bearingarms--2020-05-04--NZ Gun Group In Court Over Gun Control Law

Here in the United States , we ’ re used to seeing gun control laws challenged in court .
In fact , it ’ s just what we do when anti-gun lawmakers seek to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms .
After all , what else can we do other than either challenge the law , or accept the step closer toward outright tyranny ?
Most other countries don ’ t have the constitutional protections of gun rights that we do .
As a result , we don ’ t often hear about gun control laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand gun owners group is taking the government ’ s “ gun reform ” laws to court .
The Government “ extinguished all property rights of any kind ” for gun owners when it brought in gun law reform last year , a court has heard .
The Council of Licenced Firearms Owners ( Colfo ) is in the High Court at Wellington this morning seeking a judicial review of aspects of the Government ’ s gun law reform , made after the Christchurch terror attack .
The hearing is focusing on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assumptions behind it which the Minister of Police relied upon to when making his decision , a Colfo spokesperson earlier said .
“ Colfo believes that the banning of these types of ammunition will not make New Zealand safer.
” “ If central government powers are used to deprive lawful owners of property rights , such owners are entitled to proper compensation for the deprivation of such rights , ” said the Colfo application for judicial review .
Colfo spokeswoman Nicole McKee said that Police Minister Stuart Nash applied the wrong tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning .
“ All New Zealanders should be concerned by bans without compensation of legally purchased products .
This sets a truly dangerous precedent , ” McKee said .
Of course , this is quite different than how an American gun rights group would challenge such a law .
Even if there was compensation , we ’ d still challenge the measure as an infringement of our constitutionally-protected gun rights .
To be sure , New Zealand gun owners do have the same right to keep and bear arms that we have .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that limit the government ’ s ability to infringe upon that right , they have less of a legal leg to stand on in a situation like this .
However , they can argue that they ’ re being deprived of their property without compensation .
Then again , gun owners in other nations are rarely as rabidly protective of their gun rights as American activists tend to be .
They ’ re generally conditioned to believe that some degree of gun control is not only acceptable , but imperative .
As such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quibble over things like compensation rather than the outright infringement of their rights .
After all , they ’ ve been conditioned to see bearing arms as a privilege , not a right , and that ’ s a damn shame .
Regardless , though , the New Zealand government grossly overstepped when it passed its bans following the Christchurch massacre .
The only question is whether the court will slap them down over it .
Again , this isn ’ t the United States , so I wouldn ’ t hold my @ @ @ @ @

Here in the United States, we’re used to seeing gun control laws challenged in court. In fact, it’s just what we do when anti-gun lawmakers seek to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. After all, what else can we do other than either challenge the law, or accept the step closer toward outright tyranny?
Most other countries don’t have the constitutional protections of gun rights that we do. As a result, we don’t often hear about gun control laws being challenged legally.
Yet a New Zealand gun owners group is taking the government’s “gun reform” laws to court.
The Government “extinguished all property rights of any kind” for gun owners when it brought in gun law reform last year, a court has heard. The Council of Licenced Firearms Owners (Colfo) is in the High Court at Wellington this morning seeking a judicial review of aspects of the Government’s gun law reform, made after the Christchurch terror attack. The hearing is focusing on the ban of several types of ammunition and the assumptions behind it which the Minister of Police relied upon to when making his decision, a Colfo spokesperson earlier said. “Colfo believes that the banning of these types of ammunition will not make New Zealand safer.” “If central government powers are used to deprive lawful owners of property rights, such owners are entitled to proper compensation for the deprivation of such rights,” said the Colfo application for judicial review. Colfo spokeswoman Nicole McKee said that Police Minister Stuart Nash applied the wrong tests when he decided what ammunition to recommend banning. “All New Zealanders should be concerned by bans without compensation of legally purchased products. This sets a truly dangerous precedent,” McKee said.
Of course, this is quite different than how an American gun rights group would challenge such a law. Even if there was compensation, we’d still challenge the measure as an infringement of our constitutionally-protected gun rights.
To be sure, New Zealand gun owners do have the same right to keep and bear arms that we have. The problem is that without constitutional protections that limit the government’s ability to infringe upon that right, they have less of a legal leg to stand on in a situation like this.
However, they can argue that they’re being deprived of their property without compensation.
Then again, gun owners in other nations are rarely as rabidly protective of their gun rights as American activists tend to be. They’re generally conditioned to believe that some degree of gun control is not only acceptable, but imperative. As such, they’re more likely to quibble over things like compensation rather than the outright infringement of their rights.
After all, they’ve been conditioned to see bearing arms as a privilege, not a right, and that’s a damn shame.
Regardless, though, the New Zealand government grossly overstepped when it passed its bans following the Christchurch massacre. The only question is whether the court will slap them down over it. Again, this isn’t the United States, so I wouldn’t hold my breath that they will.


bearingarms--2020-05-04--SCOTUS Sidesteps 2A Cases In Monday's Orders

After considering nearly a dozen different Second Amendment-related cases in conference on Friday , the Supreme Court released its list of orders from the conference this morning .
The bad news is that the Court has not yet accepted any of the cases , but the good news is that they haven ’ t dismissed any of the cases either .
Instead , the Court has carried over all of the cases , which means they ’ ll once again be heard in conference on May 14th .
There was a lot of speculation last week that the Court would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the challenges , after justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Clarence Thomas , and Brett Kavanaugh all stated that the Supreme Court needs to hear a Second Amendment case sooner rather than later to address lower courts ’ misreading or unwillingness to abide by the Heller and McDonald decisions .
The justices made their statements in opinions in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City case , which the court declared moot after New York City changed the gun transportation law that was being challenged .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court didn ’ t take up a case immediately , it ’ s not exactly cause for alarm .
There is likely a lot of discussion among the four justices that have expressed a desire to hear a Second Amendment-related case ( or cases ) about which of the cases are ripe for review .
Here ’ s a quick look at each of the cases currently in conference .
Note that more than half of the cases before the Court deal with onerous carry laws that prohibit the average citizen from exercising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns .
Pena v. Horan is a challenge to California ’ s microstamping law , which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns , but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state .
Rogers v. Grewal , Cheeseman v. Polillo , and Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey ’ s carry laws and “ justifiable need ” requirement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland .
Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license , while Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county ’ s ban on modern sporting rifles .
There are also two cases out of Massachusetts being considered by the Court ; a challenge to Massachusetts ’ carry laws called Gould v. Lipson Worman v. Healey and a challenge to the state ’ s ban on so-called assault weapons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr , a case dealing with the lifelong prohibition on firearms for those who ’ ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution .
It ’ s not unusual for a case to be re-listed several times before being accepted by the Court .
In fact , NYSPRA v. NYC was heard in conference three times before it was accepted .
Which of these cases will ultimately be heard by SCOTUS is still unknown , but I ’ d say the odds are good that at least one of these cases will be @ @ @ @ @ @

After considering nearly a dozen different Second Amendment-related cases in conference on Friday, the Supreme Court released its list of orders from the conference this morning. The bad news is that the Court has not yet accepted any of the cases, but the good news is that they haven’t dismissed any of the cases either. Instead, the Court has carried over all of the cases, which means they’ll once again be heard in conference on May 14th.
There was a lot of speculation last week that the Court would quickly agree to hear at least one of the challenges, after justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh all stated that the Supreme Court needs to hear a Second Amendment case sooner rather than later to address lower courts’ misreading or unwillingness to abide by the Heller and McDonald decisions. The justices made their statements in opinions in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City case, which the court declared moot after New York City changed the gun transportation law that was being challenged.
While it’s disappointing that the Court didn’t take up a case immediately, it’s not exactly cause for alarm. There is likely a lot of discussion among the four justices that have expressed a desire to hear a Second Amendment-related case (or cases) about which of the cases are ripe for review.
Here’s a quick look at each of the cases currently in conference. Note that more than half of the cases before the Court deal with onerous carry laws that prohibit the average citizen from exercising their right to bear arms.
Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns.
Pena v. Horan is a challenge to California’s microstamping law, which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns, but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state.
Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo, and Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit, while Malpasso v. Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland.
Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license, while Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.
There are also two cases out of Massachusetts being considered by the Court; a challenge to Massachusetts’ carry laws called Gould v. Lipson Worman v. Healey and a challenge to the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.
Finally, there’s Beers v. Barr, a case dealing with the lifelong prohibition on firearms for those who’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
It’s not unusual for a case to be re-listed several times before being accepted by the Court. In fact, NYSPRA v. NYC was heard in conference three times before it was accepted. Which of these cases will ultimately be heard by SCOTUS is still unknown, but I’d say the odds are good that at least one of these cases will be accepted in the not-too-distant future.


