bearingarms--2020-01-13--Rhode Island AG Wants Hometown Police Notified Of Gun Purchases

The aftermath of high-profile shootings are odd times .
For one thing , we routinely see anti-gunners immediately call for various gun control measures that ultimately turn out to have no bearing on what happened .
We hear about the need for universal background checks , only to find out that the killer passed such a check .
We hear about magazine restrictions only to find out the killer used a 10-round magazine .
The other side of the aftermath , however , is how some people call for some incredibly stupid things .
Frankly , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to impose some pretty idiotic ideas .
In the wake of the recent Westerly shootings , Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha suggests a tightening of state gun laws to — at the very least — give hometown police chiefs notice that someone who lives in their community is seeking to buy a firearm elsewhere .
Asked about Neronha ’ s 2020 legislative agenda , spokeswoman Kristy dosReis said this week that one “ simple change ” would clarify that gun stores should submit the application to purchase a firearm to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , instead of , or in addition to , where the gun store is located .
“ A police department in the city or town where the purchaser resides is more likely to have additional information about the purchaser than a police department in another town ( where the gun store is , for example ) , ” dosReis said in an email .
“ That additional information , even if it does not constitute a legal prohibitor , could potentially allow that police department to take additional steps if there are reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the purchaser or any other person .
“ Such actions could range from having a simple conversation with the purchaser to potentially seeking a red flag order to stop the sale , if there is a legal basis to pursue one , ” she said .
The proposal comes after a Westerly man , Joseph Giachello , bought a gun at a firearms dealer in Richmond and used it to fatally shoot a manager at his affordable-housing complex .
He wounded two other women at the complex , Babcock Village , before turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a tragedy , to be sure .
However , what bothers me here is that Neronha is looking for excuses to bar someone from having a gun , even if there are absolutely no legal grounds to do so .
He ’ s simply using this tragedy to justify it .
Note how he ’ s made it clear that there may not be a legal reason for someone to be denied a firearm , but they still want to make it so the state has an additional information where they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun .
That includes potentially red-flagging someone who hasn ’ t done anything wrong , just because they want to buy a gun and didn ’ t buy one in their hometown .
Look , let me make something clear .
If someone is a danger to themselves or others , there are steps the government can take to make them not a threat any longer .
The law is quite clear and if someone is that bad of a problem , then the state should make use of those steps to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there ’ s no reason for someone to be denied a gun , it ’ s not the police department ’ s business .
Especially since the state has no firearm registration , meaning it ’ s none of their damn business who buys what and where , so long as the weapons in question are legal in the state .

The aftermath of high-profile shootings are odd times. For one thing, we routinely see anti-gunners immediately call for various gun control measures that ultimately turn out to have no bearing on what happened. We hear about the need for universal background checks, only to find out that the killer passed such a check. We hear about magazine restrictions only to find out the killer used a 10-round magazine.
Things like that.
The other side of the aftermath, however, is how some people call for some incredibly stupid things.
Frankly, it doesn’t even require a mass shooting for someone to try to impose some pretty idiotic ideas.
In the wake of the recent Westerly shootings, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha suggests a tightening of state gun laws to — at the very least — give hometown police chiefs notice that someone who lives in their community is seeking to buy a firearm elsewhere. Asked about Neronha’s 2020 legislative agenda, spokeswoman Kristy dosReis said this week that one “simple change” would clarify that gun stores should submit the application to purchase a firearm to the police department where the buyer lives, instead of, or in addition to, where the gun store is located. “A police department in the city or town where the purchaser resides is more likely to have additional information about the purchaser than a police department in another town (where the gun store is, for example),” dosReis said in an email. “That additional information, even if it does not constitute a legal prohibitor, could potentially allow that police department to take additional steps if there are reasons to be concerned about the safety of the purchaser or any other person. “Such actions could range from having a simple conversation with the purchaser to potentially seeking a red flag order to stop the sale, if there is a legal basis to pursue one,” she said. The proposal comes after a Westerly man, Joseph Giachello, bought a gun at a firearms dealer in Richmond and used it to fatally shoot a manager at his affordable-housing complex. He wounded two other women at the complex, Babcock Village, before turning the gun on himself.
The shooting is a tragedy, to be sure. However, what bothers me here is that Neronha is looking for excuses to bar someone from having a gun, even if there are absolutely no legal grounds to do so.
He’s simply using this tragedy to justify it.
Note how he’s made it clear that there may not be a legal reason for someone to be denied a firearm, but they still want to make it so the state has an additional information where they can act to bar someone from having a gun. That includes potentially red-flagging someone who hasn’t done anything wrong, just because they want to buy a gun and didn’t buy one in their hometown.
Look, let me make something clear. If someone is a danger to themselves or others, there are steps the government can take to make them not a threat any longer. The law is quite clear and if someone is that bad of a problem, then the state should make use of those steps to have someone declared “mentally defective.”
But if there’s no reason for someone to be denied a gun, it’s not the police department’s business.
Especially since the state has no firearm registration, meaning it’s none of their damn business who buys what and where, so long as the weapons in question are legal in the state.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Uh Oh: Gallup Sees Enthusiasm Gap On Gun Issue

According to a new poll from the Gallup Organization , guns are a driving issue for voters in the 2020 election .
That may not come as a surprise , given the intense backlash we ’ ve seen in states like Virginia where Democrats are giving gun owners a sneak peek at their plans for federal gun restrictions if they take power in 2020 .
What may be surprising , and certainly concerning , is that according to Gallup , Democrats view “ guns ” as more important issue than Republicans do by 20 points ; 46 % to 26 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked by this result , but maybe I ’ m biased by living in Virginia and watching tens of thousands of my fellow residents turn out in defense and support of the Second Amendment over recent weeks .
So what ’ s going on here ?
It could be that Republicans are interpreting “ gun policy ” to mean gun control , instead of a broad definition that would include opposition to gun control as well .
It ’ s also possible that many Democrats really are hellbent on enacting gun basic infringements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , and many Republicans are either blissfully unaware or generally unconcerned .
It may be that Republicans are just not as concerned overall as Democrats are these days .
There ’ s some evidence suggesting the latter .
According to the Gallup Poll , there are four subjects that more than 40 % of Democrat respondents called “ very important ” : Among Republicans , there ’ s not a single issue considered “ very important ” by 40 % of respondents .
The closest is “ terrorism/national security , ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
Gun policy is 5th among Republican voters , behind not only terrorism but immigration , the economy , and abortion as well .
I drove by my local gun store in Farmville , Virginia today and I can tell you that based on the packed parking lot there were plenty of people who consider gun policy to be their most important issue in the 2020 elections inside .
I also spoke to a friend in northern Virginia today who was picking out a shotgun , because she ’ s getting her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a line of customers waiting to pick out firearms of their own , and I suspect that gun policy is their most important issue as well .
We can ’ t wait until it ’ s too late to pay attention to this issue .
No matter who the Democrats end up nominating , we ’ ll still be facing the most anti-gun candidate in U.S. history .
I still don ’ t think it will be Michael Bloomberg , but even if he ’ s not the candidate he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars to unseat Donald Trump , and he ’ ll be spending hundreds of millions more in support of anti-gun candidates at the federal , state , and local levels .
I would hate to see the mistakes of Virginia repeated nationally in this year ’ s elections , and we all need to be doing everything we can to prevent that from happening .
Not only does that mean reaching out and trying to engage the other side in civil debate , but it also means alerting our side to the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Gallup poll is right , we ’ ve got a lot of work to do .

According to a new poll from the Gallup Organization, guns are a driving issue for voters in the 2020 election. That may not come as a surprise, given the intense backlash we’ve seen in states like Virginia where Democrats are giving gun owners a sneak peek at their plans for federal gun restrictions if they take power in 2020. What may be surprising, and certainly concerning, is that according to Gallup, Democrats view “guns” as more important issue than Republicans do by 20 points; 46% to 26%.
I’m a little shocked by this result, but maybe I’m biased by living in Virginia and watching tens of thousands of my fellow residents turn out in defense and support of the Second Amendment over recent weeks. So what’s going on here?
It could be that Republicans are interpreting “gun policy” to mean gun control, instead of a broad definition that would include opposition to gun control as well. It’s also possible that many Democrats really are hellbent on enacting gun basic infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, and many Republicans are either blissfully unaware or generally unconcerned. It may be that Republicans are just not as concerned overall as Democrats are these days.
There’s some evidence suggesting the latter. According to the Gallup Poll, there are four subjects that more than 40% of Democrat respondents called “very important”:
Healthcare – 49%
Gun Policy – 46%
Climate Change – 44%
Education – 43%
Among Republicans, there’s not a single issue considered “very important” by 40% of respondents. The closest is “terrorism/national security,” which was important for 38% of Republican voters. Gun policy is 5th among Republican voters, behind not only terrorism but immigration, the economy, and abortion as well.
I drove by my local gun store in Farmville, Virginia today and I can tell you that based on the packed parking lot there were plenty of people who consider gun policy to be their most important issue in the 2020 elections inside. I also spoke to a friend in northern Virginia today who was picking out a shotgun, because she’s getting her sons involved in trap shooting. There was a line of customers waiting to pick out firearms of their own, and I suspect that gun policy is their most important issue as well.
We can’t wait until it’s too late to pay attention to this issue. No matter who the Democrats end up nominating, we’ll still be facing the most anti-gun candidate in U.S. history. I still don’t think it will be Michael Bloomberg, but even if he’s not the candidate he’s committed to spending up to a billion dollars to unseat Donald Trump, and he’ll be spending hundreds of millions more in support of anti-gun candidates at the federal, state, and local levels.
I would hate to see the mistakes of Virginia repeated nationally in this year’s elections, and we all need to be doing everything we can to prevent that from happening. Not only does that mean reaching out and trying to engage the other side in civil debate, but it also means alerting our side to the very real threats that we face. If this Gallup poll is right, we’ve got a lot of work to do.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Group Wants Second Amendment Education In NY Schools

