bearingarms--2020-03-23--Airman's Potential Mass Shooting Thwarted Without Red Flag Laws

Red flag laws , we are told , are absolutely essential to stop not just mass shootings , but suicides as well .
After all , if we take guns from people who are a threat , that ends the danger completely , right ?
I ’ m sure no one would think to…oh , use a van to kill people or anything , right ?
No , people only use guns for that sort of thing .
Of course , we know that suicide rates seem to be going up in states with red flag laws , so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We also have found a lot of potential mass shootings are being stopped without such orders as well .
Now , we can potentially add one more to the list .
A U.S. airman assigned to Kirtland Air Force Base is in federal custody after military investigators searching his KAFB residence found a cache of 17 firearms , two silencers , large amounts of ammunition , bomb-making instructions and photos of rifle magazines with the names of mass shooters written on them .
Investigators said in a criminal complaint that Senior Airman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a “ threat to the general public.
” Justice formally has been charged with possessing a silencer and unlawful importation of a firearm — the silencer he allegedly ordered from a Chinese company .
The photographs found on his cellphone showed the names of mass shooters written on white ink on AR-15 compatible magazines .
Included among the names were [ name redacted ] , who shot and killed several people at a mosque in Quebec City , Canada , and [ yet another name redacted ] , who targeted African migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Christchurch mosque shooting in New Zealand .
In other words , like many other shooters , he violated other laws prior to carrying out any sort of attack .
To be clear , Justice doesn ’ t seem to have explicitly been planning anything .
However , the inclusion of mass shooters ’ names on AR magazines just doesn ’ t sound like someone who collected goodies for a day at the range , either .
What we do know for a fact is that he ordered a suppressor illegally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a Glock firearm , something that ’ s also quite illegal to do .
He also had instructions for building Molotov cocktails .
So while he may not have been planning a mass shooting , he was probably planning something .
I ’ m inclined to believe he had a mass shooting plan in mind , likely some soft target that wouldn ’ t really require detailed planning .
Either that or somewhere well-known to him , potentially somewhere on base .
Honestly , though , it doesn ’ t really matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he represented ended , all without a single red flag law being needed .
This isn ’ t unusual , either .
Ever since El Paso , Dayton , and Odessa , people have been far more likely to report suspicious activity carried out by people they know .
Investigators are following up and finding people in the midst of planning their atrocities and arresting them before anyone can be hurt .
Others are likely investigated and found to represent no threat at all .
Such is how it ’ s supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this story isn ’ t a bigger story .
That would have meant dead bodies .
That ’ s something we can all do without .

Red flag laws, we are told, are absolutely essential to stop not just mass shootings, but suicides as well. After all, if we take guns from people who are a threat, that ends the danger completely, right? I’m sure no one would think to…oh, use a van to kill people or anything, right? No, people only use guns for that sort of thing.
Of course, we know that suicide rates seem to be going up in states with red flag laws, so that one gets blown out of the water.
We also have found a lot of potential mass shootings are being stopped without such orders as well. Now, we can potentially add one more to the list.
A U.S. airman assigned to Kirtland Air Force Base is in federal custody after military investigators searching his KAFB residence found a cache of 17 firearms, two silencers, large amounts of ammunition, bomb-making instructions and photos of rifle magazines with the names of mass shooters written on them. Investigators said in a criminal complaint that Senior Airman Charles Brent Justice, 27, could be a “threat to the general public.” Justice formally has been charged with possessing a silencer and unlawful importation of a firearm — the silencer he allegedly ordered from a Chinese company. The photographs found on his cellphone showed the names of mass shooters written on white ink on AR-15 compatible magazines. Included among the names were [name redacted], who shot and killed several people at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, and [yet another name redacted], who targeted African migrants in Italy. Other photographs were related to the Christchurch mosque shooting in New Zealand.
In other words, like many other shooters, he violated other laws prior to carrying out any sort of attack.
To be clear, Justice doesn’t seem to have explicitly been planning anything. However, the inclusion of mass shooters’ names on AR magazines just doesn’t sound like someone who collected goodies for a day at the range, either.
What we do know for a fact is that he ordered a suppressor illegally. He also had a buttstock for attaching to a Glock firearm, something that’s also quite illegal to do. He also had instructions for building Molotov cocktails.
So while he may not have been planning a mass shooting, he was probably planning something. I’m inclined to believe he had a mass shooting plan in mind, likely some soft target that wouldn’t really require detailed planning. Either that or somewhere well-known to him, potentially somewhere on base.
Honestly, though, it doesn’t really matter. He was stopped and the threat he represented ended, all without a single red flag law being needed.
This isn’t unusual, either. Ever since El Paso, Dayton, and Odessa, people have been far more likely to report suspicious activity carried out by people they know. Investigators are following up and finding people in the midst of planning their atrocities and arresting them before anyone can be hurt. Others are likely investigated and found to represent no threat at all. Such is how it’s supposed to work.
I’m just glad this story isn’t a bigger story. That would have meant dead bodies. That’s something we can all do without.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--PA Gov Ends Confusion, Declares Gun Stores Can Remain Open

In a major victory for the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians , Gov .
Tom Wolf ended the confusion over whether or not gun stores were considered essential businesses and now says that gun stores can open for business , provided they take some specific steps to ensure social distancing to mitigate spread of the coronavirus .
In new guidance to Pennsylvania businesses issued Tuesday afternoon , the governor declared that sporting goods stores must remain closed , with one big exception .
“ Except that firearms dealers may operate physical businesses on a limited basis to complete only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted in-person under the law , subject to the following restrictions : 1 ) all such sale/transfers will be conducted by individual appointment during limited hours only so as to minimize social interactions and congregating of persons ; 2 ) the dealer will comply with social distancing , sanitization of applicable area between appointments , and other mitigation measures to protect its employees and the public.
” So , it appears at the very least that prospective gun buyers can order online and make an appointment to pick up their firearm , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow for in-person perusal of the firearm selection and purchase .
My biggest issue is the “ limited hours , ” because gun stores simply aren ’ t going to be able to serve a large volume of customers .
It would be good if they could at least try to make up for it by extending hours if need be .
Wolf ’ s move came hours after the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court rejected a bid by the Firearms Policy Coalition to overturn Wolf ’ s entire emergency order , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out by one of three justices who dissented from the majority opinion .
I ’ m sure I ’ m going to have many more disagreements over gun control with Gov .
Wolf , but I want to sincerely thank him for making this move and following the advice of Justice Wecht .
Hopefully the issue of store hours is something that can be worked on as Gov .
Wolf continues to adjust his emergency orders for businesses across the state .
The important takeaway , for me anyway , is that another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of mandating the closure of gun stores during the coronavirus pandemic .
At the moment , New Jersey Gov .
Phil Murphy is the exception , not the rule , in ordering gun stores to close and gun sales to stop .
That ’ s a very good thing , and gun owners should be lobbying their own governor right now to politely and respectfully remind them that the right to keep and bear arms is never more essential than in times of uncertainty , and that it is essential not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but to the people ’ s peace of mind to ensure that their most fundamental of rights isn ’ t infringed on during this current emergency .

In a major victory for the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians, Gov. Tom Wolf ended the confusion over whether or not gun stores were considered essential businesses and now says that gun stores can open for business, provided they take some specific steps to ensure social distancing to mitigate spread of the coronavirus.
In new guidance to Pennsylvania businesses issued Tuesday afternoon, the governor declared that sporting goods stores must remain closed, with one big exception.
“Except that firearms dealers may operate physical businesses on a limited basis to complete only the portions of a sale/transfer that must be conducted in-person under the law, subject to the following restrictions: 1) all such sale/transfers will be conducted by individual appointment during limited hours only so as to minimize social interactions and congregating of persons; 2) the dealer will comply with social distancing, sanitization of applicable area between appointments, and other mitigation measures to protect its employees and the public.”
So, it appears at the very least that prospective gun buyers can order online and make an appointment to pick up their firearm, but I think this could reasonably be read to allow for in-person perusal of the firearm selection and purchase. My biggest issue is the “limited hours,” because gun stores simply aren’t going to be able to serve a large volume of customers. It would be good if they could at least try to make up for it by extending hours if need be.
Wolf’s move came hours after the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court rejected a bid by the Firearms Policy Coalition to overturn Wolf’s entire emergency order, and in fact basically follows a formula laid out by one of three justices who dissented from the majority opinion.
I’m sure I’m going to have many more disagreements over gun control with Gov. Wolf, but I want to sincerely thank him for making this move and following the advice of Justice Wecht. Hopefully the issue of store hours is something that can be worked on as Gov. Wolf continues to adjust his emergency orders for businesses across the state. The important takeaway, for me anyway, is that another Democrat governor has stepped back from the idea of mandating the closure of gun stores during the coronavirus pandemic.
At the moment, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy is the exception, not the rule, in ordering gun stores to close and gun sales to stop. That’s a very good thing, and gun owners should be lobbying their own governor right now to politely and respectfully remind them that the right to keep and bear arms is never more essential than in times of uncertainty, and that it is essential not only to the security of a free state, but to the people’s peace of mind to ensure that their most fundamental of rights isn’t infringed on during this current emergency.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--Florida Gun Stores Rationing Ammo

