bearingarms--2020-06-27--Mixed Reaction To LA County Sheriff's Pledge To Increase Concealed Carry Licenses

If Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva was hoping to receive applause from gun owners with his announcement that the sheriff ’ s office plans on increasing the number of concealed carry licenses issued by as much as 400 % , he must be feeling the sting of disappointment this weekend .
The response from the Second Amendment community has been decidedly muted , with some offering cautious notes of optimism while others have rejected the sheriff ’ s move as a political stunt .
Chuck Michel , president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association , tells Bearing Arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ good start.
” Los Angeles County has historically been politically hostile to gun owners and issued almost no licenses to carry , so this change is long overdue .
This Sheriff is finally acknowledging the threats to their safety that all citizens face , and the inability of his deputies to make folks safe .
Particularly now , when the Sheriff ’ s Department is overworked , underfunded , and unappreciated , the Sheriff can see that his deputies , no matter how hard they try , can not protect county residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances , residents need to be empowered to protect themselves .
This is a good start .
Unfortunately , while the sheriff may be recognizing that his department has left citizens unable to protect themselves outside of their home , Villanueva has also made it clear that he ’ s not changing the standard for issuing licenses , and self-defense is still not seen as a valid reason to obtain a license in Los Angeles County .
As the Washington Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski reported this week , in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed that fewer than ten civilians in Los Angeles County possess a concealed carry license .
Given the population in the county , residents literally have a one-in-a-million chance at obtaining a license to carry a handgun .
Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Council says even a 400 % increase doesn ’ t mean much when the numbers are so low to begin with .
“ It ’ s offensive that this corrupt , anti-gun rights sheriff thinks that ’ s adequate or a substantive improvement , ” he told the Free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have tens to hundreds of thousands of licensees based on its population—400 percent of nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.
” “ It ’ s probably just going to result in more perks for his political donors , ” Combs said .
“ Sheriff Flip-Flop should be run out of town and replaced by someone who respects the Constitution.
” Villanueva may very well end up being run out of town , though I ’ m not optimistic that his replacement would respect the Constitution any more than the sheriff has in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Villanueva to resign or be replaced as part of efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system in the county .
One recent editorial in West Hollywood called on local agencies who contract with the L.A. County Sheriff ’ s Office to pull those contracts if Villanueva doesn ’ t step down .
Neither the City of West Hollywood nor the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has the power to force Villanueva to resign .
But what the West Hollywood City Council can and should do is ask Mayor Lindsey Horvath , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association , to press the CCCA ’ s Los Angeles County members to join West Hollywood in demanding Villanueva ’ s resignation .
The City Council also should push the hospitals , clinics , community colleges , and the MTA to make the same demand .
If Villanueva won ’ t step down , all of the organizations and governments that contract with the Sheriff ’ s Department must let it know that those lucrative contracts are in jeopardy .
Our City Council is never reluctant to take stands on national and international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life and on which it has no influence ( e.g .
the Mueller Report and the dog meat market in Yulin , China ) .
But maybe , at its July 6 meeting , the West Hollywood City Council will actually speak up and out about a man whose evident disregard for public safety and flagrant violation of the rules makes him unfit to run the Sheriff ’ s Department .
I ’ m looking forward to seeing that on the Council ’ s agenda .
If Sheriff Villanueva is looking for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take more than halfhearted statements about increasing the number of concealed carry licenses for residents by a few dozen .
A change in policy to recognize self-defense as “ good cause ” to carry might do the trick , but for now I don ’ t think the sheriff ’ s announcement has earned him the support he needs to hang on to his job .

If Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva was hoping to receive applause from gun owners with his announcement that the sheriff’s office plans on increasing the number of concealed carry licenses issued by as much as 400%, he must be feeling the sting of disappointment this weekend. The response from the Second Amendment community has been decidedly muted, with some offering cautious notes of optimism while others have rejected the sheriff’s move as a political stunt.
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, tells Bearing Arms that Villanueva’s announcement is a “good start.”
Los Angeles County has historically been politically hostile to gun owners and issued almost no licenses to carry, so this change is long overdue. This Sheriff is finally acknowledging the threats to their safety that all citizens face, and the inability of his deputies to make folks safe. Particularly now, when the Sheriff’s Department is overworked, underfunded, and unappreciated, the Sheriff can see that his deputies, no matter how hard they try, cannot protect county residents in these increasingly dangerous times. Under the circumstances, residents need to be empowered to protect themselves. This is a good start.
Unfortunately, while the sheriff may be recognizing that his department has left citizens unable to protect themselves outside of their home, Villanueva has also made it clear that he’s not changing the standard for issuing licenses, and self-defense is still not seen as a valid reason to obtain a license in Los Angeles County.
“Remember, ‘good cause’ is not ‘shall issue,’” the sheriff said. “We’re trying to make the system user friendly and if you’re eligible to receive it because you’ve established a good cause we don’t want to interfere with that process.”
As the Washington Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski reported this week, in 2017 an audit of the concealed carry licenses revealed that fewer than ten civilians in Los Angeles County possess a concealed carry license. Given the population in the county, residents literally have a one-in-a-million chance at obtaining a license to carry a handgun. Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Council says even a 400% increase doesn’t mean much when the numbers are so low to begin with.
“It’s offensive that this corrupt, anti-gun rights sheriff thinks that’s adequate or a substantive improvement,” he told the Free Beacon. “Los Angeles County should have tens to hundreds of thousands of licensees based on its population—400 percent of nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.” “It’s probably just going to result in more perks for his political donors,” Combs said. “Sheriff Flip-Flop should be run out of town and replaced by someone who respects the Constitution.”
Villanueva may very well end up being run out of town, though I’m not optimistic that his replacement would respect the Constitution any more than the sheriff has in the past. There are growing calls for Villanueva to resign or be replaced as part of efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system in the county. One recent editorial in West Hollywood called on local agencies who contract with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Office to pull those contracts if Villanueva doesn’t step down.
Neither the City of West Hollywood nor the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has the power to force Villanueva to resign. But what the West Hollywood City Council can and should do is ask Mayor Lindsey Horvath, who is president of the California Contract Cities Association, to press the CCCA’s Los Angeles County members to join West Hollywood in demanding Villanueva’s resignation. The City Council also should push the hospitals, clinics, community colleges, and the MTA to make the same demand. If Villanueva won’t step down, all of the organizations and governments that contract with the Sheriff’s Department must let it know that those lucrative contracts are in jeopardy. Our City Council is never reluctant to take stands on national and international issues that have no impact on local life and on which it has no influence (e.g. the Mueller Report and the dog meat market in Yulin, China). But maybe, at its July 6 meeting, the West Hollywood City Council will actually speak up and out about a man whose evident disregard for public safety and flagrant violation of the rules makes him unfit to run the Sheriff’s Department. I’m looking forward to seeing that on the Council’s agenda.
If Sheriff Villanueva is looking for some political allies, it’s going to take more than halfhearted statements about increasing the number of concealed carry licenses for residents by a few dozen. A change in policy to recognize self-defense as “good cause” to carry might do the trick, but for now I don’t think the sheriff’s announcement has earned him the support he needs to hang on to his job.


bearingarms--2020-06-27--2A Sanctuary Adopts First Amendment Resolution Over Virus Restrictions

The little town of Burrillville , Rhode Island declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary more than a year ago , and now city leaders have adopted a First Amendment Sanctuary resolution as well .
The latest resolution is a direct response to Gov .
Gina Raimondo ’ s coronavirus-related executive orders , which many in the town believe go too far .
At this week ’ s Town Council meeting , council members voted 5-2 in favor of the new resolution , though how far the town is willing to go in defying the governor ’ s orders remains to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several of Raimondo ’ s executive orders related to the virus , citing the stay at home orders and the “ cumbersome restrictions ” relating to phase one and phase two .
“ Never in the history of this country , that I can see , have we ever restricted the free movement and First Amendment rights of healthy people .
I ’ m surprise there has not been any challenges to the constitutionality of this , ” said Councilman Jeremy Bailey .
According to the resolution , the council asks for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use discretion to “ not enforce unconstitutional executive orders.
” It adds that the town council will not appropriate town money to fund the executive orders .
“ When these executive orders infringe on the constitutional rights of the people of Burrillville , I believe the Town Council has a right to protect them and should not fund those executive orders , ” said Councilman Donald Fox .
This sounds a lot like the language of the town ’ s Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution that passed in April of 2019 .
In both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the state of Rhode Island , but never specifically stated that gun control or coronavirus restrictions would not be enforced .
Instead , they ’ re relying on the discretion of local police to use common sense in deciding whether or not to enforce the restrictions .
The council raised concerns with the legality of the governor relying on executive orders to pass restrictions without the input of the General Assembly .
“ I do believe that the governor ’ s love affair with her new executive powers in some way needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assembly needs to be called out for being AWOL , ” said Councilman Dennis Anderson .
Council members said they don ’ t want them protecting their First Amendment rights to be misconstrued that they are not taking the virus seriously .
They noted they have implemented delivery services for the town ’ s most vulnerable population and are not necessarily against social distancing measures .
“ We want people to do whatever is best for our fellow mankind , ” said Bailey .
“ We continue to try to do our best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Rhode Island reports that the town of Narragansett also recently proposed a similar resolution , but pulled it from consideration before a vote by the town council .
Council members in Burrillville are hoping , however , that their approval of the resolution will lead to other localities to do the same .
Meanwhile , Gov .
Raimondo issued a statement of her own in response to the First Amendment Sanctuary resolution , claiming that each of her executive actions fall within the authority granted to her by the state constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported cases of COVID-19 with 900 deaths linked to the disease since March of this year , but as the Burillville council members noted , they ’ re not claiming that the coronavirus is fake news .
They ’ re simply objecting to what they believe to be the unconstitutional manner in which the restrictions were enacted .
Frankly , I hope the Burillville Town Council will go one step further than their resolution and challenge Gov .
Raimondo ’ s executive orders in court .
If a majority of the council believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a largely symbolic resolution by itself won ’ t be enough to undo the measures .
Litigation , however , might do the trick .
It ’ s worked in Virginia , where a judge delivered a smackdown to Gov .
Ralph Northam over his order closing indoor ranges , and if Burillville ’ s leaders are serious about opposing the governor , they need to take their objections to a court of law .

