bearingarms--2020-02-05--A Pair Of Studies Demonstrates The Anti-Gun Ignorance In Academia

There are no shortage of idiotic academic studies out there , but a “ researcher ” at Arizona State University may be in the running for the dumbest research of the year after releasing two studies that purport to show gun owners don ’ t sleep any better than people who don ’ t own guns , and that gun owners aren ’ t any happier than non-gun owners .
Terrence Hill is an associate professor of sociology at Arizona State , and he ’ s the lead author of the two studies in question .
I wonder how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in person , given the fact that his studies are premised on statements like this .
“ Gun owners will often tell you that guns help them to feel safe , secure and protected .
They will also tell you that guns empower them and make them feel independent and strong .
They also talk about how just holding and handling guns is pleasurable , ” Hill said .
“ If guns do make people feel safe , secure and protected , if they are empowering , if they are contributing to feelings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happiness , but we don ’ t find any evidence of that .
That calls into question whether or not these are real feelings that gun owners have , or are they just part of the culture of owning a gun ?
” It could be that gun owners ’ happiness is mitigated by having to deal with ridiculous studies like this .
I don ’ t know about you , but I have never , and I do mean never , had a fellow gun owner tell me how “ pleasurable ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill made some other bizarre comments to KOLD-TV that make me wonder just how much real world experience he has with folks who own firearms .
Again , I ’ ve never run across an interest group or a commercial product that promises guns can help you sleep better at night .
The commercial products that Hill talks about aren ’ t about helping people sleep better , but helping them to better defend themselves if they need a firearm .
If the premise of the study is garbage , what does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s end game appears to be simple ; making folks question the “ value ” of gun ownership .
“ Public health research has shown that guns are associated with thousands of preventable injuries and premature deaths , and the health care costs of those injuries and deaths can reach into the billions .
Nobody questions that anymore , ” Hill said .
“ But there ’ s not much research out there on the personal well-being side of owning guns .
We want people to start talking more about the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , and , ultimately , this is a broader question for society about the value of guns in our lives .
The question really is : Do guns make our personal lives better ?
” I have a sneaking suspicion that Hill went into these studies with his mind already made up about what he would find .
In fact , as KOLD notes , originally Hill found that gun owners were indeed happier than non-gun owners , so he had to massage the data to get the desired results .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other studies have shown Republicans are generally happier and more satisfied with their lives than those identifying as Democrat or liberal .
It ’ s all just a little too perfect , especially when Hill ’ s abstract notes : In bivariate and partially adjusted models , we observed that the odds of being very happy were higher for respondents who reported having a gun in their home .
This association persisted with adjustments for age , gender , race/ethnicity , education , employment status , household income , financial satisfaction , financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attendance , political affiliation , urban residence , region of interview , and survey year .
In our fully adjusted model , gun ownership was unrelated to happiness .
The original association between gun ownership and happiness was entirely confounded by marital status .
In other words , gun owners only appeared happier because they are more likely to be married , which increases happiness .
Maybe if you really want to be happy , you should be a married gun owner .
It ’ s worked out pretty well for me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t own guns to make me happy , or to help me sleep better at night .
I own firearms to protect myself and my family , to hunt , to target shoot , and because it ’ s my right to do so .
What would truly make me happy is to see nonsense studies like this consigned to the dustbin of academia .

There are no shortage of idiotic academic studies out there, but a “researcher” at Arizona State University may be in the running for the dumbest research of the year after releasing two studies that purport to show gun owners don’t sleep any better than people who don’t own guns, and that gun owners aren’t any happier than non-gun owners.
Terrence Hill is an associate professor of sociology at Arizona State, and he’s the lead author of the two studies in question. I wonder how many gun owners Hill has actually spoken to in person, given the fact that his studies are premised on statements like this.
“Gun owners will often tell you that guns help them to feel safe, secure and protected. They will also tell you that guns empower them and make them feel independent and strong. They also talk about how just holding and handling guns is pleasurable,” Hill said. “If guns do make people feel safe, secure and protected, if they are empowering, if they are contributing to feelings of pleasure, then they should promote happiness, but we don’t find any evidence of that. That calls into question whether or not these are real feelings that gun owners have, or are they just part of the culture of owning a gun?”
It could be that gun owners’ happiness is mitigated by having to deal with ridiculous studies like this. I don’t know about you, but I have never, and I do mean never, had a fellow gun owner tell me how “pleasurable” they find holding and handling guns.
Hill made some other bizarre comments to KOLD-TV that make me wonder just how much real world experience he has with folks who own firearms.
Hill said the idea that guns can help people sleep better at night is often presented by interest groups, popular culture and even commercial products, such as bedside gun holsters or special pillows with gun compartments that allow people to sleep with or near their weapon. As a medical sociologist, Hill said it’s his job to question those types of claims through research. “Whenever people start to promote a certain type of lifestyle – like a type of exercise or a diet – public health is there to test it,” he said. “We think if anybody makes a claim about how guns are good for people’s health and wellbeing, those claims should be formally tested with empirical data. We need to test those claims like we would test any dietary or exercise recommendation.”
Again, I’ve never run across an interest group or a commercial product that promises guns can help you sleep better at night. The commercial products that Hill talks about aren’t about helping people sleep better, but helping them to better defend themselves if they need a firearm. If the premise of the study is garbage, what does that tell us about the results?
Hill’s end game appears to be simple; making folks question the “value” of gun ownership.
“Public health research has shown that guns are associated with thousands of preventable injuries and premature deaths, and the health care costs of those injuries and deaths can reach into the billions. Nobody questions that anymore,” Hill said. “But there’s not much research out there on the personal well-being side of owning guns. We want people to start talking more about the role of guns in people’s personal lives, and, ultimately, this is a broader question for society about the value of guns in our lives. The question really is: Do guns make our personal lives better?”
I have a sneaking suspicion that Hill went into these studies with his mind already made up about what he would find. In fact, as KOLD notes, originally Hill found that gun owners were indeed happier than non-gun owners, so he had to massage the data to get the desired results.
While the data initially seemed to point to a positive relationship between gun ownership and happiness, that relationship disappeared when researchers factored respondents’ marital status into their analysis. It turned out gun owners were more likely to be married, and being married – not gun ownership – was driving happiness. When the researchers considered marital status and other variables such as race, religion and education in their analysis, gun owners and non-gun owners exhibited similar levels of happiness… There was one sub-group of gun owners that did show greater happiness. Hill found that gun ownership was associated with greater happiness among people who identified as Democrats, but not among people who identified as Republican or Independent, although that trend has been declining over time. One possible explanation for the difference could be that Democrats and Republicans may own guns for different reasons, Hill said. “Some people use guns to enhance a recreational lifestyle – for activities like target shooting – and this might promote happiness because it enhances a lifestyle,” Hill said. “Gun owners who identify as more liberal or democratic may be more likely to use guns for that reason as opposed to emphasizing self-defense. There is previous research that shows Democrats are less likely than Republicans to own a gun for protection.”
That’s an odd finding, since other studies have shown Republicans are generally happier and more satisfied with their lives than those identifying as Democrat or liberal. It’s all just a little too perfect, especially when Hill’s abstract notes:
In bivariate and partially adjusted models, we observed that the odds of being very happy were higher for respondents who reported having a gun in their home. This association persisted with adjustments for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, employment status, household income, financial satisfaction, financial change, number of children, religious attendance, political affiliation, urban residence, region of interview, and survey year. In our fully adjusted model, gun ownership was unrelated to happiness. The original association between gun ownership and happiness was entirely confounded by marital status. In other words, gun owners only appeared happier because they are more likely to be married, which increases happiness.
Maybe if you really want to be happy, you should be a married gun owner. It’s worked out pretty well for me, anyway.
Personally, I don’t own guns to make me happy, or to help me sleep better at night. I own firearms to protect myself and my family, to hunt, to target shoot, and because it’s my right to do so. What would truly make me happy is to see nonsense studies like this consigned to the dustbin of academia.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Anti-Gun Activist Ejected From State Of The Union After Disruption

The State of the Union is supposed to be a solemn occasion .
After all , it was a big scandal when Joe Wilson shouted “ You lie !
” at President Obama , thus undermining that solemnity .
At least , that ’ s what the media made everything out to be at the time .
We were told that was completely inappropriate and that Wilson should have been ashamed of himself .
Meanwhile , at Tuesday ’ s State of the Union address , someone else opted to be disruptive during the address .
This time , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be disruptive .
The hashtag # ImWithFred was trending on Twitter into the early hours of Wednesday , after security removed anti-gun violence activist Fred Guttenberg from the State of the Union ( SOTU ) on Tuesday night .
Guttenberg ’ s daughter , Jamie Guttenberg , was killed during the Parkland shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School , Florida , in 2018 .
Guttenberg now campaigns for gun safety through the organization Orange Ribbons for Jaime , which honors his daughter by supporting causes important to her and pushing for gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the event by House Speaker , Nancy Pelosi .
Security escorted him from the chamber after he was heard shouting “ What about my daughter !
” in response to Trump ’ s comments about the Second Amendment being “ under siege , ” Newsweek previously reported .
“ So long as I am president I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms , ” Trump said .
In response to the night ’ s events , Guttenberg tweeted : “ Tonight was a rough night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was detained because I let my emotions get the best of me .
I simply want to be able to deal with the reality of gun violence and not have to listen to the lies about the 2A as happened tonight.
” The Second Amendment is under attack , and it ’ s under attack by people like Fred Guttenberg and the dipsticks that invited him .
They want to add further infringements on our Second Amendment rights after what happened to Fred ’ s daughter , at Parkland .
They want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process , limit what we can buy , bar certain legal and lawful adults from buying any gun , and things of that sort .
These are all limits on a right the Constitution explicitly says “ shall not be infringed.
” I ’ m sorry , but that sure looks like “ under attack ” to me and millions of other Americans .
But Fred Guttenberg not only doesn ’ t see that , he pathologically can ’ t see it from what I ’ ve seen of him .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it must be like to lose a child , especially to something like this , but Guttenberg needs to get psychological help .
Look , I ’ m annoyed by people like David Hogg , Emma Gonzalez , Gabby Giffords , and others who use the personal tragedies to try to take away my rights , but they ’ re all a damn sight better than Guttenberg .
They ’ re at least advocating for changes in the law and things of that sort .
Guttenberg ’ s activism appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of himself with stunts like this or trying to force Brett Kavanaugh to shake his hand .
He ’ s a petulant child masquerading himself as an activist .
Meanwhile , the very people who took issue with Wilson are celebrating Guttenberg ’ s behavior .
When Joe Wilson made his outburst , he was made to apologize .
When Fred Gutenberg made his , he got a Twitter hashtag .

