bearingarms--2020-04-01--Coalition Of 2A Groups Launch Massive Lawsuit Over Gun Store Closures

Just a day after Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva backed off his decision to shutter gun stores in his jurisdiction , a coalition of Second Amendment organizations , including the NRA , Second Amendment Foundation , and Firearms Policy Coalition have filed a major lawsuit against several other California cities and counties over similar orders forcing gun stores to shut down for an undefined period of time during the current coronavirus pandemic .
The lawsuit , filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California , names Alameda County and County Health Officer Erica Pan ; Contra Costa County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Clara County , District attorney Jeffrey Rosen and County Health officer Sara Cody ; and San Mateo County and County Health Officer Scott Morrow ; plus the City of Pacifica and Police Chief Dan Steidle , the City of San Jose and Mayor Sam Liccardo ; the City of Mountain View and Police Chief Max Bosel ; and the City of Pleasant Hill and its Police Chief Bryan Hill as defendants in the case , and alleges that these officials are trampling on the Second Amendment rights of residents by denying them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammunition during the state ’ s state of emergency .
The complaint targets emergency orders issued in relation to the coronavirus pandemic that prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights by closing retail gun stores as “ non-essential businesses.
” Because California law requires background checks done by licensed dealers for every firearm transfer in the state , it is impossible for Californians to buy , sell or even loan firearms because no background checks are available in these jurisdictions .
“ Local governments in California , or anywhere else for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution , even using a public health crisis as an excuse , ” Gottlieb stated .
“ In this case , they are using the COVID-19 crisis as political cover to put restrictions on a constitutional right they don ’ t like , and we ’ re taking action to stop them .
The National Rifle Association ’ s Jason Ouimet says that the only people impacted by the decision to shut down gun stores are law-abiding residents in these cities and counties .
It ’ s great to see all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to keep and bear arms in California , and I hope that this lawsuit will lead these California cities and counties to rescind their unconstitutional orders .
Defending our rights comes with a financial cost , however , and I know that while times are tough for a lot of Americans right now , any support you can give any of these organizations will be greatly appreciated and will allow for additional litigation around the country in support of our Second Amendment rights during this current emergency .

Just a day after Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva backed off his decision to shutter gun stores in his jurisdiction, a coalition of Second Amendment organizations, including the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition have filed a major lawsuit against several other California cities and counties over similar orders forcing gun stores to shut down for an undefined period of time during the current coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, names Alameda County and County Health Officer Erica Pan; Contra Costa County and County Health Officer Chris Farnitano; Santa Clara County, District attorney Jeffrey Rosen and County Health officer Sara Cody; and San Mateo County and County Health Officer Scott Morrow; plus the City of Pacifica and Police Chief Dan Steidle, the City of San Jose and Mayor Sam Liccardo; the City of Mountain View and Police Chief Max Bosel; and the City of Pleasant Hill and its Police Chief Bryan Hill as defendants in the case, and alleges that these officials are trampling on the Second Amendment rights of residents by denying them the ability to legally acquire firearms and ammunition during the state’s state of emergency.
The complaint targets emergency orders issued in relation to the coronavirus pandemic that prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights by closing retail gun stores as “non-essential businesses.” Because California law requires background checks done by licensed dealers for every firearm transfer in the state, it is impossible for Californians to buy, sell or even loan firearms because no background checks are available in these jurisdictions. “Local governments in California, or anywhere else for that matter, cannot simply suspend the Constitution, even using a public health crisis as an excuse,” Gottlieb stated. “In this case, they are using the COVID-19 crisis as political cover to put restrictions on a constitutional right they don’t like, and we’re taking action to stop them.
The National Rifle Association’s Jason Ouimet says that the only people impacted by the decision to shut down gun stores are law-abiding residents in these cities and counties.
“Local governments aren’t promoting safety or “common sense” by targeting gun stores for closure; the closures only serve to disarm law-abiding families while criminals roam free,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet. “Because these closures violate our Second Amendment rights when we need them most, the National Rifle Association continues to fight such infringements in court alongside fellow Second Amendment groups.”
It’s great to see all of these Second Amendment organizations working together to restore the right to keep and bear arms in California, and I hope that this lawsuit will lead these California cities and counties to rescind their unconstitutional orders. Defending our rights comes with a financial cost, however, and I know that while times are tough for a lot of Americans right now, any support you can give any of these organizations will be greatly appreciated and will allow for additional litigation around the country in support of our Second Amendment rights during this current emergency.


bearingarms--2020-04-01--Everytown Law: It's Totally Constitutional To Close Gun Stores Right Now

Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun law firm , Everytown Law , is trying to convince elected officials around the country to shut down gun stores during the current national emergency , and has sent a letter to state and local officials in charge of enforcing COVID-19 emergency closure orders offering up a strategy and legal argument for those who do so .
Fortunately for gun owners , and unfortunately for the gun control lobby , their argument doesn ’ t stand up to the slightest bit of legal scrutiny .
Everytown ’ s attorneys argue that gun stores aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re declared non-essential businesses , but instead are just one of many retail establishments that can ’ t sell their goods .
They also point to a Supreme Court decision from 1986 called Arcara v Cloud Books , where justices ruled that a state had the authority to close a book store because it was a “ public health nuisance.
” The problem for Everytown is that we ’ re not talking about an incidental burden on the right to keep and bear arms .
By ordering gun stores to close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms and ammunition to anyone who ’ s not currently exercising their Second Amendment rights .
Since Everytown brings up bookstores , let ’ s explore that analogy a little further .
First , in the case that the anti-gun law firm cites , the state shut down ONE book store as a public health nuisance .
There were still plenty of other book stores open for readers who wanted to grab a copy of their favorite magazine or a new paperback .
Even if all bookstores were ordered to physically close their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , consumers can go online and have new or used books shipped to their door , as well as download books to their e-readers .
Not so with firearms .
Once gun stores in a state are shut down , residents of those states lose the ability to acquire arms , and in some states , they may not have the ability to purchase ammunition either .
You can ’ t ship a gun to your home , and you can ’ t download a gun to your e-reader .
In states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfers , there ’ s simply no legal way to acquire a firearm without going to a gun store .
New York , for example , has closed not only gun stores but also , to name a few , bookstores , marriage license bureaus , social clubs , and performing arts centers—all of which places notable burdens on constitutional rights .
That there are provisions in the orders allowing for “ essential businesses , ” providing such things as food , banking , health care , and medical supplies , to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because suppressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights ( or of any other right ) is not the object of the closure orders , they remain neutral , generally applicable , and thus constitutional .
Just as states can ban the use of controlled substances and enforce that broad law against someone who uses drugs as part of their religious observance ( see Smith , 494 U.S. at 890 ) ; and localities can enforce fire codes and public-health laws against bookstores even if that means the bookstore has to close ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 707 ) ; so too , a gun dealer can not demand special treatment to avoid shutdown orders during the most significant public-health crisis of the last 100 years .
Firearms retailers aren ’ t demanding “ special treatment , ” they ’ re arguing that they are essential businesses , and they now have the backing of the Department of Homeland Security to bolster their position .
Everytown Law also claims that those Americans seeking to acquire a firearm for self-defense right now aren ’ t really seeing their rights infringed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so .
A right delayed is a right denied , as Rev .
Martin Luther King , Jr. once said .
Orders closing businesses may not be addressed to an individual ’ s right to keep and bear arms , but it certainly has an impact on their rights .
Everytown Law supposedly has an answer for that argument , but again , it ’ s just not a very good one .
To the extent that individuals who do not own or possess guns assert that these orders infringe their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to buy a gun but currently can not , it is important to bear in mind that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to acquire a gun immediately , at any time , on demand .
The Supreme Court affirmed in Heller that “ laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms ” are constitutional .
And , since Heller , courts have upheld background checks , waiting periods , licensing laws , and training requirements as consistent with the Second Amendment , even though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those limitations on the ability to purchase a gun on demand are in place to protect public safety—to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals , to ensure that a gun is not purchased and used immediately in an impulsive act of violence or self-harm , and to further the safe and responsible use of firearms .
The same is true of orders temporarily closing retail commercial businesses : they are in place to protect public health and safety in the face of the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawful to temporarily delay firearm purchases in the ways described above , it follows that state and local officials do not violate the law by temporarily delaying such activity as part of a general suspension of vast swaths of retail and other commercial businesses to address an urgent public-safety crisis .
I happen to think that things like waiting periods , licensing laws , and the like are in fact unconstitutional , but even if you want to make the case that they ’ re not , those laws aren ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire industry is not the same as imposing a ten-day waiting period on those wishing to purchase a firearm .
It imposes an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms , a right that doesn ’ t disappear even in the most unique and unprecedented crises .
For years , Everytown for Gun Safety has presented itself as a moderate “ gun safety ” group that isn ’ t interested in stripping Americans of their rights , but is only in favor of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re exposing that lie all by themselves .
In a time of uncertainty , and during an emergency , Everytown is doing everything it can to prevent Americans from acquiring firearms and ammunition .
There ’ s nothing common sense about that .
Their position has nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with keeping as many Americans as possible unarmed and defenseless when more Americans than ever before are choosing to exercise their Second Amendment rights .

Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun law firm, Everytown Law, is trying to convince elected officials around the country to shut down gun stores during the current national emergency, and has sent a letter to state and local officials in charge of enforcing COVID-19 emergency closure orders offering up a strategy and legal argument for those who do so. Fortunately for gun owners, and unfortunately for the gun control lobby, their argument doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of legal scrutiny.
Everytown’s attorneys argue that gun stores aren’t being singled out for closure when they’re declared non-essential businesses, but instead are just one of many retail establishments that can’t sell their goods. They also point to a Supreme Court decision from 1986 called Arcara v Cloud Books, where justices ruled that a state had the authority to close a book store because it was a “public health nuisance.”
While the burden on speech was significant, as the bookstore was forced to shut its doors for a year, that did not change the result. Because the law at issue was directed at conduct “having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity,” the First Amendment simply was not implicated. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that incidental burdens on the free exercise of religion—even severe ones prohibiting conduct central to an individual’s faith—cannot relieve one of the obligation to comply with a law that is “not specifically directed at . . . religious practice.
The problem for Everytown is that we’re not talking about an incidental burden on the right to keep and bear arms. By ordering gun stores to close, public officials are blocking access to firearms and ammunition to anyone who’s not currently exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Since Everytown brings up bookstores, let’s explore that analogy a little further. First, in the case that the anti-gun law firm cites, the state shut down ONE book store as a public health nuisance. There were still plenty of other book stores open for readers who wanted to grab a copy of their favorite magazine or a new paperback. Even if all bookstores were ordered to physically close their doors to inhibit the spread of the coronavirus, consumers can go online and have new or used books shipped to their door, as well as download books to their e-readers.
Not so with firearms. Once gun stores in a state are shut down, residents of those states lose the ability to acquire arms, and in some states, they may not have the ability to purchase ammunition either. You can’t ship a gun to your home, and you can’t download a gun to your e-reader. In states that require background checks on all firearms transfers, there’s simply no legal way to acquire a firearm without going to a gun store.
New York, for example, has closed not only gun stores but also, to name a few, bookstores, marriage license bureaus, social clubs, and performing arts centers—all of which places notable burdens on constitutional rights. That there are provisions in the orders allowing for “essential businesses,” providing such things as food, banking, health care, and medical supplies, to remain open does not change the constitutional analysis. Because suppressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights (or of any other right) is not the object of the closure orders, they remain neutral, generally applicable, and thus constitutional. Just as states can ban the use of controlled substances and enforce that broad law against someone who uses drugs as part of their religious observance (see Smith, 494 U.S. at 890); and localities can enforce fire codes and public-health laws against bookstores even if that means the bookstore has to close (see Arcara, 478 U.S. at 705, 707); so too, a gun dealer cannot demand special treatment to avoid shutdown orders during the most significant public-health crisis of the last 100 years.
Firearms retailers aren’t demanding “special treatment,” they’re arguing that they are essential businesses, and they now have the backing of the Department of Homeland Security to bolster their position. Everytown Law also claims that those Americans seeking to acquire a firearm for self-defense right now aren’t really seeing their rights infringed when their state denies them the ability to do so.
To begin, the right recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller is an individual right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to keep and bear certain firearms (such as handguns) in the home for self-defense. It “does not confer a freestanding right on commercial proprietors to sell firearms.” Orders closing businesses are not addressed to an individual’s right to keep and bear their arms. Furthermore, states and localities are ordering businesses to close temporarily—delaying the ability to acquire a gun—not barring anyone from gun possession permanently.
A right delayed is a right denied, as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said. Orders closing businesses may not be addressed to an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, but it certainly has an impact on their rights. Everytown Law supposedly has an answer for that argument, but again, it’s just not a very good one.
To the extent that individuals who do not own or possess guns assert that these orders infringe their right to keep and bear arms because they want to buy a gun but currently cannot, it is important to bear in mind that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to acquire a gun immediately, at any time, on demand. The Supreme Court affirmed in Heller that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are constitutional. And, since Heller, courts have upheld background checks, waiting periods, licensing laws, and training requirements as consistent with the Second Amendment, even though they bring with them delays on immediate acquisition. Those limitations on the ability to purchase a gun on demand are in place to protect public safety—to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, to ensure that a gun is not purchased and used immediately in an impulsive act of violence or self-harm, and to further the safe and responsible use of firearms. The same is true of orders temporarily closing retail commercial businesses: they are in place to protect public health and safety in the face of the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the current crisis. Given that it is lawful to temporarily delay firearm purchases in the ways described above, it follows that state and local officials do not violate the law by temporarily delaying such activity as part of a general suspension of vast swaths of retail and other commercial businesses to address an urgent public-safety crisis.
I happen to think that things like waiting periods, licensing laws, and the like are in fact unconstitutional, but even if you want to make the case that they’re not, those laws aren’t the issue right now. Shutting down an entire industry is not the same as imposing a ten-day waiting period on those wishing to purchase a firearm. It imposes an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, a right that doesn’t disappear even in the most unique and unprecedented crises.
For years, Everytown for Gun Safety has presented itself as a moderate “gun safety” group that isn’t interested in stripping Americans of their rights, but is only in favor of “commonsense gun safety” regulations. Now they’re exposing that lie all by themselves. In a time of uncertainty, and during an emergency, Everytown is doing everything it can to prevent Americans from acquiring firearms and ammunition. There’s nothing common sense about that. Their position has nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with keeping as many Americans as possible unarmed and defenseless when more Americans than ever before are choosing to exercise their Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-04-01--District Court Lands Blow Against Bump Stock Ban

In the days of COVID-19 , not many people are talking about bump stocks right about now .
That ’ s understandable .
After all , they have other things on their minds these days .
Yet that doesn ’ t mean gun rights advocates have forgotten about them , either .
No , distraction is only temporary .
When the Trump administration banned bump stocks , they did so unilaterally by reversing the ATF ’ s position on them .
This created a lot of issues and led to the inevitable lawsuits .
Now , a district court may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ban .
I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Cato Institute in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , ( D.C .
Circ. )
.
We contended that this reversal of positions from the prior administration was not entitled to deference .
The Supreme Court ultimately denied cert in Guedes , over Justice Gorsuch ’ s dissent .
( Kristin Hickman and Jonathan Adler commented on the denial . )
As far as I am aware , all other courts have likewise turned away challenges to the bump stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Starr of the Northern District of Texas found that the Trump Administration ’ s policy may be unconstitutional .
Here is the introduction from Lane v. United States : Bump stocks allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rate close to machine guns .
In December 2018 , the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives issued a final rule determining that bump stocks qualify as prohibited machine guns under federal law and required their destruction or surrender .
Brian Lane lawfully purchased three bump stocks before the rule took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the federal government must compensate him for taking his property .
The federal government responds that the rule falls under a valid use of the police power , which requires no compensation .
But as explained below , the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself .
It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole .
Assuming the federal government didn ’ t abolish the states to take their police power , the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation and whether it allows a taking without compensation .
The Court requests that the federal government also address any limits on that federal power and the Court ’ s proper role in examining the validity of the underlying rule when determining if there was a compensable taking .
Judge Starr rejects the notion that the federal government has a police power .
The federal government here raised the talisman of police power 31 times in its motion to dismiss and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This seemed unusual to the Court because the Court had thought the police power is a power reserved for the states , not for the federal government .
Fearful the Court was wrong , it turned to the first place one should always turn to with such questions : the Constitution .
Article I , section 8 enumerates the powers the People gave to the federal government at our Nation ’ s founding : the tax power , the borrowing power , the commerce power , the naturalization power , the bankruptcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the postal power , the maritime power , and the war power.39 None of these powers is the police power .
Instead , the federal government has to rely on one of its enumerated powers .
And it hasn ’ t .
Judge Starr gave the parties a chance to re-plead their case .
It ’ s an interesting ruling , one that if it stands could have far-reaching ramifications .
However , I ’ m not sure that it will .
While Judge Starr seems to be basing his decision on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so sure that anyone else in any other court will agree with him that the federal government lacks policing powers .
Unfortunately , far too many jurists are completely comfortable with the status quo .
Of course , I ’ m not an attorney so maybe I ’ m the one wrong in thinking Judge Star ’ s reasoning is sound .
Who knows ?
But this may well be the start of something good for former bump stock owners ( because no one still has one , right ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wanted a bump stock and never got one .
This will be a case worth watching closely .