Florida Gun Stores Rationing Ammo

We ’ ve written a number of posts about the high volume of sales taking place at gun stores throughout the country .
While new gun buyers are swarming to pick up new firearms , others are stocking up on ammunition .
Those are often the people with plenty of guns , but never quite enough ammo .
In Florida , it seems that many gun stores are starting to ration how much people can buy at one time .
First , toilet paper ran out .
Now , bullets are being rationed in Florida .
Some firearms retailers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can buy as coronavirus-fueled gun sales surge in the “ Gunshine State , ” where more than 2 million residents have state-issued concealed weapons licenses .
Online ammunition retailer Ammo.com said it has experienced a dramatic spike in business since February .
Ammo.com ’ s Florida sales were up 235 percent , it said , with sales of 9 mm ammunition up by 315 percent , 223-caliber rounds for rifles up by 368 percent and 5.56×45 rifle rounds up by 413 percent .
Some local gun stores have been tending to customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ items such as ammunition , raising concerns about the robust economic activity amid social distancing and other shutdowns .
Now , it ’ s likely that news of this rationing will spread , but it ’ s important to understand a few things .
First , these are the stores that are rationing ammunition , not the government .
They ’ re trying to keep anyone from hoarding ammo so they can sell to as many of their customers as possible .
While I ’ m not saying this is a good idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is doing this and why .
This is not the government rationing anything , though , and I fear some will think it is .
That ’ s kind of the last thing we need right now .
Between the tense political climate and the tense environment created by Covid-19 , it wouldn ’ t take much to spark outright violence .
No one needs that .
We ’ ve got enough problems as it is .
That said , I understand why stores are doing this .
I just don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly smart strategy .
It ’ s probably smarter than jacking up the price of ammunition to discourage hoarding , though .
Last week , many people were furious with Cheaper Than Dirt for doing just that and probably for the same reason .
Rationing at least has a bit more of a “ fair ” feeling to it under the circumstances .
At least with stores rationing , you can always go to another store and pick up what they have as well .
You can also , in theory , come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just so long as the government stays out of it .
There ’ s absolutely no advantage to the government doing anything regarding gun stores except , maybe , declaring them essential businesses and leaving them the hell alone .
Anything other than that will be a massive problem and just make an already tense situation even worse .
Again , that ’ s the last thing anyone needs right now .
We ’ ve got plenty of other problems , we don ’ t need something like this dropped in our @ @ @ @

We’ve written a number of posts about the high volume of sales taking place at gun stores throughout the country. While new gun buyers are swarming to pick up new firearms, others are stocking up on ammunition. Those are often the people with plenty of guns, but never quite enough ammo.
In Florida, it seems that many gun stores are starting to ration how much people can buy at one time.
First, toilet paper ran out. Now, bullets are being rationed in Florida. Some firearms retailers are placing restrictions on the amount of ammunition people can buy as coronavirus-fueled gun sales surge in the “Gunshine State,” where more than 2 million residents have state-issued concealed weapons licenses. … Online ammunition retailer Ammo.com said it has experienced a dramatic spike in business since February. Ammo.com’s Florida sales were up 235 percent, it said, with sales of 9 mm ammunition up by 315 percent, 223-caliber rounds for rifles up by 368 percent and 5.56×45 rifle rounds up by 413 percent. Some local gun stores have been tending to customers in long lines, imposing restrictions on items such as ammunition, raising concerns about the robust economic activity amid social distancing and other shutdowns.
Now, it’s likely that news of this rationing will spread, but it’s important to understand a few things.
First, these are the stores that are rationing ammunition, not the government. They’re trying to keep anyone from hoarding ammo so they can sell to as many of their customers as possible. While I’m not saying this is a good idea, it’s important to understand who is doing this and why.
This is not the government rationing anything, though, and I fear some will think it is. That’s kind of the last thing we need right now. Between the tense political climate and the tense environment created by Covid-19, it wouldn’t take much to spark outright violence. No one needs that. We’ve got enough problems as it is.
That said, I understand why stores are doing this. I just don’t know that it’s a particularly smart strategy. It’s probably smarter than jacking up the price of ammunition to discourage hoarding, though. Last week, many people were furious with Cheaper Than Dirt for doing just that and probably for the same reason. Rationing at least has a bit more of a “fair” feeling to it under the circumstances.
At least with stores rationing, you can always go to another store and pick up what they have as well. You can also, in theory, come back the next day and buy more.
Just so long as the government stays out of it. There’s absolutely no advantage to the government doing anything regarding gun stores except, maybe, declaring them essential businesses and leaving them the hell alone. Anything other than that will be a massive problem and just make an already tense situation even worse.
Again, that’s the last thing anyone needs right now. We’ve got plenty of other problems, we don’t need something like this dropped in our laps as well.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--Gun Owners Push Back Against Anti-2A Emergency Orders

When city council members in Bellingham , Washington introduced an emergency powers declaration that supposedly allowed the mayor to suspend firearms and ammunition sales and the mere possession of a firearm , it ignited a firestorm of controversy that ultimately led to council members vocally backing away from the proposal and making excuses for why it was offered to begin with .
Seattle talk show host Jason Rantz joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to talk about his efforts to get the word out about Bellingham ’ s proposed gun grab and the outpouring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has hopefully but an end to the gun ban plans in the Seattle suburb .
Rantz first publicized the action in Bellingham on Sunday night , a little more than 24 hours before the city council meeting was supposed to take place .
By Monday afternoon , he ’ d heard from city councilman Michael Lilliquist , who told Rantz that council members didn ’ t have a chance to look over the proposed emergency declaration before it was added to their agenda .
The section of the existing municipal code concerning firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 years ago .
It ’ s been on the books since 1977 .
I guess they must have been thinking about mass riots or something .
We have asked the city attorneys to look at that older part of the code .
Based on my own research this weekend , this kind of emergency powers language is found in other city codes , and it is perhaps even more common that this kind of language does not appear in the municipal code .
I ’ d like to review this issue fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on emergency relief efforts .
Not to be shifting blame , but the Bellingham city council did not see this ordinance before it was published .
The ordinance was written at the direction of the mayor , and the writing of the ordinance is the work of city staff members , not political leaders .
If you look at the draft ordinance , you see that the Bellingham mayor ’ s concern was with 1 ) improving our current emergency command structure and 2 ) adding an ability to create essential public facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency .
In that , I fully support the mayor ’ s efforts .
That is what the proposed ordinance is about : emergency command structure and essential public facilities .
My guess is that staff focused on that urgent project , and did not pay attention to older parts of the same law .
The proposed ordinance that we will vote on does not add or change any part of the law concerning gun sales or alcohol sales .
Staff included the whole section of the code , i.e.
, the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to show full context for the changes .
I don ’ t think staff thought about it before publication .
It was not the focus of people ’ s attention .
It ’ s not was the city council is being asked to consider .
Our attention and efforts are focused on providing emergency relief that our community has asked for — e.g.
, deferred tax payments , no penalties for late payments of water bills , emergency housing , support for local small businesses , etc .
We are keeping essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection running , while adjusting in ways to keep our emergency responders safe .
We are coordinating with service providers , like the hospital and local food bank , to keep things moving while keeping people at safe distances from each other .
Our minds are on these and many other tasks .
The mayor has been clear that he does NOT support restrictions on guns sales or alcohol as an emergency action , and I agree with him .
While I and other gun owners appreciate the clarification from Councilman Lilliquist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the city council had no intent on imposing restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms with their emergency ordinance , they really should have taken a look at the old language before they included it in their agenda for Monday ’ s meeting .
I understand council members may have a lot on their plates at the moment , but their lack of oversight led to unnecessary concern and confusion for residents , who were rightfully upset about the language in the emergency ordinance .
Also on today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an armed citizen in Indianapolis who got the jump on a pair of home invaders , as well as a look at the move by Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva , who is taking the position that gun stores are non-essential businesses and should be shut down during the current emergency .
Make sure you ’ re not missing any of the important Second Amendment news of the day by subscribing to Townhall Media on YouTube , or by subscribing to the Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co podcast on Apple Podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listening , and for spreading the word !

