bearingarms--2020-11-12--Yes, Gun Owners Should Worry About A Biden-Harris Administration

I ’ ve spent quite a bit of time over the past week detailing the potential concerns for gun owners in a Biden/Harris administration , but maybe I ’ ve just been wasting my time .
According to Thomas L. Knapp , the director of the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism , gun owners have nothing to fear from a Biden/Harris administration because Americans already possess an arsenal of hundreds of millions of firearms that they ’ re not going to willingly hand over .
More than 100 million Americans own nearly 400 million guns , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , Americans can build relatively sophisticated weapons with relatively inexpensive machine tools and/or 3D printers , and very basic firearms with items found in most homes .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don ’ t have to like those facts .
They ’ re facts whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris like them or not .
And if they decide to get pushy about it ?
As few as 1 % of those gun owners could , and almost certainly would , make the Civil War look like a day at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , politicians will make impassioned speeches to roust votes and campaign donations out of the ignorant and fearful .
They might even get some token legislation passed for gun owners to ignore and for politicians to ignore gun owners ignoring .
But they know any attempt to impose real “ gun control ” would be political , and possibly literal , suicide .
Going by Knapp ’ s argument , gun owners also shouldn ’ t have been concerned about the Gun Control Act of 1968 , or the 10-year ban on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 1994 crime bill , state-level gun and magazine bans , red flag laws , subjective gun licensing standards , or any other current or proposed gun control law that doesn ’ t involve the attempted mass confiscation of firearms because it ’ s not “ real ” gun control .
That is , in my opinion , an absolutely silly argument .
“ Real ” gun control doesn ’ t just involve confiscation of firearms from legal gun owners ; it also includes any attempt to curtail the average American from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms .
As we reported yesterday , Joe Biden is apparently already looking at ways to impose his ban on AR-15s through the regulatory power of the ATF instead of the legislative power of Congress .
Knapp may not be worried about that , but I am , and you should be too .
Call me crazy , but “ don ’ t worry about gun control because if they try to take our guns we ’ ll just have a civil war ” doesn ’ t sound very soothing .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d like to do everything possible to avoid a civil war in this country .
I agree with Knapp that any attempt at widespread gun confiscation would lead to mass disobedience , but I also believe that most anti-gun activists and politicians are already aware of the fact that millions of gun owners wouldn ’ t bend the knee and hand over their guns .
That ’ s not what they ’ re aiming for at the moment .
While the long-term goal of the gun control movement is to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the short term anti-gun agenda is to reduce the number of legal gun owners through a variety of means ; from gun bans and restrictive licensing laws to increased taxes on firearms and ammunition and making it illegal to purchase ammunition online , with dozens of other proposals in between .
The “ token ” gun control laws that Knapp refers to still come with real consequences for our rights , and gun owners can ’ t simply ignore them .
Or , to put it another way , would Knapp argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the War on Drugs because police aren ’ t going door-to-door arresting people for smoking pot ?
Of course not .
Even without a massive and widespread crackdown on cannabis users , plenty of people still get arrested and charged for having small amounts of weed on them , and the last time I checked Libertarians weren ’ t okay with that .
Why does Knapp seemingly believe it ’ s different when it comes to guns ?
Even without an attempt to confiscate firearms from legal gun owners , Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control agenda of the Biden/Harris administration .
Any anti-gun proposal that targets legal gun owners and their right to keep and bear arms should cause for alarm , and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are running the country for the next four years , they ’ ll be doing their best to impose “ real ” gun control laws on all of us .
To pretend otherwise is simply burying your head in the sand .
Thomas L. Knapp may not be worried about the ways a Biden/Harris administration could infringe on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am , and you should be too .

I’ve spent quite a bit of time over the past week detailing the potential concerns for gun owners in a Biden/Harris administration, but maybe I’ve just been wasting my time.
According to Thomas L. Knapp, the director of the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, gun owners have nothing to fear from a Biden/Harris administration because Americans already possess an arsenal of hundreds of millions of firearms that they’re not going to willingly hand over.
More than 100 million Americans own nearly 400 million guns, and have no intention of surrendering those guns. Furthermore, Americans can build relatively sophisticated weapons with relatively inexpensive machine tools and/or 3D printers, and very basic firearms with items found in most homes. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t have to like those facts. They’re facts whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris like them or not. And if they decide to get pushy about it? As few as 1% of those gun owners could, and almost certainly would, make the Civil War look like a day at the children’s petting zoo. Yes, politicians will make impassioned speeches to roust votes and campaign donations out of the ignorant and fearful. They might even get some token legislation passed for gun owners to ignore and for politicians to ignore gun owners ignoring. But they know any attempt to impose real “gun control” would be political, and possibly literal, suicide.
Going by Knapp’s argument, gun owners also shouldn’t have been concerned about the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the 10-year ban on “assault weapons” imposed by Biden’s 1994 crime bill, state-level gun and magazine bans, red flag laws, subjective gun licensing standards, or any other current or proposed gun control law that doesn’t involve the attempted mass confiscation of firearms because it’s not “real” gun control.
That is, in my opinion, an absolutely silly argument. “Real” gun control doesn’t just involve confiscation of firearms from legal gun owners; it also includes any attempt to curtail the average American from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. As we reported yesterday, Joe Biden is apparently already looking at ways to impose his ban on AR-15s through the regulatory power of the ATF instead of the legislative power of Congress. Knapp may not be worried about that, but I am, and you should be too.
Call me crazy, but “don’t worry about gun control because if they try to take our guns we’ll just have a civil war” doesn’t sound very soothing. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to do everything possible to avoid a civil war in this country. I agree with Knapp that any attempt at widespread gun confiscation would lead to mass disobedience, but I also believe that most anti-gun activists and politicians are already aware of the fact that millions of gun owners wouldn’t bend the knee and hand over their guns. That’s not what they’re aiming for at the moment.
While the long-term goal of the gun control movement is to turn America into a giant gun-free zone, the short term anti-gun agenda is to reduce the number of legal gun owners through a variety of means; from gun bans and restrictive licensing laws to increased taxes on firearms and ammunition and making it illegal to purchase ammunition online, with dozens of other proposals in between. The “token” gun control laws that Knapp refers to still come with real consequences for our rights, and gun owners can’t simply ignore them.
Or, to put it another way, would Knapp argue that his fellow Libertarians shouldn’t worry about the War on Drugs because police aren’t going door-to-door arresting people for smoking pot? Of course not. Even without a massive and widespread crackdown on cannabis users, plenty of people still get arrested and charged for having small amounts of weed on them, and the last time I checked Libertarians weren’t okay with that. Why does Knapp seemingly believe it’s different when it comes to guns?
Even without an attempt to confiscate firearms from legal gun owners, Second Amendment activists should be concerned about the gun control agenda of the Biden/Harris administration. Any anti-gun proposal that targets legal gun owners and their right to keep and bear arms should cause for alarm, and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are running the country for the next four years, they’ll be doing their best to impose “real” gun control laws on all of us. To pretend otherwise is simply burying your head in the sand.
Thomas L. Knapp may not be worried about the ways a Biden/Harris administration could infringe on our Second Amendment rights, but I am, and you should be too.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--Political Guns Turn Sights On Georgia

Political Guns Turn Sights On Georgia

A 50-50 split in the Senate is less than ideal , especially with Democrats having control over the House and the potential control over the Oval Office .
In order to preserve our gun rights with something approaching a safety margin , Republicans need a firm majority .
That also keeps the vice president out of the mix , and since we don ’ t know who that is…well , some options aren ’ t that great .
Currently , the Senate is 48-50 with two seats potentially still up for grabs , pending the results of recounts .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which makes this Georgian feel all tingly inside .
Now , all the political guns are sighted in on Georgia , and the battle has already commenced .
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida is taking to the airwaves in neighboring Georgia .
The former Florida governor and first-term senator stars in a TV commercial for Georgia ’ s twin Senate runoff elections that attacks the Senate ’ s Democratic leader , Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York .
The runoffs for the Republican-held seats will take place Jan. 5 , and they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its majority in the chamber , or if the Democrats will control both houses of Congress and the White House .
The ad features comments by Schumer made this in early November , when the minority leader said , “ Now , we take Georgia .
Then , we change America.
” Scott , speaking to the camera in his ad , says , “ That ’ s Democrat leader Chuck Schumer .
You heard him .
They plan to take Georgia so they can change America.
” “ Their change ?
Reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance , pack the supreme court , chip away at our religious freedom and gun rights , ” Scott charges in the spot .
“ Georgia , don ’ t let these radicals change America.
” And , in fairness , Scott is right .
I ’ m very troubled by what I ’ ve seen in Georgia over the last couple of years .
My home state doesn ’ t seem to hold any resemblance to the pro-gun state of my youth .
If either Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock win , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and usher in the kind of change in our nation that Schumer promised .
That definitely includes an all-out assault on our gun rights .
Sen. Chuck Schumer has never been a friend of gun owners .
As a New Yorker , he maintains the same anti-gun sensibilities that we routinely see from other politicians out of there .
They think that what New York does is good for the rest of the country and they think nothing of stomping all over your rights to make it happen .
If they get half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your guns .
Make no mistake about that .
It ’ s for that reason that Georgia has suddenly become so important .
There ’ s simply nowhere to turn if either of the radical progressives running win .
At that point , none of your rights will be safe , but most especially your Second Amendment rights .
It won ’ t matter what the text on the page says if they strip those words of any real meaning or teeth with which it can restrict the government .
As a Georgian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC for stepping in and I eagerly await others to do the same .
Right now , Georgia is too important to ignore .