The little town of Burrillville, Rhode Island declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary more than a year ago, and now city leaders have adopted a First Amendment Sanctuary resolution as well. The latest resolution is a direct response to Gov. Gina Raimondo’s coronavirus-related executive orders, which many in the town believe go too far. At this week’s Town Council meeting, council members voted 5-2 in favor of the new resolution, though how far the town is willing to go in defying the governor’s orders remains to be seen.
The resolution calls out several of Raimondo’s executive orders related to the virus, citing the stay at home orders and the “cumbersome restrictions” relating to phase one and phase two. “Never in the history of this country, that I can see, have we ever restricted the free movement and First Amendment rights of healthy people. I’m surprise there has not been any challenges to the constitutionality of this,” said Councilman Jeremy Bailey. According to the resolution, the council asks for the support of the Burrillville Police Department to use discretion to “not enforce unconstitutional executive orders.” It adds that the town council will not appropriate town money to fund the executive orders. “When these executive orders infringe on the constitutional rights of the people of Burrillville, I believe the Town Council has a right to protect them and should not fund those executive orders,” said Councilman Donald Fox.
This sounds a lot like the language of the town’s Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution that passed in April of 2019. In both resolutions, the town objected to moves by the state of Rhode Island, but never specifically stated that gun control or coronavirus restrictions would not be enforced. Instead, they’re relying on the discretion of local police to use common sense in deciding whether or not to enforce the restrictions.
The council raised concerns with the legality of the governor relying on executive orders to pass restrictions without the input of the General Assembly. “I do believe that the governor’s love affair with her new executive powers in some way needs to be called out and the General Assembly needs to be called out for being AWOL,” said Councilman Dennis Anderson. Council members said they don’t want them protecting their First Amendment rights to be misconstrued that they are not taking the virus seriously. They noted they have implemented delivery services for the town’s most vulnerable population and are not necessarily against social distancing measures. “We want people to do whatever is best for our fellow mankind,” said Bailey. “We continue to try to do our best to protect our most vulnerable.”
WJAR-TV in Rhode Island reports that the town of Narragansett also recently proposed a similar resolution, but pulled it from consideration before a vote by the town council. Council members in Burrillville are hoping, however, that their approval of the resolution will lead to other localities to do the same.
Meanwhile, Gov. Raimondo issued a statement of her own in response to the First Amendment Sanctuary resolution, claiming that each of her executive actions fall within the authority granted to her by the state constitution.
The measures we’ve taken—which are fully constitutional—have drastically slowed the spread of the virus, saved lives, and allowed for the gradual reopening of our economy. We expect all Rhode Islanders to comply with our guidance in order to avoid the devastating consequences of a second wave that we’re now seeing in states across the country.
Rhode Island has had more than 16,000 reported cases of COVID-19 with 900 deaths linked to the disease since March of this year, but as the Burillville council members noted, they’re not claiming that the coronavirus is fake news. They’re simply objecting to what they believe to be the unconstitutional manner in which the restrictions were enacted.
Frankly, I hope the Burillville Town Council will go one step further than their resolution and challenge Gov. Raimondo’s executive orders in court. If a majority of the council believes that Raimondo has overstepped her authority, a largely symbolic resolution by itself won’t be enough to undo the measures. Litigation, however, might do the trick. It’s worked in Virginia, where a judge delivered a smackdown to Gov. Ralph Northam over his order closing indoor ranges, and if Burillville’s leaders are serious about opposing the governor, they need to take their objections to a court of law.


bearingarms--2020-06-28--Minneapolis Council Members Who Voted To Disband Police Now Protected By Private Security

What do you do if you ’ re a Minneapolis City Council member who wants to disband the police department but are concerned about the amount of criticism and threats you ’ re receiving as a result ?
It seems kind of hypocritical to ask for police protection when you ’ ve already come out and said the department shouldn ’ t exist , right ?
Far better to have the city hire private security to watch over you , even if it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars a day .
The three council members who have the security detail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Phillipe Cunningham ( Ward 4 ) , and Alondra Cano ( Ward 9 ) – have been outspoken proponents of defunding the Minneapolis Police Department .
“ I don ’ t feel comfortable publicly discussing the death threats against me or the level of security I currently have protecting me from those threats , ” said Cunningham in a text message .
Cunningham added that the security is temporary .
Councilmember Andrea Jenkins said she has been asking for security since she was sworn in .
She said current threats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters , and posts to social media .
“ My concern is the large number of white nationalist ( s ) in our city and other threatening communications I ’ ve been receiving , ” wrote Jenkins in an email .
According to Fox 9 in Minneapolis , the security detail for the council members has been in place for several weeks , and has so far cost taxpayers more than $ 63,000 , and the cost goes up by about $ 4,500 each day .
Despite that price tag , the Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city council has actually reported any specific threats to local law enforcement .
Wait a second .
MPD resources are needed in the community ?
If that ’ s the case , doesn ’ t that undercut the position of the city council ?
After all , they ’ re claiming that the department is so broken it can ’ t be reformed and must be abolished .
Maybe that ’ s why it appears that no council members have actually gone to the police to report any threats that they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told FOX 9 the department does not have any recent police reports of threats against city council members .
It is possible a report could have been filed confidentially .
Jenkins said she has not reported the threats to Minneapolis Police because she has been preoccupied with the dual crisis of the “ global pandemic and global uprising ” over the killing of George Floyd .
Replacing police officers with armed private security for public officials is a very bad look , especially since one of the complaints by these council members is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the part of the Minneapolis Police Department .
Private security firms are far less accountable and transparent than a public law enforcement agency , but apparently for council members the most important thing is that the people protecting public officials don ’ t carry a badge with their gun .
The disclosure of the armed private security comes as the council voted unanimously on Friday to proceed with an attempt to put the abolition of the Minneapolis Police Department to a vote of residents this November .
If voters were to approve a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council could swiftly move to replace the current police department with something they ’ re calling the “ Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.
” The amendment goes on to say the director of the new agency would have “ non-law-enforcement experience in community safety services , including but not limited to public health and/or restorative justice approaches.
” It also provides for a division of licensed peace officers who would answer to the department ’ s director .
Council member Phillipe Cunningham said they ’ re committed to a year-long community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would work .
“ We are not starting from scratch .
We are not starting with a completely blank slate , ” he said , pointing to changes meant to prevent violence at other law enforcement agencies across the country .
Ten years from now , Council member Steve Fletcher predicted , everybody will be looking to emulate the Minneapolis model .
“ The path that we ’ re going to chart will steal the best ideas from everywhere and combine them in away that is uniquely appropriate to our city , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re making it up as they go along .
So far , the council ’ s moves have managed to tick off both the police union and anti-police activists who say the proposal either goes too far or doesn ’ t go nearly far enough .
The board of the city ’ s police union called the move “ irresponsible ” without a clear plan for what comes next .
“ Politicians are good at making promises , but not at following through on them , and voters should be wary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City Council about how they will figure it out when and if the charter amendment passes , ” it said in a statement .
Some activists against police brutality were displeased , too .
The Twin Cities Coalition for Justice for Jamar , named for a black man who died in a 2015 confrontation with police , said the amendment would leave power in the hands of the council and mayor ’ s office , which it said have already failed .
The coalition wants the department under community control via a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire , fire and prosecute officers .
Civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong , a sharp critic of the department , said the move is premature and counterproductive to building trust with the Black community amid the current uptick in crime .
“ There are a lot of people in the African American community who are anxious , who are fearful , who are concerned about the irresponsibility of the Minneapolis City Council and the failure to articulate a clear plan of action on what to expect , and they want an opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armstrong said .
Not only should citizens be weighing on the irresponsibility of the city council , they should say something about the glaring hypocrisy as well .
The Minneapolis City Council may not have a clue about what the future of policing will look like if the Minneapolis Police Department is abolished , but they ’ ve made it clear that whatever they come up with will include plenty of armed security for themselves .
They may feel like their lives are at risk , but they ’ re not calling on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect them .
They want an armed response to potential threats , and I ’ m guessing most of the residents of Minneapolis feel the same way , even they don ’ t feel comfortable admitting it .