The State of the Union is supposed to be a solemn occasion. After all, it was a big scandal when Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at President Obama, thus undermining that solemnity. At least, that’s what the media made everything out to be at the time. We were told that was completely inappropriate and that Wilson should have been ashamed of himself.
Meanwhile, at Tuesday’s State of the Union address, someone else opted to be disruptive during the address. This time, of course, it’s perfect acceptable to be disruptive.
The hashtag #ImWithFred was trending on Twitter into the early hours of Wednesday, after security removed anti-gun violence activist Fred Guttenberg from the State of the Union (SOTU) on Tuesday night. Guttenberg’s daughter, Jamie Guttenberg, was killed during the Parkland shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, Florida, in 2018. Guttenberg now campaigns for gun safety through the organization Orange Ribbons for Jaime, which honors his daughter by supporting causes important to her and pushing for gun safety measures, and had been invited to the event by House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Security escorted him from the chamber after he was heard shouting “What about my daughter!” in response to Trump’s comments about the Second Amendment being “under siege,” Newsweek previously reported. “So long as I am president I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Trump said. In response to the night’s events, Guttenberg tweeted: “Tonight was a rough night. I disrupted the State Of The Union and was detained because I let my emotions get the best of me. I simply want to be able to deal with the reality of gun violence and not have to listen to the lies about the 2A as happened tonight.”
What lies, though?
The Second Amendment is under attack, and it’s under attack by people like Fred Guttenberg and the dipsticks that invited him. They want to add further infringements on our Second Amendment rights after what happened to Fred’s daughter, at Parkland. They want to take people’s guns without due process, limit what we can buy, bar certain legal and lawful adults from buying any gun, and things of that sort. These are all limits on a right the Constitution explicitly says “shall not be infringed.”
I’m sorry, but that sure looks like “under attack” to me and millions of other Americans.
But Fred Guttenberg not only doesn’t see that, he pathologically can’t see it from what I’ve seen of him. Now, I can’t even imagine what it must be like to lose a child, especially to something like this, but Guttenberg needs to get psychological help.
No, seriously.
Look, I’m annoyed by people like David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Gabby Giffords, and others who use the personal tragedies to try to take away my rights, but they’re all a damn sight better than Guttenberg. They’re at least advocating for changes in the law and things of that sort. Guttenberg’s activism appears to be little more than him making an ass of himself with stunts like this or trying to force Brett Kavanaugh to shake his hand. He’s a petulant child masquerading himself as an activist.
Meanwhile, the very people who took issue with Wilson are celebrating Guttenberg’s behavior. When Joe Wilson made his outburst, he was made to apologize. When Fred Gutenberg made his, he got a Twitter hashtag.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Apology Demanded From Lawmaker Who Brought Gun To Address

I ’ m not a huge fan of open carry .
I can go into great detail as to why I don ’ t think it ’ s a great idea , by and large , but it ’ s not necessary .
I can say , though , that I get a little tired of defending it after something like Richmond .
Understand , I support the right .
I just don ’ t think it ’ s a good practice , by and large .
Regardless of my feelings , though , a story out of Michigan caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone decided to open carry to the State of the State address , and some knickers are in a twist .
A group of Upper Peninsula Democrats is urging Republican State Rep .
Beau LaFave to apologize for openly carrying a rifle to Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s State of the State address last week .
LaFave of Iron Mountain had an AR-style rifle strapped to him in the State Capitol during Whitmer ’ s address to a joint session of the Legislature .
“ As far as I ’ m concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats want my seat .
Come and take it , ” LaFave said .
His response comes after Whitmer joined other politicians in calling for stricter gun control laws .
“ There are millions of law-abiding citizens that open carry and her ridiculous gun laws , that are unconstitutional , are not going to happen , ” LaFave said .
Jason Chapman , who is co-chairman of the 906 Dems group , disagreed with LaFave ’ s decision to bring his firearm to the speech .
While the 906 Dems support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in poor taste and done in the spirit of self-promotion instead of protest .
Maybe it was .
I honestly don ’ t care right now .
What I care about is LaFave not apologizing for jack .
He doesn ’ t need to apologize for anything because he did nothing wrong .
If he carried a gun against the rules , then hit him for that .
If he broke the law , prosecute him .
If it ’ s just people ’ s precious sensitivities being rustled , then they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell up .
LaFave has a right to carry a firearm as he pleases .
The fact that some people dislike it is completely irrelevant .
To Rep .
Beau LaFave , I ’ d like to personally ask you not to apologize .
You ’ ve done nothing wrong .
While , if you asked my opinion beforehand , I ’ d have likely advised you not to carry the rifle , I ’ ll advise you now to offer no apologies .
You see , an apology suggests that you did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them feel like you know you acted inappropriately and they ’ ll use that to embolden their activist allies .
They ’ ll rally the troops around your apology .
So don ’ t give it .
Don ’ t give them an inch , because just like everywhere else , if you give them even that little bit , they ’ ll end up taking miles upon miles .
Instead , stay firm in your beliefs and know that a lot of people out here have your back .
I am a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m curious how many people upset with LaFave right now are screaming on social media how they have Fred Guttenberg ’ s back .

I’m not a huge fan of open carry. I can go into great detail as to why I don’t think it’s a great idea, by and large, but it’s not necessary. I can say, though, that I get a little tired of defending it after something like Richmond.
Understand, I support the right. I just don’t think it’s a good practice, by and large.
Regardless of my feelings, though, a story out of Michigan caught my eye earlier today. It seems someone decided to open carry to the State of the State address, and some knickers are in a twist.
A group of Upper Peninsula Democrats is urging Republican State Rep. Beau LaFave to apologize for openly carrying a rifle to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s State of the State address last week. LaFave of Iron Mountain had an AR-style rifle strapped to him in the State Capitol during Whitmer’s address to a joint session of the Legislature. “As far as I’m concerned, the governor wants my rifle and the Democrats want my seat. Come and take it,” LaFave said. His response comes after Whitmer joined other politicians in calling for stricter gun control laws. “There are millions of law-abiding citizens that open carry and her ridiculous gun laws, that are unconstitutional, are not going to happen,” LaFave said. Jason Chapman, who is co-chairman of the 906 Dems group, disagreed with LaFave’s decision to bring his firearm to the speech. While the 906 Dems support the Second Amendment, they believe that it was in poor taste and done in the spirit of self-promotion instead of protest.
Maybe it was. I honestly don’t care right now.
What I care about is LaFave not apologizing for jack. He doesn’t need to apologize for anything because he did nothing wrong. If he carried a gun against the rules, then hit him for that. If he broke the law, prosecute him. If it’s just people’s precious sensitivities being rustled, then they need to sit back and shut the hell up.
LaFave has a right to carry a firearm as he pleases. The fact that some people dislike it is completely irrelevant.
To Rep. Beau LaFave, I’d like to personally ask you not to apologize. You’ve done nothing wrong. While, if you asked my opinion beforehand, I’d have likely advised you not to carry the rifle, I’ll advise you now to offer no apologies.
You see, an apology suggests that you did something wrong. It’ll let them feel like you know you acted inappropriately and they’ll use that to embolden their activist allies. They’ll rally the troops around your apology.
So don’t give it. Don’t give them an inch, because just like everywhere else, if you give them even that little bit, they’ll end up taking miles upon miles.
Instead, stay firm in your beliefs and know that a lot of people out here have your back.
I am a little curious, though. I’m curious how many people upset with LaFave right now are screaming on social media how they have Fred Guttenberg’s back.
Hypocritical much?


