bearingarms--2020-02-17--"We Will Be Back": Dems React To Failure Of Northam's Gun Ban Bill

Virginia Democrats are speaking out after the Senate Judiciary Committee scuttled Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun , magazine , and suppressor ban for the session by sending the bill off to be studied by the Virginia Crime Commission .
Northam ’ s office released a statement a few hours after the vote that tried to put a positive spin on the vote .
The thing is , this isn ’ t the first gun control bill supported by Ralph Northam to be killed in the state Senate .
SB 67 a “ lost or stolen ” measure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated another measure on February 3rd .
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to “ recklessly leave a loaded , unsecured firearm ” in a way that endangers a minor .
It ’ s one of eight gun-related proposals that Northam has urged lawmakers to adopt .
Virginia has become ground zero in the nation ’ s raging debate over gun control and mass shootings as a new Democratic majority seeks to enact strict new limits .
Last month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country flooded the Capitol and surrounding area in protest , some donning tactical gear and carrying military rifles .
Two moderate Democrats — Sens .
Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to defeat the bill Monday over concerns that law-abiding gun owners could be unfairly punished .
The House did pass its version of that same legislation , but it has yet to come up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote .
Given that the House version is even worse than the language killed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment the prospects for that bill don ’ t look great .
Virginia House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn also tried her best to take a victory lap in the face of HB961 ’ s defeat .
Filler-Corn claims that HB961 would have “ taken weapons of war off the streets , ” but in truth , it would have grandfathered in every existing AR-15 currently owned in Virginia .
If Democrats like Filler-Corn truly believe that no one should own these firearms , then why did they offer up a bill that allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Why not back SB16 , Governor Northam ’ s original gun ban proposal , which contained no grandfather clauses for guns , magazines , or suppressors ?
It was political expedience , plain and simple .
They tried for as much of what they could get as they thought possible .
They just guessed wrong .
We know what they really want , however , and there ’ s no reason for Virginians believe Filler-Corn and other anti-gun lawmakers in the future when they say “ you can keep yours ” when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ban the guns , magazines , and suppressors we currently own , as well as deny future gun owners the ability to own some of the most common arms in the country today .
The bill ’ s sponsor , Mark Levine , was trying to make the same argument as Filler-Corn on Twitter , which makes even less sense .
He ’ s the author of the bill , for crying out loud .
If he truly thinks AR-15 ’ s shouldn ’ t be possessed by anyone other than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t his bill say that ?
Of course , this is the same guy who claimed his gun ban bill wasn ’ t a gun ban at all , so honesty may be too much to ask .
Still , what did the House of Delegates managed to do with HB961 ?
Well , they woke up a lot of rural voters in Virginia to the dangers of voting for anti-gun Democrats .
They also helped sell a lot of the guns , magazines , and suppressors that they were trying to ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do is turn the bill into a law , though Northam still has an option available to him to amend his gun ban language to an existing gun control bill , and there are still several other House-approved gun control bills still alive this session .
Virginia gun owners still have plenty of reasons to remain involved and engaged , and not just because lawmakers will be back next year .
There ’ s still plenty of damage they can do to our Second Amendment rights this session as well .

Virginia Democrats are speaking out after the Senate Judiciary Committee scuttled Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun, magazine, and suppressor ban for the session by sending the bill off to be studied by the Virginia Crime Commission. Northam’s office released a statement a few hours after the vote that tried to put a positive spin on the vote.
“Despite today’s vote, the Governor is proud of the several commonsense gun safety measures that continue to advance. These bills represent historic steps forward in keeping Virginians safe from gun violence. Make no mistake—they will save lives.” (2/2) pic.twitter.com/k18WTLizXN — Tim Barber (@ABC7TimBarber) February 17, 2020
The thing is, this isn’t the first gun control bill supported by Ralph Northam to be killed in the state Senate. SB 67 a “lost or stolen” measure, was defeated on the Senate floor, and the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated another measure on February 3rd.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor. It’s one of eight gun-related proposals that Northam has urged lawmakers to adopt. Virginia has become ground zero in the nation’s raging debate over gun control and mass shootings as a new Democratic majority seeks to enact strict new limits. Last month, tens of thousands of guns-rights activists from around the country flooded the Capitol and surrounding area in protest, some donning tactical gear and carrying military rifles. Two moderate Democrats — Sens. Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to defeat the bill Monday over concerns that law-abiding gun owners could be unfairly punished.
The House did pass its version of that same legislation, but it has yet to come up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote. Given that the House version is even worse than the language killed by the Senate, I’d say at the moment the prospects for that bill don’t look great.
Virginia House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn also tried her best to take a victory lap in the face of HB961’s defeat.
The Democratic platform last fall was very clear. Limiting access to weapons of war used in mass murder was a key part of that platform. The House of Delegates delivered on our promise to take action to keep those weapons off our streets. https://t.co/UQJPDt6jfv — Eileen Filler-Corn (@EFillerCorn) February 17, 2020
Filler-Corn claims that HB961 would have “taken weapons of war off the streets,” but in truth, it would have grandfathered in every existing AR-15 currently owned in Virginia. If Democrats like Filler-Corn truly believe that no one should own these firearms, then why did they offer up a bill that allowed Virginia gun owners to keep their guns? Why not back SB16, Governor Northam’s original gun ban proposal, which contained no grandfather clauses for guns, magazines, or suppressors? It was political expedience, plain and simple. They tried for as much of what they could get as they thought possible. They just guessed wrong.
We know what they really want, however, and there’s no reason for Virginians believe Filler-Corn and other anti-gun lawmakers in the future when they say “you can keep yours” when we already know that their intent is to ban the guns, magazines, and suppressors we currently own, as well as deny future gun owners the ability to own some of the most common arms in the country today.
The bill’s sponsor, Mark Levine, was trying to make the same argument as Filler-Corn on Twitter, which makes even less sense. He’s the author of the bill, for crying out loud. If he truly thinks AR-15’s shouldn’t be possessed by anyone other than the military or police, why didn’t his bill say that?
Senate Committee voted to study assault weapons bill for another year. We already know weapons of war don’t belong on our streets. I fear mass murder with these weapons between now and then, but I am proud of House of Delegates for doing what we could. We will be back. — Mark Levine (@DelegateMark) February 17, 2020
Of course, this is the same guy who claimed his gun ban bill wasn’t a gun ban at all, so honesty may be too much to ask. Still, what did the House of Delegates managed to do with HB961? Well, they woke up a lot of rural voters in Virginia to the dangers of voting for anti-gun Democrats. They also helped sell a lot of the guns, magazines, and suppressors that they were trying to ban, ironically enough.
What they didn’t do is turn the bill into a law, though Northam still has an option available to him to amend his gun ban language to an existing gun control bill, and there are still several other House-approved gun control bills still alive this session. Virginia gun owners still have plenty of reasons to remain involved and engaged, and not just because lawmakers will be back next year. There’s still plenty of damage they can do to our Second Amendment rights this session as well.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Northam's Gun Ban Bill Defeated in Committee. What Happens Next?

