bearingarms--2020-07-10--Violence Spike Not Just Hitting Large Cities

When we talk about the increase in violence in recent weeks , we tend to focus on large cities ; places like New York , Chicago , and similar places .
The reason is that there ’ s much more media attention in those places .
What ’ s happening there gets thrust into the spotlight unlike what transpires in most other places .
We see what we see .
But that doesn ’ t mean that the violence is isolated .
No , far from it .
Even much smaller cities are experiencing an uptick in violent crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ River since June 1 .
While none were fatal , some involved multiple victims and more than half currently lack a suspect .
On Thursday , Mayor Paul Coogan , Police Chief Jeffrey Cardoza , and Bristol County District Attorney Thomas Quinn III held a news conference to address the recent rash of gun crime .
“ All residents of any neighborhood should – at a minimum – be able to live free of violence , ” Coogan said .
“ Speaking for the members of my organization , we are absolutely appalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cardoza said .
The shootings took place in different parts of the city and police say they ’ ve identified suspects in four of the nine , though not all of them have been arrested .
Most recently , two women were shot Tuesday night in the area of Kennedy Park , one in the head and the other in the legs , according to police .
Both are now recovering at the hospital .
Cam actually talked about this incident on Cam & Company on Thursday .
The suspects are a father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , that ’ s one way to describe a father who made his 14-year-old son commit an armed robbery .
The father only got 18 months probation .
That pathetic punishment matters when we ’ re looking at this recent spike in violence that ’ s gripping the nation .
It ’ s one of a number of factors that has to be contributing to what we ’ ve been seeing .
After all , that June 1 date ?
That ’ s shortly after the death of George Floyd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , what happened to George Floyd was a tragedy and , in my opinion , never should have happened .
However , this aftermath isn ’ t just because George Floyd died .
There ’ s something deeper going on , something troubling .
In part , we have Lord only knows how many potentially violent felons that have been released due to COVID , coupled with embattled police departments all over the nation who simply can ’ t trust their elected leaders to stand with them , especially after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the death of Rayshard Brooks .
So you ’ ve got opportunistic criminals , police who are trying to do their jobs with both hands tied behind their back , and just a general sense of outrage , even among those who don ’ t deal with politics .
It ’ s not hard to see that we ’ re dealing with a perfect storm of suck .
The worst part ?
No one really knows when it ’ s going to end .
This can just keep on going and going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either simmers down or explodes .
Only one of those is a good thing .

When we talk about the increase in violence in recent weeks, we tend to focus on large cities; places like New York, Chicago, and similar places. The reason is that there’s much more media attention in those places. What’s happening there gets thrust into the spotlight unlike what transpires in most other places.
We see what we see.
But that doesn’t mean that the violence is isolated. No, far from it. Even much smaller cities are experiencing an uptick in violent crime.
There have been nine shootings in Fall River since June 1. While none were fatal, some involved multiple victims and more than half currently lack a suspect. On Thursday, Mayor Paul Coogan, Police Chief Jeffrey Cardoza, and Bristol County District Attorney Thomas Quinn III held a news conference to address the recent rash of gun crime. “All residents of any neighborhood should – at a minimum – be able to live free of violence,” Coogan said. “Speaking for the members of my organization, we are absolutely appalled by what is going on,” Cardoza said. The shootings took place in different parts of the city and police say they’ve identified suspects in four of the nine, though not all of them have been arrested. Most recently, two women were shot Tuesday night in the area of Kennedy Park, one in the head and the other in the legs, according to police. Both are now recovering at the hospital.
Cam actually talked about this incident on Cam & Company on Thursday. The suspects are a father and son team with a…special relationship. I mean, that’s one way to describe a father who made his 14-year-old son commit an armed robbery.
The father only got 18 months probation.
That pathetic punishment matters when we’re looking at this recent spike in violence that’s gripping the nation. It’s one of a number of factors that has to be contributing to what we’ve been seeing.
After all, that June 1 date? That’s shortly after the death of George Floyd, which sparked riots all over the nation.
Now, what happened to George Floyd was a tragedy and, in my opinion, never should have happened. However, this aftermath isn’t just because George Floyd died.
There’s something deeper going on, something troubling.
In part, we have Lord only knows how many potentially violent felons that have been released due to COVID, coupled with embattled police departments all over the nation who simply can’t trust their elected leaders to stand with them, especially after the way Atlanta seemed to sell out officers after the death of Rayshard Brooks.
So you’ve got opportunistic criminals, police who are trying to do their jobs with both hands tied behind their back, and just a general sense of outrage, even among those who don’t deal with politics. It’s not hard to see that we’re dealing with a perfect storm of suck.
The worst part? No one really knows when it’s going to end. This can just keep on going and going until something changes. That means it either simmers down or explodes.
Only one of those is a good thing.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--Seattle Ice Cream Shop Demands Cops Go Gun-Free

The owner of Molly Moon ’ s ice cream shop in Seattle , Washington is coming under criticism for a new sign posted by owner Molly Moon-Neitzel that demands police officers ( and everyone else ) disarm before entering the store .
While the sight of a “ gun free zone ” sign isn ’ t all that unusual in far-left Seattle , specifically including cops in the policy is a little out of the ordinary , though perhaps to be expected given the store ’ s proximity to the former site of the CHAZ/CHOP encampment .
Moon-Neitzel tells KIRO-TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the CHOP was being taken down .
“ Last week , as CHOP was being dismantled , and there was a flood of police officers here in the neighborhood , they were intimidating and causing some of my of my black and brown employees to feel unsafe , ” explained Neitzel .
The no-gun policy isn ’ t new .
It ’ s been in place since 2013 when then Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and the anti-gun violence organization Washington CeaseFire launched the Seattle Gun Free Zone program .
There are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s seven other Molly Moon locations .
But the Capitol Hill location is the only one that has the new sign that calls out cops .
It ’ s worth nothing that since the Seattle Gun Free Zone Program was launched back in 2013 , the homicide rate in Seattle has gone in the wrong direction .
In 2013 the city ’ s murder rate was about 3 per 100,000 .
By 2018 it had increased to 4.3 homicides per 100,000 people .
In 2019 the homicide rate was even higher , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effectiveness of a “ no guns allowed ” sign in reducing shootings or homicides .
It ’ s within Neitzel ’ s right as a private property owner to bar firearms from her business if she wants , but I think she ’ s going to have a very difficult time enforcing that policy when it comes to any armed police officers who come in for a cone .
If one of Neitzel ’ s employees feels threatened by the sight of an armed cop , what exactly are they going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers to remove the armed police officer ?
This is nothing more that virtue signaling on the part of Molly Moon ’ s , and while I suspect the new sign will be praised by anti-police activists in Seattle , it might not do much to spare the shop the next time rioting and looting breaks out in the Capitol Hill neighborhood .

The owner of Molly Moon’s ice cream shop in Seattle, Washington is coming under criticism for a new sign posted by owner Molly Moon-Neitzel that demands police officers (and everyone else) disarm before entering the store. While the sight of a “gun free zone” sign isn’t all that unusual in far-left Seattle, specifically including cops in the policy is a little out of the ordinary, though perhaps to be expected given the store’s proximity to the former site of the CHAZ/CHOP encampment.
Moon-Neitzel tells KIRO-TV in Seattle that the sign went up as the CHOP was being taken down.
“Last week, as CHOP was being dismantled, and there was a flood of police officers here in the neighborhood, they were intimidating and causing some of my of my black and brown employees to feel unsafe,” explained Neitzel. The no-gun policy isn’t new. It’s been in place since 2013 when then Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and the anti-gun violence organization Washington CeaseFire launched the Seattle Gun Free Zone program. There are “Gun Free Zone” stickers at Neitzel’s seven other Molly Moon locations. But the Capitol Hill location is the only one that has the new sign that calls out cops.
It’s worth nothing that since the Seattle Gun Free Zone Program was launched back in 2013, the homicide rate in Seattle has gone in the wrong direction. In 2013 the city’s murder rate was about 3 per 100,000. By 2018 it had increased to 4.3 homicides per 100,000 people. In 2019 the homicide rate was even higher, which doesn’t say much about the effectiveness of a “no guns allowed” sign in reducing shootings or homicides.
“I feel it’s divisive rhetoric. I view it as political pandering,” said Mike Solan, president of the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild. He denounced the sign as “unreasonable activism” amid calls to defund the police. “It’s more divisiveness at a time when we need more unity,” added Solan. When Neitzel was asked if she’s anti-police, here’s how she answered. “I am anti the current police system,” said Neitzel. “Yeah, I think we need major police reform.” At a time when the pandemic has already decimated her business, Neitzel, who has a history of activism, said she realizes her position may further impact her bottom line. “I am going to be a business person and an activist that continues to speak truth to as I see it,” Neitzel said.
It’s within Neitzel’s right as a private property owner to bar firearms from her business if she wants, but I think she’s going to have a very difficult time enforcing that policy when it comes to any armed police officers who come in for a cone. If one of Neitzel’s employees feels threatened by the sight of an armed cop, what exactly are they going to do? Call for more armed police officers to remove the armed police officer?
This is nothing more that virtue signaling on the part of Molly Moon’s, and while I suspect the new sign will be praised by anti-police activists in Seattle, it might not do much to spare the shop the next time rioting and looting breaks out in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--Feds Seek To Keep Guns Siezed After Shooting

Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government can take someone ’ s stuff and basically do it legally , despite the individual in question never actually being convicted of a crime .
The system was first put in place to try and hurt drug cartels .
By taking their cars , boats , homes , etc , the hope was to make it simply too costly to do business anymore .
Of course , there ’ s a legal system to make it happen , but it ’ s odd .
For example , the item itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such , doesn ’ t require the same burden of proof as a person would in a court of law .
Further , there ’ s no legal representation provided , which means the property owner has to either pony up for an attorney himself or just lost his stuff .
That ’ s happening to a Texas man following the rampage shooting in Midland and Odessa , Texas in 2019 .
Prosecutors are seeking to keep dozens of guns and firearm accessories seized from a man whose home was searched last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that left more than 20 people injured and seven dead .
Lawyers for the Justice Department have asked a federal court to grant the government permanent possession of 29 pistols , rifles and gun parts taken from the Lubbock home of Marcus Anthony Braziel .
Court records value the guns at more $ 11,000 .
At the time , a federal law enforcement official did not identify Braziel by name but said the home searched was that of a man who agents believed sold a semi-automatic rifle to the alleged gunman , 36-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint filed last week states Braziel spent years buying , selling and building guns without a license , and in 2016 sold an AM-15 rifle to an Odessa resident with the initials “ S.A. ” The case is against the seized firearms , not Braziel , and there is no record of a criminal case against him .
It was first reported by KLBK-TV .
In other words , they don ’ t have enough evidence to charge Braziel , so they ’ re going to find another way to punish him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case in and of itself , there ’ s pretty much no way Braziel is going to be able to fight that many cases .
He ’ s going to lose dozens of guns and other items , despite there being insufficient evidence to prosecute him for , you know , an actual crime .
Instead , they ’ re going to layout the accusation and then prosecute the firearms instead .
And the worst thing is that this is perfectly legal .
The government can just take someone ’ s stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been involved in a crime .
Numerous individuals have had to deal with this , all while also not being prosecuted for a damn thing .
Then , of course , the departments get to reap the benefits of it .
Oh yeah , I forgot to mention that part .
You see , civil asset forfeiture directly benefits law enforcement .
They take the stuff and they can either sell it or use it themselves .
Many communities ’ drug units are entirely funded by civil asset forfeiture .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff , profit from it , and leave him with nothing .
All while not prosecuting him for a damn thing .
In other words , they ’ re violating not just his Second Amendment rights , but his Fourth Amendment rights as well .
All because they think he did something wrong .

Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government can take someone’s stuff and basically do it legally, despite the individual in question never actually being convicted of a crime.
The system was first put in place to try and hurt drug cartels. By taking their cars, boats, homes, etc, the hope was to make it simply too costly to do business anymore.
Of course, there’s a legal system to make it happen, but it’s odd. For example, the item itself is put on trial and, as such, doesn’t require the same burden of proof as a person would in a court of law. Further, there’s no legal representation provided, which means the property owner has to either pony up for an attorney himself or just lost his stuff.
That’s happening to a Texas man following the rampage shooting in Midland and Odessa, Texas in 2019.
Prosecutors are seeking to keep dozens of guns and firearm accessories seized from a man whose home was searched last year following a mass shooting in West Texas that left more than 20 people injured and seven dead. Lawyers for the Justice Department have asked a federal court to grant the government permanent possession of 29 pistols, rifles and gun parts taken from the Lubbock home of Marcus Anthony Braziel. Court records value the guns at more $11,000. … At the time, a federal law enforcement official did not identify Braziel by name but said the home searched was that of a man who agents believed sold a semi-automatic rifle to the alleged gunman, 36-year-old Seth Aaron Ator. The civil forfeiture complaint filed last week states Braziel spent years buying, selling and building guns without a license, and in 2016 sold an AM-15 rifle to an Odessa resident with the initials “S.A.” The case is against the seized firearms, not Braziel, and there is no record of a criminal case against him. It was first reported by KLBK-TV.
In other words, they don’t have enough evidence to charge Braziel, so they’re going to find another way to punish him.
Of course, since each gun is a case in and of itself, there’s pretty much no way Braziel is going to be able to fight that many cases. He’s going to lose dozens of guns and other items, despite there being insufficient evidence to prosecute him for, you know, an actual crime. Instead, they’re going to layout the accusation and then prosecute the firearms instead.
And the worst thing is that this is perfectly legal. The government can just take someone’s stuff because they say they think it’s been involved in a crime. Numerous individuals have had to deal with this, all while also not being prosecuted for a damn thing. Then, of course, the departments get to reap the benefits of it.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part.
You see, civil asset forfeiture directly benefits law enforcement. They take the stuff and they can either sell it or use it themselves. Many communities’ drug units are entirely funded by civil asset forfeiture.
That means they get to take Braziel’s stuff, profit from it, and leave him with nothing. All while not prosecuting him for a damn thing.
In other words, they’re violating not just his Second Amendment rights, but his Fourth Amendment rights as well. All because they think he did something wrong.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--Armed MI Couple Speak Out After Arrest Over Chipotle Argument

Remember this story from suburban Detroit last week ?
The Wuestenbergs are still facing felonious assault charges , and now the couple are telling their side of the story .
Eric and Jillian Wuestenberg sat down with Fox2 in Detroit to talk about how the argument outside of a Chipotle escalated to the point that Jillian drew her gun .
“ Death , fear , confusion , I don ’ t know how , why , it got to where it is , ” she said .
“ But just utter terror.
” Jillian Wuestenberg says that ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately draw her weapon .
She says it started after she accidentally bumped into a 15-year-old girl as she was leaving the restaurant .
“ They were blocking the entrance to the car , I had a railing behind me , ” she said .
“ I was trapped , I couldn ’ t go anywhere .
I was being yelled at , berated , called a racist and ignorant and I was trapped.
” That ’ s not when Wuestenberg drew her firearm , however .
Her husband helped her into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue once he got back into the driver ’ s seat .
That is when they say they tried to back up and leave – but the car ’ s automatic braking system suddenly stopped – at least one of the women was banging on the car .
Jillian says she was in fear for their lives .
“ At that point I realized we ’ re not going home tonight , we ’ re not going to see another day , and the only thing I can do is protect myself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Here ’ s the full video recorded by Takelia Hill ’ s 15-year old daughter , which captured both the argument beforehand and the moment Jillian Wuestenberg hopped out of her van and pulled her gun .
As I said previously , I ’ m not sure why Eric Wuestenberg is facing assault charges , given that he never drew his firearm .
In my opinion , though , Jillian Wuestenberg didn ’ t actually need to hop out of her van at all .
There was a path for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did a few seconds later when Jillian Wuestenberg got back into the passenger side of the minivan .
According to the couple ’ s attorneys , however , Jillian Wuestenberg had no other option but to draw her gun .
“ I believe the actions that these two fine people took , were not only justified but they were necessary in order for them to go home to their kids , ” said attorney Terry Johnson .
They say the Wuestenbergs were clearly being threatened by the other party .
“ Absolutely should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yes , ” attorney Dean Greenblatt said .
“ But not against Eric and not against Jillian.
” I agree that Takelia Hill could also have de-escalated the situation by simply walking away , but Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard made it explicitly clear in a press conference last week that no one would have faced arrest or any charges if Jillian Wuestenberg hadn ’ t drawn her gun .
Bouchard said the sheriff ’ s detectives investigating the case were “ presented with two very different stories from two different groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely threatened.
” No gunshots were fired , there were no injuries and , the sheriff added , had the couple not drawn their weapons on unarmed victims , they would not have been facing felony assault charges .
He also urged more calm in stressful times .
“ Everybody , ” he said , “ needs to think about each other.
” Bouchard played six 911 calls , in which various parties described what they saw , two video recordings of the incident circulating on the internet , and tried to piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Republican , also went out of his way to make it clear the charge was decided by Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper , a Democrat .
He declined to offer any personal opinions of the charges .
Since the incident catapulted the Wuestenbergs to national attention , both Eric and Jillian Wuestenberg have been fired from their jobs , and the couple say their lives have been threatened as well , with “ death threats , threatening text messages , calls ” and even strangers showing up to their home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have no income , no jobs because of this , ” Eric said .
“ All because we were victims of a crime – we were attacked.
” “ No one ever wants to have to use a weapon to protect themselves , ” Jillian said .
“ It ’ s not what you wake up wanting to do in the morning .
But we want to stay alive – that ’ s what this came down to.
” Even if the Wuestenberg ’ s are ultimately found to have been on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s absolutely no excuse or justification for making threats against their lives , and it ’ s pretty cowardly ( though not completely surprising ) to see that their employers cut the couple loose based solely on the videos and the charges that were filed , rather than waiting for the legal outcome of the case .
The Wuestenbergs say they plan to fight the felonious assault charges that have been filed against them , and I suspect that the local prosecutor is going to end up offering them a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case against Eric Wuestenberg appears to be pretty weak , at least based on the video evidence that we ’ ve seen , and I ’ d be surprised if the prosecutor really wants to take his case to trial .
If Jillian Wuestenberg ends up on trial , on the other hand , she ’ s going to have to convince a jury that she really did have no other option but to draw her gun because she believed her life was in immediate danger .
Based on the video evidence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard sell .

