bearingarms--2020-04-03--Miami-Dade Courts Go Virtual Amid COVID-19 Fears

COVID-19 is changing a whole lot of things right about now .
It ’ s changed how my daughter is educated , for one thing .
That ’ s not all it ’ s done , though .
It ’ s also changed our criminal justice system , sometimes in ways we don ’ t particularly care for .
Yet in Miami , they seem to be trying to use technology to balance concerns about the spread of disease with the need to have a functioning court system .
They ’ re gearing up for virtual courts .
Judges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system are getting trained on how to run virtual hearings as the new coronavirus impacts courtroom proceedings .
Eleventh Circuit Court Judge Nushin Sayfie told Local 10 ’ s Christina Vazquez all court trials have been postponed until at least Friday , April 17 with the expectation that date will be extended , but emergency and mission-critical proceedings will go on using remote technology .
All arraignments are being reset .
For in-custody defendants , the cases are being screened by the State and the Defense and addressed on a case-by-case basis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as arraignments for out-of-custody , unrepresented defendants .
For out-of-custody defendants that are represented by counsel , these cases are being reset for a future status hearing date .
In order to stop the spread of COVID-19 , court locations have been closed to the public except for those individuals participating in emergency or mission-critical proceedings .
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit reported in a COVID-19 advisory that remote technology would be used “ unless a presiding judge determines that an in-person court appearance is required .
Persons required to attend in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one another.
” No , this isn ’ t the same thing as a full trial , but that ’ s really not an option right now .
As I noted when I spoke with Cam on Cam & Company , part of the outbreak here in Albany , Georgia came from a juror on a murder trial who was infected .
I understand not having trials .
But there are other court proceedings that need to be held .
Thanks to technology , there ’ s really no reason why these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same room .
Sure , it made sense back when it wasn ’ t feasible to do it any other way , but those days are long in our past .
Sure , they ’ ll probably go back to the old way of doing things , but for the time being , technology has made it so these people can get at least some of their legal proceedings handled .
Frankly , this is a lot more productive than what many jurisdictions seem to be doing .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form also doing all kinds of stupid stuff via these remote proceedings .
This is a large urban center , after all .
Never underestimate just how stupid officials in urban centers can be .
Especially don ’ t say anything about how they can ’ t get dumber .
They take it as a challenge , apparently .
Regardless , this is a good thing to see and it ’ ll be interesting to see how this works in the long run .
Will this become the new norm , or just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plague ?

COVID-19 is changing a whole lot of things right about now. It’s changed how my daughter is educated, for one thing. That’s not all it’s done, though. It’s also changed our criminal justice system, sometimes in ways we don’t particularly care for.
Yet in Miami, they seem to be trying to use technology to balance concerns about the spread of disease with the need to have a functioning court system. They’re gearing up for virtual courts.
Judges and staff who work in the Miami-Dade court system are getting trained on how to run virtual hearings as the new coronavirus impacts courtroom proceedings. Eleventh Circuit Court Judge Nushin Sayfie told Local 10’s Christina Vazquez all court trials have been postponed until at least Friday, April 17 with the expectation that date will be extended, but emergency and mission-critical proceedings will go on using remote technology. All arraignments are being reset. For in-custody defendants, the cases are being screened by the State and the Defense and addressed on a case-by-case basis. The in-custody arraignments will be heard, as well as arraignments for out-of-custody, unrepresented defendants. For out-of-custody defendants that are represented by counsel, these cases are being reset for a future status hearing date. In order to stop the spread of COVID-19, court locations have been closed to the public except for those individuals participating in emergency or mission-critical proceedings. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit reported in a COVID-19 advisory that remote technology would be used “unless a presiding judge determines that an in-person court appearance is required. Persons required to attend in person should maintain six-feet of social distance from one another.”
No, this isn’t the same thing as a full trial, but that’s really not an option right now. As I noted when I spoke with Cam on Cam & Company, part of the outbreak here in Albany, Georgia came from a juror on a murder trial who was infected. I understand not having trials.
But there are other court proceedings that need to be held.
Thanks to technology, there’s really no reason why these hearings have to be done with everyone in the same room. Sure, it made sense back when it wasn’t feasible to do it any other way, but those days are long in our past. Sure, they’ll probably go back to the old way of doing things, but for the time being, technology has made it so these people can get at least some of their legal proceedings handled.
Frankly, this is a lot more productive than what many jurisdictions seem to be doing.
Of course, this doesn’t preclude the courts form also doing all kinds of stupid stuff via these remote proceedings. This is a large urban center, after all. Never underestimate just how stupid officials in urban centers can be. Especially don’t say anything about how they can’t get dumber. They take it as a challenge, apparently.
Regardless, this is a good thing to see and it’ll be interesting to see how this works in the long run. Will this become the new norm, or just an emergency backup in case of another plague?


bearingarms--2020-04-03--NRA Takes On Cuomo, Files Suit Over NY Gun Store Closures