Now that Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban bill has been pushed to the Virginia Crime Commission to “ study ” the bill , HB961 is dead for this session .
That doesn ’ t mean , however , that gun owners are out of the woods just yet .
As David Adams , legislative chair of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association tells me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , it ’ s possible that Northam and House Democrats will insert the language banning modern sporting rifles , ammunition magazines with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ trigger activators ” into one of the gun control bills that is still alive this session .
House Democrats have already modified several of the gun control bills approved by the state Senate , and if the Senate doesn ’ t agree to the changes , those bills will head to a conference committee to iron out the differences .
The same is likely to happen to gun control bills that originated in the House , but are now being considered by senators .
Those conference committees aren ’ t public hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a chance to attend .
It also only takes a simple majority vote by the conference committee to send the modified bills to the floor of the House and Senate .
It doesn ’ t make a whole lot of sense for Northam to do this if the four Democrat senators who opposed HB961 remain firm in their opposition , but the governor is serious about getting something he can call an “ assault weapons ban ” to his desk , and he still has some room to maneuver legislatively .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in existing magazines in the hopes of bringing recalcitrant Democrats on board , which might be why we didn ’ t see such an amendment offered in the Judiciary committee on Monday .
Northam may be holding that back as a last-ditch effort to save the gun ban language and deliver him a political victory at the expense of the rights of Virginians .
Even if the gun ban language remains off the table this session , there are plenty of bills moving forward that are awful for the exercise of our Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s firearm preemption law , criminalizes parents who allow their minor child access to a firearm to hunt or use in self-defense , rations the purchase of a firearm to one-per-month , changes the training requirements for a concealed carry license , and more .
Virginia gun owners can and should be proud of defeating HB961 , but our work isn ’ t done yet .
Also on today ’ s show we have the story of an 18-year old in North Carolina sentenced to probation earlier this month for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now accused of murdering a teenager in Raleigh last week , an armed resident of Birmingham , Alabama who shot the man trying to rob him , and a police officer and a jeweler in southern California who helped an 89-year old veteran when he lost the most treasured memento from his marriage to his late wife ( it ’ s gon na get a little dusty when you read this , just so you know ) .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , or Townhall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Now that Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban bill has been pushed to the Virginia Crime Commission to “study” the bill, HB961 is dead for this session. That doesn’t mean, however, that gun owners are out of the woods just yet. As David Adams, legislative chair of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association tells me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., it’s possible that Northam and House Democrats will insert the language banning modern sporting rifles, ammunition magazines with a 13+ round capacity, suppressors, and “trigger activators” into one of the gun control bills that is still alive this session.
House Democrats have already modified several of the gun control bills approved by the state Senate, and if the Senate doesn’t agree to the changes, those bills will head to a conference committee to iron out the differences. The same is likely to happen to gun control bills that originated in the House, but are now being considered by senators. Those conference committees aren’t public hearings, so gun owners won’t have a chance to attend. It also only takes a simple majority vote by the conference committee to send the modified bills to the floor of the House and Senate.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for Northam to do this if the four Democrat senators who opposed HB961 remain firm in their opposition, but the governor is serious about getting something he can call an “assault weapons ban” to his desk, and he still has some room to maneuver legislatively. The most obvious move would be to grandfather in existing magazines in the hopes of bringing recalcitrant Democrats on board, which might be why we didn’t see such an amendment offered in the Judiciary committee on Monday. Northam may be holding that back as a last-ditch effort to save the gun ban language and deliver him a political victory at the expense of the rights of Virginians.
Even if the gun ban language remains off the table this session, there are plenty of bills moving forward that are awful for the exercise of our Second Amendment rights, including legislation that guts the state’s firearm preemption law, criminalizes parents who allow their minor child access to a firearm to hunt or use in self-defense, rations the purchase of a firearm to one-per-month, changes the training requirements for a concealed carry license, and more. Virginia gun owners can and should be proud of defeating HB961, but our work isn’t done yet.
Also on today’s show we have the story of an 18-year old in North Carolina sentenced to probation earlier this month for a string of crimes who’s now accused of murdering a teenager in Raleigh last week, an armed resident of Birmingham, Alabama who shot the man trying to rob him, and a police officer and a jeweler in southern California who helped an 89-year old veteran when he lost the most treasured memento from his marriage to his late wife (it’s gonna get a little dusty when you read this, just so you know).
Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, or Townhall Media on YouTube, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Shooting Survivors Become Pro-Gun Candidates

The media loves them some anti-gun shooting survivors .
They seem to believe that being in a certain place on a certain day and time somehow conveys a level of expertise that simply can ’ t be ignored .
It ’ s why we ’ ve had to put up with the Parkland kids and Gabby Giffords , after all .
Not to say those events aren ’ t horrible .
They were and sure , there probably are things we can learn from them , but not from the hysterical ravings of people reacting more to trauma than reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , the media makes a huge thing of it .
Or , they typically do when it ’ s an anti-gun survivor .
However , a story from the Wall Street Journal notes that not all survivors run as anti-gun .
Stephen Willeford was widely hailed by supporters of the Second Amendment as the model “ good guy with a gun ” in 2017 , when he grabbed an AR-15 rifle and pursued and shot at a gunman killing churchgoers in Sutherland Springs , Texas .
Two and a half years later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moniker Good Gun Guy Wille in speeches , church security training and now in a campaign for local county commissioner .
If he wins , he wants to make Wilson County a “ Second Amendment sanctuary ” that would defy any restrictions state politicians might put on guns .
“ I never had such a voice , ” Mr. Willeford said .
“ Now people are willing to listen to me.
” He is one of three men in Texas touched by shootings at churches who are drawing on their experiences to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican primaries .
Pastor Frank Pomeroy , who lost his teenage daughter and 25 other congregants in the Sutherland Springs church shooting , is challenging a popular Democratic state senator .
In North Texas , firearms instructor Jack Wilson was already a candidate for county commissioner when he took down a gunman Dec. 29 at the West Freeway Church of Christ .
All three men were impacted by gun violence .
With Pomeroy , his experience isn ’ t unlike that of Georgia Rep. Lucy McBath .
Yet all three have very different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , they ’ re running for local offices and not the United States House of Representatives .
While that might play a factor , it hasn ’ t in the past .
The media loves to celebrate survivors , after all .
Yet these three men aren ’ t going to get the coverage they would if their experiences made them anti-gun .
They ’ re not likely to get interviewed on prime time cable news .
They ’ re not likely to get coverage in the national media at every point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be mostly ignored .
My issue with that isn ’ t that the national media isn ’ t paying attention to local races .
No , that makes sense .
After all , there are a ton of such races and there ’ s no way they can cover them all .
No , my issue is that we all know that if David Hogg ran for city council , the media would be all over it , covering it like a presidential election , all because he has the status of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three men .
Yes , I expect hypocrisy from the media .
I also expect myself to call it out when I see it .

The media loves them some anti-gun shooting survivors. They seem to believe that being in a certain place on a certain day and time somehow conveys a level of expertise that simply can’t be ignored. It’s why we’ve had to put up with the Parkland kids and Gabby Giffords, after all.
Not to say those events aren’t horrible. They were and sure, there probably are things we can learn from them, but not from the hysterical ravings of people reacting more to trauma than reality
When a survivor decides to run for office, the media makes a huge thing of it. Or, they typically do when it’s an anti-gun survivor.
However, a story from the Wall Street Journal notes that not all survivors run as anti-gun.
Stephen Willeford was widely hailed by supporters of the Second Amendment as the model “good guy with a gun” in 2017, when he grabbed an AR-15 rifle and pursued and shot at a gunman killing churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Two and a half years later, the gregarious plumber has embraced the moniker Good Gun Guy Wille in speeches, church security training and now in a campaign for local county commissioner. If he wins, he wants to make Wilson County a “Second Amendment sanctuary” that would defy any restrictions state politicians might put on guns. “I never had such a voice,” Mr. Willeford said. “Now people are willing to listen to me.” He is one of three men in Texas touched by shootings at churches who are drawing on their experiences to run for public office in March’s Republican primaries. Pastor Frank Pomeroy, who lost his teenage daughter and 25 other congregants in the Sutherland Springs church shooting, is challenging a popular Democratic state senator. In North Texas, firearms instructor Jack Wilson was already a candidate for county commissioner when he took down a gunman Dec. 29 at the West Freeway Church of Christ.
All three men were impacted by gun violence. With Pomeroy, his experience isn’t unlike that of Georgia Rep. Lucy McBath. Yet all three have very different stances on our gun rights.
Of course, they’re running for local offices and not the United States House of Representatives. While that might play a factor, it hasn’t in the past. The media loves to celebrate survivors, after all.
Yet these three men aren’t going to get the coverage they would if their experiences made them anti-gun. They’re not likely to get interviewed on prime time cable news. They’re not likely to get coverage in the national media at every point, either.
They’re going to be mostly ignored.
My issue with that isn’t that the national media isn’t paying attention to local races. No, that makes sense. After all, there are a ton of such races and there’s no way they can cover them all.
No, my issue is that we all know that if David Hogg ran for city council, the media would be all over it, covering it like a presidential election, all because he has the status of “survivor” while they ignore these three men. Yes, I expect hypocrisy from the media. I also expect myself to call it out when I see it.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Filmmaker Spike Lee Takes Swipe At NRA

Filmmaker Spike Lee Takes Swipe At NRA

Spike Lee is one of the best-known filmmakers in Hollywood .
This is mostly because many of his movies seem to straddle the line between preachy and watchable better than most .
I ’ m not much of a fan , but I know plenty who are .
Lee has always been someone who thought his opinions should be taken seriously , despite having done nothing to warrant anyone caring .
Still , some people apparently do .
They watch his movies religiously and seem to think he ’ s important .
Lee , apparently , thinks he is too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at empowering Chicago youth , filmmaker Spike Lee responded to the spate of shootings that have now left 10 kids wounded across the city this weekend .
“ This is not something that ’ s new , ” Lee told reporters following his speech at St. Sabina in Gresham .
“ I think that we got ta take down the [ National Rifle Association ] .
“ We have more guns than any other country on God ’ s planet , and we ’ re all getting tired , ” added Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delved into Chicago ’ s culture of gangs and violence .
One would assume that after filming Chi-Raq , Lee would at least begin to understand a couple of simple facts about violence in Chicago .
In particular , how the violence is centered in just a handful of neighborhoods and that those who are committing the violence aren ’ t buying their guns legally in the first damn place .
Of course , that might be expecting too much from a man who has made his career stoking racial resentment and charging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at , instead of entertaining them .
Look , there is way too much violence in Chicago and in a lot of other American cities .
However , blaming the NRA for what people are doing with illegal guns isn ’ t going to help anyone with anything .
It ’ s not going to make the violence better and it ’ s not going to make the bad people suddenly become all sweetness , light , and love .
The people killing these kids aren ’ t going to just change because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm .
And that ’ s assuming that literally anything being discussed would actually have an impact on them getting one in the first place .
Let ’ s just say I ’ m unconvinced .
The truth is , Spike Lee needs to go back to doing what he does best .
He should be making movies that the critics will love because they ’ re afraid of being called racist otherwise .
Stick with what you know .
In the meantime , those of us who study guns , gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to having a mature discussion that ’ s not filled with little more than anti-gun talking points .
Chicago has a problem , sure , but where is Spike Lee in addressing the real issue ?
Why isn ’ t he using his fame to try and talk to the kinds of people who are actually carrying out the violence and helping them find a better path ?
He ’ s got the money and the gravitas in those communities to do it , so he needs to spend a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA ” often used as a proxy term for–and actually make a difference .
Of course , that would take effort that preaching to the choir doesn ’ t .

