bearingarms--2020-01-09--Bloomberg Visits Virginia, Scolds Gun Owners

Former New York mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg was in Richmond , Virginia as the state legislative session kicked off on Wednesday .
Bloomberg , who spent millions in the state backing anti-gun candidates in the 2019 elections , used his time in the Old Dominion to scold gun owners for the Second Amendment Sanctuary push in the state , and to urge them to urge them to turn in their guns to local police .
The debate on gun control in Virginia and around the country has focused in particular on assault-style rifles like AR-15s that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some initial pieces of Virginia legislation filed by Democrats that would outlaw AR-15-style rifles have not included any “ grandfather ” clauses allowing current owners of the popular rifle to keep them .
But Northam and other top Democrats in Virginia have said they don ’ t want to confiscate guns .
And Bloomberg said Tuesday such a plan isn ’ t feasible .
“ It ’ s probably impossible to get all of those back .
One can only hope that when people see the damage they can cause , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ ll decide to just take them to the local police station and say , ‘ Please , get rid of this , ’ ” Bloomberg said .
It sounds like the only objection Bloomberg has stated to gun confiscation is that it isn ’ t feasible .
Of course that isn ’ t stopping him or his pal Ralph Northam from pushing legislation that would ban the continued possession of commonly owned firearms , ammunition magazines , and legally owned suppressors .
How feasible is it to turn 80 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state into prohibited items ?
How feasible is it to turn every gun owner who possesses a 17 or 20-round magazine into a felon ?
Bloomberg and the anti-gun lawmakers he funded are absolutely trying to take away people ’ s handguns , rifles , and shotguns ( at least those that meet Northam ’ s definition of “ assault firearms ” ) if they don ’ t register them with the state of Virginia .
They ’ re demanding people get rid of their legally owned ammunition magazines and suppressors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ away the right to purchase these items in the future .
Is it really a right if I ’ m “ allowed ” to keep my AR-15 , but someone who wants to buy that exact same rifle in August of this year will be told it ’ s illegal for them to do so ?
Of course not .
They ’ re turning the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege .
Even as Bloomberg was wagging his finger at Virginia gun owners on Wednesday , supervisors in Highland County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment Sanctuary resolution .
As the VCDL notes , that makes the county the 118th “ Second Amendment Sanctuary ” in the state .
Fully 96 % of the counties in Virginia have now adopted similar resolutions , which tells me that Bloomberg ’ s scolding of Second Amendment supporters is falling on deaf ears .

Former New York mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg was in Richmond, Virginia as the state legislative session kicked off on Wednesday. Bloomberg, who spent millions in the state backing anti-gun candidates in the 2019 elections, used his time in the Old Dominion to scold gun owners for the Second Amendment Sanctuary push in the state, and to urge them to urge them to turn in their guns to local police.
The debate on gun control in Virginia and around the country has focused in particular on assault-style rifles like AR-15s that have been used in mass shootings. Some initial pieces of Virginia legislation filed by Democrats that would outlaw AR-15-style rifles have not included any “grandfather” clauses allowing current owners of the popular rifle to keep them. But Northam and other top Democrats in Virginia have said they don’t want to confiscate guns. And Bloomberg said Tuesday such a plan isn’t feasible. “It’s probably impossible to get all of those back. One can only hope that when people see the damage they can cause, and the danger of having them in their houses, they’ll decide to just take them to the local police station and say, ‘Please, get rid of this,’” Bloomberg said.
It sounds like the only objection Bloomberg has stated to gun confiscation is that it isn’t feasible. Of course that isn’t stopping him or his pal Ralph Northam from pushing legislation that would ban the continued possession of commonly owned firearms, ammunition magazines, and legally owned suppressors. How feasible is it to turn 80% or more of the ammunition magazines in the state into prohibited items? How feasible is it to turn every gun owner who possesses a 17 or 20-round magazine into a felon?
“Nobody’s trying to take away anybody’s handguns … or rifles or shotguns,” Bloomberg said. “What we’re trying to do is have sensible gun regulations.”
Bloomberg and the anti-gun lawmakers he funded are absolutely trying to take away people’s handguns, rifles, and shotguns (at least those that meet Northam’s definition of “assault firearms”) if they don’t register them with the state of Virginia. They’re demanding people get rid of their legally owned ammunition magazines and suppressors. They’re also trying to take away the right to purchase these items in the future. Is it really a right if I’m “allowed” to keep my AR-15, but someone who wants to buy that exact same rifle in August of this year will be told it’s illegal for them to do so? Of course not. They’re turning the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege.
Even as Bloomberg was wagging his finger at Virginia gun owners on Wednesday, supervisors in Highland County, Virginia were busy approving a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution. As the VCDL notes, that makes the county the 118th “Second Amendment Sanctuary” in the state. Fully 96% of the counties in Virginia have now adopted similar resolutions, which tells me that Bloomberg’s scolding of Second Amendment supporters is falling on deaf ears.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Hawaii Gun Group Fires Back Over Proposed 5-Round Limit

Most of the time , when we see someone talk about a round capacity limit , the number generally thrown around is 10 rounds .
That ’ s kind of the standard in gun control circles , though we all know their preferred round capacity is “ zero.
” Still , 10 rounds isn ’ t as bad as it could be .
You can still do a fair bit with 10 rounds , even if there ’ s no reason one should be restricted in any way , shape , or form .
Yet it seems that the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taking hold in Hawaii .
The Hawaii Firearms Coalition , a non-partisan gun rights group in the Aloha State , met earlier this month with state Rep. Gregg Takayama , chair of the important Public Safety , Veterans , & Military Affairs Committee in the Hawaii House of Representatives .
The reason for meeting with Takayama , a Democrat , is that his committee frequently hears gun bills first .
What the HFC found out was that an updated magazine restriction will soon be on the table in the state .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number will be , Representative Gregg Takayama gave the impression that the starting point would be five rounds , ” said the HFC via social media .
“ This would not only significantly reduce the number of rounds in rifles , but would also reduce the number of rounds allowed in pistols by 50 percent.
” The group explains that Honolulu Police Department Chief Susan Ballard has been working with Takayama for a reduced magazine capacity law .
Keep in mind that this is the same chief that used the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical marijuana license turn in their guns .
A friend of gun owners , Chief Ballard ain ’ t .
Here ’ s the problem , though .
There ’ s no real evidence that reduced round capacities has any real impact on public safety .
The closest you ’ ll find is a study that tried to claim it reduced the death toll of mass shootings , but that study was horribly flawed on every level .
That ’ s probably because bad guys either completely ignore the ban and use higher-capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two people at a time , thus giving them plenty of ammo for what they ’ re trying to do .
It ’ s the law-abiding citizen who may find themselves facing multiple attackers and needing a whole lot more than 10 rounds .
And these nimrods are considering cutting that to just five rounds ?
Hell , that would render most revolvers as having too high of a capacity to be legally carried .
I ’ m sorry , but that ’ s beyond ridiculous .
Right now , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s important that we all keep a close eye on this .
The five-round limit was first floated in Oregon a year or two back and it likely will continue to spread out as a proposal .
Remember that gun control bills are like a virus .
They take hold in one place , then spread out from there .
Passage isn ’ t even required for them to spread .
So , we all need to help our brothers and sister in Hawaii oppose these measures while also keeping a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gun grabbers .
Let ’ s make damn sure this idea ends up relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas that never went anywhere .

Most of the time, when we see someone talk about a round capacity limit, the number generally thrown around is 10 rounds. That’s kind of the standard in gun control circles, though we all know their preferred round capacity is “zero.” Still, 10 rounds isn’t as bad as it could be. You can still do a fair bit with 10 rounds, even if there’s no reason one should be restricted in any way, shape, or form.
Yet it seems that the idea that 10 rounds is too many may be taking hold in Hawaii.
The Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a non-partisan gun rights group in the Aloha State, met earlier this month with state Rep. Gregg Takayama, chair of the important Public Safety, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee in the Hawaii House of Representatives. The reason for meeting with Takayama, a Democrat, is that his committee frequently hears gun bills first. What the HFC found out was that an updated magazine restriction will soon be on the table in the state. “Whilst it was unclear what the actual number will be, Representative Gregg Takayama gave the impression that the starting point would be five rounds,” said the HFC via social media. “This would not only significantly reduce the number of rounds in rifles, but would also reduce the number of rounds allowed in pistols by 50 percent.” The group explains that Honolulu Police Department Chief Susan Ballard has been working with Takayama for a reduced magazine capacity law.
Keep in mind that this is the same chief that used the state’s firearm registration to demand anyone with a medical marijuana license turn in their guns. A friend of gun owners, Chief Ballard ain’t.
Here’s the problem, though. There’s no real evidence that reduced round capacities has any real impact on public safety. The closest you’ll find is a study that tried to claim it reduced the death toll of mass shootings, but that study was horribly flawed on every level.
That’s probably because bad guys either completely ignore the ban and use higher-capacity magazines or because they simply target one or two people at a time, thus giving them plenty of ammo for what they’re trying to do. It’s the law-abiding citizen who may find themselves facing multiple attackers and needing a whole lot more than 10 rounds.
And these nimrods are considering cutting that to just five rounds?
Hell, that would render most revolvers as having too high of a capacity to be legally carried. I’m sorry, but that’s beyond ridiculous.
Right now, they’re only talking about it, but it’s important that we all keep a close eye on this. The five-round limit was first floated in Oregon a year or two back and it likely will continue to spread out as a proposal. Remember that gun control bills are like a virus. They take hold in one place, then spread out from there. Passage isn’t even required for them to spread.
Clearly.
So, we all need to help our brothers and sister in Hawaii oppose these measures while also keeping a watchful eye on our own state’s gun grabbers. Let’s make damn sure this idea ends up relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas that never went anywhere.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Northam Defends Proposed Gun Laws In Address To Lawmakers