New York isn ’ t a very gun-friendly place .
I don ’ t differentiate between New York City or New York state because , really , it doesn ’ t much matter in this context .
Neither is gun-friendly and since the city dominates politics in the state , the two might as well be synonymous anyway .
However , despite that stance as not being gun-friendly , one group is hoping to push the state to teach Second Amendment education in all public schools .
A gun-rights group based in Western New York is pushing for all New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment curricula .
Activists behind 2AWNY.com have sent state education officials an “ e-book ” draft by Libertarian attorney James Ostrowski , who has made a career of battling New York ’ s stiff gun laws , particularly the controversial Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement ( SAFE ) Act of 2013 .
Ostrowski , joined Monday by 2AWNY activist Steve Felano and Libertarian NY-27 congressional candidate Duane Whitmer in downtown Albany ’ s Hampton Inn & Suites , argued that schoolchildren should know the role guns played in the formation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ e-book , billed “ a primer on how to defend our most important right , ” warns that throughout history , gun rights have formed a barrier against tyranny , sparing American citizens of the types of historical atrocities that occurred under Nazi Germany , Mao ’ s China and the Soviet Union .
“ It ’ s a bad time to be disarmed , ” Ostrowski writes in his politically charged manifesto .
“ The left is resurgent and more radical than ever .
They are undeterred by the fact that every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflicted , through state gun violence , widespread misery , poverty , strife and often mass murder.
” Now , I don ’ t disagree here .
The problem , though , is that while it ’ s fine to support this particular book being taught in schools , I don ’ t think 2AWNY.com has really thought this one through .
Once they open the door here , it ’ s the state of New York that will be in charge of teaching the lessons .
That may well lead to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s anti-gun .
That leads to textbooks like those used in California that explicitly teach that the Second Amendment isn ’ t antithetical to gun control , as was recently highlighted by the New York Times .
In fact , at the end of the day , even if they taught the book , we all know that the teachers themselves would put their own spin on this ; likely an anti-gun spin at that .
I like the idea , but the problem is that I don ’ t think anyone should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the execution of it .
Then again , it ’ s not like they haven ’ t likely already taught something akin to the California version of the Second Amendment rather than the truth we all know .
Frankly , though , I ’ m not losing sleep either way .
It ’ s extremely unlikely that this push will amount to anything in a state so anti-gun .
Besides , the Bully-in-Chief that serves as governor of the state would never let that come to pass .
He ’ s too busy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .

New York isn’t a very gun-friendly place. I don’t differentiate between New York City or New York state because, really, it doesn’t much matter in this context. Neither is gun-friendly and since the city dominates politics in the state, the two might as well be synonymous anyway.
However, despite that stance as not being gun-friendly, one group is hoping to push the state to teach Second Amendment education in all public schools.
A gun-rights group based in Western New York is pushing for all New York public schools to beef up their Second Amendment curricula. Activists behind 2AWNY.com have sent state education officials an “e-book” draft by Libertarian attorney James Ostrowski, who has made a career of battling New York’s stiff gun laws, particularly the controversial Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013. Ostrowski, joined Monday by 2AWNY activist Steve Felano and Libertarian NY-27 congressional candidate Duane Whitmer in downtown Albany’s Hampton Inn & Suites, argued that schoolchildren should know the role guns played in the formation of the United States as a Democracy. The e-book, billed “a primer on how to defend our most important right,” warns that throughout history, gun rights have formed a barrier against tyranny, sparing American citizens of the types of historical atrocities that occurred under Nazi Germany, Mao’s China and the Soviet Union. “It’s a bad time to be disarmed,” Ostrowski writes in his politically charged manifesto. “The left is resurgent and more radical than ever. They are undeterred by the fact that every leftist regime that ever got power, inflicted, through state gun violence, widespread misery, poverty, strife and often mass murder.”
Now, I don’t disagree here. The problem, though, is that while it’s fine to support this particular book being taught in schools, I don’t think 2AWNY.com has really thought this one through.
Once they open the door here, it’s the state of New York that will be in charge of teaching the lessons. That may well lead to the book being dropped for something that’s anti-gun. That leads to textbooks like those used in California that explicitly teach that the Second Amendment isn’t antithetical to gun control, as was recently highlighted by the New York Times.
In fact, at the end of the day, even if they taught the book, we all know that the teachers themselves would put their own spin on this; likely an anti-gun spin at that.
I like the idea, but the problem is that I don’t think anyone should trust the state of New York on the execution of it.
Then again, it’s not like they haven’t likely already taught something akin to the California version of the Second Amendment rather than the truth we all know.
Frankly, though, I’m not losing sleep either way. It’s extremely unlikely that this push will amount to anything in a state so anti-gun. Besides, the Bully-in-Chief that serves as governor of the state would never let that come to pass. He’s too busy burnishing up his anti-gun credentials to allow that.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Gun Rights Group Opposes Ohio Proposed Gun Law Changes

The pressure to “ do something ” in Ohio has been high ever since the mass shooting in Dayton .
That ’ s not unusual , of course .
After all , anti-gunners and the media will always ramp up the pressure on lawmakers following a mass shooting , regardless of whether any of the proposed measures would have had an impact beforehand or not .
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is trying to walk a tightrope .
He ’ s wanting to please the gun grabbers in his state without angering gun rights supporters .
It seems others had their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
An influential gun rights group says it ’ s opposing a bill that would make changes in Ohio ’ s gun and mental health laws .
The leader of the Ohio House had pointed to that bill as an alternative to Gov .
Mike DeWine ’ s anti-gun violence package – a proposal that is likely to be opposed by some Republicans .
The Buckeye Firearms Association lists several problems with the bill from Phil Plummer ( R-Dayton ) and D.J .
Swearingen ( R-Huron ) – the biggest , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason a person could be involuntarily hospitalized in a psychiatric facility .
In and of itself , I doubt the Buckeye Firearms Association really cares whether someone could be involuntarily committed for substance abuse…except that such commitment would negatively impact their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
You see , for one thing , the term “ substance abuse ” is broad and vague .
Someone who is addicted to meth and someone with a drinking problem isn ’ t really the same thing .
Alcohol is legal and plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fly , even under the influence , develop alcoholism .
In fact , some do it so badly that their families would do anything to get them help .
Believe me , I know .
An uncle who was more like a brother to me drank himself to death and the rest of us were powerless to do a damn thing to help him .
I get it .
Yet should that interfere with someone ’ s right to keep and bear arms ?
Of course not .
That ’ s really what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that the measure would negatively impact so many people who aren ’ t a threat to anyone should upset people .
It should infuriate anyone .
There are a lot of people who develop substance abuse problems through otherwise law-abiding behavior .
NFL legend Brett Favre developed an addiction to painkillers brought on by his time on the field , for example .
Others develop dependency due to other factors like a car accident or who knows what else .
Regardless , people shouldn ’ t face having their right stripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because of that , I ’ m with the Buckeye Firearms Association on this one .
While I do think the bill was well-intentioned , you know what they say about the road to hell and all that .
If Republicans in the state want to present an alternative to DeWine ’ s , they need to go back to the drawing board because this one sure as hell ain ’ t it .

The pressure to “do something” in Ohio has been high ever since the mass shooting in Dayton. That’s not unusual, of course. After all, anti-gunners and the media will always ramp up the pressure on lawmakers following a mass shooting, regardless of whether any of the proposed measures would have had an impact beforehand or not.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is trying to walk a tightrope. He’s wanting to please the gun grabbers in his state without angering gun rights supporters. It seems others had their own plans for doing the exact same thing.
They failed.
An influential gun rights group says it’s opposing a bill that would make changes in Ohio’s gun and mental health laws. The leader of the Ohio House had pointed to that bill as an alternative to Gov. Mike DeWine’s anti-gun violence package – a proposal that is likely to be opposed by some Republicans. The Buckeye Firearms Association lists several problems with the bill from Phil Plummer (R-Dayton) and D.J. Swearingen (R-Huron) – the biggest, that it would add substance abuse as a reason a person could be involuntarily hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.
In and of itself, I doubt the Buckeye Firearms Association really cares whether someone could be involuntarily committed for substance abuse…except that such commitment would negatively impact their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
You see, for one thing, the term “substance abuse” is broad and vague. Someone who is addicted to meth and someone with a drinking problem isn’t really the same thing. Alcohol is legal and plenty of law-abiding people who would never hurt a fly, even under the influence, develop alcoholism. In fact, some do it so badly that their families would do anything to get them help.
Believe me, I know. An uncle who was more like a brother to me drank himself to death and the rest of us were powerless to do a damn thing to help him. I get it.
Yet should that interfere with someone’s right to keep and bear arms? Of course not.
That’s really what has the Buckeye Firearms Association upset. The fact that the measure would negatively impact so many people who aren’t a threat to anyone should upset people. It should infuriate anyone.
There are a lot of people who develop substance abuse problems through otherwise law-abiding behavior. NFL legend Brett Favre developed an addiction to painkillers brought on by his time on the field, for example. Others develop dependency due to other factors like a car accident or who knows what else.
Regardless, people shouldn’t face having their right stripped away because of something like this.
Because of that, I’m with the Buckeye Firearms Association on this one. While I do think the bill was well-intentioned, you know what they say about the road to hell and all that.
If Republicans in the state want to present an alternative to DeWine’s, they need to go back to the drawing board because this one sure as hell ain’t it.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--A Closer Look At The First Gun Bills To See Action in VA