bearingarms--2020-05-04--MN Weatherman Fired After Slamming Armed Protestors On Social Media

A longtime Minneapolis/St .
Paul meteorologist is looking for another job after TV station KARE abruptly fired him over the weekend .
Sven Sundgaard has been with the station for 14-years , but was ousted not long after he quoted a Facebook post from a local rabbi in a post of his own that referred to armed re-open protestors in the state as “ white nationalist Nazi sympathizer gun fetishist miscreants.
” While the TV station didn ’ t specify exactly why the meteorologist was canned , they did note the firing came after “ continued violations ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local conservative website AlphaNewsMN , there ’ s actually no evidence that any of the Minnesota protestors were armed at the rally to re-open the economy , though plenty of demonstrations at various state capitols in recent weeks have had attendees exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights .
I have a feeling that if Sundgaard had simply posted his objections to armed protestors without referring to them as white nationalists , Nazi sympathizers , or gun fetishists , he ’ d probably still be giving viewers their seven day forecast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or meteorologists should be barred by their employers from sharing their opinions on their own social media accounts , but I also understand that if their posts are so controversial that the employee becomes a story instead of covering one , the station may decide it ’ s in their best interest to cut ties , and when you insult a chunk of your audience by calling them Nazi sympathizers , you shouldn ’ t be surprised if the station you work for takes an interest .
According to AlphaNewsMN , Sundgaard deleted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but screenshots are forever , and the post was widely shared , as was the post by KARE alerting viewers to the meteorologist ’ s dismissal .
KARE11 ’ s firing announcement amassed over 1,000 likes and 1,200 comments in just an hour .
Many Facebook users and former Sundgaard viewers voiced their support for the network ’ s decision .
“ Thank you for having some ethics and addressing this issue , ” one commenter wrote .
“ Thank you Kare 11 !
His comments were definitely unprofessional .
You did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , not everybody is happy to hear of the meteorologist ’ s dismissal .
“ That ’ s crap !
He said what most are thinking , ” somebody commented .
“ I like him even more now that I know what he said , ” another person wrote .
Maybe MSNBC is looking for a weatherman .
Sundgaard would likely fit in well at the network , and he could spout off his anti-gun opinions without fear of upsetting his supervisors or the majority of his audience .
I suspect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have canned Sundgaard if he had leveled the same criticism at Gov .
Tim Walz that he lobbed at the protestors objecting to Walz ’ s stay-at-home order .
I don ’ t think this was a pro-protest decision by the station , but instead was just an attempt to avoid controversy .
Of course , given the fact that now Sundgaard ’ s supporters and critics are arguing in the comments of every one of the station ’ s Facebook posts , I ’ m not sure they succeeded .

A longtime Minneapolis/St. Paul meteorologist is looking for another job after TV station KARE abruptly fired him over the weekend. Sven Sundgaard has been with the station for 14-years, but was ousted not long after he quoted a Facebook post from a local rabbi in a post of his own that referred to armed re-open protestors in the state as “white nationalist Nazi sympathizer gun fetishist miscreants.”
While the TV station didn’t specify exactly why the meteorologist was canned, they did note the firing came after “continued violations” of the station’s policies.
According to local conservative website AlphaNewsMN, there’s actually no evidence that any of the Minnesota protestors were armed at the rally to re-open the economy, though plenty of demonstrations at various state capitols in recent weeks have had attendees exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights.
I have a feeling that if Sundgaard had simply posted his objections to armed protestors without referring to them as white nationalists, Nazi sympathizers, or gun fetishists, he’d probably still be giving viewers their seven day forecast. I don’t think that reporters or meteorologists should be barred by their employers from sharing their opinions on their own social media accounts, but I also understand that if their posts are so controversial that the employee becomes a story instead of covering one, the station may decide it’s in their best interest to cut ties, and when you insult a chunk of your audience by calling them Nazi sympathizers, you shouldn’t be surprised if the station you work for takes an interest.
According to AlphaNewsMN, Sundgaard deleted the post before he was canned, but screenshots are forever, and the post was widely shared, as was the post by KARE alerting viewers to the meteorologist’s dismissal.
KARE11’s firing announcement amassed over 1,000 likes and 1,200 comments in just an hour. Many Facebook users and former Sundgaard viewers voiced their support for the network’s decision. “Thank you for having some ethics and addressing this issue,” one commenter wrote. “Thank you Kare 11! His comments were definitely unprofessional. You did the right thing,” said another. However, not everybody is happy to hear of the meteorologist’s dismissal. “That’s crap! He said what most are thinking,” somebody commented. “I like him even more now that I know what he said,” another person wrote.
Maybe MSNBC is looking for a weatherman. Sundgaard would likely fit in well at the network, and he could spout off his anti-gun opinions without fear of upsetting his supervisors or the majority of his audience.
I suspect, by the way, that KARE would have canned Sundgaard if he had leveled the same criticism at Gov. Tim Walz that he lobbed at the protestors objecting to Walz’s stay-at-home order. I don’t think this was a pro-protest decision by the station, but instead was just an attempt to avoid controversy. Of course, given the fact that now Sundgaard’s supporters and critics are arguing in the comments of every one of the station’s Facebook posts, I’m not sure they succeeded.


bearingarms--2020-05-04--Canada Shows It's About What Gun Grabbers Can Take, Not What Happened

The shooting in Nova Scotia is a horrendous tragedy .
No one other than a potential sociopath would try to argue otherwise .
I mean , that many people being brutally murdered really can only be described in so many ways , most of which really boil down to the same thing .
Yet if you ’ re a gun control supporter , it can be described with one other word : Opportunity .
In the aftermath of a mass shooting , there ’ s pretty much a guarantee for a deeper push toward more gun control .
It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There will be a push and it doesn ’ t even matter what actually happened .
On the surface , the killer used such a weapon so banning them makes sense , right ?
Well , not really .
You see , the killer didn ’ t have a legally-obtained firearm .
He broke the law from the get-go , which is what criminals tend to do .
Despite that , Trudeau is pushing for a ban on legal firearms , punishing law-abiding Canadians who had nothing to do with Nova Scotia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban like this every since photos surfaced of him artificially coloring his skin so he ’ d look like a minority as part of a costume .
It wasn ’ t quite blackface , but close enough .
Like Virginia Governor Ralph Northam , he pivoted to something the media would much rather report on , thus giving him some relief from the scandal .
Yet Nova Scotia gave him the opportunity to continue the push .
It allowed him to take steps he might not have been able to get away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose him can be branded monsters who don ’ t care about the lives lost .
Nevermind that the weapon was obtained illegally , something that won ’ t change with a new law .
Because , you see , it ’ s not about addressing any potential failings that led to Nova Scotia , Parkland , Sandy Hook , Columbine , Las Vegas , or any other mass shooting .
No , it ’ s about what anti-gunners can get away with demanding .
Trudeau is pushing for an assault weapon ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotia , but because it ’ s what he can get away with .
Others are urging him to do even more , even though their proposals have even less to do with the shooting than Trudeau ’ s do .
In other words , they want to seize this opportunity to ban other guns , firearms which had nothing to do with this incident .
That ’ s because it ’ s not really about the incident .
It ’ s about seeing guns as a net evil and doing everything they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take bolder steps , though , because there ’ s no Second Amendment to hold them back .
There ’ s no NRA or other powerful gun rights groups to stand in their way .
They push harder because there ’ s a better chance of getting what they want than here .
But make no mistake , or own breed of anti-gunner tries the same tricks .
Why else do you think they continue to push for universal background checks regardless of how many mass shooters have passed such checks ?
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon bans even before we find out the killers used handguns ?
It ’ s because they don ’ t really care about what happened , just what they think they can get away with .