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam addressed the state ’ s legislators in the annual State of the Commonwealth speech Wednesday evening , using his remarks to defend his gun control agenda and to swipe at Second Amendment Sanctuary supporters .
This issue generates great emotion .
But the facts are the facts , and I want Virginians to know the facts .
Gun violence takes the lives of more than one thousand Virginians every year .
Three people every day .
At that rate , everyone on the floor of this Chamber would be gone by March .
These are mothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends , and little children .
Virginians have had enough of the vigils and the funerals , enough of the mourning .
They made that clear at the ballot box .
And unfortunately , Governor , when other states have implemented your proposals , they ’ ve seen their crime rates skyrocket and suicide rates have increased .
Virginians may have had enough of the violence , but the laws you proposing have resulted in more funerals , vigils , and mourning .
Instead of doing something that works , you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the establishment of a backdoor registry , added fees that will fall disproportionately on lower-income Virginians , rules that would turn lawful transfers into felonies , and the fact that criminals who acquire their guns on the black market won ’ t pay any attention to this law , sure , Virginians have nothing to worry about with “ universal background check ” laws .
Let ’ s be really clear : the Supreme Court hasn ’ t given the green light to any of Northam ’ s proposals .
Other states may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , and they ’ re also facing court fights .
California and New Jersey ’ s versions of Northam ’ s magazine ban , for example , are currently being litigated in the 9th and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal , for instance .
As this discussion begins , let ’ s have an honest conversation based on fact , not fear .
We will engage in civil dialogue .
I ask all Virginians to refrain from promoting fear and intimidation .
I want to reiterate : This common-sense legislation does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is calling out the National Guard .
No one is cutting off your electricity , or turning off the Internet .
No one is going door-to-door to confiscate guns .
These laws are intended to keep Virginians safe .
Period .
It ’ s time to act .
Here are the facts .
Ralph Northam is proposing legislation that would turn Virginians into felons for continuing to possess legally acquired ammunition magazines and suppressors .
He ’ s backing bills that would force Virginia gun owners to register themselves and their so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or else become a felon .
He supports legislation that would deprive Virginians of their constitutional rights without due process .
His focus is on restricting the rights of legal gun owners in the state , not on the violent criminals driving homicides and violence in Richmond , Petersburg , Norfolk , and Virginia Beach .
I too believe we need an honest and civil conversation about the governor ’ s proposed gun laws .
That ’ s why I ’ m asking him to join me for a special Bearing Arms ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , how they would be enforced , and the staggering grassroots opposition that we ’ ve seen spring up across Virginia in reaction to his plans .
Are you ready to have a real conversation with a Virginia gun owner , Governor Northam ?
Then let ’ s talk ; unedited , uncensored , and unfiltered .

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam addressed the state’s legislators in the annual State of the Commonwealth speech Wednesday evening, using his remarks to defend his gun control agenda and to swipe at Second Amendment Sanctuary supporters.
This issue generates great emotion. But the facts are the facts, and I want Virginians to know the facts. Gun violence takes the lives of more than one thousand Virginians every year. Three people every day. At that rate, everyone on the floor of this Chamber would be gone by March. These are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends, and little children. Virginians have had enough of the vigils and the funerals, enough of the mourning. They made that clear at the ballot box.
And unfortunately, Governor, when other states have implemented your proposals, they’ve seen their crime rates skyrocket and suicide rates have increased. Virginians may have had enough of the violence, but the laws you proposing have resulted in more funerals, vigils, and mourning. Instead of doing something that works, you’re just “doing something.”
So we are back, with eight common-sense measures to keep dangerous persons away from firearms. If you have demonstrated extreme risk of violence, or there’s a protective order against you, you shouldn’t have a firearm. This means universal background checks. If there’s nothing in your record, you have nothing to worry about.
Other than the establishment of a backdoor registry, added fees that will fall disproportionately on lower-income Virginians, rules that would turn lawful transfers into felonies, and the fact that criminals who acquire their guns on the black market won’t pay any attention to this law, sure, Virginians have nothing to worry about with “universal background check” laws.
Let’s be clear. This is all fully consistent with the Second Amendment. Every one of these proposals has passed constitutional muster. Other states have passed them into law. They were drafted by your own attorneys at Legislative Services, and teams of lawyers have reviewed them.
Let’s be really clear: the Supreme Court hasn’t given the green light to any of Northam’s proposals. Other states may have passed some of his measures into law, and they’re also facing court fights. California and New Jersey’s versions of Northam’s magazine ban, for example, are currently being litigated in the 9th and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal, for instance.
As this discussion begins, let’s have an honest conversation based on fact, not fear. We will engage in civil dialogue. I ask all Virginians to refrain from promoting fear and intimidation. I want to reiterate: This common-sense legislation does not violate the Second Amendment. No one is calling out the National Guard. No one is cutting off your electricity, or turning off the Internet. No one is going door-to-door to confiscate guns. These laws are intended to keep Virginians safe. Period. It’s time to act.
Here are the facts. Ralph Northam is proposing legislation that would turn Virginians into felons for continuing to possess legally acquired ammunition magazines and suppressors. He’s backing bills that would force Virginia gun owners to register themselves and their so-called “assault firearms” with the State, or else become a felon. He supports legislation that would deprive Virginians of their constitutional rights without due process. His focus is on restricting the rights of legal gun owners in the state, not on the violent criminals driving homicides and violence in Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach.
I too believe we need an honest and civil conversation about the governor’s proposed gun laws. That’s why I’m asking him to join me for a special Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss his proposals, how they would be enforced, and the staggering grassroots opposition that we’ve seen spring up across Virginia in reaction to his plans.
Are you ready to have a real conversation with a Virginia gun owner, Governor Northam? Then let’s talk; unedited, uncensored, and unfiltered.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Does Elizabeth Warren Prefer Dead People To Armed Citizens?

Elizabeth Warren , for a time , looked like a real contender for the Democratic nomination later this year .
However , her campaign has kind of fizzled out a bit since October when she briefly took the lead in the polls .
She ’ s still a lock on third place , though , which isn ’ t an awful place to be this far out from the meat of the race .
One of the things we ’ re don ’ t expect from anyone in the race , however , is for them to answer positively about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little lip service to the Second Amendment just before the push some policy that would gut it , but we don ’ t actually expect them to be legitimately supportive of it .
What we don ’ t expect , though , is for their anti-gun mentality to be so all-encompassing that they admit to preferring dead people to armed citizens , yet that ’ s what Elizabeth Warren basically did .
During a question and answer period , she was asked if she supported a universal concealed carry by licensed individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events in White Settlement .
She went on to claim that there ’ s no data to suggest that universal concealed carry makes us any safer .
Watch the whole thing for yourself .
Of course , she ’ s not wrong about the data .
There isn ’ t any that says universal concealed carry makes us safer , but that ’ s because there is no universal concealed carry .
You can ’ t accumulate data when data on a thing when it doesn ’ t exist .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s not true .
However , we have plenty of data suggesting that concealed carry , in general , makes us safer , including the fact that as conceal carry took hold in this country , we started to see the high violent crime rates begin to decrease .
John Lott has accumulated a mountain of data about how more guns equals less crime , but Warren and her ilk don ’ t want to see it .
Then there ’ s the very simple fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is quick to claim that the problem was someone could take a gun into a church , but she ’ s an even bigger idiot than I thought if she honestly thinks there ’ s a law out there that would have stopped that shooter from carrying that shotgun in that church .
If laws against murder didn ’ t deter him , then nothing else would .
What saved lives were armed citizens , something Warren makes very clear she opposes .
In other words , Senator Elizabeth Warren , candidate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead Americans to live ones if living people means someone was able to carry a gun .
She is perfectly OK with you and yours being gunned down in church , in a movie theater , in a school , or anywhere else on the planet so long as it also means no one was able to carry a gun to protect themselves .
The date on this video is January 2nd , but I just saw it .
Frankly , I ’ m glad I didn ’ t see it earlier because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No , I wouldn ’ t have expected her to come out in support of concealed carry .
That was never going to happen and we all know it .
What I expected , though , was a bit of lip service and political tapdancing to at least acknowledge that a good guy with a gun did , indeed , put an end to the threat to human life but then add some kind of caveat .
That ’ s what so many in the media have tried to do , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather see all of us gunned down if it also meant no one could carry a gun to protect themselves .
It seems to me that if she were to become president , she should refuse a Secret Service detail in that case…or do rules like that only apply to us peons ?

