bearingarms--2020-11-13--Dueling Protests To Take To D.C. Streets On Saturday

When it comes to the American left , it looks more and more like a case of “ if it weren ’ t for double standards , they ’ d have no standards at all.
” You see , when the left decides to protest , any counter-protest is spun as being some kind of personal attack on liberals .
That is if the media bothers to acknowledge the counter-protest at all .
Now , though , some on the right are gearing up for a protest in Washington , D.C .
So is the counter-protest .
A counterprotest has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March ” promoted by far-right groups such as the Proud Boys , which is due to take place in Washington , D.C. on Saturday .
The Refuse Fascism group said it would demonstrate against the “ MAGA mobs ” who will be in the capital over the weekend to show support for President Donald Trump as he continues to claim that Democrats have “ stolen ” the election .
As well as the Million MAGA March due to be attended by members of the far-right , other rallies including “ Stop the Steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take place this Saturday at midday at Freedom Plaza in Washington , D.C .
It is unclear how many will be in attendance at the pro-Trump rallies , but high-profile names such as Fox News ’ Sean Hannity and Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have promoted the events .
Refuse Fascism said it would be non-violently protesting the Million MAGA March from about 11:30 a.m. at Freedom Plaza .
The group will stage similar demonstrations in cities such as Boston , Chicago , New York and Los Angeles , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he won the election and not Joe Biden The problem I have with this is that groups like Refuse Fascism–any group , really–should want any potential questions about the validity of the election answered .
After all , they spent four years claiming the 2016 election had been stolen because the electoral college didn ’ t work in Clinton ’ s favor despite the fact that it ’ s been in place for over 200 years .
While I ’ m not going to say the election has been stolen , part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many questions flying that it ’ s impossible to keep any of them straight .
Some might be disinformation , but some aren ’ t , and that ’ s why the election needs to be investigated .
Otherwise , you get at least four years of the right returning the favor of # NotMyPresident and going on about stolen elections .
Now , Refuse Fascism says they ’ ll be holding a non-violent protest , but anyone who is going to the rally in D.C. needs to be ready for violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suspect there will be violence .
I think the D.C. police suspect that as well .
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the city is braced for reports that far-right demonstrators will be arriving en masse on Saturday .
“ I huddled with my team this morning about an additional report of a caravan that might be starting somewhere in the south culminating here , ” Bowser said on Tuesday .
“ We continue to follow those activities and be prepared for those activities .
Our police chief will have a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
We will be there to support peaceful exercise of First Amendment demonstrations.
” Bowser also warned that Washington does not have open carry gun laws and any protester seen with firearms would be dealt with by the police .
Of course , Bowser says this to frame people ’ s minds into believing the right are the ones who are looking to start stuff , despite the fact there still hasn ’ t been a right-leaning riot yet .
Besides , we all know Washington ’ s draconian gun laws .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed carry permit there is because they were afraid the Supreme Court would kill May Issue permitting throughout the entire country .
We all know that the city is gun hostile .
Bowser also likely knows that we realize that and had to make the statement to the press .
Let ’ s hope she also mentions laws against rioting to Refuse Fascism .

When it comes to the American left, it looks more and more like a case of “if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.”
You see, when the left decides to protest, any counter-protest is spun as being some kind of personal attack on liberals. That is if the media bothers to acknowledge the counter-protest at all.
Now, though, some on the right are gearing up for a protest in Washington, D.C. So is the counter-protest.
A counterprotest has been organized against the “Million MAGA March” promoted by far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, which is due to take place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. The Refuse Fascism group said it would demonstrate against the “MAGA mobs” who will be in the capital over the weekend to show support for President Donald Trump as he continues to claim that Democrats have “stolen” the election. As well as the Million MAGA March due to be attended by members of the far-right, other rallies including “Stop the Steal” and “March for Trump” will take place this Saturday at midday at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. It is unclear how many will be in attendance at the pro-Trump rallies, but high-profile names such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have promoted the events. Refuse Fascism said it would be non-violently protesting the Million MAGA March from about 11:30 a.m. at Freedom Plaza. The group will stage similar demonstrations in cities such as Boston, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, in defiance of Trump’s claim that he won the election and not Joe Biden
The problem I have with this is that groups like Refuse Fascism–any group, really–should want any potential questions about the validity of the election answered. After all, they spent four years claiming the 2016 election had been stolen because the electoral college didn’t work in Clinton’s favor despite the fact that it’s been in place for over 200 years.
While I’m not going to say the election has been stolen, part of why is because there are just so many questions flying that it’s impossible to keep any of them straight. Some might be disinformation, but some aren’t, and that’s why the election needs to be investigated.
Otherwise, you get at least four years of the right returning the favor of #NotMyPresident and going on about stolen elections.
Now, Refuse Fascism says they’ll be holding a non-violent protest, but anyone who is going to the rally in D.C. needs to be ready for violence. Don’t start anything, but I suspect there will be violence.
I think the D.C. police suspect that as well.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the city is braced for reports that far-right demonstrators will be arriving en masse on Saturday. “I huddled with my team this morning about an additional report of a caravan that might be starting somewhere in the south culminating here,” Bowser said on Tuesday. “We continue to follow those activities and be prepared for those activities. Our police chief will have a similar posture this weekend as he did last week. We will be there to support peaceful exercise of First Amendment demonstrations.” Bowser also warned that Washington does not have open carry gun laws and any protester seen with firearms would be dealt with by the police.
Of course, Bowser says this to frame people’s minds into believing the right are the ones who are looking to start stuff, despite the fact there still hasn’t been a right-leaning riot yet.
Besides, we all know Washington’s draconian gun laws. The only reason you can get a concealed carry permit there is because they were afraid the Supreme Court would kill May Issue permitting throughout the entire country. We all know that the city is gun hostile.
Bowser also likely knows that we realize that and had to make the statement to the press.
Let’s hope she also mentions laws against rioting to Refuse Fascism.


bearingarms--2020-11-14--Maryland's "May Issue" Carry Laws Subject Of New Court Case

The restrictive and subjective laws that govern the bearing of arms in Maryland and coming under new legal scrutiny thanks to federal litigation filed on Friday by a coalition of Second Amendment groups challenging the policies as infringements on our constitutional rights .
In the complaint filed against Maryland Police Superintendent Woodrow Jones III and state Attorney General Brian Fros , the Second Amendment Foundation , Firearms Policy Coalition , Maryland Shall Issue , and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms* , and three private individuals argue that the state ’ s requirement for applicants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to qualify for a carry license places the right to bear arms off limits to most citizens .
“ Anti-gun Maryland officials have been using this dodge for years , ” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb .
“ By setting this arbitrary standard , state bureaucrats have been routinely denying Maryland citizens their right to bear arms .
The state can not be allowed to continue this discriminatory practice because it essentially gives public officials the power to deny someone ’ s fundamental , constitutionally-protected rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit , “ On information and belief , due to the onerous nature of Defendants ’ Regulatory Scheme , only a tiny fraction of a percent of Maryland citizens are able to obtain permits to carry handguns , and indeed , most people simply never apply at all because it is well known throughout the State that the ‘ good and substantial reason ’ standard effectively renders the process an exercise in futility for all ordinary law-abiding citizens , thus further chilling and denying exercise of the right.
” It amounts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that a previous challenge to the state ’ s carry laws was rejected by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2013 , but since then several other appellate courts have found that similar “ good and substantial reason ” clauses in concealed carry statutes in places like Washington , D.C. are unconstitutional .
The Supreme Court has so far declined to take any of the carry cases that have reached the Court , and at the moment a split exists between the various circuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and substantial ” requirements .
It will be some time before the Supreme Court gets a chance to hear this new case , known as Call , et .
al v. Jones , et .
al , but the makeup of both SCOTUS and the 4th Circuit has changed since the Woollard case was decided seven years ago , and there ’ s good reason to believe that the Court may want to revisit the issue , given that the 4th Circuit upheld the state ’ s carry laws under an intermediate scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tradition test favored by justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett .
It ’ s a constitutional absurdity that in Baltimore , where criminals carry with impunity and the number of homicides has been at or near record highs for the past six years , the average resident can not obtain a concealed carry license in order to lawfully protect themselves with a firearm outside of their own home .
The courts have a chance to set things right with the Call case .
Let ’ s hope they avail themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I sit on the board of the Citizens Committee