What do you do if you’re a Minneapolis City Council member who wants to disband the police department but are concerned about the amount of criticism and threats you’re receiving as a result? It seems kind of hypocritical to ask for police protection when you’ve already come out and said the department shouldn’t exist, right? Far better to have the city hire private security to watch over you, even if it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars a day.
The three council members who have the security detail – Andrea Jenkins (Ward 8), and Phillipe Cunningham (Ward 4), and Alondra Cano (Ward 9)– have been outspoken proponents of defunding the Minneapolis Police Department. Councilmember Phillipe Cunningham declined to discuss the security measures. “I don’t feel comfortable publicly discussing the death threats against me or the level of security I currently have protecting me from those threats,” said Cunningham in a text message. Cunningham added that the security is temporary. Councilmember Andrea Jenkins said she has been asking for security since she was sworn in. She said current threats have come in the form of emails, letters, and posts to social media. “My concern is the large number of white nationalist(s) in our city and other threatening communications I’ve been receiving,” wrote Jenkins in an email. Councilmember Cano did not return messages seeking comment.
According to Fox 9 in Minneapolis, the security detail for the council members has been in place for several weeks, and has so far cost taxpayers more than $63,000, and the cost goes up by about $4,500 each day. Despite that price tag, the Minneapolis Police Department says no members of the city council has actually reported any specific threats to local law enforcement.
Asked why Minneapolis Police are not providing security services to the three council members, a city spokesperson said MPD resources are needed in the community. The hourly cost of private security is similar to the cost for a police officer, the spokesperson added.
Wait a second. MPD resources are needed in the community? If that’s the case, doesn’t that undercut the position of the city council? After all, they’re claiming that the department is so broken it can’t be reformed and must be abolished. Maybe that’s why it appears that no council members have actually gone to the police to report any threats that they’ve received.
A spokesperson for Minneapolis Police told FOX 9 the department does not have any recent police reports of threats against city council members. It is possible a report could have been filed confidentially. Jenkins said she has not reported the threats to Minneapolis Police because she has been preoccupied with the dual crisis of the “global pandemic and global uprising” over the killing of George Floyd.
Replacing police officers with armed private security for public officials is a very bad look, especially since one of the complaints by these council members is a lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the Minneapolis Police Department. Private security firms are far less accountable and transparent than a public law enforcement agency, but apparently for council members the most important thing is that the people protecting public officials don’t carry a badge with their gun.
The disclosure of the armed private security comes as the council voted unanimously on Friday to proceed with an attempt to put the abolition of the Minneapolis Police Department to a vote of residents this November. If voters were to approve a change to the city charter, the council could swiftly move to replace the current police department with something they’re calling the “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.”


bearingarms--2020-07-01--Is Trump's 200 Judicial Appointments REALLY A Big 2A Win?

President Donald Trump just appointed his 200th federal judge .
That ’ s a ton in just a few years in office , creating a legacy that will last well beyond his tenure as president .
In fact , even if he only ends up serving one term , the reality is that there are plenty of conservative judges out there now that can keep a progressive government in check .
At least in theory .
However , it seems some view this milestone as a huge win for gun rights advocates .
The National Rifle Association of America ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by President Donald Trump last week — confirmation of his 200th judicial nominee in the U.S. Senate , bending the judiciary politically to the right for years to come with lifetime federal appointments , many to younger judges .
“ Judicial confirmations may be President Trump ’ s most important legacy , ” said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin .
“ They will shape the nation ’ s laws on abortion , LGBT rights , voting rights and many other issues long after Trump leaves office.
” As an NRA celebratory email points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges ’ hands will be promoting gun rights over even such minimal , popular gun-control measures as mandatory background checks.
“ Trump has now filled all federal circuit court vacancies , and appointed more appellate judges than any other president at this point in his presidency .
He is closing in on making as many circuit court appointments as President Obama made throughout his two terms in the White House , ” stated the NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action newsletter sent this week .
But the real question is , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Second Amendment ?
After all , the Supreme Court–which boasts two of those judicial appointments–has refused to hear a single Second Amendment case .
That ’ s a big problem , though I ’ ve argued before it might be a good thing .
I stand by that , but that doesn ’ t make the pill any easier to swallow .
Further , many anti-gun areas have judges in power in key positions that keep onerous gun control legislation on the books despite precedent like Heller , which means the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws is with a Supreme Court decision .
A decision that ’ s not likely to come .
Sure , there will probably be a number of cases that go against gun control activists as well , but the question becomes just where does the balance fall ?
Will they log fewer “ wins ” than we do ?
Will their losses mean more freedom for our brothers and sisters in parts of the country many of us are starting to think of as occupied territory ?
Of course , these answers aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It really depends on what cases show up in which court .
Without knowing that , we can ’ t really speculate with any degree of accuracy .
What I do know , though , is that while Trump ’ s judicial appointments are important , I ’ m just not sure we can claim them as an unmitigated victory for gun rights .
Not yet .
Let ’ s see some gun control regulations get repealed and then we can talk .
Until then , I ’ ll just wait cautiously and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many believe it will .

President Donald Trump just appointed his 200th federal judge. That’s a ton in just a few years in office, creating a legacy that will last well beyond his tenure as president. In fact, even if he only ends up serving one term, the reality is that there are plenty of conservative judges out there now that can keep a progressive government in check.
At least in theory.
However, it seems some view this milestone as a huge win for gun rights advocates.
The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is celebrating a milestone hit by President Donald Trump last week — confirmation of his 200th judicial nominee in the U.S. Senate, bending the judiciary politically to the right for years to come with lifetime federal appointments, many to younger judges. “Judicial confirmations may be President Trump’s most important legacy,” said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “They will shape the nation’s laws on abortion, LGBT rights, voting rights and many other issues long after Trump leaves office.” As an NRA celebratory email points out, another issue potentially in these judges’ hands will be promoting gun rights over even such minimal, popular gun-control measures as mandatory background checks.“Trump has now filled all federal circuit court vacancies, and appointed more appellate judges than any other president at this point in his presidency. He is closing in on making as many circuit court appointments as President Obama made throughout his two terms in the White House,” stated the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action newsletter sent this week.
But the real question is, is it really that big of a win for the Second Amendment?
After all, the Supreme Court–which boasts two of those judicial appointments–has refused to hear a single Second Amendment case. That’s a big problem, though I’ve argued before it might be a good thing. I stand by that, but that doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.
Further, many anti-gun areas have judges in power in key positions that keep onerous gun control legislation on the books despite precedent like Heller, which means the only way to overturn some of these laws is with a Supreme Court decision.
A decision that’s not likely to come.
Sure, there will probably be a number of cases that go against gun control activists as well, but the question becomes just where does the balance fall? Will they log fewer “wins” than we do? Will their losses mean more freedom for our brothers and sisters in parts of the country many of us are starting to think of as occupied territory?
Of course, these answers aren’t something we can foresee. It really depends on what cases show up in which court. Without knowing that, we can’t really speculate with any degree of accuracy.
What I do know, though, is that while Trump’s judicial appointments are important, I’m just not sure we can claim them as an unmitigated victory for gun rights. Not yet.
Let’s see some gun control regulations get repealed and then we can talk. Until then, I’ll just wait cautiously and see if this works out the way many believe it will.


bearingarms--2020-07-01--Shooters Grill Owner And 2A Advocate Wins CO Congressional Primary