The shooting in Nova Scotia is a horrendous tragedy. No one other than a potential sociopath would try to argue otherwise. I mean, that many people being brutally murdered really can only be described in so many ways, most of which really boil down to the same thing.
Yet if you’re a gun control supporter, it can be described with one other word: Opportunity.
In the aftermath of a mass shooting, there’s pretty much a guarantee for a deeper push toward more gun control. It doesn’t matter what country, either. There will be a push and it doesn’t even matter what actually happened.
Take Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s push to ban so-called assault weapons.
On the surface, the killer used such a weapon so banning them makes sense, right? Well, not really. You see, the killer didn’t have a legally-obtained firearm. He broke the law from the get-go, which is what criminals tend to do.
Despite that, Trudeau is pushing for a ban on legal firearms, punishing law-abiding Canadians who had nothing to do with Nova Scotia. Trudeau has been pushing for a ban like this every since photos surfaced of him artificially coloring his skin so he’d look like a minority as part of a costume. It wasn’t quite blackface, but close enough.
Like Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, he pivoted to something the media would much rather report on, thus giving him some relief from the scandal.
Yet Nova Scotia gave him the opportunity to continue the push. It allowed him to take steps he might not have been able to get away with otherwise. After all, those who oppose him can be branded monsters who don’t care about the lives lost.
Nevermind that the weapon was obtained illegally, something that won’t change with a new law.
Because, you see, it’s not about addressing any potential failings that led to Nova Scotia, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas, or any other mass shooting. No, it’s about what anti-gunners can get away with demanding.
Trudeau is pushing for an assault weapon ban not because it will prevent another Nova Scotia, but because it’s what he can get away with.
Others are urging him to do even more, even though their proposals have even less to do with the shooting than Trudeau’s do.
In other words, they want to seize this opportunity to ban other guns, firearms which had nothing to do with this incident.
That’s because it’s not really about the incident. It’s about seeing guns as a net evil and doing everything they can to destroy it. Canadians can take bolder steps, though, because there’s no Second Amendment to hold them back. There’s no NRA or other powerful gun rights groups to stand in their way. They push harder because there’s a better chance of getting what they want than here.
But make no mistake, or own breed of anti-gunner tries the same tricks. Why else do you think they continue to push for universal background checks regardless of how many mass shooters have passed such checks? Why do you think they push for assault weapon bans even before we find out the killers used handguns?
It’s because they don’t really care about what happened, just what they think they can get away with.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--Review of Guns Akimbo

Review of Guns Akimbo

Daniel Radcliffe will probably always be known as Harry Potter .
Frankly , there ’ s no way around that .
You don ’ t grow up in a role that makes billions of dollars and just walk away from it .
However , Radcliffe has grown up and is taking on different projects .
One sparked a fair bit of interest when a photo surfaced of a wild-eyed Radcliffe wearing a bathrobe , fuzzy slippers , and with firearms bolted to his hands .
The picture was from a movie called Guns Akimbo .
While the movie hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least part of that is because the box offices are all closed .
Luckily , it can be found on YouTube–it ’ s also available on Amazon–and since it ’ s a gun movie , at least in theory , it ’ s worth talking about just a bit .
Radcliffe plays Miles , a down on his luck computer geek who feels completely powerless in his day-to-day life .
As a result , he takes up trolling as a way to feel some power .
He ’ s basically one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up stuff and then reporting you when you get angry .
Unfortunately , his trolling ways lead him to try and take on Skizm .
You see , in the film , Skizm is the name of an underground fight club that pits various homicidal psychopaths against one another in battles to the death , then streams it only for the whole world to see .
Miles finds the practice disgusting , and proceeds to troll the Skizm faithful .
Unfortunately , it ’ s all fun and games until the Skizm admins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just ban Miles from their page , they instead decide to up the stakes .
They take Miles , bolt a couple of Glocks to his hands , and then set Nix after him .
Played by Samara Weaving , Nix is a hardened killer who is dealing with the trauma of her childhood .
She ’ s also after Miles because Skizm promised to wipe her criminally-insane slate clean if she kills him .
What follows is a bizarrely hilarious trip as the completely unprepared Miles has to outwit and , hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just stop Skizm but also save Miles ’ s ex-girlfriend who was taken by Skizm in an effort to force the hapless man to fight .
Is this a great film ?
Hardly .
But , it happens to be dumb fun , even if you ’ re not a gun person .
If you are a gun person , well…it ’ s Hollywood .
Miles is equipped with a couple of Glocks , but the magazines are…interesting .
Each carries 50 rounds–giving Miles a total of 100–but they aren ’ t straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contour to the arm a bit , allowing Miles to stash his guns in the pockets of his robe .
Also , each gun has a counter that tells him exactly how many rounds he has .
While this is a thing , these are a bit different than what you might find .
Leaving aside that , the ridiculous action sequences are over-the-top fun , but turn your brain off .
About the only thing that makes sense is Miles , having apparently never shot a gun before , being completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not until Nix , feeling sorry for Miles , gives him a few pointers that he stops completely sucking .
All of that goes out the window later when Miles becomes a veritable John Wick in a crucial moment .
Still , it ’ s a fun way to kill an hour and a half or so , especially since you and your spouse or friends can watch it for just a few bucks .
This is one I wouldn ’ t tell you to go to the theaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can ’ t away , it ’ s worth checking out .
Just don ’ t expect the next Die Hard or anything .

Daniel Radcliffe will probably always be known as Harry Potter. Frankly, there’s no way around that. You don’t grow up in a role that makes billions of dollars and just walk away from it.
However, Radcliffe has grown up and is taking on different projects. One sparked a fair bit of interest when a photo surfaced of a wild-eyed Radcliffe wearing a bathrobe, fuzzy slippers, and with firearms bolted to his hands. The picture was from a movie called Guns Akimbo.
About to see Guns Akimbo and I can’t believe I’m finally gonna see the context of this photo pic.twitter.com/buN1SXIHqA — 1980s final girl (@cheapjumpscare) February 22, 2020
While the movie hasn’t burned up the box office, at least part of that is because the box offices are all closed.
Luckily, it can be found on YouTube–it’s also available on Amazon–and since it’s a gun movie, at least in theory, it’s worth talking about just a bit.
Radcliffe plays Miles, a down on his luck computer geek who feels completely powerless in his day-to-day life. As a result, he takes up trolling as a way to feel some power. He’s basically one of those wankers who go around Facebook stirring up stuff and then reporting you when you get angry. Unfortunately, his trolling ways lead him to try and take on Skizm.
You see, in the film, Skizm is the name of an underground fight club that pits various homicidal psychopaths against one another in battles to the death, then streams it only for the whole world to see.
Miles finds the practice disgusting, and proceeds to troll the Skizm faithful.
Unfortunately, it’s all fun and games until the Skizm admins decide to get involved. Rather than just ban Miles from their page, they instead decide to up the stakes. They take Miles, bolt a couple of Glocks to his hands, and then set Nix after him. Played by Samara Weaving, Nix is a hardened killer who is dealing with the trauma of her childhood. She’s also after Miles because Skizm promised to wipe her criminally-insane slate clean if she kills him.
What follows is a bizarrely hilarious trip as the completely unprepared Miles has to outwit and, hopefully, recruit Nix to help him not just stop Skizm but also save Miles’s ex-girlfriend who was taken by Skizm in an effort to force the hapless man to fight.
Is this a great film? Hardly. But, it happens to be dumb fun, even if you’re not a gun person.
If you are a gun person, well…it’s Hollywood.
Miles is equipped with a couple of Glocks, but the magazines are…interesting. Each carries 50 rounds–giving Miles a total of 100–but they aren’t straight down magazines. Instead, they appear to contour to the arm a bit, allowing Miles to stash his guns in the pockets of his robe. Also, each gun has a counter that tells him exactly how many rounds he has. While this is a thing, these are a bit different than what you might find.
Leaving aside that, the ridiculous action sequences are over-the-top fun, but turn your brain off. About the only thing that makes sense is Miles, having apparently never shot a gun before, being completely unable to hit a target on purpose. It’s not until Nix, feeling sorry for Miles, gives him a few pointers that he stops completely sucking.
All of that goes out the window later when Miles becomes a veritable John Wick in a crucial moment.
Still, it’s a fun way to kill an hour and a half or so, especially since you and your spouse or friends can watch it for just a few bucks. This is one I wouldn’t tell you to go to the theaters to see, but since most of you can’t away, it’s worth checking out. Just don’t expect the next Die Hard or anything.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--VIP Gold Live Chat- Ed Morrissey, Katie Pavlich, And Cam Edwards 5/6 1:30 PM EST

If you haven ’ t had the opportunity to take part in any of the recent Townhall Media live chats for our VIP Gold members over the past few weeks , you ’ ve missed out on some great conversations and some excellent questions from our readers .
The good news is the live chats continue , and Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. Eastern I ’ ll be taking part in a live chat with my colleagues Ed Morrissey from Hot Air and Katie Pavlich from Townhall .
These chats are your chance to ask about anything you want , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics to discuss , we can get into the proper care and feeding of goats , beard maintenance , or any other off-the-wall question you ’ ve been dying to ask .
Last week Ed Morrissey , Jazz Shaw , and I spent a good 20 minutes or so discussing the latest news about UFOs , but feel free to keep your topics as down-to-earth or as out-of-this-world as you want .
The live chat will appear below this story once we ’ ve started our broadcast , and you can submit your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be below the video window .
If you ’ re not a VIP Gold member of Townhall Media yet , you can sign up and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25 % off .
Thanks for all the support from our members , and I look forward to talking with y ’ all on Wednesday !
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