The restrictive and subjective laws that govern the bearing of arms in Maryland and coming under new legal scrutiny thanks to federal litigation filed on Friday by a coalition of Second Amendment groups challenging the policies as infringements on our constitutional rights.
In the complaint filed against Maryland Police Superintendent Woodrow Jones III and state Attorney General Brian Fros, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Maryland Shall Issue, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms*, and three private individuals argue that the state’s requirement for applicants to demonstrate specific threats or recent assaults in order to qualify for a carry license places the right to bear arms off limits to most citizens.
“Anti-gun Maryland officials have been using this dodge for years,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “By setting this arbitrary standard, state bureaucrats have been routinely denying Maryland citizens their right to bear arms. The state cannot be allowed to continue this discriminatory practice because it essentially gives public officials the power to deny someone’s fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights on a whim.” As noted in the lawsuit, “On information and belief, due to the onerous nature of Defendants’ Regulatory Scheme, only a tiny fraction of a percent of Maryland citizens are able to obtain permits to carry handguns, and indeed, most people simply never apply at all because it is well known throughout the State that the ‘good and substantial reason’ standard effectively renders the process an exercise in futility for all ordinary law-abiding citizens, thus further chilling and denying exercise of the right.” It amounts to an unconstitutional regulatory scheme.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that a previous challenge to the state’s carry laws was rejected by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2013, but since then several other appellate courts have found that similar “good and substantial reason” clauses in concealed carry statutes in places like Washington, D.C. are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has so far declined to take any of the carry cases that have reached the Court, and at the moment a split exists between the various circuits on the issue of the “good and substantial” requirements.
It will be some time before the Supreme Court gets a chance to hear this new case, known as Call, et. al v. Jones, et. al, but the makeup of both SCOTUS and the 4th Circuit has changed since the Woollard case was decided seven years ago, and there’s good reason to believe that the Court may want to revisit the issue, given that the 4th Circuit upheld the state’s carry laws under an intermediate scrutiny standard of review instead of the history and tradition test favored by justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
It’s a constitutional absurdity that in Baltimore, where criminals carry with impunity and the number of homicides has been at or near record highs for the past six years, the average resident cannot obtain a concealed carry license in order to lawfully protect themselves with a firearm outside of their own home. The courts have a chance to set things right with the Call case. Let’s hope they avail themselves of the opportunity.
*Full disclosure: I sit on the board of the Citizens Committee


bearingarms--2020-11-14--Media Continues Anti-Militia Blitz

Media Continues Anti-Militia Blitz

The mainstream media at most , if not all levels appear to back the idea that Joe Biden is President of the United States of America .
With a Democrat back in the White House , at least in their minds , it ’ s time to step up the hysteria about militias .
This is pretty much how things work , after all .
For all the fearmongering during the Trump administration about militias , they weren ’ t really viewed as a threat .
Instead , they were called “ cosplayers ” or “ LARPers ” or what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Now , though , they see an opportunity to create fear .
They write articles with headlines like , “ Militias challenge gun laws in Virginia : It ’ s about shooting tyrants in the face ’ ” and such .
That quote in the headline ?
That ’ s there for a reason , and it ’ s not because they ’ re really trying to understand the membership ’ s beliefs about the Second Amendment .
It ’ s because they want people terrified .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
The formation of the Campbell County Militia is part of a larger movement organized by gun rights activists pushing back against gun laws Virginia enacted in 2020 .
They claim the new regulations , which include a “ red flag ” law and universal background checks for gun purchases , infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms .
Virginia lawmakers shelved more controversial proposals that would have banned semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines .
Still , gun rights activists are bracing for a possible future ban .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t give up our guns , ” said Feigel .
Virginia became a battleground for the gun policy debate after Democrats swept both houses of the state legislature in 2019 on a gun safety platform , consolidating Democratic control of the state government .
Gun policy has long been a divisive issue in the United States .
Even as support grows for stricter gun laws , the country remains deeply divided along partisan lines .
A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found 60 % of Americans think gun laws should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years earlier .
But the same survey also found 80 % of Republicans think it ’ s more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership , while just 21 % of Democrats agree .
In Virginia , gun rights supporters pushed back against the Democratic legislative majority .
Over 90 counties and municipalities in the state passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions opposing the enforcement of certain gun laws .
And there were calls to form local militias to give their movement some “ teeth.
” “ If we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statement — we will not be disarmed , ” said Feigel .
“ [ The Second Amendment ] is not about hunting .
It ’ s not about self-defense .
It ’ s about shooting tyrants in the face.
” In other words , the comment isn ’ t a threat to anyone , but a simple statement of Feigel ’ s belief regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment .
But that ’ s not what it says in the headline , and that ’ s what ’ s most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to play tricks .
They put a headline like that up in the headline because they know it ’ ll freak you out .
They ’ re trying to get you to click the article for the ad revenue , but don ’ t want to resort to outright clickbait .
Further , they also know that people will read the headline , freak out , then share it so all their friends will freak out , often without reading it .
If these two things seem to be contradictory , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal is to both create revenue and create fear .
It ’ s the epitome of a win-win situation .
However , what the media needs to remember is that there are millions of Americans who , while not formally part of any militia , agree with what Feigel said .
Further , we refuse to roll over and die because a group of urban self-appointed elites wet their panties at the mere thought of an armed citizen .
Regardless of who ends up in the White House when all of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t up for negotiation .

The mainstream media at most, if not all levels appear to back the idea that Joe Biden is President of the United States of America. With a Democrat back in the White House, at least in their minds, it’s time to step up the hysteria about militias.
This is pretty much how things work, after all. For all the fearmongering during the Trump administration about militias, they weren’t really viewed as a threat. Instead, they were called “cosplayers” or “LARPers” or what have you in an attempt to discredit them.
Now, though, they see an opportunity to create fear. They write articles with headlines like, “Militias challenge gun laws in Virginia: It’s about shooting tyrants in the face’” and such.
That quote in the headline? That’s there for a reason, and it’s not because they’re really trying to understand the membership’s beliefs about the Second Amendment. It’s because they want people terrified.
Here’s the quote with a bit more context, though.
The formation of the Campbell County Militia is part of a larger movement organized by gun rights activists pushing back against gun laws Virginia enacted in 2020. They claim the new regulations, which include a “red flag” law and universal background checks for gun purchases, infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Virginia lawmakers shelved more controversial proposals that would have banned semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines. Still, gun rights activists are bracing for a possible future ban. “We won’t comply. We won’t give up our guns,” said Feigel. Virginia became a battleground for the gun policy debate after Democrats swept both houses of the state legislature in 2019 on a gun safety platform, consolidating Democratic control of the state government. Gun policy has long been a divisive issue in the United States. Even as support grows for stricter gun laws, the country remains deeply divided along partisan lines. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found 60% of Americans think gun laws should be more strict, up from 52% two years earlier. But the same survey also found 80% of Republicans think it’s more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership, while just 21% of Democrats agree. In Virginia, gun rights supporters pushed back against the Democratic legislative majority. Over 90 counties and municipalities in the state passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions opposing the enforcement of certain gun laws. And there were calls to form local militias to give their movement some “teeth.” “If we have the numbers, we can back up the statement — we will not be disarmed,” said Feigel. “[The Second Amendment] is not about hunting. It’s not about self-defense. It’s about shooting tyrants in the face.”
In other words, the comment isn’t a threat to anyone, but a simple statement of Feigel’s belief regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment.
But that’s not what it says in the headline, and that’s what’s most important.
See, journalists and their editors like to play tricks. They put a headline like that up in the headline because they know it’ll freak you out. They’re trying to get you to click the article for the ad revenue, but don’t want to resort to outright clickbait.
Further, they also know that people will read the headline, freak out, then share it so all their friends will freak out, often without reading it.
If these two things seem to be contradictory, they’re not. Not if your goal is to both create revenue and create fear. It’s the epitome of a win-win situation.
However, what the media needs to remember is that there are millions of Americans who, while not formally part of any militia, agree with what Feigel said. Further, we refuse to roll over and die because a group of urban self-appointed elites wet their panties at the mere thought of an armed citizen.
Regardless of who ends up in the White House when all of this is said and done, our gun rights aren’t up for negotiation.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--172-Million Reasons Why Biden's Gun Ban Is Unworkable