Spike Lee is one of the best-known filmmakers in Hollywood. This is mostly because many of his movies seem to straddle the line between preachy and watchable better than most. I’m not much of a fan, but I know plenty who are.
Lee has always been someone who thought his opinions should be taken seriously, despite having done nothing to warrant anyone caring.
Still, some people apparently do. They watch his movies religiously and seem to think he’s important.
Lee, apparently, thinks he is too.
After delivering a rousing speech Sunday aimed at empowering Chicago youth, filmmaker Spike Lee responded to the spate of shootings that have now left 10 kids wounded across the city this weekend. “This is not something that’s new,” Lee told reporters following his speech at St. Sabina in Gresham. “I think that we gotta take down the [National Rifle Association]. “We have more guns than any other country on God’s planet, and we’re all getting tired,” added Lee, whose 2015 film “Chi-Raq” delved into Chicago’s culture of gangs and violence.
One would assume that after filming Chi-Raq, Lee would at least begin to understand a couple of simple facts about violence in Chicago. In particular, how the violence is centered in just a handful of neighborhoods and that those who are committing the violence aren’t buying their guns legally in the first damn place.
Of course, that might be expecting too much from a man who has made his career stoking racial resentment and charging people money so they can be preached at, instead of entertaining them.
Look, there is way too much violence in Chicago and in a lot of other American cities. However, blaming the NRA for what people are doing with illegal guns isn’t going to help anyone with anything. It’s not going to make the violence better and it’s not going to make the bad people suddenly become all sweetness, light, and love.
The people killing these kids aren’t going to just change because they have a bit more trouble getting a firearm.
And that’s assuming that literally anything being discussed would actually have an impact on them getting one in the first place. Let’s just say I’m unconvinced.
The truth is, Spike Lee needs to go back to doing what he does best. He should be making movies that the critics will love because they’re afraid of being called racist otherwise. Stick with what you know.
In the meantime, those of us who study guns, gun rights, violence, and such will go back to having a mature discussion that’s not filled with little more than anti-gun talking points.
Chicago has a problem, sure, but where is Spike Lee in addressing the real issue? Why isn’t he using his fame to try and talk to the kinds of people who are actually carrying out the violence and helping them find a better path? He’s got the money and the gravitas in those communities to do it, so he needs to spend a little less time blaming gun rights supporters–who “the NRA” often used as a proxy term for–and actually make a difference.
Of course, that would take effort that preaching to the choir doesn’t.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Bloomberg's Disconnect With Rural Realities Beyond Farming

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a special , special person .
And yes , I mean “ special ” in the euphemistic sense .
The notoriously anti-gun billionaire has surged in the Democratic polls in recent weeks , sitting in third place as of this writing , boasting a nearly two-point lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
The former Republican appears to be making a serious splash among Democratic voters .
However , comments from Bloomberg surfaced over the weekend that may well shoot him in the foot .
Bloomberg , talking about information technology , argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more gray matter ” to do IT than to farm .
Says a man who has never even had so much as a vegetable garden .
You see , if he had , he ’ d have learned that agriculture is a lot more involved than just dig a hole , drop in a seed , cover it up , and water it from time to time .
There ’ s a whole lot more than that .
Being a farmer means more than just planting corn , it means being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , what that white fuzzy-looking stuff is , how to get rid of those , when to irrigate , when not to irrigate , when to fertilize , when not to fertilize , how to repair your equipment , how to navigate the legal side of agriculture , and so on .
And this is the stuff I know just from looking at farming from the outside .
I ’ ve never actually been a farmer .
I ’ ve just talked to a few ; enough so I have an idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it .
So , by now , you ’ re asking what this has to do with guns other than showing the money man for every gun-grabbing group is a jackass ?
Well , wouldn ’ t that really be enough ?
Of course , it ’ s not the only reason I ’ m touching on this today , though .
No , it ’ s because his lack of understanding about agriculture–probably the most important industry in world history–stems from a similar place as his staunch anti-gun stance .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he thinks farming is for stupid people , that they can ’ t comprehend information technology , just like he thinks rural areas support gun rights because they ’ re just too stupid to know what ’ s good for them .
They need their betters such as himself to tell them what to do .
He thinks he ’ s the smartest person in the room , and he ’ s not .
After all , the smartest person in the room would at least understand that agriculture is far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that a city like New York has a much larger police department than Podunk County , Nebraska .
While the NYPD has more officers than many towns have residents , Podunk County has Joe on patrol in the middle of the night .
Of course , Podunk County also had a murder last year while the NYPD started investigating one last night .
Honestly , the two places are quite different .
They may follow the same federal laws and speak the same language while sharing at least some of the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same thing .
The challenges in a place like mythical Podunk County are quite different than somewhere like New York City .
Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that .
The fact that Bloomberg can ’ t illustrates that he just doesn ’ t get “ flyover country ” at all .
If he can ’ t understand something as critically vital as farming as more than just digging a hole and dropping a seed , it ’ s unlikely he ’ ll ever understand how anyone not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or need a firearm .
As for the constitutional protection of the right to do so , remember that this is the man who banned the Big Gulp .
Do you really think he understands rights , either ?

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a special, special person. And yes, I mean “special” in the euphemistic sense.
The notoriously anti-gun billionaire has surged in the Democratic polls in recent weeks, sitting in third place as of this writing, boasting a nearly two-point lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The former Republican appears to be making a serious splash among Democratic voters.
However, comments from Bloomberg surfaced over the weekend that may well shoot him in the foot.
Bloomberg on why farmers can’t work in information technology MB: “I can teach anyone how to be a farmer 1 dig a hole 2 put a seed in 3 put dirt on top 4 add water 5 up comes the corn” The skill 4information technology is completely different you need more grey matter#farmers pic.twitter.com/HM13tA6goz — Pete (@PeterMentes) February 15, 2020
Bloomberg, talking about information technology, argued “you have to have a lot more gray matter” to do IT than to farm.
Says a man who has never even had so much as a vegetable garden.
You see, if he had, he’d have learned that agriculture is a lot more involved than just dig a hole, drop in a seed, cover it up, and water it from time to time. There’s a whole lot more than that. Being a farmer means more than just planting corn, it means being able to understand what those spots on the leaves mean, what that white fuzzy-looking stuff is, how to get rid of those, when to irrigate, when not to irrigate, when to fertilize, when not to fertilize, how to repair your equipment, how to navigate the legal side of agriculture, and so on.
And this is the stuff I know just from looking at farming from the outside. I’ve never actually been a farmer. I’ve just talked to a few; enough so I have an idea that there’s a lot more to it.
So, by now, you’re asking what this has to do with guns other than showing the money man for every gun-grabbing group is a jackass? Well, wouldn’t that really be enough?
Of course, it’s not the only reason I’m touching on this today, though. No, it’s because his lack of understanding about agriculture–probably the most important industry in world history–stems from a similar place as his staunch anti-gun stance. That place is urban elitism.
You see, he thinks farming is for stupid people, that they can’t comprehend information technology, just like he thinks rural areas support gun rights because they’re just too stupid to know what’s good for them. They need their betters such as himself to tell them what to do.
He thinks he’s the smartest person in the room, and he’s not.
After all, the smartest person in the room would at least understand that agriculture is far more than that. They’d also understand that a city like New York has a much larger police department than Podunk County, Nebraska. While the NYPD has more officers than many towns have residents, Podunk County has Joe on patrol in the middle of the night.
Of course, Podunk County also had a murder last year while the NYPD started investigating one last night.
Honestly, the two places are quite different. They may follow the same federal laws and speak the same language while sharing at least some of the same culture, but they’re not the same thing. The challenges in a place like mythical Podunk County are quite different than somewhere like New York City.
Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that. The fact that Bloomberg can’t illustrates that he just doesn’t get “flyover country” at all.
If he can’t understand something as critically vital as farming as more than just digging a hole and dropping a seed, it’s unlikely he’ll ever understand how anyone not surrounded by security 24/7 could ever want or need a firearm.
As for the constitutional protection of the right to do so, remember that this is the man who banned the Big Gulp. Do you really think he understands rights, either?


