bearingarms--2020-06-18--Ghost Gun Ban Pass In Rhode Island

Ghost Gun Ban Pass In Rhode Island

Rhode Island is one of those states much of the rest of the country forgets about a lot of the time .
One of the smallest states , it lacks the political muscle of some of the larger states in the Northeast .
Yet , it ’ s also one of the least gun-friendly states in the nation , with regulations that rival places like California , Massachusetts , and New Jersey .
Unfortunately , it looks like the state is about to get a lot less gun-friendly , too .
The General Assembly today approved legislation sponsored by Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Serpa to prohibit the manufacturing , transfer , purchase or possessing of any plastic , fiberglass or 3-D printed gun , as well as “ ghost guns , ” untraceable guns and undetectable guns .
The legislation , which now heads to the governor ’ s desk , is meant to help eliminate weapons that skirt protect public safety protections .
Gov .
Gina M. Raimondo has publicly indicated her intent to sign it into law .
“ Ghost guns , 3-D printed guns and undetectable plastic guns can easily facilitate criminal activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the public .
Our state laws should be very clear that possessing , creating or selling them is a criminal act , and we should be doing everything we can to keep these dangerous weapons from proliferating here , ” said Senator Coyne ( D-Dist .
32 , Barrington , Bristol , East Providence ) .
Said Representative Serpa ( D-Dist .
27 , West Warwick , Coventry , Warwick ) , “ While I am a strong proponent of people ’ s right to bear arms , these devices simply lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conventional firearms and have become a menace to society.
” Except , we have no evidence that any of those claims are true .
None at all .
Instead , we have vague proclamations about how there ’ s a “ growing ” number of so-called “ ghost guns ” being used by criminals , but no hard numbers with which we can judge the risk ourselves .
Now , we see claims about safety and reliability , as if reliability has ever been any anti-gun legislator ’ s concern when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Serpa to pretend she actually respects civil liberties .
As bad as the ghost gun ban was , though , it could have been worse .
Agreements on the wording were reached just before the break .
An eleventh-hour bid by Rep. Anastasia Williams to name the hometown police chief bill after all the victims in a Westerly shooting spree requires a return trip to the Senate .
The hometown police-chief bill was introduced after a Westerly man , Joseph Giachello , bought a gun from a firearms dealer in Richmond and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot a manager and wound two other women at his housing complex before turning the gun he bought days earlier on himself .
Basically , the bill would require the blessing of one ’ s hometown police chief if they were to try and purchase a firearm in a different town in the state .
Honestly , the fact that this is even being considered should tell you all you need to know about how your rights are viewed in Rhode Island .
Luckily , because it had to go back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit more time before this particular bit of stupidity can take hold .
The question is , is there a real shot of stopping it ?
Based on what I ’ ve seen , probably not .

Rhode Island is one of those states much of the rest of the country forgets about a lot of the time. One of the smallest states, it lacks the political muscle of some of the larger states in the Northeast. Yet, it’s also one of the least gun-friendly states in the nation, with regulations that rival places like California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Unfortunately, it looks like the state is about to get a lot less gun-friendly, too.
The General Assembly today approved legislation sponsored by Sen. Cynthia A. Coyne and Rep. Patricia A. Serpa to prohibit the manufacturing, transfer, purchase or possessing of any plastic, fiberglass or 3-D printed gun, as well as “ghost guns,” untraceable guns and undetectable guns. The legislation, which now heads to the governor’s desk, is meant to help eliminate weapons that skirt protect public safety protections. Gov. Gina M. Raimondo has publicly indicated her intent to sign it into law. “Ghost guns, 3-D printed guns and undetectable plastic guns can easily facilitate criminal activity because they totally bypass the safeguards that protect the public. Our state laws should be very clear that possessing, creating or selling them is a criminal act, and we should be doing everything we can to keep these dangerous weapons from proliferating here,” said Senator Coyne (D-Dist. 32, Barrington, Bristol, East Providence). Said Representative Serpa (D-Dist. 27, West Warwick, Coventry, Warwick), “While I am a strong proponent of people’s right to bear arms, these devices simply lack the safety, reliability and accountability of conventional firearms and have become a menace to society.”
Except, we have no evidence that any of those claims are true. None at all.
Instead, we have vague proclamations about how there’s a “growing” number of so-called “ghost guns” being used by criminals, but no hard numbers with which we can judge the risk ourselves. Now, we see claims about safety and reliability, as if reliability has ever been any anti-gun legislator’s concern when it comes to firearms, all in an effort for Serpa to pretend she actually respects civil liberties.
As bad as the ghost gun ban was, though, it could have been worse.
Agreements on the wording were reached just before the break. An eleventh-hour bid by Rep. Anastasia Williams to name the hometown police chief bill after all the victims in a Westerly shooting spree requires a return trip to the Senate. The hometown police-chief bill was introduced after a Westerly man, Joseph Giachello, bought a gun from a firearms dealer in Richmond and on Dec. 19 used it to fatally shoot a manager and wound two other women at his housing complex before turning the gun he bought days earlier on himself.
Basically, the bill would require the blessing of one’s hometown police chief if they were to try and purchase a firearm in a different town in the state. Honestly, the fact that this is even being considered should tell you all you need to know about how your rights are viewed in Rhode Island.
Luckily, because it had to go back to the Senate, that buys Rhode Islanders a bit more time before this particular bit of stupidity can take hold. The question is, is there a real shot of stopping it? Based on what I’ve seen, probably not.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--Shooting Charges Dropped In Albuquerque Protest Fight

Prosecutors in Albuquerque , New Mexico have amended charges against a 31-year old former city council member who was arrested on Monday evening after shooting a man during a rowdy protest aimed at tearing down a statue of a Spanish conquistador in the city ’ s Old Town .
Steven Ray Baca was originally charged with aggravated assault in the shooting , but for the moment anyway , District Attorney Raul Torrez has dropped that charge and instead filed charges of assault and carrying a concealed firearm without a license .
Torrez says the investigation into the shooting continues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could soon face formal charges again in the shooting that left a protester wounded .
.
There ’ ve been multiple videos that have emerged in the wake of the shooting which appear to show Baca running from protesters while being attacked .
The shots were fired after a protester with a skateboard and what appears to be a knife tried to beat Baca with the long board , but longer videos show that moments earlier , Baca had shoved a woman to the ground in front of a statue that protesters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Albuquerque has a pretty good timeline of the chaos on Monday night , which began when protesters once again gathered around the statue of Juan de Oñate and tried to tear it down .
Members of a group called the New Mexico Civil Guard , many of them armed , tried to stand between the statue and protesters , while other protesters and counterprotesters engaged in some pushing and shoving .
cameras captured tensions rising between protesters and Baca , who was wearing a blue t-shirt and doesn ’ t appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows Baca standing around during the protest with his arms crossed , a gun not yet visible .
Then , Baca appears to yank a woman to the ground .
That ’ s when a crowd starts after him .
“ Go home !
Get his license plate !
” Witnesses are heard shouting in the video .
Witnesses told KRQE News 13 that the woman Baca threw to the ground hit her head on the pavement and that ’ s why the men chased after him .
One man is seen on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baca shoots off some pepper spray while running away from the crowd .
Police said after another man picked up the longboard and hit Baca again , that ’ s when Baca shot four rounds at the man , hitting him with multiple rounds in the torso .
Prosecutors say they continue to interview eyewitnesses and review video of the incident , and the D.A.
’ s statement about the need for a fair and impartial investigation is highly appropriate at the moment , given the fact that politicians from New Mexico Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tim Keller have already weighed in with their version of what happened .
Calling it an “ unacceptable act of violence , ” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller denounced a shooting that took place near a protest over a statue of Juan de Oñate .
The Mayor says the investigation into what happened will also soon be turned over the New Mexico State Police .
The comments came during a Tuesday news conference hours after city crews removed the statue at the center of Monday ’ s protest and shooting .
In his remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single “ agitator ” that was part of the crowd gathered near 19th and Mountain , hours after a peaceful protest .
“ The shooting last night in Old Town at the Oñate sculpture was horrific and unacceptable act of violence , this is something that despite all of that dialogue , should never happen , ” Keller said .
“ Despite the peaceful and meaningful vigil that occurred before , a smaller group remained with very different intentions.
” To hear the mayor tell it , Baca fired shots in cold-blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was the case ?
It ’ s doubtful at this point .
Baca may have acted as an aggressor in pushing a woman down who was backing into him with her arms outstretched to prevent him from moving towards the statue , but once the crowd began to pursue Baca and chase him away , clearly the threat to the woman was abated .
Rather than let Baca flee , several members of the crowd chased after Baca , continuing even after he deployed pepper spray to create some distance between himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun and fired only after several individuals closed in on him again , with one man swinging that skateboard at Baca ’ s head .
Video of the shooting indicates that the guy with the skateboard also had at least one knife in his hand , further escalating the threat to Baca .
If prosecutors do end up filing charges against Baca for the shooting , they ’ ll have to show that not only was Baca the initial aggressor in the incident , but that Baca fired his gun with the intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life .
Ironically , Baca was at the protest on Monday night to prevent the statue of conquistador from being torn down , but in the wake of the shooting the city of Albuquerque removed the statue that the protesters failed to tear down .
Cultural Services Director Shelle Sanchez said the city had begun calling for community input on Saturday about what should be done about the piece .
Then , on Monday , one of the artists who had been commissioned to create it , Reynaldo “ Sonny ” Rivera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to request that the sculpture come down .
He signed a waiver on Tuesday morning , which waives his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act .
“ This was out of his personal concern for community safety , as well as for the safekeeping of this sculpture , ” Sanchez said .
Sanchez said the city will store the piece in a secure location for up to 12 months .
“ People are extremely passionate about this statue , and about Oñate , not only today , but for many , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Albuquerque , we are better than the violence that we saw last night.
” We ’ ll see just how much better Albuquerque is if the D.A .
decides that aggravated assault charges aren ’ t appropriate after the investigation concludes .
Thanks in part to the comments by politicians , many residents may have already made up their mind that Baca is guilty , and hopefully a decision by the D.A .
that Baca was actually acting in self-defense won ’ t spur additional protests and violence on the @ @ @ @ @