Elizabeth Warren, for a time, looked like a real contender for the Democratic nomination later this year. However, her campaign has kind of fizzled out a bit since October when she briefly took the lead in the polls. She’s still a lock on third place, though, which isn’t an awful place to be this far out from the meat of the race.
One of the things we’re don’t expect from anyone in the race, however, is for them to answer positively about gun rights. They might give a little lip service to the Second Amendment just before the push some policy that would gut it, but we don’t actually expect them to be legitimately supportive of it.
What we don’t expect, though, is for their anti-gun mentality to be so all-encompassing that they admit to preferring dead people to armed citizens, yet that’s what Elizabeth Warren basically did.
During a question and answer period, she was asked if she supported a universal concealed carry by licensed individuals who had passed a background check following the events in White Settlement.
Her answer? “No.”
She went on to claim that there’s no data to suggest that universal concealed carry makes us any safer.
Watch the whole thing for yourself.
Of course, she’s not wrong about the data. There isn’t any that says universal concealed carry makes us safer, but that’s because there is no universal concealed carry. You can’t accumulate data when data on a thing when it doesn’t exist. I’m not sure Warren knows that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
However, we have plenty of data suggesting that concealed carry, in general, makes us safer, including the fact that as conceal carry took hold in this country, we started to see the high violent crime rates begin to decrease. John Lott has accumulated a mountain of data about how more guns equals less crime, but Warren and her ilk don’t want to see it.
Then there’s the very simple fact that White Settlement even happened.
Warren is quick to claim that the problem was someone could take a gun into a church, but she’s an even bigger idiot than I thought if she honestly thinks there’s a law out there that would have stopped that shooter from carrying that shotgun in that church. If laws against murder didn’t deter him, then nothing else would.
What saved lives were armed citizens, something Warren makes very clear she opposes.
In other words, Senator Elizabeth Warren, candidate for president of the United States, prefers dead Americans to live ones if living people means someone was able to carry a gun. She is perfectly OK with you and yours being gunned down in church, in a movie theater, in a school, or anywhere else on the planet so long as it also means no one was able to carry a gun to protect themselves.
That’s cold and callous.
The date on this video is January 2nd, but I just saw it. Frankly, I’m glad I didn’t see it earlier because her response is outright disgusting to me.
No, I wouldn’t have expected her to come out in support of concealed carry. That was never going to happen and we all know it. What I expected, though, was a bit of lip service and political tapdancing to at least acknowledge that a good guy with a gun did, indeed, put an end to the threat to human life but then add some kind of caveat. That’s what so many in the media have tried to do, after all.
But no. Warren would rather see all of us gunned down if it also meant no one could carry a gun to protect themselves.
It seems to me that if she were to become president, she should refuse a Secret Service detail in that case…or do rules like that only apply to us peons?
Hat tip: Faithwire.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Spokane Sheriff's Office Offering Women's Self-Defense Class

While statistically , men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime , let ’ s not think that means women are somehow immune to violence .
The kind of violence that impacts them is far more personal and , frankly , terrifying .
Many of the men impacted by violence are , themselves , criminals while that doesn ’ t seem to hold true for women impacted by violence .
As such , it ’ s especially important for women to learn to protect themselves .
In Spokane , Washington , the sheriff ’ s department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help with that .
The hands-on course will be held on Saturday , February 8 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Sheriff ’ s Training Center in Newman Lake .
Sign ups are open now .
The classes have a limited amount of spots , and the Sheriff ’ s Office said they fill up fast .
To register , send an email to with the names and email addresses of all those attending .
The course will focus on deterrence , avoidance , and detection , which are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female over the age of 14 .
That , too , is good .
However , I ’ m also going to point out that those aren ’ t enough .
Don ’ t get me wrong , all three of those things are vitally important and they ’ re things too many of us simply don ’ t do .
The problem is that sometimes avoidance isn ’ t possible .
Sometimes deterrence does nothing .
Sometimes , detection is the least of your worries .
What do you do then ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these self-defense classes fall apart in my view .
They provide , at best , a limited toolbox and far too many women complete them feeling like they ’ re now experts on keeping themselves safe .
They ’ re not .
Instead , classes like these make a valid starting point , but all women ( and yeah , the vast majority of men as well ) need to also learn at least the fundamentals of combatives so they can fight back while unarmed .
They also need to work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that combatives are the least of their needs .
Get a gun , carry a gun , and know how to put a bad guy down if you don ’ t have one for some reason .
Those , unfortunately , are often lacking in these classes .
When they ’ re not , they ’ re rudimentary at best , which is fine as a starting point , but they only go so far .
My hope is that the Spokane Sheriff ’ s Office also tells these women to continue learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a primer at best but that they should seek out new learning opportunities to further develop their skills .
I don ’ t want anyone to think I ’ m down on this training .
I ’ m not .
What I ’ m down on , though , is the false sense of security I ’ ve seen these extremely limited classes give women who then figure they ’ re good to go .
Instead , I ’ d rather see these classes become a gateway toward real understanding in personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy guns , get carry permits , and learn how to take care of themselves in a more holistic and complete way .
Here ’ s hoping some of these women do .

While statistically, men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, let’s not think that means women are somehow immune to violence. The kind of violence that impacts them is far more personal and, frankly, terrifying. Many of the men impacted by violence are, themselves, criminals while that doesn’t seem to hold true for women impacted by violence.
As such, it’s especially important for women to learn to protect themselves.
In Spokane, Washington, the sheriff’s department is looking to do what they can to help with that.
The hands-on course will be held on Saturday, February 8 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Sheriff’s Training Center in Newman Lake. Sign ups are open now. The classes have a limited amount of spots, and the Sheriff’s Office said they fill up fast. To register, send an email to [email protected] with the names and email addresses of all those attending.
The course will focus on deterrence, avoidance, and detection, which are all good things and is open for any female over the age of 14. That, too, is good.
However, I’m also going to point out that those aren’t enough.
Don’t get me wrong, all three of those things are vitally important and they’re things too many of us simply don’t do. The problem is that sometimes avoidance isn’t possible. Sometimes deterrence does nothing. Sometimes, detection is the least of your worries.
What do you do then?
That is, unfortunately, where many of these self-defense classes fall apart in my view. They provide, at best, a limited toolbox and far too many women complete them feeling like they’re now experts on keeping themselves safe. They’re not.
Instead, classes like these make a valid starting point, but all women (and yeah, the vast majority of men as well) need to also learn at least the fundamentals of combatives so they can fight back while unarmed. They also need to work to make sure they’re armed so that combatives are the least of their needs. Get a gun, carry a gun, and know how to put a bad guy down if you don’t have one for some reason.
Those, unfortunately, are often lacking in these classes. When they’re not, they’re rudimentary at best, which is fine as a starting point, but they only go so far.
My hope is that the Spokane Sheriff’s Office also tells these women to continue learning, that what they’re getting is a primer at best but that they should seek out new learning opportunities to further develop their skills.
I don’t want anyone to think I’m down on this training. I’m not. What I’m down on, though, is the false sense of security I’ve seen these extremely limited classes give women who then figure they’re good to go.
Instead, I’d rather see these classes become a gateway toward real understanding in personal defense. I want to see them buy guns, get carry permits, and learn how to take care of themselves in a more holistic and complete way.
Here’s hoping some of these women do.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--WA Gov Wants Gun, Mag Bans, And Ammo Background Checks

Washington Governor Jay Inslee is throwing his weight behind a package of gun control bills that could ban virtually every semi-automatic rifle sold in the United States , magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition , and a requirement that every sale of ammunition go through a background check .
According to the Kitsap Sun , the package has both Senate and House sponsors lined up , and with the governor ’ s backing , there will be a great deal of political pressure on rural Democrats to fall in line .
[ Attorney General Bob ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 10 rounds in Washington state .
The bill makes exceptions for law enforcement , military and recreational shooting ranges .
They also want to ban the sale of “ assault weapons , ” which are defined as semi-automatic guns that contain at least one military-style feature .
The measure allows for the possession of grandfathered weapons that were purchased before the effective date of the bill .
Sen. Patty Kuderer , D-Bellevue , will be the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate , and Rep. Javier Valdez , D-Seattle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ On banning the sale of assault weapons , I ’ ll be candid : It ’ s going to be a challenge , ” Ferguson said .
“ We ’ ve seen that the people are ahead of the politicians on this .
I ’ ll keep fighting for it , because it ’ s the right thing to do.
” Dave Workman with the Second Amendment Foundation points out that Washington State law already defines “ assault weapons , ” and any new legislation could conflict with existing law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The measure made it illegal for anyone under 21 years of age to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle .
It defined these weapons as any rifle that reloads after firing a round when the trigger is pulled , as opposed to a gun that requires the person to open and close a bolt to reload .
Workman said that definition covers every semi-automatic rifle that ’ s ever been manufactured .
“ You press the trigger , the action cycles , slides a new round into the chamber and you ’ re ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ It applies to millions of guns.
” Backers of the initiative appeared to be targeting guns that look like military weapons , he said , but instead they swept in most guns out there .
“ They function like grandpa ’ s old shotgun , ” he said .
Any new legislation involving assault weapons will be impacted by what Workman said was a flawed definition .
In addition to the sweeping gun and magazine bans , Inslee and AG Ferguson are both backing a law that would require background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only state in the country with such a law on the books , and it ’ s been an utter disaster , as Ryan Sabelow of the Sacramento Bee recently reported .
Tens of thousands of legal gun owners have been denied or delayed in purchasing ammunition , while only about 100 or so prohibited persons have been prevented from acquiring ammunition through a retail establishment .
Now Governor Jay Inslee wants to put this same broken system in place in Washington State .
None of these bills would do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the Second Amendment into a legal fiction ; a privilege instead of a right .
At least 20 county sheriffs have already vowed not to enforce some provisions of Washington State ’ s anti-gun referendum I-1639 , which passed in 2019 .
I ’ m guessing these sheriffs will be weighing in on Inslee ’ s new proposals in the not-too-distant future .