The National Rifle Association is launching a lawsuit aimed at restoring the ability of gun store owners in New York to operate during the current coronavirus pandemic .
The suit , filed in federal court , names Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , the state ’ s Department of Economic Development , as well as its director Eric Gertler , and alleges the state is unconstitutionally preventing New Yorkers from acquiring firearms during the state of emergency , as well as jeopardizing the economic livelihoods of gun store owners .
The forced closure of gun stores throughout New York effectively makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State .
Under New York ’ s SAFE Act,5 as of March 15 , 2013 , all private handgun , rifle or shotgun sales or transfers in New York ( with the exception of those sales or transfers to and between certain family members ) require a background check of the buyer .
Therefore , consumers can only purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers capable of performing an NICS background check .
Almost all big box stores and non-specialized retailers in New York that typically sell firearms and ammunition stopped selling firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Executive Order .
As is widely known , these retailers stopped selling firearms and ammunition in reaction to pressure from Defendants and other State authorities .
Therefore , immediately prior to enactment of the Executive Order , consumers wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase firearms or ammunition relied on licensed gun stores and dealers , substantially all of which have now shut down due to enforcement of the Executive Order .
Through the enactment and enforcement of the Executive Order , Defendants have effectively deprived consumers in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ammunition in the State .
New Yorks Attorney General Letitia James quickly reacted to the lawsuit on Twitter , and vowed an aggressive response .
Gun control advocates are chiming in as well , and of course they ’ re arguing that Cuomo was right to declare gun stores “ non-essential , ” despite the incontrovertible evidence that millions of Americans disagree and have flocked to gun stores across the country over the past month in order to exercise their right to keep and bear arms , many for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president of the pro-gun-control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , called the lawsuit “ another attempt by the NRA to jeopardize life-saving responses to stop the spread of this deadly virus that is killing thousands of New Yorkers.
” She said Cuomo is “ well within his authority ” to close the stores in an effort to address the virus ’ s spread .
“ The Second Amendment , like all amendments in the Bill of Rights , is balanced by concerns of public safety and health , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns necessitate the closure of many businesses , including the need to forbid large gatherings , which are rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment .
The Second Amendment does not supersede the First , nor does it override the need to stop the spread of coronavirus.
” New Yorkers aren ’ t being prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights at the moment , though as Brown notes , there may be some restrictions that have been put in place limiting the size of gatherings .
Still , the press is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or not ) as they choose .
The freedom of public assembly has been put on ice for the moment , and that does actually raise some genuine constitutional questions as well , but to compare the state of the First Amendment to the state of the Second Amendment in New York is to compare horseshoes and hand grenades .
As the NRA lawsuit makes clear , there is currently no way for a New Yorker to legally acquire a firearm or ammunition at the moment , unless they ’ re lucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an immediate family member .
Every other transfer of a firearm must go through a background check , and with gun stores shut down , there ’ s nobody to conduct those background checks for retail sales or private transfers .
The lawsuit does note that Cuomo has not officially declared gun stores need to close , but neither has he included the stores in the list of essential businesses allowed to operate .
Adding to the confusion , the governor ’ s order does mention “ essential retail , ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what retail actually qualifies beyond those sectors specified by the governor .
As a result , according to the lawsuit , most gun stores have shut down rather than risk sanction by the state .
I ’ m really glad to see Cuomo ’ s order challenged in federal court , and with the NRA seeking a temporary injunction halting Cuomo ’ s order while the legal fight plays out , we shouldn ’ t have to wait too long to learn whether stores will be allowed to re-open for business in the @ @ @

The National Rifle Association is launching a lawsuit aimed at restoring the ability of gun store owners in New York to operate during the current coronavirus pandemic. The suit, filed in federal court, names Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state’s Department of Economic Development, as well as its director Eric Gertler, and alleges the state is unconstitutionally preventing New Yorkers from acquiring firearms during the state of emergency, as well as jeopardizing the economic livelihoods of gun store owners.
The forced closure of gun stores throughout New York effectively makes it impossible to legally purchase guns in the State. Under New York’s SAFE Act,5 as of March 15, 2013, all private handgun, rifle or shotgun sales or transfers in New York (with the exception of those sales or transfers to and between certain family members) require a background check of the buyer. Therefore, consumers can only purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers capable of performing an NICS background check. Almost all big box stores and non-specialized retailers in New York that typically sell firearms and ammunition stopped selling firearms and ammunition shortly before the issuance of the Executive Order. As is widely known, these retailers stopped selling firearms and ammunition in reaction to pressure from Defendants and other State authorities. Therefore, immediately prior to enactment of the Executive Order, consumers wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase firearms or ammunition relied on licensed gun stores and dealers, substantially all of which have now shut down due to enforcement of the Executive Order. Through the enactment and enforcement of the Executive Order, Defendants have effectively deprived consumers in New York of any options for lawfully purchasing firearms or ammunition in the State.
New Yorks Attorney General Letitia James quickly reacted to the lawsuit on Twitter, and vowed an aggressive response.
Everyone, including the NRA, must follow the law and all executive orders of New York. We will aggressively defend the state against yet another legal assault by the NRA.https://t.co/xjFaHikr65 — NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) April 2, 2020
Gun control advocates are chiming in as well, and of course they’re arguing that Cuomo was right to declare gun stores “non-essential,” despite the incontrovertible evidence that millions of Americans disagree and have flocked to gun stores across the country over the past month in order to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, many for the first time in their lives.
Kris Brown, the president of the pro-gun-control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the lawsuit “another attempt by the NRA to jeopardize life-saving responses to stop the spread of this deadly virus that is killing thousands of New Yorkers.” She said Cuomo is “well within his authority” to close the stores in an effort to address the virus’s spread. “The Second Amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, is balanced by concerns of public safety and health,” she added. “Right now, those concerns necessitate the closure of many businesses, including the need to forbid large gatherings, which are rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment. The Second Amendment does not supersede the First, nor does it override the need to stop the spread of coronavirus.”
New Yorkers aren’t being prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights at the moment, though as Brown notes, there may be some restrictions that have been put in place limiting the size of gatherings. Still, the press is still working, people are free to pray (or not) as they choose. The freedom of public assembly has been put on ice for the moment, and that does actually raise some genuine constitutional questions as well, but to compare the state of the First Amendment to the state of the Second Amendment in New York is to compare horseshoes and hand grenades.
As the NRA lawsuit makes clear, there is currently no way for a New Yorker to legally acquire a firearm or ammunition at the moment, unless they’re lucky enough to be able to get one from an immediate family member. Every other transfer of a firearm must go through a background check, and with gun stores shut down, there’s nobody to conduct those background checks for retail sales or private transfers.
The lawsuit does note that Cuomo has not officially declared gun stores need to close, but neither has he included the stores in the list of essential businesses allowed to operate. Adding to the confusion, the governor’s order does mention “essential retail,” but the order is vague and open-ended about what retail actually qualifies beyond those sectors specified by the governor. As a result, according to the lawsuit, most gun stores have shut down rather than risk sanction by the state.
I’m really glad to see Cuomo’s order challenged in federal court, and with the NRA seeking a temporary injunction halting Cuomo’s order while the legal fight plays out, we shouldn’t have to wait too long to learn whether stores will be allowed to re-open for business in the Empire State.