A 50-50 split in the Senate is less than ideal, especially with Democrats having control over the House and the potential control over the Oval Office. In order to preserve our gun rights with something approaching a safety margin, Republicans need a firm majority. That also keeps the vice president out of the mix, and since we don’t know who that is…well, some options aren’t that great.
Currently, the Senate is 48-50 with two seats potentially still up for grabs, pending the results of recounts. Both of those seats are in Georgia, which makes this Georgian feel all tingly inside.
Now, all the political guns are sighted in on Georgia, and the battle has already commenced.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida is taking to the airwaves in neighboring Georgia. The former Florida governor and first-term senator stars in a TV commercial for Georgia’s twin Senate runoff elections that attacks the Senate’s Democratic leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. The runoffs for the Republican-held seats will take place Jan. 5, and they will determine whether the GOP holds on to its majority in the chamber, or if the Democrats will control both houses of Congress and the White House. The ad features comments by Schumer made this in early November, when the minority leader said, “Now, we take Georgia. Then, we change America.” Scott, speaking to the camera in his ad, says, “That’s Democrat leader Chuck Schumer. You heard him. They plan to take Georgia so they can change America.” “Their change? Reduce funding for police, eliminate employer-based health insurance, pack the supreme court, chip away at our religious freedom and gun rights,” Scott charges in the spot. “Georgia, don’t let these radicals change America.”
And, in fairness, Scott is right.
I’m very troubled by what I’ve seen in Georgia over the last couple of years. My home state doesn’t seem to hold any resemblance to the pro-gun state of my youth. If either Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock win, they will use their position to try and usher in the kind of change in our nation that Schumer promised.
That definitely includes an all-out assault on our gun rights.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has never been a friend of gun owners. As a New Yorker, he maintains the same anti-gun sensibilities that we routinely see from other politicians out of there. They think that what New York does is good for the rest of the country and they think nothing of stomping all over your rights to make it happen.
If they get half a chance, they will come for your guns. Make no mistake about that.
It’s for that reason that Georgia has suddenly become so important. There’s simply nowhere to turn if either of the radical progressives running win. At that point, none of your rights will be safe, but most especially your Second Amendment rights. It won’t matter what the text on the page says if they strip those words of any real meaning or teeth with which it can restrict the government.
As a Georgian, I thank Sen. Scott and his PAC for stepping in and I eagerly await others to do the same. Right now, Georgia is too important to ignore.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--Is Philly DA Playing Politics With Trump-Supporting Veterans?

You may have seen the story of the two Trump supporters from Virginia who loaded up a Hummer and took off for Philadelphia , allegedly with the intent to do something nefarious .
The first headlines about the pair indicated that they were planning an attack on the city ’ s civic center , where ballots were being counted .
Then the story changed ; the pair were actually in possession of fake ballots that they were going to try to use to influence the vote count .
As it turns out , it looks like neither of those stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joshua Macias and Antonio LaMotta are only facing charges of concealing a weapon without a valid license to carry and carrying a weapon in public in Philadelphia without a carry permit .
To be clear , these are still serious charges ; the pair could be facing years in prison if convicted , but they ’ re not being formally accused of trying to kick off a revolution , planning any acts of violence , or attempting to commit voter fraud .
A press release from the Veterans for Trump group characterized Macias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an “ activist ” district attorney .
A Veterans for Trump official did not respond to a request from Military Times for further comment .
The Philadelphia Police Department is no longer investigating the two men beyond the weapons charges , according to a department spokesperson reached by Military Times .
Macias did not intend violence and “ held a reasonable belief ” his Virginia permit to carry his .40 caliber handgun was reciprocally recognized in Pennsylvania , according to his attorney , A. Charles Peruto Jr. , who spoke with Military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peruto said that the charges are “ 100 percent ” politically motivated .
“ There are hundreds of cases ” where the state weapons permit charge is reduced to a misdemeanor , Peruto told Military Times .
Pennsylvania law allows the charge to be reduced to a first-degree misdemeanor if the accused is otherwise eligible for a Pennsylvania gun permit .
Was it reasonable for Macias to believe his license to carry in Virginia was going to be recognized in Pennsylvania ?
Maybe , though if he ’ d been paying attention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would been aware that in 2018 Pennsylvania ’ s AG revoked the state ’ s reciprocity agreement with Virginia .
What about the claim that the pair are political prisoners of an “ activist ” district attorney ?
At the moment Macias and LaMotta are each being held on $ 750,000 bond , which is not only very high bond for a non-violent offense , but does seem out of character for D.A .
Larry Krasner .
As the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control news site The Trace reported earlier this year , Krasner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on those caught carrying without a license in Philly .
Krasner ’ s policy would seem to apply to Macias and LaMotta , both of whom have no previous convictions and legally purchased the handguns they had with them when they were arrested .
Instead of referring the men ’ s cases to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program , Krasner seems intent on making an example of the pair .
From what I know of this case , the two veterans who were arrested in Philly sound like a couple of guys who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not domestic terrorists who had plans to do harm to anyone .
You may think they ’ re goofballs , but even police and prosecutors aren ’ t accusing them of having any nefarious intent when they drove to Philadelphia .
And yes , it sure looks like Larry Krasner is rejecting his own philosophy of not prosecuting non-violent cases of illegal gun possession because of who Macias and LaMotta are ; out-of-state Trump lovers .
If Krasner ’ s going to be consistent in his policy , the two veterans should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges without prosecution .

You may have seen the story of the two Trump supporters from Virginia who loaded up a Hummer and took off for Philadelphia, allegedly with the intent to do something nefarious. The first headlines about the pair indicated that they were planning an attack on the city’s civic center, where ballots were being counted. Then the story changed; the pair were actually in possession of fake ballots that they were going to try to use to influence the vote count.
As it turns out, it looks like neither of those stories were accurate. At the moment, Joshua Macias and Antonio LaMotta are only facing charges of concealing a weapon without a valid license to carry and carrying a weapon in public in Philadelphia without a carry permit. To be clear, these are still serious charges; the pair could be facing years in prison if convicted, but they’re not being formally accused of trying to kick off a revolution, planning any acts of violence, or attempting to commit voter fraud.
A press release from the Veterans for Trump group characterized Macias and LaMotta as “political prisoners” of an “activist” district attorney. A Veterans for Trump official did not respond to a request from Military Times for further comment. The Philadelphia Police Department is no longer investigating the two men beyond the weapons charges, according to a department spokesperson reached by Military Times. Macias did not intend violence and “held a reasonable belief” his Virginia permit to carry his .40 caliber handgun was reciprocally recognized in Pennsylvania, according to his attorney, A. Charles Peruto Jr., who spoke with Military Times by phone on Wednesday afternoon. Peruto said that the charges are “100 percent” politically motivated. “There are hundreds of cases” where the state weapons permit charge is reduced to a misdemeanor, Peruto told Military Times. Pennsylvania law allows the charge to be reduced to a first-degree misdemeanor if the accused is otherwise eligible for a Pennsylvania gun permit.
Was it reasonable for Macias to believe his license to carry in Virginia was going to be recognized in Pennsylvania? Maybe, though if he’d been paying attention to Second Amendment issues in the state he would been aware that in 2018 Pennsylvania’s AG revoked the state’s reciprocity agreement with Virginia.
What about the claim that the pair are political prisoners of an “activist” district attorney? At the moment Macias and LaMotta are each being held on $750,000 bond, which is not only very high bond for a non-violent offense, but does seem out of character for D.A. Larry Krasner. As the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control news site The Trace reported earlier this year, Krasner has developed a reputation for going easy on those caught carrying without a license in Philly.
As DA, Krasner has declined to prosecute some nonviolent cases of illegal gun possession, typically involving people carrying without a state-issued license (outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvanians can openly carry a weapon without a license). Before Krasner arrived, the prosecutor’s office only rarely sent gun possession defendants to a program called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, or ARD, which puts participants on a path to supervision (akin to probation) without marring their record with a conviction. Krasner made it policy to divert to ARD gun carriers who had previously clean records and had purchased their weapons legally.
Krasner’s policy would seem to apply to Macias and LaMotta, both of whom have no previous convictions and legally purchased the handguns they had with them when they were arrested. Instead of referring the men’s cases to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, Krasner seems intent on making an example of the pair.
From what I know of this case, the two veterans who were arrested in Philly sound like a couple of guys who got caught up in the post-election passions, not domestic terrorists who had plans to do harm to anyone. You may think they’re goofballs, but even police and prosecutors aren’t accusing them of having any nefarious intent when they drove to Philadelphia.
And yes, it sure looks like Larry Krasner is rejecting his own philosophy of not prosecuting non-violent cases of illegal gun possession because of who Macias and LaMotta are; out-of-state Trump lovers. If Krasner’s going to be consistent in his policy, the two veterans should be offered the opportunity to resolve their charges without prosecution.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--FL Governor Wants To Get Tough On Looters