bearingarms--2020-02-06--VA Dems Changing Northam's Gun Ban Bill To Gain Support

When Virginia ’ s House Public Safety Committee meets on Friday morning to consider HB961 , Democrats will move to modify the current language and remove a registration requirement for so-called “ assault firearms , ” as well as changing a ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds to a ban on those that can hold more than twelve , according to a draft copy of the legislation reviewed by Bearing Arms .
The changes are clearly meant to mollify some House Democrats who are concerned voting for the sweeping bill could mean the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but despite removing the registration requirement for existing owners of the most commonly produced rifle in the country , the bill would still turn the vast majority of the state ’ s legal gun owners into felons overnight .
There are many problems with the draft substitute language , but let ’ s start with the fact that by banning the sale , manufacturing , and transfer of so-called “ assault firearms , ” the legislation is still declaring that these firearms are only allowed to be owned through the good graces of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats really want , which is the outright ban on the possession of these firearms .
That was the intent of SB16 , the original gun ban bill backed by Gov .
Northam .
If HB961 becomes law , Democrats will be back in 2021 with their registration requirement , and then back to impose their ban on possession in 2022 .
The draft substitute language of HB961 would make it a felony to continue to possess a magazine capable of accepting more than twelve rounds of ammunition after January 1st , 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue to possess any legally purchased suppressors after that date , despite the extensive background check performed and the federal tax stamp paid for your property .
The magazine ban alone is likely to turn tens of thousands of Virginians into felons , because they ’ re not likely to comply with the law .
That ’ s been the case in New Jersey , where a similar ban on 10+ round magazines is in effect , though it is also being challenged in federal court .
If the draft substitute language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it too would face an immediate court challenge .
The gun ban , magazine ban , and suppressor ban are all challengeable , and even though the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ( which includes the state of Virginia ) ruled back in 2017 that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t apply to semi-automatic rifles ( because they ’ re “ like ” machine guns , according to the court ) , this new legislation presents new legal questions and therefore another opportunity for the court to get it right .
The makeup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit since 2017 , and likely for the better as far as Second Amendment jurisprudence is concerned .
It ’ s possible ( perhaps even likely ) that the draft substitute language reviewed by Bearing Arms will be further amended during the House Public Safety Committee on Friday , because at the moment there ’ s still no real sign that Democrats have the votes within their caucus to pass the bill in its current or modified form .
HB961 isn ’ t coming up for a vote because House leadership is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being brought up because of next week ’ s crossover deadline .
If the bill doesn ’ t start moving now , it ’ s done for the year , so Democratic leadership is rolling the dice and hoping for the best .
Beating a bad bill is a lot better than having to beat a bad law , and the fate of HB961 is still very much up in the air .
No matter who your Delegate is , if you ’ re a Virginia gun owner , they need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be heard in the House Public Safety Committee Friday morning , and if it emerges in some form or fashion , a vote on the House floor will take place Monday or Tuesday .

When Virginia’s House Public Safety Committee meets on Friday morning to consider HB961, Democrats will move to modify the current language and remove a registration requirement for so-called “assault firearms,” as well as changing a ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds to a ban on those that can hold more than twelve, according to a draft copy of the legislation reviewed by Bearing Arms.
The changes are clearly meant to mollify some House Democrats who are concerned voting for the sweeping bill could mean the end of their political careers in the 2021, but despite removing the registration requirement for existing owners of the most commonly produced rifle in the country, the bill would still turn the vast majority of the state’s legal gun owners into felons overnight.
There are many problems with the draft substitute language, but let’s start with the fact that by banning the sale, manufacturing, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” the legislation is still declaring that these firearms are only allowed to be owned through the good graces of the government. We also know what Democrats really want, which is the outright ban on the possession of these firearms. That was the intent of SB16, the original gun ban bill backed by Gov. Northam. If HB961 becomes law, Democrats will be back in 2021 with their registration requirement, and then back to impose their ban on possession in 2022.
The draft substitute language of HB961 would make it a felony to continue to possess a magazine capable of accepting more than twelve rounds of ammunition after January 1st, 2021. It would also be a felony to continue to possess any legally purchased suppressors after that date, despite the extensive background check performed and the federal tax stamp paid for your property.
The magazine ban alone is likely to turn tens of thousands of Virginians into felons, because they’re not likely to comply with the law. That’s been the case in New Jersey, where a similar ban on 10+ round magazines is in effect, though it is also being challenged in federal court.
If the draft substitute language of HB961 were to become law, it too would face an immediate court challenge. The gun ban, magazine ban, and suppressor ban are all challengeable, and even though the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes the state of Virginia) ruled back in 2017 that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to semi-automatic rifles (because they’re “like” machine guns, according to the court), this new legislation presents new legal questions and therefore another opportunity for the court to get it right. The makeup of the 4th Circuit has changed a little bit since 2017, and likely for the better as far as Second Amendment jurisprudence is concerned.
It’s possible (perhaps even likely) that the draft substitute language reviewed by Bearing Arms will be further amended during the House Public Safety Committee on Friday, because at the moment there’s still no real sign that Democrats have the votes within their caucus to pass the bill in its current or modified form. HB961 isn’t coming up for a vote because House leadership is assured of passage. It’s being brought up because of next week’s crossover deadline. If the bill doesn’t start moving now, it’s done for the year, so Democratic leadership is rolling the dice and hoping for the best.
Beating a bad bill is a lot better than having to beat a bad law, and the fate of HB961 is still very much up in the air. No matter who your Delegate is, if you’re a Virginia gun owner, they need to be hearing from you now. HB961 will be heard in the House Public Safety Committee Friday morning, and if it emerges in some form or fashion, a vote on the House floor will take place Monday or Tuesday.
***Update***
I’m hearing reports that Democrats are continuing to work on the substitute language in the hours before the House Public Safety Committee hearing that begins at 8 a.m. Friday morning, and we may see more changes to the portions of the bill dealing with suppressors and magazines before the committee votes on the measure, which at the moment is slated to be the last bill considered in the hearing.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--David Hogg Just Got Schooled On The History Of Gun Control

Gun control activist David Hogg has been particularly “ woker-than-thou ” on social media lately .
The Harvard freshman recently tweeted out that Abraham Lincoln was a good president , for example , before quickly rescinding his approval and begging forgiveness for his secular sin .
Hogg also recently claimed that the gun control movement was started centuries ago .
Personally , I ’ m about 30-percent convinced that Hogg is actually trolling the Left .
After all , there ’ s not much difference between a typical David Hogg tweet and one from Titiana McGrath , the Twitter account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hogg is sincere in his beliefs , he ’ s also ridiculously wrong , as Operation Blazing Sword founder and National Coordinator for the Pink Pistols brilliantly points out in a new piece at the Federalist , along with researcher W.E .
Beard .
As Palette accurately points out , it ’ s typically been minority groups and those seen as outside the boundaries of “ normal ” society that have been most harmed by gun control efforts .
Such gun control as Hogg champions would have hurt those fighting slavery .
Abolitionists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or worse .
Rev .
Elijah Parish Lovejoy , publisher of the abolitionist newspaper The Saint Louis Observer , was murdered by a pro-slavery mob who shot him before destroying his new printing press .
Members of the Underground Railroad needed to protect themselves from law enforcement and bounty hunters enforcing fugitive slave laws , and so were often armed .
The most famous example of these is Harriet Tubman , who carried a pistol for self defense while escorting runaway slaves to freedom .
While the 14th Amendment eliminated some of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep people of color , the poor , and other “ undesirables ” from owning or carrying arms as part of the many Jim Crow laws of the time .
Some of these statutes have survived to the present day , such as the North Carolina Pistol Purchase Permit .
It requires that an applicant be of “ good moral character ” despite the fact that “ The term ‘ good moral character ’ is not defined in our statutes nor is there a case specifically on point as to what constitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pistol purchase permit.
” Needless to say , being a person of color was ample reason to deny a permit under these circumstances .
Most famously , in 1950 Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr , applied for an Alabama concealed-weapon permit after receiving death threats .
He was , of course , denied .
In the 1960s , California ’ s Mulford Act banned the open carry of firearms as a direct reaction to members of the Black Panthers patrolling minority neighborhoods while visibly armed .
The fact of the matter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really begin until the Prohibition-era , though various states had laws that amounted to near prohibition of firearms ownership blacks and many immigrant groups ( New York ’ s Sullivan Act is an artifact of those times ) .
Ironically enough , even as the nation was proving that while the government can ban something , if the People really want it they ’ ll break the law to get it , a move began to crack down on the guns favored by criminals controlling the black market in booze .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control movement have generally risen and fallen in conjunction with the nation ’ s crime rate .
The Prohibition and Great Depression-driven crime wave of the 20 ’ s and early 30 ’ s culminated in the National Firearms Act of 1934 , while the rising crime , civil unrest , and high profile assassinations in the 1960 ’ s led to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 .
In the 1990 ’ s , the Clinton gun ban was approved three years after the nation ’ s violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fueled by violent drug and gang warfare .
Since the 1990 ’ s , violent crime , including homicides , have declined by nearly 50 % across the country , to near historic low levels , and without any new federal gun control laws .
Gun control activists don ’ t generally acknowledge this , because they know that it doesn ’ t help their argument that the only way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of guns in the country .
The fact of the matter is that gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want black , brown and indigenous lgbtq women and non binary people to own firearms for self-defense any more than they want a straight white guy who lives in rural Virginia to own guns .
Unfortunately for Hogg and his brethren , minorities are disproportionately impacted by the gun control laws he favors .
In New York City , for example , the vast majority of defendants in Brooklyn ’ s gun court are are young black men without serious criminal histories who are facing felony charges and three and a half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a license ( something that isn ’ t even a crime in most states ) .
The “ gun violence prevention movement ” and its sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg are responsible for them facing those charges , because they were the ones who fought to put those laws on the books .
If David Hogg really wants to stand up for the oppressed and minorities in this country , he ’ s on the wrong side of the gun control issue .
Somehow , though , I don ’ t expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Gun control activist David Hogg has been particularly “woker-than-thou” on social media lately. The Harvard freshman recently tweeted out that Abraham Lincoln was a good president, for example, before quickly rescinding his approval and begging forgiveness for his secular sin.
I thank my indigenous peers that brought my attention to Lincoln’s atrocities committed against native Americans. I’m deeply sorry for not acknowledging these crimes that I was unaware of until now. I will do better in the future. — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) February 5, 2020
Hogg also recently claimed that the gun control movement was started centuries ago.
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
Personally, I’m about 30-percent convinced that Hogg is actually trolling the Left. After all, there’s not much difference between a typical David Hogg tweet and one from Titiana McGrath, the Twitter account that satirizes woke culture.
Militant state control of citizens’ speech is a small price to pay to enforce a tolerant society. — Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) January 13, 2020
But assuming Hogg is sincere in his beliefs, he’s also ridiculously wrong, as Operation Blazing Sword founder and National Coordinator for the Pink Pistols brilliantly points out in a new piece at the Federalist, along with researcher W.E. Beard. As Palette accurately points out, it’s typically been minority groups and those seen as outside the boundaries of “normal” society that have been most harmed by gun control efforts.
Such gun control as Hogg champions would have hurt those fighting slavery. Abolitionists were highly unpopular and threatened with violence or worse. Rev. Elijah Parish Lovejoy, publisher of the abolitionist newspaper The Saint Louis Observer, was murdered by a pro-slavery mob who shot him before destroying his new printing press. Members of the Underground Railroad needed to protect themselves from law enforcement and bounty hunters enforcing fugitive slave laws, and so were often armed. The most famous example of these is Harriet Tubman, who carried a pistol for self defense while escorting runaway slaves to freedom. While the 14th Amendment eliminated some of this discrimination, many additional laws were passed to keep people of color, the poor, and other “undesirables” from owning or carrying arms as part of the many Jim Crow laws of the time. Some of these statutes have survived to the present day, such as the North Carolina Pistol Purchase Permit. It requires that an applicant be of “good moral character” despite the fact that “The term ‘good moral character’ is not defined in our statutes nor is there a case specifically on point as to what constitutes good moral character for purposes of a pistol purchase permit.” Needless to say, being a person of color was ample reason to deny a permit under these circumstances. Most famously, in 1950 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, applied for an Alabama concealed-weapon permit after receiving death threats. He was, of course, denied. In the 1960s, California’s Mulford Act banned the open carry of firearms as a direct reaction to members of the Black Panthers patrolling minority neighborhoods while visibly armed.
The fact of the matter is that the national gun control movement didn’t really begin until the Prohibition-era, though various states had laws that amounted to near prohibition of firearms ownership blacks and many immigrant groups (New York’s Sullivan Act is an artifact of those times). Ironically enough, even as the nation was proving that while the government can ban something, if the People really want it they’ll break the law to get it, a move began to crack down on the guns favored by criminals controlling the black market in booze.
Since then, the fortunes of the gun control movement have generally risen and fallen in conjunction with the nation’s crime rate. The Prohibition and Great Depression-driven crime wave of the 20’s and early 30’s culminated in the National Firearms Act of 1934, while the rising crime, civil unrest, and high profile assassinations in the 1960’s led to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In the 1990’s, the Clinton gun ban was approved three years after the nation’s violent crime rate reached its all time high, fueled by violent drug and gang warfare.
Since the 1990’s, violent crime, including homicides, have declined by nearly 50% across the country, to near historic low levels, and without any new federal gun control laws. Gun control activists don’t generally acknowledge this, because they know that it doesn’t help their argument that the only way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of guns in the country.
The fact of the matter is that gun control activists like David Hogg don’t want black, brown and indigenous lgbtq women and non binary people to own firearms for self-defense any more than they want a straight white guy who lives in rural Virginia to own guns. Unfortunately for Hogg and his brethren, minorities are disproportionately impacted by the gun control laws he favors. In New York City, for example, the vast majority of defendants in Brooklyn’s gun court are are young black men without serious criminal histories who are facing felony charges and three and a half years in prison for possessing a gun without a license (something that isn’t even a crime in most states). The “gun violence prevention movement” and its sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg are responsible for them facing those charges, because they were the ones who fought to put those laws on the books.
If David Hogg really wants to stand up for the oppressed and minorities in this country, he’s on the wrong side of the gun control issue. Somehow, though, I don’t expect to see an apology for that anytime soon.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Nebraska Red Flag Bill Advances Out Of Committee