The biggest reason , of course , is that Joe Biden ’ s plans to ban and “ buyback ” legally-purchased firearms and ammunition magazines is that would violate the Constitution .
As you ’ ll see in a moment , the latest figures demonstrate that all of the guns and magazines that Biden is hoping to ban are clearly in common use by millions of Americans for a variety of lawful purposes , and squarely fall under the protections offered by the Second Amendment .
Let ’ s set aside the constitutional issues with Biden ’ s desire to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazines for the moment , though , and just focus on the logistics of his would-be ban .
According to newly-released figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation , Biden ’ s ban would encompass well over 170-million items that would either have to be turned over to the government or registered under the National Firearms Act .
• Since 1990 , there are an estimated 19.8 million Modern Sporting Rifles ( MSRs ) in circulation today .
• There are approximately 71.2 million pistol magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of holding 30 or more rounds in circulation .
Under Biden ’ s proposed gun and magazine ban , every one of these guns and magazines would be prohibited by federal law , and possession of an unregistered rifle or “ large capacity ” magazine would be subject to a violation of the National Firearms Act .
Possession of an unregistered NFA item is punishable by ten years in prison or a $ 250,000 fine , so we ’ re talking about turning more than 170-million items that are currently in the lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners into illicit substances that could land them in the a federal penitentiary for a decade .
Because the media never really brought up Biden ’ s gun ban on the campaign trail or the debate stage , the vast majority of Americans have no idea what his war on guns would really look like , but if Biden is sworn into office and starts making moves towards modern sporting rifles they ’ ll soon find out , because many of them would be turned into criminals themselves unless they handed over or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s plan into action would be a logistical nightmare , however .
Biden hasn ’ t said how much money his compensated confiscation efforts would pay for each firearm or magazine turned in , but at $ 500 per gun and $ 10 per magazine , the cost alone would be more than $ 11-billion .
Obviously , a lot of Americans aren ’ t going to hand over their guns and magazines .
Let ’ s say half of the current owners of these items decide instead that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various magazines with the government under the National Firearms Act .
How exactly is the ATF going to deal with the flood of applications ?
In 2016 , the agency processed about 2.5-million NFA forms .
If just half of the guns and magazines that fall under Biden ’ s proposed ban were to be registered with the ATF , they ’ d be faced with an avalanche of 86-million forms to process .
It would take years to clear out the backlog , and in the meantime , what happens to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet been approved to maintain possession of their guns and magazines when the ban would take effect ?
There ’ s another logistical nightmare looming for gun-banners if they try to put Biden ’ s ban into effect .
According to Biden himself , owners of “ high capacity ” magazines would be able to register them under the NFA , but he never explains how that would be possible .
Magazines aren ’ t serialized , and there ’ s no real way to identify a particular magazine that would make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politifact , Biden ’ s team says they haven ’ t quite worked out the details .
The campaign told us that it defines high-capacity magazines as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
However , a spokesperson also said the campaign has not yet ironed out some of the finer details on magazines , such as if owners would be charged per unit .
There ’ s also a question of how a Biden administration would define “ assault weapons ” — and whether it would include all semi-automatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Biden campaign spokesperson told us that the precise definition of “ assault weapon ” would be worked out during the legislative process .
They ’ re going to define it as broadly as possible , and in fact any ban will most likely include not just modern sporting rifles but likely AR-style pistols and many pistol-caliber carbines as well .
But Team Biden also still seems blissfully unaware of the fact that it ’ s going to be virtually impossible to register the more than 150-million magazines that would fall under their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the cost to gun owners ( registering an NFA item typically costs $ 200 for each item ) , Politifact does note that , under the Gun Control Act of 1968 , the ATF can issue a 90-day amnesty where individuals can register NFA items without paying the $ 200 tax stamp , so it ’ s possible that Democrats would waive the cost and sacrifice the $ 34-billion dollars they ’ d stand to gain if every firearm and magazine affected by Biden ’ s ban were actually registered with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that anti-gun politicians would miss the opportunity to take money out of the pockets of legal gun owners , but the potential for an amnesty does exist , however unlikely the chances .
The real problem for Biden and his anti-gun allies , of course , is that the vast majority of American gun owners are unlikely to comply with either one of his demands .
They won ’ t hand their guns in , and they won ’ t register them with the federal government .
We ’ ve already seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York , and I see no reason why gun owners across the country wouldn ’ t respond to Biden ’ s ban in the same fashion .
That leads us into the difficulties of enforcing an unpopular and broadly ignored law , but that ’ s probably a topic for an entirely different column .
Suffice it to say that the logistic problems I just laid out if a large number of gun owners actually did cooperate with a ban are nothing compared to the issues that would arise with the massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more likely to see if Biden ’ s gun and magazine ban becomes a reality .

The biggest reason, of course, is that Joe Biden’s plans to ban and “buyback” legally-purchased firearms and ammunition magazines is that would violate the Constitution. As you’ll see in a moment, the latest figures demonstrate that all of the guns and magazines that Biden is hoping to ban are clearly in common use by millions of Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, and squarely fall under the protections offered by the Second Amendment.
Let’s set aside the constitutional issues with Biden’s desire to criminalize the possession of commonly-owned rifles and magazines for the moment, though, and just focus on the logistics of his would-be ban.
According to newly-released figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Biden’s ban would encompass well over 170-million items that would either have to be turned over to the government or registered under the National Firearms Act.
Since 1990, there are an estimated 19.8 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in circulation today.
There are approximately 71.2 million pistol magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and 79.2 million rifle magazines capable of holding 30 or more rounds in circulation.
Under Biden’s proposed gun and magazine ban, every one of these guns and magazines would be prohibited by federal law, and possession of an unregistered rifle or “large capacity” magazine would be subject to a violation of the National Firearms Act. Possession of an unregistered NFA item is punishable by ten years in prison or a $250,000 fine, so we’re talking about turning more than 170-million items that are currently in the lawful possession of tens of millions of gun owners into illicit substances that could land them in the a federal penitentiary for a decade.
Because the media never really brought up Biden’s gun ban on the campaign trail or the debate stage, the vast majority of Americans have no idea what his war on guns would really look like, but if Biden is sworn into office and starts making moves towards modern sporting rifles they’ll soon find out, because many of them would be turned into criminals themselves unless they handed over or registered their lawfully purchased arms.
Putting Biden’s plan into action would be a logistical nightmare, however. Biden hasn’t said how much money his compensated confiscation efforts would pay for each firearm or magazine turned in, but at $500 per gun and $10 per magazine, the cost alone would be more than $11-billion.
Obviously, a lot of Americans aren’t going to hand over their guns and magazines. Let’s say half of the current owners of these items decide instead that they’re going to register their rifles and various magazines with the government under the National Firearms Act. How exactly is the ATF going to deal with the flood of applications?
In 2016, the agency processed about 2.5-million NFA forms. If just half of the guns and magazines that fall under Biden’s proposed ban were to be registered with the ATF, they’d be faced with an avalanche of 86-million forms to process. It would take years to clear out the backlog, and in the meantime, what happens to those gun owners who haven’t been yet been approved to maintain possession of their guns and magazines when the ban would take effect?
There’s another logistical nightmare looming for gun-banners if they try to put Biden’s ban into effect. According to Biden himself, owners of “high capacity” magazines would be able to register them under the NFA, but he never explains how that would be possible. Magazines aren’t serialized, and there’s no real way to identify a particular magazine that would make it possible to register one.
According to Politifact, Biden’s team says they haven’t quite worked out the details.
The campaign told us that it defines high-capacity magazines as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. However, a spokesperson also said the campaign has not yet ironed out some of the finer details on magazines, such as if owners would be charged per unit. There’s also a question of how a Biden administration would define “assault weapons” — and whether it would include all semi-automatic firearms, as the post says. A Biden campaign spokesperson told us that the precise definition of “assault weapon” would be worked out during the legislative process.
They’re going to define it as broadly as possible, and in fact any ban will most likely include not just modern sporting rifles but likely AR-style pistols and many pistol-caliber carbines as well. But Team Biden also still seems blissfully unaware of the fact that it’s going to be virtually impossible to register the more than 150-million magazines that would fall under their definition of “high capacity.”
As for the cost to gun owners (registering an NFA item typically costs $200 for each item), Politifact does note that, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ATF can issue a 90-day amnesty where individuals can register NFA items without paying the $200 tax stamp, so it’s possible that Democrats would waive the cost and sacrifice the $34-billion dollars they’d stand to gain if every firearm and magazine affected by Biden’s ban were actually registered with the federal government.
Personally, I highly doubt that anti-gun politicians would miss the opportunity to take money out of the pockets of legal gun owners, but the potential for an amnesty does exist, however unlikely the chances.
The real problem for Biden and his anti-gun allies, of course, is that the vast majority of American gun owners are unlikely to comply with either one of his demands. They won’t hand their guns in, and they won’t register them with the federal government. We’ve already seen evidence of this in New Jersey and New York, and I see no reason why gun owners across the country wouldn’t respond to Biden’s ban in the same fashion.
That leads us into the difficulties of enforcing an unpopular and broadly ignored law, but that’s probably a topic for an entirely different column. Suffice it to say that the logistic problems I just laid out if a large number of gun owners actually did cooperate with a ban are nothing compared to the issues that would arise with the massive and widespread non-compliance that we’re far more likely to see if Biden’s gun and magazine ban becomes a reality.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Biden Presidency Expected To Boost Gun Sales

There are still a lot of questions about the presidency .
There ’ s been a lot of shady stuff going on during this election cycle and we , the voting public , deserve answers .
However , I don ’ t think we ’ re going to get them .
If that happens , we ’ re looking at President Joe Biden .
That ’ s not good for any of us , but there is one group of people who are likely to profit and that ’ s gun manufacturers .
Joe Biden ’ s White House win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already been a landmark year for gun makers .
“ The election of a Democratic president who has promised to tighten gun control legislation could very well prompt increased demand for firearms , ” says Rommel Dionisio , managing director of Aegis Capital .
Biden has long been vocal on the issue of gun control .
The former vice president has said gun manufacturers are “ the enemy ” of the Democratic party ’ s gun control efforts .
His campaign website calls for a ban on manufacturing and future sales of assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has maintained since a string of high-profile mass shootings in 2019 .
Dionisio says gun owners ’ fears of Democrats passing gun control legislation fuels a predictable surge in sales before and after elections .
Honestly , this isn ’ t shocking news .
President Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman the world had ever seen , creating a demand for guns that was unprecedented .
And yet , he didn ’ t actually run on gun control .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong , we all knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted as much , but he also admitted that he knew he didn ’ t have the votes for it so he didn ’ t run on it .
He tried to do what he could through executive action and he made a lot of anti-gun noises , but he never really was in a position to do what he wanted to do .
Biden , on the other hand , ran on gun control .
It was a critical issue during the primary and the issue remained on his website as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a long legislative history of supporting gun control .
Further , he has a Congress that ’ s partially on his side and a potential split in the Senate depending on what happens in Georgia .
There ’ s even more reason to be afraid for your gun rights than there was under Obama .
And yet , again depending on what happens in Georgia , there may not be anything Biden can actually do .
It won ’ t matter , though .
The threat will be enough to send gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red wave during the midterms wouldn ’ t be enough to quell the fears , which means even more gun sales .
Many gun manufacturers apparently haven ’ t increased production to meet demand out of a belief that it would eventually die down and they didn ’ t want to have excess inventory sitting on distributors ’ shelves .
I don ’ t blame them .
However , based on what we ’ re seeing , especially if the court cases go in Biden ’ s favor , it might well be @ @ @ @ @ @