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Breaking: Northam's Gun Ban Bill Rejected By Senate Committee

Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban was defeated in the state senate ’ s Judiciary Committee Monday morning in front of a crowd of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters .
Four Democrats joined every Republican on the committee in rejecting HB961 , which had narrowly advanced out of the House of Delegates just before a legislative deadline last week .
Committee chairman John Edwards joined fellow Democrats Chap Petersen , Creigh Deeds , Scott Surovell , and every Republican on the committee to send the bill to the Virginia Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill ’ s chances for this legislative session .
The gun ban bill was the first on the docket for the Judiciary Committee , and GOP members grilled bill sponsor Del .
Mark Levine over his definition of an “ assault weapon , ” the arbitrary ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than twelve rounds , and other aspects of the legislation .
“ This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional , ” claimed Levine , noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland , the 4th Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment .
What Levine didn ’ t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn ’ t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns .
Gov .
Northam ’ s director of public safety , Brian Moran , also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well , calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “ weapons of war.
” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , the guns that would have been banned under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles in the United States today , and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment .
Levine also claimed that HB961 didn ’ t “ infringe on anyone ’ s rights , ” though it absolutely would have infringed on the rights of those Virginians who would seek to purchase one of these firearms , magazines , or suppressors after the ban went into effect .
Additionally , any owner of a magazine defined as “ high capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misdemeanor if they continued to possess the magazines they currently own .
While the gun , magazine , and suppressor bill is dead for this legislative session , it will almost surely be back again next year , and in the meantime Gov .
Northam will likely get a chance to sign several gun control bills , including measures that would roll back the state ’ s firearm preemption law , change training requirements for concealed carry licensees , and more .
Still , Virginia gun owners can rightfully be pleased and proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat HB961 , which was the centerpiece of Gov .
Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda .
Even as the bill was watered down to attract the support of House Democrats , four Democrats in the state Senate ( the three mentioned above as well as Sen. Lywood Lewis ) continued to voice their concern or reservations about the legislation .
We still have a long way to go and some dark days ahead of us in terms of our Second Amendment rights in Virginia , but at least for today we can take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lap over the defeat of Ralph Northam ’ s gun , magazine , and suppressor ban .

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban was defeated in the state senate’s Judiciary Committee Monday morning in front of a crowd of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Four Democrats joined every Republican on the committee in rejecting HB961, which had narrowly advanced out of the House of Delegates just before a legislative deadline last week.
Committee chairman John Edwards joined fellow Democrats Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds, Scott Surovell, and every Republican on the committee to send the bill to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study, which kills the bill’s chances for this legislative session.
The gun ban bill was the first on the docket for the Judiciary Committee, and GOP members grilled bill sponsor Del. Mark Levine over his definition of an “assault weapon,” the arbitrary ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than twelve rounds, and other aspects of the legislation.
“This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional,” claimed Levine, noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that so-called assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. What Levine didn’t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns.
Gov. Northam’s director of public safety, Brian Moran, also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well, calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “weapons of war.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns that would have been banned under the bill are the most commonly manufactured rifles in the United States today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.
Levine also claimed that HB961 didn’t “infringe on anyone’s rights,” though it absolutely would have infringed on the rights of those Virginians who would seek to purchase one of these firearms, magazines, or suppressors after the ban went into effect. Additionally, any owner of a magazine defined as “high capacity” would have been guilty of a misdemeanor if they continued to possess the magazines they currently own.
While the gun, magazine, and suppressor bill is dead for this legislative session, it will almost surely be back again next year, and in the meantime Gov. Northam will likely get a chance to sign several gun control bills, including measures that would roll back the state’s firearm preemption law, change training requirements for concealed carry licensees, and more.
Still, Virginia gun owners can rightfully be pleased and proud that their activism and engagement helped to defeat HB961, which was the centerpiece of Gov. Northam’s anti-gun agenda. Even as the bill was watered down to attract the support of House Democrats, four Democrats in the state Senate (the three mentioned above as well as Sen. Lywood Lewis) continued to voice their concern or reservations about the legislation.
We still have a long way to go and some dark days ahead of us in terms of our Second Amendment rights in Virginia, but at least for today we can take a deep breath and a quick victory lap over the defeat of Ralph Northam’s gun, magazine, and suppressor ban.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Cuomo Doubles Up On Anti-Gun Agenda

Cuomo Doubles Up On Anti-Gun Agenda

Anti-gun groups love to present themselves as non-partisan .
They want you to believe that gun control is a non-partisan issue , that it ’ s something that transcends political lines .
That people on both sides of the aisle or on neither side alike support their “ sensible gun safety ” policies .
Of course , it ’ s all a bunch of male bovine excrement .
While there are exceptions on either side , the lines are mostly pretty clear .
If you have Democrats in power , you end up with gun control .
Just look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a particularly pro-gun state anyway , Democrats now have the state senate in their grasp .
The result , Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s personal holy war against state residents ’ civil liberties has stepped up a few notches .
Gov .
Andrew M. Cuomo is proposing six gun control bills in his budget and more than two dozen more are active in the legislature this first election year since Republicans lost the State Senate majority and the power to block firearms measures .
“ We should not deny our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been granted to us , of controlling both houses and the governor ’ s office , to pass tough measures of gun control in this session , ” said Assmb .
Felix Ortiz ( D-Brooklyn ) , who has sponsored several gun control bills .
“ I would say this can be one of the biggest years when you go to the history book , ” Ortiz said in an interview .
“ New York State will finally be able to move forward to have real gun control reforms in place.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would bar individuals who can ’ t legally possess a firearm from buying separate parts , then assembling an untraceable gun or shotgun .
• Authorizing courts to seize guns from the scene of a domestic violence incident .
• Denying firearm permits and licenses to an applicant who committed certain misdemeanors deemed serious in another state .
Current law already denies permits and licenses to New Yorkers if they commit serious misdemeanors within New York .
• Requiring all crime gun data including ballistic records to be kept in a centralized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Sharing “ flags ” of mental health concerns about gun owners to officials in other states .
• Creating a “ domestic violence misdemeanor ” that could deny firearms from an abuser upon conviction .
Of course , none of this is particularly new .
Cuomo is a lot of things , but “ creative ” isn ’ t really one of them , apparently .
He ’ s marching to the Bloomberg-funded drum and doing as he ’ s told .
Again , though , this isn ’ t all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
No , not by a longshot .
This is just what Cuomo is pushing .
His fellow travelers in the state also are pushing gun control as well .
In New York , other active bills in the legislature would add a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of rifles and shotguns ; prohibit any child younger than 12 from attending gun shows ; adopt “ Nicholas ’ Law ” to require firearms to be locked away when not in use ; create the “ Safe Homes Act ” that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic violence until a court decides they should be returned ; require a gun violence prevention program in schools ; prohibit many .50-caliber rifles ; and provide tax credits for purchasing gun safety equipment such as safes .
This is what they want to pass in New York .
What ’ s worse is that I expect a lot of this to actually go through .
I sincerely hope even New York won ’ t stoop to banning kids from attending gun shows with their parents–they can see R-rated movies with their parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to commit violence by bad people , but not a place where guns are simply on display ?
Sure .
That makes perfect sense–but I can ’ t say definitively that they won ’ t .
Yes , things are just that bad .
If you ’ re a New Yorker , you need to make your voices heard .
With a bit of luck , you can stop this insanity .
For those of us in pro-gun states , reach out and do what you can to help our brothers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They need help , so let ’ s give it to them .

Anti-gun groups love to present themselves as non-partisan. They want you to believe that gun control is a non-partisan issue, that it’s something that transcends political lines. That people on both sides of the aisle or on neither side alike support their “sensible gun safety” policies.
Of course, it’s all a bunch of male bovine excrement. While there are exceptions on either side, the lines are mostly pretty clear. If you have Democrats in power, you end up with gun control.
Just look at Virginia.
In New York, which isn’t a particularly pro-gun state anyway, Democrats now have the state senate in their grasp. The result, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s personal holy war against state residents’ civil liberties has stepped up a few notches.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is proposing six gun control bills in his budget and more than two dozen more are active in the legislature this first election year since Republicans lost the State Senate majority and the power to block firearms measures. “We should not deny our communities and our state this opportunity that has been granted to us, of controlling both houses and the governor’s office, to pass tough measures of gun control in this session,” said Assmb. Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn), who has sponsored several gun control bills. “I would say this can be one of the biggest years when you go to the history book,” Ortiz said in an interview. “New York State will finally be able to move forward to have real gun control reforms in place.” … This year, Cuomo proposes: Prohibiting “ghost guns,” which would bar individuals who can’t legally possess a firearm from buying separate parts, then assembling an untraceable gun or shotgun.
Authorizing courts to seize guns from the scene of a domestic violence incident.
Denying firearm permits and licenses to an applicant who committed certain misdemeanors deemed serious in another state. Current law already denies permits and licenses to New Yorkers if they commit serious misdemeanors within New York.
Requiring all crime gun data including ballistic records to be kept in a centralized database for use by law enforcement.
Sharing “flags” of mental health concerns about gun owners to officials in other states.
Creating a “domestic violence misdemeanor” that could deny firearms from an abuser upon conviction.
Of course, none of this is particularly new. Cuomo is a lot of things, but “creative” isn’t really one of them, apparently. He’s marching to the Bloomberg-funded drum and doing as he’s told.
Again, though, this isn’t all that’s being pushed in New York state.
No, not by a longshot. This is just what Cuomo is pushing. His fellow travelers in the state also are pushing gun control as well.
In New York, other active bills in the legislature would add a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of rifles and shotguns; prohibit any child younger than 12 from attending gun shows; adopt “Nicholas’ Law” to require firearms to be locked away when not in use; create the “Safe Homes Act” that would immediately remove firearms from the site of domestic violence until a court decides they should be returned; require a gun violence prevention program in schools; prohibit many .50-caliber rifles; and provide tax credits for purchasing gun safety equipment such as safes.
Seriously.
This is what they want to pass in New York. What’s worse is that I expect a lot of this to actually go through. I sincerely hope even New York won’t stoop to banning kids from attending gun shows with their parents–they can see R-rated movies with their parents, plenty of which feature guns being used to commit violence by bad people, but not a place where guns are simply on display? Sure. That makes perfect sense–but I can’t say definitively that they won’t.
Yes, things are just that bad.
If you’re a New Yorker, you need to make your voices heard. With a bit of luck, you can stop this insanity.
For those of us in pro-gun states, reach out and do what you can to help our brothers and sisters in New York battle this. They need help, so let’s give it to them.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--How A Nashville Murder Can Lead To Gun Control