In the days of COVID-19, not many people are talking about bump stocks right about now. That’s understandable. After all, they have other things on their minds these days. Yet that doesn’t mean gun rights advocates have forgotten about them, either.
No, distraction is only temporary.
When the Trump administration banned bump stocks, they did so unilaterally by reversing the ATF’s position on them. This created a lot of issues and led to the inevitable lawsuits.
Now, a district court may have just landed a significant blow against the ban.
I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Cato Institute in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, (D.C. Circ.). We contended that this reversal of positions from the prior administration was not entitled to deference. The Supreme Court ultimately denied cert in Guedes, over Justice Gorsuch’s dissent. (Kristin Hickman and Jonathan Adler commented on the denial.) As far as I am aware, all other courts have likewise turned away challenges to the bump stock ban. Until today at least. Judge Starr of the Northern District of Texas found that the Trump Administration’s policy may be unconstitutional. Here is the introduction from Lane v. United States: Bump stocks allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rate close to machine guns. In December 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a final rule determining that bump stocks qualify as prohibited machine guns under federal law and required their destruction or surrender. Brian Lane lawfully purchased three bump stocks before the rule took effect and raises a Fifth Amendment challenge that the federal government must compensate him for taking his property. The federal government responds that the rule falls under a valid use of the police power, which requires no compensation. But as explained below, the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself. It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole. Assuming the federal government didn’t abolish the states to take their police power, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will allow the federal government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation and whether it allows a taking without compensation. The Court requests that the federal government also address any limits on that federal power and the Court’s proper role in examining the validity of the underlying rule when determining if there was a compensable taking. Judge Starr rejects the notion that the federal government has a police power. The federal government here raised the talisman of police power 31 times in its motion to dismiss and an additional 19 times in its reply. This seemed unusual to the Court because the Court had thought the police power is a power reserved for the states, not for the federal government. Fearful the Court was wrong, it turned to the first place one should always turn to with such questions: the Constitution. Article I, section 8 enumerates the powers the People gave to the federal government at our Nation’s founding: the tax power, the borrowing power, the commerce power, the naturalization power, the bankruptcy power, the power to coin money, the postal power, the maritime power, and the war power.39 None of these powers is the police power. Instead, the federal government has to rely on one of its enumerated powers. And it hasn’t. Judge Starr gave the parties a chance to re-plead their case.
It’s an interesting ruling, one that if it stands could have far-reaching ramifications. However, I’m not sure that it will. While Judge Starr seems to be basing his decision on sound constitutional understanding, I’m not so sure that anyone else in any other court will agree with him that the federal government lacks policing powers. Unfortunately, far too many jurists are completely comfortable with the status quo.
Of course, I’m not an attorney so maybe I’m the one wrong in thinking Judge Star’s reasoning is sound. Who knows?
But this may well be the start of something good for former bump stock owners (because no one still has one, right? That’s what I thought) or those who wanted a bump stock and never got one.
This will be a case worth watching closely.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Virginia 2A Group Threatens Lawsuit Over Governor's Range Closures

While gun stores in Virginia remain open at the moment , though subject to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s order limiting public gatherings to no more than 10 people , indoor ranges across the state have been ordered to close .
With thousands of new gun owners across the state who could use some time on the firing line , as well as instruction in how to safely handle their new firearm , the Virginia Citizens Defense League says it is preparing for a legal fight over the closure of ranges .
Northam has declared that indoor ranges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor public amusements , ” even though the closure of the ranges means it will be difficult , if not impossible , for new gun owners to get live-fire experience with their recently purchased firearms .
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper has also reached out to Northam ’ s office to ask about gun ranges , but so far the governor ’ s office hasn ’ t responded .
Some range owners say even if the governor modified his orders to allow gun ranges re-open , they simply couldn ’ t comply with the social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if ranges are allowed to open , some may choose not to do so .
Of course , that ’ s their right , and I won ’ t begrudge any business that decides on their own to shut down for the health and safety of their employees .
At the moment , however , no range in Virginia is allowed to make that decision for themselves .
Instead , they ’ re being dictated to close by the state , even though we know that there are thousands of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get a couple of hours of range time with their new handguns , rifles , or shotguns .
It would be great if Gov .
Northam were to see the light on this issue without the VCDL having to go to court , but that ’ s probably too much to ask of the anti-gun governor .
Hopefully within a matter of days we ’ ll see litigation brought , and ranges re-opened long before June 10th , when Northam ’ s current declaration of an emergency is scheduled to end .

While gun stores in Virginia remain open at the moment, though subject to Gov. Ralph Northam’s order limiting public gatherings to no more than 10 people, indoor ranges across the state have been ordered to close. With thousands of new gun owners across the state who could use some time on the firing line, as well as instruction in how to safely handle their new firearm, the Virginia Citizens Defense League says it is preparing for a legal fight over the closure of ranges.
Northam has declared that indoor ranges in the state are nothing more than “indoor public amusements,” even though the closure of the ranges means it will be difficult, if not impossible, for new gun owners to get live-fire experience with their recently purchased firearms.
On Friday, a law firm out of Vienna representing the VCDL wrote to Northam, saying his executive order violated the Second Amendment. “Although it is certainly true that there are those who visit ranges to shoot as a sport, it is also true that ranges are where Virginians are instructed to, and practice, their skills to use firearms as part of their inherent right to self-defense,” lawyers for VCDL wrote. “The suspension of constitutionally enumerated rights constitutes an ‘infringement,’ both of the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ and the right to be ‘trained to arms.’” Then came the memo from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Released Saturday, it offers guidance for what the department considers “essential critical infrastructure workers,” and people who work at shooting ranges are included. So the VCDL sent Northam another letter on Monday, asking him to change his executive order based on the Department of Homeland Security’s new guidance. The VCDL hasn’t received an answer yet.
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper has also reached out to Northam’s office to ask about gun ranges, but so far the governor’s office hasn’t responded.
Some range owners say even if the governor modified his orders to allow gun ranges re-open, they simply couldn’t comply with the social distancing mandates currently in effect.
C2 Shooting Center in Virginia Beach closed its public range — which is partially outdoors — four days before the governor’s order went into effect. Its private range remains open for official government, military and law enforcement training. Owner Kent Mote said that, even if the governor were to allow ranges to reopen provided they follow the 10-patrons-or-less rule, it wouldn’t be feasible for him to keep C2 Shooting Center open. “It’s a social distancing and a disinfecting and a cleaning regiment that would be too difficult in such a vast area,” he said. He said he would have to space out patrons so they are more than six feet apart, pause shooting for longer periods to thoroughly clean the porous, rubber surfaces found all over the range as well as the guns, door knobs and any other surfaces, and bring on extra staff to monitor social distancing and explain the new rules to customers. “What is it worth for my staff that have been with me for nine years or more to be exposed?”
So, even if ranges are allowed to open, some may choose not to do so. Of course, that’s their right, and I won’t begrudge any business that decides on their own to shut down for the health and safety of their employees. At the moment, however, no range in Virginia is allowed to make that decision for themselves. Instead, they’re being dictated to close by the state, even though we know that there are thousands of new gun owners who would appreciate the opportunity to get a couple of hours of range time with their new handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
It would be great if Gov. Northam were to see the light on this issue without the VCDL having to go to court, but that’s probably too much to ask of the anti-gun governor. Hopefully within a matter of days we’ll see litigation brought, and ranges re-opened long before June 10th, when Northam’s current declaration of an emergency is scheduled to end.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--NJ Officials Charge Six With Threatening Officers With COVID-19