Another incumbent was upset in a Republican congressional primary on Tuesday evening , as Rep. Scott Tipton lost his re-election bid to represent Colorado ’ s 3rd congressional district to upstart challenger Lauren Boebert , the owner of Shooter ’ s Grill in Rifle , Colorado and an outspoken Second Amendment supporter .
Boebert challenged Tipton from the right , accusing the sitting congressman of not doing much of anything to represent his district or advance conservative principles in Washington , D.C .
Despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump , Tipton barely carried his home county , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down nearly ten points to Boebert .
Boebert ’ s a strong candidate who ran a good campaign , but she was undoubtably helped by the inexplicable decision on the part of the Tipton campaign to not run any advertising during the primary .
Whoever was responsible for that decision shouldn ’ t be allowed near any campaign in the future .
Boebert ’ s an incredibly media savvy personality , as she demonstrated with her confronting Beto O ’ Rourke over his gun confiscation plan during one of his campaign stops in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boebert drove three hours from Rifle , openly carrying a handgun , to confront the presidential contender .
She owns Shooters Grill in Rifle on Colorado ’ s Western Slope ( where the waitstaff open carry loaded firearms in the establishment ) .
“ I was one of the gun owning Americans who heard you speak regarding your ‘ Hell yes I ’ m going to take your AR-15s and AK-47s .
Well , I ’ m here to say hell no you ’ re not.
’ ” While Boebert says the mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evan Todd told O ’ Rourke it doesn ’ t go far enough .
“ Don ’ t you think it ’ s time to get rid of all semi-automatic firearms ?
” O ’ Rourke said he is open to Todd ’ s suggestion but he dismissed Boebert ’ s concerns .
“ Do I care more about how upset somebody is who owns a weapon of war that they don ’ t need for hunting or self-defense , or do I care more about the families who ’ ve lost a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when pressed on how the mandatory buyback would work .
“ I would expect our fellow Americans to follow the law .
If they don ’ t and they flagrantly abuse that law , yes , that weapon would be taken from them.
” “ If he ’ s going to send people into homes to take people ’ s personal property , then he ’ s got a big issue on his hands.
” According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index , Colorado ’ s 3rd congressional district is R+6 , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win in November , when she ’ ll square off against former state legislator Diane Bush .
Tipton defeated Bush 52-44 in the 2018 blue wave election , and at the moment I ’ d say Boebert has a strong chance of improving on Tipton ’ s margin of victory two years ago .
One thing is certain : Boebert won ’ t be taking the general election for granted like Tipton seems to have treated the primary .
Expect a strong campaign from the Second Amendment advocate that features plenty of talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep and bear arms .

Another incumbent was upset in a Republican congressional primary on Tuesday evening, as Rep. Scott Tipton lost his re-election bid to represent Colorado’s 3rd congressional district to upstart challenger Lauren Boebert, the owner of Shooter’s Grill in Rifle, Colorado and an outspoken Second Amendment supporter.
Boebert challenged Tipton from the right, accusing the sitting congressman of not doing much of anything to represent his district or advance conservative principles in Washington, D.C. Despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump, Tipton barely carried his home county, and with 89% of the vote in was down nearly ten points to Boebert.
Boebert’s a strong candidate who ran a good campaign, but she was undoubtably helped by the inexplicable decision on the part of the Tipton campaign to not run any advertising during the primary.
Apparently #CO03 Rep Scott Tipton (R) did not even spend on advertising in the primary. You think an incumbent with a healthy warchest would at least run an internal to check nothing was wrong. 🤦♀ https://t.co/bRPEPfpylD — RRH Elections (@RRHElections) July 1, 2020
Whoever was responsible for that decision shouldn’t be allowed near any campaign in the future. Boebert’s an incredibly media savvy personality, as she demonstrated with her confronting Beto O’Rourke over his gun confiscation plan during one of his campaign stops in Aurora, Colorado last year.
Lauren Boebert drove three hours from Rifle, openly carrying a handgun, to confront the presidential contender. She owns Shooters Grill in Rifle on Colorado’s Western Slope (where the waitstaff open carry loaded firearms in the establishment). “I was one of the gun owning Americans who heard you speak regarding your ‘Hell yes I’m going to take your AR-15s and AK-47s. Well, I’m here to say hell no you’re not.’” While Boebert says the mandatory buyback goes too far, Columbine survivor Evan Todd told O’Rourke it doesn’t go far enough. “Don’t you think it’s time to get rid of all semi-automatic firearms?” O’Rourke said he is open to Todd’s suggestion but he dismissed Boebert’s concerns. “Do I care more about how upset somebody is who owns a weapon of war that they don’t need for hunting or self-defense, or do I care more about the families who’ve lost a child?” Still, he hesitated when pressed on how the mandatory buyback would work. “I would expect our fellow Americans to follow the law. If they don’t and they flagrantly abuse that law, yes, that weapon would be taken from them.” Boebert said that won’t work. “If he’s going to send people into homes to take people’s personal property, then he’s got a big issue on his hands.”
According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, Colorado’s 3rd congressional district is R+6, so Boebert is the odds on favorite to win in November, when she’ll square off against former state legislator Diane Bush. Tipton defeated Bush 52-44 in the 2018 blue wave election, and at the moment I’d say Boebert has a strong chance of improving on Tipton’s margin of victory two years ago.
One thing is certain: Boebert won’t be taking the general election for granted like Tipton seems to have treated the primary. Expect a strong campaign from the Second Amendment advocate that features plenty of talk about the need to protect our right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-07-01--CHOPpers Dox Mayor, Barricades Removed

CHOPpers Dox Mayor, Barricades Removed

The sad , strange tale of the Capitol Hill Occupy Protest just keeps on going , doesn ’ t it ?
Since taking control of six blocks of Seattle real estate , those within the CHOP have had a number of demands .
One of those was the resignation of Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan .
Yes , the same mayor that referred to the CHOP as a second coming of the “ Summer of Love.
” That comment did not age well , now did it ?
Regardless , they still want her gone .
Now , I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning on them just because they wanted her resignation .
There ’ s something to be said with standing on your principles even when you have to defend someone who despises you , and that seems to be what Durkan did .
It didn ’ t stop them from essentially doxing her by showing up outside her home–an address that ’ s confidential–to protest and demand her resignation again .
Seattle ’ s CHOP protesters “ put families and children at risk ” by going to her home , Mayor Jenny Durkan suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protesters to the mayor ’ s “ confidential ” address .
“ Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant joined a large group of protesters outside the CHOP zone who marched to Durkan ’ s house on Sunday afternoon , ” local NBC affiliate KING-TV reports .
Durkan had recently announced plans to disband Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill Organized Protest ( CHOP ) zone , which had seized a portion of the city .
The protesters went to Durkan ’ s home “ to bring the demands of the movement ” to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem here is that the mayor ’ s address is part of a state program that keeps her address private .
You see , Durkan is a former federal prosecutor .
She ’ s likely made some enemies along the way , the kind you don ’ t want finding out where you live .
Plus , she ’ s gotten death threats related to that work .
She has reasons to be concerned and reasons to keep her home address private .
None of that mattered to the CHOPpers , nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put Durkan ’ s life and the life of her family at risk , all for a political stunt .
After all , they have to know that ’ s what they were doing , right ?
They can ’ t actually make Durkan resign .
If they want her gone , she has an election coming up soon enough and that should answer any questions there .
Frankly , I don ’ t see Durkan winning reelection with the CHOPpers wanting her gone and a big chunk of everyone else wanting her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fester for so long .
Of course , the CHOP really shouldn ’ t be showing up at the mayor ’ s house .
After all , they have problems of their own .
Seattle police and other city employees worked Tuesday morning to remove some barriers at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest , or CHOP , with heavy equipment at 10th Avenue and East Pine Street .
But within an hour , protesters had erected their own makeshift barricade as a replacement .
Some people who had been staying in tents at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday , though , saying that after multiple shootings over the past couple of weeks , the park didn ’ t feel safe anymore .
Tuesday ’ s back-and-forth over barriers was the latest episode in a kind of stalemate between the city and protesters who have occupied several blocks around the park and the Police Department ’ s East Precinct for about three weeks , since the police left the precinct following standoffs and clashes with protesters calling for racial justice and an end to police brutality .
Calls to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shut down CHOP have been amplified by four shootings in the area over a roughly nine-day span , including one Monday morning that killed a 16-year-old boy and wounded a 14-year-old boy .
The makeshift barricades apparently include things like garbage cans , furniture , and so on .
Nothing that would stop a heavy vehicle from plowing through .
It ’ s likely that removing the barricades is an early step in removing the CHOPpers from the area .
What ’ s unclear is whether the removal of the barricades might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s home , or whether the removal might have been a response .
The timeline is less than clear .
Not that it matters .
Now , though , the CHOPpers have made an enemy out of someone who was actually rather supportive of them .
In fact , Durkan ’ s support raised the ire of many in the area who wanted the CHOP taken out weeks ago .
Instead , she placed barricades to keep everyone inside the CHOP nice and safe , thus preventing her police department from being able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now has a bone to pick , and that means she can rationalize any number of reasons to remove the protestors .
Man is not a rational creature , after all , but a rationalizing one .
Either way , expect things to get interesting in the CHOP over the next week or two .