When city council members in Bellingham, Washington introduced an emergency powers declaration that supposedly allowed the mayor to suspend firearms and ammunition sales and the mere possession of a firearm, it ignited a firestorm of controversy that ultimately led to council members vocally backing away from the proposal and making excuses for why it was offered to begin with.
Seattle talk show host Jason Rantz joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about his efforts to get the word out about Bellingham’s proposed gun grab and the outpouring of opposition from local gun owners that has hopefully but an end to the gun ban plans in the Seattle suburb.
Rantz first publicized the action in Bellingham on Sunday night, a little more than 24 hours before the city council meeting was supposed to take place. By Monday afternoon, he’d heard from city councilman Michael Lilliquist, who told Rantz that council members didn’t have a chance to look over the proposed emergency declaration before it was added to their agenda.
The section of the existing municipal code concerning firearms sales and alcohol sales was written over 50 years ago. It’s been on the books since 1977. I guess they must have been thinking about mass riots or something. We have asked the city attorneys to look at that older part of the code. Based on my own research this weekend, this kind of emergency powers language is found in other city codes, and it is perhaps even more common that this kind of language does not appear in the municipal code. I’d like to review this issue fully, and right now my focus is on emergency relief efforts. Not to be shifting blame, but the Bellingham city council did not see this ordinance before it was published. The ordinance was written at the direction of the mayor, and the writing of the ordinance is the work of city staff members, not political leaders. If you look at the draft ordinance, you see that the Bellingham mayor’s concern was with 1) improving our current emergency command structure and 2) adding an ability to create essential public facilities (e.g., temporary hospital) in an emergency. In that, I fully support the mayor’s efforts. That is what the proposed ordinance is about: emergency command structure and essential public facilities. My guess is that staff focused on that urgent project, and did not pay attention to older parts of the same law. The proposed ordinance that we will vote on does not add or change any part of the law concerning gun sales or alcohol sales. Staff included the whole section of the code, i.e., the proposed new parts alongside the 50-year-old parts, to show full context for the changes. I don’t think staff thought about it before publication. It was not the focus of people’s attention. It’s not was the city council is being asked to consider. Our attention and efforts are focused on providing emergency relief that our community has asked for — e.g., deferred tax payments, no penalties for late payments of water bills, emergency housing, support for local small businesses, etc. We are keeping essential government services such as police and fire protection running, while adjusting in ways to keep our emergency responders safe. We are coordinating with service providers, like the hospital and local food bank, to keep things moving while keeping people at safe distances from each other. Our minds are on these and many other tasks. The mayor has been clear that he does NOT support restrictions on guns sales or alcohol as an emergency action, and I agree with him.
While I and other gun owners appreciate the clarification from Councilman Lilliquist, the fact of the matter is that if the city council had no intent on imposing restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms with their emergency ordinance, they really should have taken a look at the old language before they included it in their agenda for Monday’s meeting. I understand council members may have a lot on their plates at the moment, but their lack of oversight led to unnecessary concern and confusion for residents, who were rightfully upset about the language in the emergency ordinance.
Also on today’s show, we have the story of an armed citizen in Indianapolis who got the jump on a pair of home invaders, as well as a look at the move by Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who is taking the position that gun stores are non-essential businesses and should be shut down during the current emergency.
Make sure you’re not missing any of the important Second Amendment news of the day by subscribing to Townhall Media on YouTube, or by subscribing to the Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co podcast on Apple Podcasts. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and for spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-03-24--LA Sheriff Sends Deputies To Close Gun Stores

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has ordered all gun stores in the county to close , declaring that the retailers who ’ ve seen crowds of customers over the past week are not essential business and must shut down during the city ’ s shelter-in-place order .
Fox LA had an interview with the sheriff Tuesday morning , in which Villanueva claimed to be a supporter of the Second Amendment , but is so concerned about new gun owners having accidents with their firearms that he decided the stores must close .
“ We will be closing them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Villanueva said .
“ I ’ m a supporter of the 2nd amendment , I ’ m a gun owner myself , but now you have the mixture of people that are not formerly gun owners and you have a lot more people at home and anytime you introduce a firearm in a home , from what I understand from CDC studies , it increases fourfold the chance that someone is gon na get shot.
” With all due respect to the sheriff , he ’ s full of it .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to keep and bear arms .
It doesn ’ t protect the right of people who ’ ve owned guns their entire life , or the people who live by themselves .
It ’ s a right of all the people , and Villanueva is denying that right to millions of residents who may have rationally and reasonably decided over the past few days to become a gun owner for the first time .
Reporter Bill Melugin with Fox LA reported Tuesday afternoon that Villanueva is so serious about shutting down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputies out to each location to ensure compliance .
Melugin ’ s first follow up question to Villanueva should have been , “ How exactly do you support the Second Amendment ?
” Villanueva oversees the issuing of concealed carry licenses in Los Angeles County .
According to NRA-ILA , in 2017 , there were fewer than 200 concealed carry licenses in the county , which is home to more than 10-million people .
Does that sound supportive of the right to bear arms to you ?
And how exactly is Villanueva supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says that concern over accidental discharges means no one should be allowed to purchase a firearm or ammunition for the foreseeable future ?
Instead of banning Los Angelenos from legally acquiring firearms , Villanueva should be working with groups like the NRA , NSSF , and US Concealed Carry Association , who are all using their platforms to promote basic gun safety for first time gun owners at the moment .
Education is key , but Villanueva ’ s decided on abstinence instead .
It is a shameful decision that will only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expense of our constitutional rights .

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has ordered all gun stores in the county to close, declaring that the retailers who’ve seen crowds of customers over the past week are not essential business and must shut down during the city’s shelter-in-place order.
Fox LA had an interview with the sheriff Tuesday morning, in which Villanueva claimed to be a supporter of the Second Amendment, but is so concerned about new gun owners having accidents with their firearms that he decided the stores must close.
“We will be closing them, they are not an essential function,” Villanueva said. “I’m a supporter of the 2nd amendment, I’m a gun owner myself, but now you have the mixture of people that are not formerly gun owners and you have a lot more people at home and anytime you introduce a firearm in a home, from what I understand from CDC studies, it increases fourfold the chance that someone is gonna get shot.”
With all due respect to the sheriff, he’s full of it. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t protect the right of people who’ve owned guns their entire life, or the people who live by themselves. It’s a right of all the people, and Villanueva is denying that right to millions of residents who may have rationally and reasonably decided over the past few days to become a gun owner for the first time.
Reporter Bill Melugin with Fox LA reported Tuesday afternoon that Villanueva is so serious about shutting down the gun stores that he’s sending deputies out to each location to ensure compliance.
The Sheriff told me he is a gun owner himself, supports 2nd amendment, but believes too many first time buyers are panicking and bringing guns into homes where people are locked down, which he believes is recipe for disaster with potential accidental shootings. @FOXLA — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) March 24, 2020
Melugin’s first follow up question to Villanueva should have been, “How exactly do you support the Second Amendment?”
Villanueva oversees the issuing of concealed carry licenses in Los Angeles County. According to NRA-ILA, in 2017, there were fewer than 200 concealed carry licenses in the county, which is home to more than 10-million people. Does that sound supportive of the right to bear arms to you?
And how exactly is Villanueva supporting the Second Amendment rights of residents when he says that concern over accidental discharges means no one should be allowed to purchase a firearm or ammunition for the foreseeable future? Instead of banning Los Angelenos from legally acquiring firearms, Villanueva should be working with groups like the NRA, NSSF, and US Concealed Carry Association, who are all using their platforms to promote basic gun safety for first time gun owners at the moment. Education is key, but Villanueva’s decided on abstinence instead. It is a shameful decision that will only serve to stoke fear and panic at the expense of our constitutional rights.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--Anti-Gun Doctor Thinks New Gun Buyers Are Murders In The Making

Dr. Joseph Sakran has a reason to be anti-gun .
As someone who was shot , I get why he doesn ’ t like guns .
While I vehemently disagree with him on the issue of guns , I can understand why he feels the way he does .
Not that such a thing is universal , mind you .
Plenty of people come out the other side of incidents similar to what he went through with a newfound respect for the Second Amendment for me to even begin to think such a thing .
AS a physician , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s somehow uniquely placed to tell people what they should and shouldn ’ t do with regard to firearms .
Like most anti-gunners , many of Sakran ’ s arguments tend to be either anecdotal or emotional , rather than data-driven .
That ’ s about par for the course , I ’ m afraid .
Yesterday , Sakran took to Twitter to beg people not to buy guns during this difficult time .
Well…that ’ s about the stupidest appeal I ’ ve ever heard .
Right now , people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know where this is going to go .
Will it end in a couple of weeks and life return to normal fairly quickly ?
Or is this just the first domino to fall in a series of events that could have us all having to scramble for survival ?
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes , but right now , no one knows for sure .
What they do know is that weeks from now , it may well be too late to purchase a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so legally in many places for the time being and by the time it may become clear you need a weapon , it ’ ll likely be too late in many others .
That is the emotion many people are dealing with right now .
Yet Sakran has decided that instead , you ’ re all a bunch of mass shooters in the making , that the only thing stopping you is that you simply don ’ t have a gun .
At least , that ’ s sure as hell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe he didn ’ t mean it that way .
Maybe he ’ s saying your kids are the mass killers of tomorrow instead .
That ’ s so much better , right ?
Or maybe he thinks your guns might get stolen and used by criminals .
I mean , that ’ s at least plausible , right ?
Of course , if he thought that , he might have to start recognizing that criminals already disobey laws and that gun control only impacts the law-abiding citizens and not the bad guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor , a man of science , I expect to see more data from someone with Sakran ’ s credentials .
The fact that he doesn ’ t provide any , however , is telling .
That ’ s because there aren ’ t any .
We ’ re kind of in new territory here .
Right now , though , his advice isn ’ t going to save lives .
It ’ ll cost them .
Especially if this doesn ’ t just blow over in the span of a few weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen to Sakran who might have bought a gun but took his advice not to do so may well come to regret their decision .
I fear , however , that they won ’ t have very long to regret it .