Prosecutors in Albuquerque, New Mexico have amended charges against a 31-year old former city council member who was arrested on Monday evening after shooting a man during a rowdy protest aimed at tearing down a statue of a Spanish conquistador in the city’s Old Town.
Steven Ray Baca was originally charged with aggravated assault in the shooting, but for the moment anyway, District Attorney Raul Torrez has dropped that charge and instead filed charges of assault and carrying a concealed firearm without a license. Torrez says the investigation into the shooting continues, and it’s possible that Baca could soon face formal charges again in the shooting that left a protester wounded. .
There’ve been multiple videos that have emerged in the wake of the shooting which appear to show Baca running from protesters while being attacked. The shots were fired after a protester with a skateboard and what appears to be a knife tried to beat Baca with the long board, but longer videos show that moments earlier, Baca had shoved a woman to the ground in front of a statue that protesters were attempting to tear down.
KRQE-TV in Albuquerque has a pretty good timeline of the chaos on Monday night, which began when protesters once again gathered around the statue of Juan de Oñate and tried to tear it down. Members of a group called the New Mexico Civil Guard, many of them armed, tried to stand between the statue and protesters, while other protesters and counterprotesters engaged in some pushing and shoving.
cameras captured tensions rising between protesters and Baca, who was wearing a blue t-shirt and doesn’t appear to be a militia member. Cell phone video shows Baca standing around during the protest with his arms crossed, a gun not yet visible. Then, Baca appears to yank a woman to the ground. That’s when a crowd starts after him. “Go home! Get his license plate!” Witnesses are heard shouting in the video. Witnesses told KRQE News 13 that the woman Baca threw to the ground hit her head on the pavement and that’s why the men chased after him. One man is seen on video hitting Baca with a longboard. Baca shoots off some pepper spray while running away from the crowd. Police said after another man picked up the longboard and hit Baca again, that’s when Baca shot four rounds at the man, hitting him with multiple rounds in the torso.
Prosecutors say they continue to interview eyewitnesses and review video of the incident, and the D.A.’s statement about the need for a fair and impartial investigation is highly appropriate at the moment, given the fact that politicians from New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller have already weighed in with their version of what happened.
Calling it an “unacceptable act of violence,” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller denounced a shooting that took place near a protest over a statue of Juan de Oñate. The Mayor says the investigation into what happened will also soon be turned over the New Mexico State Police. The comments came during a Tuesday news conference hours after city crews removed the statue at the center of Monday’s protest and shooting. In his remarks, Keller blamed the shooting mainly on a single “agitator” that was part of the crowd gathered near 19th and Mountain, hours after a peaceful protest. “The shooting last night in Old Town at the Oñate sculpture was horrific and unacceptable act of violence, this is something that despite all of that dialogue, should never happen,” Keller said. “Despite the peaceful and meaningful vigil that occurred before, a smaller group remained with very different intentions.”
To hear the mayor tell it, Baca fired shots in cold-blood, not self-defense. Could prosecutors prove that was the case? It’s doubtful at this point. Baca may have acted as an aggressor in pushing a woman down who was backing into him with her arms outstretched to prevent him from moving towards the statue, but once the crowd began to pursue Baca and chase him away, clearly the threat to the woman was abated. Rather than let Baca flee, several members of the crowd chased after Baca, continuing even after he deployed pepper spray to create some distance between himself and the protesters.
Baca drew his gun and fired only after several individuals closed in on him again, with one man swinging that skateboard at Baca’s head. Video of the shooting indicates that the guy with the skateboard also had at least one knife in his hand, further escalating the threat to Baca.
If prosecutors do end up filing charges against Baca for the shooting, they’ll have to show that not only was Baca the initial aggressor in the incident, but that Baca fired his gun with the intent of committing a felony, not defending his life.
Ironically, Baca was at the protest on Monday night to prevent the statue of conquistador from being torn down, but in the wake of the shooting the city of Albuquerque removed the statue that the protesters failed to tear down.
Cultural Services Director Shelle Sanchez said the city had begun calling for community input on Saturday about what should be done about the piece. Then, on Monday, one of the artists who had been commissioned to create it, Reynaldo “Sonny” Rivera, contacted the city before the protest to request that the sculpture come down. He signed a waiver on Tuesday morning, which waives his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act. “This was out of his personal concern for community safety, as well as for the safekeeping of this sculpture,” Sanchez said. Sanchez said the city will store the piece in a secure location for up to 12 months. “People are extremely passionate about this statue, and about Oñate, not only today, but for many, many years in our history,” Sanchez said. “Albuquerque, we are better than the violence that we saw last night.”
We’ll see just how much better Albuquerque is if the D.A. decides that aggravated assault charges aren’t appropriate after the investigation concludes. Thanks in part to the comments by politicians, many residents may have already made up their mind that Baca is guilty, and hopefully a decision by the D.A. that Baca was actually acting in self-defense won’t spur additional protests and violence on the city’s streets.


bearingarms--2020-06-18--Charges Against Officers In Atlanta Leads To...Interesting Night

The charges against two Atlanta police officers in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks didn ’ t sit well with a lot of people .
For many , the charges looked like political appeasement to the violent–the same people who burned down a Wendy ’ s because…well , who the hell knows ?
–possibly in hopes that such charges would settle things down and then could quietly be forgotten about later .
For others , the charges were only just and right .
However , the Atlanta Police Department didn ’ t see it that way , nor would they .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
He reportedly stole a taser and pointed it at Atlanta police officers , who then used their firearms in self-defense .
It ’ s important to remember that tasers are less-lethal weapons , but they ’ re not non-lethal weapons , so it appears that the shooting was justified .
That didn ’ t matter to the mob , though .
Now , in an effort to appease that mob , Garrett Rolfe was fired from his job that very night and now faces criminal charges including felony murder .
Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal charges himself , though not as severe as Rolfe ’ s .
While those charges may have been meant to appease one group , another group took them rather personally .
Atlanta police disputed claims that a large number of officers had walked off the job Wednesday after prosecutors announced charges in connection with the police-involved death of Rayshard Brooks — but acknowledged that a “ higher than usual ” number of officers called out of work .
But the Atlanta Police Department said repeatedly throughout the day that reports about officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Later in the evening , Jason Segura , the president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 623 , told Fox News that Atlanta officers were calling out , quitting or transferring to other jurisdictions .
“ A lot is going on , ” he said .
“ I can ’ t confirm the number who have left — if it ’ s 10 , or if it ’ s half the force.
” However , reports throughout the evening paint a different tale than the one shared by the Atlanta Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 in Atlanta , it wasn ’ t just there .
Not good .
Not good at all .
However , it ’ s difficult for me to blame them .
After all , Segura makes an excellent point .
Having grown up around law enforcement , that ’ s the way I ’ ve always seen it done .
An officer is suspended until an investigation reveals what actually happened .
Then charges are filed and the officer is terminated , if that ’ s the appropriate action .
Instead , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , someone the masses can beat as the epitome of excessive force , all before finding out if he ’ d done any such thing .
It ’ s appeasing the mob , not justice .
But Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms thinks officers have a commitment they need to honor .
“ There ’ s a lot happening in our cities and our police officers are receiving the brunt of it , quite frankly , ” Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo .
She said the city has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay raise , and “ we expect that our officers will keep their commitment to our communities.
” She said she thinks morale is down tenfold .
“ We do have enough officers to cover us through the night , ” she said .
“ Our streets won ’ t be any less safe because of the number of officers who called out .
But it is just my hope again that our officers will remember the commitment that they made when they held up their hand and they were sworn in as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor , just where the hell is your commitment to your police officers ?
The truth of the matter is that commitment needs to be a two-way street .
Officers get a lot of crap on a daily basis , but so long as they feel their department and their city has their back , they can generally handle it .
Yet the moment that is gone , the job becomes just that much harder .
When they feel like they ’ ll be hung out to dry for doing what they see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get problems .
Problems like this .
Of course , officials such as the mayor claim the “ blue flu ” wasn ’ t really that bad and that they had plenty of officers .
The reports from those listening to Atlanta police scanners suggest otherwise but let ’ s also be clear , what else are they going to say ?
“ Nope , we ’ re out of cops .
Not a thing we can do , ” or something like that ?
No , that ’ s not about to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that would have been .
Regardless , it ’ ll probably be days before we get a full recounting of just what transpired last night in Atlanta .
I seriously doubt we ’ ll enjoy what we hear .