The sad, strange tale of the Capitol Hill Occupy Protest just keeps on going, doesn’t it?
Since taking control of six blocks of Seattle real estate, those within the CHOP have had a number of demands. One of those was the resignation of Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan. Yes, the same mayor that referred to the CHOP as a second coming of the “Summer of Love.”
That comment did not age well, now did it?
Regardless, they still want her gone. Now, I have to offer some respect to Durkan for not turning on them just because they wanted her resignation. There’s something to be said with standing on your principles even when you have to defend someone who despises you, and that seems to be what Durkan did.
It didn’t stop them from essentially doxing her by showing up outside her home–an address that’s confidential–to protest and demand her resignation again.
Seattle’s CHOP protesters “put families and children at risk” by going to her home, Mayor Jenny Durkan suggested on Sunday after a city councilmember led the protesters to the mayor’s “confidential” address. “Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant joined a large group of protesters outside the CHOP zone who marched to Durkan’s house on Sunday afternoon,” local NBC affiliate KING-TV reports. Durkan had recently announced plans to disband Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone, which had seized a portion of the city. The protesters went to Durkan’s home “to bring the demands of the movement” to the mayor, one demonstrator told KING-TV.
The problem here is that the mayor’s address is part of a state program that keeps her address private. You see, Durkan is a former federal prosecutor. She’s likely made some enemies along the way, the kind you don’t want finding out where you live.
Plus, she’s gotten death threats related to that work. She has reasons to be concerned and reasons to keep her home address private.
None of that mattered to the CHOPpers, nor to Councilmember Sawant. Instead, they put Durkan’s life and the life of her family at risk, all for a political stunt.
After all, they have to know that’s what they were doing, right? They can’t actually make Durkan resign. If they want her gone, she has an election coming up soon enough and that should answer any questions there. Frankly, I don’t see Durkan winning reelection with the CHOPpers wanting her gone and a big chunk of everyone else wanting her gone because she allowed the CHOP to fester for so long.
Of course, the CHOP really shouldn’t be showing up at the mayor’s house. After all, they have problems of their own.
Seattle police and other city employees worked Tuesday morning to remove some barriers at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, or CHOP, with heavy equipment at 10th Avenue and East Pine Street. But within an hour, protesters had erected their own makeshift barricade as a replacement. Some people who had been staying in tents at Cal Anderson Park packed up and left on Tuesday, though, saying that after multiple shootings over the past couple of weeks, the park didn’t feel safe anymore. Tuesday’s back-and-forth over barriers was the latest episode in a kind of stalemate between the city and protesters who have occupied several blocks around the park and the Police Department’s East Precinct for about three weeks, since the police left the precinct following standoffs and clashes with protesters calling for racial justice and an end to police brutality. Calls to bring law enforcement back to the East Precinct and shut down CHOP have been amplified by four shootings in the area over a roughly nine-day span, including one Monday morning that killed a 16-year-old boy and wounded a 14-year-old boy.
The makeshift barricades apparently include things like garbage cans, furniture, and so on. Nothing that would stop a heavy vehicle from plowing through.
It’s likely that removing the barricades is an early step in removing the CHOPpers from the area.
What’s unclear is whether the removal of the barricades might have precipitated the march on Durkan’s home, or whether the removal might have been a response. The timeline is less than clear. Not that it matters.
Now, though, the CHOPpers have made an enemy out of someone who was actually rather supportive of them. In fact, Durkan’s support raised the ire of many in the area who wanted the CHOP taken out weeks ago. Instead, she placed barricades to keep everyone inside the CHOP nice and safe, thus preventing her police department from being able to roll in as needed.
Durkan now has a bone to pick, and that means she can rationalize any number of reasons to remove the protestors. Man is not a rational creature, after all, but a rationalizing one.
Either way, expect things to get interesting in the CHOP over the next week or two.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Former NYPD Officer Warns Over Budget Cuts As Crime Spikes

Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Council are set to pull a billion dollars from the NYPD budget today in an effort to appease activists who ’ ve been demanding an end to policing as we know it in the city .
The mayor swears that the cuts won ’ t lead to any increased crime in New York , though whether or not even he believes that will be the case is an open question .
Violent crime was already edging upwards in the first few months of the year , but in the past several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the number of shootings last week more than double compared to the same time period in 2019 .
Since Sunday night until early Monday morning , there have been at least five shooting incidents with five victims , including one fatal , according to preliminary police data .
Two were in the Bronx , two were in Brooklyn and one was in Queens .
Police say 17-year-old Brandon Hendricks was killed before midnight Monday on Davidson Avenue .
On Saturday , a man and a woman were shot dead in broad daylight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Police identified the suspect as Charles Hernandez , 47 , and say he wore a blonde wig as he allegedly gunned down Chioteke Thompson , 23 , and Stephanie Perkins , 39 .
Joining me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the NYPD budget cuts and what they ’ ll likely mean to public safety in the city is former NYPD officer Rob O ’ Donnell , who says that a return to the bad old days of the 1990s isn ’ t out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor ’ s lack of leadership and the decision to engage in acts of de-policing , like disbanding the city ’ s plainclothes division .
O ’ Donnell also believes it ’ s long past time for the Second Amendment to be restored in New York City , though at this point he acknowledges that we ’ re probably more likely to see the Statue of Liberty torn down by protesters than Mayor de Blasio change the city ’ s gun licensing laws .
As the former officer notes , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and law-abiding citizens can not legally acquire a firearm thanks to the city ’ s licensing regime , some of them will undoubtably choose to break the law in order to have a firearm to protect themselves and their family .
These aren ’ t violent criminals , but they ’ re still facing years in prison if they ’ re caught and convicted of possessing a gun without a license .
It ’ s another example of how gun control laws actually create gun crimes , and O ’ Donnell says if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious about reforming the police department and the criminal justice system , they ’ d ditch the gun control laws that fail to protect the public and are routinely ignored by crooks .
Be sure to check out the entire show above , which includes a look at the rising crime rate in another city in New York experiencing a surge in violence that ’ s left local politicians pointing fingers at each other over the failure to get tough on crime .
On tomorrow ’ s program , we ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott Jenkins about the new gun control laws taking effect across the state , so get ready for some pre-Independence Day fireworks .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Council are set to pull a billion dollars from the NYPD budget today in an effort to appease activists who’ve been demanding an end to policing as we know it in the city. The mayor swears that the cuts won’t lead to any increased crime in New York, though whether or not even he believes that will be the case is an open question.
Violent crime was already edging upwards in the first few months of the year, but in the past several weeks its exploded across the city, with the number of shootings last week more than double compared to the same time period in 2019.
Since Sunday night until early Monday morning, there have been at least five shooting incidents with five victims, including one fatal, according to preliminary police data. Two were in the Bronx, two were in Brooklyn and one was in Queens. Police say 17-year-old Brandon Hendricks was killed before midnight Monday on Davidson Avenue. On Saturday, a man and a woman were shot dead in broad daylight by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Police identified the suspect as Charles Hernandez, 47, and say he wore a blonde wig as he allegedly gunned down Chioteke Thompson, 23, and Stephanie Perkins, 39.
Joining me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the NYPD budget cuts and what they’ll likely mean to public safety in the city is former NYPD officer Rob O’Donnell, who says that a return to the bad old days of the 1990s isn’t out of the question thanks in large part to the mayor’s lack of leadership and the decision to engage in acts of de-policing, like disbanding the city’s plainclothes division.
O’Donnell also believes it’s long past time for the Second Amendment to be restored in New York City, though at this point he acknowledges that we’re probably more likely to see the Statue of Liberty torn down by protesters than Mayor de Blasio change the city’s gun licensing laws. As the former officer notes, however, when crime is on the increase, and law-abiding citizens cannot legally acquire a firearm thanks to the city’s licensing regime, some of them will undoubtably choose to break the law in order to have a firearm to protect themselves and their family. These aren’t violent criminals, but they’re still facing years in prison if they’re caught and convicted of possessing a gun without a license.
It’s another example of how gun control laws actually create gun crimes, and O’Donnell says if the mayor and city council are truly serious about reforming the police department and the criminal justice system, they’d ditch the gun control laws that fail to protect the public and are routinely ignored by crooks.
Be sure to check out the entire show above, which includes a look at the rising crime rate in another city in New York experiencing a surge in violence that’s left local politicians pointing fingers at each other over the failure to get tough on crime. On tomorrow’s program, we’ll be speaking with Culpeper County, Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins about the new gun control laws taking effect across the state, so get ready for some pre-Independence Day fireworks. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Why Defunding Cops And Disarming Americans Is Dumb