After Democrats in control of Virginia ’ s Senate Judiciary Committee approved four gun control bills on Monday , I thought it would be a good idea to delve into the details of the legislation , especially since several bills were amended by the committee .
David Adams , legislative affairs director of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association was at the committee hearing on Monday morning , and joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about what these bills now look like , and what happens next .
The biggest change was likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sen. Chap Petersen from northern Virginia ( but one who was a reputation for being more “ moderate ” on gun issues than his colleagues like Sen. Dick Saslaw ) successfully changed the bill to only apply to sales of firearms , not transfers .
However , virtually all exceptions were stripped from the legislation , which means if the bill passes in its current form , you could give your brother a shotgun for Christmas without having to go through the background check process , but if he sold it back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d have to through a background check in order to legally receive it .
As Adams says , the change probably makes a bad bill a little less awful , but it ’ s still not anything that the VSSA , VCDL , or any other 2A group is going to support .
We also discuss changes to the “ red flag ” or Extreme Risk Protection Order legislation approved by the committee , as well as “ one-gun-a-month ” and a bill to weaken the state ’ s firearms preemption policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as well ; the dishonesty and flagrant flouting of parliamentary procedures that Democrats are engaging in at the capitol .
According to Adams , the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn ’ t even supposed to hear any gun bills on Monday , due to the absence of Sen. Bill Stanley .
In fact , the committee chairman , Sen. John Edwards , told Stanley that no gun bills would be called .
Apparently the Democrat Caucus changed Sen. Edwards ’ mind , because after an hour-long delay caused by the Democrats ’ new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate not only approved every gun control bill brought up for discussion , it even killed a bill that wasn ’ t on the docket ( which violated Senate procedures ) .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation , and if you ’ re a Virginia gun owner , be sure to contact your delegate and state senator to express your opposition to these gun bills now heading to the Senate floor .
Also on today ’ s program we have the story of a budding young rapper on parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder charges , a woman who pulled her gun on a pervert in the woman ’ s room at a Dearborn , Michigan mall , and a Wisconsin police officer in the right place at the right time to save Old Glory from blowing away .
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , Soundcloud , and the Townhall.com podcast page .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

After Democrats in control of Virginia’s Senate Judiciary Committee approved four gun control bills on Monday, I thought it would be a good idea to delve into the details of the legislation, especially since several bills were amended by the committee. David Adams, legislative affairs director of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association was at the committee hearing on Monday morning, and joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about what these bills now look like, and what happens next.
The biggest change was likely with the proposed universal background check law. Sen. Chap Petersen from northern Virginia (but one who was a reputation for being more “moderate” on gun issues than his colleagues like Sen. Dick Saslaw) successfully changed the bill to only apply to sales of firearms, not transfers. However, virtually all exceptions were stripped from the legislation, which means if the bill passes in its current form, you could give your brother a shotgun for Christmas without having to go through the background check process, but if he sold it back to you the day after Christmas you’d have to through a background check in order to legally receive it.
As Adams says, the change probably makes a bad bill a little less awful, but it’s still not anything that the VSSA, VCDL, or any other 2A group is going to support.
We also discuss changes to the “red flag” or Extreme Risk Protection Order legislation approved by the committee, as well as “one-gun-a-month” and a bill to weaken the state’s firearms preemption policy.
One other topic of conversation came up as well; the dishonesty and flagrant flouting of parliamentary procedures that Democrats are engaging in at the capitol. According to Adams, the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn’t even supposed to hear any gun bills on Monday, due to the absence of Sen. Bill Stanley. In fact, the committee chairman, Sen. John Edwards, told Stanley that no gun bills would be called. Apparently the Democrat Caucus changed Sen. Edwards’ mind, because after an hour-long delay caused by the Democrats’ new ban on firearms in the capitol, the Senate not only approved every gun control bill brought up for discussion, it even killed a bill that wasn’t on the docket (which violated Senate procedures).
Be sure to check out the entire conversation, and if you’re a Virginia gun owner, be sure to contact your delegate and state senator to express your opposition to these gun bills now heading to the Senate floor.
Also on today’s program we have the story of a budding young rapper on parole in California who’s now facing murder charges, a woman who pulled her gun on a pervert in the woman’s room at a Dearborn, Michigan mall, and a Wisconsin police officer in the right place at the right time to save Old Glory from blowing away.
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Soundcloud, and the Townhall.com podcast page. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-01-14--VA Legislative Moves Don't Make Gun Control A Certainty

The state of Virginia has really been dominating the Second Amendment news feed for a while now .
That ’ s hardly surprising since the moment Democrats knew they ’ d have control of the legislature , they announced they were going to ram gun control down the state ’ s throat .
They convinced themselves that this was what the people wanted .
Since then , though , most of the state has adopted resolutions declaring their counties as “ Second Amendment sanctuaries.
” Like , 90 percent or more of the state .
Yet yesterday ’ s moves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much attention to that .
However , it also doesn ’ t necessarily mean that Virginia is about to start competing with California for “ most anti-gun state status , ” either .
Things are far from certain .
First , the pressure on some Democrats may mean some gun control measures end up being more moderate .
[ 10 News political analyst Dr. Ed ] Lynch said some Democrats may be influenced by the Second Amendment sanctuaries that have pledged to resist new gun laws .
“ That ’ s far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more persuasive evidence that Virginians were certainly voting for change but they weren ’ t necessarily voting for this sort of change , ” Lynch said .
Secondly , Lynch thinks many gun control laws would immediately go into litigation , with some reaching higher appeals courts where they will face judges who are President Donald Trump appointees , making the gun debate outcome uncertain in the long run .
Lynch argues that part of the reason the push right now is so aggressive is that Northam and company don ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s certainly an accurate point .
That ’ s especially true if Democrats in the legislature start facing a lot of pushback at home .
In other words , the time is perfect for still more grassroots activism in the Old Dominion state .
Calling legislators and making your opinions known , making it damn clear that they do not want to go down that road if they want to remain in office certainly can ’ t hurt .
Just be respectful and polite when you speak with people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ victimhood status and make an anti-gun vote and spin it as a moral principle in the face of threats .
Plus , as Lynch notes , those measures are going to result in lawsuits .
Those lawsuits will go before Trump-appointed judges who tend to be pro-gun .
While it looks like Virginia is a slam dunk for gun control , it ’ s far from over .
There ’ s still a whole lot going on and a lot of battles left to fight .
Yes , Monday ’ s vote was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not necessarily going to hold indefinitely .
Even if it does , that ’ s still not all she wrote on the fight to defend the Second Amendment in the state .
Look , a lot of people are talking about the Boogaloo starting up in Virginia , and they ’ re not entirely wrong .
What I will say , though , is that there is a long , long way to go before any of that comes to pass because there are so many more steps left to fight @ @ @

The state of Virginia has really been dominating the Second Amendment news feed for a while now. That’s hardly surprising since the moment Democrats knew they’d have control of the legislature, they announced they were going to ram gun control down the state’s throat. They convinced themselves that this was what the people wanted.
Since then, though, most of the state has adopted resolutions declaring their counties as “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” Like, 90 percent or more of the state.
Yet yesterday’s moves suggest that lawmakers aren’t paying much attention to that.
However, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that Virginia is about to start competing with California for “most anti-gun state status,” either. Things are far from certain.
First, the pressure on some Democrats may mean some gun control measures end up being more moderate. [10 News political analyst Dr. Ed] Lynch said some Democrats may be influenced by the Second Amendment sanctuaries that have pledged to resist new gun laws. “That’s far more meaningful, far more far-reaching and far more persuasive evidence that Virginians were certainly voting for change but they weren’t necessarily voting for this sort of change,” Lynch said. Secondly, Lynch thinks many gun control laws would immediately go into litigation, with some reaching higher appeals courts where they will face judges who are President Donald Trump appointees, making the gun debate outcome uncertain in the long run.
Lynch argues that part of the reason the push right now is so aggressive is that Northam and company don’t really expect that lock-step loyalty to continue indefinitely. That’s certainly an accurate point. That’s especially true if Democrats in the legislature start facing a lot of pushback at home.
In other words, the time is perfect for still more grassroots activism in the Old Dominion state. Calling legislators and making your opinions known, making it damn clear that they do not want to go down that road if they want to remain in office certainly can’t hurt. Just be respectful and polite when you speak with people. Make it impossible for them to declare victimhood status and make an anti-gun vote and spin it as a moral principle in the face of threats.
Plus, as Lynch notes, those measures are going to result in lawsuits. Those lawsuits will go before Trump-appointed judges who tend to be pro-gun.
While it looks like Virginia is a slam dunk for gun control, it’s far from over. There’s still a whole lot going on and a lot of battles left to fight. Yes, Monday’s vote was right down party lines, but that’s not necessarily going to hold indefinitely. Even if it does, that’s still not all she wrote on the fight to defend the Second Amendment in the state.
Look, a lot of people are talking about the Boogaloo starting up in Virginia, and they’re not entirely wrong. What I will say, though, is that there is a long, long way to go before any of that comes to pass because there are so many more steps left to fight this insanity.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Background Check Bill Clears FL Senate Committee