There are a lot of places you don ’ t think about when it comes to gun control .
They ’ re just not the kind of states you expect to see advancing any kind of gun-grabbing measure .
One of those states is generally Nebraska .
A rural state that is known more for corn than gang violence , it ’ s just not the kind of thing you expect to see out of the state .
However , you might want to recalibrate that thinking just a bit .
That would be fine if there were any evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They don ’ t .
Instead , they infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans and provide an outlet for angry family members to “ punish ” loved ones for holding the wrong political opinions .
We ’ ve already seen at least one case where we know for a fact a red flag order was filed for maliciously .
How many others did we not hear about ?
Of course , just because it made it out of committee doesn ’ t mean that it ’ ll pass .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high likelihood that it will be debated , but that ’ s not a bad thing .
Most people who say they support red flag laws apparently don ’ t actually understand just how easy it is to file for one .
Nor do they understand all the ramifications of such filings .
There ’ s been at least one person killed when officers served a red flag order in the wee hours of the morning .
How many more need to join him ?
Look , as Cam pointed out when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who claimed she had a baby with the police officer who shot and killed her son , just so she could file a red flag order against him–much of this is because the mental health system in this country is shot and lawmakers need to be seen to “ do something , ” even if it ’ s the wrong thing .
Believe me , red flag laws are very much the wrong thing .
Sure , in the aftermath of a shooting , they look like a good idea .
I thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five minutes myself .
But they ’ re not .
They ’ re a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn ’ t actually look at the problem itself .
Hopefully , Nebraska lawmakers will reject this bill .
Then they can spend their time looking at actual solutions to problems instead of this stupidity .

There are a lot of places you don’t think about when it comes to gun control. They’re just not the kind of states you expect to see advancing any kind of gun-grabbing measure.
One of those states is generally Nebraska. A rural state that is known more for corn than gang violence, it’s just not the kind of thing you expect to see out of the state.
However, you might want to recalibrate that thinking just a bit.
That would be fine if there were any evidence that such bills actually served that purpose. They don’t.
Instead, they infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans and provide an outlet for angry family members to “punish” loved ones for holding the wrong political opinions. We’ve already seen at least one case where we know for a fact a red flag order was filed for maliciously. How many others did we not hear about?
Of course, just because it made it out of committee doesn’t mean that it’ll pass. Yes, it looks like there’s a high likelihood that it will be debated, but that’s not a bad thing. Most people who say they support red flag laws apparently don’t actually understand just how easy it is to file for one. Nor do they understand all the ramifications of such filings. There’s been at least one person killed when officers served a red flag order in the wee hours of the morning.
How many more need to join him?
Look, as Cam pointed out when he wrote about Susan Holmes in Colorado–a woman who claimed she had a baby with the police officer who shot and killed her son, just so she could file a red flag order against him–much of this is because the mental health system in this country is shot and lawmakers need to be seen to “do something,” even if it’s the wrong thing. Believe me, red flag laws are very much the wrong thing.
Sure, in the aftermath of a shooting, they look like a good idea. I thought they were a good idea for about five minutes myself. But they’re not. They’re a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn’t actually look at the problem itself.
Hopefully, Nebraska lawmakers will reject this bill. Then they can spend their time looking at actual solutions to problems instead of this stupidity.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Northam's Gun Ban Bill Set For First Vote On Friday

Tuesday , February 11th is the deadline for bills in the Virginia legislature to pass out of their chamber of origin and “ cross over ” to the other chamber , and while a number of bad gun bills have already beaten that deadline , Gov .
Northam ’ s gun , magazine , and suppressor ban has yet to receive a hearing in committee , much less a full vote by the House of Delegates .
That ’ s all about to change , because the agenda for the House Public Safety Committee ’ s meeting on Friday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is scheduled for a vote .
The bill has been delayed in the House as lawmakers try to “ fix ” the bill ( in the words of Democrat House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn ) , but with the deadline coming up next Tuesday , Democrats hoping to send the gun ban bill to Northam can ’ t delay any longer .
According to the latest info from the Virginia Legislative Information Services , HB961 hasn ’ t been amended since it was introduced , though it is likely that there will be attempts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As it stands right now , HB961 bans the possession , sale , or purchase of all firearms deemed to be “ assault firearms , ” ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds , all suppressors , and items deemed to be “ trigger activators ” as well .
Gun owners who currently possess banned firearms can apply to the Virginia State Police to receive permission to continue to possess their guns , but in order to do so they ’ ll have to register themselves and any “ assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership in the House may try to whip their members into voting for the bill , even if some Democrats aren ’ t happy with the current language .
They can always revise the bill later , but the deadline is hard and fast .
If HB961 doesn ’ t pass the House by the end of next Tuesday , it ’ s done for the year , and given the fact that this is one of Northam ’ s biggest gun control proposals , leadership is going to do everything they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fashion to his desk .
If the bill clears the House next week , it does face some obstacles in the state Senate .
Sen. Lynwood Lewis has already said he won ’ t support any ban on firearms , and three of his fellow Democrats in the state Senate say they can ’ t support the current language of HB961 .
Lewis ’ s opposition would mean a likely 20-20 vote in the state Senate , with the tie-breaking vote in favor of the bill being cast by Lt. Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other three state senators ( Creigh Deeds , John Edwards , and Chap Petersen ) who are currently opposed stand fast in their opposition , however , the bill would fail .
Right now the focus remains on the House , however .
It ’ s almost certain that HB961 will pass out of committee on Friday , but I don ’ t think that passage in the House is guaranteed at this point , though I ’ d put the odds at better than 50-percent .
If you ’ re a Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has heard from you on HB961 , because they ’ ll likely be voting on sending it to the state Senate next Monday or Tuesday .