For some insane reason , the idea of defunding the police is being taken as a serious suggestion .
I get that , for some , the phrase really means reprioritizing where spending goes .
They want to take some of the police budget and refocus it on preventative measures .
However , for many others , defund the police means exactly what it says , and that ’ s a huge problem .
Perhaps more troubling is that many are trying to tie that in with the notion that ordinary Americans need to be disarmed .
In some progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of this story emphasized during training : “ Always be aware that whenever you answer a call , someone is armed and possibly already leveraged to fire their weapon , ” goes the admonishment , often delivered by an experienced firearms instructor .
Wait for it .
“ It ’ s you , the police officer , ” cadets are told .
The reminder is the type of introspective analysis the nation demands of law enforcement ; to be more aware of their own potential for violence .
To ingrain that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of a situation and end a civilian ’ s life .
Had police heeded this warning , the lives of so many Black Americans the nation now chants in protest : Tamir Rice , Philando Castile , Breonna Taylor and so many more , some known only to the victims ’ family and friends , might have been spared .
But there is another narrative , and many times , it ’ s an even louder one in an officer ’ s head .
It spins from this undeniable fact : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s firearms compared to the top 25 countries , according to the Small Arms Survey .
So when police interact with the public via traffic stops , domestic violence calls or entering someone ’ s home , they ’ re highly attuned to the possibility that they ’ re not the only armed individuals .
The author goes on to suggest that in addition to defunding police departments , we should also disarm the American public .
She finds it troubling that it ’ s not part of the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why it ’ s generally not part of the discussion , at least among any but the hardcore anti-gunners .
First , let ’ s understand that while police do encounter armed individuals far more often than anyone is comfortable with , these are typically not your law-abiding armed citizen .
No , these are criminals , often with illegally obtained firearms .
That distinction matters .
It ’ s not just important , it ’ s vital .
While we ’ d love to disarm criminals , that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their very nature , ignore any law that gets in the way of what they want to do .
There are already tons of firearms on the black market and those dealers aren ’ t exactly running background checks .
Criminals won ’ t be disarmed no matter what laws you try to push .
You might reduce the supply a bit , but that ’ s about the best you can really accomplish .
Instead , any effort to disarm America will focus on disarming law-abiding citizens .
They ’ re the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all .
They ’ re the ones you will disarm , the ones who rarely have an encounter with the police except as a victim and even more rarely have a violent encounter with law enforcement .
So now you have an environment where the police department is greatly reduced and Americans aren ’ t as well-armed as they were , yet the criminals have as many guns as they did before .
Hmmmm…what in the world could happen now .
New York City is seeing an explosion in shootings .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And these departments haven ’ t been disbanded or even slashed at this point .
Do you really think reducing police forces will make it better ?
More to the point , though , do you think that ordinary , law-abiding Americans aren ’ t going to be victims of this insanity ?
No , we don ’ t need to disarm any law-abiding citizen just to make someone feel a bit better .
Especially if you ’ re least-radical suggestion is to gut law enforcement and put the funding into things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

For some insane reason, the idea of defunding the police is being taken as a serious suggestion. I get that, for some, the phrase really means reprioritizing where spending goes. They want to take some of the police budget and refocus it on preventative measures. However, for many others, defund the police means exactly what it says, and that’s a huge problem.
Perhaps more troubling is that many are trying to tie that in with the notion that ordinary Americans need to be disarmed.
In some progressive police departments, new recruits hear a version of this story emphasized during training: “Always be aware that whenever you answer a call, someone is armed and possibly already leveraged to fire their weapon,” goes the admonishment, often delivered by an experienced firearms instructor. And who is that person? Wait for it. “It’s you, the police officer,” cadets are told. The reminder is the type of introspective analysis the nation demands of law enforcement; to be more aware of their own potential for violence. To ingrain that it is the uniformed officer who could lose control of a situation and end a civilian’s life. Had police heeded this warning, the lives of so many Black Americans the nation now chants in protest: Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor and so many more, some known only to the victims’ family and friends, might have been spared. But there is another narrative, and many times, it’s an even louder one in an officer’s head. It spins from this undeniable fact: The U.S. owns more than 40% of the world’s firearms compared to the top 25 countries, according to the Small Arms Survey. So when police interact with the public via traffic stops, domestic violence calls or entering someone’s home, they’re highly attuned to the possibility that they’re not the only armed individuals.
The author goes on to suggest that in addition to defunding police departments, we should also disarm the American public. She finds it troubling that it’s not part of the conversation.
However, there’s a reason why it’s generally not part of the discussion, at least among any but the hardcore anti-gunners.
First, let’s understand that while police do encounter armed individuals far more often than anyone is comfortable with, these are typically not your law-abiding armed citizen. No, these are criminals, often with illegally obtained firearms.
That distinction matters. It’s not just important, it’s vital.
While we’d love to disarm criminals, that’s not likely to happen. Criminals, by their very nature, ignore any law that gets in the way of what they want to do. There are already tons of firearms on the black market and those dealers aren’t exactly running background checks.
Criminals won’t be disarmed no matter what laws you try to push. You might reduce the supply a bit, but that’s about the best you can really accomplish.
Instead, any effort to disarm America will focus on disarming law-abiding citizens. They’re the ones who will comply with laws, after all. They’re the ones you will disarm, the ones who rarely have an encounter with the police except as a victim and even more rarely have a violent encounter with law enforcement.
So now you have an environment where the police department is greatly reduced and Americans aren’t as well-armed as they were, yet the criminals have as many guns as they did before.
Hmmmm…what in the world could happen now.
That’s right. Pandemonium.
New York City is seeing an explosion in shootings. So is Atlanta. So is Minneapolis.
And these departments haven’t been disbanded or even slashed at this point. Do you really think reducing police forces will make it better? More to the point, though, do you think that ordinary, law-abiding Americans aren’t going to be victims of this insanity?
No, we don’t need to disarm any law-abiding citizen just to make someone feel a bit better. Especially if you’re least-radical suggestion is to gut law enforcement and put the funding into things that no one knows will work or not.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Armed Robber On Parole Shot And Killed By Texas Store Clerk

A 56-year old man on parole was shot and killed by a clerk at a Houston convenience store Monday evening , after the man tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then attacked the clerk .
KHOU-TV reports the suspect entered the Super Qwik Food Store around 10 p.m. and attempted to use the counterfeit bill to pay for items .
The store clerk recognized the bill as a fake and refused to accept the phony $ 20 , and that ’ s when the suspect pulled a gun .
Police believe the gunman fired at least one shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s when the clerk pulled out a gun of his own .
“ Luckily and fortunately for the convenience store clerk , he had a gun with him .
He was able to return fire , ” said Sgt .
Horn with the Houston Police Department .
“ The suspect or the robber collapsed here at the store .
He was transported to the hospital where he died later.
” Police said the suspect was struck by gunfire multiple times .
Investigators at the scene said the situation would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not hurt , Horn said .
“ He ’ s very fortunate to be alive right now .
We ’ re thinking that the bullet that the robber or suspect fired was only a few inches away from him.
” A quick aside- thank you to Sgt .
Horn for actually acknowledging that this was a far better outcome than the clerk being murdered because they couldn ’ t defend themselves against the armed robber .
I sure hope that the sergeant doesn ’ t get in trouble with Chief Art Acevedo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much the chief dislikes law-abiding gun owners who actually believe the Second Amendment means what it says .
Anyway , back to the story .
KHOU reports that the 56-year old suspect , who ’ s name has not yet been released , was out on parole for what the station describes only as a “ similar crime ” that took place last summer .
Was it a simple , non-violent attempt to pass counterfeit money that we ’ re talking about , or an attempted armed robbery ?
If it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 , I can understand the suspect being out on parole .
If we ’ re talking about another robbery , however , then Houston residents are entitled to know exactly why this suspect was so quickly returned to the streets instead of being sent to prison .
Either way , it seems pretty clear that the clerk is alive today because he had a firearm to defend himself .
It ’ s too bad he had to use it , but the fact that he was armed meant he was able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store at the end of his shift instead of being carried out on a stretcher .

A 56-year old man on parole was shot and killed by a clerk at a Houston convenience store Monday evening, after the man tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then attacked the clerk.
KHOU-TV reports the suspect entered the Super Qwik Food Store around 10 p.m. and attempted to use the counterfeit bill to pay for items. The store clerk recognized the bill as a fake and refused to accept the phony $20, and that’s when the suspect pulled a gun.
Police believe the gunman fired at least one shot, missing the clerk by just inches. That’s when the clerk pulled out a gun of his own. “Luckily and fortunately for the convenience store clerk, he had a gun with him. He was able to return fire,” said Sgt. Horn with the Houston Police Department. “The suspect or the robber collapsed here at the store. He was transported to the hospital where he died later.” Police said the suspect was struck by gunfire multiple times. Investigators at the scene said the situation would be treated as a robbery. The clerk was not hurt, Horn said. “He’s very fortunate to be alive right now. We’re thinking that the bullet that the robber or suspect fired was only a few inches away from him.”
A quick aside- thank you to Sgt. Horn for actually acknowledging that this was a far better outcome than the clerk being murdered because they couldn’t defend themselves against the armed robber. I sure hope that the sergeant doesn’t get in trouble with Chief Art Acevedo for his comments, because I know how much the chief dislikes law-abiding gun owners who actually believe the Second Amendment means what it says.
Anyway, back to the story. KHOU reports that the 56-year old suspect, who’s name has not yet been released, was out on parole for what the station describes only as a “similar crime” that took place last summer. Was it a simple, non-violent attempt to pass counterfeit money that we’re talking about, or an attempted armed robbery? If it was a case of using a fake $20, I can understand the suspect being out on parole. If we’re talking about another robbery, however, then Houston residents are entitled to know exactly why this suspect was so quickly returned to the streets instead of being sent to prison.
Either way, it seems pretty clear that the clerk is alive today because he had a firearm to defend himself. It’s too bad he had to use it, but the fact that he was armed meant he was able to walk out the door of the convenience store at the end of his shift instead of being carried out on a stretcher.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--NH Senate Passes Red Flag Measure Over Emotional Appeal