As anti-gun Democrats in Virginia were taking the first steps towards passing Governor Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda on Monday , some Republicans in Florida were giving their approval of a bill that would impose new restrictions on private transfers of firearms , including a requirement that background checks be performed on all transfers at gun shows .
The state senate ’ s Committee on Infrastructure and Security approved SB 7028 on a 7-0 vote , over the objections of gun owners and the state ’ s most powerful pro-2A lobbyist .
From the Miami Herald : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marion Hammer , said “ a vote for this bill is a vote for massive gun control.
” “ It appears to be an actual attempt to ban private sales through red tape and fear , ” Hammer said .
“ Asking average citizens to create what amounts to a government form and get it notarized is ridiculous.
” As Hammer notes , the legislation requires a bizarre and byzantine system for private gun sellers .
…when selling a gun to another individual , the seller would be required to check the person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re legally allowed to own the weapon and fill out a form recording the transaction .
The form would include a list of questions for the buyer , such as whether they ’ re a felon , a fugitive from justice , or have anything else in their history that would prevent them from owning a gun .
The seller would then confirm that they have “ no knowledge or reason to believe that the purchaser is of unsound mind.
” The form would have to be witnessed and signed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t require the seller to do anything with the form .
[ State Senator Tom ] Lee said it would be in the seller ’ s “ best interests ” to hold on to the form indefinitely , “ should this weapon ultimately get used in the commission of a crime.
” Not filling out the forms would be a second-degree misdemeanor , punishable by up to 60 days in jail .
Sen. Lee talked after the vote about trying to find the “ least onerous ” way to add new regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t it .
Tracking down a notary public to witness the form is going to be at least as burdensome as trekking down to your local FFL , and notary publics are going to charge their own fees to witness the form .
In addition to the new regulations on private transfers of firearms , the bill imposes several other restrictions on legal gun owners .
Requires that loaded firearms be securely stored to prevent anyone under the age of 18 from accessing them .
The current age in the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second-degree misdemeanor , carrying up to 60 days in jail .
Requires that loaded firearms be kept securely stored to prevent anyone of “ unsound mind ” from accessing them .
The penalty is also a second-degree misdemeanor .
Requires paramedics and other emergency medical workers to report to police people who are a danger to themselves or the public .
The provision currently exists for mental health workers .
Assigns the Florida Department of Law Enforcement with creating a statewide “ threat assessment ” system to prevent active shooters and assigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 6 million .
As a parent and a gun owner , I can ’ t get behind a provision that denies parents the ability to decide when their child is old enough to have access to a firearm for self-defense .
I ’ ve covered enough stories to know that there are times when a minor may need to protect themselves .
In fact , back in 2006 , the Miami Herald reported the story of a 15-year old Floridian who used his father ’ s gun in self-defense .
Do lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dad should face up to 60-days in jail ?
Just because the bill has cleared a Senate committee doesn ’ t mean it ’ s on track to become law .
The Miami Herald notes that the Republican Speaker of the House hasn ’ t come out in support of any new gun control bills , and Gov .
Ron DeSantis was elected after declaring that he would have vetoed the package of laws passed in the wake of the shooting in Parkland , Florida in 2018 .
Still , gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their state senators and house members to urge them to reject any bill that restricts the rights of the law abiding while failing to crack down on the state ’ s violent criminals .

As anti-gun Democrats in Virginia were taking the first steps towards passing Governor Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda on Monday, some Republicans in Florida were giving their approval of a bill that would impose new restrictions on private transfers of firearms, including a requirement that background checks be performed on all transfers at gun shows.
The state senate’s Committee on Infrastructure and Security approved SB 7028 on a 7-0 vote, over the objections of gun owners and the state’s most powerful pro-2A lobbyist. From the Miami Herald:
The NRA’s longtime Florida lobbyist, Marion Hammer, said “a vote for this bill is a vote for massive gun control.” “It appears to be an actual attempt to ban private sales through red tape and fear,” Hammer said. “Asking average citizens to create what amounts to a government form and get it notarized is ridiculous.”
As Hammer notes, the legislation requires a bizarre and byzantine system for private gun sellers.
…when selling a gun to another individual, the seller would be required to check the person’s ID to make sure they’re legally allowed to own the weapon and fill out a form recording the transaction. The form would include a list of questions for the buyer, such as whether they’re a felon, a fugitive from justice, or have anything else in their history that would prevent them from owning a gun. The seller would then confirm that they have “no knowledge or reason to believe that the purchaser is of unsound mind.” The form would have to be witnessed and signed by a notary public, but the bill doesn’t require the seller to do anything with the form. [State Senator Tom] Lee said it would be in the seller’s “best interests” to hold on to the form indefinitely, “should this weapon ultimately get used in the commission of a crime.” Not filling out the forms would be a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail.
Sen. Lee talked after the vote about trying to find the “least onerous” way to add new regulations for private gun sellers, but this isn’t it. Tracking down a notary public to witness the form is going to be at least as burdensome as trekking down to your local FFL, and notary publics are going to charge their own fees to witness the form.
In addition to the new regulations on private transfers of firearms, the bill imposes several other restrictions on legal gun owners.
Requires that loaded firearms be securely stored to prevent anyone under the age of 18 from accessing them. The current age in the law is 16. The penalty is still a second-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to 60 days in jail. Requires that loaded firearms be kept securely stored to prevent anyone of “unsound mind” from accessing them. The penalty is also a second-degree misdemeanor. Requires paramedics and other emergency medical workers to report to police people who are a danger to themselves or the public. The provision currently exists for mental health workers. Assigns the Florida Department of Law Enforcement with creating a statewide “threat assessment” system to prevent active shooters and assigns the department 37 full-time positions and nearly $6 million.
As a parent and a gun owner, I can’t get behind a provision that denies parents the ability to decide when their child is old enough to have access to a firearm for self-defense. I’ve covered enough stories to know that there are times when a minor may need to protect themselves. In fact, back in 2006, the Miami Herald reported the story of a 15-year old Floridian who used his father’s gun in self-defense. Do lawmakers really believe that in cases like that, Dad should face up to 60-days in jail?
Just because the bill has cleared a Senate committee doesn’t mean it’s on track to become law. The Miami Herald notes that the Republican Speaker of the House hasn’t come out in support of any new gun control bills, and Gov. Ron DeSantis was elected after declaring that he would have vetoed the package of laws passed in the wake of the shooting in Parkland, Florida in 2018. Still, gun owners in Florida need to be in contact with their state senators and house members to urge them to reject any bill that restricts the rights of the law abiding while failing to crack down on the state’s violent criminals.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--CA Town LOWERS Cost Of Gun Permit To $500

The city of Murrieta , California wants to give back to its citizens .
Thanks to a new tax measure , they ’ ve got money coming from other places and now they want to make life a bit easier for the good people who call Murrieta home .
In particular , they ’ re going to foot the bill for the background check required for a California concealed carry permit .
Now , that may not sound like much , but since citizens were paying $ 300 for that , it ’ s a nice chunk of change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks in Murrieta will be able to save money getting a permit .
Not that some won ’ t be able to afford it anyway .
Getting a concealed carry weapons permit in Murrieta isn ’ t any easier this year , but it will be a little cheaper by using taxpayer money to pay for some of the fees .
“ The purpose of this change was to give back to the citizens of Murrieta for the Measure T tax measure that was passed last year to give us extra tax money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that , ” said Sgt .
Jeremy Durrant of the Murrieta Police Department .
The fee breakdown before this year included a background check , a license fee , the fingerprinting fee , a psychological evaluation and weapon and safety training .
That ’ s a grand total of nearly $ 800 .
But now the city will be paying for that background check , saving people in Murrieta close to $ 300 .
“ There are many categories of fees associated with getting a ( Carry Concealed Weapon ) , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t , ” Durrant said .
Seriously ?
$ 500 is the reduced rate ?
Sweet breakdancing Tesla on a rocket-power Segway , that ’ s freaking ridiculous .
And yet that ’ s still a damn sight better than the $ 800 people were having to pay .
Democrats have held control over California for decades .
Democrats claim to be all about the “ little guy , ” the poor of our fair nation .
They routinely claim that so many of their policies are motivated by compassion for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have made it virtually impossible for those same less fortunate souls to get a concealed carry permit .
The fact that they ’ re a “ may issue ” state and can turn people down anytime they want is bad enough , but how many don ’ t even bother to ask because they simply can ’ t afford the ridiculously high rate ?
This is a constitutionally protected right , for crying out loud .
This is something the Founding Fathers believed we had a God-given right to do , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 800 to exercise that right ?
If Alabama ( hypothetically ) decided to charge people $ 25 to process a voter ’ s registration card , progressives all over the country would flipping lose their minds .
“ Poll tax !
” they ’ d scream , and it wouldn ’ t be completely unwarranted .
After all , if requiring people to pay for a picture ID card counts as a poll tax , I ’ d imagine a processing fee would as well .
But there ’ s absolute silence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee to get permission to carry a gun .
It ’ s almost hilarious because these same people dismiss Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ’ s comments about the Second Amendment being treated like a second class right out of hand .
They think the notion is absolutely ridiculous…all while supporting crap like this .