If you haven’t had the opportunity to take part in any of the recent Townhall Media live chats for our VIP Gold members over the past few weeks, you’ve missed out on some great conversations and some excellent questions from our readers. The good news is the live chats continue! Today, I took part in a live chat with my colleagues Ed Morrissey from Hot Air and Katie Pavlich from Townhall. These chats are your chance to ask about anything you want, and while there are certainly plenty of 2A-related topics to discuss, we get into the proper care and feeding of goats, beard maintenance, or any other off-the-wall question you’ve been dying to ask.
Last week Ed Morrissey, Jazz Shaw, and I spent a good 20 minutes or so discussing the latest news about UFOs, but feel free to keep your topics as down-to-earth or as out-of-this-world as you want.
If you’re not a VIP Gold member of Townhall Media yet, you can sign up to rewatch today’s live chat and watch future chats across the Townhall Media family! Use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off.
Thanks for all the support from our members, and I look forward to talking with y’all! The replay of the live chat will appear below shortly.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--8 Arrested For Gun Trafficking In Queens

New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the nation .
It ’ s difficult to even buy a gun in the Big Apple , much less carry one lawfully .
The laws have been on the books for over a century and the city has watched violent crime rates ebb and flow without any regard for such measures .
Such is the nature of life in the big city .
But , with all those gun control laws , there shouldn ’ t be any illegal guns in the city , right ?
Right ?
Eight people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ southeast Queens were arrested as part of two long-term investigations , the Queens district attorney ’ s office announced Saturday .
Among them is Jamaica resident Charles Gillespie , 19 , who faces charges of selling six firearms , multiple high-capacity magazines and several rounds of ammunition to an undercover detective .
Gillespie sold the guns for $ 500 to $ 1,100 each and contacted customers weekly to advertise new offerings from his supplier , prosecutors said .
The eight arrests stem from an investigation dubbed Operation Blast Off that started in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campbell , 37 , who prosecutors say sold drugs to an undercover officer outside a Queens gym .
This simply can not be !
I have it on good authority that gun control laws work !
Of course , they ’ re not wrong .
Gun control laws do work .
They work to keep guns out of the law-abiding citizens ’ hands while completely ignoring the fact that criminals obtain guns through illegal means in the first place .
They work to hurt ordinary Americans and their ability to keep and bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the black market .
Oh , gun control laws work , they just don ’ t do what proponents say they ’ ll do .
Instead , criminals will continue to use illicit means to obtain firearms .
Guns will follow the demand , much like any other product you care to name .
Banning it doesn ’ t change that demand all that much , it just pushes it underground .
For those who were already underground with their demand , very little changes .
New York is a prime example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t all that long ago , really , when New York was a crime-ridden hellscape that would make today ’ s Chicago look like Small Town , USA .
It was a dystopian nightmare despite–or , perhaps , because of–all their gun control laws .
Those laws long predated their decline , of course , but those laws persisted through the worst of it .
Bad people got guns just fine .
They also hurt people with bats , knives , brass knuckles , hammers , or whatever else they could get their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to stop the crime .
Yet their gun control laws were so intrusive that there wasn ’ t anything else they could do on that front .
They had to start working on alternatives .
They had to look beyond guns and , sure enough , they reduced their crime rate .
While New York is more dangerous than most small towns , it ’ s far from the most dangerous city by a long shot .
Regardless , though , there are still bad people in the city .
There always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the laws , those bad people will get guns .
They always will .

New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It’s difficult to even buy a gun in the Big Apple, much less carry one lawfully. The laws have been on the books for over a century and the city has watched violent crime rates ebb and flow without any regard for such measures. Such is the nature of life in the big city.
But, with all those gun control laws, there shouldn’t be any illegal guns in the city, right? Right?
Well…
Eight people accused of dealing drugs and guns in southeast Queens were arrested as part of two long-term investigations, the Queens district attorney’s office announced Saturday. … Among them is Jamaica resident Charles Gillespie, 19, who faces charges of selling six firearms, multiple high-capacity magazines and several rounds of ammunition to an undercover detective. Gillespie sold the guns for $500 to $1,100 each and contacted customers weekly to advertise new offerings from his supplier, prosecutors said. The eight arrests stem from an investigation dubbed Operation Blast Off that started in November 2018 and focused on Jamaica resident Steven Campbell, 37, who prosecutors say sold drugs to an undercover officer outside a Queens gym.
UNPOSSIBLE!
This simply cannot be! I have it on good authority that gun control laws work!
Of course, they’re not wrong. Gun control laws do work. They work to keep guns out of the law-abiding citizens’ hands while completely ignoring the fact that criminals obtain guns through illegal means in the first place. They work to hurt ordinary Americans and their ability to keep and bear arms while doing nothing to interfere with the black market.
Oh, gun control laws work, they just don’t do what proponents say they’ll do.
Instead, criminals will continue to use illicit means to obtain firearms. Guns will follow the demand, much like any other product you care to name. Banning it doesn’t change that demand all that much, it just pushes it underground. For those who were already underground with their demand, very little changes.
New York is a prime example of that, too.
It wasn’t all that long ago, really, when New York was a crime-ridden hellscape that would make today’s Chicago look like Small Town, USA. It was a dystopian nightmare despite–or, perhaps, because of–all their gun control laws. Those laws long predated their decline, of course, but those laws persisted through the worst of it.
Bad people got guns just fine. They also hurt people with bats, knives, brass knuckles, hammers, or whatever else they could get their hands on. The gun laws did nothing to stop the crime.
Yet their gun control laws were so intrusive that there wasn’t anything else they could do on that front. They had to start working on alternatives. They had to look beyond guns and, sure enough, they reduced their crime rate. While New York is more dangerous than most small towns, it’s far from the most dangerous city by a long shot.
Regardless, though, there are still bad people in the city. There always will be.
That means that regardless of the laws, those bad people will get guns. They always will.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--Gun Sales Strong, Even With Some Stores Still Ordered Closed

A number of Americans may believe that their local gun store should be closed because of the coronavirus , but that ’ s not stopping millions of us from visiting firearms retailers to pick up a new pistol , rifle , or shotgun .
Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to discuss the recently released NICS data showing that last month was the best April in history for gun sales , as well as his recent article covering several gun stores that have refused to shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to lock their doors .
Travis County , which includes Austin , did not exempt gun stores from its March shutdown order .
Michael Cargill , owner of Central Texas Gun Works , has refused to close his doors to customers regardless of the order .
“ What we ’ re saying is that we ’ re not going to close down at all , ” he told the Free Beacon .
“ I ’ ve had people call me and threaten to contact the city and the county and let them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I said , ‘ Fine , feel free to call because we ’ re not going to close because we are an essential business.
’ People need food , they need water , they need medicine , they need medical care , and they also need firearms for personal protection.
” Gutowski correctly points out that these are not normal times for any industry , including firearms manufacturers , distributors , and retailers .
Most states haven ’ t closed gun stores , but in April at least five states did close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stores that are open are practicing social distancing measures that limit the number of customers .
Meanwhile , thanks to the unprecedented run on firearms that began in late February , most stores have seen their inventory wiped out over the past few weeks .
Still , despite those challenges , the NSSF says that NICS checks on gun sales and transfers were 69 % higher than in April of 2019 .
I also had the chance to talk with Gutowski about the tragic death of Officer Michael Mosher in Overland Park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was on his way to work when he spotted a hit-and-run accident and followed the driver .
When the vehicle eventually pulled over , Mosher approached , but was shot by the driver .
The officer succumbed to his injuries a short time later a local hospital .
Mosher leaves behind a wife and daughter , as well as a legacy of support for the community he served and the right to keep and bear arms .
His wife Corrine is a firearms instructor , competitive shooter , and a member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprised of women from around the country who travel to our nation ’ s capitol every year to lobby lawmakers .
The Second Amendment community mourns the loss of Michael Mosher and grieves with his family , and if you would like to help support them in their time of need , a memorial fund has been established for those who wish to donate .
Also on today ’ s show we ’ ve got the story of a Utah man with five felony convictions in the past four years who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release on probation , an Alabama woman who defended herself from an abusive ex , and a Virginia restaurant owner serving up tasty Caribbean treats for frontline healthcare workers while hoping his own business survives the coronavirus shutdown .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word , and please keep the Mosher family in your thoughts and prayers .