Red flag laws are often framed as simply stepping in and temporarily taking guns away from dangerous people .
However , that ’ s the wrong way to frame them .
Instead , they ’ re laws that infringe on the individual liberties of ordinary Americans who haven ’ t done anything wrong , simply because someone thinks they might .
Now , in New Hampshire , their new red flag law is one step closer to passage after a lawmaker who lacked facts went with emotion instead .
That ’ s awful , to be sure , but taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have necessarily kept him safe .
Guns aren ’ t the only way to commit suicide , after all .
Proponents of these measures often argue that guns are the most effective , meaning that fewer people actually survive the attempt than with other means of suicide .
That ’ s probably true .
That doesn ’ t mean other methods are ineffective , though .
After all , those methods of suicide claim plenty of lives as well It ’ s beyond stupid to focus on the tools of suicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a mental health issue , not a gun issue , and should be treated as such .
Further , red flag laws have other problems as well .
Not only that , but there ’ s already a way to address this problem written into state law .
After all , New Hampshire has an involuntary admission law on the books .
Why not make use of that and leave the guns alone ?
After all , someone who has been admitted not only won ’ t have access to firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide is seriously curtailed as well .
It ’ s a huge win .
Only , it ’ s not good enough for these folks , now is it ?
That ’ s because it ’ s not about suicide .
It ’ s about guns and nothing else .
Luckily , there isn ’ t a huge chance of Gov .
Chris Sununu signing this into law .
That ’ s the upside .
The downside is that they ’ ll keep trying this crap over and over again until someone does @ @ @

Red flag laws are often framed as simply stepping in and temporarily taking guns away from dangerous people. However, that’s the wrong way to frame them. Instead, they’re laws that infringe on the individual liberties of ordinary Americans who haven’t done anything wrong, simply because someone thinks they might.
Now, in New Hampshire, their new red flag law is one step closer to passage after a lawmaker who lacked facts went with emotion instead.
“I’ve seen things like that before,” Morgan said. “It’s different when it’s family; it’s something you can’t un-see.”
That’s awful, to be sure, but taking away Uncle Bob’s gun wouldn’t have necessarily kept him safe. Guns aren’t the only way to commit suicide, after all.
Proponents of these measures often argue that guns are the most effective, meaning that fewer people actually survive the attempt than with other means of suicide. That’s probably true.
That doesn’t mean other methods are ineffective, though. After all, those methods of suicide claim plenty of lives as well
It’s beyond stupid to focus on the tools of suicide and not the root cause. Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue, and should be treated as such.
Further, red flag laws have other problems as well.
Precisely.
Not only that, but there’s already a way to address this problem written into state law. After all, New Hampshire has an involuntary admission law on the books. Why not make use of that and leave the guns alone?
After all, someone who has been admitted not only won’t have access to firearms, their access to any other method of suicide is seriously curtailed as well. It’s a huge win. Only, it’s not good enough for these folks, now is it?
That’s because it’s not about suicide. It’s about guns and nothing else.
Luckily, there isn’t a huge chance of Gov. Chris Sununu signing this into law. That’s the upside. The downside is that they’ll keep trying this crap over and over again until someone does sign it.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Atlanta Also Among Cities With Explosion In Violent Crime

As a native Georgian , the city of Atlanta has a special place in my heart .
It ’ s where all my favorite sports teams play .
It ’ s where so much of our state ’ s history revolves around the city .
Sure , it ’ s got its problems , but it ’ s been one of those destinations we all head toward when we want the “ big city ” experience , even if we live in actual cities ourselves .
However , Atlanta is having some problems .
While much of our attention has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks , there ’ s been a lot more going on in the city than Brooks .
In fact , it ’ s getting kind of ugly up that way .
Violence is off the chain in Atlanta .
During the first three weeks of this month — May 31 to June 20 — 75 people have been shot in Atlanta .
Last year during that period , 35 people were shot in the city .
At this rate it ’ ll be 100 shot by July .
Eleven people have been killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Five .
These are not police shootings .
They ’ re civilians shooting civilians .
They don ’ t carry the outrage and notoriety that a cop shooting someone will .
But the victims are just as dead .
The carnage coincides with the protests of George Floyd ’ s killing in Minnesota .
On May 29 , demonstrations started in downtown Atlanta and things got crazy .
Squad cars burned , stores were looted , and protesters and police clashed .
Sure , the overwhelming number of protesters are law-abiding and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those up for mayhem .
And as cops attend to them , the city ’ s criminals are emboldened .
That ’ s a valid point , to be sure .
After all , we saw similar take place during the height of the COVID lockdown .
Then , police weren ’ t responding to a whole lot in some locales .
If criminals know the police are busy elsewhere or simply not driving by , it gives them opportunities .
They can not just carry out the “ profitable ” crimes like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means a lot of people hurt , and that ’ s if they ’ re fortunate .
Hurt is better than dead , after all .
Couple this with the fact that the Atlanta Police Department isn ’ t exactly running on good morale at the moment–who would after an officer was fired and charged before there was any formal investigation–and that ’ s not a recipe for good times in the city .
As demonstrations continue , first regarding George Floyd and now Rayshard Brooks , expect this kind of thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not good for anyone .
However , at some point , we ’ re going to have to ask whether the cost is worth it .
Even if all these deaths were the result of racist cops or even just police brutality , we have to ask if the death toll resulting from the protests are really worth it in the grand scheme of things .
Sure , many will think just asking such a question is problematic , evidence that I ’ m guilty of some flavor of WrongThink , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and look at them objectively .
Is the cost worth it ?
If more people die because of the protests than would die from so-called police brutality , is that still a positive change ?
I ’ m not so sure .
If black lives actually matter , then so to do those that are gunned down by rivals who know the police are too busy to come and respond .
The same is true for all the other lives lost the same way .

As a native Georgian, the city of Atlanta has a special place in my heart. It’s where all my favorite sports teams play. It’s where so much of our state’s history revolves around the city.
Sure, it’s got its problems, but it’s been one of those destinations we all head toward when we want the “big city” experience, even if we live in actual cities ourselves.
However, Atlanta is having some problems. While much of our attention has been focused on the death of Rayshard Brooks, there’s been a lot more going on in the city than Brooks.
In fact, it’s getting kind of ugly up that way.
Violence is off the chain in Atlanta. During the first three weeks of this month — May 31 to June 20 — 75 people have been shot in Atlanta. Last year during that period, 35 people were shot in the city. At this rate it’ll be 100 shot by July. Eleven people have been killed during that three-week period. Last year? Five. These are not police shootings. They’re civilians shooting civilians. They don’t carry the outrage and notoriety that a cop shooting someone will. But the victims are just as dead. The carnage coincides with the protests of George Floyd’s killing in Minnesota. On May 29, demonstrations started in downtown Atlanta and things got crazy. Squad cars burned, stores were looted, and protesters and police clashed. Sure, the overwhelming number of protesters are law-abiding and want positive change. But there are those up for mayhem. And as cops attend to them, the city’s criminals are emboldened.
That’s a valid point, to be sure. After all, we saw similar take place during the height of the COVID lockdown. Then, police weren’t responding to a whole lot in some locales.
If criminals know the police are busy elsewhere or simply not driving by, it gives them opportunities. They can not just carry out the “profitable” crimes like robbery, but also settle grudges. That means a lot of people hurt, and that’s if they’re fortunate. Hurt is better than dead, after all.
Couple this with the fact that the Atlanta Police Department isn’t exactly running on good morale at the moment–who would after an officer was fired and charged before there was any formal investigation–and that’s not a recipe for good times in the city.
As demonstrations continue, first regarding George Floyd and now Rayshard Brooks, expect this kind of thing to continue as well.
That’s not good for anyone.
However, at some point, we’re going to have to ask whether the cost is worth it. Even if all these deaths were the result of racist cops or even just police brutality, we have to ask if the death toll resulting from the protests are really worth it in the grand scheme of things.
Sure, many will think just asking such a question is problematic, evidence that I’m guilty of some flavor of WrongThink, but all things need to have someone try and look at them objectively. Is the cost worth it? If more people die because of the protests than would die from so-called police brutality, is that still a positive change?
I’m not so sure.
If black lives actually matter, then so to do those that are gunned down by rivals who know the police are too busy to come and respond. The same is true for all the other lives lost the same way.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--NH Congressional Candidate Sticks By His Guns In New Campaign Ad