Remember this story from suburban Detroit last week?
A couple in Michigan are facing felonious assault charges and the possibility of four years in prison after one of them drew a gun during a heated argument in the parking lot of a Chipotle in a Detroit suburb. Jillian Wuestenberg and her husband Eric Wuestenberg are out on $50,000 bond in the incident, though Eric Wuestenberg is also out of a job. Oakland University, which employed him in a veterans-related department, gave Wuestenberg the heave-ho shortly after charges were filed.
The Wuestenbergs are still facing felonious assault charges, and now the couple are telling their side of the story. Eric and Jillian Wuestenberg sat down with Fox2 in Detroit to talk about how the argument outside of a Chipotle escalated to the point that Jillian drew her gun.
“Death, fear, confusion, I don’t know how, why, it got to where it is,” she said. “But just utter terror.” Jillian Wuestenberg says that’s what she felt – what moved her to ultimately draw her weapon. She says it started after she accidentally bumped into a 15-year-old girl as she was leaving the restaurant. “They were blocking the entrance to the car, I had a railing behind me,” she said. “I was trapped, I couldn’t go anywhere. I was being yelled at, berated, called a racist and ignorant and I was trapped.”
That’s not when Wuestenberg drew her firearm, however. Her husband helped her into the car, and the four continued to argue once he got back into the driver’s seat.
That is when they say they tried to back up and leave – but the car’s automatic braking system suddenly stopped – at least one of the women was banging on the car. Jillian says she was in fear for their lives. “At that point I realized we’re not going home tonight, we’re not going to see another day, and the only thing I can do is protect myself and I draw my firearm,” she said.
Here’s the full video recorded by Takelia Hill’s 15-year old daughter, which captured both the argument beforehand and the moment Jillian Wuestenberg hopped out of her van and pulled her gun.
As I said previously, I’m not sure why Eric Wuestenberg is facing assault charges, given that he never drew his firearm. In my opinion, though, Jillian Wuestenberg didn’t actually need to hop out of her van at all. There was a path for the Wuestenbergs to drive away, as they did a few seconds later when Jillian Wuestenberg got back into the passenger side of the minivan. According to the couple’s attorneys, however, Jillian Wuestenberg had no other option but to draw her gun.
“I believe the actions that these two fine people took, were not only justified but they were necessary in order for them to go home to their kids,” said attorney Terry Johnson. They say the Wuestenbergs were clearly being threatened by the other party. “Absolutely should there be charges brought in this case, yes,” attorney Dean Greenblatt said. “But not against Eric and not against Jillian.”
I agree that Takelia Hill could also have de-escalated the situation by simply walking away, but Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard made it explicitly clear in a press conference last week that no one would have faced arrest or any charges if Jillian Wuestenberg hadn’t drawn her gun.
Bouchard said the sheriff’s detectives investigating the case were “presented with two very different stories from two different groups, with both sides claiming they felt extremely threatened.” No gunshots were fired, there were no injuries and, the sheriff added, had the couple not drawn their weapons on unarmed victims, they would not have been facing felony assault charges. He also urged more calm in stressful times. “Everybody,” he said, “needs to think about each other.” Bouchard played six 911 calls, in which various parties described what they saw, two video recordings of the incident circulating on the internet, and tried to piece together the chain of events. Bouchard, a Republican, also went out of his way to make it clear the charge was decided by Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper, a Democrat. He declined to offer any personal opinions of the charges.
Since the incident catapulted the Wuestenbergs to national attention, both Eric and Jillian Wuestenberg have been fired from their jobs, and the couple say their lives have been threatened as well, with “death threats, threatening text messages, calls” and even strangers showing up to their home.
“Our lives are literally ruined because we have no income, no jobs because of this,” Eric said. “All because we were victims of a crime – we were attacked.” “No one ever wants to have to use a weapon to protect themselves,” Jillian said. “It’s not what you wake up wanting to do in the morning. But we want to stay alive – that’s what this came down to.”
Even if the Wuestenberg’s are ultimately found to have been on the wrong side of the law here, there’s absolutely no excuse or justification for making threats against their lives, and it’s pretty cowardly (though not completely surprising) to see that their employers cut the couple loose based solely on the videos and the charges that were filed, rather than waiting for the legal outcome of the case.
The Wuestenbergs say they plan to fight the felonious assault charges that have been filed against them, and I suspect that the local prosecutor is going to end up offering them a plea deal of some sort. The case against Eric Wuestenberg appears to be pretty weak, at least based on the video evidence that we’ve seen, and I’d be surprised if the prosecutor really wants to take his case to trial.
If Jillian Wuestenberg ends up on trial, on the other hand, she’s going to have to convince a jury that she really did have no other option but to draw her gun because she believed her life was in immediate danger. Based on the video evidence to date, that might be a pretty hard sell.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--NRA Attacked For Not Speaking On Police Reform

With the anti-gun media , the National Rifle Association is in the position of “ damned if you do , damned if you don ’ t. ” Anytime the NRA speaks out on anything not indisputably linked to gun rights , they get blasted .
In fairness , they get blasted when they talk about gun rights as well , but that ’ s a bit different .
If they veer off into anything tangentially related to anything else , they get criticized much differently .
While the NRA gets hit for its comments on guns , it gets for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the validity to what they might have said .
Now , though , they ’ re getting hit because they ’ re not speaking out on an issue that basically has nothing to do with guns .
The National Rifle Association has been conspicuously silent on police violence amid weeks of nationwide demonstrations , despite calling itself the “ America ’ s longest-standing civil rights organization.
” The NRA ’ s leaders and social media accounts have made no mention of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd , the protests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The NRA loves to talk about liberty , self-defense , and resisting ‘ tyranny , ’ but their actions suggest that they believe these concerns apply only to white people , ” Kelly Sampson , the constitutional litigation and racial justice counsel at Brady : United Against Gun Violence , said in a statement to Salon .
“ When armed vigilantes and law enforcement infringe on Black and brown Americans ’ civil rights — the NRA is silent.
” First , the law enforcement officers accused of infringing on anyone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s conspicuously absent from Sampson ’ s tirade .
In other words , the system isn ’ t rolling over and just letting this kind of thing happen .
The same is happening to those who tried to use firearms to intimidate black and brown activists who were protesting peacefully .
However , that ’ s not enough .
This is nothing new .
Despite NRA chief Wayne LaPierre ’ s famous warning of “ jack-booted government thugs ” who want to “ take away our constitutional rights , break in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even injure or kill us , ” the group said nothing when Louisville police broke into Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment and fatally shot her in bed after her boyfriend , a legal gun owner , fired a warning shot to prevent what he thought was a home invasion .
It similarly stayed silent on the killing of Botham Jean , who was killed when an off-duty police officer mistook his apartment for her own , other than to suggest he might still be alive if he had been armed himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was–had nothing to do with gun confiscation .
Neither did the death of Botham Jean , though the NRA ’ s position is certainly valid .
If he ’ d had been armed , he might have been able to shoot back at his attacker , saving his life .
LaPierre ’ s warning–one that already existed within the gun rights community well before he uttered it–was about a specific threat , the threat of these same police being blasted by the left going door to door to take away our Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a concern many of us have based on the words of anti-gun activists throughout the nation .
These are the ones who admit that yes , they are coming for our guns .
Of course , they won ’ t come themselves .
They ’ ll send the same police they describe as oppressors .
Until then , though , the NRA ’ s silence is warranted .
This isn ’ t their fight and they know it .
But that ’ s not enough for Salon .
It never is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any opposition to the current narrative as racist .
“ The NRA uses rhetoric steeped in racism .
You only have to look at their Twitter feed to see this , ” Sampson told Salon .
“ On June 2 , the NRA tweeted about apparent looting in Minneapolis and about reports that Black residents were purchasing firearms , calling the Second Amendment a ‘ great equalizer.
’ But the feed made no mention of the violence perpetrated against protesters or against Black Americans across the country .
The NRA has used this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture of fear and paranoia that not only ignores the suffering of people of color but also actively threatens them .
We see this in the NRA ’ s unremitting defense of Stand Your Ground laws , which are proven to be more likely to be used to justify the murder of a Black man by a white man.
” Oh , you mean the NRA isn ’ t singling out specific instances of people doing bad things ?
Kind of like how they rarely single out specific instances of crime unless it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
They go on to pretend that every criticism of Black Lives Matter , the protests and ensuing riots , or any of that is somehow evidence of racism .
Then again , in their mind , any criticism of any of these things simply has to be racist because they can ’ t fathom why anyone would take issue with a movement founded by at least one admitted Marxist .
Honestly , it ’ s getting harder and harder to take Salon and the anti-NRA left seriously anymore .
While the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for improvement , the truth is that there was no way the anti-gunners would have cut them some slack .
If they ’ d said anything other than the approved rhetoric , they ’ d have been blasted and we all know it .
So the NRA opted to stay silent .
Frankly , that was the right call in the first place .