A number of Americans may believe that their local gun store should be closed because of the coronavirus, but that’s not stopping millions of us from visiting firearms retailers to pick up a new pistol, rifle, or shotgun. Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss the recently released NICS data showing that last month was the best April in history for gun sales, as well as his recent article covering several gun stores that have refused to shut down in the face of local orders telling them to lock their doors.
Travis County, which includes Austin, did not exempt gun stores from its March shutdown order. Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, has refused to close his doors to customers regardless of the order. “What we’re saying is that we’re not going to close down at all,” he told the Free Beacon. “I’ve had people call me and threaten to contact the city and the county and let them know that we’re not closing and I said, ‘Fine, feel free to call because we’re not going to close because we are an essential business.’ People need food, they need water, they need medicine, they need medical care, and they also need firearms for personal protection.”
Gutowski correctly points out that these are not normal times for any industry, including firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Most states haven’t closed gun stores, but in April at least five states did close gun stores, and virtually all of the stores that are open are practicing social distancing measures that limit the number of customers. Meanwhile, thanks to the unprecedented run on firearms that began in late February, most stores have seen their inventory wiped out over the past few weeks. Still, despite those challenges, the NSSF says that NICS checks on gun sales and transfers were 69% higher than in April of 2019.
I also had the chance to talk with Gutowski about the tragic death of Officer Michael Mosher in Overland Park, Kansas over the weekend. Mosher was on his way to work when he spotted a hit-and-run accident and followed the driver. When the vehicle eventually pulled over, Mosher approached, but was shot by the driver. The officer succumbed to his injuries a short time later a local hospital.
Mosher leaves behind a wife and daughter, as well as a legacy of support for the community he served and the right to keep and bear arms. His wife Corrine is a firearms instructor, competitive shooter, and a member of the D.C. Project, a pro-Second Amendment organization comprised of women from around the country who travel to our nation’s capitol every year to lobby lawmakers. The Second Amendment community mourns the loss of Michael Mosher and grieves with his family, and if you would like to help support them in their time of need, a memorial fund has been established for those who wish to donate.
Also on today’s show we’ve got the story of a Utah man with five felony convictions in the past four years who’s back in jail just weeks after his release on probation, an Alabama woman who defended herself from an abusive ex, and a Virginia restaurant owner serving up tasty Caribbean treats for frontline healthcare workers while hoping his own business survives the coronavirus shutdown.
Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word, and please keep the Mosher family in your thoughts and prayers.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--Pittsburgh Appeals Order Killing City's Gun Control Law

Preemption means that local communities can not create their own gun control laws .
There are a number of preemption laws on the books in various states , one of which is Pennsylvania .
These measures exist for a number of reasons , but mostly to keep confusion to a minimum as people travel throughout the state .
After all , on a long trip , it ’ s far easier to check state laws than the ordinances for every city you might travel through .
Following the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh , the city decided preemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They knew the law and decided to ignore it .
Their own comments say they knew what they were doing , but did it anyway .
Unsurprisingly , their new law was challenged .
Well , they lost , but now the city is appealing the decision .
Pittsburgh city attorneys have filed a motion to appeal a judge ’ s order striking down three gun control ordinances passed following a deadly shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018 .
The Associated Press reported Monday that court documents , filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not expressly say that cities do not have the authority to pass their own gun control ordinances .
A judge found in October that state law took precedence over local law and struck down the three ordinances , which would have banned some high-capacity magazines , armor-piercing rounds , and assault weapons .
Neither courts nor lawmakers , the city ’ s attorneys reportedly wrote , “ expressly said or held that cities are completely powerless to act in this area.
” A city ’ s ability to legislate gun control policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not extinguished , ” they continued , according to the AP .
Is the city right , though ?
Does the law fail to say cities are completely powerless on this ?
Oh , no .
It says it quite explicitly , actually .
Now , I ’ m not a lawyer , but that clearly says the Pittsburg can ’ t ban assault weapons .
Sure , they can regulate the use of weapons–for example , they can ban discharging a weapon within the city limits–but not the ownership , sale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That looks pretty damn clear to me .
Regardless , the city is appealing the ruling , thus wasting more taxpayer dollars on a lost cause .
They won ’ t win this one .
Not if the ruling is based on the law itself , anyway .
The only way they win is if judges ignore the plain text of the law and instead tries to win brownie points with the anti-gunners that have inundated the state .
Unfortunately , we can ’ t rule out that happening by any stretch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts follow the law and not public opinion moving forward .
If that happens , Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto will need to explain to his constituents why he spent millions in taxpayer money to tilt and windmills .

Preemption means that local communities cannot create their own gun control laws. There are a number of preemption laws on the books in various states, one of which is Pennsylvania. These measures exist for a number of reasons, but mostly to keep confusion to a minimum as people travel throughout the state. After all, on a long trip, it’s far easier to check state laws than the ordinances for every city you might travel through.
Following the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, the city decided preemption didn’t really apply to them. They knew the law and decided to ignore it. Their own comments say they knew what they were doing, but did it anyway.
Unsurprisingly, their new law was challenged. Well, they lost, but now the city is appealing the decision.
Pittsburgh city attorneys have filed a motion to appeal a judge’s order striking down three gun control ordinances passed following a deadly shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018. The Associated Press reported Monday that court documents, filed last week, argue that state law does not expressly say that cities do not have the authority to pass their own gun control ordinances. A judge found in October that state law took precedence over local law and struck down the three ordinances, which would have banned some high-capacity magazines, armor-piercing rounds, and assault weapons. Neither courts nor lawmakers, the city’s attorneys reportedly wrote, “expressly said or held that cities are completely powerless to act in this area.” A city’s ability to legislate gun control policy “may be limited, but it is not extinguished,” they continued, according to the AP.
That’s an interesting take.
Is the city right, though? Does the law fail to say cities are completely powerless on this?
Oh, no. It says it quite explicitly, actually.
§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition. (a) General rule.–No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but that clearly says the Pittsburg can’t ban assault weapons.
Sure, they can regulate the use of weapons–for example, they can ban discharging a weapon within the city limits–but not the ownership, sale, or much of anything else. That looks pretty damn clear to me.
Regardless, the city is appealing the ruling, thus wasting more taxpayer dollars on a lost cause.
They won’t win this one. Not if the ruling is based on the law itself, anyway. The only way they win is if judges ignore the plain text of the law and instead tries to win brownie points with the anti-gunners that have inundated the state.
Unfortunately, we can’t rule out that happening by any stretch. Instead, we can only hope that the courts follow the law and not public opinion moving forward. If that happens, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto will need to explain to his constituents why he spent millions in taxpayer money to tilt and windmills.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--CO Hemp Farmers Defend Themselves From Home Invaders

A Colorado couple ended up in a fight for their lives after their hemp farm was targeted by four home invaders who apparently believed that the couple was growing cannabis .
Thankfully the couple were both armed and prepared to defend themselves , though the pair say they ’ re still shaken by what happened .
Charlie and Zoraya San Martin have run their 40-acre hemp farm for about a year , and haven ’ t had any trouble until last Wednesday evening as the couple were getting ready for bed .
That ’ s when they heard the sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front door of their rural home in El Paso County .
Charlie ran to the bedroom , grabbed his gun and shouted for the strangers to identify themselves .
When no one answered , he fired a shot through the door .
Someone pounded on the back door ; another broke through a window in a bedroom .
The stranger ran from the bedroom , saw Charlie with his gun and scrambled up to the attic space .
Charlie shot blankly into the ceiling , desperately hoping to scare the gang away .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Charlie recalled .
He remembered hearing gunshots all around the house , but miraculously wasn ’ t hit .
A few minutes of chaotic crossfire , and the four men finally fled , Charlie said .
When sheriff ’ s deputies arrived , Charlie said they found hundreds of bullet casings scattered around the outside of the property .
As the Heritage Foundation ’ s Amy Swearer pointed out on Twitter , so much for the argument that no one needs more than ten rounds to protect themselves .
The couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Sheriff ’ s Office continues to investigate .
It sounds like despite the number of rounds fired , there ’ s no evidence that any of the armed suspects were hit by the San Martins as they returned fire , or at least there ’ s no mention of anyone showing up at local hospitals with gunshot wounds .
Robert Trujillo , who ’ s a business partner of the hemp farmers , says neighbors had warned the couple that they needed better security for their rural farm , noting that illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county and are a popular target for criminals .
“ It ’ s just so brazen , ” Trujillo said .
He wondered if the farm ’ s new greenhouse attracted unwanted attention .
“ We ’ ve never experienced this before.
” Along with security cameras , extra lighting and motion sensors , Trujillo added he intends to put a sign up on the land that says “ Hemp Farm ” in capital letters , to tell future would-be assailants “ we ’ re broke , ” he joked .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that.
” It is ridiculous , but criminals aren ’ t exactly known for being the sharpest knives in the drawer .
It might not be a bad idea to put up a sign letting any would-be home invaders know that there are no bags of cannabis to be harvested from the hemp farm , but it would be an even better idea to restock on ammunition and get in some range time in case the unthinkable happens again .