The city of Murrieta, California wants to give back to its citizens. Thanks to a new tax measure, they’ve got money coming from other places and now they want to make life a bit easier for the good people who call Murrieta home.
In particular, they’re going to foot the bill for the background check required for a California concealed carry permit. Now, that may not sound like much, but since citizens were paying $300 for that, it’s a nice chunk of change.
Now, thanks to this largesse, folks in Murrieta will be able to save money getting a permit. Not that some won’t be able to afford it anyway.
Getting a concealed carry weapons permit in Murrieta isn’t any easier this year, but it will be a little cheaper by using taxpayer money to pay for some of the fees. “The purpose of this change was to give back to the citizens of Murrieta for the Measure T tax measure that was passed last year to give us extra tax money for police, public safety and stuff like that,” said Sgt. Jeremy Durrant of the Murrieta Police Department. The fee breakdown before this year included a background check, a license fee, the fingerprinting fee, a psychological evaluation and weapon and safety training. That’s a grand total of nearly $800. But now the city will be paying for that background check, saving people in Murrieta close to $300. “There are many categories of fees associated with getting a (Carry Concealed Weapon), some we have control over and some we don’t,” Durrant said.
Seriously? $500 is the reduced rate?
Sweet breakdancing Tesla on a rocket-power Segway, that’s freaking ridiculous. And yet that’s still a damn sight better than the $800 people were having to pay.
Democrats have held control over California for decades. Democrats claim to be all about the “little guy,” the poor of our fair nation. They routinely claim that so many of their policies are motivated by compassion for the less fortunate.
And yet, they have made it virtually impossible for those same less fortunate souls to get a concealed carry permit. The fact that they’re a “may issue” state and can turn people down anytime they want is bad enough, but how many don’t even bother to ask because they simply can’t afford the ridiculously high rate?
This is a constitutionally protected right, for crying out loud. This is something the Founding Fathers believed we had a God-given right to do, and California is charging people as much as $800 to exercise that right?
If Alabama (hypothetically) decided to charge people $25 to process a voter’s registration card, progressives all over the country would flipping lose their minds. “Poll tax!” they’d scream, and it wouldn’t be completely unwarranted. After all, if requiring people to pay for a picture ID card counts as a poll tax, I’d imagine a processing fee would as well.
But there’s absolute silence from the left about an $800 fee to get permission to carry a gun.
It’s almost hilarious because these same people dismiss Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s comments about the Second Amendment being treated like a second class right out of hand. They think the notion is absolutely ridiculous…all while supporting crap like this.


bearingarms--2020-01-15--AP: Northam To Ban Guns From Capitol Grounds

The Associated Press is reporting that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam is set to declare a temporary emergency and ban all firearms from the grounds of the state capitol , just days before tens of thousands of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are set to rally and lobby lawmakers .
The AP spoke with two individuals familiar with the governor ’ s plans , who say Northam will announce the move at a Wednesday press conference .
Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons , including guns , from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights .
That ’ s according to two state officials who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak publicly about them .
The governor , a Democrat , plans to announce the plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon because of credible threats of potential violence and extremism , one official said .
One official said Northam decided to ban all guns from the grounds of Capitol Square after receiving reports for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-gun and militia groups who are promising to attend Monday ’ s rally .
The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence , but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia .
The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “ great sight angles from certain buildings ” near Capitol Square .
I haven ’ t seen that posting , but to be blunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitol grounds wouldn ’ t prevent someone intent on doing harm from doing so outside of any gun-free zone set up by the governor .
As someone who ’ ll be in attendance and speaking at Lobby Day on Monday , I can tell you that everyone involved , and those Virginians planning on attending , aren ’ t showing up at the capitol to commit acts of violence .
In fact , anyone who plans on traveling to Richmond with the intent of causing harm or sparking unrest is no friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you ’ re not showing up to peacefully protest and to lobby lawmakers , stay home .
The tens of thousands of Virginians who ’ ve shown up at their county supervisors meetings all did so peacefully , and in many cases were armed while in attendance .
There are now 130 Second Amendment Sanctuaries in the state , and at no meeting has there been any violence or unrest , just an incredible number of engaged citizens intent on making their voices heard .
Many of them weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until they became aware that anti-gun politicians are interested in them .
Now these same folks are being told that they ’ re not to be trusted .
I believe that ’ s exactly the wrong message for Governor Northam to send at the moment , but then again , he ’ s apparently not interested in having a conversation with me about his recent moves .
I do understand that this event is likely to feature an overwhelming number of attendees , and I ’ m not blind to the public safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also believe that the governor knows exactly what he ’ s doing by invoking Charlottesville in his messaging regarding his gun ban at the capitol .
I think it ’ s disgusting to compare Lobby Day in to a bunch of white supremacists and antifa elements who came looking for a fight , and it honestly saddens me that Governor Northam believes that his best political strategy is to attempt to demonize Virginia ’ s gun owners .
We ’ ll have more on this developing story throughout the day , including reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians in the state .

The Associated Press is reporting that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam is set to declare a temporary emergency and ban all firearms from the grounds of the state capitol, just days before tens of thousands of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are set to rally and lobby lawmakers.
The AP spoke with two individuals familiar with the governor’s plans, who say Northam will announce the move at a Wednesday press conference.
Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam plans to declare a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights. That’s according to two state officials who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak publicly about them. The governor, a Democrat, plans to announce the plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon because of credible threats of potential violence and extremism, one official said.
What kind of credible threats?
One official said Northam decided to ban all guns from the grounds of Capitol Square after receiving reports for weeks about inflammatory online postings by out-of-state pro-gun and militia groups who are promising to attend Monday’s rally. The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence, but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia. The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “great sight angles from certain buildings” near Capitol Square.
I haven’t seen that posting, but to be blunt, a ban on guns on the capitol grounds wouldn’t prevent someone intent on doing harm from doing so outside of any gun-free zone set up by the governor.
As someone who’ll be in attendance and speaking at Lobby Day on Monday, I can tell you that everyone involved, and those Virginians planning on attending, aren’t showing up at the capitol to commit acts of violence. In fact, anyone who plans on traveling to Richmond with the intent of causing harm or sparking unrest is no friend of the Second Amendment or Virginia gun owners. If you’re not showing up to peacefully protest and to lobby lawmakers, stay home.
The tens of thousands of Virginians who’ve shown up at their county supervisors meetings all did so peacefully, and in many cases were armed while in attendance. There are now 130 Second Amendment Sanctuaries in the state, and at no meeting has there been any violence or unrest, just an incredible number of engaged citizens intent on making their voices heard. Many of them weren’t really interested in politics, at least until they became aware that anti-gun politicians are interested in them.
Now these same folks are being told that they’re not to be trusted. I believe that’s exactly the wrong message for Governor Northam to send at the moment, but then again, he’s apparently not interested in having a conversation with me about his recent moves.
I do understand that this event is likely to feature an overwhelming number of attendees, and I’m not blind to the public safety concerns. That being said, I also believe that the governor knows exactly what he’s doing by invoking Charlottesville in his messaging regarding his gun ban at the capitol. I think it’s disgusting to compare Lobby Day in to a bunch of white supremacists and antifa elements who came looking for a fight, and it honestly saddens me that Governor Northam believes that his best political strategy is to attempt to demonize Virginia’s gun owners.
We’ll have more on this developing story throughout the day, including reaction from Second Amendment advocates and pro-Second Amendment politicians in the state.


bearingarms--2020-01-14--Colorado Judge Denies Red Flag Order

Colorado Judge Denies Red Flag Order

I ’ ve long said that the biggest problem with red flag laws is that the judge makes a decision based on what a third party says about a person , even though that third party is almost never a recognized expert on psychology or any other relevant field .
As such , it seems like there ’ s almost nothing to prevent the orders from just being handed out like candy on Halloween .
However , a judge in Colorado did something we really don ’ t hear much about .
For the first time , a judge has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man ’ s guns under Colorado ’ s new red flag law .
A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request .
CBS4 obtained the request for a temporary extreme risk protection order filed in Limon .
A woman wrote she was getting “ verbal and physical threats ” with a handgun from the man identified in the order .
She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana .
The judge denied the request to take his guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good thing .
I think any other new law you ’ re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are , ” said Gruenberg , a gun owner not associated with the case .
However , proponents are reading too much into this one .
The problems , however , didn ’ t just disappear .
The judge is still just one person and he still hasn ’ t even seen the person in question .
Just because this case had a judge who didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean the system works .
For example , the same judge with the same evidence could just as easily granted the order .
There ’ s no standard of evidence really required for these cases , just someone saying they ’ re scared .
There are no experts testifying that yes , Joe Blow is a risk to himself or others .
Really , there ’ s nothing except “ he said/she said ” testimony .
Additionally , let ’ s also keep in mind that this is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one being denied .
You see , another part of the problems with red flag laws is the mere use of them by anyone is being held up as proof that they work .
However , we don ’ t hear about the denials .
Are there any ?
We know it ’ s the first time a judge in Colorado has denied a red flag request , but is this the first one anywhere in the nation ?
We honestly don ’ t know , and that ’ s an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even know why this one was denied .
What we do know , however , is that way too many people are being stripped of their rights when they ’ ve broken no laws , simply because someone says they ’ re a threat .
That should never be the case because anyone can make up anything .
This judge appears to have seen through that , but what about the next judge ?