With the anti-gun media, the National Rifle Association is in the position of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Anytime the NRA speaks out on anything not indisputably linked to gun rights, they get blasted. In fairness, they get blasted when they talk about gun rights as well, but that’s a bit different.
If they veer off into anything tangentially related to anything else, they get criticized much differently. While the NRA gets hit for its comments on guns, it gets for just touching on anything else, regardless of the validity to what they might have said.
Now, though, they’re getting hit because they’re not speaking out on an issue that basically has nothing to do with guns.
The National Rifle Association has been conspicuously silent on police violence amid weeks of nationwide demonstrations, despite calling itself the “America’s longest-standing civil rights organization.” The NRA’s leaders and social media accounts have made no mention of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, the protests, or the police violence against peaceful protesters. “The NRA loves to talk about liberty, self-defense, and resisting ‘tyranny,’ but their actions suggest that they believe these concerns apply only to white people,” Kelly Sampson, the constitutional litigation and racial justice counsel at Brady: United Against Gun Violence, said in a statement to Salon. “When armed vigilantes and law enforcement infringe on Black and brown Americans’ civil rights — the NRA is silent.”
First, the law enforcement officers accused of infringing on anyone’s civil rights are being prosecuted. That’s conspicuously absent from Sampson’s tirade. In other words, the system isn’t rolling over and just letting this kind of thing happen.
The same is happening to those who tried to use firearms to intimidate black and brown activists who were protesting peacefully.
However, that’s not enough.
Except Breonna Taylor–as awful as that incident was–had nothing to do with gun confiscation. Neither did the death of Botham Jean, though the NRA’s position is certainly valid. If he’d had been armed, he might have been able to shoot back at his attacker, saving his life.
LaPierre’s warning–one that already existed within the gun rights community well before he uttered it–was about a specific threat, the threat of these same police being blasted by the left going door to door to take away our Second Amendment rights, the very rights. It’s a concern many of us have based on the words of anti-gun activists throughout the nation. These are the ones who admit that yes, they are coming for our guns.
Of course, they won’t come themselves. They’ll send the same police they describe as oppressors.
Until then, though, the NRA’s silence is warranted. This isn’t their fight and they know it.
But that’s not enough for Salon. It never is.
No, they have to paint any opposition to the current narrative as racist.
“The NRA uses rhetoric steeped in racism. You only have to look at their Twitter feed to see this,” Sampson told Salon. “On June 2, the NRA tweeted about apparent looting in Minneapolis and about reports that Black residents were purchasing firearms, calling the Second Amendment a ‘great equalizer.’ But the feed made no mention of the violence perpetrated against protesters or against Black Americans across the country. The NRA has used this tactic for decades and has created a culture of fear and paranoia that not only ignores the suffering of people of color but also actively threatens them. We see this in the NRA’s unremitting defense of Stand Your Ground laws, which are proven to be more likely to be used to justify the murder of a Black man by a white man.”
Oh, you mean the NRA isn’t singling out specific instances of people doing bad things? Kind of like how they rarely single out specific instances of crime unless it’s thwarted by an armed citizen?
They go on to pretend that every criticism of Black Lives Matter, the protests and ensuing riots, or any of that is somehow evidence of racism. Then again, in their mind, any criticism of any of these things simply has to be racist because they can’t fathom why anyone would take issue with a movement founded by at least one admitted Marxist.
Honestly, it’s getting harder and harder to take Salon and the anti-NRA left seriously anymore. While the NRA, like any organization, has room for improvement, the truth is that there was no way the anti-gunners would have cut them some slack. If they’d said anything other than the approved rhetoric, they’d have been blasted and we all know it.
So the NRA opted to stay silent.
Frankly, that was the right call in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-07-11--New "Study" On Gun Culture Really An Attack On 2A Activism

I think we can all agree that there is no monolithic “ gun culture ” in the United States .
With 100,000,000 gun owners , it would be silly to assume that all of us are alike .
Some of us own firearms for a variety of reasons , while others may be singularly focused on competitive shooting or self-defense .
However , a new paper on the various varieties of gun ownership from researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health offers a grossly simplistic view of gun owners , and ultimately serves as just another attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Using data on gun-related behaviors including hunting , NRA membership , magazine subscriptions , handgun and long gun purchases , and certain gun laws , the researchers show that American gun owners vary widely in the symbolic meaning they find in firearms and how they use them .
Over the last 20 years , at the national level , firearm recreation has dwindled and self-defense has expanded , even as a distinct culture of Second Amendment political advocacy has sprung up , the researchers found .
A culture of Second Amendment advocacy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ?
That ’ ll be news to longtime Second Amendment advocates who ’ ve been fighting to secure our right to keep and bear arms for far longer than that .
Heck , the right-to-carry revolution that began with Florida ’ s adoption of “ shall-issue ” concealed carry licenses started back in the late 1980s , but long before then we had 2A advocates and activists working at the state and federal level to advance their cause .
The summary of the study at Phys.org claims that “ gun culture 1.0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gun culture 2.0 ” is focused on self-defense .
Gun culture 3.0 , according to the academics , consists of “ people who do not view the defense of the Second Amendment as a means to an end , but as necessary to any freedom in this country.
” That ’ s a scary development in the eyes of the researchers at Boston University .
Give me a break .
What this “ study ” really seems to be intent on proving is that politically active gun owners are actually a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who own firearms , which in itself isn ’ t a controversial opinion .
In fact , I think most 2A activists would say the same thing .
If every gun owner was active in lobbying for their right to keep and bear arms , especially in places like California , New York , and New Jersey , we might have been able to defeat some of the onerous gun control laws adopted in those states .
Still , despite that obvious conclusion , there are some glaring issues with the new report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture 3.0 ” is most prevalent in “ liberal states , states where more of the population lives in an urban setting or is Hispanic , and states with stronger firearm regulations.
” In other words , you find more 2A activism in states where the right to keep and bear arms is under more frequent attack by anti-gun politicians .
That ’ s hardly surprising , but the researchers seem to have confused cause and effect .
Based on this study , gun owners in Idaho are primarily interested in recreational shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while gun owners in Texas are primarily interested in self-defense , making them a part of Gun Culture 2.0 .
Gun owners in places like California , New York , Massachusetts , New Jersey , and Virginia , on the other hand , are hotbeds of Gun Culture 3.0 ; those dastardly gun owners who are highly involved in politics .
Do you think Idaho would be a permitless carry state if there weren ’ t highly engaged gun owners lobbying for their rights ?
Do you think Texas gun owners don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rourke talks about coming for their AR-15s , because they primarily own handguns for self-defense ?
As I said , it ’ s a silly and simplistic argument .
“ No longer can we speak about gun culture as if it is a single entity .
There are positive aspects to gun culture that bring recreation , enjoyment , or a feeling of security to many people , and there are also some negative elements , ” says Dr. Michael Siegel , professor of community health sciences at BUSPH .
“ Those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive aspects of that culture and stop blaming law-abiding gun owners for the problem of firearm violence , ” he says .
“ Instead , we need to address one very specific aspect of gun culture that the NRA has created that does not represent the overwhelming number of gun owners in this country.
” I completely agree with Michael Siegel that anti-gun academics have to stop blaming law-abiding gun owners for gun-related violence , but he ’ s totally off-base when he says that researchers need to focus on politically active gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they too are not to blame for “ firearm violence.
” If those academics are actually interested in addressing the issue of violent crime , as opposed to trying to demonize gun owners who are 2A activists , they should delve into the subculture of gun ownership that doesn ’ t care about the law ; criminals who use firearms in the commission of violent crimes .
The fact that the team from Boston University doesn ’ t even acknowledge that subculture is just more proof that this study is nothing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those gun owners who are lobbying lawmakers and speaking out against threats to their Second Amendment rights .

I think we can all agree that there is no monolithic “gun culture” in the United States. With 100,000,000 gun owners, it would be silly to assume that all of us are alike. Some of us own firearms for a variety of reasons, while others may be singularly focused on competitive shooting or self-defense. However, a new paper on the various varieties of gun ownership from researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health offers a grossly simplistic view of gun owners, and ultimately serves as just another attack on Second Amendment activism by anti-gun academics.
Using data on gun-related behaviors including hunting, NRA membership, magazine subscriptions, handgun and long gun purchases, and certain gun laws, the researchers show that American gun owners vary widely in the symbolic meaning they find in firearms and how they use them. Over the last 20 years, at the national level, firearm recreation has dwindled and self-defense has expanded, even as a distinct culture of Second Amendment political advocacy has sprung up, the researchers found.
A culture of Second Amendment advocacy has sprung up just in the past 20 years? That’ll be news to longtime Second Amendment advocates who’ve been fighting to secure our right to keep and bear arms for far longer than that. Heck, the right-to-carry revolution that began with Florida’s adoption of “shall-issue” concealed carry licenses started back in the late 1980s, but long before then we had 2A advocates and activists working at the state and federal level to advance their cause.
The summary of the study at Phys.org claims that “gun culture 1.0” is all about recreation, while “gun culture 2.0” is focused on self-defense. Gun culture 3.0, according to the academics, consists of “people who do not view the defense of the Second Amendment as a means to an end, but as necessary to any freedom in this country.” That’s a scary development in the eyes of the researchers at Boston University.
“The NRA has been spreading insurrectionist rhetoric for the past few decades, undermining Americans’ trust in their legislators and the federal government, while passing for a patriotic organization. The result is a few million people who are convinced that any genuine firearm violence prevention effort is the first step in a scheme to take away all of their rights and disenfranchise them,” says study lead author Claire Boine, a research scholar in community health sciences at BUSPH.
Give me a break. What this “study” really seems to be intent on proving is that politically active gun owners are actually a tiny portion of the overall number of Americans who own firearms, which in itself isn’t a controversial opinion. In fact, I think most 2A activists would say the same thing. If every gun owner was active in lobbying for their right to keep and bear arms, especially in places like California, New York, and New Jersey, we might have been able to defeat some of the onerous gun control laws adopted in those states.
Still, despite that obvious conclusion, there are some glaring issues with the new report. According to academics, “gun culture 3.0” is most prevalent in “liberal states, states where more of the population lives in an urban setting or is Hispanic, and states with stronger firearm regulations.” In other words, you find more 2A activism in states where the right to keep and bear arms is under more frequent attack by anti-gun politicians. That’s hardly surprising, but the researchers seem to have confused cause and effect.
Based on this study, gun owners in Idaho are primarily interested in recreational shooting and are part of Gun Culture 1.0, while gun owners in Texas are primarily interested in self-defense, making them a part of Gun Culture 2.0. Gun owners in places like California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia, on the other hand, are hotbeds of Gun Culture 3.0; those dastardly gun owners who are highly involved in politics.
Do you think Idaho would be a permitless carry state if there weren’t highly engaged gun owners lobbying for their rights? Do you think Texas gun owners don’t care when Beto O’Rourke talks about coming for their AR-15s, because they primarily own handguns for self-defense? As I said, it’s a silly and simplistic argument.
“No longer can we speak about gun culture as if it is a single entity. There are positive aspects to gun culture that bring recreation, enjoyment, or a feeling of security to many people, and there are also some negative elements,” says Dr. Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at BUSPH. “Those of us in public health must acknowledge the positive aspects of that culture and stop blaming law-abiding gun owners for the problem of firearm violence,” he says. “Instead, we need to address one very specific aspect of gun culture that the NRA has created that does not represent the overwhelming number of gun owners in this country.”
I completely agree with Michael Siegel that anti-gun academics have to stop blaming law-abiding gun owners for gun-related violence, but he’s totally off-base when he says that researchers need to focus on politically active gun owners. They too are law-abiding, and they too are not to blame for “firearm violence.” If those academics are actually interested in addressing the issue of violent crime, as opposed to trying to demonize gun owners who are 2A activists, they should delve into the subculture of gun ownership that doesn’t care about the law; criminals who use firearms in the commission of violent crimes. The fact that the team from Boston University doesn’t even acknowledge that subculture is just more proof that this study is nothing more than a junk science attempt to vilify those gun owners who are lobbying lawmakers and speaking out against threats to their Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-07-11--Chicago Mayor Needs A Reality Check On Gun Laws And Crime