A Colorado couple ended up in a fight for their lives after their hemp farm was targeted by four home invaders who apparently believed that the couple was growing cannabis. Thankfully the couple were both armed and prepared to defend themselves, though the pair say they’re still shaken by what happened.
Charlie and Zoraya San Martin have run their 40-acre hemp farm for about a year, and haven’t had any trouble until last Wednesday evening as the couple were getting ready for bed. That’s when they heard the sound of someone trying to get in the front door of their rural home in El Paso County.
Charlie ran to the bedroom, grabbed his gun and shouted for the strangers to identify themselves. When no one answered, he fired a shot through the door. Someone pounded on the back door; another broke through a window in a bedroom. The stranger ran from the bedroom, saw Charlie with his gun and scrambled up to the attic space. Charlie shot blankly into the ceiling, desperately hoping to scare the gang away. “It was a really scary situation,” Charlie recalled. He remembered hearing gunshots all around the house, but miraculously wasn’t hit. A few minutes of chaotic crossfire, and the four men finally fled, Charlie said. When sheriff’s deputies arrived, Charlie said they found hundreds of bullet casings scattered around the outside of the property.
As the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer pointed out on Twitter, so much for the argument that no one needs more than ten rounds to protect themselves.
Last week, a couple got into a firefight with four armed morons who mistook their legal hemp farm for a marijuana operation. Hundreds of rounds were reportedly fired. I was told that no law-abiding citizen ever needs more than 10-rounds for self-defense. https://t.co/n0SL3W9DpM — Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) May 5, 2020
The couple are okay, and the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office continues to investigate. It sounds like despite the number of rounds fired, there’s no evidence that any of the armed suspects were hit by the San Martins as they returned fire, or at least there’s no mention of anyone showing up at local hospitals with gunshot wounds.
Robert Trujillo, who’s a business partner of the hemp farmers, says neighbors had warned the couple that they needed better security for their rural farm, noting that illegal cannabis grow operations can be found throughout the county and are a popular target for criminals.
“It’s just so brazen,” Trujillo said. He wondered if the farm’s new greenhouse attracted unwanted attention. “We’ve never experienced this before.” Along with security cameras, extra lighting and motion sensors, Trujillo added he intends to put a sign up on the land that says “Hemp Farm” in capital letters, to tell future would-be assailants “we’re broke,” he joked. “It’s ridiculous that we have to do that.”
It is ridiculous, but criminals aren’t exactly known for being the sharpest knives in the drawer. It might not be a bad idea to put up a sign letting any would-be home invaders know that there are no bags of cannabis to be harvested from the hemp farm, but it would be an even better idea to restock on ammunition and get in some range time in case the unthinkable happens again.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--CA Mayor Slams Judge's Decision To Release Accused Sexual Predator

As a people , there are few things we view as being as heinous as sexual crimes .
We can at least relate to assault , murder , even robbery to some extent .
Not always , of course , but many of us have heard of a case and thought , “ Yeah , I ’ d have killed the bastard too , ” for example .
We might even understand why someone might rob another in order to feed their family , even if we don ’ t condone such an act in any way .
With sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
We just can ’ t understand it .
More importantly , we shouldn ’ t understand it .
Those accused of sexual crimes are people to handle with extreme caution .
After all , do you want to let them out into the world to potentially strike again ?
That ’ s what one California mayor is saying after a judge released such a person .
The mayor of Livermore has publicly blasted a judge ’ s decision to release a suspected “ violent sexual predator ” into his city out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Rita Jail .
In a letter sent to the governor , a presiding judge and two local legislators this weekend , Mayor John Marchand said Judge Thomas Reardon “ apparently is more concerned about the safety of a suspected rapist than the safety of our community .
His priorities are poorly aligned .
“ Judge Reardon has shown that we can no longer rely upon judges to keep us safe , ” he added in the letter to Governor Gavin Newsom , Alameda County Presiding Judge Tara M. Desautels , state Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The accused , Gregory Vien , is accused of sexually assaulting two women back in 1997 .
Of course , there ’ s no telling how many more people were sexually assaulted that just weren ’ t linked to this particular case .
I doubt someone commits two sexual assaults in a single year , then suddenly reforms , after all .
If , indeed , Vien is the person responsible for those crimes , then the judge did precisely what Mayor Marchand said he did , he released a dangerous predator out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well be susceptible to COVID-19 , but the entire community could be susceptible to Vein ’ s heinous evil .
And that ’ s the flip side that needs to be discussed .
Vien is only accused of these crimes .
He hasn ’ t been convicted , after all , and our system is predicated on treating people like they ’ re innocent until we prove them to be guilty .
It would be nice to believe that ’ s what drove Judge Reardon ’ s decision , but I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the West Coast .
This is the same part of the nation that almost released the Green River Killer .
I get why people are releasing prisoners .
A virus like COVID-19 will sweep through a prison like a hot knife through butter .
Releasing people who may be susceptible to complications related to the virus makes sense .
However , it doesn ’ t seem that officials are weighing those risks against the risks of releasing people like this back into the community .
Instead , they ’ re applying blanket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when someone they released does something awful .
They ’ re just stunned when they shouldn ’ t be .
Protecting inmates shouldn ’ t come at the expense of protecting the community .

As a people, there are few things we view as being as heinous as sexual crimes. We can at least relate to assault, murder, even robbery to some extent. Not always, of course, but many of us have heard of a case and thought, “Yeah, I’d have killed the bastard too,” for example. We might even understand why someone might rob another in order to feed their family, even if we don’t condone such an act in any way.
With sexual crimes, though, we don’t. We just can’t understand it. More importantly, we shouldn’t understand it.
Those accused of sexual crimes are people to handle with extreme caution. After all, do you want to let them out into the world to potentially strike again?
That’s what one California mayor is saying after a judge released such a person.
The mayor of Livermore has publicly blasted a judge’s decision to release a suspected “violent sexual predator” into his city out of concern he could get COVID-19 inside Santa Rita Jail. In a letter sent to the governor, a presiding judge and two local legislators this weekend, Mayor John Marchand said Judge Thomas Reardon “apparently is more concerned about the safety of a suspected rapist than the safety of our community. His priorities are poorly aligned. “Judge Reardon has shown that we can no longer rely upon judges to keep us safe,” he added in the letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, Alameda County Presiding Judge Tara M. Desautels, state Sen. Steve Glazer and Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.
The accused, Gregory Vien, is accused of sexually assaulting two women back in 1997.
Of course, there’s no telling how many more people were sexually assaulted that just weren’t linked to this particular case. I doubt someone commits two sexual assaults in a single year, then suddenly reforms, after all.
If, indeed, Vien is the person responsible for those crimes, then the judge did precisely what Mayor Marchand said he did, he released a dangerous predator out into the world. The 61-year-old Vien may well be susceptible to COVID-19, but the entire community could be susceptible to Vein’s heinous evil.
Allegedly.
And that’s the flip side that needs to be discussed. Vien is only accused of these crimes. He hasn’t been convicted, after all, and our system is predicated on treating people like they’re innocent until we prove them to be guilty. It would be nice to believe that’s what drove Judge Reardon’s decision, but I can’t.
After all, this is the West Coast. This is the same part of the nation that almost released the Green River Killer.
I get why people are releasing prisoners. A virus like COVID-19 will sweep through a prison like a hot knife through butter. Releasing people who may be susceptible to complications related to the virus makes sense.
However, it doesn’t seem that officials are weighing those risks against the risks of releasing people like this back into the community. Instead, they’re applying blanket applications and then pretend to be shocked when someone they released does something awful. They’re just stunned when they shouldn’t be.
Protecting inmates shouldn’t come at the expense of protecting the community.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--NZ Gov't Claims It Has The Authority To "Extinguish" Property Rights Of Gun Owners