bearingarms--2020-04-03--Federal Judge OKs California Gun Store Shutdowns

One of the more common battles being fought on behalf of the Second Amendment involves protecting gun stores from closure .
While many states , even anti-gun states , have opted to allow them to remain open , not all of them have .
One prominent example is California .
Perhaps the most anti-gun state in the nation , California thought nothing of closing gun stores left and right .
While some sheriffs are allowing them to remain open , others aren ’ t .
As a result , a lawsuit was filed to try and overturn the decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judge on Tuesday denied a request to force Ventura County , Calif. , to reopen gun stores forced to close in response to the coronavirus .
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall , a Jimmy Carter appointee , of the District Court for the Central District of California , said she would not grant a temporary restraining order against the county ’ s shutdown order .
Her decision is one of the first in the legal battle over pandemic-related closures of gun businesses .
It may indicate the court fights could drag on for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans buy guns for self-protection at a record pace .
“ While the public interest is served by protecting Second Amendment rights , the public interest is also served by protecting the public health by limiting the spread of a virulent disease , ” Marshall said in a ruling .
Marshall ’ s ruling is one of at least three legal opinions that have come out in the wake of the outbreak , though state and federal courts have disagreed about the extent to which the Second Amendment protects against emergency closures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Wolf ( D. ) to include stores in his shutdown—though the governor later reversed course .
Meanwhile , a North Carolina court ordered Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker ( D. ) to abide by an agreement that reopens the pistol-purchase permitting process in the county .
The problem here , though , is that Marshall ’ s ruling effectively suspends the Second Amendment for many in California .
Oh , those who have guns will still be able to keep them .
Marshall ’ s ruling doesn ’ t go that far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have guns and feel they might need one now , it ’ s too late for that .
You see , in California , you can ’ t buy a gun without a gun store , pretty much .
You need an FFL holder to conduct a background check on any transfer , and those are generally found in gun stores .
So to legally purchase a gun , you need a licensed gun dealer .
Since all the gun stores in places like Ventura County are closed , for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been suspended .
It should be noted that other locales have found a way to try and balance the public health concerns with Second Amendment concerns .
Some allow gun stores to be open by appointment only .
Others require limits on how many are allowed in the store at one time .
Hell , some don ’ t require anything because , to my knowledge , the disease has yet to be transmitted via a contact in a gun store .
You ’ re much more likely to spread it through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closing those down , now are they ?
Of course not .
Instead , they mitigate the risk as best they can .
Why isn ’ t that part of the discussion in California ?
Of course , we all know why .
It ’ s California .
COVID-19 isn ’ t the reason .
It ’ s just an excuse .