The charges against two Atlanta police officers in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks didn’t sit well with a lot of people. For many, the charges looked like political appeasement to the violent–the same people who burned down a Wendy’s because…well, who the hell knows?–possibly in hopes that such charges would settle things down and then could quietly be forgotten about later.
For others, the charges were only just and right.
However, the Atlanta Police Department didn’t see it that way, nor would they.
Brooks was shot in a confrontation with police. He reportedly stole a taser and pointed it at Atlanta police officers, who then used their firearms in self-defense. It’s important to remember that tasers are less-lethal weapons, but they’re not non-lethal weapons, so it appears that the shooting was justified.
That didn’t matter to the mob, though.
Now, in an effort to appease that mob, Garrett Rolfe was fired from his job that very night and now faces criminal charges including felony murder. Officer Devin Brosnan was reassigned and now faces criminal charges himself, though not as severe as Rolfe’s.
While those charges may have been meant to appease one group, another group took them rather personally.
Atlanta police disputed claims that a large number of officers had walked off the job Wednesday after prosecutors announced charges in connection with the police-involved death of Rayshard Brooks — but acknowledged that a “higher than usual” number of officers called out of work. … But the Atlanta Police Department said repeatedly throughout the day that reports about officers resigning by the dozen were inaccurate. Later in the evening, Jason Segura, the president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 623, told Fox News that Atlanta officers were calling out, quitting or transferring to other jurisdictions. “A lot is going on,” he said. “I can’t confirm the number who have left — if it’s 10, or if it’s half the force.”
However, reports throughout the evening paint a different tale than the one shared by the Atlanta Police Department.
Download a police scanner app and tune in to Atlanta Police Zone 6! Atlanta Cops are talking about “ANTIFA looking” guys “creeping” around their building Just said they were falling back & hoping for a helicopter flyover to get a better look #BlueFlu — SETH WEATHERS (@sethweathers) June 18, 2020
Atlanta Police scanner for Zone 6 just told police to move their cars and personal belongings and retreat from the building, saying ANTIFA looking people were seen around the precinct. Strange message. Radio silence ever since. No reports of violence tonight. — Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) June 18, 2020
While those reports surround Zone 6 in Atlanta, it wasn’t just there.
It’s surreal listening to the Atlanta scanners. Only activity is the fire brigade. Silent otherwise. An occasional Code 12 from police (including reports of gunfire), meaning they won’t respond. — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 18, 2020
Not good. Not good at all.
However, it’s difficult for me to blame them. After all, Segura makes an excellent point.
He said officers were concerned over a lack of due process — Rolfe was fired immediately after the shooting, not suspended and then fired after an investigation. Segura also accused the district attorney of having political motives for rushing the case.
Having grown up around law enforcement, that’s the way I’ve always seen it done. An officer is suspended until an investigation reveals what actually happened. Then charges are filed and the officer is terminated, if that’s the appropriate action.
That didn’t happen with Rolfe.
Instead, he was held up as a political pinata, someone the masses can beat as the epitome of excessive force, all before finding out if he’d done any such thing. It’s appeasing the mob, not justice.
But Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms thinks officers have a commitment they need to honor.
“There’s a lot happening in our cities and our police officers are receiving the brunt of it, quite frankly,” Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. She said the city has committed to the officers through a big pay raise, and “we expect that our officers will keep their commitment to our communities.” She said she thinks morale is down tenfold. “We do have enough officers to cover us through the night,” she said. “Our streets won’t be any less safe because of the number of officers who called out. But it is just my hope again that our officers will remember the commitment that they made when they held up their hand and they were sworn in as police officers.”
Well, that’s special.
Tell me, Madam Mayor, just where the hell is your commitment to your police officers? The truth of the matter is that commitment needs to be a two-way street. Officers get a lot of crap on a daily basis, but so long as they feel their department and their city has their back, they can generally handle it. Yet the moment that is gone, the job becomes just that much harder.
When they feel like they’ll be hung out to dry for doing what they see as their jobs, though, you get problems. Problems like this.
Of course, officials such as the mayor claim the “blue flu” wasn’t really that bad and that they had plenty of officers. The reports from those listening to Atlanta police scanners suggest otherwise but let’s also be clear, what else are they going to say? “Nope, we’re out of cops. Not a thing we can do,” or something like that? No, that’s not about to happen because all know what the results of that would have been.
Regardless, it’ll probably be days before we get a full recounting of just what transpired last night in Atlanta. I seriously doubt we’ll enjoy what we hear.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--Pundit Wants To Reform Police... Right After They Grab All The Guns

Wishful thinking , a disaster in the making , or a little of both ?
The Atlantic ’ s Derek Thompson claims that sweeping and draconian gun control laws must be a part of any conversation about police reform , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a look at his ideas and why they ’ re wildly out of touch .
Thompson first tries to make his case for more gun laws and fewer gun owners by proclaiming that the science is clear : fewer guns equals less crime .
Unfortunately for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a couple of paragraphs later while bemoaning the militarization of police departments .
Today ’ s warrior-cop training is inappropriate , as violent crime has declined by more than 70 percent since 1993 .
But perhaps some police paranoia comes from the fact that the U.S. has added twice as many guns as people since the mid-1990s .
“ Generally , when a police officer pulls up to a car in Australia , they don ’ t expect someone to be armed , ” Terry Goldsworthy , a criminologist at Bond University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , just 6 percent of Australian households own a gun .
In the U.S. , that figure is 43 percent .
So , violent crime is down by more than 70-percent since 1993 , while gun sales have soared during the same time period .
I ’ m confused .
Didn ’ t Thompson just tell us that , according to that 2013 study , the nation ’ s homicide rate should have skyrocketed along with gun sales over the past 25 years ?
Instead of rising , the homicide rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides per 100,000 people in 1993 to 5 homicides per 100,000 in 2018 , according to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics .
In raw numbers , there were 24,530 homicides in 1993 compared to 16,214 in 2018 .
Even as the nation added 50,000,000 people , the number of homicides , aggravated assaults , robberies , and burglaries all dropped precipitously .
If Thompson is correct that more guns equal more crime , then how does he explain the historic plunge in violent crime while the country “ added twice as many guns as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets around to that .
Instead , he offers up policy prescriptions that he acknowledges as being as unrealistic as abolishing the police .
The solutions are socially and politically improbable—but perhaps no more improbable than abolishing the police .
They could begin with banning guns of war , requiring universal background checks , and instituting national “ red flag ” laws to keep guns from potentially dangerous people .
These measures might sound small-bore compared with the challenge before us , but they could still make a difference .
Deborah Azrael , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center , has found that 40 percent of gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check .
There may be few issues that straightforwardly unite police reformers and police unions , but reducing the social toxin of gun prevalence , especially in high-crime areas , ought to be at the top of that list .
I ’ m not sure why Thompson cited a 2015 quote from Azrael when she said in 2017 that her research shows that about 20-percent of gun owners said their most recent acquisition was done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really bad at using Google , or maybe he went with the larger number because it sounds scarier and he was more interested in making his audience afraid than informed .
Whatever the reason , he ended up misleading his readers and did nothing to bolster his argument .
As for his call to ban “ guns of war , ” mandate background checks , and institute a national “ red flag ” law , once again , Thompson falls woefully short on specifics , particularly since he ’ s largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform .
Who exactly is supposed to enforce a prohibition on owning the most commonly sold rifles in the United States ?
Something tells me it won ’ t be social workers .
The same goes for background checks and “ red flag ” laws .
In fact , I recently pointed out that gun control advocates are pushing “ red flag ” laws that have no room for any sort of mental health component to them , like Virginia ’ s new law set to take effect on July 1st .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health evaluation in that description .
In fact , the words “ mental health ” don ’ t even appear in Virginia ’ s red flag law .
That ’ s because it ’ s simply another gun control law , and despite Thompson ’ s fervent hopes , it ’ s going to be enforced by armed agents of the State .
No matter how much Thompson might want to avoid the unpleasant realities of his proposal , the fact is that the disarming of American citizens would inevitably have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I don ’ t see either happening anytime soon .
Be sure to check out today ’ s entire show , where I also get into specifics about what will work to further reduce violent crime in the country ( hint : it does not involve gun control ) , as well as an armed citizen story from Nashville and a good deed performed by a veteran who helped police snag a man impersonating an officer .