While it looked for a while like 2020 was going to be the year of the virus , it eventually shaped up to look more like the year of the looter .
We ’ ve seen so many riots , complete with looting , that I honestly have a hard time keeping up .
So many looters , so little time .
The various forms of unrest ranging from rioting to peaceful but concerning protests have been everywhere .
What ’ s more , we ’ ve seen bupkis coming from Democratic mayors of the large cities–these things almost always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to address these issues .
Now , Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has an idea that is sure to make some waves .
He wants to make it legal to shoot them .
The law would expand the state ’ s self-defense law , which currently forbids “ the use of force in defense of property , ” by increasing what constitutes a “ forcible felony , ” according to the Miami Herald .
DeSantis seeks to make looting or “ interruption or impairment ” of a business such a felony , thereby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local outlet reported .
Republican Gov .
Ron DeSantis , has drafted “ anti-mob ” legislation that would expand Florida ’ s Stand Your Ground law that critics say would allow armed citizens to shoot suspected looters or anyone engaged in “ criminal mischief ” that disrupts a businesshttps : //t.co/tVEgmnWmIr The Republican ’ s bill would also make it a third-degree felony to obstruct traffic , and would allow drivers to have legal immunity if they unintentionally kill or maim anyone engaging in blocking a roadway during a demonstration , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is only a draft at the time of publishing , is also set to grant state authorities the ability to withhold funds from localities that choose to reduce their police budgets , the local outlet reported .
Oh , boy .
That ’ s going to be interesting .
For what it ’ s worth , I don ’ t actually have any disagreement with the obstructing traffic measure , either making it a felony or providing legal immunity to those who may unintentionally harm someone who is doing such a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of the mob obstructing traffic , then beating people within an inch of their lives for me to ignore the real implications of such obstructions .
As for shooting looters , I don ’ t know how I feel about it .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I despise looters .
These thugs used what may have been legitimate grievances about police abuse and decided it was a hell of a time to grab a new television .
It ’ s honestly something everyone should oppose .
On the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the level of a threat to human life ?
Is this something we should shoot people over ?
Even if I do come to accept this as fine–and I ’ m not sold either way–I have concerns about how the bill appears to be phrased .
The idea that “ interruption or impairment ” of a business is grounds for shooting someone , well , it seems kind of vague .
What specifically constitutes an interruption or an impairment ?
I mean , some Karen demanding to see the manager is definitely interrupting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for shooting her ?
On the same token , looters are destroying livelihoods and are threatening the safety of people .
There ’ s going to be a lot of debate on this one and I ’ ll be watching it closely .
If Florida goes this route , expect to see more states embrace this kind of thing .
For what it ’ s worth , though , I do think the passage of such a bill will definitely have an impact on looting .
Only a fool would loot somewhere that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , now that I say that , I supposed it would still be a target-rich environment .

While it looked for a while like 2020 was going to be the year of the virus, it eventually shaped up to look more like the year of the looter. We’ve seen so many riots, complete with looting, that I honestly have a hard time keeping up. So many looters, so little time.
The various forms of unrest ranging from rioting to peaceful but concerning protests have been everywhere. What’s more, we’ve seen bupkis coming from Democratic mayors of the large cities–these things almost always happen in large, Democrat-controlled cities–that really try to address these issues.
Now, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has an idea that is sure to make some waves. He wants to make it legal to shoot them.
The law would expand the state’s self-defense law, which currently forbids “the use of force in defense of property,” by increasing what constitutes a “forcible felony,” according to the Miami Herald. DeSantis seeks to make looting or “interruption or impairment” of a business such a felony, thereby justifying deadly force to prevent it, the local outlet reported. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has drafted “anti-mob” legislation that would expand Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that critics say would allow armed citizens to shoot suspected looters or anyone engaged in “criminal mischief” that disrupts a businesshttps://t.co/tVEgmnWmIr — Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) November 10, 2020 The Republican’s bill would also make it a third-degree felony to obstruct traffic, and would allow drivers to have legal immunity if they unintentionally kill or maim anyone engaging in blocking a roadway during a demonstration, according to the Herald. The law, which is only a draft at the time of publishing, is also set to grant state authorities the ability to withhold funds from localities that choose to reduce their police budgets, the local outlet reported.
Oh, boy. That’s going to be interesting.
For what it’s worth, I don’t actually have any disagreement with the obstructing traffic measure, either making it a felony or providing legal immunity to those who may unintentionally harm someone who is doing such a thing. We’ve seen too many cases of the mob obstructing traffic, then beating people within an inch of their lives for me to ignore the real implications of such obstructions.
As for shooting looters, I don’t know how I feel about it.
Don’t get me wrong, I despise looters. These thugs used what may have been legitimate grievances about police abuse and decided it was a hell of a time to grab a new television. It’s honestly something everyone should oppose.
On the same token, does it really rise to the level of a threat to human life? Is this something we should shoot people over?
Even if I do come to accept this as fine–and I’m not sold either way–I have concerns about how the bill appears to be phrased. The idea that “interruption or impairment” of a business is grounds for shooting someone, well, it seems kind of vague. What specifically constitutes an interruption or an impairment? I mean, some Karen demanding to see the manager is definitely interrupting normal business, but is it grounds for shooting her?
On the same token, looters are destroying livelihoods and are threatening the safety of people.
There’s going to be a lot of debate on this one and I’ll be watching it closely. If Florida goes this route, expect to see more states embrace this kind of thing.
For what it’s worth, though, I do think the passage of such a bill will definitely have an impact on looting. Only a fool would loot somewhere that they know they can be shot.
So, now that I say that, I supposed it would still be a target-rich environment.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--30-Year Legislator Says Gun Control May Have Cost Him Election

Consider this another bit of anecdotal evidence that the Democrats ’ embrace of an extreme anti-gun agenda hurt them at the polls this year .
Not only did Democrats fail to wrest control of any state house or senate chamber from Republicans , many rural Democrats lost long-held seats thanks to their party ’ s insistence on targeting legal gun owners instead of violent criminals .
South Carolina State Senator Glenn Reese has represented the state ’ s 11th District since 1990 , but after thirty years in office he was unceremoniously tossed out on Election Day , losing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten points , and he says that gun control may have been a big factor in his loss .
During the campaign , Kimbrell accused Reese of not being conservative enough for a Republican-majority district .
He also accused Reese of being anti-Second Amendment , which Reese vehemently denied .
“ I support the Second Amendment and have a South Carolina ( gun ) permit and an out-of-state permit , ” he said .
Reese said that may have cost him support , along with many who voted a straight Republican ticket .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry license , but do you know what else he has ?
An “ C ” rating from the NRA , while Kimbrell was rated “ AQ ” , meaning he received an “ A ” based on his answers to the organization ’ s candidate survey , but couldn ’ t be graded on any votes because he didn ’ t hold office .
Ultimately , gun voters cared far more about what Reese is going to do to protect their right to bear arms than the fact that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reese wasn ’ t just accused of being anti-Second Amendment .
His opponent made an issue out of the fact that Reese introduced a bill to ban the possession of firearms on and around a local lake where Reese lives .
Reese , also unopposed in his party ’ s June 9 primary , said Kimbrell is partially right .
He did introduce a bill last year that would make it “ unlawful for a person to hunt , possess a firearm or discharge fireworks on or immediately adjacent to the waters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reese , who said he is a gun owner himself , added he is unequivocally a Second Amendment supporter .
“ I always have loaded firearms around me , everywhere I go , ” said Reese , who owns the Krispy Kreme business in Spartanburg .
“ I ’ ve got two gun permits — in-state and an out-of-state permit .
I ’ m the real deal .
And they are loaded , ready to go .
I ’ m in business .
You don ’ t take any chances.
” Again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not one but two carry licenses .
I ’ m glad he takes his personal safety seriously .
Still , a bill to ban firearms on and around a 1500-acre lake ( which also included a ban on hunting ) is going to be controversial in a district with a lot of gun owners if for no other reason than it ’ s an embrace of the idea that gun-free zones actually work .
Second Amendment voters don ’ t elect politicians because they have a concealed carry license .
We elect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep and bear arms isn ’ t going to be infringed .
Reese was one of three incumbent Democratic state senators to suffer defeat in South Carolina , along with two of their Democratic colleagues in the state House .
Republicans now control the state Senate 30-16 and the House by a margin of 81-43 , and at the congressional level Democrats suffered losses as well .
1st District Democrat incumbent Joe Cunningham , who ’ s said that AR-15s should “ never be in the hands of civilians ” , was upset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state representative endorsed by the NRA who ’ s worked on issues like concealed carry reciprocity while in the state legislature .
Mace ’ s victory gives Republicans control of 6 of the 7 congressional seats in the state , and Democrats in South Carolina can thank their party ’ s views on gun control and the Second Amendment for helping them lose ground on Election Day this year .