Everyone sees how a mass shooting can lead to calls for gun control .
Yes , most of the time the gun control being called for would have done nothing to prevent the mass shooting in question , but when has that actually mattered to an anti-gun politician ?
What matters is that we can usually see the connection , even anticipate it .
However , it doesn ’ t take a mass shooting to result in calls for gun control .
All it takes is one murder with a high enough profile to change the opinion of enough people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If every bullet has a story , the bullet that killed a Nashville musician may speak volumes .
An exclusive NewsChannel 5 investigation traced the guns used against Kyle Yorlets – and discovered that both weapons were stolen from unlocked cars .
Critics say the Yorlets case – as well as other murders reviewed by NewsChannel 5 Investigates – reveals a story about a Broken system that lets kids get easy access to guns .
Gun rights advocates oppose any effort to force gun owners to be more responsible .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry a gun , but there are responsibilities that go along with that , ” Kyle ’ s father , Larry Yorlets , told NewsChannel 5 Investigates .
Of course , the “ effort to force gun owners to be more responsible ” is a measure that actually punishes people who have their guns stolen .
It ’ s a measure that blames the victims of a crime for being a victim .
That said , though , stories like this can gain traction .
If enough attention is shed on this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
Tennessee has preemption , so Nashville can ’ t really do anything on its own , but it wouldn ’ t be difficult to imagine the scenario playing out where the state enforces mandatory storage laws to hold off the negative press .
And why ?
Because a small handful of people were irresponsible .
I ’ m sorry , but leaving a gun in an unlocked car isn ’ t just irresponsible , it ’ s downright idiotic .
That handful of people may well make it so the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fallout from their stupidity .
And yes , I am victim-blaming to some extent .
Sure , the fault lies with the turdnuggets who stole the guns in the first place , but I ’ m not going to pretend that there ’ s no responsibility for the turdnugget who left an unsecured firearm in their unlocked car , either .
Folks , don ’ t do that kind of thing .
I get finding yourself needing to leave your gun in the car .
I suspect we ’ ve all been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference is , the rest of us lock our freaking cars .
Look , if you don ’ t care anything about those guns being used to take innocent life , at least lock the car up so you don ’ t lose your gun .
Those things aren ’ t exactly cheap .
The problem , though , is that I shouldn ’ t have to say this .
No one should have to say not to leave your weapon in an unlocked car .
The fact that some people do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s people like that who end up saddling us with gun control laws .

Everyone sees how a mass shooting can lead to calls for gun control. Yes, most of the time the gun control being called for would have done nothing to prevent the mass shooting in question, but when has that actually mattered to an anti-gun politician? What matters is that we can usually see the connection, even anticipate it.
However, it doesn’t take a mass shooting to result in calls for gun control. All it takes is one murder with a high enough profile to change the opinion of enough people.
Take this example out of Nashville.
If every bullet has a story, the bullet that killed a Nashville musician may speak volumes. An exclusive NewsChannel 5 investigation traced the guns used against Kyle Yorlets – and discovered that both weapons were stolen from unlocked cars. Critics say the Yorlets case – as well as other murders reviewed by NewsChannel 5 Investigates – reveals a story about a Broken system that lets kids get easy access to guns. Gun rights advocates oppose any effort to force gun owners to be more responsible. “I’m all for being able to carry a gun, but there are responsibilities that go along with that,” Kyle’s father, Larry Yorlets, told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.
Of course, the “effort to force gun owners to be more responsible” is a measure that actually punishes people who have their guns stolen. It’s a measure that blames the victims of a crime for being a victim.
That said, though, stories like this can gain traction. If enough attention is shed on this, it may be enough to force the issue.
Tennessee has preemption, so Nashville can’t really do anything on its own, but it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine the scenario playing out where the state enforces mandatory storage laws to hold off the negative press.
And why? Because a small handful of people were irresponsible. I’m sorry, but leaving a gun in an unlocked car isn’t just irresponsible, it’s downright idiotic. That handful of people may well make it so the rest of the state has to deal with the fallout from their stupidity.
And yes, I am victim-blaming to some extent. Sure, the fault lies with the turdnuggets who stole the guns in the first place, but I’m not going to pretend that there’s no responsibility for the turdnugget who left an unsecured firearm in their unlocked car, either.
Folks, don’t do that kind of thing. I get finding yourself needing to leave your gun in the car. I suspect we’ve all been there from time to time. The difference is, the rest of us lock our freaking cars. Look, if you don’t care anything about those guns being used to take innocent life, at least lock the car up so you don’t lose your gun. Those things aren’t exactly cheap.
The problem, though, is that I shouldn’t have to say this. No one should have to say not to leave your weapon in an unlocked car. The fact that some people do it infuriates me to no end.
It’s people like that who end up saddling us with gun control laws.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--VA House Dems Punish Senator Who Helped Kill Northam Gun Ban Bill

As a Virginia gun owner who would love nothing more than to watch an intra-party fight between Democrats over how far to push their anti-gun agenda , more of this please .
Friedenberger ’ s the state capitol correspondent for the Roanoke Times , and she ’ s one of the only reporters I ’ ve seen that ’ s covered this act of political pettiness on the part of House Democrats angry that their gun ban bill was killed in a Senate committee this week , though the Virginia Mercury ‘ s Graham Moomaw noted that Petersen , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News to defend his vote .
For House Democrats , that ’ s almost as bad as his vote on HB961 .
Killing Sen. Petersen ’ s bill that passed unanimously out of the state Senate is an act of pure political pettiness on the part of House Democrats , but Petersen won ’ t be impacted .
Instead , it will be part-time law enforcement officers who bear the brunt of the anti-gun Democrats ’ willingness to play games with public safety .
House Democrats aimed for Petersen but ended up hitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send a message to Petersen that he ’ s going to pay a political price for his intransigence .
Will House Democrats also target bills by Sen. John Edwards , who chaired the Judiciary Committee that sent HB961 off to the Virginia Crime Commission to be studied instead of voting to pass the gun ban ?
What about Sen. Creigh Deeds , the Democrat who was the one to propose letting the VCC study the bill instead of lawmakers voting on it ?
If not , why not ?
They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temper tantrum they threw on Tuesday morning .
Why stop now ?
We have about three weeks left in the legislative session , and the more in-fighting among Senate and House Democrats the better .
Many of the gun control proposals passed by the state Senate have been modified by the House of Delegates , and they ’ ll likely end up in a conference committee to hash out the differences .
I suspect that behind closed doors , Democrats will work for a way to come to an agreement on the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give me a little bit of hope that the rancor will last long enough to kill the momentum for at least a few more of Ralph Northam ’ s gun control proposals , whether its in a conference committee or even on the Senate floor .
We ’ ve already seen the state Senate vote down a bill dealing with lost-or-stolen firearms , as well as Senate committee reject a bill that would have criminalized parents allowing their 17-year old daughter access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , and those versions will likely be considered in Senate committees in coming days .
There are also major differences in the “ red flag ” bills passed by both the House and Senate , as well as legislation that would remove some of the firearms preemption language in state law .
In both cases , the House version is worse than the Senate language , though in neither case did the Senate approve bills that would be supportable by Second Amendment advocates .
In fact , on Wednesday ’ s Bearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be sharing an interview I did today with Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins , and we spent quite a bit of time talking about the red flag proposals and why the sheriff believes the measure doesn ’ t just infringe on the rights of Virginians , but fails to address or even acknowledge the crisis in the state ’ s mental health system .
Be sure to check out the interview tomorrow , and in the meantime , stay tuned for more tales of Democrat disunity from the Virginia state capitol .