Washington Governor Jay Inslee is throwing his weight behind a package of gun control bills that could ban virtually every semi-automatic rifle sold in the United States, magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, and a requirement that every sale of ammunition go through a background check.
According to the Kitsap Sun, the package has both Senate and House sponsors lined up, and with the governor’s backing, there will be a great deal of political pressure on rural Democrats to fall in line.
[Attorney General Bob] Ferguson and Inslee want to limit magazines to 10 rounds in Washington state. The bill makes exceptions for law enforcement, military and recreational shooting ranges. They also want to ban the sale of “assault weapons,” which are defined as semi-automatic guns that contain at least one military-style feature. The measure allows for the possession of grandfathered weapons that were purchased before the effective date of the bill. Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue, will be the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate, and Rep. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, will carry the measure in the House. “On banning the sale of assault weapons, I’ll be candid: It’s going to be a challenge,” Ferguson said. “We’ve seen that the people are ahead of the politicians on this. I’ll keep fighting for it, because it’s the right thing to do.”
Dave Workman with the Second Amendment Foundation points out that Washington State law already defines “assault weapons,” and any new legislation could conflict with existing law.
Washington passed Initiative 1639 in 2018. The measure made it illegal for anyone under 21 years of age to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle. It defined these weapons as any rifle that reloads after firing a round when the trigger is pulled, as opposed to a gun that requires the person to open and close a bolt to reload. Workman said that definition covers every semi-automatic rifle that’s ever been manufactured. “You press the trigger, the action cycles, slides a new round into the chamber and you’re ready to go bang again,” he said. “It applies to millions of guns.” Backers of the initiative appeared to be targeting guns that look like military weapons, he said, but instead they swept in most guns out there. “They function like grandpa’s old shotgun,” he said. Any new legislation involving assault weapons will be impacted by what Workman said was a flawed definition.
In addition to the sweeping gun and magazine bans, Inslee and AG Ferguson are both backing a law that would require background checks on all ammunition sales. California is the only state in the country with such a law on the books, and it’s been an utter disaster, as Ryan Sabelow of the Sacramento Bee recently reported. Tens of thousands of legal gun owners have been denied or delayed in purchasing ammunition, while only about 100 or so prohibited persons have been prevented from acquiring ammunition through a retail establishment.
Now Governor Jay Inslee wants to put this same broken system in place in Washington State. None of these bills would do anything to make Washington safer, but would turn the Second Amendment into a legal fiction; a privilege instead of a right.
At least 20 county sheriffs have already vowed not to enforce some provisions of Washington State’s anti-gun referendum I-1639, which passed in 2019. I’m guessing these sheriffs will be weighing in on Inslee’s new proposals in the not-too-distant future.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--D.C. Mayor Wants VA Gun Control, But It Won't Help Her City

High-crime areas often look to place the blame in other regions .
This is especially true when the high-crime areas also boast a great deal of gun control .
Chicago likes to blame Indiana , for example , because Illinois gun laws aren ’ t stopping bad guys from getting guns .
Nevermind that most of those guns are coming off the black market , they still like to blame those pro-gun regions because it makes them look less ineffective .
In Washington , D.C. , it ’ s normal to blame Virginia for their crime problems .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and the mayor of D.C. is hoping they ’ ll pass all the gun control .
Of course , she fails to note whether those were lawful sales or simply where the guns originated .
Then again , she ’ s also failing to understand that if criminals don ’ t get their guns from Virginia , they ’ ll get them from somewhere else instead .
The origins of the guns is not the same thing as the origins of the violence itself .
The District of Columbia has a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a lot of poverty , gang activity , and a host of other issues that seem out of place when you consider the version of D.C. the average tourist sees .
It ’ s a rough town , even if you never set foot inside the political arena .
Until Bowser and her fellow D.C. officials address that , nothing is going to improve .
It doesn ’ t matter what Virginia does , none of that will have any impact on the crime in the city .
Don ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They almost completely removed guns from consideration and guess what happened ?
Violent crime continued to rise .
The bad guys just used knives instead .
At the end of the day , though , violence is violence .
If you want to end it , stop pretending the weapon is to blame .
Look at other factors and undermine the mindset that leads to violence in the first place .
There are ways to at least try to combat violence .
Will Washington officials have the fortitude to even try ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia for their failures like they have in years past ?

High-crime areas often look to place the blame in other regions. This is especially true when the high-crime areas also boast a great deal of gun control. Chicago likes to blame Indiana, for example, because Illinois gun laws aren’t stopping bad guys from getting guns. Nevermind that most of those guns are coming off the black market, they still like to blame those pro-gun regions because it makes them look less ineffective.
In Washington, D.C., it’s normal to blame Virginia for their crime problems.
Now, though, Democrats have control of the state and the mayor of D.C. is hoping they’ll pass all the gun control.
D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) waded into Virginia politics Wednesday as she urged fellow Democratic leaders, newly in control of the state legislature, to follow through on promises to pass gun-control measures to help her city combat surging violent crime. In a letter to Virginia House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax) and Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), Bowser named Virginia as a primary source state for guns used in city crimes. Last year, D.C. police reported 166 homicides, the highest death toll in a decade. Bowser said that, according to statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, about 41 percent of guns recovered from crimes in the District in 2018 have been traced to Virginia. In 2018, law enforcement agencies recovered a total of 2,095 guns, and ATF traced 599 that were purchased in Virginia, according to ATF statistics the mayor cited in her letter.
Of course, she fails to note whether those were lawful sales or simply where the guns originated.
Then again, she’s also failing to understand that if criminals don’t get their guns from Virginia, they’ll get them from somewhere else instead. The origins of the guns is not the same thing as the origins of the violence itself.
The District of Columbia has a lot of problems. In particular, it has a lot of poverty, gang activity, and a host of other issues that seem out of place when you consider the version of D.C. the average tourist sees. It’s a rough town, even if you never set foot inside the political arena.
Until Bowser and her fellow D.C. officials address that, nothing is going to improve. It doesn’t matter what Virginia does, none of that will have any impact on the crime in the city.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at London. They almost completely removed guns from consideration and guess what happened? Violent crime continued to rise. The bad guys just used knives instead.
At the end of the day, though, violence is violence.
If you want to end it, stop pretending the weapon is to blame. Look at other factors and undermine the mindset that leads to violence in the first place. There are ways to at least try to combat violence. Will Washington officials have the fortitude to even try? Or are they hoping to continue blaming Virginia for their failures like they have in years past?


bearingarms--2020-01-10--VA Dems Declare State Capitol A Gun-Free Zone

On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co .
I speak with Phillip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League about the upcoming Lobby Day on January 20th , which looks to be a gathering of epic proportions in Virginia political history .
Van Cleave says more than 100 buses have been chartered to bring Second Amendment supporters to the statehouse , including several from out of state .
Unfortunately , I have to tell you that at least some of our interview is already out of date , because shortly after Van Cleave and I spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shameful exercise in cowardice and dishonesty , Virginia Democrats passed their first gun ban of 2020 : a total ban on firearms at the state capitol and office buildings .
And according to the Richmond-Times Dispatch , Governor Ralph Northam is likely going to extend the gun ban to the capitol grounds .
Democrats today apparently claimed that they were doing so at the request of the Capitol Police .
Outside of the committee room where a joint committee of state senators and delegates were imposing the ban , however , the Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers that they did not request that the state capitol be declared off limits to lawfully owned firearms .
Even worse , Democrats apparently claimed that they were doing so at the request of the Capitol Police .
Outside of the committee room where a joint committee of state senators and delegates were imposing the ban , however , the Capitol Police were telling the press and other lawmakers that they did not request that the state capitol be declared off limits to lawfully owned firearms .
Garren Shipley works for the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room as the vote took place .
He says Republican lawmakers were unaware of the proposed gun ban until the meeting actually convened , and were given no advance notice by their Democrat counterparts now in the majority .
Now , it ’ s important to note that , despite the fact that the request did not originate with the Capitol Police , Col. Anthony Pike , who is in charge of the force , told Democrats on the committee that he could support the measure .
Republicans on the joint legislative committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our focus here is to keep everybody safe , ” said House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn .
“ These are policies and rules that should have passed a long , long time ago.
” Public officials have expressed concerns about planned Jan. 20 rallies that are set to draw huge crowds of pro-gun and gun-control advocates .
Gun advocates from around Virginia and even out of state have pledged to turn out in force to highlight their resistance to proposed gun-control measures .
Republicans have voiced opposition to banning guns at the Capitol and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the legislature .
“ I feel this egregious , I think it ’ s an overreach.
” said Del .
Terry Austin .
Shortly after the hearing concluded , the Republican caucus issued the following statement : With less than 24 hours notice , House and Senate Democrats today overturned more than a decade of policy and voted to ban all firearms from the Capitol and office buildings .
This measure includes the general public , concealed carry permit holders , and General Assembly members .
Law abiding citizens with valid concealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring their lawful firearms into these facilities .
Not only did the vote take place with little notice and no public distribution of the policy ahead of time , it was done in a meeting that was not broadcast to the public like other committee meetings .
House Democrats expressly stated that the policy was adopted at the request of the Capitol Police , which appears to be categorically untrue .
Republican Leader Todd Gilbert issued the following statement : “ Democrats have long made it clear they wanted to ban firearms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not surprising .
But for Democrats to intentionally misrepresent that they were introducing the policy at the request of Capitol Police is disgusting and wrong .
“ Democrats hold majorities in both chambers and can pass whatever policy they wish .
However , today ’ s action will ensure this policy takes effect without a vote from the vast majority of legislators .
Democrats want to ban guns , but not enough to stand up and take responsibility for their own policy .
“ Furthermore , hiding behind the honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Through their underhanded maneuvers Democrats have already made it clear that they ’ ll do whatever it takes to implement their agenda , including making major policy changes with no notice and little debate.
“ This is such a dumb thing for Democrats to do .
There ’ ve been virtually no problems at the state capitol involving legal gun owners lawfully carrying , but yet the first thing Democrats do when they gain power is to declare the statehouse a gun-free zone .
It ’ s a political move designed to please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I suspect it will work in both respects .