Consider this another bit of anecdotal evidence that the Democrats’ embrace of an extreme anti-gun agenda hurt them at the polls this year. Not only did Democrats fail to wrest control of any state house or senate chamber from Republicans, many rural Democrats lost long-held seats thanks to their party’s insistence on targeting legal gun owners instead of violent criminals.
South Carolina State Senator Glenn Reese has represented the state’s 11th District since 1990, but after thirty years in office he was unceremoniously tossed out on Election Day, losing to Republican challenger Josh Kimbrell by more than ten points, and he says that gun control may have been a big factor in his loss.
During the campaign, Kimbrell accused Reese of not being conservative enough for a Republican-majority district. He also accused Reese of being anti-Second Amendment, which Reese vehemently denied. “I support the Second Amendment and have a South Carolina (gun) permit and an out-of-state permit,” he said. Reese said that may have cost him support, along with many who voted a straight Republican ticket.
Good for Reese for having his concealed carry license, but do you know what else he has? An “C” rating from the NRA, while Kimbrell was rated “AQ”, meaning he received an “A” based on his answers to the organization’s candidate survey, but couldn’t be graded on any votes because he didn’t hold office. Ultimately, gun voters cared far more about what Reese is going to do to protect their right to bear arms than the fact that he’s got a license to carry for himself.
Reese wasn’t just accused of being anti-Second Amendment. His opponent made an issue out of the fact that Reese introduced a bill to ban the possession of firearms on and around a local lake where Reese lives.
Reese, also unopposed in his party’s June 9 primary, said Kimbrell is partially right. He did introduce a bill last year that would make it “unlawful for a person to hunt, possess a firearm or discharge fireworks on or immediately adjacent to the waters of Lake William C. Bowen.” But Reese, who said he is a gun owner himself, added he is unequivocally a Second Amendment supporter. “I always have loaded firearms around me, everywhere I go,” said Reese, who owns the Krispy Kreme business in Spartanburg. “I’ve got two gun permits — in-state and an out-of-state permit. I’m the real deal. And they are loaded, ready to go. I’m in business. You don’t take any chances.”
Again, it’s great that Reese has not one but two carry licenses. I’m glad he takes his personal safety seriously. Still, a bill to ban firearms on and around a 1500-acre lake (which also included a ban on hunting) is going to be controversial in a district with a lot of gun owners if for no other reason than it’s an embrace of the idea that gun-free zones actually work. Second Amendment voters don’t elect politicians because they have a concealed carry license. We elect the candidates that will ensure our right to keep and bear arms isn’t going to be infringed.
Reese was one of three incumbent Democratic state senators to suffer defeat in South Carolina, along with two of their Democratic colleagues in the state House. Republicans now control the state Senate 30-16 and the House by a margin of 81-43, and at the congressional level Democrats suffered losses as well.
1st District Democrat incumbent Joe Cunningham, who’s said that AR-15s should “never be in the hands of civilians”, was upset by Republican challenger Nancy Mace, a state representative endorsed by the NRA who’s worked on issues like concealed carry reciprocity while in the state legislature. Mace’s victory gives Republicans control of 6 of the 7 congressional seats in the state, and Democrats in South Carolina can thank their party’s views on gun control and the Second Amendment for helping them lose ground on Election Day this year.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Durham Gun Violence Not About Gun Control

Durham , North Carolina has a problem .
It ’ s not an unusual problem in this day and age , I ’ m afraid , but a problem none the less .
After months of being locked down followed by varying degrees of civil unrest , many cities are facing a similar issue .
You see , Durham is having an issue with violence .
In what has become a too familiar refrain , Durham leaders on Thursday bemoaned a rising tide of gun violence in the city and called for help to quell it .
So far this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Durham , a 42 percent jump from a year ago .
The number of people wounded in those shootings has almost doubled , from 130 to 250 , although the number killed has dropped slightly , from 29 to 24 .
Forty-two of those hurt in shootings this year are 17 or younger , including 15-year-old Anthony Adams , who was killed Sunday in a drive-by shooting downtown .
“ This loss of life , this gun violence , all gun violence is absolutely unacceptable in Durham , ” Mayor Steve Schewel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every time there is a gunshot wound here in the Bull City , it doesn ’ t just tear into the body of the wounded .
It tears into their family , into their neighborhood and into our entire community.
” Unfortunately , this is all too common right now , which is something Schewel should keep in mind .
However , it ’ s clear that he isn ’ t .
Schewel urged the General Assembly to enact more gun control legislation , such as universal background checks , a “ red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from people deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others and allowing cities to prohibit carrying weapons in restaurants , bars and parks .
“ As long as guns are available in [ large ] quantities and as long as they are easily available to anyone who wants a gun , we are not gong to be able to end gun violence , ” he said .
Oh , boy .
Where to start .
First , red flag laws are less than useless for the kind of violence Durham is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether it will stop a mass shooting or a suicide , only the most ridiculous would claim it has any impact on gang violence , which is much of what Durham is seeing .
Additionally , let ’ s face facts .
The lack of gun control in North Carolina isn ’ t the problem .
Take , for example , Maryland .
That ’ s a state with tons of gun control–one of the more gun controlled states in the nation , actually–and its largest city is having problems .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there any reason to believe Durham would somehow be different than Baltimore ?
Or Chicago ?
Of course not .
What Schewel is doing is trying to capitalize on what ’ s transpiring in an attempt to advance his preferred agenda .
In particular , he wants gun control and he doesn ’ t mind misrepresenting what it can do in order to try and make it happen .
I ’ m sure the party bosses will approve of his efforts , but it won ’ t do a damned thing to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer .
In fact , if law-abiding citizens can ’ t get guns , it ’ ll make the streets less safe .
Finally , let ’ s address the fallacy that anyone who wants a gun can easily purchase one .
First of all , lawfully purchasing one isn ’ t exactly easy , especially compared to purchasing pretty much any other lawful item .
I can buy anything else I want without the seller having to get government permission to take my money .
Second , while it can be argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that access isn ’ t through lawful channels .
They get their guns through the black market , a market that would be unaffected by any policy Schewel would care to name .
It ’ s well past time to stop pretending that gun control has any impact on black market guns .
It ’ s also past time to stop pretending that legal firearm sales and black market guns have anything at all to do with one another .

Durham, North Carolina has a problem. It’s not an unusual problem in this day and age, I’m afraid, but a problem none the less.
After months of being locked down followed by varying degrees of civil unrest, many cities are facing a similar issue. You see, Durham is having an issue with violence.
In what has become a too familiar refrain, Durham leaders on Thursday bemoaned a rising tide of gun violence in the city and called for help to quell it. So far this year, 823 shootings have been reported in Durham, a 42 percent jump from a year ago. The number of people wounded in those shootings has almost doubled, from 130 to 250, although the number killed has dropped slightly, from 29 to 24. Forty-two of those hurt in shootings this year are 17 or younger, including 15-year-old Anthony Adams, who was killed Sunday in a drive-by shooting downtown. “This loss of life, this gun violence, all gun violence is absolutely unacceptable in Durham,” Mayor Steve Schewel said at a news conference. “Every time there is a gunshot wound here in the Bull City, it doesn’t just tear into the body of the wounded. It tears into their family, into their neighborhood and into our entire community.”
Unfortunately, this is all too common right now, which is something Schewel should keep in mind.
However, it’s clear that he isn’t.
Schewel urged the General Assembly to enact more gun control legislation, such as universal background checks, a “red flag” law to temporarily take firearms away from people deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others and allowing cities to prohibit carrying weapons in restaurants, bars and parks. “As long as guns are available in [large] quantities and as long as they are easily available to anyone who wants a gun, we are not gong to be able to end gun violence,” he said.
Oh, boy. Where to start.
First, red flag laws are less than useless for the kind of violence Durham is seeing. While we can argue about whether it will stop a mass shooting or a suicide, only the most ridiculous would claim it has any impact on gang violence, which is much of what Durham is seeing.
Additionally, let’s face facts. The lack of gun control in North Carolina isn’t the problem.
Take, for example, Maryland. That’s a state with tons of gun control–one of the more gun controlled states in the nation, actually–and its largest city is having problems.
While lives are being lost, Baltimore’s underground gun trade is alive and well. Even though Maryland has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States, it’s home to some of the country’s deadliest streets.
Now, if Schewel got his way, is there any reason to believe Durham would somehow be different than Baltimore? Or Chicago?
Of course not. What Schewel is doing is trying to capitalize on what’s transpiring in an attempt to advance his preferred agenda. In particular, he wants gun control and he doesn’t mind misrepresenting what it can do in order to try and make it happen.
I’m sure the party bosses will approve of his efforts, but it won’t do a damned thing to make Durham’s streets the least bit safer. In fact, if law-abiding citizens can’t get guns, it’ll make the streets less safe.
Finally, let’s address the fallacy that anyone who wants a gun can easily purchase one. First of all, lawfully purchasing one isn’t exactly easy, especially compared to purchasing pretty much any other lawful item. I can buy anything else I want without the seller having to get government permission to take my money.
Second, while it can be argued that criminals have easy access to guns, that access isn’t through lawful channels. They get their guns through the black market, a market that would be unaffected by any policy Schewel would care to name.
It’s well past time to stop pretending that gun control has any impact on black market guns. It’s also past time to stop pretending that legal firearm sales and black market guns have anything at all to do with one another.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Alito: Senators' Threats In 2A Case "Affront To The Constitution"