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is just as clueless as Mayor Bill de Blasio on how to fight the sharp increase in the already high homicide rate in Chicago , but she certainly knows who to blame for it ; Republicans in Congress and the “ gun lobby.
” Speaking on MSNBC Friday , the mayor bemoaned the absence of a federal universal background check law , saying that without the provision people can go to Indiana from Chicago and “ get military-grade weapons in quantities and then bring them back to the streets and shoot people up .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s , uh , not what ’ s happening .
And even if it was happening , a federal universal background check law wouldn ’ t do anything to stop the illicit trade in firearms .
State-level laws certainly haven ’ t ended the practice , as Lightfoot well knows .
Lori Lightfoot may want to blame gun control laws for Chicago ’ s violent crime because it absolves her of any responsibility to meaningfully improve things , but she ’ s lying to her constituents when she does so .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps that would dramatically reduce the number of shootings and homicides in Chicago without the need for a single new gun law at either the state or federal level .
Take a look at the 2018 gun trace data from the ATF for the state of Illinois ( you can download it here ) .
There were 14,062 firearms that were recovered that year , but only 10,504 total traces were successfully conducted .
It turns out that 5,337 firearms , more than half of all the guns traced by the ATF , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison , there were 1,548 firearms recovered in Illinois that were traced back to an Indiana sale .
Yes , some guns are coming into Illinois from Indiana , Missouri , and almost every other state of the union , but the number one source state for firearms traced in Illinois is Illinois , which has universal background checks , a firearms owner identification card requirement , and a host of other gun control laws on the books .
Mayor Lightfoot can ’ t acknowledge that fact , because then she ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check laws aren ’ t as effective as she and other anti-gun politicians claim .
Let ’ s start with the fact that there is no way to proactively police or enforce a background check on a private sale of a firearm .
99 % of the time , law enforcement won ’ t even be aware that the sale is taking place , particularly if it ’ s between family or friends .
The only way a violation of the law would ever be noticed would be if a criminal were caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trace it back to someone who admits they sold the gun without a background check .
The problem is , not only does the law do nothing to stop the illegal private sales of firearms , charges are rarely if ever brought in court .
Go do an Internet search for something like “ sold gun without background check prosecution ” and let me know if you find any news stories about someone facing charges .
I looked , figuring I could find at least one story , but I came up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that they never happen , but generally speaking , if someone ’ s supplying guns to a criminal , they ’ re likely going to be facing more serious charges as well .
It ’ s simply not a charge that shows up in a lot of court cases , and there continues to be a thriving illicit market in firearms even in states with universal background check laws like Illinois .
It ’ s shameful that Lightfoot should lie to the citizens of Chicago about the magic benefits of a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she could be implementing steps right now to reduce shootings and the homicide rate in the city .
Lightfoot is looking at the issue of Chicago ’ s violence as one to be addressed by attacking the supply of guns .
In a nation with more than 400,000,000 privately owned firearms , more than 100,000,000 gun owners ( and growing rapidly by the day ) , and a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms , that ’ s a dumb strategy that amounts to trying to arrest your way out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack the demand for firearms among Chicago ’ s most violent citizens .
I ’ ve written before about programs like Project Exit and Project Ceasefire that target the most violent gangs and individuals in any given city with a multi-level and multi-jurisdictional response .
Those individuals are told , in essence , “ you are going to stop shooting .
We ’ ll help you if you let us , but we ’ ll make you if you don ’ t. ” That promise is backed up with everything from GED and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court , with no plea bargains offered , when someone decides to take a shot at someone despite being warned of the consequences .
As long as the promises of both law enforcement and social services are kept , shootings and homicides typically plummet in the neighborhoods targeted by the programs .
Chicago has fitfully tried to put versions of both programs in place over the last few years , but the revolving leadership at the Chicago PD has helped to ensure that they ’ ve never been implemented with the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
Lightfoot could change that today with one conversation with new police chief David Brown , who was hired in April .
Those programs would also allow ( in fact , require ) collaboration and cooperation between the various layers of law enforcement and the good people in Chicago ’ s bad neighborhoods .
It may take some convincing to get community leaders on board , but once they are , Project Exit and Project Ceasefire could do far more to return peace to high-crime neighborhoods than the passage of any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is just as clueless as Mayor Bill de Blasio on how to fight the sharp increase in the already high homicide rate in Chicago, but she certainly knows who to blame for it; Republicans in Congress and the “gun lobby.” Speaking on MSNBC Friday, the mayor bemoaned the absence of a federal universal background check law, saying that without the provision people can go to Indiana from Chicago and “get military-grade weapons in quantities and then bring them back to the streets and shoot people up. That’s what’s happening.”
That’s, uh, not what’s happening. And even if it was happening, a federal universal background check law wouldn’t do anything to stop the illicit trade in firearms. State-level laws certainly haven’t ended the practice, as Lightfoot well knows.
Lori Lightfoot may want to blame gun control laws for Chicago’s violent crime because it absolves her of any responsibility to meaningfully improve things, but she’s lying to her constituents when she does so. The fact is, Lightfoot can take concrete steps that would dramatically reduce the number of shootings and homicides in Chicago without the need for a single new gun law at either the state or federal level.
Take a look at the 2018 gun trace data from the ATF for the state of Illinois (you can download it here). There were 14,062 firearms that were recovered that year, but only 10,504 total traces were successfully conducted. It turns out that 5,337 firearms, more than half of all the guns traced by the ATF, were originally sold in Illinois. By comparison, there were 1,548 firearms recovered in Illinois that were traced back to an Indiana sale.
Yes, some guns are coming into Illinois from Indiana, Missouri, and almost every other state of the union, but the number one source state for firearms traced in Illinois is Illinois, which has universal background checks, a firearms owner identification card requirement, and a host of other gun control laws on the books. Mayor Lightfoot can’t acknowledge that fact, because then she’d have to acknowledge that maybe universal background check laws aren’t as effective as she and other anti-gun politicians claim.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no way to proactively police or enforce a background check on a private sale of a firearm. 99% of the time, law enforcement won’t even be aware that the sale is taking place, particularly if it’s between family or friends. The only way a violation of the law would ever be noticed would be if a criminal were caught with a gun, and they managed to trace it back to someone who admits they sold the gun without a background check.
The problem is, not only does the law do nothing to stop the illegal private sales of firearms, charges are rarely if ever brought in court. Go do an Internet search for something like “sold gun without background check prosecution” and let me know if you find any news stories about someone facing charges. I looked, figuring I could find at least one story, but I came up empty. That’s not to say that they never happen, but generally speaking, if someone’s supplying guns to a criminal, they’re likely going to be facing more serious charges as well. It’s simply not a charge that shows up in a lot of court cases, and there continues to be a thriving illicit market in firearms even in states with universal background check laws like Illinois.
It’s shameful that Lightfoot should lie to the citizens of Chicago about the magic benefits of a federal universal background check law, especially when she could be implementing steps right now to reduce shootings and the homicide rate in the city. Lightfoot is looking at the issue of Chicago’s violence as one to be addressed by attacking the supply of guns. In a nation with more than 400,000,000 privately owned firearms, more than 100,000,000 gun owners (and growing rapidly by the day), and a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, that’s a dumb strategy that amounts to trying to arrest your way out of the problem.
The answer is to attack the demand for firearms among Chicago’s most violent citizens. I’ve written before about programs like Project Exit and Project Ceasefire that target the most violent gangs and individuals in any given city with a multi-level and multi-jurisdictional response. Those individuals are told, in essence, “you are going to stop shooting. We’ll help you if you let us, but we’ll make you if you don’t.”
That promise is backed up with everything from GED and job training classes to prosecution in federal court, with no plea bargains offered, when someone decides to take a shot at someone despite being warned of the consequences. As long as the promises of both law enforcement and social services are kept, shootings and homicides typically plummet in the neighborhoods targeted by the programs.
Chicago has fitfully tried to put versions of both programs in place over the last few years, but the revolving leadership at the Chicago PD has helped to ensure that they’ve never been implemented with the kind of focus and resolve necessary to receive real results. Lightfoot could change that today with one conversation with new police chief David Brown, who was hired in April. Those programs would also allow (in fact, require) collaboration and cooperation between the various layers of law enforcement and the good people in Chicago’s bad neighborhoods. It may take some convincing to get community leaders on board, but once they are, Project Exit and Project Ceasefire could do far more to return peace to high-crime neighborhoods than the passage of any kind of universal federal background check law.