One of the more common battles being fought on behalf of the Second Amendment involves protecting gun stores from closure. While many states, even anti-gun states, have opted to allow them to remain open, not all of them have. One prominent example is California.
Perhaps the most anti-gun state in the nation, California thought nothing of closing gun stores left and right. While some sheriffs are allowing them to remain open, others aren’t.
As a result, a lawsuit was filed to try and overturn the decision. It did not go well.
A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request to force Ventura County, Calif., to reopen gun stores forced to close in response to the coronavirus. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, a Jimmy Carter appointee, of the District Court for the Central District of California, said she would not grant a temporary restraining order against the county’s shutdown order. Her decision is one of the first in the legal battle over pandemic-related closures of gun businesses. It may indicate the court fights could drag on for weeks and produce mixed results even as Americans buy guns for self-protection at a record pace. “While the public interest is served by protecting Second Amendment rights, the public interest is also served by protecting the public health by limiting the spread of a virulent disease,” Marshall said in a ruling. Marshall’s ruling is one of at least three legal opinions that have come out in the wake of the outbreak, though state and federal courts have disagreed about the extent to which the Second Amendment protects against emergency closures. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed Gov. Tom Wolf (D.) to include stores in his shutdown—though the governor later reversed course. Meanwhile, a North Carolina court ordered Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker (D.) to abide by an agreement that reopens the pistol-purchase permitting process in the county.
The problem here, though, is that Marshall’s ruling effectively suspends the Second Amendment for many in California.
Oh, those who have guns will still be able to keep them. Marshall’s ruling doesn’t go that far. However, for those who don’t have guns and feel they might need one now, it’s too late for that.
You see, in California, you can’t buy a gun without a gun store, pretty much. You need an FFL holder to conduct a background check on any transfer, and those are generally found in gun stores. So to legally purchase a gun, you need a licensed gun dealer.
Since all the gun stores in places like Ventura County are closed, for all intents and purposes, the Second Amendment has been suspended.
It should be noted that other locales have found a way to try and balance the public health concerns with Second Amendment concerns. Some allow gun stores to be open by appointment only. Others require limits on how many are allowed in the store at one time. Hell, some don’t require anything because, to my knowledge, the disease has yet to be transmitted via a contact in a gun store.
You’re much more likely to spread it through grocery stores, but no one is closing those down, now are they? Of course not. Instead, they mitigate the risk as best they can.
Why isn’t that part of the discussion in California?
Of course, we all know why. It’s California. COVID-19 isn’t the reason. It’s just an excuse.


bearingarms--2020-04-03--Man Who Stabbed Asian Family Facing Hate Crime Charges

One of the first stories about increased gun sales we wrote here at Bearing Arms early in the COVID-19 emergency was about Asian-Americans buying guns out of fear that they would be targetted for violence due to the Chinese origins of the virus .
At the time , I commented that doing so would be profoundly idiotic .
I also made the comment that I didn ’ t think anyone was going to blame them for it .
On that , I was very , very wrong .
Now , a man who reportedly stabbed members of an Asian family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his actions .
A man who allegedly tried to kill an Asian family inside a Texas supermarket last month to prevent them from spreading the coronavirus could be charged by the FBI for a hate crime , according to reports .
Jose L. Gomez , 19 , is accused of stabbing three people inside a Sam ’ s Club in Midland on March 14 .
He allegedly approached an Asian family of four , stabbing three of them , including a 2-year-old and a 6-year-old child , according to an arrest report obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicated that he stabbed the family because he thought the family was Chinese , and infecting people with coronavirus , ” a new FBI analysis report said .
The case is now being investigated by the federal law enforcement agency as a hate crime .
A store employee , identified as Zack Owen , intervened , tackling Gomez to the ground .
Owen was stabbed in the leg and cut on the hand while the two struggled for the knife .
An off-duty Border Patrol Agent , Bernie Ramirez , who came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Midland police arrived .
Now , I ’ m not a fan of hate crime laws .
It ’ s not that I think hate crimes are a good thing , I just don ’ t like the idea of charging someone with a crime based on what they ’ re thinking .
The whole thing smacks too much of ThoughtCrime for my liking .
That said , I have no issue with Gomez spending the rest of his life behind bars over this .
I ’ d just rather it not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but instead about the fact that he attacked a family , including two small children .
Look , let ’ s make something abundantly clear here .
Asians , as a group , are not responsible for the virus .
Yes , the Chinese government screwed the pooch and you can blame them all you want and I ’ ll agree , but “ Asians ” aren ’ t the Chinese government .
Many Asians aren ’ t even of Chinese descent , for crying out loud .
If you ’ re someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mess , stop .
They didn ’ t do it .
Especially since many of the Asians you ’ re encountering are Asian-Americans .
They ’ re not any more likely to be carrying the virus than you are , so stop blaming them .
Do you want to help stop the virus ?
Wash your damn hands .
Maintain social distancing .
Do go out unless you need to .
Oh , and don ’ t freaking attack people , for the love of all that is holy .
No , seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you physically attacking them isn ’ t going to stop the spread .
It ’ s just more likely to infect you in the first place , so knock off the stupidity .
We ’ ve got enough problems right now without morons making things worse like this .
On the other hand , all those Asian-Americans buying guns shouldn ’ t sound so dumb to the anti-gunners now .