There are still a lot of questions about the presidency. There’s been a lot of shady stuff going on during this election cycle and we, the voting public, deserve answers. However, I don’t think we’re going to get them.
If that happens, we’re looking at President Joe Biden. That’s not good for any of us, but there is one group of people who are likely to profit and that’s gun manufacturers.
Joe Biden’s White House win could boost gun sales in what has already been a landmark year for gun makers. “The election of a Democratic president who has promised to tighten gun control legislation could very well prompt increased demand for firearms,” says Rommel Dionisio, managing director of Aegis Capital. Biden has long been vocal on the issue of gun control. The former vice president has said gun manufacturers are “the enemy” of the Democratic party’s gun control efforts. His campaign website calls for a ban on manufacturing and future sales of assault weapons like the AR-15, a position he has maintained since a string of high-profile mass shootings in 2019. Dionisio says gun owners’ fears of Democrats passing gun control legislation fuels a predictable surge in sales before and after elections.
Honestly, this isn’t shocking news. President Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman the world had ever seen, creating a demand for guns that was unprecedented.
And yet, he didn’t actually run on gun control.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, we all knew he wanted gun control. He even admitted as much, but he also admitted that he knew he didn’t have the votes for it so he didn’t run on it. He tried to do what he could through executive action and he made a lot of anti-gun noises, but he never really was in a position to do what he wanted to do.
Biden, on the other hand, ran on gun control. It was a critical issue during the primary and the issue remained on his website as a key issue for him. He also has a long legislative history of supporting gun control.
Further, he has a Congress that’s partially on his side and a potential split in the Senate depending on what happens in Georgia. There’s even more reason to be afraid for your gun rights than there was under Obama.
And yet, again depending on what happens in Georgia, there may not be anything Biden can actually do.
It won’t matter, though. The threat will be enough to send gun sales through the roof. Even a red wave during the midterms wouldn’t be enough to quell the fears, which means even more gun sales.
Many gun manufacturers apparently haven’t increased production to meet demand out of a belief that it would eventually die down and they didn’t want to have excess inventory sitting on distributors’ shelves. I don’t blame them. However, based on what we’re seeing, especially if the court cases go in Biden’s favor, it might well be time to rethinking that position.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Study Claims Gun Law Changes Led To Increased Suicides

For a while now , so-called experts have been trying to link a lack of gun control with all kinds of nastiness .
From increased violent crime to increased suicides , it ’ s all because of gun laws or the lack thereof .
I ’ m pretty sure if they could figure out a way to get away with it , they ’ d blame a lack of gun laws for increased cases of COVID-19 .
However , the problem is that so many of their claims simply don ’ t make any sense , such as this study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri ’ s permit-to-purchase ( PTP ) and concealed carry firearm laws may have contributed to increased rates of firearm suicides among young residents , according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open .
CDC data show suicide was the second leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 10 to 24 years in 2017 , while rates of mood disorders and suicide-related outcomes have been on the rise among this age group over the last decade .
In 2017 , Missouri ranked sixth in the nation in firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths also involve firearms .
“ Firearm-related deaths are the second leading cause of death in Missouri children aged 1 to 17 years , ” the authors wrote , adding , “ In 2018 , every 4 days a young person in Missouri died by suicide via firearm.
” Missouri currently has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the United States .
For example , private possession of firearms is permitted without a license , although it is unlawful to sell or give a firearm to any individual under the age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition , buyers of firearms in private sales are not required to pass official background checks before taking possession of a firearm , there is no established waiting period for a firearm purchase to be completed , and current regulations do not have written specifications for safe storage of private firearms and ammunition , the authors explained .
In 2007 , the state removed a requirement for gun owners to have a state PTP license for concealable firearms , while in 2011 , Missouri lowered the legal age to obtain a concealed carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age limit was further reduced to 19 in 2014 .
“ Finally , in 2017 , a law was enacted that allowed for permit-less carry for all gun owners in most public places .
Currently in Missouri , any person at least age 19 years may carry a firearm in plain view ( ie , open carry ) or in hidden view ( concealed carry ) in most places without a permit , ” the authors noted .
The problem here is that none of the laws changed had any impact on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the laws didn ’ t permit people under the age of 18 to buy a gun , to carry a gun , or anything of the sort .
The age group the study focused on was still bound by the same laws they always had been .
If legal children had been able to buy guns and that correlated to an increase in suicides , then maybe they ’ d have a point , but that didn ’ t happen .
Oh , researchers had guesses such as claiming more guns in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re just guesses .
Again , it was still unlawful for children to be given a firearm with a parent ’ s permission .
In other words , they found a correlation and are making a leap as to causation .
Post hoc ergo propter hoc , or “ after therefore because of.
” And yet , I bet these researchers also wonder why we dismiss studies like this .

For a while now, so-called experts have been trying to link a lack of gun control with all kinds of nastiness. From increased violent crime to increased suicides, it’s all because of gun laws or the lack thereof. I’m pretty sure if they could figure out a way to get away with it, they’d blame a lack of gun laws for increased cases of COVID-19.
However, the problem is that so many of their claims simply don’t make any sense, such as this study focusing on Missouri.
A loosening of Missouri’s permit-to-purchase (PTP) and concealed carry firearm laws may have contributed to increased rates of firearm suicides among young residents, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. CDC data show suicide was the second leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 10 to 24 years in 2017, while rates of mood disorders and suicide-related outcomes have been on the rise among this age group over the last decade. In 2017, Missouri ranked sixth in the nation in firearm deaths. Over 58% of suicide deaths also involve firearms. “Firearm-related deaths are the second leading cause of death in Missouri children aged 1 to 17 years,” the authors wrote, adding, “In 2018, every 4 days a young person in Missouri died by suicide via firearm.” Missouri currently has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the United States. For example, private possession of firearms is permitted without a license, although it is unlawful to sell or give a firearm to any individual under the age of 18 without parental consent. In addition, buyers of firearms in private sales are not required to pass official background checks before taking possession of a firearm, there is no established waiting period for a firearm purchase to be completed, and current regulations do not have written specifications for safe storage of private firearms and ammunition, the authors explained. In 2007, the state removed a requirement for gun owners to have a state PTP license for concealable firearms, while in 2011, Missouri lowered the legal age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 23 to 21. That age limit was further reduced to 19 in 2014. “Finally, in 2017, a law was enacted that allowed for permit-less carry for all gun owners in most public places. Currently in Missouri, any person at least age 19 years may carry a firearm in plain view (ie, open carry) or in hidden view (concealed carry) in most places without a permit,” the authors noted.
The problem here is that none of the laws changed had any impact on the age group in question.
After all, the laws didn’t permit people under the age of 18 to buy a gun, to carry a gun, or anything of the sort. The age group the study focused on was still bound by the same laws they always had been.
If legal children had been able to buy guns and that correlated to an increase in suicides, then maybe they’d have a point, but that didn’t happen.
Oh, researchers had guesses such as claiming more guns in circulation led to the increase, but they’re just guesses. Again, it was still unlawful for children to be given a firearm with a parent’s permission.
In other words, they found a correlation and are making a leap as to causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or “after therefore because of.”
And yet, I bet these researchers also wonder why we dismiss studies like this.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--St. Louis Murders Show Why Cracking Down On Legal Gun Owners Isn't The Answer