As a Virginia gun owner who would love nothing more than to watch an intra-party fight between Democrats over how far to push their anti-gun agenda, more of this please.
People in the room — including gun control advocates who liked the bill — believe Democrats killed it because Petersen voted against the assault weapons bill yesterday https://t.co/jm9L9aoZD2 — Amy Friedenberger (@AJFriedenberger) February 18, 2020
Friedenberger’s the state capitol correspondent for the Roanoke Times, and she’s one of the only reporters I’ve seen that’s covered this act of political pettiness on the part of House Democrats angry that their gun ban bill was killed in a Senate committee this week, though the Virginia Mercury‘s Graham Moomaw noted that Petersen, a northern Virginia Democrat, appeared on Fox News to defend his vote. For House Democrats, that’s almost as bad as his vote on HB961.
Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, went on Fox and Friends this morning to explain why he voted against the assault weapon bill. “I was surprised, frankly, that the bill came over from the House of Delegates,” he sayshttps://t.co/ptZXyeXR6W — Graham Moomaw (@gmoomaw) February 18, 2020
Killing Sen. Petersen’s bill that passed unanimously out of the state Senate is an act of pure political pettiness on the part of House Democrats, but Petersen won’t be impacted. Instead, it will be part-time law enforcement officers who bear the brunt of the anti-gun Democrats’ willingness to play games with public safety. House Democrats aimed for Petersen but ended up hitting Virginia residents, all because they wanted to send a message to Petersen that he’s going to pay a political price for his intransigence.
Will House Democrats also target bills by Sen. John Edwards, who chaired the Judiciary Committee that sent HB961 off to the Virginia Crime Commission to be studied instead of voting to pass the gun ban? What about Sen. Creigh Deeds, the Democrat who was the one to propose letting the VCC study the bill instead of lawmakers voting on it? If not, why not? They’ve already demonstrated their petulance with the political temper tantrum they threw on Tuesday morning. Why stop now?
We have about three weeks left in the legislative session, and the more in-fighting among Senate and House Democrats the better. Many of the gun control proposals passed by the state Senate have been modified by the House of Delegates, and they’ll likely end up in a conference committee to hash out the differences. I suspect that behind closed doors, Democrats will work for a way to come to an agreement on the gun control bills, but stories like this give me a little bit of hope that the rancor will last long enough to kill the momentum for at least a few more of Ralph Northam’s gun control proposals, whether its in a conference committee or even on the Senate floor.
We’ve already seen the state Senate vote down a bill dealing with lost-or-stolen firearms, as well as Senate committee reject a bill that would have criminalized parents allowing their 17-year old daughter access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone. Similar measures have passed the House, however, and those versions will likely be considered in Senate committees in coming days.
There are also major differences in the “red flag” bills passed by both the House and Senate, as well as legislation that would remove some of the firearms preemption language in state law. In both cases, the House version is worse than the Senate language, though in neither case did the Senate approve bills that would be supportable by Second Amendment advocates.
In fact, on Wednesday’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co I’ll be sharing an interview I did today with Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins, and we spent quite a bit of time talking about the red flag proposals and why the sheriff believes the measure doesn’t just infringe on the rights of Virginians, but fails to address or even acknowledge the crisis in the state’s mental health system. Be sure to check out the interview tomorrow, and in the meantime, stay tuned for more tales of Democrat disunity from the Virginia state capitol.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--Bloomberg Makes Debate Stage, But Gun Control Won't Be An Issue

Michael Bloomberg will appear with his fellow Democratic presidential candidates on a debate stage for the first time Wednesday night in Nevada , thanks to a new poll that shows him at 19 % support among Democrat voters .
That poll means Bloomberg now meets the revised debate criteria , and it also means Wednesday night ’ s debate will now largely be a series of attacks on Bloomberg from all the other candidates on the debate stage .
Bernie Sanders will try to use the debate as an opportunity to paint a stark contrast , not only between his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embrace of capitalism ( though Sanders might have some fun dinging Bloomberg for cozying up to the Communist leader of China ) .
Joe Biden will try to convince the audience that he , not former Republican Michael Bloomberg , should be the standard-bearer for the establishment wing of the Democrat Party .
Elizabeth Warren , Amy Klobuchar , and Pete Buttigieg , meanwhile , will all be taking potshots at Bloomberg to remind voters that they ’ re still actively campaigning .
Bloomberg will likely be confronted on a number of issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his repeated history of comments to female Bloomberg employees , but don ’ t expect any candidate to target Bloomberg for his anti-gun agenda and the hundreds of millions of dollars he ’ s spent in a decades-long effort to strip American citizens of their right to keep and bear arms .
The candidates may take issue with how Bloomberg enforced his gun control laws , but they won ’ t say a thing about the gun laws themselves .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll numbers and why gun owners have billions of reasons to be concerned about his candidacy , but the truth is every candidate on stage Wednesday evening is just as committed to turning your right to keep and bear arms into a privilege .
Yes , Bloomberg has put a lot of money behind his anti-gun agenda , but it ’ s not like he ever felt the pinch in his wallet because he dug a little too deep to support his causes .
From Biden to Warren , however , virtually all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things he does ; an “ assault weapons ban , ” red flag laws , some form of licensing laws , and allowing firearms manufacturers to be sued out of existence for the third-party actions of violent criminals .
If elected , any one of them would try to do untold damage to the Second Amendment , whether through anti-gun legislation , executive actions , or even packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun judges .
Also on today ’ s program we take a look at a growing problem in Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of parolees who ’ ve absconded from the terms of their release .
While New York politicians like Andrew Cuomo , Bill de Blasio , and Bloomberg have law-abiding gun owners in their sights , they ’ re ignoring the real problems in the state ’ s criminal justice system that are allowing thousands of offenders to roam free .
Plus , we also have today ’ s armed citizen story and a heartwarming good deed from Chattanooga , Tennessee .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Townhall Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the other major podcast platforms .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Michael Bloomberg will appear with his fellow Democratic presidential candidates on a debate stage for the first time Wednesday night in Nevada, thanks to a new poll that shows him at 19% support among Democrat voters. That poll means Bloomberg now meets the revised debate criteria, and it also means Wednesday night’s debate will now largely be a series of attacks on Bloomberg from all the other candidates on the debate stage.
Bernie Sanders will try to use the debate as an opportunity to paint a stark contrast, not only between his brand of socialism and Bloomberg’s embrace of capitalism (though Sanders might have some fun dinging Bloomberg for cozying up to the Communist leader of China). Joe Biden will try to convince the audience that he, not former Republican Michael Bloomberg, should be the standard-bearer for the establishment wing of the Democrat Party. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, will all be taking potshots at Bloomberg to remind voters that they’re still actively campaigning.
Bloomberg will likely be confronted on a number of issues, including his support for stop-and-frisk and his repeated history of comments to female Bloomberg employees, but don’t expect any candidate to target Bloomberg for his anti-gun agenda and the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s spent in a decades-long effort to strip American citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. The candidates may take issue with how Bloomberg enforced his gun control laws, but they won’t say a thing about the gun laws themselves.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we break down the rise in Bloomberg’s poll numbers and why gun owners have billions of reasons to be concerned about his candidacy, but the truth is every candidate on stage Wednesday evening is just as committed to turning your right to keep and bear arms into a privilege. Yes, Bloomberg has put a lot of money behind his anti-gun agenda, but it’s not like he ever felt the pinch in his wallet because he dug a little too deep to support his causes.
From Biden to Warren, however, virtually all of the other candidates back the same things he does; an “assault weapons ban,” red flag laws, some form of licensing laws, and allowing firearms manufacturers to be sued out of existence for the third-party actions of violent criminals. If elected, any one of them would try to do untold damage to the Second Amendment, whether through anti-gun legislation, executive actions, or even packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun judges.
Also on today’s program we take a look at a growing problem in Bloomberg’s New York; an increasing number of parolees who’ve absconded from the terms of their release. While New York politicians like Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, and Bloomberg have law-abiding gun owners in their sights, they’re ignoring the real problems in the state’s criminal justice system that are allowing thousands of offenders to roam free.
Plus, we also have today’s armed citizen story and a heartwarming good deed from Chattanooga, Tennessee. Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Townhall Media on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or any of the other major podcast platforms. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-18--Is Constitutional Carry Likely To Pass In Alabama?

The Deep South is known for being very pro-gun .
It ’ s not surprising , really .
Guns tend to follow rural politics and the South is known for rural areas .
While they have their share of metropolises , they also have a lot more people making a living outside of those urban enclaves .
As a result , they tend to be pretty pro-gun .
Yet of the states that made up the Confederacy , only Louisiana and Arkansas are constitutional carry states .
However , a bill in Alabama was filed to hopefully change that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s got a hope in hell of passing .
Alabama [ Speaker of the ] House Mac McCutcheon , R-Monrovia , discussed gun legislation that could appear before the House of Representatives this year .
In past sessions , constitutional carry legislation has made it out of the Alabama Senate , but stalls in the House .
This year , Rep. Andrew Sorrell , R-Muscle Shoals , is carrying the bill in the House .
APR asked McCutcheon whether he anticipates it passing this time .
“ The mood would tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past , ” McCutcheon said .
“ There is a bill out there now for a lifetime carry permit and a procedural check for a permit.
” McCutcheon said that under that bill a state database would be used for granting concealed carry permits instead of a local database .
Each sheriff of each county would be doing things the same way by ALEA ( the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency ) being involved in this .
McCutcheon said that the House is “ taking a very serious look at that bill.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and State Representative Proncey Robertson , R-Mt .
Hope , pre-filed the lifetime permit bill that would establish a cohesive and statewide management level process for administering and managing concealed weapons permits in the state of Alabama .
The National Rifle Association has endorsed this legislation .
The procedural bill was in response to several sheriffs apparently not conducting any kind of background check prior to issuing permits to residents in their counties .
As a result , the ATF made it so Alabama carry permits could not be shown to skip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchases .
That ’ s probably why the NRA is backing it .
However , the downside is that with all the attention going toward these bills , there ’ s apparently no interest in pursuing constitutional carry .
The truth is , one shouldn ’ t interfere with the other .
Make the permits available for people who want them for gun purchases or for those who travel and want to take advantage of reciprocity .
For others , constitutional carry should be the rule of the day .
No one should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoops to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights .
No , it doesn ’ t look like Alabama is going to pass any gun control , but I do also have to say that at some point , just not passing gun control can ’ t be deemed acceptable .
Sure , in a contentious state where that ’ s taking all your effort , then yeah , holding the line is noble and worthy .
However , that ’ s not happening in Alabama .
They ’ re not that evenly divided on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to talk about state lawmakers in places like Alabama and my own Georgia where they seem completely uninterested in passing pro-gun laws .
Are they really pro-gun , or are they just not anti-gun enough to upset the status quo ?