One of the first stories about increased gun sales we wrote here at Bearing Arms early in the COVID-19 emergency was about Asian-Americans buying guns out of fear that they would be targetted for violence due to the Chinese origins of the virus.
At the time, I commented that doing so would be profoundly idiotic.
I also made the comment that I didn’t think anyone was going to blame them for it. On that, I was very, very wrong.
Now, a man who reportedly stabbed members of an Asian family is facing federal hate crime charges for his actions.
A man who allegedly tried to kill an Asian family inside a Texas supermarket last month to prevent them from spreading the coronavirus could be charged by the FBI for a hate crime, according to reports. Jose L. Gomez, 19, is accused of stabbing three people inside a Sam’s Club in Midland on March 14. He allegedly approached an Asian family of four, stabbing three of them, including a 2-year-old and a 6-year-old child, according to an arrest report obtained by Midland Reporter-Telegram. “The suspect indicated that he stabbed the family because he thought the family was Chinese, and infecting people with coronavirus,” a new FBI analysis report said. The case is now being investigated by the federal law enforcement agency as a hate crime. A store employee, identified as Zack Owen, intervened, tackling Gomez to the ground. Owen was stabbed in the leg and cut on the hand while the two struggled for the knife. An off-duty Border Patrol Agent, Bernie Ramirez, who came to shop for groceries, detained Gomez before Midland police arrived.
Now, I’m not a fan of hate crime laws. It’s not that I think hate crimes are a good thing, I just don’t like the idea of charging someone with a crime based on what they’re thinking. The whole thing smacks too much of ThoughtCrime for my liking.
That said, I have no issue with Gomez spending the rest of his life behind bars over this. I’d just rather it not be because of the thoughts in his head but instead about the fact that he attacked a family, including two small children.
Look, let’s make something abundantly clear here. Asians, as a group, are not responsible for the virus. Yes, the Chinese government screwed the pooch and you can blame them all you want and I’ll agree, but “Asians” aren’t the Chinese government. Many Asians aren’t even of Chinese descent, for crying out loud.
If you’re someone who wants to blame Asians for this mess, stop. They didn’t do it. Especially since many of the Asians you’re encountering are Asian-Americans. They’re not any more likely to be carrying the virus than you are, so stop blaming them.
Do you want to help stop the virus? Wash your damn hands. Maintain social distancing. Do go out unless you need to.
Oh, and don’t freaking attack people, for the love of all that is holy.
No, seriously, if someone has the virus, you physically attacking them isn’t going to stop the spread. It’s just more likely to infect you in the first place, so knock off the stupidity. We’ve got enough problems right now without morons making things worse like this.
On the other hand, all those Asian-Americans buying guns shouldn’t sound so dumb to the anti-gunners now.


bearingarms--2020-04-03--Sheriffs Fight To Keep WA Gun Stores Open For Business

Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee ’ s decision to not recognize gun stores as essential businesses isn ’ t going over well in many parts of the state.In fact , more than a dozen law enforcement officials , many of them county sheriffs , have sent a letter to Inslee outlining their concerns about shutting down gun shops across the state .
According to the public safety officers , there are three reasons the governor needs to amend his stay-at-home order to allow gun stores to continue to operate .
1- Many of the law enforcement officials signing this letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licensed firearms dealers for on- and off-duty firearms and ammunition .
For many of us , we and our deputies routinely purchase firearms , ammunition , and other equipment from licensed firearms dealers .
Your Order shuttering those businesses will prevent members of local law enforcement departments from continuing to do so , and threaten the continued operations of local law enforcement departments around the state .
2- your Order threatens the safety of thousands of Washington citizens .
Every security business in the state relies on licensed dealers for firearms and ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to procure the tools required to perform those jobs—jobs which your Order deems essential .
It is essential that security businesses can procure the tools needed for their essential operations .
3- your Order unduly burdens the constitutional rights of the people of Washington .
Licensed firearms dealers have already implemented stringent cleaning , sanitation , and social distancing rules to ensure the health and safety of themselves , their employees , and their customers .
Closing licensed firearms dealers means terminating the ability of all Washington citizens to exercise the rights guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Constitution and Article I , Section 24 of the Washington Constitution .
Under our laws , there is no alternative way to exercise these rights .
Libraries have expanded digital access to books ; schools are dedicating resources to online learning ; our state ’ s medical professionals are expanding telemedicine .
For citizens who elect to purchase a firearm , that can only be done in person , after a background check , in front of a licensed firearms dealer .
It can not be done remotely or online .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s appropriate to require gun stores limit the number of customers and clean areas of the shop where customers and staff are interacting between each visit , but that simply shutting down the stores “ violates the state and federal constitution , threatens the safety of our citizens , and threatens the smooth operation of many local law enforcement agencies.
” KOMO-TV in Seattle reports that , while Inslee ’ s order doesn ’ t include gun stores as “ essential businesses , ” it also doesn ’ t specifically say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , some shops are keeping their doors open .
“ We ’ re still confused because we don ’ t have anything that ’ s actually documented , ” said Tiffany Teasdale , owner of Lynnwood Gun .
She said approximately 85 % of her customers in recent weeks have been first-time gun owners .
“ I have customers that come in and tell me , ‘ Well , how are you guys open ?
Inslee said you ’ re not supposed to be.
, ’ ” she said .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t seen anything .
I ’ ve contacted all of our local officers , I ’ ve contacted local police departments , the city , I ’ ve emailed many different agencies asking , ‘ Well , do you have anything in writing that states gun shops can not be open ?
’ ” Clearly there is high demand right now for the services gun stores are offering , both for civilians and members of law enforcement .
Inslee does need to do the right thing here and amend his order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
If he doesn ’ t , the state ’ s public health crisis could be compounded by a public safety disaster .