With more than a quarter of the state of Missouri ’ s homicides concentrated in just a few square blocks of the city of St. Louis , crime fighting strategies that rely on curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents across the state are aiming in the wrong direction .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we take a closer look at the increasing number of murders in St. Louis and what can be done to bring some peace to the city ’ s most violent neighborhoods .
Today ’ s show was prompted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post-Dispatch that explores the staggering amount of violent crime in a one-mile stretch of the city ’ s North Grand Boulevard .
As the paper reported , more than 25 % of all of the homicides in Missouri last year took place within neighborhoods in St. Louis that make up just 1.5 % of the population , and three of the 20 or so neighborhoods that comprise the most violent part of the state can be found within just a few blocks of the one mile stretch of North Grand between Sullivan Avenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of flooding the area with law enforcement and anti-violence programs , Democrats in the city have largely responded to the violence by demanding more statewide gun control laws , including the repeal of Missouri ’ s constitutional carry law that allows legal gun owners to carry without a license .
For Chris , the mechanic on the corner , the episodes of violence are recurring so often around him that he doesn ’ t want to bring his 15-year-old son to the shop to help anymore .
“ It ’ s not safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case when 17-year-old Armond Latimore was killed on the same corner one afternoon in 2018 after picking up food at Bing Lau .
The day he was killed Latimore posted to social media , “ … I ’ m just glad I can say I made it to see 17.
” Chris said he blamed some of the rising violence on the law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2016 that allows people with no criminal record to carry concealed weapons without having a permit or weapons training .
The law also has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Mayor Lyda Krewson and Chief Hayden who believe it ’ s contributed to violent crime in the city .
“ The problem is that every 17- or 20-year-old got a gun , ” Chris said .
“ And now with the new laws it ’ s so easy .
Next thing you know , the kid is doing life and somebody is dead.
” One problem with that theory is that the state ’ s constitutional carry provisions only allow for legal gun owners to carry without a license , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old in St. Louis .
In fact , under the state law only those legal gun owners who are at least 19-years old can lawfully carry without a license ( there is an exception for 18-year olds who are currently serving in the U.S. military ) .
Another problem with the idea that Missouri ’ s constitutional carry laws are fueling the violence is the fact that St. Louis has been one of the most dangerous cities in the country for decades now , long before state law changed to allow legal gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This year will go down as the deadliest in St. Louis ’ history , with the city on pace to end 2020 slightly ahead of the 248 homicides that were recorded in the city back in 1994 .
Not only did Missouri not have constitutional carry in 1994 , it didn ’ t even have a concealed carry law on the books at the time ( “ shall issue ” concealed carry became the law five years later , in 1999 ) .
The simple truth is that it ’ s not Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence to shoot skyward in St. Louis this year , it ’ s a lack of consequences for those criminals who are pulling the trigger .
Anything that the state can do to reassure witnesses that their lives won ’ t be endangered by cooperating with police is a good thing , and a state witness protection program could ensure that violent offenders face arrest and charges in the future rather than seeing their cases dismissed because eyewitnesses are afraid to come forward and testify .
However , Thomas Abt , a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tells the Post-Dispatch that with so much of the state ’ s violent crime taking place in just a few square blocks , police need to respond accordingly .
Again , you don ’ t address violence directly by passing gun control laws that are aimed squarely at legal gun owners .
In fact , that ’ s a fundamentally unserious way of taking on violent criminals ; passing new laws that restrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms .
There are real , concrete steps that the city of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives and bring peace to the neighborhoods along North Grand , but the push for new gun control laws is a step in the wrong direction .

With more than a quarter of the state of Missouri’s homicides concentrated in just a few square blocks of the city of St. Louis, crime fighting strategies that rely on curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents across the state are aiming in the wrong direction. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we take a closer look at the increasing number of murders in St. Louis and what can be done to bring some peace to the city’s most violent neighborhoods.
Today’s show was prompted by a lengthy piece at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that explores the staggering amount of violent crime in a one-mile stretch of the city’s North Grand Boulevard. As the paper reported, more than 25% of all of the homicides in Missouri last year took place within neighborhoods in St. Louis that make up just 1.5% of the population, and three of the 20 or so neighborhoods that comprise the most violent part of the state can be found within just a few blocks of the one mile stretch of North Grand between Sullivan Avenue and West Florissant Avenue. Yet instead of flooding the area with law enforcement and anti-violence programs, Democrats in the city have largely responded to the violence by demanding more statewide gun control laws, including the repeal of Missouri’s constitutional carry law that allows legal gun owners to carry without a license.
For Chris, the mechanic on the corner, the episodes of violence are recurring so often around him that he doesn’t want to bring his 15-year-old son to the shop to help anymore. “It’s not safe,” he said, recalling another case when 17-year-old Armond Latimore was killed on the same corner one afternoon in 2018 after picking up food at Bing Lau. The day he was killed Latimore posted to social media, “… I’m just glad I can say I made it to see 17.” Chris said he blamed some of the rising violence on the law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2016 that allows people with no criminal record to carry concealed weapons without having a permit or weapons training. The law also has been a common target for city leaders, including Mayor Lyda Krewson and Chief Hayden who believe it’s contributed to violent crime in the city. “The problem is that every 17- or 20-year-old got a gun,” Chris said. “And now with the new laws it’s so easy. Next thing you know, the kid is doing life and somebody is dead.”
One problem with that theory is that the state’s constitutional carry provisions only allow for legal gun owners to carry without a license, which wouldn’t apply to a 17-year old in St. Louis. In fact, under the state law only those legal gun owners who are at least 19-years old can lawfully carry without a license (there is an exception for 18-year olds who are currently serving in the U.S. military).
Another problem with the idea that Missouri’s constitutional carry laws are fueling the violence is the fact that St. Louis has been one of the most dangerous cities in the country for decades now, long before state law changed to allow legal gun owners to carry without a license. This year will go down as the deadliest in St. Louis’ history, with the city on pace to end 2020 slightly ahead of the 248 homicides that were recorded in the city back in 1994.
Not only did Missouri not have constitutional carry in 1994, it didn’t even have a concealed carry law on the books at the time (“shall issue” concealed carry became the law five years later, in 1999).
The simple truth is that it’s not Missouri’s carry laws that are causing violence to shoot skyward in St. Louis this year, it’s a lack of consequences for those criminals who are pulling the trigger.
There’s about a 40% clearance rate among the 46 murder cases along the mile since 2010, according to police data and coverage by the Post-Dispatch. That’s slightly below the clearance rate for the city as a whole last year, with 47% of 2019 homicides cleared as of this month, short of the national homicide clearance rate of about 60%. Chief Hayden told the Post-Dispatch that a lack of cooperation from witnesses and victims contributes to the low clearance number. Hayden said he’s hopeful proposals from Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to build a state witness protection program might improve cooperation from those who fear retaliation. The program was created in September but does not yet have funding.
Anything that the state can do to reassure witnesses that their lives won’t be endangered by cooperating with police is a good thing, and a state witness protection program could ensure that violent offenders face arrest and charges in the future rather than seeing their cases dismissed because eyewitnesses are afraid to come forward and testify. However, Thomas Abt, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice, tells the Post-Dispatch that with so much of the state’s violent crime taking place in just a few square blocks, police need to respond accordingly.
Abt argues the concentrated nature of the crime necessitates a concentrated approach to prevention focused on narrow locations and groups of people. “There is a lot of focus when you talk about crime on curing poverty or inequality and I support those for other reasons, but those will take decades to improve,” he said. “They’re not targeted enough. You have to address violence directly. To save lives right now, focus on the damn violence.”
Again, you don’t address violence directly by passing gun control laws that are aimed squarely at legal gun owners. In fact, that’s a fundamentally unserious way of taking on violent criminals; passing new laws that restrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
There are real, concrete steps that the city of St. Louis can take right now to save lives and bring peace to the neighborhoods along North Grand, but the push for new gun control laws is a step in the wrong direction.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Media Doesn't Get That Police Chiefs Aren't All Cops

Gun owners have a tendency to also support the police .
We tend to own guns because we recognize that law enforcement officers are humans who can ’ t be everywhere and do everything , but that doesn ’ t mean we don ’ t have respect for the job that they do .
Sure , not all support the police for whatever reason , but a lot do .
Meanwhile , it seems the media has a warped idea of what constitutes “ the police.
” How odd that some of the biggest “ Back the Blue ” supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to a subject they happen to know a lot about : guns .
Somehow , the same people who like to say that “ Blue Lives Matter ” and that violence would be curbed if only law enforcement had more resources also tend to disregard everything police have to say about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers .
A new Star investigation into gun violence , and specifically domestic violence , details how fatally that scourge plays out in Springfield , Missouri , the 11th most violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the domestic violence capital of a state that ’ s second only to Alaska for its per-capita rate of men killing women .
And women whose abusers have access to a gun are five times more likely to be murdered .
Springfield Police Chief Paul Williams , who is highly focused on and forward thinking in his approach to intimate partner violence , sees a direct link between the spike in all kinds of violence and the relaxation of gun laws in Missouri in recent years .
In 2016 , as president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he and the association he headed strongly opposed the passage of the Missouri law that tossed out the concealed carry permitting requirement .
“ We had something that worked really well , and responsible gun owners know the value and danger of a firearm .
We should do safety training and background checks , ” Williams told The Star .
The problem here is that Williams may technically be a police officer , but he ’ s a police chief first and foremost , and that ’ s an important distinction .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are free to think what they want to think .
Their political opinions are often shaped by what they see on the streets and their experiences as police officers .
It ’ s why so many support gun rights .
They know there ’ s evil in the world and that they can ’ t be everywhere to stop it .
Police chiefs , on the other hand , are political appointees who have to mirror the opinions of those who hire them .
If not , it causes problems and those chiefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My father was a police chief in Leary , Georgia .
It ’ s a small town most of you have never heard of , but it wasn ’ t that different .
When he got along with his mayor , everything was great .
When he didn ’ t , they weren ’ t .
Why would this be any different with larger communities ?
The truth of the matter is that when police chiefs speak , you need to recognize that they ’ re speaking for police chiefs .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a whole .
The everyday street cop probably has a very different opinion .
So why do the “ Back the Blue ” folks ignore folks like Chief Williams when he talks about guns ?
It ’ s simple .
We ignore him because he ’ s a political mouthpiece and nothing more .