Wishful thinking, a disaster in the making, or a little of both? The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson claims that sweeping and draconian gun control laws must be a part of any conversation about police reform, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a look at his ideas and why they’re wildly out of touch.
Thompson first tries to make his case for more gun laws and fewer gun owners by proclaiming that the science is clear: fewer guns equals less crime.
Let’s begin with the simplest fact: Life is more dangerous in the presence of firearms—period. A 2013 study of U.S. states in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each percentage-point increase in gun ownership, the overall firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, controlling for other factors. The correlation between gun availability and violent crime is statistically significant at every level of income. More money can spare Americans from the material and psychological ravages of poverty, but it does not buy an exception from the deadly social physics of guns.
Unfortunately for Thompson, he undercuts his own argument just a couple of paragraphs later while bemoaning the militarization of police departments.
Today’s warrior-cop training is inappropriate, as violent crime has declined by more than 70 percent since 1993. But perhaps some police paranoia comes from the fact that the U.S. has added twice as many guns as people since the mid-1990s. “Generally, when a police officer pulls up to a car in Australia, they don’t expect someone to be armed,” Terry Goldsworthy, a criminologist at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, has said. Indeed, just 6 percent of Australian households own a gun. In the U.S., that figure is 43 percent.
So, violent crime is down by more than 70-percent since 1993, while gun sales have soared during the same time period. I’m confused. Didn’t Thompson just tell us that, according to that 2013 study, the nation’s homicide rate should have skyrocketed along with gun sales over the past 25 years?
Instead of rising, the homicide rate in this country has plummeted from 9.5 homicides per 100,000 people in 1993 to 5 homicides per 100,000 in 2018, according to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. In raw numbers, there were 24,530 homicides in 1993 compared to 16,214 in 2018. Even as the nation added 50,000,000 people, the number of homicides, aggravated assaults, robberies, and burglaries all dropped precipitously. If Thompson is correct that more guns equal more crime, then how does he explain the historic plunge in violent crime while the country “added twice as many guns as people”?
Sadly, Thompson never gets around to that. Instead, he offers up policy prescriptions that he acknowledges as being as unrealistic as abolishing the police.
The solutions are socially and politically improbable—but perhaps no more improbable than abolishing the police. They could begin with banning guns of war, requiring universal background checks, and instituting national “red flag” laws to keep guns from potentially dangerous people. These measures might sound small-bore compared with the challenge before us, but they could still make a difference. Deborah Azrael, also of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, has found that 40 percent of gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. There may be few issues that straightforwardly unite police reformers and police unions, but reducing the social toxin of gun prevalence, especially in high-crime areas, ought to be at the top of that list.
I’m not sure why Thompson cited a 2015 quote from Azrael when she said in 2017 that her research shows that about 20-percent of gun owners said their most recent acquisition was done without a background check. Maybe Thompson’s really bad at using Google, or maybe he went with the larger number because it sounds scarier and he was more interested in making his audience afraid than informed. Whatever the reason, he ended up misleading his readers and did nothing to bolster his argument.
As for his call to ban “guns of war,” mandate background checks, and institute a national “red flag” law, once again, Thompson falls woefully short on specifics, particularly since he’s largely tailoring his argument for supporters of police reform. Who exactly is supposed to enforce a prohibition on owning the most commonly sold rifles in the United States? Something tells me it won’t be social workers.
The same goes for background checks and “red flag” laws. In fact, I recently pointed out that gun control advocates are pushing “red flag” laws that have no room for any sort of mental health component to them, like Virginia’s new law set to take effect on July 1st.
Under Virginia’s proposed law, judges or magistrates could issue an emergency order allowing police to seize a subject’s guns if an investigation determines that person poses “a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or others in the near future.” Within 14 days, a court hearing would be held to determine whether a more long-term order is justified. At that hearing, a judge could decide to return the guns or extend the order for up to 180 days, with additional extensions possible if authorities believe the threat of violence has not diminished with time.
I don’t see any sort of mental health evaluation in that description. In fact, the words “mental health” don’t even appear in Virginia’s red flag law. That’s because it’s simply another gun control law, and despite Thompson’s fervent hopes, it’s going to be enforced by armed agents of the State. No matter how much Thompson might want to avoid the unpleasant realities of his proposal, the fact is that the disarming of American citizens would inevitably have to come before police are abolished. Frankly, I don’t see either happening anytime soon.
Be sure to check out today’s entire show, where I also get into specifics about what will work to further reduce violent crime in the country (hint: it does not involve gun control), as well as an armed citizen story from Nashville and a good deed performed by a veteran who helped police snag a man impersonating an officer.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--Black Gun Owners March For Their Rights In Oklahoma City

While President Trump will be addressing a crowd of supporters in Tulsa , Oklahoma on Saturday amidst expected protests and rallies in the downtown area , down the I-44 turnpike in Oklahoma City several hundred black gun owners are planning on holding a rally and march of their own .
The group “ 1,000 brothers and sisters in arms ” will kick off their Second Amendment Walk at 2 p.m. Saturday afternoon in front of the Ralph Ellison Library in northeast Oklahoma City , before proceeding about a mile away to the governor ’ s mansion .
All are welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which expects between 200 and 300 people to attend in what they are saying will be a peaceful mile walk to the Governor ’ s Mansion .
“ As an African American , it ’ s important to send a message to the governor and president that we aren ’ t going to allow people to come into our communities and brutalize us , ” [ co-organizer Omar ] Chatman said .
“ That goes for corrupt police officers , white supremacists and criminals .
Criminals have no color .
It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black man , white man , Asian or Hispanic .
“ If you come into our community , know we are armed.
” Oklahoma is a constitutional carry state , meaning if you ’ re legally allowed to own a gun , you ’ re legally allowed to carry it .
Chatman says he ’ ll be walking with his AR-15 on Saturday , as he ’ s done several times in the past .
I haven ’ t lived in Oklahoma City for more than fifteen years , and I had moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Second Amendment community , but I would like to think the men and women of the Oklahoma City Police Department will treat gun owners of all colors and creed with respect this weekend and in the future .
I will say that some Oklahoma City open carry activists in the past haven ’ t been the best ambassadors for the Second Amendment , and if Chatman has been treated with condescension and sarcasm , it may be a little more complex than the color of his skin .
As part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding action on four separate issues .
The group wants District Attorney David Prater to reopen the case in the death of C.J .
Pettit Jr. , who was killed by a Midwest City police officer in 2015 .
The group is demanding the state legislature enact laws that would hold officers accountable when they are found to be at fault in any incident of police activity .
They want officers to be required to carry their own liability insurance and they are demanding the International World Court to investigate the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population .
“ This is for the betterment of mankind , ” says Michael Washington , an organizer for the group .
“ We are saying that we should have the right to wear our weapon on our shoulder and the Second Amendment is the way to do that .
We have a right to protect ourselves because we are tired of this crap and the United States promoting the killing of African Americans.
” I don ’ t agree with all of the group ’ s demands ( and I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the International Court of Justice would even investigate the U.S. for human rights violations among black citizens ) , but you know what ?
I don ’ t have to agree with every position taken by every person marching to the governor ’ s mansion .
The Second Amendment isn ’ t just for people who think like me , or look like me , or agree with me .
It ’ s the right of the People to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed , and in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ll be marching in support of their Second Amendment Rights in Oklahoma City on Saturday .

While President Trump will be addressing a crowd of supporters in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Saturday amidst expected protests and rallies in the downtown area, down the I-44 turnpike in Oklahoma City several hundred black gun owners are planning on holding a rally and march of their own. The group “1,000 brothers and sisters in arms” will kick off their Second Amendment Walk at 2 p.m. Saturday afternoon in front of the Ralph Ellison Library in northeast Oklahoma City, before proceeding about a mile away to the governor’s mansion.
All are welcome to march in solidarity with the group, which expects between 200 and 300 people to attend in what they are saying will be a peaceful mile walk to the Governor’s Mansion. “As an African American, it’s important to send a message to the governor and president that we aren’t going to allow people to come into our communities and brutalize us,” [co-organizer Omar] Chatman said. “That goes for corrupt police officers, white supremacists and criminals. Criminals have no color. It doesn’t matter if you are a Black man, white man, Asian or Hispanic. “If you come into our community, know we are armed.”
Oklahoma is a constitutional carry state, meaning if you’re legally allowed to own a gun, you’re legally allowed to carry it. Chatman says he’ll be walking with his AR-15 on Saturday, as he’s done several times in the past.
“I have encountered the police and observed them while holding my gun from a safe distance,” Chatman said. “I’ve been displeased with every encounter. They treat Black men with guns with condescension and sarcasm. They should engage us as they would anyone else.”
I haven’t lived in Oklahoma City for more than fifteen years, and I had moved before open carry protests became a thing in the Second Amendment community, but I would like to think the men and women of the Oklahoma City Police Department will treat gun owners of all colors and creed with respect this weekend and in the future. I will say that some Oklahoma City open carry activists in the past haven’t been the best ambassadors for the Second Amendment, and if Chatman has been treated with condescension and sarcasm, it may be a little more complex than the color of his skin.
As part of the walk, the group is also demanding action on four separate issues. The group wants District Attorney David Prater to reopen the case in the death of C.J. Pettit Jr., who was killed by a Midwest City police officer in 2015. The group is demanding the state legislature enact laws that would hold officers accountable when they are found to be at fault in any incident of police activity. They want officers to be required to carry their own liability insurance and they are demanding the International World Court to investigate the United States for human rights violations of its Black population. “This is for the betterment of mankind,” says Michael Washington, an organizer for the group. “We are saying that we should have the right to wear our weapon on our shoulder and the Second Amendment is the way to do that. We have a right to protect ourselves because we are tired of this crap and the United States promoting the killing of African Americans.”
I don’t agree with all of the group’s demands (and I’m not exactly sure, for example, how the International Court of Justice would even investigate the U.S. for human rights violations among black citizens), but you know what? I don’t have to agree with every position taken by every person marching to the governor’s mansion. The Second Amendment isn’t just for people who think like me, or look like me, or agree with me. It’s the right of the People to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, and in that I stand with the men and women who’ll be marching in support of their Second Amendment Rights in Oklahoma City on Saturday.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--Multiple Reports Of Gunshots Rip Through St. Paul, MN