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s decision to not recognize gun stores as essential businesses isn’t going over well in many parts of the state.In fact, more than a dozen law enforcement officials, many of them county sheriffs, have sent a letter to Inslee outlining their concerns about shutting down gun shops across the state. According to the public safety officers, there are three reasons the governor needs to amend his stay-at-home order to allow gun stores to continue to operate.
1- Many of the law enforcement officials signing this letter leads a department that relies on local licensed firearms dealers for on- and off-duty firearms and ammunition. For many of us, we and our deputies routinely purchase firearms, ammunition, and other equipment from licensed firearms dealers. Your Order shuttering those businesses will prevent members of local law enforcement departments from continuing to do so, and threaten the continued operations of local law enforcement departments around the state. 2- your Order threatens the safety of thousands of Washington citizens. Every security business in the state relies on licensed dealers for firearms and ammunition, and your Order blocks their ability to procure the tools required to perform those jobs—jobs which your Order deems essential. It is essential that security businesses can procure the tools needed for their essential operations. 3- your Order unduly burdens the constitutional rights of the people of Washington. Licensed firearms dealers have already implemented stringent cleaning, sanitation, and social distancing rules to ensure the health and safety of themselves, their employees, and their customers. Closing licensed firearms dealers means terminating the ability of all Washington citizens to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution. Under our laws, there is no alternative way to exercise these rights. Libraries have expanded digital access to books; schools are dedicating resources to online learning; our state’s medical professionals are expanding telemedicine. For citizens who elect to purchase a firearm, that can only be done in person, after a background check, in front of a licensed firearms dealer. It cannot be done remotely or online.
The sheriffs and police chiefs say it’s appropriate to require gun stores limit the number of customers and clean areas of the shop where customers and staff are interacting between each visit, but that simply shutting down the stores “violates the state and federal constitution, threatens the safety of our citizens, and threatens the smooth operation of many local law enforcement agencies.”
KOMO-TV in Seattle reports that, while Inslee’s order doesn’t include gun stores as “essential businesses,” it also doesn’t specifically say that gun stores must close. As a result, some shops are keeping their doors open.
“We’re still confused because we don’t have anything that’s actually documented,” said Tiffany Teasdale, owner of Lynnwood Gun. She said approximately 85% of her customers in recent weeks have been first-time gun owners. “I have customers that come in and tell me, ‘Well, how are you guys open? Inslee said you’re not supposed to be.,’” she said. “I haven’t heard anything. I haven’t seen anything. I’ve contacted all of our local officers, I’ve contacted local police departments, the city, I’ve emailed many different agencies asking, ‘Well, do you have anything in writing that states gun shops can not be open?’”
Clearly there is high demand right now for the services gun stores are offering, both for civilians and members of law enforcement. Inslee does need to do the right thing here and amend his order to specifically include gun stores as essential businesses. If he doesn’t, the state’s public health crisis could be compounded by a public safety disaster.


bearingarms--2020-04-03--TX Judges Releasing Violent Suspects On Low Bonds Due to COVID-19 Concerns

We ’ re still on the upswing of the coronavirus infections and deaths here in the United States , with Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski on Thursday that we ’ re not even to halftime yet in the fight against the virus .
While health care workers , scientists , and manufacturers scramble to produce needed medical supplies , investigate possible treatment options , and provide care to those seriously ill from COVID-19 , the country ’ s criminal justice system is already engaging in triage measures that are putting individuals accused of violent crimes back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrist .
We reported earlier in the week about four teens in New York who were quickly released after allegedly beating and robbing a woman , thanks to New York ’ s bail reform laws .
Even in Texas , however , the court system is now handing out ridiculously low bonds for some serious crimes .
Kelvin Hawthorne , 18 , is accused of punching and choking his girlfriend on Monday .
Normally , that kind of crime gets a $ 1000 bond and often times it ’ s a personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail on the promise to return .
On Tuesday , a judge granted Hawthorne a $ 100 bond .
He paid $ 10 , had to agree to bond conditions and was released from jail .
Craig Jones , 55 , is accused of hitting and choking his wife .
He has prior violent convictions .
The state requested a $ 10,000 bond .
On Tuesday , a magistrate made it much lower , granting a $ 300 bond .
Timothy Singleton , 21 , also has prior convictions .
He was charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after being accused of pulling a gun on his aunt ’ s neighbor .
Singleton was granted a $ 500 bond , which means $ 50 would get him out of jail .
Normally bond would be at least $ 20,000 .
“ Some of the cases I saw today , I almost fell off my chair in hysterical laughter , ” said Andy Kahan , director of victim services and advocacy at Crime Stoppers of Houston .
“ Ten dollar bonds ?
One hundred dollar bonds ?
In some cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve never seen in my 30 years in the criminal justice system.
” Prosecutors argued against many of the low bonds , but according to KTRK at least one judge said she ’ s trying to comply with Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s order by not simply giving these suspects personal recognizance bonds , meaning the defendants wouldn ’ t have to post any cash to get out of jail .
Frankly , I ’ m not sure what the real difference is between no cash bond and requiring someone to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he understands low-risk defendants being released from jail for fear coronavirus will spread rapidly .
One inmate has tested positive , with two dozen tests pending and hundreds more inmates under observation .
As many as 1,000 inmates , who meet certain criteria , will be released in the coming days .
Tori McFarland , 23 , accused of robbery with bodily injury , a violent crime , got out of jail on a $ 10 bond .
Kahan said he will be watching who gets out of jail .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety crisis and we all know someone will pay the price , ” he said .
We ’ re not talking about low-level crimes or even low-risk offenders here .
We ’ re seeing guys with prior arrests in court for violent offenses who are walking out after handing over a Hamilton in exchange for their freedom .
Much like Kahan , the victim ’ s advocate , I too am worried about the public safety crisis that could be sparked by these measures .
At least in Texas gun stores remain open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security can still purchase a firearm and ammunition for self-defense .
What happens in states like Massachusetts , where gun stores have been ordered closed and the state ’ s highest court is weighing releasing large numbers of inmates ?
Or California , where judges are considering the mass release of inmates ?
Unfortunately it ’ s highly likely that the low bonds in Harris County , Texas will soon be the norm in courtrooms all around the nation .