The Deep South is known for being very pro-gun. It’s not surprising, really. Guns tend to follow rural politics and the South is known for rural areas. While they have their share of metropolises, they also have a lot more people making a living outside of those urban enclaves. As a result, they tend to be pretty pro-gun.
Yet of the states that made up the Confederacy, only Louisiana and Arkansas are constitutional carry states.
However, a bill in Alabama was filed to hopefully change that. Unfortunately, some don’t think it’s got a hope in hell of passing.
Alabama [Speaker of the] House Mac McCutcheon, R-Monrovia, discussed gun legislation that could appear before the House of Representatives this year. In past sessions, constitutional carry legislation has made it out of the Alabama Senate, but stalls in the House. This year, Rep. Andrew Sorrell, R-Muscle Shoals, is carrying the bill in the House. APR asked McCutcheon whether he anticipates it passing this time. “The mood would tend to be the same that it was in the past,” McCutcheon said. “There is a bill out there now for a lifetime carry permit and a procedural check for a permit.” McCutcheon said that under that bill a state database would be used for granting concealed carry permits instead of a local database. Each sheriff of each county would be doing things the same way by ALEA (the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency) being involved in this. McCutcheon said that the House is “taking a very serious look at that bill.” State Sen. Randy Price, R-Opelika, and State Representative Proncey Robertson, R-Mt. Hope, pre-filed the lifetime permit bill that would establish a cohesive and statewide management level process for administering and managing concealed weapons permits in the state of Alabama. The National Rifle Association has endorsed this legislation.
The procedural bill was in response to several sheriffs apparently not conducting any kind of background check prior to issuing permits to residents in their counties. As a result, the ATF made it so Alabama carry permits could not be shown to skip the federally mandated background check for firearm purchases.
That’s probably why the NRA is backing it.
However, the downside is that with all the attention going toward these bills, there’s apparently no interest in pursuing constitutional carry.
That’s a shame.
The truth is, one shouldn’t interfere with the other. Make the permits available for people who want them for gun purchases or for those who travel and want to take advantage of reciprocity. For others, constitutional carry should be the rule of the day. No one should have to jump through those kinds of hoops to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights.
No, it doesn’t look like Alabama is going to pass any gun control, but I do also have to say that at some point, just not passing gun control can’t be deemed acceptable. Sure, in a contentious state where that’s taking all your effort, then yeah, holding the line is noble and worthy. However, that’s not happening in Alabama. They’re not that evenly divided on the issue.
So at some point, we need to talk about state lawmakers in places like Alabama and my own Georgia where they seem completely uninterested in passing pro-gun laws. Are they really pro-gun, or are they just not anti-gun enough to upset the status quo?


bearingarms--2020-02-18--UConn Hosts 2A Panel With No Second Amendment Advocates

On any important but controversial topic , there ’ s bound to be some debate .
Guns and gun control is an important topic , and since it ’ s also a controversial topic , you know there ’ s going to be debate surrounding proposals of any stripe .
As such , some parties want to facilitate that debate .
Other parties , however , want to look like they ’ re facilitating debate while actually giving a soapbox to just one side .
A prime example of that is the University of Connecticut .
They hosted a panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parties invited .
Not a single one represents a pro-gun point of view .
Not a soul .
This is how the facilitate debate on the topic ?
Further , the media doesn ’ t call them on it , either .
They enable them to continue selling the lie that what a panel of anti-gun activists have to say is all that needs to be said on a constitutionally-protected right that they ’ re trying to take away from people .
An attorney pushing a lawsuit against a company that did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , someone from an anti-gun group , and a woman who blames guns for her failure to teach her child not to mess with other people ’ s belongings .
These are the people they put on a panel to discuss your rights .
What do you want to bet that they didn ’ t even present a valid pro-gun argument between them , even for the sake of argument ?
That ’ s the problem , though .
They get away with this stuff because so few people are willing to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get that it ’ s Connecticut , but I ’ ve got a couple of friends from there .
Pro-gun people exist in the state .
They just were too lazy to bring them in .
The panel was nothing more than a panel on gun control .
That ’ s it .
That ’ s all it was .
It wasn ’ t even an attempt at presenting both sides of the argument .
They wanted to preach about the evils of guns , all while failing to acknowledge any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , is great for that because a mother ’ s grief tends to be very visceral .
It hits people right in the gut .
However , what real expertise does she have other than losing a child ?
A panel on how to deal with grief might be one thing , but on gun control and the Second Amendment , she has little to offer .
To me , the biggest problem is that UConn gets federal tax dollars .
That means they ’ re funded not just by anti-gunners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in pro-gun states such as myself .
That means the student group used their funding–at least part of which comes from you and me–to host something like this and offer nothing approaching a balanced approach .
And I bet they wonder why so many people on the right think of college campuses as hostile environments .
Between that and what happened at Ohio State University , the real wonder is that any of us send our kids to college .

On any important but controversial topic, there’s bound to be some debate. Guns and gun control is an important topic, and since it’s also a controversial topic, you know there’s going to be debate surrounding proposals of any stripe. As such, some parties want to facilitate that debate.
Other parties, however, want to look like they’re facilitating debate while actually giving a soapbox to just one side.
A prime example of that is the University of Connecticut. They hosted a panel on the Second Amendment recently.
Note the parties invited. Not a single one represents a pro-gun point of view. Not a soul.
This is how the facilitate debate on the topic? Further, the media doesn’t call them on it, either. They enable them to continue selling the lie that what a panel of anti-gun activists have to say is all that needs to be said on a constitutionally-protected right that they’re trying to take away from people.
An attorney pushing a lawsuit against a company that did nothing illegal, a devoted anti-gun senator, someone from an anti-gun group, and a woman who blames guns for her failure to teach her child not to mess with other people’s belongings. These are the people they put on a panel to discuss your rights.
What do you want to bet that they didn’t even present a valid pro-gun argument between them, even for the sake of argument?
I know, sucker’s bet.
That’s the problem, though. They get away with this stuff because so few people are willing to call them on it. I mean, I get that it’s Connecticut, but I’ve got a couple of friends from there. Pro-gun people exist in the state. They just were too lazy to bring them in.
The panel was nothing more than a panel on gun control. That’s it. That’s all it was. It wasn’t even an attempt at presenting both sides of the argument. They wanted to preach about the evils of guns, all while failing to acknowledge any of the real facts.
Karen Song, for example, is great for that because a mother’s grief tends to be very visceral. It hits people right in the gut. However, what real expertise does she have other than losing a child? A panel on how to deal with grief might be one thing, but on gun control and the Second Amendment, she has little to offer.
To me, the biggest problem is that UConn gets federal tax dollars. That means they’re funded not just by anti-gunners in Connecticut, but also by people in pro-gun states such as myself. That means the student group used their funding–at least part of which comes from you and me–to host something like this and offer nothing approaching a balanced approach.
And I bet they wonder why so many people on the right think of college campuses as hostile environments. Between that and what happened at Ohio State University, the real wonder is that any of us send our kids to college.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--Washington State House Passes Gun Grabbing Bill

Washington state is a fairly odd place .
While they ’ re still a “ shall issue ” state for concealed carry permits , they ’ ve otherwise gone full-on gun grabber .
I-1639 was a particularly egregious example of why direct democracy can produce absolutely awful results , but it ’ s far from the whole story .
The truth is , the state doesn ’ t like guns anymore and now they ’ re working to make life difficult for those who disagree .
One such example out there right now is a bill that just made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be one step closer to ordering people subject to vulnerable adult protection orders to surrender their firearms after the House voted 55 to 42 on Friday , Feb. 14 in favor of a bill that expands authority to do so .
House Bill 2305 would allow courts issuing a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order to consider whether a person named as an abuser should surrender their firearms , or concealed carry licence .
“ This bill gives judges the same tools they have for other protection orders to order the surrender of firearms if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the order has used or threatened to use a firearm , ” said the bill ’ s prime sponsor , Beth Doglio , D-Olympia .
Currently , the court can order the surrender of firearms from people subject to other kinds of protection and restraining orders , including domestic violence and stalking , but not for those issued to protect vulnerable adults .
In a House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee hearing for the bill , Rep. Morgan Irwin , R-Enumclaw , asked if the bill brought forth any pre-emptive protections that did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point that firearm surrender orders require previous evidence of threat and that this policy change would not provide legal protections additional to the court protection orders that already exist .
The problem is , if someone is an abuser , they should be arrested and tried in accordance with the law .
I don ’ t think anyone would actually oppose that .
Not in the least .
Instead , though , is we see an effort to strip guns from people who have been convicted of no crime .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that .
They ’ re for something else .
Of course , it should also be noted that all of that should fall under the archaic term “ mentally defective.
” If someone is that unfit , so unfit that they should be denied basic constitutional rights , then the question should be referred to the courts for them to be “ adjudicated as mentally defective.
” The law already holds such persons can not own firearms .
What Washington state is trying to do is work around the existing law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stripped of their firearms without proper due process of law .
Make no mistake , though .
It won ’ t end here .
If this passes , they ’ ll try and create more and more ways people can be stripped of their guns .
They ’ ll use this and previous laws to justify those measures , too .
The thing is , such a law isn ’ t needed .
They just want it not because it ’ s required , but because it makes their life easier while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a gun owner in the state .

