg ’ s ads are already ubiquitous in Florida , a state so big and expensive to advertise in that national Republican and Democratic party groups often don ’ t bother .
“ You can ’ t watch a football game without seeing him , ” Curbelo said of Bloomberg .
Speaking of which , viewers of next Sunday ’ s Super Bowl , one of the largest TV audiences of the year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an estimated cost of $ 10 million .
Trump and the Republican National Committee are building an unprecedented war chest of their own and plan to deploy some of that to run their own Super Bowl ad , which his campaign said cost $ 10 million .
With the country deeply polarized , almost everyone expects the 2020 election to be a close race , decided on the margins in a handful of now-familiar Electoral College swing states , where Trump won by just tens of thousands of votes .
And tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real difference , according to a growing body of academic research .
“ A lot of ads can potentially swing an election that is close , ” said Jörg Spenkuch of Northwestern University , who conducted one of the most-cited studies on the impact of political advertising .
“ But ads are probably not effective enough to change the outcome of a race that wasn ’ t close to begin with.
” Bloomberg won ’ t target every congressional seat .
His gun control group will borrow pages from their Virginia playbook and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts across the country while they also devote considerable time and cash to electing Democrat senators in states like Colorado , Kentucky ( where Mitch McConnell is a huge target ) , and Arizona .
No matter what state you live in , however , chances are there ’ s a race that Bloomberg and his anti-gun activists will be involved in , and that ’ s a race that you should be involved in as well .
Work with the campaign directly , or with your state party organization , or with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOA , and state level groups as well .
What we can ’ t do is stay on our couch and think someone else will do the heavy lifting for us .
Gun control groups believe 2020 is the year that they can put the pieces in places to completely gut our right to keep and bear arms in 2021 , and it ’ s up to us to stop them at the ballot box .

Michael Bloomberg has already spent more than $200-million in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but the former New York mayor and current gun control sugar daddy is also promising to nearly double what the NRA spent in the 2016 election in order to push anti-gun candidates around the country in this election cycle.
Everytown for Gun Safety, the Bloomberg-created gun control group, announced Monday that it plans on spending $60-million in the 2020 elections in a bid to do to the United States as a whole what the group did to Virginia in 2019: give Democrats complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government.
“This massive 2020 effort is fueled by a combination of financial resources, unprecedented grassroots power and a consensus among more than 90 percent of Americans across party lines that we need action now to reduce gun violence,” Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a part of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in the press release.
Mostly it’s fueled by Michael Bloomberg’s bank account, but gun owners can’t ignore the threat that this spending campaign poses to our right to keep and bear arms. The tens of millions that Bloomberg will be pouring into congressional and senate campaigns will play an outsized roll in aiding anti-gun candidates across the country, but gun owners can blunt the effects of the Bloomberg bucks by getting involved now.
While media outlets have long decried spending by the NRA and other groups as attempts to buy elections, so far most news outlets appear to be simply enthralled by the prospect of Bloomberg spending gobs of cash to advance his anti-gun agenda. NBC News, for example, described Bloomberg’s bid to become president in glowing terms earlier this week.
“Money is the No. 1 factor in most elections,” said former Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Republican from Florida who, until the 2018 blue wave sent him packing, represented a Democratic-leaning district that includes Miami. “If you look back at the data, candidates that have the most resources at their disposal tend to win.” Curbelo said Bloomberg’s ads are already ubiquitous in Florida, a state so big and expensive to advertise in that national Republican and Democratic party groups often don’t bother. “You can’t watch a football game without seeing him,” Curbelo said of Bloomberg. Speaking of which, viewers of next Sunday’s Super Bowl, one of the largest TV audiences of the year, will see a 60-second Bloomberg spot — at an estimated cost of $10 million. Trump and the Republican National Committee are building an unprecedented war chest of their own and plan to deploy some of that to run their own Super Bowl ad, which his campaign said cost $10 million. With the country deeply polarized, almost everyone expects the 2020 election to be a close race, decided on the margins in a handful of now-familiar Electoral College swing states, where Trump won by just tens of thousands of votes. And tight races are where money can make a real difference, according to a growing body of academic research. “A lot of ads can potentially swing an election that is close,” said Jörg Spenkuch of Northwestern University, who conducted one of the most-cited studies on the impact of political advertising. “But ads are probably not effective enough to change the outcome of a race that wasn’t close to begin with.”