COVID-19 is a scary disease .
While many people remain unbothered by it , many others are outright hysterical by the possibility of the disease .
Neither are , in my opinion , an appropriate reaction .
Then again , there are those who see this as a golden opportunity to take advantage of things .
Not just the criminals who are using this as a chance to commit crimes , but also those who want to take advantage in other ways .
Right now , state officials have taken over the prosecution of six individuals who tried to threaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Gurbir S. Grewal announced Wednesday that the Attorney General ’ s Office has taken over prosecution of six cases , including one in Plainfield , and is filing upgraded charges against defendants who allegedly threatened police officers by spitting or coughing at them and claiming to have COVID-19 .
Jennifer Burgess , 35 , of Plainfield , is charged with terroristic threats during a state of emergency ( 2nd degree ) , aggravated assault on an officer ( 4th degree ) , resisting arrest ( 3rd degree and disorderly persons offense ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 4th degree ) , disorderly conduct , and DWI .
During a motor vehicle stop on March 16 in Dunellen , Burgess allegedly attempted to elude police and deliberately coughed on an officer , telling the officer that she had the coronavirus .
Second-degree crimes carry a sentence of five to 10 years in state prison and a fine of up to $ 150,000 , while third-degree crimes carry a sentence of three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $ 15,000 .
Fourth-degree crimes carry a sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a $ 10,000 fine .
Five other people are facing similar charges of “ terroristic threats during a state of emergency ( 2nd degree ) ” for similar antics .
Look , I ’ m not a fan of whole new laws popping up because of a “ state of emergency ” simply because it expands government powers at the risk of individual liberty .
Yet I can ’ t imagine threatening police with what amounts to a bioweapon would fly even without a state of emergency in effect .
I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m not necessarily saying that COVID-19 came out of a lab in China either intentionally or accidentally .
What I am saying , though , is threatening someone with a deadly disease turns any potentially fatal illness into a bioweapon .
In my book , it ’ s no different than pointing a gun-shaped object at someone .
It may not be actually be something lethal , but the suspect is banking on people not realizing that .
As such , I have no sympathy for any of these six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not like police officers for whatever reason , but this kind of thing simply isn ’ t acceptable .
Frankly , though , those charges also need to be filed on anyone making such a threat regardless of just who they threaten .
This shouldn ’ t be relegated to just prosecuting those who threaten cops , but anyone .
Again , it ’ s a bioweapon at that point and they should be treated as such .
In fact , I think it would be hilarious to send these turdnuggets down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They want to act like terrorists , then treat them like terrorists .
I bet that would change their attitudes quite a bit .

COVID-19 is a scary disease. While many people remain unbothered by it, many others are outright hysterical by the possibility of the disease. Neither are, in my opinion, an appropriate reaction.
Then again, there are those who see this as a golden opportunity to take advantage of things. Not just the criminals who are using this as a chance to commit crimes, but also those who want to take advantage in other ways.
Right now, state officials have taken over the prosecution of six individuals who tried to threaten law enforcement officers with COVID-19.
Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal announced Wednesday that the Attorney General’s Office has taken over prosecution of six cases, including one in Plainfield, and is filing upgraded charges against defendants who allegedly threatened police officers by spitting or coughing at them and claiming to have COVID-19. Jennifer Burgess, 35, of Plainfield, is charged with terroristic threats during a state of emergency (2nd degree), aggravated assault on an officer (4th degree), resisting arrest (3rd degree and disorderly persons offense), throwing bodily fluid at an officer (4th degree), disorderly conduct, and DWI. During a motor vehicle stop on March 16 in Dunellen, Burgess allegedly attempted to elude police and deliberately coughed on an officer, telling the officer that she had the coronavirus. … Second-degree crimes carry a sentence of five to 10 years in state prison and a fine of up to $150,000, while third-degree crimes carry a sentence of three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Fourth-degree crimes carry a sentence of up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Five other people are facing similar charges of “terroristic threats during a state of emergency (2nd degree)” for similar antics.
Look, I’m not a fan of whole new laws popping up because of a “state of emergency” simply because it expands government powers at the risk of individual liberty. Yet I can’t imagine threatening police with what amounts to a bioweapon would fly even without a state of emergency in effect. I just can’t see it.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that COVID-19 came out of a lab in China either intentionally or accidentally. What I am saying, though, is threatening someone with a deadly disease turns any potentially fatal illness into a bioweapon. In my book, it’s no different than pointing a gun-shaped object at someone. It may not be actually be something lethal, but the suspect is banking on people not realizing that.
As such, I have no sympathy for any of these six individuals. None at all.
You may not like police officers for whatever reason, but this kind of thing simply isn’t acceptable. Frankly, though, those charges also need to be filed on anyone making such a threat regardless of just who they threaten. This shouldn’t be relegated to just prosecuting those who threaten cops, but anyone. Again, it’s a bioweapon at that point and they should be treated as such.
In fact, I think it would be hilarious to send these turdnuggets down to Gitmo for a few weeks. They want to act like terrorists, then treat them like terrorists.
I bet that would change their attitudes quite a bit.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Gun Sales Are Surging (Where Stores Are Open)

The FBI has is reporting a record number of gun background checks in March , but millions of Americans are still being denied their right to acquire a firearm thanks to local or state governments .
Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to talk about the egregious infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that ’ s taking place in the state , where gun stores and ranges have been ordered closed and the state police are trying to stop even online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charlie Baker ’ s anti-gun attitude has not only caused gun stores to close , but has imposed restrictions on firearms retailers that make the shuttered stores ineligible for financial aid from the state .
At the same time , the Massachusetts State Police are mandating a halt to all firearms training , even those classes which are available online .
The state ’ s attorney general , Maura Healey , meanwhile , is accusing law-abiding gun owners of posing a threat to law enforcement .
Wallace tells Bearing Arms that the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal lawsuit , to ensure that anyone wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights can do so in Massachusetts .
As Wallace points out , not only are gun stores closed to new gun owners , but existing gun owners can not purchase any ammunition in the state at the moment , which only furthers the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms taking place in the state .
What ’ s taking place in Massachusetts at the moment is as even more egregious violation of our right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in places like New Jersey or California , frankly .
Gov .
Baker , a Republican , has come down squarely on the side of gun control advocates who are hoping to prevent any American from purchasing a firearm for the first time during the current state of emergency .
In fact , the governor has taken the inexplicable position that online training for new gun owners needs to cease as well ; an utterly asinine decision that is the antithesis of “ gun safety.
” Make sure you check out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for today ’ s recidivist report , which features an armed robber in New Mexico sentenced to time served for his violent crime , an armed citizen story from Ocala , Florida , and a good deed involving a rookie cop and a single mom in Boston , Massachusetts .
Also , tomorrow at noon Eastern we ’ ll be doing a live editor ’ s chat for Townhall VIP Gold members .
You can sign up to become a VIP Gold member of Townhall.com here , and you can use the code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off of the price .
I ’ m really looking forward to talking with members tomorrow , and as always , thanks for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

The FBI has is reporting a record number of gun background checks in March, but millions of Americans are still being denied their right to acquire a firearm thanks to local or state governments. Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about the egregious infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that’s taking place in the state, where gun stores and ranges have been ordered closed and the state police are trying to stop even online training from taking place.
Gov. Charlie Baker’s anti-gun attitude has not only caused gun stores to close, but has imposed restrictions on firearms retailers that make the shuttered stores ineligible for financial aid from the state. At the same time, the Massachusetts State Police are mandating a halt to all firearms training, even those classes which are available online. The state’s attorney general, Maura Healey, meanwhile, is accusing law-abiding gun owners of posing a threat to law enforcement.
Gun shops and shooting ranges are NOT essential businesses during a public health emergency. We cannot undermine the safety of our police officers, first responders, and domestic violence victims. https://t.co/16Xunnd0mt — Maura Healey (@MassAGO) April 1, 2020
Wallace tells Bearing Arms that the organization is examining their options, including a federal lawsuit, to ensure that anyone wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights can do so in Massachusetts. As Wallace points out, not only are gun stores closed to new gun owners, but existing gun owners cannot purchase any ammunition in the state at the moment, which only furthers the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms taking place in the state.
What’s taking place in Massachusetts at the moment is as even more egregious violation of our right to keep and bear arms than what we’ve seen in places like New Jersey or California, frankly. Gov. Baker, a Republican, has come down squarely on the side of gun control advocates who are hoping to prevent any American from purchasing a firearm for the first time during the current state of emergency. In fact, the governor has taken the inexplicable position that online training for new gun owners needs to cease as well; an utterly asinine decision that is the antithesis of “gun safety.”
Make sure you check out the entire interview above, and stick around for today’s recidivist report, which features an armed robber in New Mexico sentenced to time served for his violent crime, an armed citizen story from Ocala, Florida, and a good deed involving a rookie cop and a single mom in Boston, Massachusetts.
Also, tomorrow at noon Eastern we’ll be doing a live editor’s chat for Townhall VIP Gold members. You can sign up to become a VIP Gold member of Townhall.com here, and you can use the code “Corona” to get 25% off of the price. I’m really looking forward to talking with members tomorrow, and as always, thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Massachusetts Shuts Down "Essential" Guns Stores

While Massachusetts is never going to be confused for a pro-gun state , they did declare gun stores as “ essential ” businesses during the COVID-19 emergency .
Then again , they weren ’ t the only anti-gun state to do so .
Still others reversed course after initially declaring them non-essential .
It seems that Massachusetts wants to chart a different path entirely , though .
You see , while they initially declared them essential businesses–the right course of action at a time like this , to be sure–they ’ ve now changed their minds .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down .
Honestly , this is kind of a bizarre reversal .
I can get why people like Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf reversed course .
There was sufficient backlash against his initial decision that he had no choice .
Yet that doesn ’ t seem to work in reverse .
After all , Illinois hasn ’ t changed their decision and considering the way Chicago both dominates state politics and likes to blame guns for pretty much all their ills , you ’ d think there would be enough pushback there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Baker ’ s decision doesn ’ t seem to make a lot of sense .
Especially since he ’ s still permitting businesses that manufacture guns and ammo to remain open .
These tend to have more people in them than gun stores , by and large , and if you think guns are evil , you ’ d likely want to stop them from being made in the first place .
Honestly , this doesn ’ t make a whole lot of sense in the grand scheme of things , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
If there ’ s a state where there ’ s not likely to be any backlash , Massachusetts is going to be that state .
Baker will probably get away with this unless the Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit does what it ’ s intended to do and get the courts to force the issue .
I ’ m not sure just how likely that would be , of course , but the fight is still needed .
You lose 100 percent of the battles you don ’ t fight and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have to see if any other states follow Baker ’ s lead on this .
Let ’ s hope there aren ’ t any .