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. I speak with Phillip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League about the upcoming Lobby Day on January 20th, which looks to be a gathering of epic proportions in Virginia political history. Van Cleave says more than 100 buses have been chartered to bring Second Amendment supporters to the statehouse, including several from out of state.
Unfortunately, I have to tell you that at least some of our interview is already out of date, because shortly after Van Cleave and I spoke, in what appears to be a shameful exercise in cowardice and dishonesty, Virginia Democrats passed their first gun ban of 2020: a total ban on firearms at the state capitol and office buildings. And according to the Richmond-Times Dispatch, Governor Ralph Northam is likely going to extend the gun ban to the capitol grounds.
Asked whether Gov. Ralph Northam plans to issue an order restricting possession of firearms on Capitol grounds, spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement: “The governor is reviewing options in coordination with law enforcement, legislator, and in light of incoming intelligence. His top priority is keeping Virginians safe.”
Democrats today apparently claimed that they were doing so at the request of the Capitol Police. Outside of the committee room where a joint committee of state senators and delegates were imposing the ban, however, the Capitol Police were telling the press and other lawmakers that they did not request that the state capitol be declared off limits to lawfully owned firearms.
Even worse, Democrats apparently claimed that they were doing so at the request of the Capitol Police. Outside of the committee room where a joint committee of state senators and delegates were imposing the ban, however, the Capitol Police were telling the press and other lawmakers that they did not request that the state capitol be declared off limits to lawfully owned firearms.
What just happened? Dems pushed through complete Capitol gun ban, said Capitol Police asked for it. Capitol Police told members, press they did NOT. If they want to ban guns, do it. Don't hide behind someone else. — Garren Shipley (@GarrenShipley) January 10, 2020
Garren Shipley works for the House GOP Caucus, and was in the room as the vote took place. He says Republican lawmakers were unaware of the proposed gun ban until the meeting actually convened, and were given no advance notice by their Democrat counterparts now in the majority.
Gun policy given to members AT THE TABLE.
Members told they were on the committee less than a DAY before the meeting.
Transparency is a hell of a drug. #VAleg — Garren Shipley (@GarrenShipley) January 10, 2020
Now, it’s important to note that, despite the fact that the request did not originate with the Capitol Police, Col. Anthony Pike, who is in charge of the force, told Democrats on the committee that he could support the measure.
Republicans on the joint legislative committee, however, could not.
“Our focus here is to keep everybody safe,” said House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn. “These are policies and rules that should have passed a long, long time ago.” Public officials have expressed concerns about planned Jan. 20 rallies that are set to draw huge crowds of pro-gun and gun-control advocates. Gun advocates from around Virginia and even out of state have pledged to turn out in force to highlight their resistance to proposed gun-control measures. Republicans have voiced opposition to banning guns at the Capitol and some GOP lawmakers routinely carry guns while at the legislature. “I feel this egregious, I think it’s an overreach.” said Del. Terry Austin.
Shortly after the hearing concluded, the Republican caucus issued the following statement:
With less than 24 hours notice, House and Senate Democrats today overturned more than a decade of policy and voted to ban all firearms from the Capitol and office buildings. This measure includes the general public, concealed carry permit holders, and General Assembly members. Law abiding citizens with valid concealed handgun permits have always been allowed to bring their lawful firearms into these facilities. Not only did the vote take place with little notice and no public distribution of the policy ahead of time, it was done in a meeting that was not broadcast to the public like other committee meetings. House Democrats expressly stated that the policy was adopted at the request of the Capitol Police, which appears to be categorically untrue. Republican Leader Todd Gilbert issued the following statement: “Democrats have long made it clear they wanted to ban firearms in the Capitol and legislative office buildings. That’s not surprising. But for Democrats to intentionally misrepresent that they were introducing the policy at the request of Capitol Police is disgusting and wrong. “Democrats hold majorities in both chambers and can pass whatever policy they wish. However, today’s action will ensure this policy takes effect without a vote from the vast majority of legislators. Democrats want to ban guns, but not enough to stand up and take responsibility for their own policy. “Furthermore, hiding behind the honor of our Capitol Police is cowardly. Through their underhanded maneuvers Democrats have already made it clear that they’ll do whatever it takes to implement their agenda, including making major policy changes with no notice and little debate.“
This is such a dumb thing for Democrats to do. There’ve been virtually no problems at the state capitol involving legal gun owners lawfully carrying, but yet the first thing Democrats do when they gain power is to declare the statehouse a gun-free zone. It’s a political move designed to please their base and annoy gun owners, and I suspect it will work in both respects.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--New IL Gun Rules Technically Filed, But Still Not Published

They say that ignorance of the law is no defense , and I get why they say that .
Otherwise , everyone breaking the law would simply say they didn ’ t know they were breaking the law .
“ What ?
It ’ s illegal to stab your ex-boyfriend 34 times ?
I had no idea.
” Of course , sometime that defense wouldn ’ t fly even if it were allowed , but a lot of times it would .
Yes , even if people probably did know it was illegal .
Reasonable doubt and all that jazz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an exception for when the rules that went into effect last week still haven ’ t been published where anyone can read them .
Illinois gun dealers will get details about new state rules that were supposed to take effect a week ago , but were only just filed by the Illinois State Police .
When the Illinois Firearms Dealer License Certification Act was signed last year some aspects were to take effect Jan. 2 , but the rules weren ’ t finalized .
A state police official said those rules were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet been published by the Secretary of State ’ s Office .
“ They anticipate them being published next week , ” ISP Public Information Officer Sgt .
Christopher Watson said .
Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois Executive Director Todd Vandermyde said that was a problem .
“ Not every small business owner in the state looks to the Illinois Register and checks the Secretary of State ’ s publications every week whether or not they ’ re going to be impacted by something , ” Vandermyde said .
The rules he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and video surveillance .
“ There were well over 5,000 comments turned in opposing the rules that were filed and now a week after the rules were supposed to take effect they turn around and file some emergency rules , ” Vandermyde said .
Now , my general position is never to ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to incompetence .
This is probably a case of the state just dropping the ball .
However , the tin-foil hat-wearing part of my brain is also wondering if this wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up gun stores .
After all , they ’ re not following the rules .
Granted , they ’ re rules they have no way of even knowing about , but ignorance of the law is no defense , right ?
The problem is that sometimes , ignorance of the law needs to be a completely valid defense , especially when the state is dropping the ball and moving goalposts like this .
It ’ s impossible to expect a small business owner–and that ’ s a term that describes the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every relevant website each and every single day to make sure they ’ re not running afoul of brand new regulations .
Post the rules when they ’ re supposed to be posted or give up the ability to bust gun stores for not following them for at least a year .
Frankly , I don ’ t think Illinois actually gives a damn .
They don ’ t want their citizens buying guns anyway , so why would they want to take it easy on gun stores ?
At least , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crams a lawsuit where the sun don ’ t shine .

They say that ignorance of the law is no defense, and I get why they say that. Otherwise, everyone breaking the law would simply say they didn’t know they were breaking the law. “What? It’s illegal to stab your ex-boyfriend 34 times? I had no idea.”
Of course, sometime that defense wouldn’t fly even if it were allowed, but a lot of times it would. Yes, even if people probably did know it was illegal. Reasonable doubt and all that jazz.
However, there also needs to be an exception for when the rules that went into effect last week still haven’t been published where anyone can read them.
Illinois gun dealers will get details about new state rules that were supposed to take effect a week ago, but were only just filed by the Illinois State Police. When the Illinois Firearms Dealer License Certification Act was signed last year some aspects were to take effect Jan. 2, but the rules weren’t finalized. A state police official said those rules were filed this week, but have not yet been published by the Secretary of State’s Office. “They anticipate them being published next week,” ISP Public Information Officer Sgt. Christopher Watson said. Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois Executive Director Todd Vandermyde said that was a problem. “Not every small business owner in the state looks to the Illinois Register and checks the Secretary of State’s publications every week whether or not they’re going to be impacted by something,” Vandermyde said. The rules he has seen mandate things such as electronic record-keeping and video surveillance. “There were well over 5,000 comments turned in opposing the rules that were filed and now a week after the rules were supposed to take effect they turn around and file some emergency rules,” Vandermyde said.
Now, my general position is never to ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to incompetence. This is probably a case of the state just dropping the ball.
However, the tin-foil hat-wearing part of my brain is also wondering if this wouldn’t be a fine way to jam up gun stores. After all, they’re not following the rules. Granted, they’re rules they have no way of even knowing about, but ignorance of the law is no defense, right?
The problem is that sometimes, ignorance of the law needs to be a completely valid defense, especially when the state is dropping the ball and moving goalposts like this. It’s impossible to expect a small business owner–and that’s a term that describes the vast majority of gun stores in this country–to check every relevant website each and every single day to make sure they’re not running afoul of brand new regulations.
Post the rules when they’re supposed to be posted or give up the ability to bust gun stores for not following them for at least a year.
Frankly, I don’t think Illinois actually gives a damn. They don’t want their citizens buying guns anyway, so why would they want to take it easy on gun stores?
At least, that’ll be the case until someone crams a lawsuit where the sun don’t shine.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--Senate Bill Seeks To Fix "Safe Passage" Law