I’ve long said that the biggest problem with red flag laws is that the judge makes a decision based on what a third party says about a person, even though that third party is almost never a recognized expert on psychology or any other relevant field. As such, it seems like there’s almost nothing to prevent the orders from just being handed out like candy on Halloween.
However, a judge in Colorado did something we really don’t hear much about.
He denied a red flag order complaint.
For the first time, a judge has denied a request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new red flag law. A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request. … CBS4 obtained the request for a temporary extreme risk protection order filed in Limon. A woman wrote she was getting “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun from the man identified in the order. She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the request to take his guns. “I think it’s a good thing. I think any other new law you’re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are,” said Gruenberg, a gun owner not associated with the case.
I agree, it’s good to see.
However, proponents are reading too much into this one.
But the denial led state Rep. Alec Garnett, a co-sponsor of the bill, to say this shows it is being applied properly.
The problems, however, didn’t just disappear. The judge is still just one person and he still hasn’t even seen the person in question. Just because this case had a judge who didn’t buy what was being offered doesn’t mean the system works.
For example, the same judge with the same evidence could just as easily granted the order. There’s no standard of evidence really required for these cases, just someone saying they’re scared. There are no experts testifying that yes, Joe Blow is a risk to himself or others. Really, there’s nothing except “he said/she said” testimony.
Additionally, let’s also keep in mind that this is the first time most any of us have heard of one being denied.
You see, another part of the problems with red flag laws is the mere use of them by anyone is being held up as proof that they work. However, we don’t hear about the denials. Are there any? We know it’s the first time a judge in Colorado has denied a red flag request, but is this the first one anywhere in the nation? We honestly don’t know, and that’s an issue as well.
Frankly, we don’t even know why this one was denied.
What we do know, however, is that way too many people are being stripped of their rights when they’ve broken no laws, simply because someone says they’re a threat. That should never be the case because anyone can make up anything. This judge appears to have seen through that, but what about the next judge?


bearingarms--2020-01-15--Pennsylvania Push For Red Flag Laws Missing The Point

They ’ re not alone on that , of course .
A lot of states have either passed them or have considered such a measure .
The problem , besides the obvious , is that the seem to be pushing this primarily as a suicide prevention tool .
Now , the idea sounds fine to many .
After all , if someone ’ s a risk to themselves , why not take their guns so they can ’ t easily commit suicide ?
However , the problem is that Pennsylvanian proponents of the bill are at cross purposes and missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mental health issues , removing barriers to treatment and seeking passage of a so-called “ red flag ” law to allow for removing firearms from people at risk of suicide will be among themes guiding a statewide suicide prevention strategy .
Putting together such a strategy was the heart of a preliminary report issued Tuesday by a task force that studied suicide prevention and held a series of 10 listening sessions around the state late last year .
“ Someone you know is struggling , but they don ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services Secretary Teresa Miller said at a Capitol press conference to unveil the report .
“ Compassion can make all the difference for someone in need.
” According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , there were 2,030 suicide deaths in Pennsylvania in 2017 , and its rate of suicide deaths ranked 15th in the nation .
Now , this looks all fine and good except for a few things .
First , we ’ re finding that suicide rates climb in states with red flag laws .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part by preventing suicides not just isn ’ t having the desired effect , but may actually be making the problem worse .
That ’ s not just someone seeing correlation and claiming causation , either .
You see , part of the mechanism here may well be fears of seeking help by some because they don ’ t want their guns taken away .
So they keep the issue bottled up and don ’ t talk to anyone about their depression .
Now , it doesn ’ t take a professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good recipe for success , yet that ’ s likely what ’ s happening here .
Not only that , but some people are likely trusting the red flag law to remove the ability for a loved one to commit suicide rather than involuntary confinement , but forget that there are a number of ways to kill yourself .
A gun isn ’ t the only tool for doing that .
Another thing these folks in Pennsylvania are trying to argue here is that they want to remove the stigma of mental illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first to agree that such a thing is a great thing .
I just don ’ t understand how they can see red flaw laws as somehow benefiting that goal .
If anything , it makes the stigma worse , suggesting that those who are suffering from depression simply can ’ t be trusted with guns .
Look , there are mechanisms in place to deal with people who represent a threat to themselves or others .
Those mechanisms also make it so the person in question can ’ t find an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get the desire to do something here , but red flag laws aren ’ t the answer .
I mean , unless you want to add to the stigma of mental illness , discourage people from seeking help , and overall just letting more of your population kill themselves because you ’ re not interested in looking any deeper .
If that ’ s your goal , fine .
Otherwise , you need to do something else .

Pennsylvania is considering a red flag law.
They’re not alone on that, of course. A lot of states have either passed them or have considered such a measure. The problem, besides the obvious, is that the seem to be pushing this primarily as a suicide prevention tool.
Now, the idea sounds fine to many. After all, if someone’s a risk to themselves, why not take their guns so they can’t easily commit suicide?
However, the problem is that Pennsylvanian proponents of the bill are at cross purposes and missing the point entirely.
Reducing stigma tied to mental health issues, removing barriers to treatment and seeking passage of a so-called “red flag” law to allow for removing firearms from people at risk of suicide will be among themes guiding a statewide suicide prevention strategy. Putting together such a strategy was the heart of a preliminary report issued Tuesday by a task force that studied suicide prevention and held a series of 10 listening sessions around the state late last year. “Someone you know is struggling, but they don’t have to struggle alone,” Department of Human Services Secretary Teresa Miller said at a Capitol press conference to unveil the report. “Compassion can make all the difference for someone in need.” According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 2,030 suicide deaths in Pennsylvania in 2017, and its rate of suicide deaths ranked 15th in the nation.
Now, this looks all fine and good except for a few things.
First, we’re finding that suicide rates climb in states with red flag laws. In other words, the law being expressly justified in part by preventing suicides not just isn’t having the desired effect, but may actually be making the problem worse. That’s not just someone seeing correlation and claiming causation, either.
You see, part of the mechanism here may well be fears of seeking help by some because they don’t want their guns taken away. So they keep the issue bottled up and don’t talk to anyone about their depression. Now, it doesn’t take a professional to know that’s not a good recipe for success, yet that’s likely what’s happening here.
Not only that, but some people are likely trusting the red flag law to remove the ability for a loved one to commit suicide rather than involuntary confinement, but forget that there are a number of ways to kill yourself. A gun isn’t the only tool for doing that.
Another thing these folks in Pennsylvania are trying to argue here is that they want to remove the stigma of mental illness. Now, I’ll be the first to agree that such a thing is a great thing. I just don’t understand how they can see red flaw laws as somehow benefiting that goal. If anything, it makes the stigma worse, suggesting that those who are suffering from depression simply can’t be trusted with guns.
Look, there are mechanisms in place to deal with people who represent a threat to themselves or others. Those mechanisms also make it so the person in question can’t find an alternative means of suicide.
Honestly, I get the desire to do something here, but red flag laws aren’t the answer.
I mean, unless you want to add to the stigma of mental illness, discourage people from seeking help, and overall just letting more of your population kill themselves because you’re not interested in looking any deeper.
If that’s your goal, fine. Otherwise, you need to do something else.


bearingarms--2020-01-15--Push Seeks To Create 2A Sanctuaries In Michigan

There are some rather extreme progressives in Michigan .
If you don ’ t live there , trust me .
Friends send me screenshots on a regular basis .
It ’ s almost like some people are trying to turn the state into a frozen version of California…if not Venezuela .
Yet there are still some pretty sane people in Michigan .
I won ’ t say my friends qualify , of course , because they have questionable taste .
I mean , they ’ re friends with me .
But there are others .
In fact , a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties in their state .
A northern Michigan radio show host is helping to organize a push in Michigan ’ s 83 counties to adopt resolutions affirming Second Amendment gun ownership rights , but the reach or perceived overreach of those resolutions could vary by location .
The Facebook group gathering volunteers for the initiative , the Michigan for 2A Sanctuary Counties group , started less than a month ago and had more than 75,000 members as of Tuesday .
One of the administrators , Randy Bishop , said the group has volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties pushing county commissioners to adopt pro-Second Amendment resolutions .
“ We believe if they don ’ t support this resolution they ’ re in violation of the state Constitution and need to resign tomorrow , ” said Bishop , who goes by “ Trucker Randy ” on his northern Michigan radio show .
So far , at least five counties in Michigan have resolutions pending or about to be introduced to their commissioners .
A state lawmaker hopes to introduce similar language on the House floor .
But the resolutions being pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from what ’ s being considered in some counties , where the language stops short of encouraging local law enforcement to ignore any future laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights .
“ That ’ s not in the wording for St. Clair County because you ’ ll never get the sheriffs on board with that , ” said state Rep. Gary Eisen , a St. Clair Township Republican who drafted the resolution for the county and hopes to introduce a similar resolution in the state House .
“ Whether other counties want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to them , ” Eisen said .
“ But I think you have to start with something that ’ s more reasonable and a little easier to understand.
” Of course , a whole truckload of counties have already passed those exact measures throughout the nation and the sheriff ’ s are on board , so it ’ s impossible to say that you ’ ll “ never ” get sheriffs to agree .
Plenty have .
Hell , a few have declared their counties sanctuary counties unilaterally simply because they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they won ’ t enforce the law .
Regardless , I salute Bishop and his fellow activists .
The truth of the matter is that if we have enough sanctuary counties , it should send a very clear signal to those making laws that we ’ re not going to tolerate their anti-gun shenanigans .
They can pass whatever , but that doesn ’ t mean we have to follow those laws .
Whether it ’ s Virginia , New Mexico , Washington state , or Michigan , the Second Amendment sanctuary movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to listen for a change .