bearingarms--2020-07-11--Search Warrant Served On McCloskeys, Rifle Seized By Police

Authorities in St. Louis , Missouri still haven ’ t charged Mark and Patricia McCloskey with a crime after the pair grabbed their guns and warned Black Lives Matters protesters not to set foot on their private property a couple of weeks ago , but on Friday evening officers with the St. Louis Police Department served a search warrant at the pair ’ s palatial home in a private , gated neighborhood , seizing the rifle carried by Mark McCloskey in the widely publicized incident .
Meanwhile , the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is out with a “ shocking ” new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple , who are both personal injury attorneys , have been involved in over the past few decades .
Is anybody really surprised that a pair of attorneys are litigious by nature ?
They filed a lawsuit in 1988 to obtain their house , a castle built for Adolphus Busch ’ s daughter and her husband during St. Louis ’ brief run as a world-class city in the early 20th century .
At the McCloskeys ’ property in Franklin County , they have sued neighbors for making changes to a gravel road and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tenants from a modular home on their property .
Mark McCloskey sued a former employer for wrongful termination and his sister , father and his father ’ s caretaker for defamation .
The McCloskeys have filed at least two “ quiet title ” suits asserting squatter ’ s rights on land they ’ ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own .
In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017 , the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common ground in the neighborhood ’ s indenture .
It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate .
Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it .
There ’ s a lot more at the link , including details of family feuds between Mark McCloskey and his father , tenants , and the Portland Place Association , none of which have anything to do with what happened on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s be clear : Mark and Patricia McCloskey could very well be litigious jerks who file lawsuits at the drop of a hat rather than trying to work out any disagreements they have with family , friends , neighbors , or tenants .
They could be awful boors who are no fun to be around and make far more enemies than friends .
None of that makes any difference as far as their right to bear arms and their right to protect their property is concerned .
It ’ s pretty clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney is desperately searching for a charge that she thinks will stick , but it isn ’ t having much luck .
If there was a slam-dunk case to be made that the McCloskeys had violated the law , they ’ d already be facing charges .
Instead , the local prosecutor seems to be poking around for anything that she might be able to use against the McCloskeys while the local press engages in an effort to portray the McCloskeys as awful people who deserve whatever might be coming ; a message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
The McCloskeys may very well be unlikeable people , but our constitutional rights don ’ t depend on how popular we are .
Either the couple broke the law or they didn ’ t when they warned protesters away from their property .
That ’ s all that really matters here , but the media seems intent on making the McCloskeys pay , even if no crime was committed .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Authorities in St. Louis, Missouri still haven’t charged Mark and Patricia McCloskey with a crime after the pair grabbed their guns and warned Black Lives Matters protesters not to set foot on their private property a couple of weeks ago, but on Friday evening officers with the St. Louis Police Department served a search warrant at the pair’s palatial home in a private, gated neighborhood, seizing the rifle carried by Mark McCloskey in the widely publicized incident.
Sources told 5 On Your Side that police seized one of the weapons, the rifle, from the couple and they told police their attorney has the pistol seen in photos. 5 On Your Side is not aware of any charges against the McCloskeys at this time, and the warrant served Friday evening was just for the guns. Late Friday evening 5 On Your Side confirmed attorney Al Watkins was no longer representing the McCloskeys, and that attorney Joel Schwartz had taken over. Schwartz confirmed a search warrant was issued at 8 p.m. Friday night, but would not say what was taken from the home. Schwartz also said he does not know where the handgun is.
Meanwhile, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is out with a “shocking” new story detailing the many lawsuits that the couple, who are both personal injury attorneys, have been involved in over the past few decades. Is anybody really surprised that a pair of attorneys are litigious by nature? They filed a lawsuit in 1988 to obtain their house, a castle built for Adolphus Busch’s daughter and her husband during St. Louis’ brief run as a world-class city in the early 20th century. At the McCloskeys’ property in Franklin County, they have sued neighbors for making changes to a gravel road and twice in just over two years evicted tenants from a modular home on their property. Mark McCloskey sued a former employer for wrongful termination and his sister, father and his father’s caretaker for defamation. The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture. It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.
There’s a lot more at the link, including details of family feuds between Mark McCloskey and his father, tenants, and the Portland Place Association, none of which have anything to do with what happened on the night of June 28th. Let’s be clear: Mark and Patricia McCloskey could very well be litigious jerks who file lawsuits at the drop of a hat rather than trying to work out any disagreements they have with family, friends, neighbors, or tenants. They could be awful boors who are no fun to be around and make far more enemies than friends. None of that makes any difference as far as their right to bear arms and their right to protect their property is concerned.
It’s pretty clear to me that the St. Louis Circuit Attorney is desperately searching for a charge that she thinks will stick, but it isn’t having much luck. If there was a slam-dunk case to be made that the McCloskeys had violated the law, they’d already be facing charges. Instead, the local prosecutor seems to be poking around for anything that she might be able to use against the McCloskeys while the local press engages in an effort to portray the McCloskeys as awful people who deserve whatever might be coming; a message amplified by the instantly outraged blue checks on Twitter.
Read this entire thing. The McCloskey’s are diamond level psychos. Suing his own dying father. Evicting a tenant during covid. Making children cry. Costing neighbors thousands in legal fees for NOTHING. Suing people for fun (their words!). It’s endless. https://t.co/SyH3qr5yHs — Sara Schaefer (@saraschaefer1) July 11, 2020
The McCloskeys may very well be unlikeable people, but our constitutional rights don’t depend on how popular we are. Either the couple broke the law or they didn’t when they warned protesters away from their property. That’s all that really matters here, but the media seems intent on making the McCloskeys pay, even if no crime was committed.


bearingarms--2020-07-11--Newtown Action Alliance Applauds Subway's Non-Ban Ban

Some days , it ’ s really hard to keep up with all the gun control groups .
It seems like every incident spawns still another group of gun grabbers who want to change their world all on their own .
So , one can be forgiven for forgetting a particular one exists .
That ’ s kind of what happened with me and the Newtown Action Alliance .
I remember the name , but they ’ re not someone I really think about when I talk about our opponents .
Then again , they seem to do stuff like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to take them seriously .
The Newtown Action Alliance is among several groups applauding the Subway restaurant chain for changing its policy to ban open carry inside its restaurants , even in states where open carry is permitted .
Subway ’ s action follows multiple requests made to its CEO , John Chidsey , by gun control advocates in the wake of armed anti-lockdown protesters visiting a North Carolina Subway shop in May .
On May 18 , Newtown Action Alliance , Guns Down America , and Daily Kos sent a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by gun violence to Chidsey .
This petition was signed by 43,167 Americans , according to the NAA , and Moms Rising also submitted a petition with 10,000 signatures .
Last week , Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy followed up with this letter to Chidsey .
Po Murray , chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance stated : “ We are grateful that Subway listened to the families and survivors directly impacted by gun violence , as well as Senator Blumenthal , Senator Murphy , and concerned citizens from Connecticut and across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation plagued by the scourge of gun violence and lockdown drills , the mere sight of weapons in restaurants and other public venues is often triggering .
Many Americans , including those of us from Sandy Hook who have been exposed to gun violence , suffer from PTSD.
” Except , Subway didn ’ t do any such thing , you bunch of insufferable twits .
See , as Cam noted when he covered the decision , Subway didn ’ t ban a damn thing .
You see , what Subway did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry in their restaurants .
That ’ s it .
He didn ’ t enact a policy that ordered restaurants to become gun-free zones or to call the police when an armed citizen entered the store .
No , he just said , “ Please don ’ t. ” If you think that ’ s a gun ban , then why not try saying , “ Please don ’ t buy assault weapons ” then go about your lives and leave the rest of us alone .
The truth of the matter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing at all .
Yet they ’ re going to crow over this significant victory because winning brings in money .
People don ’ t want to donate money to groups that can ’ t win their battles , so they ’ ll claim victories that never really happened , especially when a complicit media won ’ t call them on their BS .
So , people will send money to the Newtown Action Alliance and other groups , believing that they accomplished this big win , when they ’ ve done no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is fraud , but since they ’ re defrauding gun grabbers , I ’ m not going to lose any sleep over it .