Federal law is supposed to protect people who are traveling with a firearm .
If the gun is legal where you ’ re from and legal where you ’ re going , you ’ re supposed to be good to go along the whole of your trip .
However , the problem is that the law doesn ’ t explicitly mention stops along the way , and that ’ s landed a number of law-abiding gun owners in hot water , especially in New Jersey .
Realistically , anyone knows that you ’ re not going to drive from Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or anything , so a reasonable person would figure that the law should also cover stops along the way .
Reasonable people don ’ t include attorneys , though .
Now , a bill in the Senate seeks to fix this problem .
Senator Steve Daines of Montana , along with co-sponsors Senators James Lankford , Mike Rounds , Mike Crapo , and Ted Cruz , have introduced Senate Bill 3139 : Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act .
The bill would “ amend chapter 44 of title 18 , United States Code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transportation of firearms or ammunition.
” This bill addresses the serious flaws in the “ safe passage ” portion of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 , which I wrote about just last month .
Currently , you are only protected while traveling from a place you may lawfully possess the firearm , to a place you may possess .
Stops along the way aren ’ t “ travel , ” and if you ’ re headed to New York as was last month ’ s delivery man , you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
( Amusingly , the bill appears to have been filed six days after my column was published .
Do I have readers in the Senate ? )
Frankly , I suspect a number of Senate staffers , if not Senators themselves , read sites like Bearing Arms and The Truth About Guns .
Regardless of how they came up with the idea , though , it ’ s a good thing to see .
The problem , however , is that I don ’ t see it passing with the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
Democrats in the House are going to manufacture a thousand reasons why this is a horrible bill and should never pass , even if every one of those reasons amounts to male bovine excrement .
The upside , however , is that Democrats won ’ t hold the House indefinitely .
Plus , if people are as angry about the stupidity of the impeachment thing as it looks like , they may well not hold it after November .
Once that change happens , then perhaps we can see about injecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter .
The truth is , we need this .
Good , law-abiding people are getting jammed up because they stopped for gas in the wrong state .
That ’ s something no one should have to deal with and this bill seeks to take care of that .
If House Democrats have the least bit of rationality within them , even they would see that this bill doesn ’ t really do anything except protect law-abiding citizens from wrongful prosecution .
No one should have to deal with what some of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too bad that House Democrats don ’ t really care .

Federal law is supposed to protect people who are traveling with a firearm. If the gun is legal where you’re from and legal where you’re going, you’re supposed to be good to go along the whole of your trip.
However, the problem is that the law doesn’t explicitly mention stops along the way, and that’s landed a number of law-abiding gun owners in hot water, especially in New Jersey.
Realistically, anyone knows that you’re not going to drive from Florida to California without stopping along the way or anything, so a reasonable person would figure that the law should also cover stops along the way. Reasonable people don’t include attorneys, though.
Now, a bill in the Senate seeks to fix this problem.
Senator Steve Daines of Montana, along with co-sponsors Senators James Lankford, Mike Rounds, Mike Crapo, and Ted Cruz, have introduced Senate Bill 3139: Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act. The bill would “amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to more comprehensively address the interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition.” This bill addresses the serious flaws in the “safe passage” portion of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which I wrote about just last month. Currently, you are only protected while traveling from a place you may lawfully possess the firearm, to a place you may possess. Stops along the way aren’t “travel,” and if you’re headed to New York as was last month’s delivery man, you’re out of luck. SB 3139 fixes that. (Amusingly, the bill appears to have been filed six days after my column was published. Do I have readers in the Senate?)
Frankly, I suspect a number of Senate staffers, if not Senators themselves, read sites like Bearing Arms and The Truth About Guns. Regardless of how they came up with the idea, though, it’s a good thing to see.
The problem, however, is that I don’t see it passing with the House of Representatives made up as it currently is. Democrats in the House are going to manufacture a thousand reasons why this is a horrible bill and should never pass, even if every one of those reasons amounts to male bovine excrement.
The upside, however, is that Democrats won’t hold the House indefinitely. Plus, if people are as angry about the stupidity of the impeachment thing as it looks like, they may well not hold it after November. Once that change happens, then perhaps we can see about injecting some rationality into federal law on this matter.
The truth is, we need this. Good, law-abiding people are getting jammed up because they stopped for gas in the wrong state. That’s something no one should have to deal with and this bill seeks to take care of that.
If House Democrats have the least bit of rationality within them, even they would see that this bill doesn’t really do anything except protect law-abiding citizens from wrongful prosecution. No one should have to deal with what some of these folks have.
It’s just too bad that House Democrats don’t really care.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--NM Gov Backing Red Flag Law, But Sheriffs Say "No"

A fight over “ red flag ” legislation is brewing in New Mexico , where Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is backing a bill that would allow for the seizure of firearms from those deemed by a judge to be danger to themselves or others .
The state ’ s sheriff ’ s association is opposed to the measure , and they ’ re vowing to fight the proposed legislation at the statehouse .
From KOAT-TV : The New Mexico Sheriff ’ s Association told Target 7 they plan to fight the bill .
They said it puts law enforcement officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will ultimately have to serve a search warrant and confiscate the weapons .
“ They call it the extreme risk protection order .
Well , they got the right name because it is exactly an extreme risk , ” said Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace , who is also president of the Sheriff ’ s Association .
“ You are going to be putting citizens and law enforcement officers in an extreme risk.
” The Sheriff ’ s Association has fought the governor on other gun proposals .
Last year , 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed the state ’ s new background check law saying they would not enforce it .
Mace said if the new law passes , sheriffs would have to enforce it because they have to legally execute search warrants and court orders .
Even with Democrats in control of the legislature and the governor ’ s office , there ’ s no guarantee the “ red flag ” proposal will become law .
As KOAT notes , a similar bill filed last year failed to make it out of committee , and this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only lasts for 30 days , which isn ’ t a lot of time .
It ’ s not just sheriffs who are concerned about the new law .
Mark Abramson , a gun store owner and attorney in the state , told KOAT that he ’ s worried subjects of a red flag order could unknowingly violate the prohibition on them owning or purchasing firearms .
“ If someone comes into the shop , they look like they are totally in control of themselves , they select a gun , fill out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background check they will leave with a gun , ” Abramson said .
“ We have no way of knowing if they are subject to that order.
” In addition to the concerns outlined above , the proposal makes no mention of any sort of mental health evaluation or treatment for those determined to be a danger to themselves or others .
As is the case with almost every other “ red flag ’ law , the subject of the order has their firearms seized , but is left with their knives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline , and matches .
It ’ s a gun control bill , not a mental health measure .
New Mexico ’ s legislative session kicks off on January 21st , but gun owners in the state should be contacting their lawmakers now and urging them to reject the measure .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

A fight over “red flag” legislation is brewing in New Mexico, where Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is backing a bill that would allow for the seizure of firearms from those deemed by a judge to be danger to themselves or others. The state’s sheriff’s association is opposed to the measure, and they’re vowing to fight the proposed legislation at the statehouse. From KOAT-TV:
The New Mexico Sheriff’s Association told Target 7 they plan to fight the bill. They said it puts law enforcement officers at risk because they are the ones who will ultimately have to serve a search warrant and confiscate the weapons. “They call it the extreme risk protection order. Well, they got the right name because it is exactly an extreme risk,” said Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace, who is also president of the Sheriff’s Association. “You are going to be putting citizens and law enforcement officers in an extreme risk.” The Sheriff’s Association has fought the governor on other gun proposals. Last year, 30 of the state’s 33 sheriffs opposed the state’s new background check law saying they would not enforce it. Mace said if the new law passes, sheriffs would have to enforce it because they have to legally execute search warrants and court orders.
Even with Democrats in control of the legislature and the governor’s office, there’s no guarantee the “red flag” proposal will become law. As KOAT notes, a similar bill filed last year failed to make it out of committee, and this year’s legislative session in New Mexico only lasts for 30 days, which isn’t a lot of time.
It’s not just sheriffs who are concerned about the new law. Mark Abramson, a gun store owner and attorney in the state, told KOAT that he’s worried subjects of a red flag order could unknowingly violate the prohibition on them owning or purchasing firearms.
“If someone comes into the shop, they look like they are totally in control of themselves, they select a gun, fill out the paperwork and if they pass the background check they will leave with a gun,” Abramson said. “We have no way of knowing if they are subject to that order.”
In addition to the concerns outlined above, the proposal makes no mention of any sort of mental health evaluation or treatment for those determined to be a danger to themselves or others. As is the case with almost every other “red flag’ law, the subject of the order has their firearms seized, but is left with their knives, pills, belts, car keys, gasoline, and matches. It’s a gun control bill, not a mental health measure.
New Mexico’s legislative session kicks off on January 21st, but gun owners in the state should be contacting their lawmakers now and urging them to reject the measure.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--Are VA Dems Planning A "Gun Free Zone" On Lobby Day?