Bloomberg won’t target every congressional seat. His gun control group will borrow pages from their Virginia playbook and focus their efforts on flipping suburban swing districts across the country while they also devote considerable time and cash to electing Democrat senators in states like Colorado, Kentucky (where Mitch McConnell is a huge target), and Arizona.
No matter what state you live in, however, chances are there’s a race that Bloomberg and his anti-gun activists will be involved in, and that’s a race that you should be involved in as well. Work with the campaign directly, or with your state party organization, or with Second Amendment groups like the NRA, GOA, and state level groups as well. What we can’t do is stay on our couch and think someone else will do the heavy lifting for us. Gun control groups believe 2020 is the year that they can put the pieces in places to completely gut our right to keep and bear arms in 2021, and it’s up to us to stop them at the ballot box.


bearingarms--2020-01-28--David Hogg And The Gun Control History That Never Happened

Were it not for the fact that the Parkland killer murdered so many innocent people , I ’ d almost applaud him for giving us David Hogg .
The activist is usually a source for humor , though never intentionally , via his Twitter feed where he routine spouts all different kinds of stupid .
His tweets are usually good to kick around for a bit over there , but nothing overly worth delving into .
Until he tweeted this bit of stupidity .
And they admitted him into Harvard ?
I ’ m now really glad my son had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be clear , the gun control movement did start over a century ago and arguably from the dawn of this nation .
A case could be made that yes , he got that part right .
That ’ s where it ends , though .
Those champions of gun control who were “ almost entirely black , brown and indigenous ” people , much less LGBT and non-binary people , though ?
Oh , they didn ’ t exist .
You see , gun control in that long-ago era wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There were no college students demanding assault musket bans or background checks .
No , gun control had a much different face back then .
When you find photography popping up prior to the Civil War , you don ’ t see pictures of minorities at the photos of meetings where gun control was likely discussed .
Then again , maybe all of those folks were hiding under the pointy white hoods .
That ’ s right , the Klan was a big supporter of gun control back in the day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up until the latter part of the 20th century , gun control had nothing to do with disarming white people .
Prior to that , it was exclusively about disarming black and brown people , including Native Americans .
The white folks in power didn ’ t want slaves or freed slaves having guns .
The intense racists that crafted laws didn ’ t want black folks to have the means to fight back against the white people who might try to lynch them for looking at someone wrong .
In the Reconstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but was worded in such a way that the federal oversight would let it pass .
They banned guns as certain types of events , knowing full well that white sheriffs would never enforce those laws on white men .
Not too far from where I sit , a group of black men and women during Reconstruction planned a march .
They were protesting the removal of some black lawmakers from the Georgia General Assembly .
As the group marched down the road , they started being shot at .
Several were killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The black marchers didn ’ t demand gun control , though .
No , they went home and got their own guns , then continued the march .
As a result , the General Assembly banned guns at “ public gatherings.
” That law was on the books in Georgia until 2010 .
The unfortunate truth that Hogg seems blissfully unaware of is that his beloved cause of gun control wasn ’ t championed by some unknown group of minorities–much less LGBT and non-binary minorities who , if they were any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway–but were instead the tools of the vehement racists Hogg claims to decry .
Gun control ’ s history is a racist history of people with power trying to disarm those who didn ’ t have power .
Instead of saluting the mythical heroes of his movement ’ s past–heroes with absolutely no evidential basis to believe even existed–maybe he should take a step back and recognize his own movements racist roots .
Especially when he ’ s been spending so much time trying to make the opposition look racist .

Were it not for the fact that the Parkland killer murdered so many innocent people, I’d almost applaud him for giving us David Hogg.
The activist is usually a source for humor, though never intentionally, via his Twitter feed where he routine spouts all different kinds of stupid. His tweets are usually good to kick around for a bit over there, but nothing overly worth delving into.