While so much attention has been focused on Minneapolis , its twin city of St. Paul hasn ’ t been without its problems .
What decent size city has been , all things considered ?
This is not a great time to be in a larger U.S. city if you can possibly avoid it .
However , St. Paul has managed to escape much of the scrutiny of its sister city .
That ’ s good .
Multiple shots-fired incidents across St. Paul Wednesday night and early Thursday morning made for a dangerous environment for police and residents .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran from police and crashed his car , property was damaged and in one incident 57 shell casings were recovered , according to police .
In all , no one was killed .
“ We feel like we got lucky last night — it could have been much , much worse , ” said St. Paul Police Department spokesman Steve Linders .
“ Our message to the community is this : We need your help .
Call us if you know who is illegally possessing guns in the city .
Call us if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the city .
Call us if you know who is firing off rounds in our city .
It could save a life.
” This was a single night in St. Paul , Minnesota .
I can ’ t help but wonder just what the hell was going on there .
After all , how much of this might have been motivated by hopes that the police might be slow to respond following the George Floyd incident ?
It ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that because the two cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some potential criminals figure the issues there might spill over into their own local police department .
It ’ s also possible that this is just a really crappy night in a city of over 300,000 people .
In fact , that ’ s probably what it is .
Yet I can ’ t help this nagging feeling that it might be much more .
Of course , that could also be the frozen pizza from last night as well .
Only time will tell .
Regardless , if you ’ re in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re out and about .
A night of violence like that can often spill over into the following days or weeks .
Carry if you ’ re able , and if you ’ re not , look at how you can keep a firearm close at hand .
Also , brush up on your state ’ s use of force laws so you know your duties if faced with deadly force from a criminal .
Then , if faced with a justified instance , pull the trigger without hesitation .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to die , but if someone ’ s going to die , I ’ d rather it be a criminal scumbag than a law-abiding citizen .
I ’ ll take that trade any day of the week .
Hopefully , this is just a one-off , an aberration that likely wouldn ’ t have meant anything to me because it wasn ’ t near a place of major civil unrest and issues with policing .
Time will tell , though , so until we know for sure , please be prepared to defend @ @ @ @ @

While so much attention has been focused on Minneapolis, its twin city of St. Paul hasn’t been without its problems. What decent size city has been, all things considered? This is not a great time to be in a larger U.S. city if you can possibly avoid it.
However, St. Paul has managed to escape much of the scrutiny of its sister city. That’s good.
This, however, isn’t.
Multiple shots-fired incidents across St. Paul Wednesday night and early Thursday morning made for a dangerous environment for police and residents. A man and woman were injured, another ran from police and crashed his car, property was damaged and in one incident 57 shell casings were recovered, according to police. In all, no one was killed. “We feel like we got lucky last night — it could have been much, much worse,” said St. Paul Police Department spokesman Steve Linders. “Our message to the community is this: We need your help. Call us if you know who is illegally possessing guns in the city. Call us if you know who is illegally carrying guns around the city. Call us if you know who is firing off rounds in our city. It could save a life.”
This was a single night in St. Paul, Minnesota. I can’t help but wonder just what the hell was going on there.
After all, how much of this might have been motivated by hopes that the police might be slow to respond following the George Floyd incident? It’s not out of the realm of possibility that because the two cities are so close geographically and politically, some potential criminals figure the issues there might spill over into their own local police department.
Yet that’s just speculation.
It’s also possible that this is just a really crappy night in a city of over 300,000 people. In fact, that’s probably what it is. Yet I can’t help this nagging feeling that it might be much more. Of course, that could also be the frozen pizza from last night as well.
Only time will tell.
Regardless, if you’re in St. Paul, please be careful if you’re out and about. A night of violence like that can often spill over into the following days or weeks. Carry if you’re able, and if you’re not, look at how you can keep a firearm close at hand. Also, brush up on your state’s use of force laws so you know your duties if faced with deadly force from a criminal.
Then, if faced with a justified instance, pull the trigger without hesitation.
No, I don’t want people to die, but if someone’s going to die, I’d rather it be a criminal scumbag than a law-abiding citizen. I’ll take that trade any day of the week.
Hopefully, this is just a one-off, an aberration that likely wouldn’t have meant anything to me because it wasn’t near a place of major civil unrest and issues with policing. Time will tell, though, so until we know for sure, please be prepared to defend yourself and your family.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--CA Lawmaker Looking To Make Dialing 9-1-1 Risky

California is known for a lot of things .
From the Gold Rush of 1849 to the tech boom of Silicon Valley to the enduring glamor of Hollywood , most people only think of the glitz and supposed opportunities .
However , for those of us who follow politics , California is also the home of some of the most ridiculous laws in the nation .
Now , a lawmaker from Oakland wants to weaponize 9-1-1 calls against people whose reports on minorities might not pan out as actual crimes .
He wants them prosecuted as hate crimes .
Seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement against communities of color , Assemblymember Rob Bonta ( D-Oakland ) is pushing new legislation .
Bonta ’ s goal is to end discriminatory 911 calls motivated by an individual ’ s race , religion , sex , or any other protected class by designating such reports as a hate crime .
However , according to Bonta , the law does not include accountability measures to address discrimination if a person summons law enforcement because they perceive another individual to be a threat due to their race , religion , outward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class .
Now , on the surface , Bonta ’ s goal might not look all that bad .
I mean , no one should have the police called on them just for being black , Muslim , or part of any other group of people .
To do so is wrong on every level .
No respectable person would argue otherwise .
Yet the problem with hate crime laws in general is the fact that it tries to determine what ’ s in a person ’ s heart when they commit an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scry into the mind of a person and make a determination over what they might be thinking .
The way things are phrased here , though , suggests that Bonta really wants to make any call against a minority that doesn ’ t turn out to be an actual crime prosecutable .
After all , far too many people call it racism when it ’ s not necessarily any such thing .
Sure , there may be some incidents that are racially motivated , but can really prove that ?
Can you prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ethnicity of the people he or she reported ?
No , you really can ’ t .
But there ’ s a darker side to this bill , something Bonta likely hasn ’ t even considered .
You see , if people actually start getting prosecuted for this , some will see suspicious activity by those of protected classes and opt not to call the police .
For all the talk of “ see something , say something ” we ’ ve heard repeatedly for years , some will decide that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being prosecuted for a hate crime and just look the other way .
Numerous crimes are prevented this way , even if there ’ s no arrest made , but those will potentially dry up , but only against minorities and other protected classes .
Suspicious activities by whites will still be reported , which means the police will roll up and potentially put an end to whatever was in the works before it happened .
Meanwhile , those in protected classes will carry out their crimes because fewer would dare call law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means not only will crimes be carried out , but when these culprits are arrested , it will skew the demographics and make it look like either the police are racist or that minorities are just more likely to commit crimes .
Neither is good for Californians , yet that ’ s precisely what you ’ re likely to see if Bonta gets his way .