Dr. Joseph Sakran has a reason to be anti-gun. As someone who was shot, I get why he doesn’t like guns. While I vehemently disagree with him on the issue of guns, I can understand why he feels the way he does. Not that such a thing is universal, mind you. Plenty of people come out the other side of incidents similar to what he went through with a newfound respect for the Second Amendment for me to even begin to think such a thing.
AS a physician, though, Sakran seems to feel that he’s somehow uniquely placed to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do with regard to firearms. Like most anti-gunners, many of Sakran’s arguments tend to be either anecdotal or emotional, rather than data-driven. That’s about par for the course, I’m afraid.
Yesterday, Sakran took to Twitter to beg people not to buy guns during this difficult time.
These are scary and stressful times for all of us. It’s so critical that we don’t address one Public Health problem by adding to another that we know already exists in communities across America. #StopTheCoronavirusGunSurge pic.twitter.com/hfmnFhcbYH — Joseph Sakran (@JosephSakran) March 23, 2020
Well…that’s about the stupidest appeal I’ve ever heard.
Right now, people are buying guns like crazy because they don’t know where this is going to go. Will it end in a couple of weeks and life return to normal fairly quickly? Or is this just the first domino to fall in a series of events that could have us all having to scramble for survival?
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, but right now, no one knows for sure. What they do know is that weeks from now, it may well be too late to purchase a firearm. It’s already impossible to do so legally in many places for the time being and by the time it may become clear you need a weapon, it’ll likely be too late in many others.
That is the emotion many people are dealing with right now.
Yet Sakran has decided that instead, you’re all a bunch of mass shooters in the making, that the only thing stopping you is that you simply don’t have a gun. At least, that’s sure as hell how his words sound to me.
Maybe he didn’t mean it that way. Maybe he’s saying your kids are the mass killers of tomorrow instead. That’s so much better, right?
Or maybe he thinks your guns might get stolen and used by criminals. I mean, that’s at least plausible, right?
Of course, if he thought that, he might have to start recognizing that criminals already disobey laws and that gun control only impacts the law-abiding citizens and not the bad guys who represent the problem.
As a doctor, a man of science, I expect to see more data from someone with Sakran’s credentials. The fact that he doesn’t provide any, however, is telling. That’s because there aren’t any. We’re kind of in new territory here.
Right now, though, his advice isn’t going to save lives. It’ll cost them. Especially if this doesn’t just blow over in the span of a few weeks like it was nothing. People who listen to Sakran who might have bought a gun but took his advice not to do so may well come to regret their decision. I fear, however, that they won’t have very long to regret it.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--An Open Letter To State Legislatures: Constitutional Carry NOW!

If Covid-19 has done anything , it ’ s shown us just how vulnerable our entire system is .
Hospitals are overwhelmed , schools are shut down with no idea when they ’ ll reopen , colleges and universities are shifted to online-only , and many of us are housebound for the foreseeable future .
It ’ s downright annoying , to say the least .
One area we ’ ve seen a problem has been in concealed carry licensing .
It ’ s understandable , really .
Sheriff ’ s departments–the very people often tasked with some portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people from infection .
While it ’ s an infringement on our right to bear arms , I get it .
They ’ re in a tough spot .
But you , as lawmakers in your respective states , can fix that .
You can take this burden off of them .
Constitutional carry eliminates the need for a permit to carry a firearm either concealed or openly .
While many states already allow open carry without a permit , still others do not .
Constitutional carry , though , would permit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best fits his or her needs regardless of whether they have a permit or not .
The truth of the matter is , constitution carry–also called “ permitless carry ” –is the method of carry that most closely aligns with the plain text of the Second Amendment anyway .
After all , it says the “ the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” Of course , I understand that you and your constituents may not be swayed by that argument .
So instead , I point to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry .
Over a fairly long time span , we ’ ve had states that haven ’ t required a special piece of paper to carry a firearm but absolutely no corresponding increase in violent crime .
That ’ s because the criminals are already carrying without a permit .
Only the law-abiding have been hamstrung by the requirement to have a permit in order to carry a firearm on one ’ s person .
The very same requirement that now is almost impossible for many to comply with thanks to the Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the departments shuttering their permitting offices for the time being , I do understand it .
I ’ m sure you , as lawmakers , can too .
That ’ s why it ’ s on you to fix this problem for your constituents .
It ’ s time you use your offices to address this problem once and for all .
Removing permitting requirements will take the pressure off of county sheriffs dealing with any future pandemics and preserve the rights of ordinary Americans simply wishing to exercise their constitutional rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right now , things are tense .
It may be only a matter of time before things turn very , very ugly .
The current rules mean some will not be able to carry a firearm to protect themselves if that particular balloon goes up while they ’ re out and about .
Pass constitutional carry either now or when you return to session .
The people of the United States of America deserve it .

Dear state legislatures,
If Covid-19 has done anything, it’s shown us just how vulnerable our entire system is. Hospitals are overwhelmed, schools are shut down with no idea when they’ll reopen, colleges and universities are shifted to online-only, and many of us are housebound for the foreseeable future. It’s downright annoying, to say the least.
One area we’ve seen a problem has been in concealed carry licensing.
It’s understandable, really. Sheriff’s departments–the very people often tasked with some portion of the permitting process–are trying to protect their people from infection. While it’s an infringement on our right to bear arms, I get it. They’re in a tough spot.
But you, as lawmakers in your respective states, can fix that. You can take this burden off of them.
You can pass constitutional carry.
Constitutional carry eliminates the need for a permit to carry a firearm either concealed or openly. While many states already allow open carry without a permit, still others do not. Constitutional carry, though, would permit the carrier to decide which method of carry best fits his or her needs regardless of whether they have a permit or not.
The truth of the matter is, constitution carry–also called “permitless carry”–is the method of carry that most closely aligns with the plain text of the Second Amendment anyway. After all, it says the “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Of course, I understand that you and your constituents may not be swayed by that argument. So instead, I point to the many states who have already enacted permitless carry. Over a fairly long time span, we’ve had states that haven’t required a special piece of paper to carry a firearm but absolutely no corresponding increase in violent crime.
That’s because the criminals are already carrying without a permit. Only the law-abiding have been hamstrung by the requirement to have a permit in order to carry a firearm on one’s person.
The very same requirement that now is almost impossible for many to comply with thanks to the Covid-19 virus.
While I may not agree with the departments shuttering their permitting offices for the time being, I do understand it. I’m sure you, as lawmakers, can too. That’s why it’s on you to fix this problem for your constituents. It’s time you use your offices to address this problem once and for all.
Removing permitting requirements will take the pressure off of county sheriffs dealing with any future pandemics and preserve the rights of ordinary Americans simply wishing to exercise their constitutional rights lawfully, particularly during a crisis. Right now, things are tense. It may be only a matter of time before things turn very, very ugly. The current rules mean some will not be able to carry a firearm to protect themselves if that particular balloon goes up while they’re out and about.
Pass constitutional carry either now or when you return to session. The people of the United States of America deserve it.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--Americans Ignoring Anti-Gun Activists' Pleas To Not Buy Guns

We don ’ t know for sure how many Americans have decided over the past couple of weeks to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time in their lives , but anecdotally , I ’ m hearing from a lot of gun store owners and employees that a huge portion of their customer base are first-time gun buyers .
Gun control advocates are doing everything they can to try to shame and scare Americans into staying away from firearms , but for the most part it seems their efforts are falling on deaf ears .
Amanda Marcotte with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second Amendment during normal times , and the thought of tens of thousands of Americans buying a gun for the very first time has sent her into a tizzy .
No doubt these folks are aware that COVID-19 is a microscopic virus and therefore is not something you can shoot .
No , obviously , the fear is about the economy collapsing ( thanks for the negligence , Donald Trump ! )
, leading to a rise in crime and violence , in which people imagine they can use these guns to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also , decades of NRA propaganda have convinced people to associate guns with safety .
Indeed , as the economy craters , the NRA is treating this crisis as another opportunity to sell guns to people .
What else would it do ?
The NRA doesn ’ t sell guns to people , and it ’ s not NRA propaganda that ’ s driving gun sales at the moment .
It ’ s common sense .
People are concerned about the prospect of the public safety net unraveling over the next few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to protect themselves and the people they love .
That ’ s not an unreasonable fear at all .
In fact , at the moment it seems pretty prudent to not want to be defenseless .
Second Amendment supporters want to ensure that new gun owners have access to basic firearms education and safety training , which is why we ’ ve seen a push from groups like NSSF , NRA , USCCA , and others to direct these folks to online resources until they can get to a range .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me , but Marcotte would simply prefer that all these new gun owners march down to the police department and turn in their new handguns , shotguns , and rifles for safekeeping .
Everyone is feeling helpless and scared right now , and wants to find ways to gain a sense of control over their lives .
There are plenty of things we can do that are actually helpful : Clean and organize your house .
Hold a FaceTime happy hour with friends .
Learn a new hobby .
Install a security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re worried about break-ins .
Donate to a Democratic candidate , in hopes of getting the White House monster who got us into this disaster out of office .
But one thing you should not do is buy a gun .
It won ’ t make you or your family safer .
On the contrary , it might lead to someone getting shot — and needing to be rushed to a hospital that ’ s already in danger of being overwhelmed by the coronavirus .
So stay home and stay safe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marcotte isn ’ t writing for a pro-Trump , pro-Second Amendment audience , and yet she ’ s trying to convince her audience not to buy a gun .
That tells me that we ’ re not just seeing a surge in interest in self-defense among conservatives .
There are plenty of liberals and progressives who are embracing their right to keep and bear arms right now , and that ’ s really what scares Marcotte and gun control activists .
They know that the coronavirus pandemic has the potential to change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control debate .
On the other side of this emergency , we may find that support for new gun control measures aren ’ t nearly as popular on the Left as they were even a few weeks ago .