Gun owners have a tendency to also support the police. We tend to own guns because we recognize that law enforcement officers are humans who can’t be everywhere and do everything, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have respect for the job that they do.
Sure, not all support the police for whatever reason, but a lot do.
Meanwhile, it seems the media has a warped idea of what constitutes “the police.”
How odd that some of the biggest “Back the Blue” supporters pay no attention at all to police when it comes to a subject they happen to know a lot about: guns. Somehow, the same people who like to say that “Blue Lives Matter” and that violence would be curbed if only law enforcement had more resources also tend to disregard everything police have to say about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. A new Star investigation into gun violence, and specifically domestic violence, details how fatally that scourge plays out in Springfield, Missouri, the 11th most violent city in the country. Springfield is also the domestic violence capital of a state that’s second only to Alaska for its per-capita rate of men killing women. And women whose abusers have access to a gun are five times more likely to be murdered. Springfield Police Chief Paul Williams, who is highly focused on and forward thinking in his approach to intimate partner violence, sees a direct link between the spike in all kinds of violence and the relaxation of gun laws in Missouri in recent years. In 2016, as president of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, he and the association he headed strongly opposed the passage of the Missouri law that tossed out the concealed carry permitting requirement. “We had something that worked really well, and responsible gun owners know the value and danger of a firearm. We should do safety training and background checks,” Williams told The Star.
The problem here is that Williams may technically be a police officer, but he’s a police chief first and foremost, and that’s an important distinction.
You see, the rank and file officers are free to think what they want to think. Their political opinions are often shaped by what they see on the streets and their experiences as police officers. It’s why so many support gun rights. They know there’s evil in the world and that they can’t be everywhere to stop it.
Police chiefs, on the other hand, are political appointees who have to mirror the opinions of those who hire them. If not, it causes problems and those chiefs tend not to last too long.
My father was a police chief in Leary, Georgia. It’s a small town most of you have never heard of, but it wasn’t that different. When he got along with his mayor, everything was great. When he didn’t, they weren’t.
Why would this be any different with larger communities?
The truth of the matter is that when police chiefs speak, you need to recognize that they’re speaking for police chiefs. They’re often not speaking for police officers as a whole. The everyday street cop probably has a very different opinion.
So why do the “Back the Blue” folks ignore folks like Chief Williams when he talks about guns? It’s simple. We ignore him because he’s a political mouthpiece and nothing more.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Police Shoot, Kill Gunman At Anti-Gun Violence Event

A night of amateur boxing in Sacramento billed as an anti-gun violence event turned deadly over the weekend after at least one suspect in the crowd opened fire before he was shot and killed by police .
The “ Gunz Down Gloves Up ” initiative , put together by local activist Jacques Houston , was designed to offer youth an alternative to picking up a gun and settling beefs , but instead it became a focal point for the very violence Houston is trying to stop .
Officers were initially called out to the warehouse around 6:30 p.m. on reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Juliesse Avenue in the Cannon Industrial Park , not far from Del Paso Boulevard and the Hagginwood neighborhood .
Houston said the officers approached their group — upwards of 300 people — and asked if they were involved in a sideshow .
They weren ’ t , Houston said , but a patrol sergeant stayed nearby anyway .
“ It made me feel safe that nobody can drive by and shoot at these 300 , 400 people in here , ” Houston said .
“ They didn ’ t bug us.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to police , the crowd of people attending the boxing event started running out of the warehouse and the patrol sergeant was told there was a gunman inside .
“ It was just chaos , ” Houston said .
The patrol sergeant ran towards the sound of gunfire and engaged the suspect , fatally shooting the man seconds later .
The organizer says he actually confronted the suspect before the shooting began because the man was intoxicated .
Houston says he escorted the suspect out of the warehouse where the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hear the gunshots a short time later .
Houston didn ’ t hold anything against the sergeant who opened fire , but did admit that things could have gone differently .
“ I feel responsible because I didn ’ t handle it better .
I should have went out there and talked to him because this is my event .
I escorted him out but I didn ’ t go out there and talk to him , ” he said .
“ The family , I send all my condolences out … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say about what they ( the police ) did.
” I don ’ t think Jacques Houston should hold himself to blame for the shooting .
Ultimately it was the suspect himself who decided to turn an anti-gun violence event into a potential shooting gallery , not Houston .
The shooting does , however , demonstrate the difficulties that come with trying to quell street violence without involving law enforcement .
Good deeds alone aren ’ t enough to stop every individual with evil intent or a lack of concern about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides up 40 % in Sacramento this year , and non-fatal shootings on the rise as well , the most important thing that activists like Jacques Houston could do at the moment would be to encourage witnesses to come forward and cooperate with police in order to put murder suspects behind bars and on trial .
If he and others truly want to end the violence in Sacramento , then they should be working to ensure that there are consequences for the individuals responsible .

A night of amateur boxing in Sacramento billed as an anti-gun violence event turned deadly over the weekend after at least one suspect in the crowd opened fire before he was shot and killed by police.
The “Gunz Down Gloves Up” initiative, put together by local activist Jacques Houston, was designed to offer youth an alternative to picking up a gun and settling beefs, but instead it became a focal point for the very violence Houston is trying to stop.
Officers were initially called out to the warehouse around 6:30 p.m. on reports of reckless driving on the 1600 block of Juliesse Avenue in the Cannon Industrial Park, not far from Del Paso Boulevard and the Hagginwood neighborhood. Houston said the officers approached their group — upwards of 300 people — and asked if they were involved in a sideshow. They weren’t, Houston said, but a patrol sergeant stayed nearby anyway. “It made me feel safe that nobody can drive by and shoot at these 300, 400 people in here,” Houston said. “They didn’t bug us.” Around 8 p.m., the mood changed. According to police, the crowd of people attending the boxing event started running out of the warehouse and the patrol sergeant was told there was a gunman inside. “It was just chaos,” Houston said.
The patrol sergeant ran towards the sound of gunfire and engaged the suspect, fatally shooting the man seconds later.
The organizer says he actually confronted the suspect before the shooting began because the man was intoxicated. Houston says he escorted the suspect out of the warehouse where the event was taking place, and didn’t hear the gunshots a short time later.
Houston didn’t hold anything against the sergeant who opened fire, but did admit that things could have gone differently. “I feel responsible because I didn’t handle it better. I should have went out there and talked to him because this is my event. I escorted him out but I didn’t go out there and talk to him,” he said. “The family, I send all my condolences out … I don’t have nothing bad to say about what they (the police) did.”
I don’t think Jacques Houston should hold himself to blame for the shooting. Ultimately it was the suspect himself who decided to turn an anti-gun violence event into a potential shooting gallery, not Houston.
The shooting does, however, demonstrate the difficulties that come with trying to quell street violence without involving law enforcement. Good deeds alone aren’t enough to stop every individual with evil intent or a lack of concern about the consequences of their deadly actions.
With homicides up 40% in Sacramento this year, and non-fatal shootings on the rise as well, the most important thing that activists like Jacques Houston could do at the moment would be to encourage witnesses to come forward and cooperate with police in order to put murder suspects behind bars and on trial. If he and others truly want to end the violence in Sacramento, then they should be working to ensure that there are consequences for the individuals responsible.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Anti-Gunners Go After NRA Over Judicial Appointments

The National Rifle Association isn ’ t a part of the federal government .
Instead , they represent millions of American gun owners .
While not all who have a firearm are members of the NRA , a lot of them are and the NRA tries to speak for all of them .
However , the NRA doesn ’ t make judicial appointments .
It , like every other politically-focused group out there , tried to exert what influence they had when it came to judicial appointments , but they don ’ t actually make them or confirm them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because anti-gunners like Sen. Dick Blumenthal and his anti-gun group allies are going to lash out anyway .
Sens .
Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) and Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-R.I. ) called out the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) on Friday for working to reshape the federal judiciary while Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court advances in the Senate .
The Democrats were joined by gun violence advocacy groups Giffords , Everytown for Gun Safety , Brady and March for Our Lives to discuss a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun industry ’ s funding of judges in lower courts and now for Barrett .
“ This report shows how beholden Republicans have become to the NRA , how corrupt the funneling of money has become , how there is coordination between consultants and media groups used by the NRA and Republican candidates and especially the Trump campaign .
We believe that the public should be aware of this alarming campaign to capture the courts and it will have effect on American justice , ” Blumenthal said on a press call on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note that anti-gun groups have dropped a whole lot more than the NRA has in recent years .
In 2020 alone , former New York City mayor and anti-gun jihadist Michael Bloomberg dropped around a billion dollars on elections .
Meanwhile , according to The Trace , who does not like the NRA at all , the organization spent $ 23.4 million in total .
That ’ s spread out between the presidential campaigns and numerous congressional races .
One man dropped more than four times that , yet Blumenthal continues with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Honestly , it ’ s impossible to take the man seriously .
The problem , however , is that the media doesn ’ t check this .
They take Blumenthal and people like him at face value .
They say the NRA spends a lot–which they do–and suddenly it ’ s the end of the republic .
Meanwhile , there ’ s no mention of how anti-gun groups and people like Bloomberg have spent as much , if not more , than the NRA .
Why is it that no one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and paid for ?
While the NRA may have tried to exert a little influence with friendly senators in order to get pro-gun judges confirmed , that ’ s no different than what Everytown did in an effort to oppose them .
That ’ s kind of how the game is played , for crying out loud .
It ’ s a normal part of the process .
Sure , if you have a problem with that , that ’ s fine .
But if you ’ re going to go down that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people like him aren ’ t .
They have a problem with the NRA ’ s money being in politics , but not their side ’ s .
It ’ s hypocritical , to say the least .
Especially since it ’ s not like that made a damn bit of difference in “ transforming ” the judicial branch of government–a transformation that consisted of filling appointments .
My days of not taking Blumenthal are…well , they ’ re not even close to a middle .