Tuesday, February 11th is the deadline for bills in the Virginia legislature to pass out of their chamber of origin and “cross over” to the other chamber, and while a number of bad gun bills have already beaten that deadline, Gov. Northam’s gun, magazine, and suppressor ban has yet to receive a hearing in committee, much less a full vote by the House of Delegates. That’s all about to change, because the agenda for the House Public Safety Committee’s meeting on Friday morning has been released, and HB 961 is scheduled for a vote.
The bill has been delayed in the House as lawmakers try to “fix” the bill (in the words of Democrat House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn), but with the deadline coming up next Tuesday, Democrats hoping to send the gun ban bill to Northam can’t delay any longer.
According to the latest info from the Virginia Legislative Information Services, HB961 hasn’t been amended since it was introduced, though it is likely that there will be attempts to do so in committee on Friday.
As it stands right now, HB961 bans the possession, sale, or purchase of all firearms deemed to be “assault firearms,” ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, all suppressors, and items deemed to be “trigger activators” as well. Gun owners who currently possess banned firearms can apply to the Virginia State Police to receive permission to continue to possess their guns, but in order to do so they’ll have to register themselves and any “assault firearms” with the VSP.
Democratic leadership in the House may try to whip their members into voting for the bill, even if some Democrats aren’t happy with the current language. They can always revise the bill later, but the deadline is hard and fast. If HB961 doesn’t pass the House by the end of next Tuesday, it’s done for the year, and given the fact that this is one of Northam’s biggest gun control proposals, leadership is going to do everything they can to get the bill in some form or fashion to his desk.
If the bill clears the House next week, it does face some obstacles in the state Senate. Sen. Lynwood Lewis has already said he won’t support any ban on firearms, and three of his fellow Democrats in the state Senate say they can’t support the current language of HB961. Lewis’s opposition would mean a likely 20-20 vote in the state Senate, with the tie-breaking vote in favor of the bill being cast by Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. If any of the other three state senators (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, and Chap Petersen) who are currently opposed stand fast in their opposition, however, the bill would fail.
Right now the focus remains on the House, however. It’s almost certain that HB961 will pass out of committee on Friday, but I don’t think that passage in the House is guaranteed at this point, though I’d put the odds at better than 50-percent. If you’re a Virginia gun owner, make sure your delegate has heard from you on HB961, because they’ll likely be voting on sending it to the state Senate next Monday or Tuesday.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--NY Sheriff Draws Line in The Sand On Enforcing Cuomo's Gun Control Laws

I ’ ve been writing this week about what ’ s taking place in Lewis County , New York , where thousands of residents are backing a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance that would prohibit county funds from being spent to enforce New York state gun laws .
On Wednesday ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co .
I spoke with county resident Patrick Morse , who ’ s helped to organize support for the ordinance as was on hand for this week ’ s county legislative meeting where hundreds packed the local courthouse to urge lawmakers to pass the ordinance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Lewis County Sheriff Michael Carpinelli , and I ’ m pleased that the sheriff could take a few minutes out of his day to join me on today ’ s show to talk about why he ’ s backing the proposed ordinance and why he want other sheriffs in New York to do the same in their counties .
Several upstate sheriffs have spoken out in opposition to the ordinance , telling constituents that , while they ’ re supportive of the Second Amendment and don ’ t like the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice but to enforce the law .
In fact , a couple of them have even pointed out that Gov .
Andrew Cuomo has the power to remove sheriffs from their elected positions , and have expressed concern about losing their jobs if they categorically state that they won ’ t be enforcing any state gun control laws .
Carpinelli , on the other hand , tells me he ’ s willing to lose his position if that ’ s what it takes to uphold his oath to follow the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an oath of office to execute the laws of New York , he believes that when those laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution he is duty bound to follow the higher law .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and stay tuned .
It sounds like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is reinvigorating gun owners in the state , things could get very interesting there before long .
Also on today ’ s program we have an armed citizen story from Tulare County , California where a man defended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as sheriffs deputies before breaking down the family ’ s front door .
Our recidivist report is all about the suspect accused of killing two sisters in a Texas A & M-Commerce dorm , who should have been behind bars and had a warrant out for his arrest when he allegedly committed the heinous crime .
Finally , we salute a Tulsa police officer who used his discretion to take a man to treatment instead of jail , an act that has helped turn his life around .
You can always get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube , as well as Apple Podcasts .
On tomorrow ’ s show we will be getting to a number of your emails , but we ’ ll also be joined by Pennsylvania State Senator Mario Scavello , who is blasting Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf for playing political games with public safety by proposing huge cuts to a state grant fund meant to help schools improve security , all while demanding new gun control laws “ for the children.
” Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word @

I’ve been writing this week about what’s taking place in Lewis County, New York, where thousands of residents are backing a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance that would prohibit county funds from being spent to enforce New York state gun laws. On Wednesday’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. I spoke with county resident Patrick Morse, who’s helped to organize support for the ordinance as was on hand for this week’s county legislative meeting where hundreds packed the local courthouse to urge lawmakers to pass the ordinance.
Also in attendance at that meeting was Lewis County Sheriff Michael Carpinelli, and I’m pleased that the sheriff could take a few minutes out of his day to join me on today’s show to talk about why he’s backing the proposed ordinance and why he want other sheriffs in New York to do the same in their counties.
Several upstate sheriffs have spoken out in opposition to the ordinance, telling constituents that, while they’re supportive of the Second Amendment and don’t like the state’s SAFE Act gun laws, they have no choice but to enforce the law. In fact, a couple of them have even pointed out that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has the power to remove sheriffs from their elected positions, and have expressed concern about losing their jobs if they categorically state that they won’t be enforcing any state gun control laws.
Carpinelli, on the other hand, tells me he’s willing to lose his position if that’s what it takes to uphold his oath to follow the Constitution. The sheriff says while he took an oath of office to execute the laws of New York, he believes that when those laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution he is duty bound to follow the higher law.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stay tuned. It sounds like the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is reinvigorating gun owners in the state, things could get very interesting there before long.
Also on today’s program we have an armed citizen story from Tulare County, California where a man defended his family from several intruders who posed as sheriffs deputies before breaking down the family’s front door. Our recidivist report is all about the suspect accused of killing two sisters in a Texas A&M-Commerce dorm, who should have been behind bars and had a warrant out for his arrest when he allegedly committed the heinous crime. Finally, we salute a Tulsa police officer who used his discretion to take a man to treatment instead of jail, an act that has helped turn his life around.
You can always get the show by subscribing to Townhall Media on YouTube, as well as Apple Podcasts. On tomorrow’s show we will be getting to a number of your emails, but we’ll also be joined by Pennsylvania State Senator Mario Scavello, who is blasting Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf for playing political games with public safety by proposing huge cuts to a state grant fund meant to help schools improve security, all while demanding new gun control laws “for the children.”
Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Arkansas Lawmaker Tries Second Run At Red Flag Bill

Last year , a lawmaker in Arkansas decided his state needed a red flag law .
Unsurprisingly , it was defeated .
Red flag laws are controversial because they involve infringing on the rights of an individual who doesn ’ t get their due process rights respected .
As a result , gun rights activists almost universally oppose red flag laws .
As well they should .
However , it seems the lawmaker in Arkansas didn ’ t get much out of his failure last year .
Instead , he wants to try it all over again .
Senator Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said in an interview that there were enough misconceptions that led to its failure .
“ There were a lot of questions about how these laws work , they can be very effective but they do need to be put together in a proper way so it can protect individuals and the public and I think it was just a matter of having not had sufficient time to really sit down with lawmakers and address all of their concerns.
” While he began working on the proposal a year prior to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t enough time to convince his Republican counterparts who believe red flag laws violate peoples ’ rights .
“ There are some lawmakers who simply won ’ t come aboard for whatever reasons , but I do think there are enough who once they understand how these laws work and they ’ re confident that the law is constructed in such a way that it protects everybody that we will get the support necessary , ” Leding said .
“ Here in Arkansas , the way we drafted the law , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within three days of your access being restricted , so a very quick turnaround and even then if the judge decides that you do present a clear threat to yourself or the public , the restriction can only be extended up to a year , under no circumstances does anybody ever permanently lose their to firearms , ” Leding said .
Wow .
Just three whole days ?
I can ’ t imagine why people might object .
After all , it ’ s still a bill that takes guns from people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process of law beforehand .
That pesky constitutional rights thing popping up all over again , I know .
Honestly , this bill needs to die just like the last one .
Leding doesn ’ t really get why his bill failed , thinking that his fellow legislators just didn ’ t understand it well enough .
It ’ s a common ailment on the left , I ’ m afraid .
They think the only reason someone could disagree with them on anything is a lack of understanding .
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the bill fine .
People just thought it was an absolute trainwreck like every other red flag law proposed and so they didn ’ t side with it .
Shocking , I know , but there you have it .
At the end of the day , this bill will probably end up like the last one and poor Leding will be left to wonder why .
It ’ s because of his own delusion , his delusion that somehow his bill is exactly what we on this side of the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bothered to learn that we don ’ t want any kind of red flag bill to see the light of day .