Until he tweeted this bit of stupidity.
This is a tweet for for the founders of the gun violence prevention movement started centuries ago by almost entirely black, brown and indigenous lgbtq women and non binary people that never got on the news or in most history books. We may not know all your names but thank you. — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) January 27, 2020
And they admitted him into Harvard?
I’m now really glad my son had no interest in attending there.
Now, to be clear, the gun control movement did start over a century ago and arguably from the dawn of this nation. A case could be made that yes, he got that part right.
That’s where it ends, though.
Those champions of gun control who were “almost entirely black, brown and indigenous” people, much less LGBT and non-binary people, though? Oh, they didn’t exist.
You see, gun control in that long-ago era wasn’t the thing we think of today. There were no college students demanding assault musket bans or background checks. No, gun control had a much different face back then.
When you find photography popping up prior to the Civil War, you don’t see pictures of minorities at the photos of meetings where gun control was likely discussed. Then again, maybe all of those folks were hiding under the pointy white hoods.
That’s right, the Klan was a big supporter of gun control back in the day.
What has to be remembered is that up until the latter part of the 20th century, gun control had nothing to do with disarming white people. Prior to that, it was exclusively about disarming black and brown people, including Native Americans. The white folks in power didn’t want slaves or freed slaves having guns. The intense racists that crafted laws didn’t want black folks to have the means to fight back against the white people who might try to lynch them for looking at someone wrong.
In the Reconstruction South, more gun control sprung up but was worded in such a way that the federal oversight would let it pass. They banned guns as certain types of events, knowing full well that white sheriffs would never enforce those laws on white men.
Not too far from where I sit, a group of black men and women during Reconstruction planned a march. They were protesting the removal of some black lawmakers from the Georgia General Assembly. As the group marched down the road, they started being shot at. Several were killed in what was dubbed the Camilla Massacre.
The black marchers didn’t demand gun control, though. No, they went home and got their own guns, then continued the march.
As a result, the General Assembly banned guns at “public gatherings.” That law was on the books in Georgia until 2010.
The unfortunate truth that Hogg seems blissfully unaware of is that his beloved cause of gun control wasn’t championed by some unknown group of minorities–much less LGBT and non-binary minorities who, if they were any of those things, likely kept it quiet anyway–but were instead the tools of the vehement racists Hogg claims to decry.
Gun control’s history is a racist history of people with power trying to disarm those who didn’t have power.
Instead of saluting the mythical heroes of his movement’s past–heroes with absolutely no evidential basis to believe even existed–maybe he should take a step back and recognize his own movements racist roots. Especially when he’s been spending so much time trying to make the opposition look racist.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--CA Sheriff Forced To Release Concealed Carry Info To SF Paper

Sutter County , California Sheriff Brandon Barnes is speaking out after being required to turn over information about the county ’ s concealed carry licensees to the San Francisco Chronicle after the paper filed a Freedom of Information Act request .
Barnes posted to Facebook a copy of a letter he ’ s sending CCW holders in the county , informing them that while he personally declined to release the information , the county ’ s attorneys told him he had no choice .
Meanwhile , the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle is upset with the sheriff for saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sheriff ’ s decision to publicize the Chronicle ’ s request and to notify CCW permit holders , San Francisco Chronicle Editor In Chief Audrey Cooper issued the following statement : “ I am deeply disturbed by how some sheriffs have handled a routine request for public information from a respected and established news outlet .
As a result , they have put our journalists in personal danger for their own political gain .
“ It is a journalist ’ s job to investigate trends , and we do not intend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , the sheriffs sought to play up distrust in media when it became clear that they can not deny access to public information.
” Cooper later added the newspaper would refine its Public Records Act request out of concern for their reporter ’ s safety .
His name will be removed .
Cooper will instead use her name in the Chronicle ’ s request for the data .
I don ’ t see anything in the sheriff ’ s statement identifying the reporter for the Chronicle , nor would I condone any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for requesting the information .
I ’ m a big proponent of the Freedom of Information Act laws , and generally speaking , I ’ m opposed to releasing any individual information about concealed carry licensees .