A gun show promoter and former city council member in Dover , New Hampshire is out with a new ad in his campaign for the GOP nomination in New Hampshire ’ s 1st congressional district , and the candidate is making it clear where he stands on the Second Amendment .
Matt Mayberry says that “ in the current climate , with rioting and looting in many major American cities , and with Democratic politicians promising to ‘ defund the police , ’ the Second Amendment is even more important than ever before .
We must guarantee that Americans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and their property.
” In the new ad Mayberry spends a little time at the private range of Macpherson Firearms owner Vinny Gillis , sending brass flying as he shoots rifles and pistols while talking about the endorsements that incumbent Democrat Chris Pappas is already receiving from gun control groups like Brady and Moms Demand Action .
Pappas ’ campaign website is chock full of support for all kinds of gun control measures , from red flag laws to banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 .
Mayberry , on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force veteran and gun show promoter , he knows “ how important guns are to the men and women of New Hampshire , ” adding that “ law-abiding gun owners are the backbone of our society.
” Before Mayberry can take on Pappas , however , he ’ ll have to win the Republican primary scheduled for September 8th .
Challenger Matt Mowers has the endorsement of President Donald Trump , but Mayberry calls Mowers a “ 30-year-old recent New Jersey transplant who has spent most of his adult life working for Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican advocates for gun-control in the country.
” The Republican-leaning district is seen as an opportunity to flip a seat in November , with both Mayberry and Mowers blasting Rep. Pappas for his lockstep support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s agenda .
In 2018 Pappas won election with 53 % of the vote running against Eddie Edwards ( no relation ) , a former police chief and member of the state ’ s Division of Liquor Enforcement .
That narrow victory in a blue wave election may be difficult to replicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager Corey Lewandowski has said the seat is perhaps the most flippable in the nation this November .
While Mowers has racked up endorsements from GOP establishment figures from President Trump on down , we ’ ve already seen some upsets in Republican primaries around the country where the president ’ s endorsed candidates failed to achieve launch .
In North Carolina , for example , 24-year old Madison Cawthorn was outspent by Lynda Bennett , who was endorsed by Trump , but still cruised to victory earlier this month in the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , both Mayberry and Mowers are running as supporters of President Trump , with Mowers citing his appointment by the president to the State Department and Mayberry touting his appearance as an alternate delegate for Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention .
We ’ ll see how the race shakes out over the next few months , but I ’ m glad to see that the anti-gun record of incumbent Chris Pappas is already being called into question by the Mayberry campaign .

Matt Mayberry says that “in the current climate, with rioting and looting in many major American cities, and with Democratic politicians promising to ‘defund the police,’ the Second Amendment is even more important than ever before. We must guarantee that Americans have the right to defend themselves, their families and their property.”
In the new ad Mayberry spends a little time at the private range of Macpherson Firearms owner Vinny Gillis, sending brass flying as he shoots rifles and pistols while talking about the endorsements that incumbent Democrat Chris Pappas is already receiving from gun control groups like Brady and Moms Demand Action.
Pappas’ campaign website is chock full of support for all kinds of gun control measures, from red flag laws to banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15. Mayberry, on the other hand, says that as an Air Force veteran and gun show promoter, he knows “how important guns are to the men and women of New Hampshire,” adding that “law-abiding gun owners are the backbone of our society.”
Before Mayberry can take on Pappas, however, he’ll have to win the Republican primary scheduled for September 8th. Challenger Matt Mowers has the endorsement of President Donald Trump, but Mayberry calls Mowers a “30-year-old recent New Jersey transplant who has spent most of his adult life working for Chris Christie – one of the most prominent Republican advocates for gun-control in the country.”
…Second Amendment. Matt has my Complete and Total Endorsement! We need him in Washington now! #NH01 https://t.co/K4xoUlQiAI — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2020
The Republican-leaning district is seen as an opportunity to flip a seat in November, with both Mayberry and Mowers blasting Rep. Pappas for his lockstep support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s agenda. In 2018 Pappas won election with 53% of the vote running against Eddie Edwards (no relation), a former police chief and member of the state’s Division of Liquor Enforcement. That narrow victory in a blue wave election may be difficult to replicate in 2020, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has said the seat is perhaps the most flippable in the nation this November.
While Mowers has racked up endorsements from GOP establishment figures from President Trump on down, we’ve already seen some upsets in Republican primaries around the country where the president’s endorsed candidates failed to achieve launch. In North Carolina, for example, 24-year old Madison Cawthorn was outspent by Lynda Bennett, who was endorsed by Trump, but still cruised to victory earlier this month in the primary for the 11th congressional district.
In New Hampshire, both Mayberry and Mowers are running as supporters of President Trump, with Mowers citing his appointment by the president to the State Department and Mayberry touting his appearance as an alternate delegate for Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention. We’ll see how the race shakes out over the next few months, but I’m glad to see that the anti-gun record of incumbent Chris Pappas is already being called into question by the Mayberry campaign.


bearingarms--2020-06-30--Measure Introduced To Require Proposed D.C. State To Support Gun Rights

For years now , there ’ s been talk of making the District of Columbia a state .
There are valid reasons why they should be a state , too , since residents don ’ t get congressional representation in any meaningful way , yet are required to pay taxes just like the rest of us .
No taxation without representation and all that jazz .
However , there are also reasons why it shouldn ’ t happen .
For one , it ’ s really just a city , not something big enough to be a state .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statehood .
In particular , you ’ d end up with one liberal representatives and two liberal senators , thus likely upsetting the balance of power in the Senate .
In the House , however , a measure was recently introduced that would require the D.C. state to hold up certain conservative values .
Rep. Fred Keller , R-Pa. , on Friday introduced a last-second motion to include provisions in the House bill to make Washington , D.C. , America ’ s 51st state that would require D.C. — which would technically be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for conservative priorities like the Second Amendment , public monuments , police funding and more .
The “ motion to recommit ” introduced by Keller is a procedural move that is meant to provide “ one final opportunity for the House to debate and amend a measure , typically after the engrossment and third reading of the bill , before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage , ” according to House rules .
It was promptly shut down by a voice vote .
Keller requested a recorded vote , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the interests of our constituents will be reflected in this new state that will have undue influence over the nation ’ s federal government , ” Keller said on the House floor , addressing a point that many Republicans made in their opposition to the D.C. statehood bill .
Of course , Keller likely knew that it was never going to happen .
For one , the liberal lean of the House was never going to accept a state being required to uphold something like gun rights .
Their sincere hope is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough of a factor to reach a tipping point in gun rights .
Such a measure was never going to happen .
And really , the best-case scenario would have been for such a measure to become a poison pill .
If it made it into the final bill , it would likely have scuttled the whole measure .
Of course , it wasn ’ t really needed except as a means of a bit of grandstanding–not always a bad thing , to be clear .
It ’ s highly unlikely the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that may well change the balance of power .
It ’ s just not going to happen , especially in these politically-charged times .
A decade or so ago , maybe , but today ?
It ’ s just not going to happen .
Especially since we know it ’ s really about that balance of power .
When Democrats had both chambers of Congress and the White House , where was the effort ?
Nowhere .
That ’ s because no one cared enough to bother with D.C. Now , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our gun rights and other such civil liberties , so it ’ s a moral imperative for them to do it right now .
Keller called attention to that and , in some way , called attention to it .

For years now, there’s been talk of making the District of Columbia a state. There are valid reasons why they should be a state, too, since residents don’t get congressional representation in any meaningful way, yet are required to pay taxes just like the rest of us. No taxation without representation and all that jazz.
However, there are also reasons why it shouldn’t happen. For one, it’s really just a city, not something big enough to be a state.
Then there are the political ramifications of D.C. statehood. In particular, you’d end up with one liberal representatives and two liberal senators, thus likely upsetting the balance of power in the Senate.
In the House, however, a measure was recently introduced that would require the D.C. state to hold up certain conservative values.
Rep. Fred Keller, R-Pa., on Friday introduced a last-second motion to include provisions in the House bill to make Washington, D.C., America’s 51st state that would require D.C. — which would technically be a “commonwealth” — to provide protections for conservative priorities like the Second Amendment, public monuments, police funding and more. The “motion to recommit” introduced by Keller is a procedural move that is meant to provide “one final opportunity for the House to debate and amend a measure, typically after the engrossment and third reading of the bill, before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage,” according to House rules. It was promptly shut down by a voice vote. Keller requested a recorded vote, which was postponed. “Republicans need assurances that the interests of our constituents will be reflected in this new state that will have undue influence over the nation’s federal government,” Keller said on the House floor, addressing a point that many Republicans made in their opposition to the D.C. statehood bill.
Of course, Keller likely knew that it was never going to happen.
For one, the liberal lean of the House was never going to accept a state being required to uphold something like gun rights. Their sincere hope is that a new liberal state would become enough of a factor to reach a tipping point in gun rights. Such a measure was never going to happen.
And really, the best-case scenario would have been for such a measure to become a poison pill. If it made it into the final bill, it would likely have scuttled the whole measure.
Of course, it wasn’t really needed except as a means of a bit of grandstanding–not always a bad thing, to be clear. It’s highly unlikely the Senate will approve a measure to create a state that may well change the balance of power. It’s just not going to happen, especially in these politically-charged times. A decade or so ago, maybe, but today? It’s just not going to happen.
Especially since we know it’s really about that balance of power. When Democrats had both chambers of Congress and the White House, where was the effort? Nowhere. That’s because no one cared enough to bother with D.C.
Now, though, they can be useful for destroying our gun rights and other such civil liberties, so it’s a moral imperative for them to do it right now.
Keller called attention to that and, in some way, called attention to it.
Good for him.