Last year, a lawmaker in Arkansas decided his state needed a red flag law. Unsurprisingly, it was defeated.
Red flag laws are controversial because they involve infringing on the rights of an individual who doesn’t get their due process rights respected. As a result, gun rights activists almost universally oppose red flag laws. As well they should.
However, it seems the lawmaker in Arkansas didn’t get much out of his failure last year. Instead, he wants to try it all over again.
Senator Greg Leding, the bill’s sponsor, said in an interview that there were enough misconceptions that led to its failure. “There were a lot of questions about how these laws work, they can be very effective but they do need to be put together in a proper way so it can protect individuals and the public and I think it was just a matter of having not had sufficient time to really sit down with lawmakers and address all of their concerns.” While he began working on the proposal a year prior to the 2019 legislative session, it still wasn’t enough time to convince his Republican counterparts who believe red flag laws violate peoples’ rights. “There are some lawmakers who simply won’t come aboard for whatever reasons, but I do think there are enough who once they understand how these laws work and they’re confident that the law is constructed in such a way that it protects everybody that we will get the support necessary,” Leding said. … “Here in Arkansas, the way we drafted the law, you were entitled to go before a judge within three days of your access being restricted, so a very quick turnaround and even then if the judge decides that you do present a clear threat to yourself or the public, the restriction can only be extended up to a year, under no circumstances does anybody ever permanently lose their to firearms,” Leding said.
Wow. Just three whole days? I can’t imagine why people might object.
After all, it’s still a bill that takes guns from people who have broken no law without them having due process of law beforehand. That pesky constitutional rights thing popping up all over again, I know.
Honestly, this bill needs to die just like the last one. Leding doesn’t really get why his bill failed, thinking that his fellow legislators just didn’t understand it well enough. It’s a common ailment on the left, I’m afraid. They think the only reason someone could disagree with them on anything is a lack of understanding.
No, we understand the issue fine. We understand the bill fine. People just thought it was an absolute trainwreck like every other red flag law proposed and so they didn’t side with it. Shocking, I know, but there you have it.
At the end of the day, this bill will probably end up like the last one and poor Leding will be left to wonder why. It’s because of his own delusion, his delusion that somehow his bill is exactly what we on this side of the debate have been waiting for. He never bothered to learn that we don’t want any kind of red flag bill to see the light of day.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Despite CO Laws, More Criminals Using Guns In Crime

Back in 2013 , in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting , lawmakers in Colorado passed the first gun control measures in decades in the state .
A universal background check bill became law , as did a ban on magazines over 15-rounds .
Since then , violent crime has continued to increase by more than 25-percent , and in Aurora , the numbers are even worse .
Fox 31 in Denver reports that since 2014 , guns used in the commission of a crime have nearly doubled .
The 84-percent increase has led to a new effort by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city and to try to “ take guns off the street.
” “ Protecting the public is really what it comes down to , ” said APD Metro Division Chief Terry Brown .
Brown and other department leaders created a violent crimes task force this week , hoping that singling out certain criminals will have a ripple effect in addressing crime in Aurora .
“ When you target a violent criminal and you take a violent criminal off the street , you ’ re impacting several different categories of crimes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new laws on the books , criminals are still obtaining firearms on the black market and through illicit means like burglaries .
Brown says a number of firearms have been stolen from vehicles in Aurora , and he ’ s encouraging gun owners to ensure that their guns aren ’ t left unsecured in vehicles .
“ We need the collaboration with the community , ” Brown said .
“ We can ’ t address these problems by ourself.
” Brown says Aurora is not the only place dealing with the problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire metro area , ” he said .
The issue here isn ’ t with legal gun owners , but the criminals who are breaking into homes and vehicles to steal firearms .
Lawmakers in Colorado are hoping to pass new storage requirements for gun owners , but how about increasing the penalty for being caught in possession of a stolen firearm ?
For that matter , how about devoting more resources to arresting burglars .
According to the most recent data that I ’ ve been able to find , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a burglary case was just 14-percent .
In Denver , the clearance rate for burglaries was 14.5-percent .
That means someone breaking into a home or a car has a better than 80-percent chance of getting away with it .
If there ’ s little fear of consequences for crime , it stands to reason that those crimes are going to increase .
That ’ s exactly what ’ s taking place in Aurora , Colorado at the moment .
I applaud Chief Brown for focusing the department ’ s efforts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offenders , but it can ’ t stop there .
By all means encourage gun owners to ensure that criminals can ’ t get easy access to their firearms , but law enforcement also has to crack down on the individuals committing these crimes by devoting more resources to solving these cases .

Back in 2013, in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting, lawmakers in Colorado passed the first gun control measures in decades in the state. A universal background check bill became law, as did a ban on magazines over 15-rounds. Since then, violent crime has continued to increase by more than 25-percent, and in Aurora, the numbers are even worse.
Fox 31 in Denver reports that since 2014, guns used in the commission of a crime have nearly doubled. The 84-percent increase has led to a new effort by police to target the most violent offenders in the city and to try to “take guns off the street.”
“Protecting the public is really what it comes down to,” said APD Metro Division Chief Terry Brown. Brown and other department leaders created a violent crimes task force this week, hoping that singling out certain criminals will have a ripple effect in addressing crime in Aurora. “When you target a violent criminal and you take a violent criminal off the street, you’re impacting several different categories of crimes,” Brown said.
Despite all those new laws on the books, criminals are still obtaining firearms on the black market and through illicit means like burglaries. Brown says a number of firearms have been stolen from vehicles in Aurora, and he’s encouraging gun owners to ensure that their guns aren’t left unsecured in vehicles.
“We need the collaboration with the community,” Brown said. “We can’t address these problems by ourself.” Brown says Aurora is not the only place dealing with the problem. “It’s an issue in the entire metro area,” he said.
The issue here isn’t with legal gun owners, but the criminals who are breaking into homes and vehicles to steal firearms. Lawmakers in Colorado are hoping to pass new storage requirements for gun owners, but how about increasing the penalty for being caught in possession of a stolen firearm?
For that matter, how about devoting more resources to arresting burglars. According to the most recent data that I’ve been able to find, in 2015 the national average for “clearing” a burglary case was just 14-percent. In Denver, the clearance rate for burglaries was 14.5-percent. That means someone breaking into a home or a car has a better than 80-percent chance of getting away with it.
If there’s little fear of consequences for crime, it stands to reason that those crimes are going to increase. That’s exactly what’s taking place in Aurora, Colorado at the moment. I applaud Chief Brown for focusing the department’s efforts on targeting the city’s most violent offenders, but it can’t stop there. By all means encourage gun owners to ensure that criminals can’t get easy access to their firearms, but law enforcement also has to crack down on the individuals committing these crimes by devoting more resources to solving these cases.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Public Health 'Experts' Push Suicide As Gun Issue

Roughly two-thirds of all lives taken with guns each year are people who use one to take their own lives .
Suicide represents the lion ’ s share of so-called gun fatalities .
Suicide is a problem .
It ’ s a big one .
People taking their own lives is something we should never dismiss out of hand .
While I tend to think people have a right to do so , I also don ’ t think people should do so .
It ’ s something we as a society should work toward preventing .
Yet for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than another excuse to push gun control .
Public health experts and some law enforcement officials who ’ ve studied gun violence agree that suicide is a big deal when it comes to gun violence .
In fact , most gun deaths for children and adults in the U.S. don ’ t involve criminals or bad guys with guns .
They involve people harming themselves .
“ Access to lethal means , specifically guns , is one of the most important health factors we could address when preventing suicides , ” said Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who researches suicide with the School of Public Health .
He spoke with NCPR in 2018 .
Nestadt says for communities like the rural North Country , suicide should be a top issue when talking about how to make guns safer .
“ The demographic populations that have more access to firearm simply have more likelihood of dying by firearm .
Since it tends to be more rural , more white , definitely more male , somewhat older who have more firearms , they also have the higher suicide rate by firearms.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If mere access to guns is an issue , then the only way to curb suicides is to remove the guns .
Yet what we ’ ve seen is that states with red flag laws–a measure that removes guns from people who may be a danger to themselves or others but includes no other forms of intervention–is that suicides increased .
Many of us on the gun rights side of things reject the so-called public health “ experts ” who argue that gun control is somehow the answer for the simple reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the threat .
Of course , the “ experts ” have a response to that .
If that ’ s the case , then why do states that pass red flag laws see an increase in suicides ?
Either red flag laws don ’ t work worth a damn , other methods of suicide are still pretty effective , or some combination of the two .
In fairness , the raw stat is probably correct .
It just doesn ’ t tell the whole story .
However , they ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pills or hanging is less effective than a gun for taking one ’ s life doesn ’ t mean it ’ s ineffective .
Plenty of people die every year to precisely these kinds of methods .
Yet treating suicide as a gun issue relegates these same people to their fate as if they simply don ’ t matter .
The “ experts ” pretend that those deaths simply don ’ t count .
Why ?
Because there ’ s no political advantage to it .
If you ’ re serious about combatting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health standpoint .
Reduce suicides from all causes and save real lives .
Every death matters .
Stop pretending like you don ’ t care if they don ’ t shoot themselves .