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito ’ s address to the Federalist Society on Thursday night is making headlines today largely for his comments about COVID-19 and the threat that the pandemic poses to individual liberties , but I ’ m surprised that more people aren ’ t talking about Alito ’ s reserved smackdown of five Democratic senator who threatened the Court with “ restructuring ” if it didn ’ t drop a challenge to a New York City gun law .
The case , known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this year after New York City changed the law being challenged after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case .
Reason has a full transcript and video of Justice Alito ’ s remarks , but I want to focus on what he had to say about our right to keep and bear arms .
This isn ’ t the first time that Alito has complained about the Second Amendment being treated as second-class right .
Alito penned the majority opinion in the McDonald case , and a decade ago he warned that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the same footing as the rest of our individual rights .
In rejecting the City ’ s argument against incorporation , Justice Alito wrote that it would be inappropriate to treat the right “ as a second-class right , subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees ” incorporated under the Due Process Clause .
( Although Justice Alito was referring specifically to incorporation , this passage is regularly cited by advocates and scholars to claim that the Second Amendment itself is being treated as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this right may have “ controversial public safety implications ” so too do other rights “ impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes.
” States are limited by the Constitution , but they still have room to devise local solutions for local conditions .
“ [ I ] ncorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
” In his speech to the Federalist Society , Alito elaborated on the issues at hand in the NYC gun case .
The case involved a New York City ordinance .
The city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abiding resident to get a license to keep a gun in the home for self defense .
But the Second Amendment protects that right .
And if a person is going to have a gun in the home , there ’ s broad agreement that the gun owner should know how to handle it safely , and that the best way to acquire and maintain that skill is to go to a range every now and then .
The New York City ordinance , however , made that hard .
It prohibits the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range outside city limits .
And there were only seven ranges in the entire city .
And all of these but one were largely restricted to members and their guests .
There were other ranges that lay just outside the city .
So why couldn ’ t a city resident go to one of those ranges ?
The city really had no plausible explanation .
But that didn ’ t stop it from vigorously defending its rule .
Nor did it stop the district court or the Second Circuit from upholding it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City officials could never publicly acknowledge , is that this rule was put in place to chill the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights , along with the city ’ s restrictive and subjective licensing laws that prevent the average citizen from obtaining a license to carry , and in many cases , a permit to have a firearm in their home .
As Alito noted , though , once the Supreme Court decided to accept NYSPRA v. City of New York , city officials decided that the law wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we grant a review , however , the city suddenly saw things differently .
It quickly repealed the ordinance .
And it said that on reconsideration doing that did not make the city any less safe .
In the place of the old ordinance , it adopted a new vaguer one that still did not give gun owners what they want it .
But the city nevertheless asked us to dismiss the case before it was even briefed or argued .
And when we refuse to do that the city was obviously miffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the only ones who were outraged by the Court ’ s decision to simply hear oral arguments in the case rather than dismiss the lawsuit before any briefings .
Alito got a little emotional as he talked about the actions from several anti-gun politicians who tried to bully the Court into backing off the case .
Five United States senators who filed a brief in support of the city went further .
They wrote that the Supreme Court is a sick institution , and if the Court did not mend its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , “ restructured.
” After receiving this warning , the Court did exactly what the city and the senators wanted .
It held that the case was moot , and it said nothing about the Second Amendment .
Three of us protested , but to no avail .
Now let me be clear , I am not suggesting that Court ’ s decision was influenced by the senators ’ threat .
But I am concerned that the outcome might be viewed that way by the senators and others with the thought of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief “ an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law , ” saying that Congress has no right to interfere with the business of the Court any more than the Supreme Court has the right to legislate .
Calling the intent to intimidate the Court the “ sort of thing that happens in countries governed by power , not law , ” Alito went on to warn that “ this little episode ” might be a preview of things to come for the Court in the future , leaving it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with politicians proclaiming the illegitimacy of the Court every time it comes out with a decision the Left doesn ’ t like .
I wish Alito would have called out by name the five senators who threatened the Court with “ restructuring ” in his speech , but since he didn ’ t , I ’ ll do so here .
If you ’ ve got an hour or so and you ’ re a legal geek like me , go watch Alito ’ s entire speech and read the brief that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to say anything unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice , but I was struck by his quiet indignation over the NYC gun case , the second-class status of the Second Amendment , and the threats of “ restructuring ” the Court by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democratic senators .
I get the feeling that Justice Alito is itching to take another Second Amendment case soon , and Lord knows there are plenty in the pipeline for him and his colleagues to accept in the months ahead .

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s address to the Federalist Society on Thursday night is making headlines today largely for his comments about COVID-19 and the threat that the pandemic poses to individual liberties, but I’m surprised that more people aren’t talking about Alito’s reserved smackdown of five Democratic senator who threatened the Court with “restructuring” if it didn’t drop a challenge to a New York City gun law. The case, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, ultimately was mooted by the Court earlier this year after New York City changed the law being challenged after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.
Reason has a full transcript and video of Justice Alito’s remarks, but I want to focus on what he had to say about our right to keep and bear arms.
Of course, the ultimate second tier constitutional right in the minds of some is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. From 2010, when we decided McDonald v. Chicago, until last term; the supreme court denied every single petition asking us to review a lower court decision that rejected the Second Amendment claim. Last year, we finally took another second amendment case. And what happened after that is interesting.
This isn’t the first time that Alito has complained about the Second Amendment being treated as second-class right. Alito penned the majority opinion in the McDonald case, and a decade ago he warned that the right to keep and bear arms rests on the same footing as the rest of our individual rights.
In rejecting the City’s argument against incorporation, Justice Alito wrote that it would be inappropriate to treat the right “as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” incorporated under the Due Process Clause. (Although Justice Alito was referring specifically to incorporation, this passage is regularly cited by advocates and scholars to claim that the Second Amendment itself is being treated as a “second-class right.”) Although this right may have “controversial public safety implications” so too do other rights “impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes.” States are limited by the Constitution, but they still have room to devise local solutions for local conditions. “[I]ncorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
In his speech to the Federalist Society, Alito elaborated on the issues at hand in the NYC gun case.
The case involved a New York City ordinance. The city makes it very inconvenient for a law abiding resident to get a license to keep a gun in the home for self defense. But the Second Amendment protects that right. And if a person is going to have a gun in the home, there’s broad agreement that the gun owner should know how to handle it safely, and that the best way to acquire and maintain that skill is to go to a range every now and then. The New York City ordinance, however, made that hard. It prohibits the lawful gun owner from going to any range outside city limits. And there were only seven ranges in the entire city. And all of these but one were largely restricted to members and their guests. There were other ranges that lay just outside the city. So why couldn’t a city resident go to one of those ranges? The city really had no plausible explanation. But that didn’t stop it from vigorously defending its rule. Nor did it stop the district court or the Second Circuit from upholding it.
The real explanation; the one that New York City officials could never publicly acknowledge, is that this rule was put in place to chill the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights, along with the city’s restrictive and subjective licensing laws that prevent the average citizen from obtaining a license to carry, and in many cases, a permit to have a firearm in their home. As Alito noted, though, once the Supreme Court decided to accept NYSPRA v. City of New York, city officials decided that the law wasn’t that important after all.
Once we grant a review, however, the city suddenly saw things differently. It quickly repealed the ordinance. And it said that on reconsideration doing that did not make the city any less safe. In the place of the old ordinance, it adopted a new vaguer one that still did not give gun owners what they want it. But the city nevertheless asked us to dismiss the case before it was even briefed or argued. And when we refuse to do that the city was obviously miffed.
Alito noted that city officials weren’t the only ones who were outraged by the Court’s decision to simply hear oral arguments in the case rather than dismiss the lawsuit before any briefings. Alito got a little emotional as he talked about the actions from several anti-gun politicians who tried to bully the Court into backing off the case.
Five United States senators who filed a brief in support of the city went further. They wrote that the Supreme Court is a sick institution, and if the Court did not mend its ways it might have to be, well, “restructured.” After receiving this warning, the Court did exactly what the city and the senators wanted. It held that the case was moot, and it said nothing about the Second Amendment. Three of us protested, but to no avail. Now let me be clear, I am not suggesting that Court’s decision was influenced by the senators’ threat. But I am concerned that the outcome might be viewed that way by the senators and others with the thought of bullying the Court.
Alito called the brief “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law,” saying that Congress has no right to interfere with the business of the Court any more than the Supreme Court has the right to legislate. Calling the intent to intimidate the Court the “sort of thing that happens in countries governed by power, not law,” Alito went on to warn that “this little episode” might be a preview of things to come for the Court in the future, leaving it up to his audience to imagine a future with politicians proclaiming the illegitimacy of the Court every time it comes out with a decision the Left doesn’t like.
I wish Alito would have called out by name the five senators who threatened the Court with “restructuring” in his speech, but since he didn’t, I’ll do so here.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
If you’ve got an hour or so and you’re a legal geek like me, go watch Alito’s entire speech and read the brief that I linked above. Obviously Alito wasn’t going to say anything unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice, but I was struck by his quiet indignation over the NYC gun case, the second-class status of the Second Amendment, and the threats of “restructuring” the Court by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democratic senators. I get the feeling that Justice Alito is itching to take another Second Amendment case soon, and Lord knows there are plenty in the pipeline for him and his colleagues to accept in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Anti-Gunners Get Melodramatic Over Barrett On SCOTUS