The National Rifle Association isn’t a part of the federal government. Instead, they represent millions of American gun owners. While not all who have a firearm are members of the NRA, a lot of them are and the NRA tries to speak for all of them.
However, the NRA doesn’t make judicial appointments. It, like every other politically-focused group out there, tried to exert what influence they had when it came to judicial appointments, but they don’t actually make them or confirm them.
It doesn’t matter, though, because anti-gunners like Sen. Dick Blumenthal and his anti-gun group allies are going to lash out anyway.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called out the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Friday for working to reshape the federal judiciary while Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court advances in the Senate. The Democrats were joined by gun violence advocacy groups Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady and March for Our Lives to discuss a new report led by Blumenthal that details the gun industry’s funding of judges in lower courts and now for Barrett. “This report shows how beholden Republicans have become to the NRA, how corrupt the funneling of money has become, how there is coordination between consultants and media groups used by the NRA and Republican candidates and especially the Trump campaign. We believe that the public should be aware of this alarming campaign to capture the courts and it will have effect on American justice,” Blumenthal said on a press call on Friday.
Blumenthal, however, failed to note that anti-gun groups have dropped a whole lot more than the NRA has in recent years. In 2020 alone, former New York City mayor and anti-gun jihadist Michael Bloomberg dropped around a billion dollars on elections.
Meanwhile, according to The Trace, who does not like the NRA at all, the organization spent $23.4 million in total. That’s spread out between the presidential campaigns and numerous congressional races.
One man dropped more than four times that, yet Blumenthal continues with the whole “NRA spending bad” thing.
Honestly, it’s impossible to take the man seriously.
The problem, however, is that the media doesn’t check this. They take Blumenthal and people like him at face value. They say the NRA spends a lot–which they do–and suddenly it’s the end of the republic.
Meanwhile, there’s no mention of how anti-gun groups and people like Bloomberg have spent as much, if not more, than the NRA. Why is it that no one in the media suggests that Blumenthal is bought and paid for?
While the NRA may have tried to exert a little influence with friendly senators in order to get pro-gun judges confirmed, that’s no different than what Everytown did in an effort to oppose them.
That’s kind of how the game is played, for crying out loud. It’s a normal part of the process.
Sure, if you have a problem with that, that’s fine. But if you’re going to go down that path, be consistent. Blumenthal and people like him aren’t. They have a problem with the NRA’s money being in politics, but not their side’s. It’s hypocritical, to say the least.
Especially since it’s not like that made a damn bit of difference in “transforming” the judicial branch of government–a transformation that consisted of filling appointments.
My days of not taking Blumenthal are…well, they’re not even close to a middle.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Whitmer Kidnapping Plotter Wanted To Hang Trump

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a kidnapping plot .
This is something we now know , and while I don ’ t particularly care for Whitmer , I ’ m glad the people plotting to kidnap her were complete and total idiots .
Many have used this as a way of painting the right as a bunch of insane people who are looking to commit violent acts–usually while ignoring all the violence the left has been committing–and it hasn ’ t been easy to deal with .
The thing is , these guys weren ’ t exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Delaware man accused of plotting to kidnap Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer also threatened to hang President Donald Trump and posted a hit list on Facebook targeting other elected leaders , including former President Barack Obama , according to an unsealed search warrant affidavit obtained by The Detroit News .
The affidavit gave federal agents permission to search a Facebook account belonging to Barry Croft , 44 , of Bear , Delaware , who was one of six men charged in federal court with conspiracy to kidnap .
Evidence collected by FBI agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bulletin board filled with violent imagery , including a noose and a list of grievances in which he mulled killing Democrats and Republicans including South Carolina Gov .
Henry McMaster , Muslims and liberals .
“ I say we hang everything currently governing us , they ’ re all guilty !
!
!
, ” Croft wrote in May on his Facebook page , which also included an image of Trump .
“ Wan na hang this mf ’ er too… ” In other words , while this was politically motivated , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a card-carrying Trump supporter .
There have been indications that these guys were anarchists , not Republicans .
They ’ re extreme libertarians who think that there should be no government at all .
They ’ re only slightly less stupid than the socialist anarchists that make up so much of Antifa , but the difference is so slim it might as well not even exist .
And this is important .
While the media was quick to blame the political right for this plot , the truth is that these guys weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left .
Then again , that old dichotomy is really outdated to describe American politics .
Libertarian anarchists–and not all libertarians are any such thing–aren ’ t really on the right , but they ’ re not on the left either .
They ’ re somewhere out in the ether .
They ’ re the group whose members planned this , who wanted to execute both Whitmer and Trump .
These guys aren ’ t just targeting Democrats .
They ’ re targeting everyone who disagrees with them .
They want to punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re not any different than the Antifa thugs who try to burn down college campuses because they don ’ t like who is coming to speak .
Meanwhile , expect a lot of people on the left to miss this little tidbit .
Expect them to continue acting like this is part of some “ violent right ” that exists primarily in their minds and nowhere else .
At the end of the day , these guys didn ’ t claim either side , which is fine .
Neither side wants @ @ @ @ @ @

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a kidnapping plot. This is something we now know, and while I don’t particularly care for Whitmer, I’m glad the people plotting to kidnap her were complete and total idiots.
Many have used this as a way of painting the right as a bunch of insane people who are looking to commit violent acts–usually while ignoring all the violence the left has been committing–and it hasn’t been easy to deal with.
The thing is, these guys weren’t exactly MAGA hat wearers themselves, apparently.
A Delaware man accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also threatened to hang President Donald Trump and posted a hit list on Facebook targeting other elected leaders, including former President Barack Obama, according to an unsealed search warrant affidavit obtained by The Detroit News. … The affidavit gave federal agents permission to search a Facebook account belonging to Barry Croft, 44, of Bear, Delaware, who was one of six men charged in federal court with conspiracy to kidnap. Evidence collected by FBI agents portrays his Facebook account as a virtual bulletin board filled with violent imagery, including a noose and a list of grievances in which he mulled killing Democrats and Republicans including South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, Muslims and liberals. “I say we hang everything currently governing us, they’re all guilty!!!,” Croft wrote in May on his Facebook page, which also included an image of Trump. “Wanna hang this mf’er too…”
In other words, while this was politically motivated, it doesn’t look like this was a card-carrying Trump supporter.
There have been indications that these guys were anarchists, not Republicans. They’re extreme libertarians who think that there should be no government at all. They’re only slightly less stupid than the socialist anarchists that make up so much of Antifa, but the difference is so slim it might as well not even exist.
And this is important.
While the media was quick to blame the political right for this plot, the truth is that these guys weren’t on the right or the left. Then again, that old dichotomy is really outdated to describe American politics. Libertarian anarchists–and not all libertarians are any such thing–aren’t really on the right, but they’re not on the left either. They’re somewhere out in the ether.
They’re the group whose members planned this, who wanted to execute both Whitmer and Trump.
These guys aren’t just targeting Democrats. They’re targeting everyone who disagrees with them. They want to punish anyone who believes differently from them. They’re not any different than the Antifa thugs who try to burn down college campuses because they don’t like who is coming to speak.
Meanwhile, expect a lot of people on the left to miss this little tidbit. Expect them to continue acting like this is part of some “violent right” that exists primarily in their minds and nowhere else.
At the end of the day, these guys didn’t claim either side, which is fine. Neither side wants to claim them, either.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--SCOTUS Turns Away One 2A Case, Another Held In Conference

The Supreme Court has turned away a request by the Mountain State Legal Foundation to give the green light for a federal challenge to Boulder , Colorado ’ s ban on AR-15 ’ s and other so-called assault weapons while a state-level challenge is tied up in state court .
In its orders on Monday morning , the Court denied cert to an appeal by the MSLF to allow the case Caldara v. City of Boulder to proceed in federal court .
The move doesn ’ t derail the Second Amendment challenge to the city ’ s gun ban , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation will have to wait until after the Colorado State Supreme Court issues its own ruling on the ban , which could be months from now .
The denial by the Supreme Court shouldn ’ t be seen as a sign that Justice Amy Coney Barrett and other conservative justices are unwilling to hear a Second Amendment challenge , by the way .
Not only do we not know how the individual justices voted on the issue of cert , the issue before the court in Caldara at the moment had more to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when federal courts can adjudicate issues that are the subject of state-level litigation as well .
It would have been great if SCOTUS had signed off on the federal challenge to proceed , but today ’ s decision doesn ’ t end the case .
It just keeps the issue on hold in the federal courts for now .
The Court did hold over another another case dealing with firearms , and will consider Caniglia v. Strom once again this coming Friday .
As we detailed a few days ago , Caniglia is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a Second Amendment case , though guns are at the heart of the controversy in the case .
Edward Caniglia and his wife got into an argument one afternoon in 2015 , and in a moment of melodrama , he put an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and said , “ why don ’ t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.
” Caniglia ’ s wife of 22-years left the house instead , but when her husband didn ’ t answer her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to make a wellness check .
They found that Caniglia was just fine , and he explained to police what had happened .
Even though the officers said he “ seemed normal , ” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated .
The police specifically told Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he voluntarily went with them , so he did .
He was checked out , pronounced no danger to himself or others , billed $ 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he already knew , and was sent home , only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home .
Not only that , they did so without a warrant .
Edward Caniglia ’ s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston , Rhode Island police department ever since .
The Supreme Court took no action on the Caniglia case in conference , and it should be re-listed for the next conference that will be held on Friday .
It ’ s hard to read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a sign that there are a number of justices interested in taking the case , but it could also be an indication that one or more of the justices wants to write a dissent about the decision to not accept the case and needs more time to do so .
We should have a much clearer picture when the next set of conference orders comes out a week from now .
In the meantime , a number of other Second Amendment cases are percolating at the appellate level , including a challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry without a license that ’ s awaiting an en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .
As soon as that opinion comes down , we ’ re likely to see an appeal to the Supreme Court , and expectations will be high for the Court to accept the case since it deals directly with an infringement of the right to bear arms .