The controversial confiscation of firearms in ammunition in New Zealand is now playing out in court , and attorneys for the New Zealand government made a shocking argument in court on Monday in a challenge to the confiscation of legally-owned ammunition .
The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners is suing the government over the fact that , while compensation was provided when residents were ordered to hand over their banned firearms , they were also told to turn in their ammunition without compensation .
Gun owners say that amounts to an illegal taking of property , but the New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned something , you no longer have any right to keep it .
The Government did not need to compensate people for making them hand over ammunition after the Christchurch mosque attacks , a court has heard .
A High Court justice is this week hearing an argument over gun reform in New Zealand , which not only led to the gun buyback , but also to certain types of ammunition being banned .
The Government “ extinguished all property rights of any kind ” for gun owners when it brought in gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has heard .
In fact , the government attorneys argued that not only did the government not have an obligation to compensate gun owners for their confiscated ammunition , they didn ’ t need to compensate gun owners for their confiscated firearms as well .
Crown lawyer Austin Powell this morning said the Government ’ s decision to buy guns back from owners was a choice by Parliament , “ because politically is seemed unfair to say to what had been law-abiding firearms owners who had purchased their firearms in good faith that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
He said there was no obligation for compensation , because compensation was only required when property was acquired by the Government for a purpose .
“ If the property is taken for a purpose it is an acquisition and it must be compensated , and in New Zealand law , most often , it is.
” If there was no purpose to ordering New Zealanders to hand over their banned firearms and ammunition , then why did the government order them to do so ?
The supposed purpose of the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was public safety .
Now the government is claiming the power to seize any property it wants , as long as they ban possession of that property first .
A spokeswoman for the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners says the government ’ s position is absurd , and notes that the action was taken without any vote by Parliament .
“ The Order in Council prohibiting these classes of ammunition did not face the scrutiny of Parliament but has had significant financial repercussions for law-abiding people .
Because this Order did not go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the licenced firearm owning community to make submissions , and we have therefore been forced to take the matter to court.
” McKee says compensation should have been part of the reform in the first place .
“ Minister Nash had the power to introduce a compensation scheme just as he had done for firearms .
But he chose not to and has left thousands of everyday hunters and shooters picking up the bill .
Kiwis expect a fair go from their government – if they stop you using your property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government wins this case , it will set a very dangerous precedent for New Zealand .
It will mean future governments will be able to deny the value of private property either by ordering its destruction or confiscation , meaning individual New Zealanders would have to wear the loss.
” Remember , there is no right to keep and bear arms enshrined in New Zealand ’ s constitution , so gun owners can ’ t rely on the protection of the Second Amendment .
In New Zealand , owning a gun is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ardern has made clear .
This legal fight isn ’ t about the right to own a firearm or ammunition , but the right to own property of any kind .
Can the New Zealand government simply take possession of whatever property it ’ s declared illegal to own ?
If so , McKee is right , and it ’ s not just gun ownership that would be a privilege in the country .
Property rights in general would become property privileges , and a supposedly free society would be revealed as an @ @ @

The controversial confiscation of firearms in ammunition in New Zealand is now playing out in court, and attorneys for the New Zealand government made a shocking argument in court on Monday in a challenge to the confiscation of legally-owned ammunition. The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners is suing the government over the fact that, while compensation was provided when residents were ordered to hand over their banned firearms, they were also told to turn in their ammunition without compensation.
Gun owners say that amounts to an illegal taking of property, but the New Zealand government argues that once they’ve banned something, you no longer have any right to keep it.
The Government did not need to compensate people for making them hand over ammunition after the Christchurch mosque attacks, a court has heard. A High Court justice is this week hearing an argument over gun reform in New Zealand, which not only led to the gun buyback, but also to certain types of ammunition being banned. The Government “extinguished all property rights of any kind” for gun owners when it brought in gun law reform last year, a court has heard.
In fact, the government attorneys argued that not only did the government not have an obligation to compensate gun owners for their confiscated ammunition, they didn’t need to compensate gun owners for their confiscated firearms as well.
Crown lawyer Austin Powell this morning said the Government’s decision to buy guns back from owners was a choice by Parliament, “because politically is seemed unfair to say to what had been law-abiding firearms owners who had purchased their firearms in good faith that you have to surrender them for destruction”. He said there was no obligation for compensation, because compensation was only required when property was acquired by the Government for a purpose. “If the property is taken for a purpose it is an acquisition and it must be compensated, and in New Zealand law, most often, it is.”
If there was no purpose to ordering New Zealanders to hand over their banned firearms and ammunition, then why did the government order them to do so? The supposed purpose of the government acquiring the private property of gun owners was public safety. Now the government is claiming the power to seize any property it wants, as long as they ban possession of that property first.
A spokeswoman for the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners says the government’s position is absurd, and notes that the action was taken without any vote by Parliament.
“The Order in Council prohibiting these classes of ammunition did not face the scrutiny of Parliament but has had significant financial repercussions for law-abiding people. Because this Order did not go through Parliament, there was no opportunity for the licenced firearm owning community to make submissions, and we have therefore been forced to take the matter to court.” McKee says compensation should have been part of the reform in the first place. “Minister Nash had the power to introduce a compensation scheme just as he had done for firearms. But he chose not to and has left thousands of everyday hunters and shooters picking up the bill. Kiwis expect a fair go from their government – if they stop you using your property, we rightfully expect compensation.” “If the Government wins this case, it will set a very dangerous precedent for New Zealand. It will mean future governments will be able to deny the value of private property either by ordering its destruction or confiscation, meaning individual New Zealanders would have to wear the loss.”
Remember, there is no right to keep and bear arms enshrined in New Zealand’s constitution, so gun owners can’t rely on the protection of the Second Amendment. In New Zealand, owning a gun is a privilege, as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made clear. This legal fight isn’t about the right to own a firearm or ammunition, but the right to own property of any kind. Can the New Zealand government simply take possession of whatever property it’s declared illegal to own? If so, McKee is right, and it’s not just gun ownership that would be a privilege in the country. Property rights in general would become property privileges, and a supposedly free society would be revealed as an authoritarian state.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--Poll: 70% Of Americans Say Keep Gun Stores Closed For Now

Are Americans eager to get back to shopping , dining out , or going to the movies ?
Not according to a new Washington Post-University of Maryland poll that found large majorities of respondents in favor of keeping most businesses shut down , including gun stores , at least for the time being .
The most significant opposition is to reopening movie theaters , with 82 percent of Americans saying they should not be allowed to open up in their state .
There is also broad opposition to reopening gyms ( 78 percent opposed ) , dine-in restaurants and nail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Gun stores are next , with 70 percent saying they should not be reopened , followed by barbershops and hair salons ( 69 percent opposed ) and retail shops such as clothing stores ( 66 percent opposed ) and golf courses ( 59 percent opposed ) .
It ’ s not that Americans are suddenly interested in shutting down gun stores , but rather it looks like they ’ re afraid to re-open the economy in general for fear of catching the coronavirus or concern that re-opening the economy will lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re looking for logic in the poll , good luck .
Based on these poll numbers , I don ’ t think many of us are thinking too logically at the moment , unfortunately .
What ’ s interesting to me is that in most states gun stores never did close , and there ’ s no evidence that gun stores have caused any outbreaks of the coronavirus .
Most stores are operating with social distancing policies in place ; limiting the number of customers inside , cleaning between customers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be working well , but still a large majority of respondents say that gun shops should be shut down for the time being .
It ’ s another bit of evidence that suggests some of our current fears are being taken to an extreme .
According to the poll , 56-percent of those surveyed say they feel comfortable going to a grocery store , but 67-percent say they ’ d be uncomfortable shopping at a retail clothing store .
Why are we comfortable shopping at Costco , but uncomfortable shopping at Old Navy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I ’ m guessing it ’ s because most of us have gone grocery shopping over the past couple of months .
That ’ s not an unknown activity , but venturing out to eat at a restaurant or try on a new pair of jeans in the current pandemic is .
The things we ’ ve been doing are less scary to us than the activities we ’ ve paused .
Even activities that come with a low risk of coronavirus transmission are unpopular in this poll .
Over half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should remain closed , for instance , though most doctors and public health experts say that the coronavirus doesn ’ t spread effectively outside , and have encouraged Americans to spend more time outdoors .
There ’ s no real reason to be afraid of golfing , especially if courses are maintaining social distancing policies in the clubhouse and snack bars , but that ’ s not what Americans are hearing from the news media and friends and family on social media .
Instead , they ’ re hearing a growing chorus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic shutdown is going to lead to pandemonium , overwhelmed hospitals , and a wave of coronavirus deaths .
I worry that the current debate is increasingly focused on two false choices : keeping the economy locked down tight or re-opening everything at once .
Neither are likely to happen , and both would likely be a bad idea .
Instead , governments and consumers alike are going to have to thread the needle ; opening up the economy as much as possible without overwhelming hospitals .
I ’ ve spoken before about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment for lung cancer , and the chemotherapy drugs she ’ s taking has taken a toll on her immune system .
We ’ ve been on a pretty tight lockdown since early March , and that ’ s likely going to continue for months to come .
I understand the fear that people have , because I ’ ve felt it myself .
I ’ m not going to live my life in fear , however .
I mask up when I go grocery shopping , or go into the local Tractor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t needed to visit my local gun shop lately , but I ’ m not going to be fearful the next time I do .
I ’ ll wear a mask , I ’ ll conduct my business , I ’ ll leave , and I ’ ll wash my hands as soon as I get back home .
I will do the things that I need to do to try to keep my wife protected , but I ’ m not going to cower in my house afraid to set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just human nature to be afraid of the unknown , but it ’ s also within us to conquer that fear .
Caution is good .
Panic is not , but unfortunately , that ’ s what many of us are feeling at the moment .