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is now a member of the Supreme Court of the United States .
It ’ s an established fact and has been for a few weeks .
This isn ’ t breaking news at this point .
Yet it seems the left still isn ’ t done freaking out about it .
They ’ re absolutely convinced that Barrett will single-handedly repeal each and every law they hold dear .
In fact , they ’ re being rather melodramatic about it , too .
With Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , the conservative majority was only 5-4 which meant that the four liberal justices only had to convince one conservative justice to side with them .
That was oftentimes Chief Justice John Roberts , but even with his potential swing vote , the conservative justices now decisively rule the Supreme Court .
Since justices on the Supreme Court have lifetime appointments , Barrett will have decades to push her beliefs on the American public .
The precedents she has set during her time as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Appeals along with her writings have demonstrated how she will behave when certain types of cases reach her desk .
To help you understand the consequences of Barrett ’ s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court , I have compiled the following list of things that you should do before she and the rest of the conservative majority overturn or take them away .
The list is ridiculous to an extreme and includes things like “ Be Gay ” and “ Have Reproductive Freedom ” –as if Barrett is suddenly going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capital crime and ban the practice or that people must engage in unprotected sex at all times–but there ’ s one particular part that takes this lunacy to a whole new level .
When it comes to guns , Barrett ’ s positions are historically unprecedented .
In the case Kanter v. Barr ( 7th Cir .
2019 ) , it was ruled that even people with non-violent convictions should not be able to get a gun .
Barrett wrote a 37-page essay dissenting that vote .
Though the ban on all felons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her reasoning that there was no historical precedent to allow for such a ban is a little concerning .
Machine guns for civilians weren ’ t banned until the 1980s and there weren ’ t background checks for gun purchases until 1993 .
The founding fathers didn ’ t think guns would be being sold at Walmart when they wrote the constitution , so there being no historical precedent is an irritating and tiresome explanation in a constantly changing world .
UCLA law professor Adam Smith elaborates on how far this could go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there ’ s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons ?
” So before any and all gun control is repealed or overturned , go on a walk and enjoy not getting shot with a machine gun .
Yes , Barrett argued that non-violent offenders shouldn ’ t have their gun rights taken away .
Since this is a civil liberty , she really wasn ’ t wrong .
Especially since she made no similar statement about violent felons .
But then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author has only a passing relationship with facts anyway .
After all , machine guns weren ’ t “ banned ” for civilians in the 1980s .
The situation is much more nuanced and complicated than that .
Machine gun regulations began with the National Firearms Act of 1934 .
At that point , anyone who wanted one had to have it registered with the federal government and pay an additional tax .
It didn ’ t stop machine guns from getting in the mob ’ s hands , of course , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s all that mattered .
People continued to buy and sell machine guns until the so-called ban in 1986 .
However , that ban didn ’ t put an end to private ownership of machine guns .
What it did was end ownership of newly manufactured machine guns .
Anything made prior to ’ 86 was still fair game .
While that and natural attrition have reduced the number of machine guns in private hands , they ’ re still quite legal for many Americans to buy them if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re ridiculously expensive , of course , but still quite legal .
If the writer can get these rather basic facts wrong , it seems clear she ’ s writing from emotion and not from her brain .
Then again , this is a student newspaper and modern college students don ’ t seem to know how to use their brains for anything except as a buffer between the front of the skull and the back of the skull .
At the end of the day , all this ridiculous fearmongering by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court only deals with the cases presented to it .
Barrett isn ’ t about to start issuing decrees out of the blue that unmakes current law .
There ’ s a process to judicial review , after all .
So the writer can still go for a walk all she wants .
Especially since the non-violent felons aren ’ t the ones who start shooting up neighborhoods .
Those are the violent felons , after all , who have been legally barred from owning guns for decades yet still manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the writer should think about that instead of feeding the fear that permeates the American left .

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is now a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s an established fact and has been for a few weeks. This isn’t breaking news at this point.
Yet it seems the left still isn’t done freaking out about it. They’re absolutely convinced that Barrett will single-handedly repeal each and every law they hold dear. In fact, they’re being rather melodramatic about it, too.
With Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, the conservative majority is now 6-3. Before Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the conservative majority was only 5-4 which meant that the four liberal justices only had to convince one conservative justice to side with them. That was oftentimes Chief Justice John Roberts, but even with his potential swing vote, the conservative justices now decisively rule the Supreme Court. Since justices on the Supreme Court have lifetime appointments, Barrett will have decades to push her beliefs on the American public. The precedents she has set during her time as a judge in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals along with her writings have demonstrated how she will behave when certain types of cases reach her desk. To help you understand the consequences of Barrett’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have compiled the following list of things that you should do before she and the rest of the conservative majority overturn or take them away.
The list is ridiculous to an extreme and includes things like “Be Gay” and “Have Reproductive Freedom”–as if Barrett is suddenly going to rule that being homosexual is a capital crime and ban the practice or that people must engage in unprotected sex at all times–but there’s one particular part that takes this lunacy to a whole new level.
Not Get Shot When it comes to guns, Barrett’s positions are historically unprecedented. In the case Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019), it was ruled that even people with non-violent convictions should not be able to get a gun. Barrett wrote a 37-page essay dissenting that vote. Though the ban on all felons owning firearms may go too far, her reasoning that there was no historical precedent to allow for such a ban is a little concerning. Machine guns for civilians weren’t banned until the 1980s and there weren’t background checks for gun purchases until 1993. The founding fathers didn’t think guns would be being sold at Walmart when they wrote the constitution, so there being no historical precedent is an irritating and tiresome explanation in a constantly changing world. UCLA law professor Adam Smith elaborates on how far this could go, “Does that mean that there’s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there’s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?” So before any and all gun control is repealed or overturned, go on a walk and enjoy not getting shot with a machine gun.
Yes, Barrett argued that non-violent offenders shouldn’t have their gun rights taken away. Since this is a civil liberty, she really wasn’t wrong. Especially since she made no similar statement about violent felons.
But then again, it’s clear the author has only a passing relationship with facts anyway.
After all, machine guns weren’t “banned” for civilians in the 1980s. The situation is much more nuanced and complicated than that. Machine gun regulations began with the National Firearms Act of 1934. At that point, anyone who wanted one had to have it registered with the federal government and pay an additional tax. It didn’t stop machine guns from getting in the mob’s hands, of course, but it made people feel good about themselves and that’s all that mattered.
People continued to buy and sell machine guns until the so-called ban in 1986.
However, that ban didn’t put an end to private ownership of machine guns. What it did was end ownership of newly manufactured machine guns. Anything made prior to ’86 was still fair game.
While that and natural attrition have reduced the number of machine guns in private hands, they’re still quite legal for many Americans to buy them if they’ve got the money. They’re ridiculously expensive, of course, but still quite legal.
If the writer can get these rather basic facts wrong, it seems clear she’s writing from emotion and not from her brain. Then again, this is a student newspaper and modern college students don’t seem to know how to use their brains for anything except as a buffer between the front of the skull and the back of the skull.
At the end of the day, all this ridiculous fearmongering by the writer fails to also note that the Supreme Court only deals with the cases presented to it. Barrett isn’t about to start issuing decrees out of the blue that unmakes current law. There’s a process to judicial review, after all.
So the writer can still go for a walk all she wants. Especially since the non-violent felons aren’t the ones who start shooting up neighborhoods. Those are the violent felons, after all, who have been legally barred from owning guns for decades yet still manage to get firearms none the less.
Maybe the writer should think about that instead of feeding the fear that permeates the American left.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Philly Criminals Are Getting Away With Murder