California is known for a lot of things. From the Gold Rush of 1849 to the tech boom of Silicon Valley to the enduring glamor of Hollywood, most people only think of the glitz and supposed opportunities. However, for those of us who follow politics, California is also the home of some of the most ridiculous laws in the nation.
Now, a lawmaker from Oakland wants to weaponize 9-1-1 calls against people whose reports on minorities might not pan out as actual crimes. He wants them prosecuted as hate crimes.
Seeking to prevent what he calls the weaponization law enforcement against communities of color, Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) is pushing new legislation. Bonta’s goal is to end discriminatory 911 calls motivated by an individual’s race, religion, sex, or any other protected class by designating such reports as a hate crime. Under California law, it’s a criminal misdemeanor to make false police reports. However, according to Bonta, the law does not include accountability measures to address discrimination if a person summons law enforcement because they perceive another individual to be a threat due to their race, religion, outward appearance, or inclusion in a protected class.
Now, on the surface, Bonta’s goal might not look all that bad. I mean, no one should have the police called on them just for being black, Muslim, or part of any other group of people. To do so is wrong on every level. No respectable person would argue otherwise.
Yet the problem with hate crime laws in general is the fact that it tries to determine what’s in a person’s heart when they commit an offense. You’re trying to scry into the mind of a person and make a determination over what they might be thinking.
The way things are phrased here, though, suggests that Bonta really wants to make any call against a minority that doesn’t turn out to be an actual crime prosecutable. After all, far too many people call it racism when it’s not necessarily any such thing.
Sure, there may be some incidents that are racially motivated, but can really prove that? Can you prove the individual made the call strictly because of the ethnicity of the people he or she reported? No, you really can’t.
But there’s a darker side to this bill, something Bonta likely hasn’t even considered.
You see, if people actually start getting prosecuted for this, some will see suspicious activity by those of protected classes and opt not to call the police. For all the talk of “see something, say something” we’ve heard repeatedly for years, some will decide that they don’t want to risk being prosecuted for a hate crime and just look the other way.
Numerous crimes are prevented this way, even if there’s no arrest made, but those will potentially dry up, but only against minorities and other protected classes. Suspicious activities by whites will still be reported, which means the police will roll up and potentially put an end to whatever was in the works before it happened.
Meanwhile, those in protected classes will carry out their crimes because fewer would dare call law enforcement and risk hate crime prosecution, which means not only will crimes be carried out, but when these culprits are arrested, it will skew the demographics and make it look like either the police are racist or that minorities are just more likely to commit crimes.
Neither is good for Californians, yet that’s precisely what you’re likely to see if Bonta gets his way.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--Mayor Who Blasted Cop Over Armed Citizen Pic Sees Home Vandalized By Rioters

The mayor of Olympia , Washington has been about as woke as she could be since protests , riots , and looting broke out in the city after the killing of George Floyd .
Not only did Cheryl Selby publicly support the protests and minimize the damage being done to businesses and private property , she refused to declare a curfew and publicly insinuated that an Olympia police officer and several armed citizens who were guarding a local gun store were white power advocates .
Seriously .
“ After a long week for my community , I ’ m discouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this , ” the mayor wrote .
“ I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members , some of whom are displaying white power signs .
I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally unacceptable .
“ Our council/manager form of government restricts me from discussing disciplinary measures , though my council and I are demanding a thorough investigation , ” she wrote .
“ As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms , a culture change within the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge .
The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia , and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful protest can continue in our city.
” She ended her post with “ BLACK LIVES MATTER !
!
!
!
!
” The simple fact is that the multiracial group of gun owners were part of the Washington Three Percenters , and were holding up three fingers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a making a “ W ” for White Power .
The mayor has yet to apologize to the officer or the armed citizens who were protecting a local gun shop at the request of the owner , but I can ’ t help but wonder if she ’ s secretly not wishing those guys had been around her home a week ago .
Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby slammed rioters who vandalized her home Friday night , after one person was caught on surveillance camera spray painting her front porch and door with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
‘ I ’ m really trying to process this , ’ Selby told The Olympian Saturday .
‘ It ’ s like domestic terrorism .
It ’ s unfair .
It hurts when you ’ re giving so much to your community.
’ That must really suck for Mayor Selby .
Here she is working hard for the city , and someone who doesn ’ t even know her comes along and calls her a racist .
That must really hurt her heart .
I wonder if there ’ s anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commiserate with her ?
Anybody who may have had something similar happen to them ?
Now that I think of it , I know a few folks who would probably understand what Mayor Selby has gone through and would probably love to spend some time with her .
Maybe Mayor Selby could start a support group for people who ’ ve been unfairly pegged or smeared as a racist when they were simply trying to ensure domestic tranquility .
In all seriousness , if this incident hasn ’ t caused Selby to reassess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Olympia police officer and the armed citizens she portrayed as white power advocates , then she ’ s likely a sociopath without any concept of what empathy is all about .
If she wants to right wrongs , she can start with one that she ’ s responsible for .
Admit the mistake made when she smeared law enforcement and citizens alike , without cause and without all the facts .
Do that and maybe she can restore enough moral authority to lead the city .
At the moment , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single reason why anyone should take her seriously at all .

The mayor of Olympia, Washington has been about as woke as she could be since protests, riots, and looting broke out in the city after the killing of George Floyd. Not only did Cheryl Selby publicly support the protests and minimize the damage being done to businesses and private property, she refused to declare a curfew and publicly insinuated that an Olympia police officer and several armed citizens who were guarding a local gun store were white power advocates. Seriously.
“After a long week for my community, I’m discouraged that I have to make a post like this,” the mayor wrote. “I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members, some of whom are displaying white power signs. I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally unacceptable. “Our council/manager form of government restricts me from discussing disciplinary measures, though my council and I are demanding a thorough investigation,” she wrote. “As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms, a culture change within the police department and city government is clearly needed. “We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge. The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia, and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful protest can continue in our city.” She ended her post with “BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!”
The simple fact is that the multiracial group of gun owners were part of the Washington Three Percenters, and were holding up three fingers to represent the III Percent, not a making a “W” for White Power. The mayor has yet to apologize to the officer or the armed citizens who were protecting a local gun shop at the request of the owner, but I can’t help but wonder if she’s secretly not wishing those guys had been around her home a week ago.
Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby slammed rioters who vandalized her home Friday night, after one person was caught on surveillance camera spray painting her front porch and door with the words ‘racist’ and ‘BLM’. ‘I’m really trying to process this,’ Selby told The Olympian Saturday. ‘It’s like domestic terrorism. It’s unfair. It hurts when you’re giving so much to your community.’
That must really suck for Mayor Selby. Here she is working hard for the city, and someone who doesn’t even know her comes along and calls her a racist. That must really hurt her heart.
I wonder if there’s anyone in Olympia who might be able to commiserate with her? Anybody who may have had something similar happen to them? Now that I think of it, I know a few folks who would probably understand what Mayor Selby has gone through and would probably love to spend some time with her. Maybe Mayor Selby could start a support group for people who’ve been unfairly pegged or smeared as a racist when they were simply trying to ensure domestic tranquility.
In all seriousness, if this incident hasn’t caused Selby to reassess her knee-jerk attack on the character of an Olympia police officer and the armed citizens she portrayed as white power advocates, then she’s likely a sociopath without any concept of what empathy is all about. If she wants to right wrongs, she can start with one that she’s responsible for. Admit the mistake made when she smeared law enforcement and citizens alike, without cause and without all the facts.
Do that and maybe she can restore enough moral authority to lead the city. At the moment, however, I can’t think of a single reason why anyone should take her seriously at all.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--NM Paper Shoots Self In Foot With Call To Ban The Bearing Of Arms