The one aspect of that rule that I ’ ve struggled with over the years is this ; in may-issue states like California , I do believe the process of doling out concealed carry licenses can be abused .
In fact , reporters at the San Jose Mercury News have been doing an excellent job in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in exchange for concealed carry licenses in Santa Clara County , California and they ’ ve been relying in part on Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain information .
Keeping this information private in may-issue states can hinder the uncovering of real corruption .
I see no reason whatsoever for this information to be made public in shall issue states , and I also see the value of protecting the privacy of concealed carry holders in may issue states as well .
As I said , the issue is one I struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have an issue at all with what Sheriff Barnes has done in informing concealed carry holders that their information has been turned over to the San Francisco Chronicle , and Cooper is completely out of line in attacking the sheriff and gun owners by claiming the sheriff has endangered reporters simply for reporting some news himself .
It ’ s fine for Cooper to say that the paper doesn ’ t intend on publishing personal information of private citizens .
They still have that information , and we ’ ve certainly seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past .
Gun owners have every reason to be suspicious of the media when it goes digging around legal gun owners , and every right to be informed when they do so as well .
In fact , Cooper would be better off taking a lesson in transparency from the sheriff and share more information about the story that the paper is working on instead of displaying a shocking hostility towards concealed carry holders by insinuating that they are going to threaten the lives of her reporters .

Sutter County, California Sheriff Brandon Barnes is speaking out after being required to turn over information about the county’s concealed carry licensees to the San Francisco Chronicle after the paper filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Barnes posted to Facebook a copy of a letter he’s sending CCW holders in the county, informing them that while he personally declined to release the information, the county’s attorneys told him he had no choice.
Meanwhile, the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle is upset with the sheriff for saying anything at all.
In response to the sheriff’s decision to publicize the Chronicle’s request and to notify CCW permit holders, San Francisco Chronicle Editor In Chief Audrey Cooper issued the following statement: “I am deeply disturbed by how some sheriffs have handled a routine request for public information from a respected and established news outlet. As a result, they have put our journalists in personal danger for their own political gain. “It is a journalist’s job to investigate trends, and we do not intend on publishing personal information of private citizens. Unfortunately, the sheriffs sought to play up distrust in media when it became clear that they cannot deny access to public information.” Cooper later added the newspaper would refine its Public Records Act request out of concern for their reporter’s safety. His name will be removed. Cooper will instead use her name in the Chronicle’s request for the data.
I don’t see anything in the sheriff’s statement identifying the reporter for the Chronicle, nor would I condone any sort of threat made against the reporter for requesting the information. I’m a big proponent of the Freedom of Information Act laws, and generally speaking, I’m opposed to releasing any individual information about concealed carry licensees. The one aspect of that rule that I’ve struggled with over the years is this; in may-issue states like California, I do believe the process of doling out concealed carry licenses can be abused. In fact, reporters at the San Jose Mercury News have been doing an excellent job in covering a potential scandal involving campaign donations in exchange for concealed carry licenses in Santa Clara County, California and they’ve been relying in part on Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain information. Keeping this information private in may-issue states can hinder the uncovering of real corruption. I see no reason whatsoever for this information to be made public in shall issue states, and I also see the value of protecting the privacy of concealed carry holders in may issue states as well. As I said, the issue is one I struggle with.
However, I don’t have an issue at all with what Sheriff Barnes has done in informing concealed carry holders that their information has been turned over to the San Francisco Chronicle, and Cooper is completely out of line in attacking the sheriff and gun owners by claiming the sheriff has endangered reporters simply for reporting some news himself. It’s fine for Cooper to say that the paper doesn’t intend on publishing personal information of private citizens. They still have that information, and we’ve certainly seen a number of papers do so in the past.
Gun owners have every reason to be suspicious of the media when it goes digging around legal gun owners, and every right to be informed when they do so as well. In fact, Cooper would be better off taking a lesson in transparency from the sheriff and share more information about the story that the paper is working on instead of displaying a shocking hostility towards concealed carry holders by insinuating that they are going to threaten the lives of her reporters.