Roughly two-thirds of all lives taken with guns each year are people who use one to take their own lives. Suicide represents the lion’s share of so-called gun fatalities.
Suicide is a problem. It’s a big one. People taking their own lives is something we should never dismiss out of hand. While I tend to think people have a right to do so, I also don’t think people should do so. It’s something we as a society should work toward preventing.
Yet for many, the issue is simply nothing more than another excuse to push gun control.
Public health experts and some law enforcement officials who’ve studied gun violence agree that suicide is a big deal when it comes to gun violence. In fact, most gun deaths for children and adults in the U.S. don’t involve criminals or bad guys with guns. They involve people harming themselves. “Access to lethal means, specifically guns, is one of the most important health factors we could address when preventing suicides,” said Paul Nestadt, a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins who researches suicide with the School of Public Health. He spoke with NCPR in 2018. Nestadt says for communities like the rural North Country, suicide should be a top issue when talking about how to make guns safer. “The demographic populations that have more access to firearm simply have more likelihood of dying by firearm. Since it tends to be more rural, more white, definitely more male, somewhat older who have more firearms, they also have the higher suicide rate by firearms.”
Here’s the problem, though. If mere access to guns is an issue, then the only way to curb suicides is to remove the guns. Yet what we’ve seen is that states with red flag laws–a measure that removes guns from people who may be a danger to themselves or others but includes no other forms of intervention–is that suicides increased.
Many of us on the gun rights side of things reject the so-called public health “experts” who argue that gun control is somehow the answer for the simple reason that taking the gun doesn’t end the threat.
Of course, the “experts” have a response to that.
Again, researchers disagree. They say the data is clear that those kinds of suicide methods are far less likely to end in death when compared with suicide attempts by firearm.
If that’s the case, then why do states that pass red flag laws see an increase in suicides? Either red flag laws don’t work worth a damn, other methods of suicide are still pretty effective, or some combination of the two.
In fairness, the raw stat is probably correct. It just doesn’t tell the whole story. However, they’re still missing the overall point. Just because pills or hanging is less effective than a gun for taking one’s life doesn’t mean it’s ineffective. Plenty of people die every year to precisely these kinds of methods.
Yet treating suicide as a gun issue relegates these same people to their fate as if they simply don’t matter. The “experts” pretend that those deaths simply don’t count. Why? Because there’s no political advantage to it.
If you’re serious about combatting suicide, attack it from a mental health standpoint. Reduce suicides from all causes and save real lives. Every death matters. Stop pretending like you don’t care if they don’t shoot themselves.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Klingon Bat'leth Used In Two Colorado Springs Robberies

I haven ’ t exactly tried to hide my love of science fiction .
I ’ m a geek and I know it and I fly that flag rather proudly .
So , I couldn ’ t help but notice a story earlier today about how a criminal used a Klingon bat ’ leth–a bladed weapon from Star Trek–to rob a couple of stores in Colorado Springs .
Witnesses say the suspect wore a black mask and jacket with blue jeans .
Of course calling a bat ’ leth a “ Klingon-type sword ” is the science fiction geek equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It makes be shudder just thinking about it .
Now , this is a quirky kind of a crime and , thankfully , no one was hurt .
The police searched the area , but no signs of the robber or his weapon were found .
However , there ’ s also a lesson here , something we would all do well to remember .
Namely , that criminals will use whatever they can to threaten people ’ s lives .
They don ’ t need a gun to represent a danger to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prop from a television and movie franchise and commit crimes quite easily with it .
They don ’ t even really need a bat ’ leth .
They can kill people with a freaking rock , a wrench , a hammer , or their own bare hands .
Evil does what evil does .
Evil doesn ’ t require obedience to the laws of the land , nor is it inhibited by them .
Those interested in carrying out unlawful acts will do so and you ’ re not going to stop them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll find weapons to use and you ’ re not about to stop them from doing it .
What gun control laws can do , though , is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to meet those threats .
I can ’ t walk around town with my own bat ’ leth .
I can ’ t carry a 15th-century longsword ( something I do sort of know how to use but most people don ’ t ) .
I can ’ t carry a lot of other weapons .
Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry on a day to day basis .
Sure , a sword would be fine if we still rode horses , but have you ever tried to get into a car with one strapped to your side ?
I can carry a gun , though .
I can carry a firearm and meet the threat regardless of what tool they opt to use .
It doesn ’ t matter if they ’ re stronger than me or what .
The firearm is the great equalizer .
It lets me meet whatever threats present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any armed encounter I find myself in .
So a robber carrying a bat ’ leth is an odd , somehow humorous story , but if someone came after you with a bat ’ leth , would it be funny ?
Or would it be time to put someone in the dirt ?

I haven’t exactly tried to hide my love of science fiction. I’m a geek and I know it and I fly that flag rather proudly.
So, I couldn’t help but notice a story earlier today about how a criminal used a Klingon bat’leth–a bladed weapon from Star Trek–to rob a couple of stores in Colorado Springs.
A man wielding a “Star Trek Klingon-type sword” robbed two Colorado Springs convenience stores early this morning, police said. The first robbery happened at about 1:55 a.m. at a 7-Eleven at 145 N. Spruce St., Colorado Springs police said in an incident report. The second robbery happened at about 2:20 a.m. at a 7-Eleven store at 2407 N. Union Blvd.
Witnesses say the suspect wore a black mask and jacket with blue jeans.
Of course calling a bat’leth a “Klingon-type sword” is the science fiction geek equivalent of calling an AK-47 an AR-15. It makes be shudder just thinking about it.
Now, this is a quirky kind of a crime and, thankfully, no one was hurt. The police searched the area, but no signs of the robber or his weapon were found.
However, there’s also a lesson here, something we would all do well to remember. Namely, that criminals will use whatever they can to threaten people’s lives. They don’t need a gun to represent a danger to other people. They can take a prop from a television and movie franchise and commit crimes quite easily with it.
They don’t even really need a bat’leth. They can kill people with a freaking rock, a wrench, a hammer, or their own bare hands.
Evil does what evil does. Evil doesn’t require obedience to the laws of the land, nor is it inhibited by them. Those interested in carrying out unlawful acts will do so and you’re not going to stop them with just a few laws. They’ll find weapons to use and you’re not about to stop them from doing it.
What gun control laws can do, though, is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to meet those threats. I can’t walk around town with my own bat’leth. I can’t carry a 15th-century longsword (something I do sort of know how to use but most people don’t). I can’t carry a lot of other weapons. Most of those weapons aren’t practical to carry on a day to day basis. Sure, a sword would be fine if we still rode horses, but have you ever tried to get into a car with one strapped to your side?
I can carry a gun, though. I can carry a firearm and meet the threat regardless of what tool they opt to use. It doesn’t matter if they’re stronger than me or what. The firearm is the great equalizer. It lets me meet whatever threats present themselves and gives me a fighting chance in any armed encounter I find myself in.
So a robber carrying a bat’leth is an odd, somehow humorous story, but if someone came after you with a bat’leth, would it be funny? Or would it be time to put someone in the dirt?


bearingarms--2020-02-06--PA Gov Demands Gun Control 'For The Children' While Slashing Millions From School Security

Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf is pushing Republican lawmakers in charge of the state legislature to adopt gun control legislation in the name of student safety , while at the same time slashing $ 50-million earmarked for school security in the 2020 budget .
State Sen. Mario Scavello chastised Wolf on social media after the governor sent a letter to members of the legislature along with a book that “ memorializes the lives of the 38 victims of tragic school shootings , ” and called for lawmakers to “ drive meaningful action to address gun violence for the peace and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commonwealth.
” According to WHYY , the Pennsylvania governor does indeed plan on cutting $ 50-million from a fund dedicated to school safety .
In his letter to lawmakers , Gov .
Wolf says he has “ heard from both parents and teachers are fraught with anxiety at the lockdown drills young children participate in ” as well as “ students who are fearful that their schools may be the next to experience such tragedy.
” Yet the governor wants to slash the school safety grant program by 75 % , which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that grant money to help protect students are going to be out of luck if Wolf gets his way .
The gun control bills that Wolf is demanding would do nothing to protect students and faculty from those intent on doing them harm .
In fact , they ’ re aimed squarely at legal gun owners , as NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action recently pointed out .
These measures won ’ t help students or teachers be safe at school , but they will infringe on the rights of Pennsylvania gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Gov .
Wolf to demand restrictions on the rights of Pennsylvania residents in the name of school safety while gutting the fund that allows school districts to take concrete steps to protect kids in school , but it ’ s not surprising .
Gun control advocates like Wolf have no problems exploiting the deaths of innocents if they believe it will further their agenda , and clearly their agenda has more to do with disarming the law-abiding rather than ensuring the safety of students and teachers across the commonwealth .
With Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it remains to be seen how successful Wolf will be in his quest to impose more gun control laws and his demand to strip $ 45-million from the school safety grant fund .
Based on Sen. Scavello ’ s comments , I expect that GOP lawmakers are gearing up for a fight .
Gun owners in the state need to do their part and tell their lawmakers to keep the governor ’ s greedy hands away from the school safety grants and their right to keep and bear arms .