There are some rather extreme progressives in Michigan. If you don’t live there, trust me. Friends send me screenshots on a regular basis. It’s almost like some people are trying to turn the state into a frozen version of California…if not Venezuela.
Yet there are still some pretty sane people in Michigan. I won’t say my friends qualify, of course, because they have questionable taste. I mean, they’re friends with me.
But there are others. In fact, a number are working to create Second Amendment sanctuary counties in their state.
A northern Michigan radio show host is helping to organize a push in Michigan’s 83 counties to adopt resolutions affirming Second Amendment gun ownership rights, but the reach or perceived overreach of those resolutions could vary by location. The Facebook group gathering volunteers for the initiative, the Michigan for 2A Sanctuary Counties group, started less than a month ago and had more than 75,000 members as of Tuesday. One of the administrators, Randy Bishop, said the group has volunteers in all of Michigan’s 83 counties pushing county commissioners to adopt pro-Second Amendment resolutions. “We believe if they don’t support this resolution they’re in violation of the state Constitution and need to resign tomorrow,” said Bishop, who goes by “Trucker Randy” on his northern Michigan radio show. So far, at least five counties in Michigan have resolutions pending or about to be introduced to their commissioners. A state lawmaker hopes to introduce similar language on the House floor. But the resolutions being pushed by advocates like Bishop appear to differ from what’s being considered in some counties, where the language stops short of encouraging local law enforcement to ignore any future laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights. “That’s not in the wording for St. Clair County because you’ll never get the sheriffs on board with that,” said state Rep. Gary Eisen, a St. Clair Township Republican who drafted the resolution for the county and hopes to introduce a similar resolution in the state House. “Whether other counties want to do that, it’s up to them,” Eisen said. “But I think you have to start with something that’s more reasonable and a little easier to understand.”
Of course, a whole truckload of counties have already passed those exact measures throughout the nation and the sheriff’s are on board, so it’s impossible to say that you’ll “never” get sheriffs to agree. Plenty have. Hell, a few have declared their counties sanctuary counties unilaterally simply because they’re the only law enforcement agency and they won’t enforce the law.
Regardless, I salute Bishop and his fellow activists. The truth of the matter is that if we have enough sanctuary counties, it should send a very clear signal to those making laws that we’re not going to tolerate their anti-gun shenanigans. They can pass whatever, but that doesn’t mean we have to follow those laws.
Whether it’s Virginia, New Mexico, Washington state, or Michigan, the Second Amendment sanctuary movement is making serious headway and anti-gunners need to listen for a change.


bearingarms--2020-01-15--Woman Pulls Gun On Peeping Perv At Michigan Mall

A Detroit , Michigan woman says she ’ s angry and concerned after witnessing an incident involving a man exposing and fondling himself in a Dearborn mall .
Stacy Crawford says she went into the women ’ s restroom in the basement of the Macy ’ s at Fairlane Mall as she ’ s done many times in the past , but this time got the shock of her life .
Crawford was there when she heard another young woman already inside .
“ As I was going in , she was wrapping up , I ’ m in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stall ( saying ) ‘ Ma am , ma ’ am ’ and I hear the urgency in her voice , ” Crawford said .
“ I ’ m like what ’ s going on.
” Crawford said when she opened the stall door she spotted a black man appearing to be in his mid-to late 30s touching himself .
He was looking at the other woman who got so terrified – she pulled out a gun .
“ She was so afraid she didn ’ t want to do that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Crawford and the other woman screamed for security and blocked one of the doors to leave , but the man casually took another way out – through the mall .
“ Through Macy ’ s and made it out to the mall – security , no one stopped him , ” Crawford said .
Not to second-guess either of these women , but if you ’ re truly in fear for your life , better that the person get away than end up attacking you in a confined space .
I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the suspect was caught , however , and the two women are rightfully angry that the man was simply able to walk away .
“ The security guard from Macy ’ s asked if we wanted to call the police , ” Crawford said .
“ I asked what is Macy ’ s policy if something like this happens ?
of course we want you to call the police.
” In a statement to FOX 2 – a spokesperson with Macy ’ s says ” We are committed to providing a safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers and colleagues are treated with respect and dignity.
” Macy ’ s goes on to say that it is fully cooperating with police .
“ I ’ m angry .
I ’ m afraid that no one is concerned enough , ” Crawford said .
I imagine that there are lots of people who are concerned , but not nearly as concerned as the women who were actually impacted by what happened .
In fact , I suspect that some of the concern on the part of Macy ’ s and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just public safety .
I ’ m not sure what the mall could do to ensure that restrooms aren ’ t harboring creepy Peeping Toms , but I do know what women can do to ensure that if they are threatened or assaulted in a public restroom they can fight back : get a gun , get trained , and start carrying .
As with most defensive gun uses , the armed citizen in Dearborn didn ’ t have to pull the trigger to protect both her and Crawford from the strange man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but having that gun may have prevented the crime from escalating to sexual assault or worse .
If Macy ’ s and the mall really want to take a positive step , how about ensuring that their properties aren ’ t “ gun-free zones ?
”

A Detroit, Michigan woman says she’s angry and concerned after witnessing an incident involving a man exposing and fondling himself in a Dearborn mall. Stacy Crawford says she went into the women’s restroom in the basement of the Macy’s at Fairlane Mall as she’s done many times in the past, but this time got the shock of her life.
Crawford was there when she heard another young woman already inside. “As I was going in, she was wrapping up, I’m in the stall, she’s beating on the stall (saying) ‘Ma am, ma’am’ and I hear the urgency in her voice,” Crawford said. “I’m like what’s going on.” Crawford said when she opened the stall door she spotted a black man appearing to be in his mid-to late 30s touching himself. He was looking at the other woman who got so terrified – she pulled out a gun. “She was so afraid she didn’t want to do that. She felt threatened,” Crawford said. Crawford and the other woman screamed for security and blocked one of the doors to leave, but the man casually took another way out – through the mall. “Through Macy’s and made it out to the mall – security, no one stopped him,” Crawford said.
Not to second-guess either of these women, but if you’re truly in fear for your life, better that the person get away than end up attacking you in a confined space.
I do understand the desire to try to ensure that the suspect was caught, however, and the two women are rightfully angry that the man was simply able to walk away.
“The security guard from Macy’s asked if we wanted to call the police,” Crawford said. “I asked what is Macy’s policy if something like this happens? of course we want you to call the police.” In a statement to FOX 2 – a spokesperson with Macy’s says ” We are committed to providing a safe and secure shopping environment and ensuring all customers and colleagues are treated with respect and dignity.” Macy’s goes on to say that it is fully cooperating with police. “I’m angry. I’m afraid that no one is concerned enough,” Crawford said.
I imagine that there are lots of people who are concerned, but not nearly as concerned as the women who were actually impacted by what happened. In fact, I suspect that some of the concern on the part of Macy’s and the mall is about bad publicity, not just public safety.
I’m not sure what the mall could do to ensure that restrooms aren’t harboring creepy Peeping Toms, but I do know what women can do to ensure that if they are threatened or assaulted in a public restroom they can fight back: get a gun, get trained, and start carrying. As with most defensive gun uses, the armed citizen in Dearborn didn’t have to pull the trigger to protect both her and Crawford from the strange man in the Macy’s bathroom, but having that gun may have prevented the crime from escalating to sexual assault or worse.
If Macy’s and the mall really want to take a positive step, how about ensuring that their properties aren’t “gun-free zones?”


bearingarms--2020-01-15--Northam: State Of Emergency in Richmond, Guns Banned For Lobby Day