We don’t know for sure how many Americans have decided over the past couple of weeks to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time in their lives, but anecdotally, I’m hearing from a lot of gun store owners and employees that a huge portion of their customer base are first-time gun buyers. Gun control advocates are doing everything they can to try to shame and scare Americans into staying away from firearms, but for the most part it seems their efforts are falling on deaf ears.
Amanda Marcotte with Salon isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment during normal times, and the thought of tens of thousands of Americans buying a gun for the very first time has sent her into a tizzy.
No doubt these folks are aware that COVID-19 is a microscopic virus and therefore is not something you can shoot. No, obviously, the fear is about the economy collapsing (thanks for the negligence, Donald Trump!), leading to a rise in crime and violence, in which people imagine they can use these guns to defend their lives, families and property. Also, decades of NRA propaganda have convinced people to associate guns with safety. Indeed, as the economy craters, the NRA is treating this crisis as another opportunity to sell guns to people. What else would it do?
The NRA doesn’t sell guns to people, and it’s not NRA propaganda that’s driving gun sales at the moment. It’s common sense. People are concerned about the prospect of the public safety net unraveling over the next few weeks, and they want to be able to protect themselves and the people they love. That’s not an unreasonable fear at all. In fact, at the moment it seems pretty prudent to not want to be defenseless.
But the last thing anyone should be doing in this crisis, if they want to stay safe, is to buy a gun. Buying a gun right now will make your family and your home less safe, especially if you, like many panic buyers, are not trained in gun safety and don’t have the proper storage.
Second Amendment supporters want to ensure that new gun owners have access to basic firearms education and safety training, which is why we’ve seen a push from groups like NSSF, NRA, USCCA, and others to direct these folks to online resources until they can get to a range. That seems like the wisest course of action to me, but Marcotte would simply prefer that all these new gun owners march down to the police department and turn in their new handguns, shotguns, and rifles for safekeeping.
Everyone is feeling helpless and scared right now, and wants to find ways to gain a sense of control over their lives. There are plenty of things we can do that are actually helpful: Clean and organize your house. Hold a FaceTime happy hour with friends. Learn a new hobby. Install a security system at your house, if you’re worried about break-ins. Donate to a Democratic candidate, in hopes of getting the White House monster who got us into this disaster out of office. But one thing you should not do is buy a gun. It won’t make you or your family safer. On the contrary, it might lead to someone getting shot — and needing to be rushed to a hospital that’s already in danger of being overwhelmed by the coronavirus. So stay home and stay safe. Leave the guns alone.
Clearly, Marcotte isn’t writing for a pro-Trump, pro-Second Amendment audience, and yet she’s trying to convince her audience not to buy a gun. That tells me that we’re not just seeing a surge in interest in self-defense among conservatives. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who are embracing their right to keep and bear arms right now, and that’s really what scares Marcotte and gun control activists. They know that the coronavirus pandemic has the potential to change the word in many ways, including the gun control debate. On the other side of this emergency, we may find that support for new gun control measures aren’t nearly as popular on the Left as they were even a few weeks ago.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--NSSF Unveils COVID-19 Database For Gun Owners And FFL's

It ’ s tough for Second Amendment activists to keep up with the ever evolving emergency orders issued by states and localities that are impacting our ability to buy , sell , and own firearms .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation , however , has done an amazing job of putting together a database of emergency orders from around the country , color-coded to highlight those states that have officially deemed gun stores to be essential businesses , as well as states that are trying to shut down the lawful commerce of arms in a state of emergency .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey is the only state to explicitly put a halt on gun sales by ordering the closure of gun stores , though there are a number of states that haven ’ t deemed gun stores to be essential businesses , including California , New York , Oregon , Pennsylvania , and West Virginia .
On the other hand , the firearms industry trade group notes that many states have passed specific protections for gun owners in a state of emergency , including Nevada , Virginia , and Tennessee .
Those laws were put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans , when thousands of legally owned firearms were confiscated by police .
The National Rifle Association launched a campaign to ensure that what happened in New Orleans couldn ’ t happen in future disasters and emergencies , and thankfully they were successful in changing the laws in many states .
In fact , the NRA is still working on emergency powers legislation , and the organization applauded Kansas lawmakers less than a week ago for approving a resolution that prevents the governor from limiting gun sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course the media attacked the NRA for its push for emergency powers legislation preventing the seizure of firearms or the stoppage of gun sales .
In 2008 , the Los Angeles Times ran a story mocking the idea that people would want a firearm during an emergency .
One by one , states — mostly in the West , Midwest and South — have followed with laws specifying that a state ’ s emergency powers do not allow it to confiscate firearms .
Most have passed with little or no opposition .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pander to the fears of extremists or could prevent police from protecting public safety , such as stopping people with guns from entering emergency shelters .
One state weighing the law this year is Nebraska , where Democratic state Sen. Kent Rogert said he introduced the bill at the urging of the NRA .
Like Jaggi in Wyoming , he considers a disaster on the scale of Katrina unlikely , but said it was prudent to guard against potential abuses during an emergency .
“ It ’ s been a pretty popular issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As it turns out , it was very prudent indeed for lawmakers to approve these measures , and it was incredibly important for the NRA to promote emergency powers legislation from coast to coast .
Who could have foreseen that a little more than a decade later , every state in the union would be looking at a declared emergency ?
Unfortunately , some states skipped out on the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment rights of residents during an emergency , which is why we find ourselves with some governors doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep and bear arms right now .
The NSSF says it ’ s talking to the Department of Homeland Security to get “ firearm and ammunition product manufacturers , retailers , importers , distributors and ranges ” added to the list of critical infrastructure , but at the moment we ’ re largely relying on the state-level protections put in place after Hurricane Katrina to protect our rights during this time of uncertainty .
The NSSF ’ s database is a great resource for FFL ’ s and gun owners trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and orders impacting our Second Amendment rights .

It’s tough for Second Amendment activists to keep up with the ever evolving emergency orders issued by states and localities that are impacting our ability to buy, sell, and own firearms. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, however, has done an amazing job of putting together a database of emergency orders from around the country, color-coded to highlight those states that have officially deemed gun stores to be essential businesses, as well as states that are trying to shut down the lawful commerce of arms in a state of emergency.
According to the NSSF, right now New Jersey is the only state to explicitly put a halt on gun sales by ordering the closure of gun stores, though there are a number of states that haven’t deemed gun stores to be essential businesses, including California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. On the other hand, the firearms industry trade group notes that many states have passed specific protections for gun owners in a state of emergency, including Nevada, Virginia, and Tennessee.
Those laws were put on the books in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, when thousands of legally owned firearms were confiscated by police. The National Rifle Association launched a campaign to ensure that what happened in New Orleans couldn’t happen in future disasters and emergencies, and thankfully they were successful in changing the laws in many states. In fact, the NRA is still working on emergency powers legislation, and the organization applauded Kansas lawmakers less than a week ago for approving a resolution that prevents the governor from limiting gun sales in a state of emergency.
Of course the media attacked the NRA for its push for emergency powers legislation preventing the seizure of firearms or the stoppage of gun sales. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times ran a story mocking the idea that people would want a firearm during an emergency.
One by one, states — mostly in the West, Midwest and South — have followed with laws specifying that a state’s emergency powers do not allow it to confiscate firearms. Most have passed with little or no opposition. Those who have criticized the measures say they pander to the fears of extremists or could prevent police from protecting public safety, such as stopping people with guns from entering emergency shelters. One state weighing the law this year is Nebraska, where Democratic state Sen. Kent Rogert said he introduced the bill at the urging of the NRA. Like Jaggi in Wyoming, he considers a disaster on the scale of Katrina unlikely, but said it was prudent to guard against potential abuses during an emergency. “It’s been a pretty popular issue in my district,” Rogert said.
As it turns out, it was very prudent indeed for lawmakers to approve these measures, and it was incredibly important for the NRA to promote emergency powers legislation from coast to coast. Who could have foreseen that a little more than a decade later, every state in the union would be looking at a declared emergency?
Unfortunately, some states skipped out on the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment rights of residents during an emergency, which is why we find ourselves with some governors doing everything they can to curtail the right to keep and bear arms right now.
The NSSF says it’s talking to the Department of Homeland Security to get “firearm and ammunition product manufacturers, retailers, importers, distributors and ranges” added to the list of critical infrastructure, but at the moment we’re largely relying on the state-level protections put in place after Hurricane Katrina to protect our rights during this time of uncertainty. The NSSF’s database is a great resource for FFL’s and gun owners trying to keep up with the ever changing rules and orders impacting our Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--Former Bloomberg Staffer Files Suit, Claims Fraud

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a splash in the Democratic primary field when he announced his candidacy for president .
It was a short-lived candidacy , but he was considered a viable candidate from the start and shook up the entire field .
Then , he withdrew .
In fairness , while he polled well nationally , he failed to really garner any support on a state-to-state basis .
Withdrawal was the only real choice .
Frankly , withdrawing from an election happens pretty regularly .
Bloomberg wasn ’ t the first to withdraw , nor the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidate this election cycle to be sued by a former staffer , though .
A former staffer for Mike Bloomberg ‘ s presidential campaign filed a class-action lawsuit Monday alleging the billionaire broke a promise to pay his thousands of campaign workers through November , regardless of whether his 2020 bid was successful .
The lawsuit , filed in federal court in New York City , accuses Bloomberg of “ fraudulently ” enticing people to join his campaign with promises he did not fulfill and breaching his contract with those employees by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign on March 4 .
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit , Donna Wood , worked as a field organizer for the Bloomberg campaign .
The complaint notes that many of the staffers resigned or took leaves of absences from their current jobs or moved to take a position on Bloomberg ’ s campaign and are now left hunting for jobs — and without health care — during the coronavirus pandemic and as the economy experiences a significant contraction .
“ Defendant ’ s termination of ( field organizers ) and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and health care benefits , leaving them and their families potentially uninsured in the face of a global pandemic , ” the lawsuit reads .
The lawsuit seeks damages for “ fraudulent inducement and breach of contract , ” as well as unpaid overtime pay .
So let me get this straight .
The people who went to work for Bloomberg , the people who actively want to disarm us and make us dependent on the government , are angry that Bloomberg withdrew from the race and made them have to depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m sorry , this is freaking hilarious .
The last thing I want to do is defend Bloomberg , but a spokesperson said they provided severance packages that covered healthcare through March and are now establishing a fund to help them through April .
According to said spokesperson , this is something no other campaign is doing .
On the flip side , Bloomberg also apparently promised them worth through November .
If he put that in writing , he might be hosed , but even that isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who works in politics , especially on the campaign level , knows that no one can really promise to be in the presidential race through November unless they ’ re the incumbent .
Even they can ’ t really promise it .
As for this case , anyone who sided with Bloomberg was likely a fan of his gun control stance .
That means Ms. Wood is likely a gun grabber herself and she ’ s upset that someone snatched something she felt she had a right to have from her just when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who would take our guns right now , on the brink of all kinds of nightmare scenarios where we just might need our firearms .
I guess Wood is kind of getting the idea of what that would be like , though I ’ m sure her scenario is completely different in her mind .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I hope both parties lose somehow .
Since that ’ s not going to happen , I ’ ll just enjoy the schadenfreude .