Even as prosecutors in Albuquerque continue to investigate the shooting that occurred Tuesday night at a protest over a statue in the city ’ s Old Town , and have ( for now , anyway ) dropped charges of aggravated assault against the man fired the shots , the Santa Fe New Mexican has decided to put the Second Amendment on trial , accusing it of aiding and abetting the violence .
The paper praises Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham ’ s response to the shooting , in which she placed blame on armed members of the group New Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provoke violence at peaceful protests.
” For what it ’ s worth , members of the group say 31-year old Steven Ray Baca isn ’ t associated with them , and say they detained Baca until police arrived a few minutes after the shooting took place .
Police placed several members of the group in handcuffs and confiscated their firearms , but none of the men are currently facing any charges .
Albuquerque ’ s mayor declared that the group is trying to “ prop up white supremacy ” and may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some pretty serious charges to be throwing around , and yet I can ’ t find where the mayor actually offered any evidence .
The Guardian did a deep dive into the group ’ s social media history , but what they found was pretty paltry .
NRA slogans and “ rightwing material ” isn ’ t racist , though I suppose you could make the case that its apolitical .
As for the “ white lives matter ” video , it would have been nice to have been provided a link , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s message , as well as how it was received by members of the Civil Guard on its Facebook page .
It ’ s quite possible that members are all a bunch of incorrigible racists .
Maybe they ’ re even plotting acts of terror .
It ’ s also quite possible that they ’ re not doing either of those things .
All I know is that the narrative is being established without offering much compelling evidence .
That sounds a lot like McCarthyism to me .
* The New Mexican ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians it praises , but it offers up a policy prescription that would turn both the state and U.S. Constitution on its head .
One of the dangers of the Supreme Court signaling that , at best , there ’ s no clear support for a decision that would recognize a right to carry at the moment is that Democrats in blue states like New Mexico may feel emboldened to go big on gun control as part of their efforts to overhaul policing .
Why let a crisis go to waste , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court has at least acknowledged the right to bear arms in the Heller decision , though it hasn ’ t paid it any legal mind since then .
Here ’ s what the New Mexico state constitution has to say in Article II , Section VI : You can tell how much research the New Mexican ‘ s editors put into their argument from the fact that they say the state should start with banning open carry instead of concealed carry .
The constitution specifically allows for the legislature to ban the concealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the right to bear arms for all lawful purposes is clear .
Ban concealed carry if you can , but then you ’ re left with the open carrying of firearms .
In fact , if the editorial writers of the New Mexican bothered to research their own position , they would have discovered that in a 1971 case called City of Las Vegas v. Moberg , the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Las Vegas ( where , incidentally , the movie Red Dawn would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban the carrying of firearms .
The court ’ s opinion is short but sweet .
Ordinances prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons have generally been held to be a proper exercise of police power .
Such ordinances do not deprive citizens of the right to bear arms ; their effect is only to regulate the right .
As applied to arms , other than those concealed , the ordinance under consideration purports to completely prohibit the “ right to bear arms.
” It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear arms , and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void .
So , if the editors of the New Mexican are going to get their way , it ’ s not just a matter of changing the law .
It ’ s a matter of changing the state constitution as well .
And , even if New Mexico anti-gun activists somehow managed do that , it would be the first state in modern history to repeal a carry law , and that might be a court challenge big and broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get on board with overturning the ban .
After all , if the Supreme Court ’ s already declared that the right to keep arms is an individual right , how could it conclude that the right to bear arms is somehow different ?
Finally , there ’ s the fact that while Steven Ray Baca isn ’ t currently facing any charges for shooting the protester who attacked him , he is facing a charge of carrying a concealed firearm without a license .
That ’ s right .
Baca wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger of his gun .
The New Mexican ‘ s proposed carry ban would have done nothing at all to prevent this protest from spiraling from a shove to a shot .
The editors of New Mexican would have been better off appealing to the better angels of the state ’ s residents than urging the infringement of their civil rights .
It ’ s particularly sad to see a bad idea argued with so few facts and such little research by the journalists whose ultimate job should be exposing the truth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fantastical and unconstitutional restrictions on our individual liberty .
*For the record , my position is that McCarthy took a very real and serious threat of Soviet spying , particularly in the 1930s and 40s , and through a combination of political popularity , personal interest , and ultimately incompetence mixed with addiction to power , turned the very real Soviet spy rings that were made public by the testimony of people like Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers , into a witch hunt where simply unorthodox points of view became cause for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not a fan .
If you want to find anti-Communist heroes from that time period , there are far better choices than Joseph McCarthy .

Even as prosecutors in Albuquerque continue to investigate the shooting that occurred Tuesday night at a protest over a statue in the city’s Old Town, and have (for now, anyway) dropped charges of aggravated assault against the man fired the shots, the Santa Fe New Mexican has decided to put the Second Amendment on trial, accusing it of aiding and abetting the violence.
The paper praises Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s response to the shooting, in which she placed blame on armed members of the group New Mexico Civil Guard for having “engaged only to provoke violence at peaceful protests.” For what it’s worth, members of the group say 31-year old Steven Ray Baca isn’t associated with them, and say they detained Baca until police arrived a few minutes after the shooting took place. Police placed several members of the group in handcuffs and confiscated their firearms, but none of the men are currently facing any charges.
Albuquerque’s mayor declared that the group is trying to “prop up white supremacy” and may be connected to domestic terrorism. Those are some pretty serious charges to be throwing around, and yet I can’t find where the mayor actually offered any evidence. The Guardian did a deep dive into the group’s social media history, but what they found was pretty paltry.
Although the group did not respond to an interview request from the Guardian, it has claimed to be a community organization that is apolitical and non-racist. Yet its Facebook page, which was taken down sometime on Tuesday, featured a “white lives matter” video, NRA slogans and other rightwing material.
NRA slogans and “rightwing material” isn’t racist, though I suppose you could make the case that its apolitical. As for the “white lives matter” video, it would have been nice to have been provided a link, or the context of the video’s message, as well as how it was received by members of the Civil Guard on its Facebook page. It’s quite possible that members are all a bunch of incorrigible racists. Maybe they’re even plotting acts of terror. It’s also quite possible that they’re not doing either of those things. All I know is that the narrative is being established without offering much compelling evidence. That sounds a lot like McCarthyism to me.*
The New Mexican‘s editorial is less hyperbolic than the politicians it praises, but it offers up a policy prescription that would turn both the state and U.S. Constitution on its head.
One of the dangers of the Supreme Court signaling that, at best, there’s no clear support for a decision that would recognize a right to carry at the moment is that Democrats in blue states like New Mexico may feel emboldened to go big on gun control as part of their efforts to overhaul policing. Why let a crisis go to waste, after all?
Never mind that the Supreme Court has at least acknowledged the right to bear arms in the Heller decision, though it hasn’t paid it any legal mind since then. Here’s what the New Mexico state constitution has to say in Article II, Section VI:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
You can tell how much research the New Mexican‘s editors put into their argument from the fact that they say the state should start with banning open carry instead of concealed carry. The constitution specifically allows for the legislature to ban the concealed carrying of firearms if it wanted to, but the right to bear arms for all lawful purposes is clear. Ban concealed carry if you can, but then you’re left with the open carrying of firearms.
In fact, if the editorial writers of the New Mexican bothered to research their own position, they would have discovered that in a 1971 case called City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Las Vegas (where, incidentally, the movie Red Dawn would be filmed a decade later) could not ban the carrying of firearms. The court’s opinion is short but sweet.
Ordinances prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons have generally been held to be a proper exercise of police power. Such ordinances do not deprive citizens of the right to bear arms; their effect is only to regulate the right. As applied to arms, other than those concealed, the ordinance under consideration purports to completely prohibit the “right to bear arms.” It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void.
So, if the editors of the New Mexican are going to get their way, it’s not just a matter of changing the law. It’s a matter of changing the state constitution as well. And, even if New Mexico anti-gun activists somehow managed do that, it would be the first state in modern history to repeal a carry law, and that might be a court challenge big and broad enough that even Chief Justice Roberts might get on board with overturning the ban. After all, if the Supreme Court’s already declared that the right to keep arms is an individual right, how could it conclude that the right to bear arms is somehow different?
Finally, there’s the fact that while Steven Ray Baca isn’t currently facing any charges for shooting the protester who attacked him, he is facing a charge of carrying a concealed firearm without a license. That’s right. Baca wasn’t legally carrying when he pulled the trigger of his gun. The New Mexican‘s proposed carry ban would have done nothing at all to prevent this protest from spiraling from a shove to a shot.
The editors of New Mexican would have been better off appealing to the better angels of the state’s residents than urging the infringement of their civil rights. It’s particularly sad to see a bad idea argued with so few facts and such little research by the journalists whose ultimate job should be exposing the truth, instead of ignorantly opining away in favor of fantastical and unconstitutional restrictions on our individual liberty.
*For the record, my position is that McCarthy took a very real and serious threat of Soviet spying, particularly in the 1930s and 40s, and through a combination of political popularity, personal interest, and ultimately incompetence mixed with addiction to power, turned the very real Soviet spy rings that were made public by the testimony of people like Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers, into a witch hunt where simply unorthodox points of view became cause for suspicion of espionage or even treason. I’m not a fan. If you want to find anti-Communist heroes from that time period, there are far better choices than Joseph McCarthy.


bearingarms--2020-06-19--Police Under Fire For Killing Suspect Armed With Pellet Gun

In Long Island , New York , another potential police controversy is brewing .
Once again , the police shot and killed a suspect , and once again , people are outraged .
Because it was a white man killed by police , you ’ re not likely to hear this was pontificated on in the national media , of course , but it ’ s still a bit of controversy .
You see , the family of the deceased is upset because the man was wielding a pellet gun .
Eyewitness News has exclusively obtained police scanner transmissions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed an East Northport man that reveals officers were told the man was carrying a pellet gun .
Jeffrey McClure , 26 , was shot and killed by police on June 7 after investigators said McClure pointed a gun at officers and refused to drop the weapon , which they believed was a hunting rifle .
“ The cops just did absolutely everything wrong , ” said Donald McClure , Jeffrey McClure ’ s father .
He says he called police because his son appeared to be having a mental breakdown and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Grant Street , and that Jeffrey kept saying he wanted “ to go to the hospital.
” Donald McClure said he called police because he was hoping they would take his son to the hospital for psychiatric help , and that he informed responding officers of his son ’ s wishes .
Now , he is in disbelief that his son was shot and killed .
I get why Mr. McClure feels that way , but that doesn ’ t mean he ’ s right .
For one thing , a resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McClure had access to other weapons in the basement , where he was .
Second , police found a number of firearms in that basement , including a number of long guns .
Officers , however , seemingly accepted that McClure had a pellet gun on hand when they arrived .
On the audio , an officer , just after arriving on scene , says , “ We have a subject with supposedly a pellet gun .
I ’ m not sure.
” An officer on the scene then immediately yells , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me !
Don ’ t point the gun at me !
” In transmissions moments later , officers say , “ The subject is pointing the pellet gun at the units who pulled up ” and “ Be advised , he has a gun .
They say it ’ s a pellet gun .
He has pointed it at us.
” Officers didn ’ t fire , though , despite only having the word of others that it wasn ’ t a firearm .
Then McClure went into the basement .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that McClure might have obtained a firearm and was about to use that against them .
When he pointed it at them again , they defended themselves .
Now , I don ’ t believe police officers are flawless individuals , but I just don ’ t see what else they ’ re expected to do .
When someone points a gun-shaped object at you , you don ’ t treat it like it ’ s not a threat .
Far too many times , those gun-shaped objects are actually firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re firearms .
Either that or you face getting shot .
While what happened to McClure is awful–after all , it sounded like he really needed the help–police aren ’ t about to risk their lives further by just letting people point things that look like guns at them in hopes that it ’ s still a pellet gun .
Had the resident told them that there weren ’ t any firearms present , they might have acted differently .
Had McClure not gone into the basement , they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Again , they only had people ’ s word that it was a pellet gun ) .
Now , though , under the current anti-police climate , these officers are going to be thrust under a spotlight .
McClure ’ s family has hired a lawyer and apparently has an appointment with the NY Attorney General .
In other words , there ’ s a good chance these officers who were making the right call will still face prosecution .
Same old song and dance these days , it seems .