While Massachusetts is never going to be confused for a pro-gun state, they did declare gun stores as “essential” businesses during the COVID-19 emergency. Then again, they weren’t the only anti-gun state to do so. Still others reversed course after initially declaring them non-essential.
It seems that Massachusetts wants to chart a different path entirely, though.
You see, while they initially declared them essential businesses–the right course of action at a time like this, to be sure–they’ve now changed their minds. They’re now ordering all gun stores to be shut down.
The reversal effectively shuts down gun sales in Massachusetts as the governor attempts to slow the spread of the coronavirus. [Governor Charlie] Baker’s declaration came days after the federal government declared the gun industry “essential.” Other jurisdictions have backed away from mandatory closures following the federal revision. Second Amendment activists are now exploring legal action to challenge the policy. “Massachusetts is one of the states on our list to file suit against,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which has joined with other leading gun-rights organizations to sue jurisdictions across the country over shutdowns, told theWashington Free Beacon. “Our attorneys are working on it.” Baker’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision. The latest update to his coronavirus “essential services” list allows “workers supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, importers, and distributors” to continue working but not those at gun stores or ranges.
Honestly, this is kind of a bizarre reversal.
I can get why people like Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf reversed course. There was sufficient backlash against his initial decision that he had no choice. Yet that doesn’t seem to work in reverse. After all, Illinois hasn’t changed their decision and considering the way Chicago both dominates state politics and likes to blame guns for pretty much all their ills, you’d think there would be enough pushback there to force the issue.
But there’s not.
As a result, Baker’s decision doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Especially since he’s still permitting businesses that manufacture guns and ammo to remain open. These tend to have more people in them than gun stores, by and large, and if you think guns are evil, you’d likely want to stop them from being made in the first place.
Honestly, this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the grand scheme of things, but it also doesn’t really have to.
If there’s a state where there’s not likely to be any backlash, Massachusetts is going to be that state. Baker will probably get away with this unless the Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit does what it’s intended to do and get the courts to force the issue. I’m not sure just how likely that would be, of course, but the fight is still needed. You lose 100 percent of the battles you don’t fight and all that.
Going forward, we’ll have to see if any other states follow Baker’s lead on this. Let’s hope there aren’t any.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Yes, Plenty Of Liberals Are Buying Guns Too

The record number of firearms sold in March weren ’ t all purchased by Trump-loving Republicans in red states , despite claims by gun control activists that the surge in sales is all due to fearmongering on the part of the NRA .
As it turns out , the desire to protect yourself and your loved ones is non-partisan , and even the New Yorker is recognizing that many of the 1-million or more new gun owners around the country don ’ t fit neatly into the anti-gun stereotype of the typical Second Amendment supporter .
The magazine ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Gorge Guns in Hood River , Oregon , where owner Erika Bales has been busy with customers new and old .
Among the customers opening her door for the very first time was a woman in her 60s looking for something she could use for home defense .
“ My son was a little upset about it.
” ( He preferred his bow and arrow . )
“ I ’ m old and I live alone , and we don ’ t know if there ’ s going to be civil unrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She added , “ It didn ’ t have to be this way.
” Unlike many of the shop ’ s regulars , she was no fan of Trump : “ He ’ s a divider all the way .
First he said , ‘ Five people have died , big deal.
’ Now he ’ s saying , ‘ I always knew it ’ d be dangerous.
’ ” Talk turned to Portland .
“ It ’ s a ghost town , ” a young woman said .
Her name was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , since the restaurant where she waited tables had closed .
“ I don ’ t like to go in cities anymore , anyway , ” the customer said .
“ But these rumors about them putting this country in full lockdown are inaccurate , ” Rosemary said .
“ It ’ s a scare tactic .
It ’ s not like all of a sudden we ’ re gon na wake up one day and everyone is sick and the whole world is ending.
” The customer ended up selecting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 rounds of .22 Magnum .
“ This is just going to be for close range , ” the customer said .
“ In my house .
If it happens.
” ( Asked what “ it ” was , she said , “ In two months , if the cities are starving , they ’ re gon na come out .
And I understand that.
” ) Bales piled boxes of ammunition on the counter .
“ I ’ ll take them all , ” the customer said .
She ducked outside to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think she ’ s a liberal , ” Bales said , once the door closed .
“ There ’ s so many coming in .
First-time-gun-owner liberals .
I ’ ve probably seen ten this week .
It ’ s so funny , because I hope it just turns them on to liking the Second Amendment .
I mean , the Constitution was created for a reason .
To protect us.
” In Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , the Post-Gazette newspaper also found self-described progressives purchasing firearms for self-defense .
After standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store for more than an hour , not knowing what he would say to the sales clerk , the self-described “ liberal Democrat from New York City ” bought a gun .
He said it was an impulse buy , not a “ panic.
” … “ The stock market is tanking .
I ’ m well-read enough to know that puts the onus on people to feel differently about how commodities are traded and how people will act , ” said the gun-purchasing anesthesiologist , who lives in Fox Chapel and works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name be withheld due to concerns about how friends and neighbors might react to his self-defense solution… “ I ’ ve been an anesthesiologist for nearly 20 years , and there are times I ’ m in the hospital five to seven days a week , and can ’ t be home to protect my family , ” he said .
“ That ’ s why I bought it .
I ’ m a Democrat who believes in social welfare for people , health care for everyone .
But when you start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , we ’ re in big trouble .
I don ’ t know how people will react at that time.
” It will be interesting to see just how many folks on the left side of the political aisle discover a newfound appreciation for the Second Amendment , and how many of them in places like coastal California , Washington , New York , New Jersey , and Massachusetts end up discovering that the gun control laws and anti-gun politicians they may have supported in the past are actually making it impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current emergency .
The right to keep and bear arms isn ’ t a right of the Right .
It ’ s a right of the people , no matter where you fall on the political spectrum .
Unfortunately over the past few decades the number of pro-gun Democrats has dwindled , and in Congress they ’ re almost non-existent .
A surge in support for the Second Amendment among those on the Left could reshape the political debate over our right to keep and bear arms , which is one reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping the number of new gun owners as low as possible .
It ’ s unquestionably a good thing that more folks on the Left are joining the ranks of gun owners , but it will be even better if they become politically active in defense of their right to keep and bear arms as well .
Longtime gun owners and 2A activists should be reaching out and engaging with these new gun owners whenever possible to encourage them to become an advocate for their rights now that they ’ ve joined the @ @ @ @ @