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a splash in the Democratic primary field when he announced his candidacy for president. It was a short-lived candidacy, but he was considered a viable candidate from the start and shook up the entire field.
Then, he withdrew. In fairness, while he polled well nationally, he failed to really garner any support on a state-to-state basis. Withdrawal was the only real choice.
Frankly, withdrawing from an election happens pretty regularly. Bloomberg wasn’t the first to withdraw, nor the last.
He’s the first presidential candidate this election cycle to be sued by a former staffer, though.
A former staffer for ‘s presidential campaign filed a class-action lawsuit Monday alleging the billionaire broke a promise to pay his thousands of campaign workers through November, regardless of whether his 2020 bid was successful. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York City, accuses Bloomberg of “fraudulently” enticing people to join his campaign with promises he did not fulfill and breaching his contract with those employees by laying them off shortly after he ended his campaign on March 4. The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Donna Wood, worked as a field organizer for the Bloomberg campaign. The complaint notes that many of the staffers resigned or took leaves of absences from their current jobs or moved to take a position on Bloomberg’s campaign and are now left hunting for jobs — and without health care — during the and as the economy experiences a significant contraction. “Defendant’s termination of (field organizers) and other campaign employees deprived them of promised income and health care benefits, leaving them and their families potentially uninsured in the face of a global pandemic,” the lawsuit reads. The lawsuit seeks damages for “fraudulent inducement and breach of contract,” as well as unpaid overtime pay.
So let me get this straight. The people who went to work for Bloomberg, the people who actively want to disarm us and make us dependent on the government, are angry that Bloomberg withdrew from the race and made them have to depend on the government to keep them safe.
I’m sorry, this is freaking hilarious.
The last thing I want to do is defend Bloomberg, but a spokesperson said they provided severance packages that covered healthcare through March and are now establishing a fund to help them through April. According to said spokesperson, this is something no other campaign is doing.
On the flip side, Bloomberg also apparently promised them worth through November. If he put that in writing, he might be hosed, but even that isn’t a slam dunk. After all, anyone who works in politics, especially on the campaign level, knows that no one can really promise to be in the presidential race through November unless they’re the incumbent. Even they can’t really promise it.
As for this case, anyone who sided with Bloomberg was likely a fan of his gun control stance. That means Ms. Wood is likely a gun grabber herself and she’s upset that someone snatched something she felt she had a right to have from her just when she needed it most.
Cry me a river.
This is someone who would take our guns right now, on the brink of all kinds of nightmare scenarios where we just might need our firearms. I guess Wood is kind of getting the idea of what that would be like, though I’m sure her scenario is completely different in her mind.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope both parties lose somehow. Since that’s not going to happen, I’ll just enjoy the schadenfreude.


bearingarms--2020-03-24--CA Gun Stores Staying Open Despite "Non-Essential" Classification

California Governor Gavin Newsom isn ’ t a fan of the Second Amendment .
That ’ s true of many governors of anti-gun states , but Newsom really doesn ’ t like the Second Amendment .
As such , it ’ s not surprising that he decided gun stores weren ’ t essential businesses .
Of course , he ’ s wrong .
For one thing , gun ownership is a constitutional right and he really doesn ’ t have the authority to declare otherwise .
That means people should be permitted to buy a firearm .
Yet California law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun store open if you want to buy a gun .
Gun stores in San Diego County are seeing record sales during the coronavirus outbreak , but county officials say the stores should not be open under Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s stay-at-home order .
They say gun stores are not included in the list of “ essential businesses.
” “ We consulted with our county counsel .
It is not our belief that gun stores are essential businesses , and they should not be open in the county of San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fletcher on Sunday .
Newsom ’ s office also sent KPBS a list of essential businesses , and gun stores were not on it .
But gun-rights advocates and gun store owners say they are essential .
“ We have no plans to close , ” said David Chong , who owns AO Sword Firearms in El Cajon .
“ We have not heard any lawful order to shut down.
” Look , I ’ m smack dab in the middle of a Covid-19 hotspot .
I have a number of neighbors with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being concerned .
But do you know where we aren ’ t seeing the virus spread a whole hell of a lot ?
At gun stores .
That ’ s because most of them are small enough to keep the numbers limited all on their own .
Guns are selling quickly enough that it likely minimizes a lot of traffic .
Closing gun stores is nothing more than a pathetic attempt and curbing people exercising their Second Amendment right .
What ’ s more , I think that ’ s precisely why Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
These gun stores are practicing civil disobedience and I , for one , applaud the hell out of them .
They ’ re freaking Second Amendment heroes in my book .
Yes , the virus is serious and steps need to be made to try and contain the outbreaks .
However , those steps need to be balanced with sanity or else we ’ ll end up with even bigger issues like a completely wrecked economy .
As it is , gun stores aren ’ t exactly high-margin businesses .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t operate .
I know , I know .
For Newsom , that ’ s a feature , not a bug , but still… I ’ m glad to see this level of defiance is still something Americans can muster when times are tough .
I ask each and every reader in the area to look at these stores and remember who stood defiant .
Those are stores you need to patronize if possible .
This kind of thing needs to be rewarded and rewarded long-term .

California Governor Gavin Newsom isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment. That’s true of many governors of anti-gun states, but Newsom really doesn’t like the Second Amendment.
As such, it’s not surprising that he decided gun stores weren’t essential businesses.
Of course, he’s wrong. For one thing, gun ownership is a constitutional right and he really doesn’t have the authority to declare otherwise. That means people should be permitted to buy a firearm. Yet California law makes it so you have to have a gun store open if you want to buy a gun.
Luckily, a lot of gun stores are ignoring Newsom.
Gun stores in San Diego County are seeing record sales during the coronavirus outbreak, but county officials say the stores should not be open under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home order. They say gun stores are not included in the list of “essential businesses.” “We consulted with our county counsel. It is not our belief that gun stores are essential businesses, and they should not be open in the county of San Diego,” said County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher on Sunday. Newsom’s office also sent KPBS a list of essential businesses, and gun stores were not on it. But gun-rights advocates and gun store owners say they are essential. “We have no plans to close,” said David Chong, who owns AO Sword Firearms in El Cajon. “We have not heard any lawful order to shut down.”
Good for them.
Look, I’m smack dab in the middle of a Covid-19 hotspot. I have a number of neighbors with the virus right now. I get being concerned.
But do you know where we aren’t seeing the virus spread a whole hell of a lot? At gun stores. That’s because most of them are small enough to keep the numbers limited all on their own. Guns are selling quickly enough that it likely minimizes a lot of traffic.
Closing gun stores is nothing more than a pathetic attempt and curbing people exercising their Second Amendment right. What’s more, I think that’s precisely why Newsom opted to close them in the first place.
These gun stores are practicing civil disobedience and I, for one, applaud the hell out of them. They’re freaking Second Amendment heroes in my book.
Yes, the virus is serious and steps need to be made to try and contain the outbreaks. However, those steps need to be balanced with sanity or else we’ll end up with even bigger issues like a completely wrecked economy. As it is, gun stores aren’t exactly high-margin businesses. Many of them won’t survive if they don’t operate.
I know, I know. For Newsom, that’s a feature, not a bug, but still…
I’m glad to see this level of defiance is still something Americans can muster when times are tough. I ask each and every reader in the area to look at these stores and remember who stood defiant. Those are stores you need to patronize if possible. This kind of thing needs to be rewarded and rewarded long-term.


bearingarms--2020-03-25--Jim Crow-Era Gun Control Law Preventing Pistol Sales In One NC County