Are Americans eager to get back to shopping, dining out, or going to the movies? Not according to a new Washington Post-University of Maryland poll that found large majorities of respondents in favor of keeping most businesses shut down, including gun stores, at least for the time being.
The most significant opposition is to reopening movie theaters, with 82 percent of Americans saying they should not be allowed to open up in their state. There is also broad opposition to reopening gyms (78 percent opposed), dine-in restaurants and nail salons (both with 74 percent opposed). Gun stores are next, with 70 percent saying they should not be reopened, followed by barbershops and hair salons (69 percent opposed) and retail shops such as clothing stores (66 percent opposed) and golf courses (59 percent opposed).
It’s not that Americans are suddenly interested in shutting down gun stores, but rather it looks like they’re afraid to re-open the economy in general for fear of catching the coronavirus or concern that re-opening the economy will lead to a surge in cases. If you’re looking for logic in the poll, good luck. Based on these poll numbers, I don’t think many of us are thinking too logically at the moment, unfortunately.
What’s interesting to me is that in most states gun stores never did close, and there’s no evidence that gun stores have caused any outbreaks of the coronavirus. Most stores are operating with social distancing policies in place; limiting the number of customers inside, cleaning between customers, and the like. That seems to be working well, but still a large majority of respondents say that gun shops should be shut down for the time being. It’s another bit of evidence that suggests some of our current fears are being taken to an extreme.
According to the poll, 56-percent of those surveyed say they feel comfortable going to a grocery store, but 67-percent say they’d be uncomfortable shopping at a retail clothing store. Why are we comfortable shopping at Costco, but uncomfortable shopping at Old Navy? I’m not a psychologist, but I’m guessing it’s because most of us have gone grocery shopping over the past couple of months. That’s not an unknown activity, but venturing out to eat at a restaurant or try on a new pair of jeans in the current pandemic is. The things we’ve been doing are less scary to us than the activities we’ve paused.
Even activities that come with a low risk of coronavirus transmission are unpopular in this poll. Over half of those surveyed say that golf courses should remain closed, for instance, though most doctors and public health experts say that the coronavirus doesn’t spread effectively outside, and have encouraged Americans to spend more time outdoors. There’s no real reason to be afraid of golfing, especially if courses are maintaining social distancing policies in the clubhouse and snack bars, but that’s not what Americans are hearing from the news media and friends and family on social media.
Instead, they’re hearing a growing chorus of voices proclaim that any relaxation of the economic shutdown is going to lead to pandemonium, overwhelmed hospitals, and a wave of coronavirus deaths. I worry that the current debate is increasingly focused on two false choices: keeping the economy locked down tight or re-opening everything at once. Neither are likely to happen, and both would likely be a bad idea. Instead, governments and consumers alike are going to have to thread the needle; opening up the economy as much as possible without overwhelming hospitals.
I’ve spoken before about the fact that my wife is undergoing treatment for lung cancer, and the chemotherapy drugs she’s taking has taken a toll on her immune system. We’ve been on a pretty tight lockdown since early March, and that’s likely going to continue for months to come. I understand the fear that people have, because I’ve felt it myself. I’m not going to live my life in fear, however. I mask up when I go grocery shopping, or go into the local Tractor Supply Co. for animal feed. I haven’t needed to visit my local gun shop lately, but I’m not going to be fearful the next time I do. I’ll wear a mask, I’ll conduct my business, I’ll leave, and I’ll wash my hands as soon as I get back home. I will do the things that I need to do to try to keep my wife protected, but I’m not going to cower in my house afraid to set foot outside.
Perhaps it’s just human nature to be afraid of the unknown, but it’s also within us to conquer that fear. Caution is good. Panic is not, but unfortunately, that’s what many of us are feeling at the moment.


bearingarms--2020-05-05--Judge Rules In Favor Of NRA On FL Age Restriction Law

For years now , legal adults under the age of 21 haven ’ t been able to buy a handgun .
While that ’ s a problem , it wasn ’ t an overly pressing one in a lot of ways .
After all , those same adults could buy pretty much any longarm they wanted .
Shotguns , AR-15s , hunting rifles , whatever was still available to them .
For many , that was good enough for the time being .
But then Parkland happened .
A 19-year-old ( alleged ) psychopath walked into his former high school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since he used a long gun in the deed , people started freaking out .
Nevermind the millions of law-abiding gun owners under the age of 21 who did absolutely nothing wrong , this one guy did something and it was time to eliminate the Second Amendment rights of countless young Americans .
Surprisingly , Florida was acted swiftly and stupidly to do just that .
Needless to say , that sparked a lawsuit .
Now , that lawsuit has cleared a major hurdle .
In other words , the judge isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only that the case can proceed .
That wasn ’ t the issue before him , though , which is fine .
The NRA and their attorneys can make that case in court now thanks to this ruling .
Frankly , I don ’ t think they ’ ll have much of an issue .
After all , the state ’ s case ” Except , it kind of does .
Moody is arguing that in order for these lawful adults to exercise their Second Amendment rights , someone else has to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not really how that works .
Not only is it an infringement on their rights , it ’ s practically begging for these people to say screw it and get people to buy for them .
Can you say “ straw buy ?
” That ’ s not what we need and , I hope , the NRA ’ s attorneys can make a convincing case in court .
At least now they ’ ll get the chance .

For years now, legal adults under the age of 21 haven’t been able to buy a handgun. While that’s a problem, it wasn’t an overly pressing one in a lot of ways. After all, those same adults could buy pretty much any longarm they wanted. Shotguns, AR-15s, hunting rifles, whatever was still available to them. For many, that was good enough for the time being.
But then Parkland happened. A 19-year-old (alleged) psychopath walked into his former high school and started shooting up the place. Since he used a long gun in the deed, people started freaking out. Nevermind the millions of law-abiding gun owners under the age of 21 who did absolutely nothing wrong, this one guy did something and it was time to eliminate the Second Amendment rights of countless young Americans.
Surprisingly, Florida was acted swiftly and stupidly to do just that.
Needless to say, that sparked a lawsuit. Now, that lawsuit has cleared a major hurdle.
A federal judge has refused to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 state law that blocked people under age 21 from buying guns. Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker should dismiss the case, which challenges a law that the Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Scott approved after a gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. But Walker, in an eight-page decision Friday, denied the state’s request to dismiss the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in January. Walker made clear that he was not ruling on the NRA’s underlying arguments that the law violates constitutional Second Amendment and equal-protection rights — only that the case should be allowed to move forward. “It is important to keep in mind the narrow issue before the court at this stage of the proceedings. This court is not asked to, and does not, decide whether (the law) is constitutional. Rather, the question is whether plaintiffs’ complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” he wrote, quote a legal precedent.
In other words, the judge isn’t saying the NRA is right, only that the case can proceed. That wasn’t the issue before him, though, which is fine. The NRA and their attorneys can make that case in court now thanks to this ruling.
Frankly, I don’t think they’ll have much of an issue. After all, the state’s case”
In a Jan. 21 motion to dismiss the case, attorneys in Moody’s office argued that the measure “follows a long tradition of laws conditioning the purchase of firearms on the purchaser’s having obtained the traditional age of majority — 21 years of age.” Also, the motion said that while the law prevents people ages 18 to 20 from buying guns, it doesn’t prevent them from having guns that, for example, they received as gifts.
Except, it kind of does.
Moody is arguing that in order for these lawful adults to exercise their Second Amendment rights, someone else has to act to essentially grant them the ability. That’s not really how that works. Not only is it an infringement on their rights, it’s practically begging for these people to say screw it and get people to buy for them. Can you say “straw buy?”
That’s not what we need and, I hope, the NRA’s attorneys can make a convincing case in court.
At least now they’ll get the chance.