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam officially announced his intent to ban guns on the grounds of the state capitol during next Monday ’ s Lobby Day , when tens of thousands of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are expected to be on hand lobbying against his gun control agenda .
Speaking at a Wednesday afternoon press conference , Northam cited concerns over violence taking place during the gathering , and compared the upcoming Lobby Day to the riots in Charlottesville , Virginia in 2018 that left one dead while declaring a temporary state of emergency in Richmond from Friday evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d love to know what agencies the governor is referring to , because a spokesperson for the Capitol Police flat out rejected Northam ’ s comparison to Charlottesville .
Spokesperson Joe Macenka told USA Today that the two events are very different .
I may be reading between the lines here , but I get the feeling that since Democrats lied late last week and said that the Capitol Police had asked for a ban on firearms inside the capitol and adjoining office space , the law enforcement agents responsible for protecting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are getting a little fed up with the political games that Democrats are playing .
Regardless of the motivation , I appreciate Macenka ’ s rejection of the odious comparison .
I wish Governor Northam would have done the same , instead of perpetuating the false equivalence .
Del .
Nick Freitas is also rejecting the idea that the attendees of Lobby Day are dangerous people .
As he told Bearing Arms : I too have met dozens of my fellow Virginians at the ten different county supervisors meetings I ’ ve attended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve all been friendly and engaging , though firm in their opposition to Northam ’ s gun bills .
These folks are using their legitimate right to protest , to engage their elected officials , and in return they ’ re being labeled as dangerous .
It ’ s disgraceful .
It ’ s just as disgraceful , by the way , to try to use this peaceful and lawful assembly for any other cause than to support Virginians as they lobby their lawmakers to oppose these gun control bills .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be driving tens of thousands of Virginians to go to the capitol on Monday , and as one of those Virginians I want to say if you ’ re bringing any other agenda with you , stay home .
I hope and believe that Monday ’ s event will be a peaceful and positive one , but I also think the governor is making a big mistake , and not only in banning firearms from the Capitol Square .
I think it ’ s also a very bad idea to restrict entry to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Northam ’ s plan calls for .
Instead of funneling the tens of thousands of people onto the capitol grounds , there are going to be tens of thousands bottlenecked outside .
That creates an even more chaotic situation .
Shortly after Northam made his announcement , I spoke with Phil Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which is sponsoring the Lobby Day and rally activities on the 20th .
He says attorneys are currently looking over the governor ’ s proclamation , and a request for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia law , the governor only has a very limited ability to restrict firearms during a state of emergency .
Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to : ( 3 ) Empower the Governor , any political subdivision , or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I , Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States , including the otherwise lawful possession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor , any political subdivision of the Commonwealth , or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons ; It ’ s hard to argue that Capitol Square is being used as an emergency shelter during Lobby Day , so where ’ s the authority for the governor to do this ?
According to the governor ’ s executive order , Northam is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms will be banned provides for the “ shelter ” of individuals .
To provide for the shelter and safety of state employees who work on or near the Virginia State Capitol and those who come to peacefully assemble , and consistent with the General Assembly ’ s prohibition on weapons in the Virginia State Capitol and the Pocahontas Buildings , and Executive Order 50 ( McAuliffe ) , which prohibits firearms in offices occupied by executive branch agencies , no weapons , including firearms , may be carried or possessed on any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia within the area bounded by Broad Street , Ninth Street , Bank Street and Governor Street in the City of Richmond , Virginia , as well as any Commonwealth-owned parking lots for Virginia ’ s Department of Transportation , the Madison Building , the Monroe Building , the Patrick Henry Building , Washington Building , the Jefferson Building , and the Oliver Hill Building .
We ’ ll be closely watching to see if VCDL does file to try and block the governor ’ s gun ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that Ralph Northam and Virginia ’ s Democrat lawmakers would rather talk down to gun owners than to them ( I never did hear from the governor ’ s office , despite repeated requests ) .
I wouldn ’ t even be surprised if many Democrats found a way to be absent from the state capitol on Monday during Lobby Day , to be honest .
They ’ re clearly doing everything they can to tamp down attendance .
But I can also tell you that the engagement is having an impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural Democrats in particular are feeling the heat from constituents opposed to Northam ’ s gun control agenda .
Even some who thought they were voting for “ common sense gun safety ” laws didn ’ t realize that Democrats would be pushing bills that would turn hundreds of thousands of Virginians into felons for simply maintaining possession of their lawfully acquired ammunition magazines .
They weren ’ t voting to shut down gun ranges or ban commonly-purchased ammunition .
On Lobby Day , tens of thousands of those Virginians will be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers to say “ no ” to Ralph Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda .
If you can ’ t be there , call or email your delegate and state senator and you can still have an impact .
I just hope lawmakers are there to listen .
And Governor Northam , if by chance you actually read this , I ’ m still up for a conversation .
Frankly , you need to be speaking with gun owners now more than ever .
Let ’ s talk .

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam officially announced his intent to ban guns on the grounds of the state capitol during next Monday’s Lobby Day, when tens of thousands of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are expected to be on hand lobbying against his gun control agenda.
Speaking at a Wednesday afternoon press conference, Northam cited concerns over violence taking place during the gathering, and compared the upcoming Lobby Day to the riots in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2018 that left one dead while declaring a temporary state of emergency in Richmond from Friday evening through next Tuesday night.
Northam declares a state of emergency in Richmond from Friday through Tuesday, citing security threats "similar to has been seen before other major events such as Charlottesville." "These are considered credible, serious threats by our law enforcement agencies," he said. https://t.co/gFRM0GbXzz — Mel Leonor (@MelLeonor_) January 15, 2020
I’d love to know what agencies the governor is referring to, because a spokesperson for the Capitol Police flat out rejected Northam’s comparison to Charlottesville. Spokesperson Joe Macenka told USA Today that the two events are very different.
Macenka said Capitol Police have not heard much from out-of-state groups but dismissed the comparison between the lobby day and Charlottesville attack. “Charlottesville didn’t seem to have any purpose. People seemed to come together bent on committing violence,” Macenka said. “There is some very serious legislation at issue here.”
I may be reading between the lines here, but I get the feeling that since Democrats lied late last week and said that the Capitol Police had asked for a ban on firearms inside the capitol and adjoining office space, the law enforcement agents responsible for protecting the capitol and the folks who work there are getting a little fed up with the political games that Democrats are playing. Regardless of the motivation, I appreciate Macenka’s rejection of the odious comparison. I wish Governor Northam would have done the same, instead of perpetuating the false equivalence.
Del. Nick Freitas is also rejecting the idea that the attendees of Lobby Day are dangerous people. As he told Bearing Arms:
“Governor Northam is trying to stoke fear in the people of Virginia about who is coming to assemble and protest for their constitutional rights on Monday. I’ve had the chance to meet so many of the people coming down on Monday and they are coming to peacefully protest for their constitutional rights as law-abiding gun owners and as Americans.”
I too have met dozens of my fellow Virginians at the ten different county supervisors meetings I’ve attended since the November elections, and they’ve all been friendly and engaging, though firm in their opposition to Northam’s gun bills. These folks are using their legitimate right to protest, to engage their elected officials, and in return they’re being labeled as dangerous. It’s disgraceful.
It’s just as disgraceful, by the way, to try to use this peaceful and lawful assembly for any other cause than to support Virginians as they lobby their lawmakers to oppose these gun control bills. That’s the single issue that will be driving tens of thousands of Virginians to go to the capitol on Monday, and as one of those Virginians I want to say if you’re bringing any other agenda with you, stay home.
I hope and believe that Monday’s event will be a peaceful and positive one, but I also think the governor is making a big mistake, and not only in banning firearms from the Capitol Square. I think it’s also a very bad idea to restrict entry to the capitol grounds to a single entrance, as Northam’s plan calls for. Instead of funneling the tens of thousands of people onto the capitol grounds, there are going to be tens of thousands bottlenecked outside. That creates an even more chaotic situation.
Shortly after Northam made his announcement, I spoke with Phil Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which is sponsoring the Lobby Day and rally activities on the 20th. He says attorneys are currently looking over the governor’s proclamation, and a request for a temporary injunction is a possibility. Under Virginia law, the governor only has a very limited ability to restrict firearms during a state of emergency.
Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to: (3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;
It’s hard to argue that Capitol Square is being used as an emergency shelter during Lobby Day, so where’s the authority for the governor to do this? According to the governor’s executive order, Northam is indeed claiming that the area in which firearms will be banned provides for the “shelter” of individuals.
To provide for the shelter and safety of state employees who work on or near the Virginia State Capitol and those who come to peacefully assemble, and consistent with the General Assembly’s prohibition on weapons in the Virginia State Capitol and the Pocahontas Buildings, and Executive Order 50 (McAuliffe), which prohibits firearms in offices occupied by executive branch agencies, no weapons, including firearms, may be carried or possessed on any land, real property, or improvements owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia within the area bounded by Broad Street, Ninth Street, Bank Street and Governor Street in the City of Richmond, Virginia, as well as any Commonwealth-owned parking lots for Virginia’s Department of Transportation, the Madison Building, the Monroe Building, the Patrick Henry Building, Washington Building, the Jefferson Building, and the Oliver Hill Building.
We’ll be closely watching to see if VCDL does file to try and block the governor’s gun ban in Capitol Square.
It’s clear that Ralph Northam and Virginia’s Democrat lawmakers would rather talk down to gun owners than to them (I never did hear from the governor’s office, despite repeated requests). I wouldn’t even be surprised if many Democrats found a way to be absent from the state capitol on Monday during Lobby Day, to be honest. They’re clearly doing everything they can to tamp down attendance.
But I can also tell you that the engagement is having an impact. I believe that several suburban and rural Democrats in particular are feeling the heat from constituents opposed to Northam’s gun control agenda. Even some who thought they were voting for “common sense gun safety” laws didn’t realize that Democrats would be pushing bills that would turn hundreds of thousands of Virginians into felons for simply maintaining possession of their lawfully acquired ammunition magazines. They weren’t voting to shut down gun ranges or ban commonly-purchased ammunition.
On Lobby Day, tens of thousands of those Virginians will be on hand to peacefully and powerfully encourage their lawmakers to say “no” to Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda. If you can’t be there, call or email your delegate and state senator and you can still have an impact. I just hope lawmakers are there to listen. And Governor Northam, if by chance you actually read this, I’m still up for a conversation. Frankly, you need to be speaking with gun owners now more than ever. Let’s talk.