The record number of firearms sold in March weren’t all purchased by Trump-loving Republicans in red states, despite claims by gun control activists that the surge in sales is all due to fearmongering on the part of the NRA. As it turns out, the desire to protect yourself and your loved ones is non-partisan, and even the New Yorker is recognizing that many of the 1-million or more new gun owners around the country don’t fit neatly into the anti-gun stereotype of the typical Second Amendment supporter.
The magazine’s Charles Bethea reports on a recent trip to Gorge Guns in Hood River, Oregon, where owner Erika Bales has been busy with customers new and old. Among the customers opening her door for the very first time was a woman in her 60s looking for something she could use for home defense.
“My son was a little upset about it.” (He preferred his bow and arrow.) “I’m old and I live alone, and we don’t know if there’s going to be civil unrest. The world is not the same.” She added, “It didn’t have to be this way.” Unlike many of the shop’s regulars, she was no fan of Trump: “He’s a divider all the way. First he said, ‘Five people have died, big deal.’ Now he’s saying, ‘I always knew it’d be dangerous.’ ” Talk turned to Portland. “It’s a ghost town,” a young woman said. Her name was Rosemary, and she was helping Bales out, since the restaurant where she waited tables had closed. “I don’t like to go in cities anymore, anyway,” the customer said. “But these rumors about them putting this country in full lockdown are inaccurate,” Rosemary said. “It’s a scare tactic. It’s not like all of a sudden we’re gonna wake up one day and everyone is sick and the whole world is ending.”
The customer ended up selecting a Kel-Tec PMR30 pistol, which can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum.
“This is just going to be for close range,” the customer said. “In my house. If it happens.” (Asked what “it” was, she said, “In two months, if the cities are starving, they’re gonna come out. And I understand that.”) Bales piled boxes of ammunition on the counter. “I’ll take them all,” the customer said. She ducked outside to get her wallet from the car. “I think she’s a liberal,” Bales said, once the door closed. “There’s so many coming in. First-time-gun-owner liberals. I’ve probably seen ten this week. It’s so funny, because I hope it just turns them on to liking the Second Amendment. I mean, the Constitution was created for a reason. To protect us.”
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Post-Gazette newspaper also found self-described progressives purchasing firearms for self-defense.
After standing in line at a Pittsburgh-area sporting goods store for more than an hour, not knowing what he would say to the sales clerk, the self-described “liberal Democrat from New York City” bought a gun. He said it was an impulse buy, not a “panic.”… “The stock market is tanking. I’m well-read enough to know that puts the onus on people to feel differently about how commodities are traded and how people will act,” said the gun-purchasing anesthesiologist, who lives in Fox Chapel and works in Pittsburgh. He asked that his name be withheld due to concerns about how friends and neighbors might react to his self-defense solution… “I’ve been an anesthesiologist for nearly 20 years, and there are times I’m in the hospital five to seven days a week, and can’t be home to protect my family,” he said. “That’s why I bought it. I’m a Democrat who believes in social welfare for people, health care for everyone. But when you start to say the health care system could break down, we’re in big trouble. I don’t know how people will react at that time.”
It will be interesting to see just how many folks on the left side of the political aisle discover a newfound appreciation for the Second Amendment, and how many of them in places like coastal California, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts end up discovering that the gun control laws and anti-gun politicians they may have supported in the past are actually making it impossible for them to acquire a firearm during the current emergency.
The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a right of the Right. It’s a right of the people, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Unfortunately over the past few decades the number of pro-gun Democrats has dwindled, and in Congress they’re almost non-existent. A surge in support for the Second Amendment among those on the Left could reshape the political debate over our right to keep and bear arms, which is one reason gun control advocates are so intent on keeping the number of new gun owners as low as possible.
It’s unquestionably a good thing that more folks on the Left are joining the ranks of gun owners, but it will be even better if they become politically active in defense of their right to keep and bear arms as well. Longtime gun owners and 2A activists should be reaching out and engaging with these new gun owners whenever possible to encourage them to become an advocate for their rights now that they’ve joined the ranks of armed Americans.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Boulder County Sheriff Begs Gun Stores To Wait For Background Checks

The idea behind the instant background check system is that it allows stores to verify the person purchasing the firearm is legally allowed to have one .
However , sometimes you can ’ t get the background check instantly .
For whatever reason , sometimes there ’ s a delay .
Understanding that , though , lawmakers stipulated that after a certain time period .
no return on a background check could be interpreted as a pass check .
That prevents anyone from trying to restrict gun ownership simply by slowing down the background check process .
Right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like never before .
After all , millions are buying guns for the first time , and that ’ s causing delays .
So are state-based background check systems and for the same reason .
The sheriff of Boulder County in Colorado wants gun stores to wait on those returned checks despite the delay .
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is reporting a historic swell in background checks for gun purchases .
With the average turnaround for the process taking six days , the CBI said gun sellers have the discretion to release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it takes longer than the window of three business days outlined by federal law .
Following a surge in state and national gun sales seen during the new coronavirus pandemic , Susan Medina , a spokesperson for the CBI , described the strain on the CBI ’ s InstaCheck Unit , which processes background checks .
In Colorado , a background check is required to legally purchase a gun .
The CBI is authorized to impose a $ 10.50 fee for the background check and a licensed dealer may also implement a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBI .
While firearms sellers can complete a sale by default , if the background check exceeds the federal law ’ s window of three business days , Medina said the CBI is “ strongly encouraging federal firearms licensees , if they have a check outside of the window , to hold the firearm.
” “ There ’ s no way ( without a background check ) for a gun retailer to know if they ’ re selling a firearm to someone with a felony record , restraining order or domestic violence situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that could be critically dangerous , ” Pelle said .
Then it sounds like the CBI needs to step up their efforts to get those checks done in a timely manner , then .
Look , it ’ s not on the gun stores to treat their customers like they ’ re felons .
The vast majority are law-abiding citizens who simply want a firearm for self-defense or sporting purposes .
They ’ re being forced to wait as it is because of something that ’ s not their fault , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law requires because the relevant agency wasn ’ t equipped for the demand is out of line .
I mean , yes , a criminal might well take advantage of this to try and obtain a firearm from a gun store , but that ’ s not very likely .
For one thing , they ’ ll still have paperwork with his name on it .
That means a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon at a minimum .
Further , criminals aren ’ t necessarily known for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-end ones you see in movies might be , but the vast majority are street thugs .
They ’ re not going to wait days .
Especially since most know where to get a black market gun off the streets in a matter of minutes .
Gun stores can do as the sheriff asks if they want to .
However , I suspect it will hurt their business at a time when a lot of businesses are already facing closure .
That might not be the savviest move a business could make .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then they need to figure out how to beef up the process , not try to delay people exercising a constitutionally-protected right

The idea behind the instant background check system is that it allows stores to verify the person purchasing the firearm is legally allowed to have one. However, sometimes you can’t get the background check instantly. For whatever reason, sometimes there’s a delay. Understanding that, though, lawmakers stipulated that after a certain time period. no return on a background check could be interpreted as a pass check. That prevents anyone from trying to restrict gun ownership simply by slowing down the background check process.
Right now, though, the NICS is bogged down like never before. After all, millions are buying guns for the first time, and that’s causing delays. So are state-based background check systems and for the same reason.
The sheriff of Boulder County in Colorado wants gun stores to wait on those returned checks despite the delay.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is reporting a historic swell in background checks for gun purchases. With the average turnaround for the process taking six days, the CBI said gun sellers have the discretion to release the firearm before clearing the background check if it takes longer than the window of three business days outlined by federal law. Following a surge in state and national gun sales seen during the new coronavirus pandemic, Susan Medina, a spokesperson for the CBI, described the strain on the CBI’s InstaCheck Unit, which processes background checks. In Colorado, a background check is required to legally purchase a gun. The CBI is authorized to impose a $10.50 fee for the background check and a licensed dealer may also implement a $10 statutory fee, according to CBI. … While firearms sellers can complete a sale by default, if the background check exceeds the federal law’s window of three business days, Medina said the CBI is “strongly encouraging federal firearms licensees, if they have a check outside of the window, to hold the firearm.” Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle echoed this. “There’s no way (without a background check) for a gun retailer to know if they’re selling a firearm to someone with a felony record, restraining order or domestic violence situation, extreme-risk protection order — all the things that could be critically dangerous,” Pelle said.
Then it sounds like the CBI needs to step up their efforts to get those checks done in a timely manner, then.
Look, it’s not on the gun stores to treat their customers like they’re felons. The vast majority are law-abiding citizens who simply want a firearm for self-defense or sporting purposes. They’re being forced to wait as it is because of something that’s not their fault, but to make them wait even longer than the law requires because the relevant agency wasn’t equipped for the demand is out of line.
I mean, yes, a criminal might well take advantage of this to try and obtain a firearm from a gun store, but that’s not very likely. For one thing, they’ll still have paperwork with his name on it. That means a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon at a minimum.
Further, criminals aren’t necessarily known for being all that patient. Sure, the high-end ones you see in movies might be, but the vast majority are street thugs. They’re not going to wait days. Especially since most know where to get a black market gun off the streets in a matter of minutes.
Gun stores can do as the sheriff asks if they want to. However, I suspect it will hurt their business at a time when a lot of businesses are already facing closure. That might not be the savviest move a business could make.
If officials in Colorado are that worried, then they need to figure out how to beef up the process, not try to delay people exercising a constitutionally-protected right


bearingarms--2020-04-02--GA Mayor Shows How NOT To Enforce Social Distancing Rules