The sheriff of Wake County , North Carolina is facing mounting criticism over his decision to suspend issuing pistol purchase permits for one month , but the bigger issue is the fact that the state still has a Jim Crow-era law on the books that requires sheriffs to individually approve purchases of handguns to begin with .
Sheriff Gerald Baker says his office is simply swamped with pistol purchase permit applications , and he wants to take the month to work through the backlog and give office staff the ability to limit their interactions with the public to mitigate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that under state law , unless you possess a concealed carry license , you must acquire that permit before you can legally buy a handgun , and the sheriff ’ s office has 14-days to process your application .
Baker ’ s decision has led some to say it ’ s an infringement on their second amendment right , including Speaker of the House Tim Moore ( R ) .
“ The problem is people are scared right now , and in times when people are scared you can ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It feeds into a lot of paranoia and mistrust , ” Moore said .
Moore also questioned the legality of the move .
Baker says the decision does not limit anyone ’ s right to purchase a handgun .
Rather , he says , the move will limit people encountering each other during the state of emergency .
“ We ’ re not telling you you can no longer get pistol permits , but what we ’ re trying to do is still in line with the efforts of keeping that virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Sheriff Baker needs to be honest here .
He is telling people they can no longer get pistol permits , at least not until April 30th .
While residents of Wake County can still purchase rifles and shotguns without a government-issued permission slip , residents in Wake County are out of luck if they want to purchase the most commonly sold firearm for self-defense over the next five weeks .
Look , every sheriff in the country is dealing with similar issues and concerns for staff right now , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see employees of the sheriff ’ s office remain free of the coronavirus .
At the same time , the sheriff can ’ t simply shut off access to acquiring handguns for law-abiding citizens without infringing on their Second Amendment rights .
The Heller case determined that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional .
A temporary deprivation of the right to purchase them is just as unconstitutional in my opinion .
For now , the sheriff could adopt social distancing measures like limiting office visits to appointments , which would give employees time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visits .
They could also handle much of the paperwork outside the sheriff ’ s office in the parking lot if need be .
In the long run , however , I hope this helps spell the end for the state ’ s pistol purchase permit law , which grants sheriffs broad discretion to approve or deny individuals for lack of good cause or moral character .
These types of discretionary issue permitting laws have largely fallen by the wayside around the country , but in North Carolina the law remains as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were routinely used to deny black Americans their equal rights under the Constitution .
It needs to be scrapped , and the current snafu in Wake County is the perfect excuse for lawmakers to revisit the issue .
Let me be clear .
I don ’ t think Sheriff Baker is trying to deny black residents of Wake County their Second Amendment rights .
I ’ ll even take the sheriff at his word when he says he ’ s simply trying to clear the backlog of 755 pending pistol purchase permit applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county needs to increase staffing on a temporary basis to handle the surge in applications , and possibly add a second or third shift to the office in order to continue processing applications while maintaining social distancing .
The fact is that a large number of county residents now want to purchase a firearm , and their sheriff is telling them they ’ re going to have to wait for more than a month to do so .
That ’ s simply unacceptable , and unconstitutional to boot .

The sheriff of Wake County, North Carolina is facing mounting criticism over his decision to suspend issuing pistol purchase permits for one month, but the bigger issue is the fact that the state still has a Jim Crow-era law on the books that requires sheriffs to individually approve purchases of handguns to begin with.
Sheriff Gerald Baker says his office is simply swamped with pistol purchase permit applications, and he wants to take the month to work through the backlog and give office staff the ability to limit their interactions with the public to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. The problem is that under state law, unless you possess a concealed carry license, you must acquire that permit before you can legally buy a handgun, and the sheriff’s office has 14-days to process your application.
Baker’s decision has led some to say it’s an infringement on their second amendment right, including Speaker of the House Tim Moore (R). “The problem is people are scared right now, and in times when people are scared you can’t be denying them their ability to protect themselves. It feeds into a lot of paranoia and mistrust,” Moore said. Moore also questioned the legality of the move. Baker says the decision does not limit anyone’s right to purchase a handgun. Rather, he says, the move will limit people encountering each other during the state of emergency. “We’re not telling you you can no longer get pistol permits, but what we’re trying to do is still in line with the efforts of keeping that virus out of this building,” he said.
Sheriff Baker needs to be honest here. He is telling people they can no longer get pistol permits, at least not until April 30th. While residents of Wake County can still purchase rifles and shotguns without a government-issued permission slip, residents in Wake County are out of luck if they want to purchase the most commonly sold firearm for self-defense over the next five weeks.
Look, every sheriff in the country is dealing with similar issues and concerns for staff right now, and I definitely understand Baker’s desire to see employees of the sheriff’s office remain free of the coronavirus. At the same time, the sheriff can’t simply shut off access to acquiring handguns for law-abiding citizens without infringing on their Second Amendment rights. The Heller case determined that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional. A temporary deprivation of the right to purchase them is just as unconstitutional in my opinion.
For now, the sheriff could adopt social distancing measures like limiting office visits to appointments, which would give employees time to clean the front-facing office areas between visits. They could also handle much of the paperwork outside the sheriff’s office in the parking lot if need be.
In the long run, however, I hope this helps spell the end for the state’s pistol purchase permit law, which grants sheriffs broad discretion to approve or deny individuals for lack of good cause or moral character. These types of discretionary issue permitting laws have largely fallen by the wayside around the country, but in North Carolina the law remains as a remnant of the Jim Crow laws that were routinely used to deny black Americans their equal rights under the Constitution. It needs to be scrapped, and the current snafu in Wake County is the perfect excuse for lawmakers to revisit the issue.
Let me be clear. I don’t think Sheriff Baker is trying to deny black residents of Wake County their Second Amendment rights. I’ll even take the sheriff at his word when he says he’s simply trying to clear the backlog of 755 pending pistol purchase permit applications before accepting any more. Clearly the county needs to increase staffing on a temporary basis to handle the surge in applications, and possibly add a second or third shift to the office in order to continue processing applications while maintaining social distancing.
The fact is that a large number of county residents now want to purchase a firearm, and their sheriff is telling them they’re going to have to wait for more than a month to do so. That’s simply unacceptable, and unconstitutional to boot.


bearingarms--2020-03-25--Man Defends Self After First Date Turns Into Home Invasion

An Atlanta man thought he was going to meet a woman for a date , but instead found himself in a shootout with strangers in his home Wednesday morning .
According to Fox 5 in Atlanta , Tikoyo Lamonz Reeves connected with a woman on an online dating site , and invited her over to hang out .
When she got there , she had brought along two uninvited guests ; a woman who came in the front door with her , and a man who snuck in the back of the home armed with a rifle .
Atlanta Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dog began barking at the armed man , alerting the homeowner to the fact that there were actually three strangers in his home , and he grabbed his gun and exchanged fire with the home invader .
According to police , the two women and the would-be robber took off .
“ The victim told us he believes one of the women may have also been hit by a bullet , ” Captain Turner said .
Police are searching for the two women and the would-be robber .
“ This was a set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find out who these people are , ” Captain Turner said .
Medics took Reeves to a local hospital in stable condition .
Before we get to the self-defense aspects of this story , can we all just acknowledge that now probably isn ’ t the best time to try for an online hookup ?
Even if you ’ re practicing safe sex , you ’ re gon na be getting a little germy , and who knows where that person ’ s been over the last 14 days .
Having said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of mind to have a firearm handy and ready to defend himself .
If Reeves had been following the advice of gun control advocates , he would have to run to his gun safe , unlock his firearm , retrieve the ammunition that was stored separately , load his firearm , and then defend himself .
In other words , we ’ d likely be looking at a homicide in Atlanta instead of a self-defense shooting .
Still , Reeves himself was injured in the incident , though according to the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s is going to recover .
When he gets home , I recommend he enjoy the company of his very good dog instead of inviting trouble into his house .
This is a serious moment for our country , and while I sincerely hope that this crisis can bring us together as Americans , clearly there are always going to be some among us who will try to exploit their fellow citizens , even in ( or maybe especially in ) troubled times .
Be smart , be safe , and maybe don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netflix and chill for the time being .

An Atlanta man thought he was going to meet a woman for a date, but instead found himself in a shootout with strangers in his home Wednesday morning. According to Fox 5 in Atlanta, Tikoyo Lamonz Reeves connected with a woman on an online dating site, and invited her over to hang out. When she got there, she had brought along two uninvited guests; a woman who came in the front door with her, and a man who snuck in the back of the home armed with a rifle.
Atlanta Police Captain F. Turker says the Reeves’ dog began barking at the armed man, alerting the homeowner to the fact that there were actually three strangers in his home, and he grabbed his gun and exchanged fire with the home invader.
According to police, the two women and the would-be robber took off. “The victim told us he believes one of the women may have also been hit by a bullet,” Captain Turner said. Police are searching for the two women and the would-be robber. “This was a set up and we will be following leads to find out who these people are,” Captain Turner said. Medics took Reeves to a local hospital in stable condition.
Before we get to the self-defense aspects of this story, can we all just acknowledge that now probably isn’t the best time to try for an online hookup? Even if you’re practicing safe sex, you’re gonna be getting a little germy, and who knows where that person’s been over the last 14 days.
Having said that, at least Reeves had the presence of mind to have a firearm handy and ready to defend himself. If Reeves had been following the advice of gun control advocates, he would have to run to his gun safe, unlock his firearm, retrieve the ammunition that was stored separately, load his firearm, and then defend himself. In other words, we’d likely be looking at a homicide in Atlanta instead of a self-defense shooting.
Still, Reeves himself was injured in the incident, though according to the news report, it sounds like he’s is going to recover. When he gets home, I recommend he enjoy the company of his very good dog instead of inviting trouble into his house.
This is a serious moment for our country, and while I sincerely hope that this crisis can bring us together as Americans, clearly there are always going to be some among us who will try to exploit their fellow citizens, even in (or maybe especially in) troubled times. Be smart, be safe, and maybe don’t invite strangers over to watch Netflix and chill for the time being.


bearingarms--2020-03-25--As Discussion On Reopening Economy Begins, Get Ready Regardless