We’re still on the upswing of the coronavirus infections and deaths here in the United States, with Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski on Thursday that we’re not even to halftime yet in the fight against the virus. While health care workers, scientists, and manufacturers scramble to produce needed medical supplies, investigate possible treatment options, and provide care to those seriously ill from COVID-19, the country’s criminal justice system is already engaging in triage measures that are putting individuals accused of violent crimes back on the street with a slap on the wrist.
We reported earlier in the week about four teens in New York who were quickly released after allegedly beating and robbing a woman, thanks to New York’s bail reform laws. Even in Texas, however, the court system is now handing out ridiculously low bonds for some serious crimes.
From KTRK in Houston:
Kelvin Hawthorne, 18, is accused of punching and choking his girlfriend on Monday. Normally, that kind of crime gets a $1000 bond and often times it’s a personal recognizance bond, which means release from jail on the promise to return. On Tuesday, a judge granted Hawthorne a $100 bond. He paid $10, had to agree to bond conditions and was released from jail. Craig Jones, 55, is accused of hitting and choking his wife. He has prior violent convictions. The state requested a $10,000 bond. On Tuesday, a magistrate made it much lower, granting a $300 bond. Timothy Singleton, 21, also has prior convictions. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, after being accused of pulling a gun on his aunt’s neighbor. Singleton was granted a $500 bond, which means $50 would get him out of jail. Normally bond would be at least $20,000. “Some of the cases I saw today, I almost fell off my chair in hysterical laughter,” said Andy Kahan, director of victim services and advocacy at Crime Stoppers of Houston. “Ten dollar bonds? One hundred dollar bonds? In some cases, violent felons are getting bonds I’ve never seen in my 30 years in the criminal justice system.”
Prosecutors argued against many of the low bonds, but according to KTRK at least one judge said she’s trying to comply with Gov. Greg Abbott’s order by not simply giving these suspects personal recognizance bonds, meaning the defendants wouldn’t have to post any cash to get out of jail. Frankly, I’m not sure what the real difference is between no cash bond and requiring someone to pay $10 to be released.
Kahan said he understands low-risk defendants being released from jail for fear coronavirus will spread rapidly. One inmate has tested positive, with two dozen tests pending and hundreds more inmates under observation. As many as 1,000 inmates, who meet certain criteria, will be released in the coming days. Tori McFarland, 23, accused of robbery with bodily injury, a violent crime, got out of jail on a $10 bond. Kahan said he will be watching who gets out of jail. “That, to me, is a public safety crisis and we all know someone will pay the price,” he said.
We’re not talking about low-level crimes or even low-risk offenders here. We’re seeing guys with prior arrests in court for violent offenses who are walking out after handing over a Hamilton in exchange for their freedom.
Much like Kahan, the victim’s advocate, I too am worried about the public safety crisis that could be sparked by these measures. At least in Texas gun stores remain open and any Texan concerned for their own security can still purchase a firearm and ammunition for self-defense. What happens in states like Massachusetts, where gun stores have been ordered closed and the state’s highest court is weighing releasing large numbers of inmates? Or California, where judges are considering the mass release of inmates? Unfortunately it’s highly likely that the low bonds in Harris County, Texas will soon be the norm in courtrooms all around the nation.


bearingarms--2020-04-03--Gun Grabbing Senators Worry Over Delay In NICS Reporting