The Supreme Court has turned away a request by the Mountain State Legal Foundation to give the green light for a federal challenge to Boulder, Colorado’s ban on AR-15’s and other so-called assault weapons while a state-level challenge is tied up in state court.
In its orders on Monday morning, the Court denied cert to an appeal by the MSLF to allow the case Caldara v. City of Boulder to proceed in federal court. The move doesn’t derail the Second Amendment challenge to the city’s gun ban, but it does mean that the federal litigation will have to wait until after the Colorado State Supreme Court issues its own ruling on the ban, which could be months from now.
The denial by the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seen as a sign that Justice Amy Coney Barrett and other conservative justices are unwilling to hear a Second Amendment challenge, by the way. Not only do we not know how the individual justices voted on the issue of cert, the issue before the court in Caldara at the moment had more to do with existing precedent; specifically, when federal courts can adjudicate issues that are the subject of state-level litigation as well. It would have been great if SCOTUS had signed off on the federal challenge to proceed, but today’s decision doesn’t end the case. It just keeps the issue on hold in the federal courts for now.
The Court did hold over another another case dealing with firearms, and will consider Caniglia v. Strom once again this coming Friday. As we detailed a few days ago, Caniglia is actually more of a Fourth Amendment challenge than a Second Amendment case, though guns are at the heart of the controversy in the case.
Edward Caniglia and his wife got into an argument one afternoon in 2015, and in a moment of melodrama, he put an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and said, “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.” Caniglia’s wife of 22-years left the house instead, but when her husband didn’t answer her phone call the next day she asked police to make a wellness check. They found that Caniglia was just fine, and he explained to police what had happened. Even though the officers said he “seemed normal,” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated. The police specifically told Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he voluntarily went with them, so he did. He was checked out, pronounced no danger to himself or others, billed $1,000 for the privilege of being told what he already knew, and was sent home, only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home. Not only that, they did so without a warrant. Edward Caniglia’s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston, Rhode Island police department ever since.
The Supreme Court took no action on the Caniglia case in conference, and it should be re-listed for the next conference that will be held on Friday. It’s hard to read the tea leaves here; this could be a sign that there are a number of justices interested in taking the case, but it could also be an indication that one or more of the justices wants to write a dissent about the decision to not accept the case and needs more time to do so. We should have a much clearer picture when the next set of conference orders comes out a week from now.
In the meantime, a number of other Second Amendment cases are percolating at the appellate level, including a challenge to Hawaii’s ban on open carry without a license that’s awaiting an en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As soon as that opinion comes down, we’re likely to see an appeal to the Supreme Court, and expectations will be high for the Court to accept the case since it deals directly with an infringement of the right to bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-11-16--Gallup: Support For New Gun Control Laws Lowest Since 2016

Americans ’ appetite for gun control is waning , according to a new survey by the Gallup organization , which found support for new gun laws at the lowest level since 2016 .
According to the polling group , support for gun control is down seven points compared to 2019 , and ten points compared to polling from 2018 .
In the absence of a high-profile mass shooting in the U.S. in 2020 and amid the coronavirus pandemic , civil unrest related to racial justice issues and the contentious presidential election campaign , Americans are less likely than they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control .
The latest majority ( 57 % ) in the U.S. who call for stricter laws covering the sale of firearms marks a seven-percentage-point decline since last year .
At the same time , 34 % of U.S. adults prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now , while 9 % would like them to be less strict .
Gallup has been tracking the public ’ s views on this measure since 1990 , when a record-high 78 % of Americans supported stricter laws for gun sales as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A majority of Americans held that position until 2008 .
Support then fell to a low of 43 % in 2011 , when an equal number said gun laws should be kept as is , but calls for stricter laws increased sharply to 58 % in 2012 after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut .
Of course , after the polling industry ’ s misfire in the 2020 election cycle , I think it ’ s fair to wonder if Gallup ’ s polling isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we saw from other firms polling the presidential and congressional races ; namely an undersampling of gun owners and pro-2A respondents who may be reluctant to tell pollsters their true views on gun issues .
Economist John Lott contends that many Americans refuse to answer or do not answer truthfully when asked about whether they own a firearm .
In a piece for Fox News , Lott noted “ current events influence people ’ s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership .
After mass shootings , a sudden drop can be seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sociology David Yamane shares Lott ’ s belief that inaccurate polling systematically underestimates gun ownership in the U.S .
In a 2019 piece titled “ Why Surveys Underestimate Gun Ownership Rates in the U.S. , ” Yamane laid out the case for systematic underreporting and provided a bevy of reasons why gun owners would be reluctant to be truthful with pollsters .
The professor noted , “ My educated guess is that the underestimate is at least 10 % , that 25 % would not be an unreasonable amount , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not surprised that support for gun control has fallen this year , according to Gallup .
After all , we ’ ve seen record-high levels of firearm sales since March , and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that as many as 7-million Americans have become gun owners this year .
I would expect support for more gun laws to decline , particularly since hundreds of thousands of Americans are currently caught up in long delays for their own concealed carry license or gun permit .
I ’ m just wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even lower than what Gallup has found .
If polls on gun ownership rates are off by as much as 25 % , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if polling on new gun laws are also skewed to a similar degree .
Gallup may have accurately picked up a drop in support for gun control , but I suspect the decline is even steeper than what the polling outfit found .

Americans’ appetite for gun control is waning, according to a new survey by the Gallup organization, which found support for new gun laws at the lowest level since 2016.
According to the polling group, support for gun control is down seven points compared to 2019, and ten points compared to polling from 2018.
In the absence of a high-profile mass shooting in the U.S. in 2020 and amid the coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest related to racial justice issues and the contentious presidential election campaign, Americans are less likely than they have been since 2016 to call for increased gun control. The latest majority (57%) in the U.S. who call for stricter laws covering the sale of firearms marks a seven-percentage-point decline since last year. At the same time, 34% of U.S. adults prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 9% would like them to be less strict. Gallup has been tracking the public’s views on this measure since 1990, when a record-high 78% of Americans supported stricter laws for gun sales as the nation’s crime rate was rising. A majority of Americans held that position until 2008. Support then fell to a low of 43% in 2011, when an equal number said gun laws should be kept as is, but calls for stricter laws increased sharply to 58% in 2012 after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Of course, after the polling industry’s misfire in the 2020 election cycle, I think it’s fair to wonder if Gallup’s polling isn’t suffering from some of the same issues that we saw from other firms polling the presidential and congressional races; namely an undersampling of gun owners and pro-2A respondents who may be reluctant to tell pollsters their true views on gun issues.
As NRA-ILA recently pointed out:
Economist John Lott contends that many Americans refuse to answer or do not answer truthfully when asked about whether they own a firearm. In a piece for Fox News, Lott noted “current events influence people’s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership. After mass shootings, a sudden drop can be seen in the polling numbers.” Wake Forest Professor of Sociology David Yamane shares Lott’s belief that inaccurate polling systematically underestimates gun ownership in the U.S. In a 2019 piece titled “Why Surveys Underestimate Gun Ownership Rates in the U.S.,”Yamane laid out the case for systematic underreporting and provided a bevy of reasons why gun owners would be reluctant to be truthful with pollsters. The professor noted, “My educated guess is that the underestimate is at least 10%, that 25% would not be an unreasonable amount, and more than 25% is likely.”
I’m not surprised that support for gun control has fallen this year, according to Gallup. After all, we’ve seen record-high levels of firearm sales since March, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that as many as 7-million Americans have become gun owners this year. I would expect support for more gun laws to decline, particularly since hundreds of thousands of Americans are currently caught up in long delays for their own concealed carry license or gun permit.
I’m just wondering if support for new gun laws isn’t even lower than what Gallup has found. If polls on gun ownership rates are off by as much as 25%, I wouldn’t be surprised if polling on new gun laws are also skewed to a similar degree. Gallup may have accurately picked up a drop in support for gun control, but I suspect the decline is even steeper than what the polling outfit found.