Like many cities around the country , Philadelphia ’ s homicide rate is soaring this year .
There ’ ve been more than 400 homicides so far in 2020 compared to 356 murders in all of 2019 , which was the most violent year that the city had seen in a decade .
Now the city ’ s on pace for the most homicides since 2007 , but even as the murder numbers go up , the number of arrests are going down .
NBC 4 in Philly reports that while police in the city have struggled to clear cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen numbers this low in some time .
So far fewer than 30 % of the city ’ s homicides this year have led to an arrest .
The clearance rate is even worse when looking at non-fatal shootings , or those in which the victim survives .
Only 16 % of the 1,300 non-fatal shootings this year have been cleared .
Philadelphia Police Deputy Commissioner Ben Naish overseeing investigations , including gun crimes , said police are overwhelmed with the surge in shootings .
He blames COVID-19 and the summer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fair to say there became this sense of lawlessness , ” Naish said .
If people think they can get away with something , they ’ re more likely to do it , and Philadelphia ’ s criminals have little fear of consequences at the moment .
Even worse , as NBC 4 reported , once an arrest has been made there ’ s a good chance the charges will be dropped before a trial .
Since District Attorney Larry Krasner took office in 2018 , the percentage of gun crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have gone up from 30 % in 2018 to 40 % in 2020 .
And those numbers are a far drop from 2015 when the dismissal and withdrawal rate was 18 % .
Krasner said shooting cases are tough to prove in court if witnesses are reluctant to testify .
Some witnesses simply don ’ t trust the system , he said .
But even in cases where witnesses do come forward and testify in court , the judge may still find the case has insufficient evidence to move forward .
What Krasner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t explain why the conviction rate for violent crimes has dropped under his watch .
Unreal as it might sound , at the moment there are more cases that are being dismissed or withdrawn right now than going to trial or resulting in a plea deal , including nearly 53 % of robbery cases that are dropped by the DA ’ s office .
Krasner deflected when asked if the low clearance and conviction rate is contributing to the increased gun violence by emboldening shooters .
“ I think our police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Krasner said .
“ I don ’ t want to say they are emboldened .
But I do want to say that we are ready to shoulder the burden with the police department to solve these cases more quickly.
” Naish , the deputy commissioner , said that more so than statistics , shooters are driven by a lack of valuing life .
“ Yes , there ’ s a sense of I ’ m not going to get caught but more so than that is a sense of I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , law-abiding citizens who want to get a concealed carry license so that they can protect themselves from carefree criminals are being told to drop off their application in a year , because of the backlog of permit applications .
Gun Owners of America has sued the city over the unconscionable delays , which have left gun owners in a legal limbo ; unable to legally protect themselves on the streets while criminals are literally getting away with murder .

Like many cities around the country, Philadelphia’s homicide rate is soaring this year. There’ve been more than 400 homicides so far in 2020 compared to 356 murders in all of 2019, which was the most violent year that the city had seen in a decade. Now the city’s on pace for the most homicides since 2007, but even as the murder numbers go up, the number of arrests are going down.
NBC 4 in Philly reports that while police in the city have struggled to clear cases for years, they haven’t seen numbers this low in some time. So far fewer than 30% of the city’s homicides this year have led to an arrest.
The clearance rate is even worse when looking at non-fatal shootings, or those in which the victim survives. Only 16% of the 1,300 non-fatal shootings this year have been cleared. Philadelphia Police Deputy Commissioner Ben Naish overseeing investigations, including gun crimes, said police are overwhelmed with the surge in shootings. He blames COVID-19 and the summer’s civil unrest. “I think it’s fair to say there became this sense of lawlessness,” Naish said.
If people think they can get away with something, they’re more likely to do it, and Philadelphia’s criminals have little fear of consequences at the moment. Even worse, as NBC 4 reported, once an arrest has been made there’s a good chance the charges will be dropped before a trial.
Since District Attorney Larry Krasner took office in 2018, the percentage of gun crime cases that are either withdrawn or dismissed have gone up from 30% in 2018 to 40% in 2020. And those numbers are a far drop from 2015 when the dismissal and withdrawal rate was 18%. Krasner said shooting cases are tough to prove in court if witnesses are reluctant to testify. Some witnesses simply don’t trust the system, he said. But even in cases where witnesses do come forward and testify in court, the judge may still find the case has insufficient evidence to move forward.
What Krasner says is true, but that still doesn’t explain why the conviction rate for violent crimes has dropped under his watch. Unreal as it might sound, at the moment there are more cases that are being dismissed or withdrawn right now than going to trial or resulting in a plea deal, including nearly 53% of robbery cases that are dropped by the DA’s office.
Krasner deflected when asked if the low clearance and conviction rate is contributing to the increased gun violence by emboldening shooters. “I think our police commissioner is doing the best she can,” Krasner said. “I don’t want to say they are emboldened. But I do want to say that we are ready to shoulder the burden with the police department to solve these cases more quickly.” Naish, the deputy commissioner, said that more so than statistics, shooters are driven by a lack of valuing life. “Yes, there’s a sense of I’m not going to get caught but more so than that is a sense of I don’t care,” he said.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who want to get a concealed carry license so that they can protect themselves from carefree criminals are being told to drop off their application in a year, because of the backlog of permit applications. Gun Owners of America has sued the city over the unconscionable delays, which have left gun owners in a legal limbo; unable to legally protect themselves on the streets while criminals are literally getting away with murder.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Lawsuit Filed Over Red Flag Confiscation Data

Supporters of red flag laws love to use the number of times such orders are issued as evidence that they work .
“ Of course red flag laws work .
X County issued over 500 of them last year.
” Of course , they never question the validity of any of the orders and just take it as an article of faith that such orders would never be misused .
It ’ s up to people who are skeptical of such laws to keep and eye on the government and make sure they ’ re not misusing such measures for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when officials won ’ t release records they ’ re required to under state law .
That ’ s precisely what the Firearms Policy Coalition is up against in Sacramento .
Now , they ’ re going to put it before a judge .
The Firearms Policy Coalition ( FPC ) filed suit against Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Department over alleged violations of the California Public Records Act and the state constitution , according to a statement from the Second Amendment organization .
The FPC wrote that it attempted to obtain records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program , which enables authorities to seize firearms from those deemed a threat to themselves or others , but were denied by the department .
“ People have a right to know how the government is enforcing its laws and policies , especially in cases that involve the seizure of firearms and the suspension of fundamental , constitutionally enumerated rights , ” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut said in the statement .
“ The defendants ’ denial of our requests is particularly concerning in light of it being a significant matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look forward to finding out what they ’ re hiding from us and all Californians.
” The gun group sought information about any and all warrants issued by the sheriff ’ s department for firearm confiscations , all records pertaining to the state ’ s red flag program dubbed “ gun violence restraining orders , ” and information about Andrew Casarez , who the organization said had his weapons seized by state authorities .
None of this should constitute privileged information , so why would the Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Department refuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m sure there are plenty of potential reasons , but the most glaring and troubling is that they have something to hide .
When it comes to people ’ s civil liberties , that ’ s a big issue .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine red flag orders being issued for people who aren ’ t really a threat , but maybe a pain in the rear for whatever reason .
Issue an order , take their guns , and force them to shut the hell up if they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights forever .
Sure , that won ’ t work on everyone , but it ’ ll work on some , and maybe that ’ s what ’ s going on .
Or , maybe it ’ s something completely different .
Who knows ?
The truth is that government , any government , can range anywhere from being a dangerous servant to a terrifying master .
It ’ s up to the people to keep it more toward the latter end of the spectrum , but to do that , they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precisely what the Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Department is trying to hide .
It ’ ll be interesting to see what they learn when all this is over .