The mayor of Cummings , Georgia is apologizing after announcing that the city would be hiring up to 150 “ special police officers ” to patrol the city in plainclothes looking for violators of the town ’ s new social distancing measures .
Mayor Troy Brumbalow announced earlier this week that anyone caught within six feet of another person not related by blood or marriage could be arrested and face up to 180 days in jail , along with a $ 1000 fine .
An immediate backlash ensued , and early Wednesday , Brumbalow took to Facebook to declare that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intent of the order was to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19 , it is obvious that a large portion of our public doesn ’ t want government mandating the recommendations of public health officials .
A huge sticking point of the order was the appointment of special policemen to help enforce the order .
Under the city charter , the mayor can appoint special policemen during times of emergency .
I said in our press release that I would swear in up to 150 policemen .
I was looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic as our police department has 18 officers .
I can see that I didn ’ t communicate our thoughts and intentions clearly enough .
People reacted strongly on social media thinking we were becoming a police state .
That was never the intent .
While I didn ’ t write the press release , I approved it and take full responsibility .
Furthermore , the penalty was a maximum of $ 1000 and/or 180 days in jail .
Many people don ’ t speed for fear of the fine .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to really think about social distancing .
Our officers would much prefer to educate than write a citation for this .
I spoke to the manager of one of our big chain stores on Tuesday about their long lines to get into their store because they were limiting the number of patrons inside .
This caused a distancing problem outside and they couldn ’ t offer a remedy .
We couldn ’ t fix the problem without an order that had an enforceable offense .
While I think the intent of the order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the delivery was bad .
I own that and take full responsibility .
While I ’ m the mayor , I don ’ t consider myself a politician .
I can ’ t answer a question without giving an answer .
I ’ m plain spoken , love this community and can admit when I ’ m wrong .
To that end , there is no longer a social distancing order in the city .
Please keep a safe distance , wash your hands and be mindful of everyone else .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that people are practicing social distancing measures , what on earth did he think was going to happen when he told residents that dozens of “ secret police ” would be keeping an eye out for social distancing scofflaws ?
Cummings is a small town of about 6,000 people .
Most people know everyone in town , so the idea of their neighbors “ snitching ” on unmarried couples holding hands or walking too closely together was bound to generate a heated response .
Brumbalow says the “ intent ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that would have been the result .
I ’ m glad to see him quickly back off his proposal , but it never should have been offered in the first place .
If the mayor is concerned about the impact the coronavirus could have on the 18 members of the Cummings Police Department , perhaps he could have asked for volunteers for help , instead of threatening to put them in jail .
I do believe that we have to take the threat of the coronavirus seriously , but that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by when politicians go overboard or ignore the Constitution in their attempts to manage the public health crisis .
I ’ m glad Brumbalow reversed his social distancing order , but I ’ m even more appreciative of the residents in Cummings who spoke up about the original order once it was announced .

The mayor of Cummings, Georgia is apologizing after announcing that the city would be hiring up to 150 “special police officers” to patrol the city in plainclothes looking for violators of the town’s new social distancing measures.
Mayor Troy Brumbalow announced earlier this week that anyone caught within six feet of another person not related by blood or marriage could be arrested and face up to 180 days in jail, along with a $1000 fine. An immediate backlash ensued, and early Wednesday, Brumbalow took to Facebook to declare that the order was being rescinded.
While the intent of the order was to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19, it is obvious that a large portion of our public doesn’t want government mandating the recommendations of public health officials. A huge sticking point of the order was the appointment of special policemen to help enforce the order. Under the city charter, the mayor can appoint special policemen during times of emergency. I said in our press release that I would swear in up to 150 policemen. I was looking at a worst case scenario caused by the pandemic as our police department has 18 officers. I can see that I didn’t communicate our thoughts and intentions clearly enough. People reacted strongly on social media thinking we were becoming a police state. That was never the intent. While I didn’t write the press release, I approved it and take full responsibility. Furthermore, the penalty was a maximum of $1000 and/or 180 days in jail. Many people don’t speed for fear of the fine. We were hopeful that this would cause people to really think about social distancing. Our officers would much prefer to educate than write a citation for this. I spoke to the manager of one of our big chain stores on Tuesday about their long lines to get into their store because they were limiting the number of patrons inside. This caused a distancing problem outside and they couldn’t offer a remedy. We couldn’t fix the problem without an order that had an enforceable offense. While I think the intent of the order was for the health of our citizens, the delivery was bad. I own that and take full responsibility. While I’m the mayor, I don’t consider myself a politician. I can’t answer a question without giving an answer. I’m plain spoken, love this community and can admit when I’m wrong. To that end, there is no longer a social distancing order in the city. Please keep a safe distance, wash your hands and be mindful of everyone else.
While I understand the mayor’s desire to ensure that people are practicing social distancing measures, what on earth did he think was going to happen when he told residents that dozens of “secret police” would be keeping an eye out for social distancing scofflaws? Cummings is a small town of about 6,000 people. Most people know everyone in town, so the idea of their neighbors “snitching” on unmarried couples holding hands or walking too closely together was bound to generate a heated response.
Brumbalow says the “intent” was never to become a police state, but that would have been the result. I’m glad to see him quickly back off his proposal, but it never should have been offered in the first place. If the mayor is concerned about the impact the coronavirus could have on the 18 members of the Cummings Police Department, perhaps he could have asked for volunteers for help, instead of threatening to put them in jail.
I do believe that we have to take the threat of the coronavirus seriously, but that doesn’t mean we can simply stand idly by when politicians go overboard or ignore the Constitution in their attempts to manage the public health crisis. I’m glad Brumbalow reversed his social distancing order, but I’m even more appreciative of the residents in Cummings who spoke up about the original order once it was announced.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--Cuomo Sued Over NY Gun Store Closures

Cuomo Sued Over NY Gun Store Closures

A New York gun store and several of their customers are suing New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo over his refusal to designate firearm retailers as essential businesses .
Dark Storm Industries argues in its lawsuit that Cuomo ’ s decision is infringing on the rights of New Yorkers to acquire firearms for self defense .
The provision of rifles , shotguns , ammunition , and other equipment for the defense of homes is a service needed to “ maintain the safety , sanitation and essential operations of residences , ” especially at this critical juncture in history , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will substantially , inevitably and foreseeably increase the rate of crimes as burglaries and robberies committed in homes .
But for the Executive Orders complained of herein and their interpretation as hereinbefore described , Plaintiff DSI would continue to do business following appropriate medical and public health recommendations ( e.g.
, cleaning , social distancing ) and would thereby be able to meet the demands ( which have increased during the pandemic crisis ) of citizens legitimately wishing to purchase long guns , other weapons , and ammunition for home defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue an injunction declaring Cuomo ’ s emergency order unconstitutional as it applies to firearms retailers , and allow gun stores across the state to re-open for business .
Late Wednesday , the National Shooting Sports Foundation released its adjusted NICS figures for March , and reported that across the country , more than 2.5-million firearms were sold last month .
That number would have been even higher if stores like Dark Storm Industries were open for business , because New Yorkers are no different from the rest of the country in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during these uncertain times .
What makes them different is that they ’ ve been denied the ability to purchase a firearm or ammunition , along with residents of a handful of states like New Jersey , Pennsylvania , and New Mexico that closed gun stores .
Most states have since lifted those restrictions , but they remain in place in New York .
As we pointed out here recently , the state of New York is not only releasing inmates from jail to try to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are ensuring that even some suspects accused of violent crimes are quickly being released after their arrests as well .
It ’ s unconscionable that Gov .
Cuomo and state officials are putting criminals back on the streets while depriving law-abiding citizens of their right to acquire a firearm for self-defense .
To the best of my knowledge , this is the first lawsuit filed in New York that challenges Cuomo ’ s executive order .
Hopefully Dark Storm Industries will find some relief in the federal court system .
Otherwise , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it and other firearm retailers around the state might not be in a financial position to re-open at all .