Some days, it’s really hard to keep up with all the gun control groups. It seems like every incident spawns still another group of gun grabbers who want to change their world all on their own. So, one can be forgiven for forgetting a particular one exists.
That’s kind of what happened with me and the Newtown Action Alliance. I remember the name, but they’re not someone I really think about when I talk about our opponents.
Then again, they seem to do stuff like this, which makes it kind of hard to take them seriously.
The Newtown Action Alliance is among several groups applauding the Subway restaurant chain for changing its policy to ban open carry inside its restaurants, even in states where open carry is permitted. Subway’s action follows multiple requests made to its CEO, John Chidsey, by gun control advocates in the wake of armed anti-lockdown protesters visiting a North Carolina Subway shop in May. On May 18, Newtown Action Alliance, Guns Down America, and Daily Kos sent a letter signed by 153 families and survivors impacted by gun violence to Chidsey. This petition was signed by 43,167 Americans, according to the NAA, and Moms Rising also submitted a petition with 10,000 signatures. Last week, Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy followed up with this letter to Chidsey. Po Murray, chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance stated: “We are grateful that Subway listened to the families and survivors directly impacted by gun violence, as well as Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, and concerned citizens from Connecticut and across the nation by changing its policy. In a nation plagued by the scourge of gun violence and lockdown drills, the mere sight of weapons in restaurants and other public venues is often triggering. Many Americans, including those of us from Sandy Hook who have been exposed to gun violence, suffer from PTSD.”
Except, Subway didn’t do any such thing, you bunch of insufferable twits.
See, as Cam noted when he covered the decision, Subway didn’t ban a damn thing.
You see, what Subway did was simply ask people not to open carry in their restaurants. That’s it. He didn’t enact a policy that ordered restaurants to become gun-free zones or to call the police when an armed citizen entered the store. No, he just said, “Please don’t.”
If you think that’s a gun ban, then why not try saying, “Please don’t buy assault weapons” then go about your lives and leave the rest of us alone.
The truth of the matter is that they’ve accomplished nothing. Nothing at all.
Yet they’re going to crow over this significant victory because winning brings in money. People don’t want to donate money to groups that can’t win their battles, so they’ll claim victories that never really happened, especially when a complicit media won’t call them on their BS. So, people will send money to the Newtown Action Alliance and other groups, believing that they accomplished this big win, when they’ve done no such thing.
I’d argue that this is fraud, but since they’re defrauding gun grabbers, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.


bearingarms--2020-07-12--Chicago Politicians Should Quit Blaming Indiana For Their Criminals

It ’ s been another violent weekend in Chicago , with at least five people killed in less than 24 hours between Friday afternoon and Saturday morning .
Unfortunately , Chicago politicians like Lori Lightfoot and Rep. LaShawn Ford continue to complain about Indiana gun laws instead of focusing on Chicago ’ s violent criminals .
Earlier this week Mayor Lightfoot called for a federal universal background check law that she says would keep criminals from buying guns in Indiana and bringing them back to Illinois , and now Ford is demanding a database that would somehow alert Illinois police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana .
“ If Illinois had a database where we knew how many guns a person went to Indiana to purchase , then we could stop the gun-running that is taking place in Illinois right now , ” Ford said .
Ford said such a database would make it easier to track down who is trafficking guns to Illinois that are used in crimes .
He said it could also deter some people from going out of state to buy guns and bring them back to Illinois .
This is such a dumb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I ’ ll try .
Let ’ s begin with the fact that according to ATF trace data , the majority of firearms traced in the state of Illinois were originally sold in Illinois , not Indiana .
Take a look at the 2018 gun trace data from the ATF for the state of Illinois ( you can download it here ) .
There were 14,062 firearms that were recovered that year , but only 10,504 total traces were successfully conducted .
It turns out that 5,337 firearms , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ATF , were originally sold in Illinois .
By comparison , there were 1,548 firearms recovered in Illinois that were traced back to an Indiana sale .
There were more than three times as many traces on guns sold in Illinois than guns sold in Indiana .
As long as Lightfoot and Ford can ’ t even acknowledge that Indiana isn ’ t driving Chicago violence , their suggestions on how to fix the problem can ’ t be taken seriously .
Ford is also apparently unaware that all commercial handgun purchases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyer is from out of state .
An Illinois resident buying a handgun in Indiana has to have it shipped to an FFL in Illinois .
That law doesn ’ t apply to rifles , but the ATF trace data for Illinois shows that fewer than 10 % of firearms that were seized and traced were rifles of any kind .
Even if Ford could get his database , it wouldn ’ t fix the violent crime in Chicago , because rifles legally sold in Indiana aren ’ t the problem .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegally obtaining firearms ( mostly handguns and most from Illinois ) on the illicit market and using them to commit violent crimes .
Why are they doing it ?
Because they believe they can get away with their crimes , and often times they ’ re right .
In 2019 , Chicago police made 109 arrests in the 498 homicides that took place in the city .
That ’ s a clearance rate of about 22 % , and the clearance rate for shootings is even lower .
In 2018 the Chicago Tribune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of every twenty shooting cases .
Fixing Chicago ’ s violent crime problem starts with ensuring that Chicago ’ s criminals , especially the city ’ s most violent offenders , know that consequences are swift and certain .
That ’ s it .
It ’ s that simple , though it ’ s not that easy .
Still , if Chicago ’ s political leaders would focus on doing that instead of trying to pin the blame on the Second Amendment , they could actually make a difference .
As things stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction will only lead to inaction , which in turn will make things worse in neighborhoods that already feel like a war zone .

It’s been another violent weekend in Chicago, with at least five people killed in less than 24 hours between Friday afternoon and Saturday morning. Unfortunately, Chicago politicians like Lori Lightfoot and Rep. LaShawn Ford continue to complain about Indiana gun laws instead of focusing on Chicago’s violent criminals. Earlier this week Mayor Lightfoot called for a federal universal background check law that she says would keep criminals from buying guns in Indiana and bringing them back to Illinois, and now Ford is demanding a database that would somehow alert Illinois police when a resident buys a gun in Indiana.
“If Illinois had a database where we knew how many guns a person went to Indiana to purchase, then we could stop the gun-running that is taking place in Illinois right now,” Ford said. Ford said such a database would make it easier to track down who is trafficking guns to Illinois that are used in crimes. He said it could also deter some people from going out of state to buy guns and bring them back to Illinois.
This is such a dumb idea I hardly know where to start, but I’ll try. Let’s begin with the fact that according to ATF trace data, the majority of firearms traced in the state of Illinois were originally sold in Illinois, not Indiana.
Take a look at the 2018 gun trace data from the ATF for the state of Illinois (you can download it here). There were 14,062 firearms that were recovered that year, but only 10,504 total traces were successfully conducted. It turns out that 5,337 firearms, more than half of all the guns traced by the ATF, were originally sold in Illinois. By comparison, there were 1,548 firearms recovered in Illinois that were traced back to an Indiana sale.
There were more than three times as many traces on guns sold in Illinois than guns sold in Indiana. As long as Lightfoot and Ford can’t even acknowledge that Indiana isn’t driving Chicago violence, their suggestions on how to fix the problem can’t be taken seriously.
Ford is also apparently unaware that all commercial handgun purchases must go through a FFL if the buyer is from out of state. An Illinois resident buying a handgun in Indiana has to have it shipped to an FFL in Illinois. That law doesn’t apply to rifles, but the ATF trace data for Illinois shows that fewer than 10% of firearms that were seized and traced were rifles of any kind. Even if Ford could get his database, it wouldn’t fix the violent crime in Chicago, because rifles legally sold in Indiana aren’t the problem.
The problem is this: Chicago residents are illegally obtaining firearms (mostly handguns and most from Illinois) on the illicit market and using them to commit violent crimes. Why are they doing it? Because they believe they can get away with their crimes, and often times they’re right. In 2019, Chicago police made 109 arrests in the 498 homicides that took place in the city. That’s a clearance rate of about 22%, and the clearance rate for shootings is even lower. In 2018 the Chicago Tribune reported that police solved just one out of every twenty shooting cases.
Fixing Chicago’s violent crime problem starts with ensuring that Chicago’s criminals, especially the city’s most violent offenders, know that consequences are swift and certain. That’s it. It’s that simple, though it’s not that easy. Still, if Chicago’s political leaders would focus on doing that instead of trying to pin the blame on the Second Amendment, they could actually make a difference. As things stand, their laser-like focus in the wrong direction will only lead to inaction, which in turn will make things worse in neighborhoods that already feel like a war zone.


bearingarms--2020-07-13--Gottlieb: Gun Control Groups' Use Of PPP Funds An "Outrage"

As the Washington Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski reported over the weekend , at least two of the nation ’ s largest gun control groups have relied on loans from the federally-funded Paycheck Protection Program to keep staffers on the payroll over the past few months , even as the gun control groups have vowed to spend millions of dollars promoting anti-gun candidates in the 2020 elections .
Brady received somewhere between $ 350,000 and $ 1,000,000 to help keep 41 staffers on the job banning guns , while Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence took in somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay their anti-gun attorneys .
The moves mean that not only are taxpayers helping to now meet the payroll for the gun control groups , but money that could have been spent on salaries can now be spent electing anti-gun politicians .
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence received between $ 350,000 and $ 1 million on April 10 to support 41 employees , according to the Small Business Administration .
The center is the educational arm of the Brady organization , which also features a political advocacy arm , the Brady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as the political action committee Brady PAC .
In March , the Brady PAC endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and announced it would spend $ 4 million to help elect him and other gun-control candidates to office .
Liam Sullivan , a spokesman for the Brady Center , defended the loans , saying that the pandemic had affected the organization ’ s funding and caused it to cancel major fundraising events , including its annual gala .
“ Like other nonprofits , the Brady Center is funded by giving and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been impacted and will be impacted for the foreseeable future , ” he said .
“ We just applied and were approved , obviously , under the same sort of criteria as others with concerns for payroll.
” The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on all kinds of groups , but I can ’ t help but get the feeling that the anti-gun organizations might cry foul if , say , the NRA had ended up taking PPP loans .
After all , they too had to cancel their national convention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a large source of funding for the NRA Foundation have been curtailed for months thanks to COVID-19 concerns .
The media and gun control groups would go nuts if any pro-Second Amendment outfit took advantage of the PPP funds to keep their doors open and their lights on .
Alan Gottlieb , executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation , calls the move “ yet another fraud ” on the part of the gun control groups , who he says have plenty of cash on hand to cover payroll .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer money , nor did we even apply , because that simply would not have been appropriate , ” he stated .
“ On the other hand , ” he added , “ the Brady and Gifford groups fought to keep gun stores closed while taking taxpayer funds to stop people from being able to buy firearms and ammunition to protect themselves and their property from violence including rioters , looters and arsonists.
” “ More appalling is the fact that , according to their latest tax returns , the Brady and Gifford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assets , ” Gottlieb noted .
“ They did not need any taxpayer money to keep their doors open.
” Well , they don ’ t need our guns but they keep going after them too , so I ’ m not surprised to see them go after money they don ’ t need .
And make no mistake , there ’ s nothing illegal about what the gun control groups did , though Gutowski notes that organizations like the Florida Democratic Party announced it would give back $ 750,000 in PPP funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m going to go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and predict that we won ’ t see either gun control organization follow suit , nor will we see many media outlets even report on Gutowski ’ s findings .
The double standard is real .