Democrats in Virginia ’ s House of Delegates approved their rules for the 2020 session on Thursday , including one new provision that is causing some concern from folks I ’ ve spoken to at the statehouse .
Buried at the bottom of a laundry list of rules for the House , Rule 85 deals with the possession of firearms on the groups of the state capitol .
Here ’ s what it says in its entirety .
Rule 85 .
It is the policy of the Virginia House of Delegates to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee , page , intern , visitor , and guest of the Virginia House of Delegates .
In keeping with this commitment , the House Committee on Rules will establish , by majority vote , a formal policy on the ability of members , staff , guests , and visitors to bring firearms into the those areas under the legal authority of the House of Delegates including , but not limited to , the Capitol , the House Chamber , and the Pocahontas Building .
The Committee may amend the policy , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibition , from time to time as appropriate .
Copies of the approved policy and any changes or amendments thereof will be provided to every member , full and part-time employee , page , and intern of the Virginia House of Delegates and be posted for the members of the public .
The House of Delegates doesn ’ t control the entire state capitol complex , only the House itself , along with House office spaces .
The Senate controls its section of the capitol , and as the Roanoke Times reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that did not include any new directives on firearms , so it ’ s unclear how the policy would be effectively implemented.
” What is clear is that Democrats in the House seem to be laying the groundwork or a future ban on firearms in areas of the capitol under their control , and we could see an even broader push to ban firearms from the capitol complex on January 20th , when thousands of gun owners are expected to be at the capitol for Lobby Day .
For those areas of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House or Senate , policies are decided by a joint committee on the rules ( comprised of both House and Senate members ) , and it looks like that committee will be meeting Friday afternoon .
The committee could simply try to clear up some of the flawed procedures that the House has put in place , but it could also try to set a broader policy regarding lawful carrying of firearms on the capitol grounds .
I think it would be a big mistake for Virginia Democrats to try to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zone ” on Lobby Day , for several reasons .
First , the policy change would come just a little more than a week before Lobby Day , which doesn ’ t give much time for word to get about the new policy .
I suspect there would still be gun owners who , unaware of the new rules , carry their firearms as they ’ ve done in the past .
I believe the move would also be rightfully seen as another dig at legal gun owners , which is likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state over the push for gun control .
Unfortunately , there are a number of politicians at the statehouse who seem content if not happy to turn up the temperature on the already heated rhetoric we ’ ve seen from some on both sides of the contentious issue .
Gun owners need to remember that it is within the power of the joint committee to set the rules .
While it would be a bad idea to ban guns entirely from the capitol complex , including the grounds , it would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hopefully the joint rules committee leaves the current rules for carrying at the capitol in place , but at the moment I ’ m not confident that will be the case .
Shortly after posting this story , the Associated Press confirmed that Democrat lawmakers will vote Friday afternoon on a gun ban at the state capitol .

Democrats in Virginia’s House of Delegates approved their rules for the 2020 session on Thursday, including one new provision that is causing some concern from folks I’ve spoken to at the statehouse.
Buried at the bottom of a laundry list of rules for the House, Rule 85 deals with the possession of firearms on the groups of the state capitol. Here’s what it says in its entirety.
Rule 85. It is the policy of the Virginia House of Delegates to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of every member, full and part-time employee, page, intern, visitor, and guest of the Virginia House of Delegates. In keeping with this commitment, the House Committee on Rules will establish, by majority vote, a formal policy on the ability of members, staff, guests, and visitors to bring firearms into the those areas under the legal authority of the House of Delegates including, but not limited to, the Capitol, the House Chamber, and the Pocahontas Building. The Committee may amend the policy, which may or may not include a blanket prohibition, from time to time as appropriate. Copies of the approved policy and any changes or amendments thereof will be provided to every member, full and part-time employee, page, and intern of the Virginia House of Delegates and be posted for the members of the public.
The House of Delegates doesn’t control the entire state capitol complex, only the House itself, along with House office spaces. The Senate controls its section of the capitol, and as the Roanoke Times reports, the Senate “adopted rules on Wednesday that did not include any new directives on firearms, so it’s unclear how the policy would be effectively implemented.”
What is clear is that Democrats in the House seem to be laying the groundwork or a future ban on firearms in areas of the capitol under their control, and we could see an even broader push to ban firearms from the capitol complex on January 20th, when thousands of gun owners are expected to be at the capitol for Lobby Day.
For those areas of the capitol not under the direct control of the House or Senate, policies are decided by a joint committee on the rules (comprised of both House and Senate members), and it looks like that committee will be meeting Friday afternoon. The committee could simply try to clear up some of the flawed procedures that the House has put in place, but it could also try to set a broader policy regarding lawful carrying of firearms on the capitol grounds.
I think it would be a big mistake for Virginia Democrats to try to turn the capitol into a “gun free zone” on Lobby Day, for several reasons. First, the policy change would come just a little more than a week before Lobby Day, which doesn’t give much time for word to get about the new policy. I suspect there would still be gun owners who, unaware of the new rules, carry their firearms as they’ve done in the past.
I believe the move would also be rightfully seen as another dig at legal gun owners, which is likely to increase, not defuse the tensions in the state over the push for gun control. Unfortunately, there are a number of politicians at the statehouse who seem content if not happy to turn up the temperature on the already heated rhetoric we’ve seen from some on both sides of the contentious issue.
Gun owners need to remember that it is within the power of the joint committee to set the rules. While it would be a bad idea to ban guns entirely from the capitol complex, including the grounds, it would also be legal for lawmakers to do so. Hopefully the joint rules committee leaves the current rules for carrying at the capitol in place, but at the moment I’m not confident that will be the case.
**UPDATE**
Shortly after posting this story, the Associated Press confirmed that Democrat lawmakers will vote Friday afternoon on a gun ban at the state capitol.


bearingarms--2020-01-10--Indiana State Senator Proposes New Gun Control Measures

Despite being right next door to Illinois , Indiana is a fairly pro-gun place .
It doesn ’ t have the same reputation as , say , Texas , but it ’ s still pretty friendly toward gun owners and the folks I know there have no issues getting what they want .
However , like every other state in the country , they have their fair share of gun grabbers .
Now , one of them who also happens to be a state senator is proposing raising the age limit to purchase long guns among other things in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only state where legislators do not listen to the citizens .
Democratic Sen. Greg Taylor , who represents part of Indianapolis , has proposed legislation that would prevent the sale of a gun to anyone under 21 years of age , and would limit firearms to only 10 rounds .
Firearms .
Prohibits the : ( 1 ) sale ; ( 2 ) trade ; or ( 3 ) transfer ; of a regulated weapon to a person less than 21 years of age .
Provides that a dealer or person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sells ; ( 2 ) trades ; or ( 3 ) transfers ; a regulated weapon to a person less than 21 years of age commits a Level 6 felony .
Provides certain defenses .
Prohibits a person from possessing , selling , or offering for sale a magazine or similar device for a firearm with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
The bill will also regulate where you can carry a firearm .
The good news is that this has less of a chance of passage than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not going to happen .
Why , then , do lawmakers continue to try to push bills they know won ’ t go anywhere ?
The reason is , basically , they have to virtue signal .
For Taylor , he may just be signaling to constituents that he ’ s fighting the good fight .
Maybe he ’ s signaling to the state or national party and letting them know he ’ s a good Democrat who holds the right views on guns , all in hopes they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole lot longer .
Regardless , he ’ s sending out a gun control version of the Bat-Signal .
Especially since this bill is pretty much a grab-bag of gun control ’ s greatest hits .
An age limit , a magazine ban , and restrictions on where someone can carry a firearm ?
That would easily take Indiana from pro-gun status to , at best , neutral on the issue .
While some might be interested in talking about age limits or even restricting where guns can be carried , the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much for anyone who wants to keep their job in a pro-gun state .
Unfortunately , it ’ s another example of just how insidious anti-gun policy proposals can be .
They ’ re like a virus .
They infect their host , then spread out to try and infect others .
None of these proposals are new .
They all came from someone else who had been infected .
In that way , pro-gun voices are a state ’ s immune system , so dig in and be ready to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop just because they take a few lumps .
Not even in Indiana .

Despite being right next door to Illinois, Indiana is a fairly pro-gun place. It doesn’t have the same reputation as, say, Texas, but it’s still pretty friendly toward gun owners and the folks I know there have no issues getting what they want.
However, like every other state in the country, they have their fair share of gun grabbers.
Now, one of them who also happens to be a state senator is proposing raising the age limit to purchase long guns among other things in the state.
Seems Virginia isn’t the only state where legislators do not listen to the citizens. Democratic Sen. Greg Taylor, who represents part of Indianapolis, has proposed legislation that would prevent the sale of a gun to anyone under 21 years of age, and would limit firearms to only 10 rounds. It reads, in part: Firearms. Prohibits the: (1) sale; (2) trade; or (3) transfer; of a regulated weapon to a person less than 21 years of age. Provides that a dealer or person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) sells; (2) trades; or (3) transfers; a regulated weapon to a person less than 21 years of age commits a Level 6 felony. Provides certain defenses. Prohibits a person from possessing, selling, or offering for sale a magazine or similar device for a firearm with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The bill will also regulate where you can carry a firearm.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that this has less of a chance of passage than a constitutional carry bill in California. It’s not going to happen.
Why, then, do lawmakers continue to try to push bills they know won’t go anywhere? The reason is, basically, they have to virtue signal.
For Taylor, he may just be signaling to constituents that he’s fighting the good fight. Maybe he’s signaling to the state or national party and letting them know he’s a good Democrat who holds the right views on guns, all in hopes they’ll make sure he stays in office a whole lot longer. Regardless, he’s sending out a gun control version of the Bat-Signal.
And that’s all he’s accomplishing.
Especially since this bill is pretty much a grab-bag of gun control’s greatest hits. An age limit, a magazine ban, and restrictions on where someone can carry a firearm? That would easily take Indiana from pro-gun status to, at best, neutral on the issue. While some might be interested in talking about age limits or even restricting where guns can be carried, the three things in totality are going to be too much for anyone who wants to keep their job in a pro-gun state.
Unfortunately, it’s another example of just how insidious anti-gun policy proposals can be. They’re like a virus. They infect their host, then spread out to try and infect others. None of these proposals are new. They all came from someone else who had been infected.
In that way, pro-gun voices are a state’s immune system, so dig in and be ready to fight. They’re not going to stop just because they take a few lumps. Not even in Indiana.