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf is pushing Republican lawmakers in charge of the state legislature to adopt gun control legislation in the name of student safety, while at the same time slashing $50-million earmarked for school security in the 2020 budget.
State Sen. Mario Scavello chastised Wolf on social media after the governor sent a letter to members of the legislature along with a book that “memorializes the lives of the 38 victims of tragic school shootings,” and called for lawmakers to “drive meaningful action to address gun violence for the peace and protection of our loved ones in the commonwealth.”
This afternoon I received this letter from Governor Wolf in regard to school safety. After receiving this letter it is very disappointing to see that he cut $50 million from the school safety line item in his budget proposal. pic.twitter.com/dHUlayHrqG — Sen. Mario Scavello (@senatorscavello) February 5, 2020
According to WHYY, the Pennsylvania governor does indeed plan on cutting $50-million from a fund dedicated to school safety.
Money for school safety could be on the chopping block. Wolf wants to budget $15 million for a school-safety grant program that historically gets $60 million a year. Expect Republicans to fight this cut.
In his letter to lawmakers, Gov. Wolf says he has “heard from both parents and teachers are fraught with anxiety at the lockdown drills young children participate in” as well as “students who are fearful that their schools may be the next to experience such tragedy.” Yet the governor wants to slash the school safety grant program by 75%, which means many smaller school districts that rely on that grant money to help protect students are going to be out of luck if Wolf gets his way.
The gun control bills that Wolf is demanding would do nothing to protect students and faculty from those intent on doing them harm. In fact, they’re aimed squarely at legal gun owners, as NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action recently pointed out.
Extreme gun confiscation measures often referred to as “red flag” laws that authorize the seizure of firearms without due process.
Criminalizing private transfers of firearms.
Imposing punishments on victims that have had their firearms stolen.
Creating firearm storage laws that remove a homeowner’s ability to quickly access their own firearm for self-defense.
These measures won’t help students or teachers be safe at school, but they will infringe on the rights of Pennsylvania gun owners.
It’s absolutely shameless of Gov. Wolf to demand restrictions on the rights of Pennsylvania residents in the name of school safety while gutting the fund that allows school districts to take concrete steps to protect kids in school, but it’s not surprising. Gun control advocates like Wolf have no problems exploiting the deaths of innocents if they believe it will further their agenda, and clearly their agenda has more to do with disarming the law-abiding rather than ensuring the safety of students and teachers across the commonwealth.
With Republicans in control of the state legislature, it remains to be seen how successful Wolf will be in his quest to impose more gun control laws and his demand to strip $45-million from the school safety grant fund. Based on Sen. Scavello’s comments, I expect that GOP lawmakers are gearing up for a fight. Gun owners in the state need to do their part and tell their lawmakers to keep the governor’s greedy hands away from the school safety grants and their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-02-06--Australian Dishes Reality Of Nation's Gun Laws

Many anti-gunners in the United States want to see the U.S. adopt Australian-like gun control laws .
These , they claim , are the ideal direction we should take our nation ’ s laws .
I suppose that since you can still buy a gun in Australia , it preserves the Second Amendment or something .
The problem is , those laws aren ’ t all they ’ re cracked up to be .
An open letter by an Australian gun owner over at The Libertarian Republic illustrates some of the issues that anti-gunners here might not be aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to give the criminal the advantage .
Every State and Territory in Australia has provisions to allow for self-defence in varying degrees with some States in particular give reasonable protections which allow escalating force if someone is on your property etc .
Sounds pretty reasonable ?
Not exactly .
These self-defence provisions are only enforceable if you do not use a firearm ( or other banned/restricted self-defence devices ) .
If you use a firearm to defend yourself , your family or your property you ’ re likely to instead see yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancelled and a strong likelihood of criminal prosecution put against you.This isn ’ t based off speculation either – we ’ ve had this happen repeatedly to legal firearms owners in Australia .
In 2017 is a prime example – where a farmer used an unloaded .22 rifle to defend his young family from an intruder who was under the influence of drugs and wielding a knife .
For his efforts to defend his family , his firearms were confiscated by the police and restrictions put on his wife ’ s licence denying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms on their property .
Thankfully due to strong community push back and lobbying by the industry , David Dunstan was able to have his firearms returned .
Unfortunately that end result isn ’ t the case for everyone however with David being fortunate to have not pointed the firearm at the intruder or firing any rounds making it easier to make the case against criminal prosecution for his efforts – those who have to defend themselves and use their firearms are more likely to potentially see jail time.This absurdity means that under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if an armed intruder entered your home whilst you were in the middle of getting ready for a day at the range and firearm in hand , that you would be required to put down said firearm and instead face a significant disadvantage at protecting your life.This extends to beyond firearms now in Australia , with almost every jurisdiction making it illegal to own pepper spray/mace/stun guns/tasers – leaving our most vulnerable at extreme risk of physical harm .
Warrant to search your premises ?
Think again .
Firearms owners can receive visits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide access to their home to inspect their safe and firearms .
In some States this can be without any notice given and anecdotally there ’ s even cases showing the lack of discretion of police entering properties during childrens birthdays to conduct inspections , causing confusion and distress to those at the home .
No misconduct , illegal activity or warrant is required for these ‘ inspections ’ .
Certain individuals can receive repeated inspections with no justification , whilst other firearms owners never being inspected.Not home when the police come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of family members being asked if they know the location of the keys to open the safe so they can inspect the firearms whilst the owner is gone .
If the family members comply with the Police then they seize the firearms , rescind the owners licence and prosecute for ‘ unsafe storage ’ .
( under legislation it is deemed unsafe if anyone other than the licenced owner can access the safe – that includes any family members ) So in Australia , self-defense is a human right unless you use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then you face prosecution and heaven forbid that a family member needs a firearm while you ’ re away from home .
( Go read the whole thing , though , because it ’ s worth it to see the rest of the stupidity being discussed . )
Yet this is precisely what far too many anti-gunners in the United States want .
They want these exact laws in place .
Do they really know what they ’ re asking for ?
Some would argue that yes , they do , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ d argue that anti-gunners want to use these laws as a wedge to destroy our entire way of life .
While that might be true of some , I don ’ t think all anti-gunners supporting Australian-style laws understand some of the ramifications of these laws .
I don ’ t know that they ’ d care–after all , far too many of them don ’ t see us as people worthy of our rights anyway–but I ’ m fairly sure most of them are absolutely ignorant .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather die than see these kinds of laws in place here in the United States .
Australians may have rolled over and accepted these unconscionable restrictions , but we Americans aren ’ t about to do the same .

Many anti-gunners in the United States want to see the U.S. adopt Australian-like gun control laws. These, they claim, are the ideal direction we should take our nation’s laws. I suppose that since you can still buy a gun in Australia, it preserves the Second Amendment or something.
The problem is, those laws aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
An open letter by an Australian gun owner over at The Libertarian Republic illustrates some of the issues that anti-gunners here might not be aware of.
Self Defence? Only if you want to give the criminal the advantage. Every State and Territory in Australia has provisions to allow for self-defence in varying degrees with some States in particular give reasonable protections which allow escalating force if someone is on your property etc. Sounds pretty reasonable? Not exactly. These self-defence provisions are only enforceable if you do not use a firearm (or other banned/restricted self-defence devices). If you use a firearm to defend yourself, your family or your property you’re likely to instead see yourself having your firearms seized, firearms licenced cancelled and a strong likelihood of criminal prosecution put against you.This isn’t based off speculation either – we’ve had this happen repeatedly to legal firearms owners in Australia. In 2017 is a prime example – where a farmer used an unloaded .22 rifle to defend his young family from an intruder who was under the influence of drugs and wielding a knife. For his efforts to defend his family, his firearms were confiscated by the police and restrictions put on his wife’s licence denying her the ability to keep her own firearms on their property. Thankfully due to strong community push back and lobbying by the industry, David Dunstan was able to have his firearms returned. Unfortunately that end result isn’t the case for everyone however with David being fortunate to have not pointed the firearm at the intruder or firing any rounds making it easier to make the case against criminal prosecution for his efforts – those who have to defend themselves and use their firearms are more likely to potentially see jail time.This absurdity means that under the gun control environment in Australia, if an armed intruder entered your home whilst you were in the middle of getting ready for a day at the range and firearm in hand, that you would be required to put down said firearm and instead face a significant disadvantage at protecting your life.This extends to beyond firearms now in Australia, with almost every jurisdiction making it illegal to own pepper spray/mace/stun guns/tasers – leaving our most vulnerable at extreme risk of physical harm. Warrant to search your premises? Think again. Firearms owners can receive visits from the police and are legally required to provide access to their home to inspect their safe and firearms. In some States this can be without any notice given and anecdotally there’s even cases showing the lack of discretion of police entering properties during childrens birthdays to conduct inspections, causing confusion and distress to those at the home. No misconduct, illegal activity or warrant is required for these ‘inspections’. Certain individuals can receive repeated inspections with no justification, whilst other firearms owners never being inspected.Not home when the police come to inspect? There have been reports of family members being asked if they know the location of the keys to open the safe so they can inspect the firearms whilst the owner is gone. If the family members comply with the Police then they seize the firearms, rescind the owners licence and prosecute for ‘unsafe storage’. (under legislation it is deemed unsafe if anyone other than the licenced owner can access the safe – that includes any family members)
So in Australia, self-defense is a human right unless you use the most efficient means to defend your life, then you face prosecution and heaven forbid that a family member needs a firearm while you’re away from home. (Go read the whole thing, though, because it’s worth it to see the rest of the stupidity being discussed.)
Yet this is precisely what far too many anti-gunners in the United States want. They want these exact laws in place.
Do they really know what they’re asking for?
Some would argue that yes, they do, is this is precisely what they want. They’d argue that anti-gunners want to use these laws as a wedge to destroy our entire way of life.
While that might be true of some, I don’t think all anti-gunners supporting Australian-style laws understand some of the ramifications of these laws. I don’t know that they’d care–after all, far too many of them don’t see us as people worthy of our rights anyway–but I’m fairly sure most of them are absolutely ignorant.
It’s also why so many of us would rather die than see these kinds of laws in place here in the United States.
Australians may have rolled over and accepted these unconscionable restrictions, but we Americans aren’t about to do the same.