As the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski reported over the weekend, at least two of the nation’s largest gun control groups have relied on loans from the federally-funded Paycheck Protection Program to keep staffers on the payroll over the past few months, even as the gun control groups have vowed to spend millions of dollars promoting anti-gun candidates in the 2020 elections.
Brady received somewhere between $350,000 and $1,000,000 to help keep 41 staffers on the job banning guns, while Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence took in somewhere between $100,000 and $350,000 to pay their anti-gun attorneys. The moves mean that not only are taxpayers helping to now meet the payroll for the gun control groups, but money that could have been spent on salaries can now be spent electing anti-gun politicians.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence received between $350,000 and $1 million on April 10 to support 41 employees, according to the Small Business Administration. The center is the educational arm of the Brady organization, which also features a political advocacy arm, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as the political action committee Brady PAC. In March, the Brady PAC endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and announced it would spend $4 million to help elect him and other gun-control candidates to office. Liam Sullivan, a spokesman for the Brady Center, defended the loans, saying that the pandemic had affected the organization’s funding and caused it to cancel major fundraising events, including its annual gala. “Like other nonprofits, the Brady Center is funded by giving and fundraising events, both of which obviously have been impacted and will be impacted for the foreseeable future,” he said. “We just applied and were approved, obviously, under the same sort of criteria as others with concerns for payroll.”
The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on all kinds of groups, but I can’t help but get the feeling that the anti-gun organizations might cry foul if, say, the NRA had ended up taking PPP loans. After all, they too had to cancel their national convention, and the Friends of NRA dinners that provide a large source of funding for the NRA Foundation have been curtailed for months thanks to COVID-19 concerns. The media and gun control groups would go nuts if any pro-Second Amendment outfit took advantage of the PPP funds to keep their doors open and their lights on.
Alan Gottlieb, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, calls the move “yet another fraud” on the part of the gun control groups, who he says have plenty of cash on hand to cover payroll.
“We didn’t take a penny of taxpayer money, nor did we even apply, because that simply would not have been appropriate,” he stated. “On the other hand,” he added, “the Brady and Gifford groups fought to keep gun stores closed while taking taxpayer funds to stop people from being able to buy firearms and ammunition to protect themselves and their property from violence including rioters, looters and arsonists.” “More appalling is the fact that, according to their latest tax returns, the Brady and Gifford organizations have several millions of dollars in assets,” Gottlieb noted. “They did not need any taxpayer money to keep their doors open.”
Well, they don’t need our guns but they keep going after them too, so I’m not surprised to see them go after money they don’t need. And make no mistake, there’s nothing illegal about what the gun control groups did, though Gutowski notes that organizations like the Florida Democratic Party announced it would give back $750,000 in PPP funds after a public outcry. I’m going to go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and predict that we won’t see either gun control organization follow suit, nor will we see many media outlets even report on Gutowski’s findings. The double standard is real.


bearingarms--2020-07-13--McCloskeys Turn Down Offers For Free Rifles. Here's What They Should Do Instead.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the offers to replace the firearms owned by Ken and Patricia McCloskey that were seized by St. Louis police over the weekend , but I ’ m pretty sure the high-powered personal injury attorneys can afford to pick up a couple of new guns on their own .
And , it should be noted , police only seized the firearms that they couple displayed when protesters broke through a gate and entered their private community in late June .
Any other legally owned firearms remain in the possession of the McCloskeys , though I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would love to order them to give up all of their guns as she pursues a case against the pair .
Still , the offers are coming in , according the couple ’ s attorney , who spoke to Forbes over the weekend .
A Missouri gun store has made one of at least 50 offers to Mark and Patricia McCloskey—the couple who went viral for pointing guns at anti-racism protesters passing by their St. Louis home—for a free AR-15 rifle after authorities seized the one they brandished during the incident , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joel Schwartz , the McCloskeys ’ criminal defense lawyer , told Forbes that the gun store , “ along with 50 people have contacted them and offered to replace the AR-15 , ” but they are “ kindly refuting ” the gestures .
It ’ s really too bad the McCloskeys aren ’ t taking anyone up on their offer .
Can you imagine the reaction if the couple actually accepted those donated firearms , then turned around and donated them as well ; this time to St. Louis mothers and fathers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect their families ?
Sharing the wealth , so to speak .
I ’ m sure there are plenty of good people in not-so-great neighborhoods who would love to have a free gun that they could use in case they become the victim of a home invasion or robbery .
It would be also pretty un-elitist for the millionaire couple to work to ensure that every law-abiding St. Louisian has the same opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights , regardless of income .
It won ’ t happen , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see .
What ’ s far more likely to happen , at least according to the McCloskeys ’ attorney , is that the couple will actually face a charge .
Joel Schwartz says he believes that “ charges are more likely ” than they were several days ago , and indicated that a brandishing charge might be the most likely possibility if St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner does proceed with charges .
Gardner ’ s finding herself in a little controversy of her own at the moment , given her office ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Page , who openly admits to attacking a man at the statue of Louis IX in downtown St. Louis back on June 27th .
If her office ends up filing charges against the McCloskeys for brandishing a firearm before it brings charges against Page , it ’ s only going to open up Gardner to more accusations of political motivation in her prosecution of the couple , and not without reason .
The case against the McCloskeys is incredibly weak , and basically boils down to the argument that the McCloskeys were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no right to display their firearms on their property .
The case against Page , on the other hand , is incredibly strong , given the fact that he proudly admits to pummeling a man .
Both incidents received at least some national attention , but right now only one of them seems to have the attention of the prosecutor in St. Louis .

I appreciate the sentiment behind the offers to replace the firearms owned by Ken and Patricia McCloskey that were seized by St. Louis police over the weekend, but I’m pretty sure the high-powered personal injury attorneys can afford to pick up a couple of new guns on their own. And, it should be noted, police only seized the firearms that they couple displayed when protesters broke through a gate and entered their private community in late June. Any other legally owned firearms remain in the possession of the McCloskeys, though I’m sure the St. Louis Circuit Attorney would love to order them to give up all of their guns as she pursues a case against the pair.
Still, the offers are coming in, according the couple’s attorney, who spoke to Forbes over the weekend.
A Missouri gun store has made one of at least 50 offers to Mark and Patricia McCloskey—the couple who went viral for pointing guns at anti-racism protesters passing by their St. Louis home—for a free AR-15 rifle after authorities seized the one they brandished during the incident, a lawyer representing the couple told Forbes Sunday… Joel Schwartz, the McCloskeys’ criminal defense lawyer, told Forbes that the gun store, “along with 50 people have contacted them and offered to replace the AR-15,” but they are “kindly refuting” the gestures.
It’s really too bad the McCloskeys aren’t taking anyone up on their offer. Can you imagine the reaction if the couple actually accepted those donated firearms, then turned around and donated them as well; this time to St. Louis mothers and fathers in un-gated neighborhoods who would love an AR-15 to protect their families? Sharing the wealth, so to speak.
I’m sure there are plenty of good people in not-so-great neighborhoods who would love to have a free gun that they could use in case they become the victim of a home invasion or robbery. It would be also pretty un-elitist for the millionaire couple to work to ensure that every law-abiding St. Louisian has the same opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights, regardless of income.
It won’t happen, of course, though it would be fun to see. What’s far more likely to happen, at least according to the McCloskeys’ attorney, is that the couple will actually face a charge. Joel Schwartz says he believes that “charges are more likely” than they were several days ago, and indicated that a brandishing charge might be the most likely possibility if St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner does proceed with charges.
Gardner’s finding herself in a little controversy of her own at the moment, given her office’s delay in filing charges against Terrence Page, who openly admits to attacking a man at the statue of Louis IX in downtown St. Louis back on June 27th. If her office ends up filing charges against the McCloskeys for brandishing a firearm before it brings charges against Page, it’s only going to open up Gardner to more accusations of political motivation in her prosecution of the couple, and not without reason.
The case against the McCloskeys is incredibly weak, and basically boils down to the argument that the McCloskeys were not in fear of their life and therefore had no right to display their firearms on their property. The case against Page, on the other hand, is incredibly strong, given the fact that he proudly admits to pummeling a man. Both incidents received at least some national attention, but right now only one of them seems to have the attention of the prosecutor in St. Louis.