A New York gun store and several of their customers are suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over his refusal to designate firearm retailers as essential businesses.
Dark Storm Industries argues in its lawsuit that Cuomo’s decision is infringing on the rights of New Yorkers to acquire firearms for self defense.
The provision of rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and other equipment for the defense of homes is a service needed to“maintain the safety, sanitation and essential operations of residences,” especially at this critical juncture in history, when unprecedented economic inequalities are likely to develop that will substantially, inevitably and foreseeably increase the rate of crimes as burglaries and robberies committed in homes. But for the Executive Orders complained of herein and their interpretation as hereinbefore described, Plaintiff DSI would continue to do business following appropriate medical and public health recommendations (e.g., cleaning, social distancing) and would thereby be able to meet the demands (which have increased during the pandemic crisis) of citizens legitimately wishing to purchase long guns, other weapons, and ammunition for home defense.
The federal lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction declaring Cuomo’s emergency order unconstitutional as it applies to firearms retailers, and allow gun stores across the state to re-open for business.
Late Wednesday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation released its adjusted NICS figures for March, and reported that across the country, more than 2.5-million firearms were sold last month. That number would have been even higher if stores like Dark Storm Industries were open for business, because New Yorkers are no different from the rest of the country in terms of wanting a firearm for personal protection during these uncertain times. What makes them different is that they’ve been denied the ability to purchase a firearm or ammunition, along with residents of a handful of states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico that closed gun stores. Most states have since lifted those restrictions, but they remain in place in New York.
As we pointed out here recently, the state of New York is not only releasing inmates from jail to try to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. The state’s bail reform laws are ensuring that even some suspects accused of violent crimes are quickly being released after their arrests as well. It’s unconscionable that Gov. Cuomo and state officials are putting criminals back on the streets while depriving law-abiding citizens of their right to acquire a firearm for self-defense.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first lawsuit filed in New York that challenges Cuomo’s executive order. Hopefully Dark Storm Industries will find some relief in the federal court system. Otherwise, by the time Cuomo’s order expires, it and other firearm retailers around the state might not be in a financial position to re-open at all.


bearingarms--2020-04-02--VA Man Arrested Following Self-Defense Shooting

Virginia has gone off the deep end in a lot of ways over the last year or so .
That ’ s not overly surprising with a governor like Ralph Northam at the helm .
In fact , we ’ ve seen a lot of stupid from them that I wouldn ’ t have even thought was possible a couple of years ago .
Yet even then , self-defense is still a clear human right .
No one should be arrested for defending themselves , right ?
In today ’ s Virginia , that doesn ’ t necessarily seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Arlington Smoke Shop in Arlington , Virginia , was arrested early Sunday morning on three charges related to him firing a weapon—one that his boss had supplied to him—at burglars who had broken into the store .
He ended up wounding one of the three burglars—a juvenile .
As Arlington Now reports , “ Police say a group of three suspects broke into [ the ] store…and began stealing cash and merchandise.
” According to police reports , 33-year-old Hamzeh Abushariah then “ opened the door to the sales floor and discharged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The employee retreated to the back room but reentered the sales floor and discharged his weapon again as the subjects were attempting to flee the business.
” The other two burglars escaped on foot , and Abushariah was arrested and charged with malicious wounding , reckless handling of a firearm , and violation of a protective order , as the shooter was , according to police , under a previous order to not legally possess a firearm .
Conviction on all three charges could lead to him spending up to 25 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s true that if you ’ re under a protective order , you ’ re not supposed to have a firearm .
At least , in theory .
However , you would think that if you ’ re acting in self-defense , it wouldn ’ t be a problem .
Especially as it wasn ’ t his gun .
Yet the presence of the other two charges tells us that the authorities aren ’ t ruling this a justified self-defense shooting .
I mean , they ’ re calling it “ reckless handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss , however , is less than pleased .
Jowan Zuber , the owner of the store , took to Tucker Carlson Tonight last night to decry the police ’ s actions .
“ The neighbor upstairs said when they broke the window it sounded like a car smashing into the store .
The employee said it sounded like a shotgun , ” he said to Carlson .
“ It ’ s very sad for America today as American citizens practice their Second Amendment to protect the store and their lives….Do you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told [ Abushariah ] ?
‘ Why didn ’ t you run out the back door ?
’ ” According to Zuber , he was not able to post the $ 25,000 bond for his employee , as it was successfully “ appealed by the prosecutor.
” It ’ s always dangerous to be in jail or prison , for whatever reason , and especially so in the age of COVID-19 , something that prosecutors might want to consider more soberly .
It doesn ’ t help that the prosecutor–someone who normally makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole “ I know things that you don ’ t ” card .
So , what gives ?
Well , much as I hate to say it , I think Abushariah ’ s kind of screwed here .
While he may have been sleeping there , the smoke shop doesn ’ t count as a residence .
From a legal standpoint , burglary of a business doesn ’ t get viewed the same as burglary of a home with regard to the use of force .
The argument is that business burglaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be there are rarely result in homicides if the criminal is wrong .
Home invasions are a different matter entirely .
Because of that , despite Abushariah residing in the store for the time being , it ’ s unlikely prosecutors would treat it the same as if his home was being broken into .
( Virginia is still a Stand Your Ground state , for the record . )
Further , there ’ s case law noted at the above link that that found that you couldn ’ t use a firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That only makes things worse for Abushariah .
Then there ’ s this whole thing about him being under a protective order .
No , we don ’ t know what that ’ s about and while the prosecutor claims that talking about it would be unfair to Abushariah , my guess is that it would really do something to upend her case .
It doesn ’ t matter , though , because it ’ s another data point against him .
Now , should he be facing these charges ?
Probably not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really know if these thugs knew he was in there or not .
We also know that it ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that he would have faced a significant degree of violence .
Further , I ’ ve never been a fan of people who are “ victims ” while committing crimes .
I mean , sure , it might be different if Abushariah clubbed him upside the head and chained him in the basement to make him a sex slave or something , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about here .
No , Abushariah fired the gun his boss provided him to defend the life he thought was endangered , namely his own .

Virginia has gone off the deep end in a lot of ways over the last year or so. That’s not overly surprising with a governor like Ralph Northam at the helm. In fact, we’ve seen a lot of stupid from them that I wouldn’t have even thought was possible a couple of years ago.
Yet even then, self-defense is still a clear human right. No one should be arrested for defending themselves, right?
In today’s Virginia, that doesn’t necessarily seem to be true.
An employee temporarily sleeping in Arlington Smoke Shop in Arlington, Virginia, was arrested early Sunday morning on three charges related to him firing a weapon—one that his boss had supplied to him—at burglars who had broken into the store. He ended up wounding one of the three burglars—a juvenile. As Arlington Now reports, “Police say a group of three suspects broke into [the] store…and began stealing cash and merchandise.” According to police reports, 33-year-old Hamzeh Abushariah then “opened the door to the sales floor and discharged the weapon, striking one juvenile subject. The employee retreated to the back room but reentered the sales floor and discharged his weapon again as the subjects were attempting to flee the business.” The other two burglars escaped on foot, and Abushariah was arrested and charged with malicious wounding, reckless handling of a firearm, and violation of a protective order, as the shooter was, according to police, under a previous order to not legally possess a firearm. Conviction on all three charges could lead to him spending up to 25 years in prison.
Now, it’s true that if you’re under a protective order, you’re not supposed to have a firearm. At least, in theory.
However, you would think that if you’re acting in self-defense, it wouldn’t be a problem. Especially as it wasn’t his gun. Yet the presence of the other two charges tells us that the authorities aren’t ruling this a justified self-defense shooting. I mean, they’re calling it “reckless handling of a firearm.”
Abushariah’s boss, however, is less than pleased.
Jowan Zuber, the owner of the store, took to Tucker Carlson Tonight last night to decry the police’s actions. “The neighbor upstairs said when they broke the window it sounded like a car smashing into the store. The employee said it sounded like a shotgun,” he said to Carlson. “It’s very sad for America today as American citizens practice their Second Amendment to protect the store and their lives….Do you know what the [responding] police officer told [Abushariah]? ‘Why didn’t you run out the back door?’” According to Zuber, he was not able to post the $25,000 bond for his employee, as it was successfully “appealed by the prosecutor.” It’s always dangerous to be in jail or prison, for whatever reason, and especially so in the age of COVID-19, something that prosecutors might want to consider more soberly.
It doesn’t help that the prosecutor–someone who normally makes a big deal about transparent policing–is playing the whole “I know things that you don’t” card.
So, what gives?
Well, much as I hate to say it, I think Abushariah’s kind of screwed here. While he may have been sleeping there, the smoke shop doesn’t count as a residence. From a legal standpoint, burglary of a business doesn’t get viewed the same as burglary of a home with regard to the use of force. The argument is that business burglaries happen when people are believed to not be there are rarely result in homicides if the criminal is wrong. Home invasions are a different matter entirely.
Because of that, despite Abushariah residing in the store for the time being, it’s unlikely prosecutors would treat it the same as if his home was being broken into. (Virginia is still a Stand Your Ground state, for the record.)
Further, there’s case law noted at the above link that that found that you couldn’t use a firearm to protect property, only life. That only makes things worse for Abushariah.
Then there’s this whole thing about him being under a protective order. No, we don’t know what that’s about and while the prosecutor claims that talking about it would be unfair to Abushariah, my guess is that it would really do something to upend her case. It doesn’t matter, though, because it’s another data point against him.
Now, should he be facing these charges? Probably not. The truth is that we don’t really know if these thugs knew he was in there or not. We also know that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he would have faced a significant degree of violence.
Further, I’ve never been a fan of people who are “victims” while committing crimes. I mean, sure, it might be different if Abushariah clubbed him upside the head and chained him in the basement to make him a sex slave or something, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. No, Abushariah fired the gun his boss provided him to defend the life he thought was endangered, namely his own.