bearingarms--2020-01-11--VA Senate Committee Ready For First Gun Control Votes

Gun control advocates aren ’ t wasting any time in their quest to gut Virginia ’ s gun laws and make them look much more like California ’ s or New Jersey ’ s .
Monday morning the state Senate Judiciary Committee meets for the first time , and the agenda is chock full of gun control bills .
Here ’ s a brief rundown .
• SB 12- a universal background check bill that makes it a misdemeanor to sell or transfer a firearm without using an FFL to conduct a background check ( with a few limited exceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchase of more than one handgun within a 30-day period , with exceptions for concealed carry licensees ( and private sales , oddly enough ) .
• SB 35- weakens Virginia ’ s firearms preemption law by allowing localities to ban firearms during permitted events .
• SB 69- another one-gun-a-month bill very similar to SB 22 .
• SB 70- another universal background check bill , only the penalty for transferring a firearm without going through an FFL would be a felony .
• SB 240- “ red flag ” legislation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would require police to seize legally owned firearms if a judge determines an individual is likely to pose a “ substantial risk ” to themselves or others .
• SB 450- another bill weakening Virginia ’ s firearms pre-emption law that permits local governments to ban legally carried firearms from public meetings .
• SB 505- yet another anti-preemption bill .
This would allow local and county governments to declare their buildings “ gun-free zones.
” • SB 543- makes background checks mandatory for all sales or transfers at Virginia gun shows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms preemption .
This bill would allow local governments to ban legally carried firearms from public parks and local government buildings .
The Senate Judiciary Committee will also be hearing a number of non-gun related bills as well , so expect little debate over any one piece of legislation .
In fact , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if state Senator John Edwards doesn ’ t do all he can to try to limit debate and questions by Republicans .
The NRA will be on hand Monday morning and are asking gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group notes that Magpul will be making an “ emergency air drop ” of magazines as well ) .
The meeting begins Monday morning at 8 a.m. , and given the new rules banning firearms from the capitol building and office spaces , folks who are planning on attending need to show up earlier than normal , since I suspect the new security procedures may slow things down a bit .
The Virginia Citizens Defense League is also asking members to attend Monday morning ’ s meeting , and given the engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment , I expect a good crowd on hand .
I ’ m planning on getting to the capitol early Monday morning , and I ’ ll be sharing updates on my Twitter feed as well as here at BearingArms.com .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Gun control advocates aren’t wasting any time in their quest to gut Virginia’s gun laws and make them look much more like California’s or New Jersey’s. Monday morning the state Senate Judiciary Committee meets for the first time, and the agenda is chock full of gun control bills. Here’s a brief rundown.
SB 12- a universal background check bill that makes it a misdemeanor to sell or transfer a firearm without using an FFL to conduct a background check (with a few limited exceptions).
SB 22- prohibits the purchase of more than one handgun within a 30-day period, with exceptions for concealed carry licensees (and private sales, oddly enough).
SB 35- weakens Virginia’s firearms preemption law by allowing localities to ban firearms during permitted events.
SB 69- another one-gun-a-month bill very similar to SB 22.
SB 70- another universal background check bill, only the penalty for transferring a firearm without going through an FFL would be a felony.
SB 240- “red flag” legislation that establishes an Extreme Risk Protection Order that would require police to seize legally owned firearms if a judge determines an individual is likely to pose a “substantial risk” to themselves or others.
SB 450- another bill weakening Virginia’s firearms pre-emption law that permits local governments to ban legally carried firearms from public meetings.
SB 505- yet another anti-preemption bill. This would allow local and county governments to declare their buildings “gun-free zones.”
SB 543- makes background checks mandatory for all sales or transfers at Virginia gun shows.
SB 615- still another bill attacking firearms preemption. This bill would allow local governments to ban legally carried firearms from public parks and local government buildings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will also be hearing a number of non-gun related bills as well, so expect little debate over any one piece of legislation. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if state Senator John Edwards doesn’t do all he can to try to limit debate and questions by Republicans.
The NRA will be on hand Monday morning and are asking gun owners to pack the hearing room (the group notes that Magpul will be making an “emergency air drop” of magazines as well). The meeting begins Monday morning at 8 a.m., and given the new rules banning firearms from the capitol building and office spaces, folks who are planning on attending need to show up earlier than normal, since I suspect the new security procedures may slow things down a bit.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League is also asking members to attend Monday morning’s meeting, and given the engagement of Second Amendment supporters in the state at the moment, I expect a good crowd on hand. I’m planning on getting to the capitol early Monday morning, and I’ll be sharing updates on my Twitter feed as well as here at BearingArms.com.


bearingarms--2020-01-11--Virginians Are Warning Of Civil War, But This Isn't New

Things are tense in Virginia , to say the least .
With Democrats having complete control of the state government , Governor Ralph Northam sees a golden opportunity to hammer gun rights activists in his state .
After all , he needed a gun control win to completely overshadow the blackface scandal that plagued him for months , and he didn ’ t get it .
Now , somehow , he ’ s got the legislature and he ’ s going to make it so no one even thinks of “ Coonman ” anymore .
Unfortunately for him , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are warning that things may well get beyond Northam ’ s control and the usual suspects are freaking out over it .
Thousands of Virginia residents have shown up at meetings across the state to try to block Democrats from enacting new gun laws , with some gun rights supporters openly discussing violent resistance and civil war .
The backlash to gun control in Virginia is being fueled by conspiracy theories and misinformation , and some observers worry that the escalating rhetoric may spark violence .
When Democrats won control of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in 26 years in November 2019 , they pledged to pass a series of standard gun control laws , including universal background checks and bans on military-style “ assault weapons ” and high-capacity ammunition magazines .
The agenda was no surprise : state Democrats had run for office on a platform of gun violence prevention , backed by funding from national gun control groups .
Some of these activists have warned of violenceif Democrats push forward with gun control .
Multiple Democratic lawmakers have reportedly received threats , including death threats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in long social media comment threads , some gun rights supporters are openly discussing the possibility of civil war .
Many have warned of the need to fight back against “ tyranny ” or have compared Democratic lawmakers to the British forces during the revolutionary war .
“ I really do think we may be on the brink of another war , ” one speaker told a crowd of at least 800 people in Pulaski county , the Roanoke Times reported .
Here ’ s the thing , though .
This talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new .
We ’ ve been talking about this for years as a warning that if anti-gun zealots come after our guns , they ’ re going to have a bad time of it .
This is nothing new .
However , it ’ s also important to note that we ’ ve also been pretty clear that there ’ s a line in the sand and , thus far , no one has crossed it .
Right now , bills have only been proposed .
Nothing ’ s passed and nothin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of rhetoric .
As long as Northam and company bear in mind that this is a topic that yes , a lot of people will go to war over , we shouldn ’ t have a problem .
We on this side have been clear about what will set us off .
The problem is that Northam and company don ’ t seem to really care to listen .
There ’ s been nothing from his side to tell Virginian gun rights activists that their concerns will be accounted for .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of “ we won , you lost , suck on it.
” Yes , there are warnings of civil war , but that war isn ’ t inevitable .
It ’ s up to Northam , though , to decide if he really wants to push people so far that they don ’ t feel they have any other choice .
It ’ s all on him and his allies in the legislature .
It ’ s not too late to settle things down .

Things are tense in Virginia, to say the least. With Democrats having complete control of the state government, Governor Ralph Northam sees a golden opportunity to hammer gun rights activists in his state. After all, he needed a gun control win to completely overshadow the blackface scandal that plagued him for months, and he didn’t get it.
Now, somehow, he’s got the legislature and he’s going to make it so no one even thinks of “Coonman” anymore.
Unfortunately for him, though, there are those in the state that are warning that things may well get beyond Northam’s control and the usual suspects are freaking out over it.
Thousands of Virginia residents have shown up at meetings across the state to try to block Democrats from enacting new gun laws, with some gun rights supporters openly discussing violent resistance and civil war. The backlash to gun control in Virginia is being fueled by conspiracy theories and misinformation, and some observers worry that the escalating rhetoric may spark violence. When Democrats won control of Virginia’s state government for the first time in 26 years in November 2019, they pledged to pass a series of standard gun control laws, including universal background checks and bans on military-style “assault weapons” and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The agenda was no surprise: state Democrats had run for office on a platform of gun violence prevention, backed by funding from national gun control groups. … Some of these activists have warned of violenceif Democrats push forward with gun control. Multiple Democratic lawmakers have reportedly received threats, including death threats. At heated public meetings across the state and in long social media comment threads, some gun rights supporters are openly discussing the possibility of civil war. Many have warned of the need to fight back against “tyranny” or have compared Democratic lawmakers to the British forces during the revolutionary war. “I really do think we may be on the brink of another war,” one speaker told a crowd of at least 800 people in Pulaski county, the Roanoke Times reported.
Here’s the thing, though. This talk of a civil war isn’t new. We’ve been talking about this for years as a warning that if anti-gun zealots come after our guns, they’re going to have a bad time of it.
This is nothing new.
However, it’s also important to note that we’ve also been pretty clear that there’s a line in the sand and, thus far, no one has crossed it. Right now, bills have only been proposed. Nothing’s passed and nothin’s signed. It’s just a lot of rhetoric. As long as Northam and company bear in mind that this is a topic that yes, a lot of people will go to war over, we shouldn’t have a problem.
We on this side have been clear about what will set us off. The problem is that Northam and company don’t seem to really care to listen. There’s been nothing from his side to tell Virginian gun rights activists that their concerns will be accounted for. Instead, we’re seeing a lot of “we won, you lost, suck on it.”
Yes, there are warnings of civil war, but that war isn’t inevitable. It’s up to Northam, though, to decide if he really wants to push people so far that they don’t feel they have any other choice. It’s all on him and his allies in the legislature.
It’s not too late to settle things down.