Supporters of red flag laws love to use the number of times such orders are issued as evidence that they work. “Of course red flag laws work. X County issued over 500 of them last year.”
Of course, they never question the validity of any of the orders and just take it as an article of faith that such orders would never be misused.
It’s up to people who are skeptical of such laws to keep and eye on the government and make sure they’re not misusing such measures for any reason. That’s difficult when officials won’t release records they’re required to under state law. That’s precisely what the Firearms Policy Coalition is up against in Sacramento.
Now, they’re going to put it before a judge.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed suit against Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department over alleged violations of the California Public Records Act and the state constitution, according to a statement from the Second Amendment organization. The FPC wrote that it attempted to obtain records about the state’s red flag program, which enables authorities to seize firearms from those deemed a threat to themselves or others, but were denied by the department. “People have a right to know how the government is enforcing its laws and policies, especially in cases that involve the seizure of firearms and the suspension of fundamental, constitutionally enumerated rights,” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut said in the statement. “The defendants’ denial of our requests is particularly concerning in light of it being a significant matter of great public interest, and we look forward to finding out what they’re hiding from us and all Californians.” The gun group sought information about any and all warrants issued by the sheriff’s department for firearm confiscations, all records pertaining to the state’s red flag program dubbed “gun violence restraining orders,” and information about Andrew Casarez, who the organization said had his weapons seized by state authorities.
None of this should constitute privileged information, so why would the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department refuse to release it?
Well, I’m sure there are plenty of potential reasons, but the most glaring and troubling is that they have something to hide. When it comes to people’s civil liberties, that’s a big issue. It’s not difficult to imagine red flag orders being issued for people who aren’t really a threat, but maybe a pain in the rear for whatever reason. Issue an order, take their guns, and force them to shut the hell up if they don’t want to lose their gun rights forever.
Sure, that won’t work on everyone, but it’ll work on some, and maybe that’s what’s going on.
Or, maybe it’s something completely different. Who knows?
The truth is that government, any government, can range anywhere from being a dangerous servant to a terrifying master. It’s up to the people to keep it more toward the latter end of the spectrum, but to do that, they need access to information. That’s precisely what the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department is trying to hide.
It’ll be interesting to see what they learn when all this is over.


bearingarms--2020-11-13--Local Media Report Hundreds Dead In Ethiopian Knife Massacre

Reports are starting to emerge from Ethiopia about a brutal massacre of as many as 500 unarmed civilians in the town of Mai-Kadra , who were allegedly attacked and slaughtered by an insurgent group doing battle with the country ’ s federal forces .
Amnesty International says it can confirm that the massacre took place this week in the country ’ s Tigray region , and they estimate that it ’ s likely that hundreds of people may have been murdered in the assault .
The organization ’ s Crisis Evidence Lab has examined and digitally verified gruesome photographs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or being carried away on stretchers .
It confirmed the images were recent and using satellite imagery , geolocated them to Mai-Kadra in western Tigray state ( 14.071008 , 36.564681 ) .
“ We have confirmed the massacre of a very large number of civilians , who appear to have been day labourers in no way involved in the ongoing military offensive .
This is a horrific tragedy whose true extent only time will tell as communication in Tigray remains shut down , ” said Deprose Muchena , Amnesty International ’ s Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official death toll in Mai-Kadra is not yet known , the Amhara regional government ’ s media agency AMMA reported there were around 500 victims , adding that they were primarily non-Tigrayan residents of the town .
A man who is helping to clear the bodies from the streets told Amnesty International that he had looked at the state-issued identification cards of some victims , and most were Amhara .
According to witnesses who reportedly arrived at Mai-Kadra shortly after the attack took place , most of the dead were found in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main road to the neighboring town of Humera .
People who saw the dead bodies told Amnesty International that they had gaping wounds that appear to have been inflicted by sharp weapons such as knives and machetes , reports which have been confirmed by an independent pathologist commissioned by Amnesty International .
Witnesses said there were no signs of gunshot wounds .
The witnesses said that together with the EDF soldiers , they found some wounded people among the dead and took them to nearby hospitals in Abreha-Jira and Gondar , before removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those wounded told me they were attacked with machetes , axes and knives .
You can also tell from the wounds that those who died were attacked by sharp objects .
It is horrible and I am really sad that I witnessed this in my life , ” one distraught witness said .
Earlier this year the Ethiopian government passed a new law aimed at cracking down on private gun ownership in the country , ostensibly to help curb the sectarian violence in many regions of the country .
Clearly that new law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of innocent civilians , but I can ’ t help but wonder if the legislation had any impact on the ability of those civilians to acquire arms for self-defense .
“ There is a significant number of guns in our society since the previous government and the law will help us to formalize ownership , ” lawmaker Tesfaye Daba told parliament during the passage of the bill .
The new law provides for each region to stipulate a legal age for gun ownership , Tesfaye said , while limiting the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Violations could bring up to three years in prison , according to the new legislation .
It will also ban private trade in weaponry and allow only allowing certain government institutions to import guns .
Obviously the Ethiopian government wants to do everything it can to crack down on ability of groups like Tigray People ’ s Liberation Front to wage war against the government and civilians , but its efforts to go after private gun ownership may very well have prevented any of the victims of the Mai-Kadra massacre from fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for a full investigation into the massacre and “ possible ” war crimes , which sounds exactly like the type of ineffectual and mealymouthed response we should expect from the UN and other human rights groups .
Amnesty International even bizarrely proclaimed not long ago that a lack of gun control is a violation of human rights .
Personally , I ’ d rather ensure that people who are being attacked can defend themselves , and I find the slaughter of innocent civilians to be a far more egregious violation of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed in self-defense .
The lofty proclamations of politicians who insist that civilian disarmament will lead to an end to conflict have been silently rebuked by the bodies strewn about the dusty streets of the small Ethiopian town , slaughtered senselessly without a chance to fight back .

Reports are starting to emerge from Ethiopia about a brutal massacre of as many as 500 unarmed civilians in the town of Mai-Kadra, who were allegedly attacked and slaughtered by an insurgent group doing battle with the country’s federal forces. Amnesty International says it can confirm that the massacre took place this week in the country’s Tigray region, and they estimate that it’s likely that hundreds of people may have been murdered in the assault.
The organization’s Crisis Evidence Lab has examined and digitally verified gruesome photographs and videos of bodies strewn across the town or being carried away on stretchers. It confirmed the images were recent and using satellite imagery, geolocated them to Mai-Kadra in western Tigray state (14.071008, 36.564681). “We have confirmed the massacre of a very large number of civilians, who appear to have been day labourers in no way involved in the ongoing military offensive. This is a horrific tragedy whose true extent only time will tell as communication in Tigray remains shut down,” said Deprose Muchena, Amnesty International’s Director for East and Southern Africa… While the official death toll in Mai-Kadra is not yet known, the Amhara regional government’s media agency AMMA reported there were around 500 victims, adding that they were primarily non-Tigrayan residents of the town. A man who is helping to clear the bodies from the streets told Amnesty International that he had looked at the state-issued identification cards of some victims, and most were Amhara.
According to witnesses who reportedly arrived at Mai-Kadra shortly after the attack took place, most of the dead were found in the center of the town and along the main road to the neighboring town of Humera.
People who saw the dead bodies told Amnesty International that they had gaping wounds that appear to have been inflicted by sharp weapons such as knives and machetes, reports which have been confirmed by an independent pathologist commissioned by Amnesty International. Witnesses said there were no signs of gunshot wounds. The witnesses said that together with the EDF soldiers, they found some wounded people among the dead and took them to nearby hospitals in Abreha-Jira and Gondar, before removing dead bodies from the streets. “Those wounded told me they were attacked with machetes, axes and knives. You can also tell from the wounds that those who died were attacked by sharp objects. It is horrible and I am really sad that I witnessed this in my life,” one distraught witness said.
Earlier this year the Ethiopian government passed a new law aimed at cracking down on private gun ownership in the country, ostensibly to help curb the sectarian violence in many regions of the country. Clearly that new law did nothing to stop the massacre of dozens of innocent civilians, but I can’t help but wonder if the legislation had any impact on the ability of those civilians to acquire arms for self-defense.
“There is a significant number of guns in our society since the previous government and the law will help us to formalize ownership,” lawmaker Tesfaye Daba told parliament during the passage of the bill. The new law provides for each region to stipulate a legal age for gun ownership, Tesfaye said, while limiting the number of firearms an individual can own to one. Violations could bring up to three years in prison, according to the new legislation. It will also ban private trade in weaponry and allow only allowing certain government institutions to import guns.
Obviously the Ethiopian government wants to do everything it can to crack down on ability of groups like Tigray People’s Liberation Front to wage war against the government and civilians, but its efforts to go after private gun ownership may very well have prevented any of the victims of the Mai-Kadra massacre from fighting back.
The United Nations is now calling for a full investigation into the massacre and “possible” war crimes, which sounds exactly like the type of ineffectual and mealymouthed response we should expect from the UN and other human rights groups. Amnesty International even bizarrely proclaimed not long ago that a lack of gun control is a violation of human rights.
Personally, I’d rather ensure that people who are being attacked can defend themselves, and I find the slaughter of innocent civilians to be a far more egregious violation of human rights than the residents of Mai-Kadra being armed in self-defense. The lofty proclamations of politicians who insist that civilian disarmament will lead to an end to conflict have been silently rebuked by the bodies strewn about the dusty streets of the small Ethiopian town, slaughtered senselessly without a chance to fight back.