Millions of people bought guns in the month of March .
In fact , almost a million more bought them in March than in February in one of the biggest spikes in gun purchases ever .
Further , many of them were new gun owners , people who had never purchased a firearm before in their lives .
It was a good month for the gun industry , to say the least .
However , it was such a surge that the NICS had trouble keeping up .
In fact , delays were and still are quite common .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only keep someone from taking possession of their gun for so long .
Unfortunately , for some gun-grabbing senators , that delay isn ’ t nearly long enough .
One day after the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) reported an unprecedented surge in background checks for prospective gun buyers , a coalition of 16 Democratic U.S. senators is expressing concerns about guns ending up in the hands of prohibited purchasers .
In a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lombardo , the senators warn that a dramatic increase in gun sales could “ overwhelm ” the FBI ’ s capacity to screen out domestic abusers , among those prohibited from owning firearms .
The letter , the result of an effort led by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy , was obtained by Newsweek .
The FBI is chiefly responsible for conducting background checks through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ) , which searches three FBI-maintained databases to produce records indicating whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal or state law from possessing a firearm .
In addition to Markey , Blumenthal and Murphy , the other signatories include Senators Elizabeth Warren , Cory Booker , Kamala Harris , Bob Menendez , Sherrod Brown , Chris Coons , Chris Van Hollen , Michael Bennet , Amy Klobuchar , Patty Murray , Tom Carper , Kirsten Gillibrand and Mazie Hirono .
In other words , it was the usual suspects .
Shocking , I know .
However , what none of these senators seem to understand is that prohibited people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know where to get a gun to completely sidestep the background check process , even in states with supposedly universal background checks .
They ’ re not walking into a gun store looking to take advantage of the current chaos because they ’ ll bypass that altogether .
Part of the reason for that is the fact that in order to buy a gun from a licensed dealer , you still have to provide ID and fill out a form 4473 .
In other words , there will be a paper trail telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy a gun .
And that ’ s if things work like they ’ re expected to .
There ’ s always a risk that at that moment , there ’ s no real delay .
So , prohibited people will skip it .
The senators in question , however , don ’ t understand any of that .
How would they know what ordinary criminals do , right ?
Hell , most of them view all gun owners as potential criminals anyway .
What they ’ re asking for is two-fold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell them how many background checks take longer than three days .
I ’ m not sure why , since anyone with a brain can tell this is a somewhat temporary situation , but whatever .
That ’ s not the end of the world , I suppose .
The other thing they want is for the FBI to issue an emergency directive that allows them to ignore the laws passed by Congress and hold onto background check data longer than 90 days .
That needs to be a non-starter .
Look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our homes with almost no outlet for actual human contact beyond our immediate families and the grocery store .
We ’ re facing curfews , having to work from home , having to educate our children ourselves , and otherwise have our entire lives upended because of the actions of politicians who did it with a stroke of the pen .
Many of us don ’ t like the requirements , but we ’ re tolerating them because it ’ s what we should be doing without the rules .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deadly disease , so while we may not like the current rules , we ’ re following them .
But this is a call for a federal agency to just unilaterally decide to ignore the law and hold onto sensitive records for longer than the permitted time period .
That ’ s a precedent we shouldn ’ t tolerate starting .
We already have some speculating that we should use these same protocols to combat violent crime , for crying out loud .
How long would it be before these same senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data longer than the law allows so they can combat that “ emergency ” or whatever ?
No , that ’ s a bridge too far .
Let ’ s hope the FBI has good enough sense to blow off a handful of rabidly anti-gun senators and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong .

Millions of people bought guns in the month of March. In fact, almost a million more bought them in March than in February in one of the biggest spikes in gun purchases ever. Further, many of them were new gun owners, people who had never purchased a firearm before in their lives. It was a good month for the gun industry, to say the least.
However, it was such a surge that the NICS had trouble keeping up. In fact, delays were and still are quite common.
As per law, though, delays can only keep someone from taking possession of their gun for so long. Unfortunately, for some gun-grabbing senators, that delay isn’t nearly long enough.
One day after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported an unprecedented surge in background checks for prospective gun buyers, a coalition of 16 Democratic U.S. senators is expressing concerns about guns ending up in the hands of prohibited purchasers. In a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Regina Lombardo, the senators warn that a dramatic increase in gun sales could “overwhelm” the FBI’s capacity to screen out domestic abusers, among those prohibited from owning firearms. The letter, the result of an effort led by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, was obtained by Newsweek. The FBI is chiefly responsible for conducting background checks through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which searches three FBI-maintained databases to produce records indicating whether a prospective gun owner is prohibited by federal or state law from possessing a firearm. … In addition to Markey, Blumenthal and Murphy, the other signatories include Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bob Menendez, Sherrod Brown, Chris Coons, Chris Van Hollen, Michael Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Tom Carper, Kirsten Gillibrand and Mazie Hirono.
In other words, it was the usual suspects. Shocking, I know.
However, what none of these senators seem to understand is that prohibited people have other ways to get guns. They know where to get a gun to completely sidestep the background check process, even in states with supposedly universal background checks. They’re not walking into a gun store looking to take advantage of the current chaos because they’ll bypass that altogether.
Part of the reason for that is the fact that in order to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, you still have to provide ID and fill out a form 4473. In other words, there will be a paper trail telling the powers that be that you tried to buy a gun. And that’s if things work like they’re expected to. There’s always a risk that at that moment, there’s no real delay.
So, prohibited people will skip it.
The senators in question, however, don’t understand any of that. How would they know what ordinary criminals do, right? Hell, most of them view all gun owners as potential criminals anyway.
What they’re asking for is two-fold.
One is they want the FBI to tell them how many background checks take longer than three days. I’m not sure why, since anyone with a brain can tell this is a somewhat temporary situation, but whatever. That’s not the end of the world, I suppose.
The other thing they want is for the FBI to issue an emergency directive that allows them to ignore the laws passed by Congress and hold onto background check data longer than 90 days.
That needs to be a non-starter.
Look, many of us are basically locked in our homes with almost no outlet for actual human contact beyond our immediate families and the grocery store. We’re facing curfews, having to work from home, having to educate our children ourselves, and otherwise have our entire lives upended because of the actions of politicians who did it with a stroke of the pen.
Many of us don’t like the requirements, but we’re tolerating them because it’s what we should be doing without the rules. We’re trying to protect our families from a deadly disease, so while we may not like the current rules, we’re following them.
But this is a call for a federal agency to just unilaterally decide to ignore the law and hold onto sensitive records for longer than the permitted time period. That’s a precedent we shouldn’t tolerate starting. We already have some speculating that we should use these same protocols to combat violent crime, for crying out loud. How long would it be before these same senators call on the FBI to hold onto data longer than the law allows so they can combat that “emergency” or whatever?
No, that’s a bridge too far.
Let’s hope the FBI has good enough sense to blow off a handful of rabidly anti-gun senators and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.