While COVID-19 isn ’ t nearly as fatal as many of us feared , one potential fatality may well be the United States economy .
With businesses closed and many people unable to work or even look for work as they ’ re covered under “ shelter in place ” orders , the financial engine of the country has pretty much ground to a halt .
It ’ s bad enough that now much of the debate is about when to fire that engine back up .
I don ’ t think anyone is saying to ignore places where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go back to work .
The problem is , there are people who have recovered and no longer at risk for infection that can ’ t work .
There are places with little to no outbreak taking place that can ’ t work .
Now , I ’ m not going to get into who is right on this one .
That ’ s not what we ’ re here about .
What I will say , though , is that regardless of when people get back to work and when businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still going to feel this one for a little while .
Even under the best-case scenario , some folks are going to be desperate .
Desperate people do desperate things .
In other words , they turn to crime .
That means the rest of us owe it to our families to be very prepared for these desperate people .
That means arming ourselves and keeping our skills sharp .
That ’ s easier said than done during this day and age , but there are ways to train even while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Google is your friend on this .
It also means when things start to return to normal , you need to have a weapon on your person at all any time you legally can .
You should be prepared for problems anywhere .
Desperate people may do desperate things , but these aren ’ t your typical career criminal .
They ’ re not likely to follow the normal patterns , so one should be wary .
And that ’ s if the economy fires back up relatively quickly .
If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get even worse as people break quarantine in an effort to try and find food or other essentials for their families .
While COVID-19 isn ’ t the Black Death , it may be enough to change far too many things about our day to day life .

While COVID-19 isn’t nearly as fatal as many of us feared, one potential fatality may well be the United States economy. With businesses closed and many people unable to work or even look for work as they’re covered under “shelter in place” orders, the financial engine of the country has pretty much ground to a halt.
It’s bad enough that now much of the debate is about when to fire that engine back up.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has warned that being too hasty to ease the limits on travel, socialising and working together would cost lives. “If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest,” he said on Tuesday. “No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life,” he said at a convention centre in Manhattan that is being converted into a 1000-bed temporary hospital. New York is the worst hit by the outbreak, which has infected more than 50,000 people in the US and killed at least 660.
I don’t think anyone is saying to ignore places where the outbreak is bad and just tell everyone to go back to work. The problem is, there are people who have recovered and no longer at risk for infection that can’t work. There are places with little to no outbreak taking place that can’t work.
Now, I’m not going to get into who is right on this one. That’s not what we’re here about.
What I will say, though, is that regardless of when people get back to work and when businesses go back to being open, we’re still going to feel this one for a little while.
Even under the best-case scenario, some folks are going to be desperate. Desperate people do desperate things.
In other words, they turn to crime.
That means the rest of us owe it to our families to be very prepared for these desperate people. That means arming ourselves and keeping our skills sharp. That’s easier said than done during this day and age, but there are ways to train even while not being able to leave your house. Google is your friend on this.
It also means when things start to return to normal, you need to have a weapon on your person at all any time you legally can. You should be prepared for problems anywhere. Desperate people may do desperate things, but these aren’t your typical career criminal. They’re not likely to follow the normal patterns, so one should be wary.
And that’s if the economy fires back up relatively quickly. If it doesn’t, then things could get even worse as people break quarantine in an effort to try and find food or other essentials for their families.
While COVID-19 isn’t the Black Death, it may be enough to change far too many things about our day to day life.


bearingarms--2020-03-25--Congress Wants Answers About Extremists Plots To Exploit COVID-19

It seems like almost any story I write these days can begin with the phrase “ COVID-19 has sparked worries throughout the nation , ” only to touch on whatever specifically the story is about .
I can write it like that because it ’ s generally true .
Most of the Second Amendment news out there has some bearing on COVID-19 .
Hell , most news these days is related to COVID-19 .
That ’ s not really surprising as it has dominated the news cycle long enough that people are looking to find fresh spins on the impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also not entirely unlikely that some see the disease as an opportunity .
I ’ m not talking about those who jack up the prices on goods to take advantage of the fear .
I ’ m talking about those who see this as a chance to really create chaos .
Now , Congress wants answers as to what ’ s being done to combat those extremists .
A Congressional committee on Tuesday asked the Homeland Security Department to explain what is being done to prevent violent extremists here and abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
The letter from the House Homeland Security Committee , sent to the chief of threat prevention and security policy , comes on the heels of two federal assessments distributed to state and local authorities that radical white extremists were encouraging those infected with the virus to spread it to police and Jewish population centers .
“ Extremists have , of course , long made calls to violence against vulnerable groups , ” the letter states .
“ However , as the uncertainty , fears , and anxiety engendered by this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we must renew our efforts to guard against vulnerabilities that bad actors may exploit.
” The letter also noted the desire by ISIS to leverage European preoccupation with the virus to gain the release of some of their members from prison .
Of course , that ’ s international terrorism and since they don ’ t really fear dying in the first place , it wouldn ’ t be surprising to see them act now in an effort to take advantage of the crisis .
However , some home-grown extremists argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something during a time like this .
Extremist activists in Georgia dismissed the warnings by the FBI as either fantasy or a hoax perpetrated by federal authorities or planted by left-wing activists .
“ I think that is absolutely hogwash , ” said Michael Weaver , a “ pro-white ” blogger northwest of Atlanta .
“ I ’ ve been a white nationalist for 26 years .
I wouldn ’ t conceive of anything like that .
It ’ s despicable.
” Weaver said he believes the idea was planted by the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists.
” He also has theories on the virus itself .
Of course , Weaver believes the virus is a bioweapon the Chinese lost control of .
If so , it ’ s the lamest bioweapon out there .
Now , is Weaver right ?
Are groups like white nationalists unable to conceive of extremist acts at a time like this ?
Probably not , but do you really think Weaver would admit publicly that someone was planning something ?
I sure wouldn ’ t .
However , one good thing going for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would make inviting targets for any kind of extremism .
There aren ’ t many gatherings of people anymore , after all , so there ’ s not really anywhere to rack up a big body count with their violence .
Yet that doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t opportunities .
We still have to get groceries , after all , and that may well become the target for anyone wanting to get froggy at a time like this .
Of course , that makes it easier for law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wouldn ’ t trust that they ’ ll know beforehand .
Remember , also , that domestic extremism comes in all stripes .
Anyone can be a target for an extremist , so it ’ s vital that you carry whenever and wherever you can during these tense times .
Anyone regardless of race , religion , or gender can find themselves in a bad place at a time like this , so be ready .

It seems like almost any story I write these days can begin with the phrase “COVID-19 has sparked worries throughout the nation,” only to touch on whatever specifically the story is about. I can write it like that because it’s generally true. Most of the Second Amendment news out there has some bearing on COVID-19.
Hell, most news these days is related to COVID-19.
That’s not really surprising as it has dominated the news cycle long enough that people are looking to find fresh spins on the impact of the disease.
However, it’s also not entirely unlikely that some see the disease as an opportunity. I’m not talking about those who jack up the prices on goods to take advantage of the fear. I’m talking about those who see this as a chance to really create chaos.
Now, Congress wants answers as to what’s being done to combat those extremists.
A Congressional committee on Tuesday asked the Homeland Security Department to explain what is being done to prevent violent extremists here and abroad from exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to terrorize Americans. The letter from the House Homeland Security Committee, sent to the chief of threat prevention and security policy, comes on the heels of two federal assessments distributed to state and local authorities that radical white extremists were encouraging those infected with the virus to spread it to police and Jewish population centers. “Extremists have, of course, long made calls to violence against vulnerable groups,” the letter states. “However, as the uncertainty, fears, and anxiety engendered by this pandemic strain our social fabric in many ways, we must renew our efforts to guard against vulnerabilities that bad actors may exploit.” The letter also noted the desire by ISIS to leverage European preoccupation with the virus to gain the release of some of their members from prison.
Of course, that’s international terrorism and since they don’t really fear dying in the first place, it wouldn’t be surprising to see them act now in an effort to take advantage of the crisis.
However, some home-grown extremists argue that they’d never think of doing something during a time like this.
Extremist activists in Georgia dismissed the warnings by the FBI as either fantasy or a hoax perpetrated by federal authorities or planted by left-wing activists. “I think that is absolutely hogwash,” said Michael Weaver, a “pro-white” blogger northwest of Atlanta. “I’ve been a white nationalist for 26 years. I wouldn’t conceive of anything like that. It’s despicable.” Weaver said he believes the idea was planted by the FBI, an agency he calls “domestic terrorists.” He also has theories on the virus itself.
Of course, Weaver believes the virus is a bioweapon the Chinese lost control of. If so, it’s the lamest bioweapon out there.
Now, is Weaver right? Are groups like white nationalists unable to conceive of extremist acts at a time like this?
Probably not, but do you really think Weaver would admit publicly that someone was planning something? I sure wouldn’t.
However, one good thing going for us is how few places there are that would make inviting targets for any kind of extremism. There aren’t many gatherings of people anymore, after all, so there’s not really anywhere to rack up a big body count with their violence.
Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t opportunities. We still have to get groceries, after all, and that may well become the target for anyone wanting to get froggy at a time like this. Of course, that makes it easier for law enforcement to harden a given location, but I wouldn’t trust that they’ll know beforehand.
Remember, also, that domestic extremism comes in all stripes. Anyone can be a target for an extremist, so it’s vital that you carry whenever and wherever you can during these tense times. Anyone regardless of race, religion, or gender can find themselves in a bad place at a time like this, so be ready.