Washington state is a fairly odd place. While they’re still a “shall issue” state for concealed carry permits, they’ve otherwise gone full-on gun grabber. I-1639 was a particularly egregious example of why direct democracy can produce absolutely awful results, but it’s far from the whole story. The truth is, the state doesn’t like guns anymore and now they’re working to make life difficult for those who disagree.
One such example out there right now is a bill that just made it through the state House.
Courts could be one step closer to ordering people subject to vulnerable adult protection orders to surrender their firearms after the House voted 55 to 42 on Friday, Feb. 14 in favor of a bill that expands authority to do so. House Bill 2305 would allow courts issuing a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order to consider whether a person named as an abuser should surrender their firearms, or concealed carry licence. “This bill gives judges the same tools they have for other protection orders to order the surrender of firearms if there is evidence that the subject of the order has used or threatened to use a firearm,” said the bill’s prime sponsor, Beth Doglio, D-Olympia. Currently, the court can order the surrender of firearms from people subject to other kinds of protection and restraining orders, including domestic violence and stalking, but not for those issued to protect vulnerable adults. In a House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee hearing for the bill, Rep. Morgan Irwin, R-Enumclaw, asked if the bill brought forth any pre-emptive protections that did not already exist. Irwin raised the point that firearm surrender orders require previous evidence of threat and that this policy change would not provide legal protections additional to the court protection orders that already exist.
The problem is, if someone is an abuser, they should be arrested and tried in accordance with the law. I don’t think anyone would actually oppose that. Not in the least.
Instead, though, is we see an effort to strip guns from people who have been convicted of no crime. Of course, Vulnerable Adult Protection Orders aren’t for that. They’re for something else.
Vulnerable adult protection orders are typically issued for individuals over 60 years of age who are deemed by the court to be unfit to take care of themselves, are legally incompacitated, or have developmental disabilities.
Of course, it should also be noted that all of that should fall under the archaic term “mentally defective.” If someone is that unfit, so unfit that they should be denied basic constitutional rights, then the question should be referred to the courts for them to be “adjudicated as mentally defective.” The law already holds such persons cannot own firearms.
What Washington state is trying to do is work around the existing law, creating more and more ways individuals can be stripped of their firearms without proper due process of law.
Make no mistake, though. It won’t end here. If this passes, they’ll try and create more and more ways people can be stripped of their guns. They’ll use this and previous laws to justify those measures, too.
The thing is, such a law isn’t needed. They just want it not because it’s required, but because it makes their life easier while making it just a bit harder to be a gun owner in the state.


bearingarms--2020-02-18--More Than Half Of NC Counties Now 2A Sanctuaries

Virginia ’ s Second Amendment Sanctuary push that began in late 2019 garnered national news coverage , because of the speed with which dozens of counties adopted the measures , the massive turnout at local government meetings in support of the resolutions , and the anti-gun agenda from Democrats in the state that spurred the movement into existence in the first place .
The continued expansion of Second Amendment Sanctuaries in other states hasn ’ t received nearly as much attention , even though we ’ re seeing some eye-popping results from around the country .
In North Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the counties in the state have now approved Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions of their own , to little fanfare or recognition from national news outlets .
One exception is Public News Service , which wrote about the trend , but for some reason only interviewed opponents of the movement for its story .
Becky Ceartas , executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence – a group tracking the number of Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions passed in the state – says it appears that counties are taking this step in response to gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There was only a handful of these counties before January , ” says Ceartas .
“ We ’ ve seen the majority of these counties pass their resolutions mainly looking towards Virginia and what their General Assembly was about to do in regard to gun safety laws.
” Virginia lawmakers are considering bills to add background checks for private and gun-show sales , and to allow judges to temporarily confiscate guns if a person is found to be an extreme risk .
It may be that anti-gun Democrats in Virginia jump-started the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locals who are showing up in places like Martin County are concerned that their rights could be infringed by lawmakers in their own state , as WNCT-TV recently reported .
Martin County is joining the growing list of counties in the East including Beaufort , Jones , Pamlico , Wayne , and Craven counties .
“ It stated a request to the legislature not to pass restrictions on second amendment rights , ” said David Bone , Martin County manager .
Bone said people are concerned about the gun control measures in Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban assault weapons .
“ Hunting and gun rights are very important to our citizens .
There are a lot of gun owners in Martin County so of course , it ’ s a very important issue to them , ” said Bone .
“ We are so close to the Virginia line there is some concern that that legislation may bleed over into North Carolina.
” Commissioner Ronnie Smith said many citizens spoke in favor of the resolution .
He said the commission ’ s resolution received overwhelming community support .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of people there , they applauded .
So that sends a message to me that we were doing what they would love for us to do , ” said Smith .
The same support was on display in Brunswick County , North Carolina this week as commissioners unanimously approved a resolution declaring the community a “ constitutional protected rights county ” .
Maybe it ’ s better that the national news media has stayed largely away from covering the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in North Carolina .
It seems like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better job of reporting what ’ s taking place than the few national outlets like Public News Service that have run stories on what ’ s happening in counties across the state .

Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuary push that began in late 2019 garnered national news coverage, because of the speed with which dozens of counties adopted the measures, the massive turnout at local government meetings in support of the resolutions, and the anti-gun agenda from Democrats in the state that spurred the movement into existence in the first place.
The continued expansion of Second Amendment Sanctuaries in other states hasn’t received nearly as much attention, even though we’re seeing some eye-popping results from around the country. In North Carolina, for instance, more than half of the counties in the state have now approved Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions of their own, to little fanfare or recognition from national news outlets.
One exception is Public News Service, which wrote about the trend, but for some reason only interviewed opponents of the movement for its story.
Becky Ceartas, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence – a group tracking the number of Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions passed in the state – says it appears that counties are taking this step in response to gun legislation being introduced in neighboring states. “There was only a handful of these counties before January,” says Ceartas. “We’ve seen the majority of these counties pass their resolutions mainly looking towards Virginia and what their General Assembly was about to do in regard to gun safety laws.” Virginia lawmakers are considering bills to add background checks for private and gun-show sales, and to allow judges to temporarily confiscate guns if a person is found to be an extreme risk.
It may be that anti-gun Democrats in Virginia jump-started the movement in North Carolina, but the locals who are showing up in places like Martin County are concerned that their rights could be infringed by lawmakers in their own state, as WNCT-TV recently reported.
Martin County is joining the growing list of counties in the East including Beaufort, Jones, Pamlico, Wayne, and Craven counties. “It stated a request to the legislature not to pass restrictions on second amendment rights,” said David Bone, Martin County manager. Bone said people are concerned about the gun control measures in Virginia where the Governor proposed a bill to ban assault weapons. “Hunting and gun rights are very important to our citizens. There are a lot of gun owners in Martin County so of course, it’s a very important issue to them,” said Bone. “We are so close to the Virginia line there is some concern that that legislation may bleed over into North Carolina.” Commissioner Ronnie Smith said many citizens spoke in favor of the resolution. He said the commission’s resolution received overwhelming community support. “Once we approved it, we had a lot of people there, they applauded. So that sends a message to me that we were doing what they would love for us to do,” said Smith.
The same support was on display in Brunswick County, North Carolina this week as commissioners unanimously approved a resolution declaring the community a “constitutional protected rights county”.
The proposed resolution reaffirms the board of commissioners’ support of the right citizens have to legally possess and use firearms. It also “further pledges to oppose, within the legal means, efforts to unconstitutionally restrict such Second Amendment Rights.” “It just reinforces our support the constitution and telling Brunswick County citizens that they have a right to the second amendment. It’s the law of our land and we will uphold the law of the constitution because we took that oath,” said Brunswick County commissioner Pat Sykes. Many county residents showed up to the meeting in full support of the resolution. Debra Jensen spent most of her life in New York and says she actually moved to North Carolina so her second amendment right could be protected. “I don’t feel like anybody should have to tell me how to be able to protect myself, my family and my friends. I used to be afraid of guns and then I learned how to use them safely. I have a military family and I’m in support of our rights given to us by our forefathers,” Jensen said.
Maybe it’s better that the national news media has stayed largely away from covering the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in North Carolina. It seems like the local TV stations are doing a much better job of reporting what’s taking place than the few national outlets like Public News Service that have run stories on what’s happening in counties across the state.