In Long Island, New York, another potential police controversy is brewing. Once again, the police shot and killed a suspect, and once again, people are outraged. Because it was a white man killed by police, you’re not likely to hear this was pontificated on in the national media, of course, but it’s still a bit of controversy.
You see, the family of the deceased is upset because the man was wielding a pellet gun.
Eyewitness News has exclusively obtained police scanner transmissions from the night Suffolk County police shot and killed an East Northport man that reveals officers were told the man was carrying a pellet gun. Jeffrey McClure, 26, was shot and killed by police on June 7 after investigators said McClure pointed a gun at officers and refused to drop the weapon, which they believed was a hunting rifle. “The cops just did absolutely everything wrong,” said Donald McClure, Jeffrey McClure’s father. He says he called police because his son appeared to be having a mental breakdown and was shooting the pellet gun inside the house on Grant Street, and that Jeffrey kept saying he wanted “to go to the hospital.” Donald McClure said he called police because he was hoping they would take his son to the hospital for psychiatric help, and that he informed responding officers of his son’s wishes. Now, he is in disbelief that his son was shot and killed.
I get why Mr. McClure feels that way, but that doesn’t mean he’s right.
For one thing, a resident at the whole reportedly told police that McClure had access to other weapons in the basement, where he was. Second, police found a number of firearms in that basement, including a number of long guns.
Officers, however, seemingly accepted that McClure had a pellet gun on hand when they arrived.
On the audio, an officer, just after arriving on scene, says, “We have a subject with supposedly a pellet gun. I’m not sure.” An officer on the scene then immediately yells, “He’s pointing the gun at me! Don’t point the gun at me!” In transmissions moments later, officers say, “The subject is pointing the pellet gun at the units who pulled up” and “Be advised, he has a gun. They say it’s a pellet gun. He has pointed it at us.”
Officers didn’t fire, though, despite only having the word of others that it wasn’t a firearm.
Then McClure went into the basement.
In other words, officers had every reason to believe that McClure might have obtained a firearm and was about to use that against them. When he pointed it at them again, they defended themselves.
Now, I don’t believe police officers are flawless individuals, but I just don’t see what else they’re expected to do. When someone points a gun-shaped object at you, you don’t treat it like it’s not a threat. Far too many times, those gun-shaped objects are actually firearms, so you treat all gun-shaped objects as if they’re firearms.
Either that or you face getting shot.
While what happened to McClure is awful–after all, it sounded like he really needed the help–police aren’t about to risk their lives further by just letting people point things that look like guns at them in hopes that it’s still a pellet gun. Had the resident told them that there weren’t any firearms present, they might have acted differently. Had McClure not gone into the basement, they might have responded differently (though I doubt it. Again, they only had people’s word that it was a pellet gun).
Unfortunately, that happened.
Now, though, under the current anti-police climate, these officers are going to be thrust under a spotlight.
McClure’s family has hired a lawyer and apparently has an appointment with the NY Attorney General. In other words, there’s a good chance these officers who were making the right call will still face prosecution.
Same old song and dance these days, it seems.


bearingarms--2020-06-20--Can We Leave The Politics At The Door Of The Gun Range?

One of the things I love about being a part of the Second Amendment movement is that it ’ s a big tent .
From socialists to anarcho-capitalists , from ultra-conservative to uber-liberal , you can find gun owners who occupy every point on the political spectrum , along with every conceivable skin tone , gender role , race , creed , and blood type .
The community of Second Amendment advocates is , I believe , more broad and diverse than any other single-issue movement in the country .
I do worry though , that driven by the deepening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing more fractures in the fight to keep and bear arms .
One recent example of this comes from Colonial Heights , Virginia , just south of Richmond .
The Smoking Gun shooting range found itself in some hot water recently after posting a new sign for customers to read .
According to NBC12 in Richmond , the sign took many customers who are fans of the range by surprise , “ saying the staff is friendly and professional .
It ’ s why so many were taken off guard by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Richmond TV station , The Smoking Gun has now changed its sign to simply say “ members of hate groups are not welcome.
” That ’ s a much more succinct ( and better stated ) statement of principles , but if I were the range owner and felt like I needed to make some sort of statement in my business , I would have gone with a sign that read “ Leave Your Politics At The Door .
We ’ re All Gun Owners Here.
” Maybe it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment we ’ re living in , but I think Second Amendment activists have probably the best chance at sitting down with people of different viewpoints and actually being able to have a conversation and dialogue .
We share a commonality , after all , despite our differences of opinion .
Gun owners could not actually help lead us out of this colossal clown show we ’ re living in , but a united front of gun owners across the political spectrum lobbying in support of our 2A rights could pay big dividends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if we don ’ t end up compartmentalizing gun ownership into smaller and smaller tents and tribes .
We also need a politics-free zone where that commonality is on full display , where we can shoot together instead of shouting at one another .
The range is the perfect place to make our big tent even bigger , but we could also end up tearing it down and turning it into yet another battlespace in our ongoing culture wars .
That would be a tragic turn of events for all gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @

One of the things I love about being a part of the Second Amendment movement is that it’s a big tent. From socialists to anarcho-capitalists, from ultra-conservative to uber-liberal, you can find gun owners who occupy every point on the political spectrum, along with every conceivable skin tone, gender role, race, creed, and blood type. The community of Second Amendment advocates is, I believe, more broad and diverse than any other single-issue movement in the country. I do worry though, that driven by the deepening divides in our country, we’re seeing more fractures in the fight to keep and bear arms.
One recent example of this comes from Colonial Heights, Virginia, just south of Richmond. The Smoking Gun shooting range found itself in some hot water recently after posting a new sign for customers to read.
“If you are anti-police, anti-military, associated with Cop Block, {or} Black Lives Matter (because all lives matter), stay off of my range. You are not welcome here. Period.”
According to NBC12 in Richmond, the sign took many customers who are fans of the range by surprise, “saying the staff is friendly and professional. It’s why so many were taken off guard by a sign that left them hurt.”
“Where you go to pay, it’s right there. You can’t miss it,” Jhovan Galberth said pointing to the sign… “To everyone that says ‘all lives matter,’ duh. Not once have I heard someone saying ‘Black Lives Matter’ say that a white life doesn’t matter or a Hispanic life doesn’t matter. Not once have I heard that, so I don’t understand the tension of changing the narrative to make it a bad thing. What we’re working for is peace, is justice. We’re not saying we’re better than anyone. All we want is equal rights,” Galberth said. Galberth is a local organizer who has spent the past couple of weeks organizing peaceful protests across the Tri-Cities. “You have to get out of the narrative that it’s black vs. white because that’s not the narrative at all. It’s everybody against racism” he said.
According to the Richmond TV station, The Smoking Gun has now changed its sign to simply say “members of hate groups are not welcome.” That’s a much more succinct (and better stated) statement of principles, but if I were the range owner and felt like I needed to make some sort of statement in my business, I would have gone with a sign that read “Leave Your Politics At The Door. We’re All Gun Owners Here.”
Maybe it’s an impossible expectation in the supercharged political environment we’re living in, but I think Second Amendment activists have probably the best chance at sitting down with people of different viewpoints and actually being able to have a conversation and dialogue. We share a commonality, after all, despite our differences of opinion. Gun owners could not actually help lead us out of this colossal clown show we’re living in, but a united front of gun owners across the political spectrum lobbying in support of our 2A rights could pay big dividends. That can only happen, however, if we don’t end up compartmentalizing gun ownership into smaller and smaller tents and tribes.
We also need a politics-free zone where that commonality is on full display, where we can shoot together instead of shouting at one another. The range is the perfect place to make our big tent even bigger, but we could also end up tearing it down and turning it into yet another battlespace in our ongoing culture wars. That would be a tragic turn of events for all gun owners, both politically and culturally.