bearingarms--2020-05-14--Protesters Return To MI State Capitol, Demand Whitmer's Resignation

A crowd of about 250 people gathered outside of the state capitol building in Lansing , Michigan , on Thursday for the first reopen rally since lawmakers in the state began pushing for a ban on lawfully carried firearms inside the building .
According to local press accounts , about a dozen or so of the protesters came bearing arms , while some attendees chastised local media for focusing almost exclusively on those exercising their Second Amendment rights while ignoring the economic reasons that brought folks from across the state to the capitol steps .
“ The govenor is lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live , ” one of the protesters , Laura Roush , said .
Roush told News 10 she is running for a spot in the Michigan House of Representatives .
She said the media is focusing more on gun carriers and sign carriers , when in reality , their whole group is more peaceful than not .
“ I did that to bring attention to the fact that the media is focusing on a few people that might look more threatening , when we as a group are not threatening , ” Roush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to just show that we have rights , that we want to protect our rights , I mean what ’ s happening right now is ridiculous.
” She said people deserve to be able to work .
“ We deserve to go out there and be the soldiers we are to protect our way of life and that is us going out and working right now , ” Roush said .
WILX-TV reports that capitol police made one arrest during the protest , but says the individual arrested was carrying an axe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Detroit Free Press , meanwhile , reported that Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer was playing up the prospect of unrest by protesters before the event even took place .
In the days leading up to the protest , officials braced for a tense affair given similarly themed , volatile gatherings last month and threatening online chatter directed at Whitmer recently .
“ The fact of the matter is the Michigan Capitol is one of the few in the country where people can come bearing guns .
… What we anticipate seeing tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others , ” Whitmer said Wednesday .
I ’ m sure the governor is disappointed that the protest was a peaceful one because she ’ ll have a hard time trying to portray the attendees as violent extremists intent on doing harm .
Whitmer was definitely a focus of the protest , with several speakers demanding the governor step down or be removed from office .
As a light but steady rain fell on Capitol Plaza , the protesters , with dozens of members of the media on-hand , gathered to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popup canopy on the steps of the statehouse and called for Whitmer ’ s arrest or resignation , even demanding the state Legislature take a vote of no-confidence .
The first few speakers seemed to find great favor with neither political party , though they stated a preference for Republicans because they said they ’ re not as bad as Democrats .
Early speakers expressed a more Libertarian streak , and said Whitmer is bucking more to be Joe Biden ’ s vice-presidential nominee than to keep the interests of her constituency at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only a handful of protesters were visibly armed , NPR ignored the vast majority of protest attendees and painted a picture of a protest comprised solely of guys and gals with guns .
Despite heavy rain , armed protesters gathered Thursday at the State Capitol in Michigan in what the organizing group , Michigan United for Liberty , has branded “ judgment day.
” This was the third planned demonstration since Michigan has been under a stay-at-home-order from Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
Ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were made in private Facebook groups threatening Whitmer and lawmakers with violence , according to reporting by the Detroit Metro Times .
When asked about the threats in a Wednesday appearance on ABC ’ s The View Whitmer said , “ I would be not truthful if I said it didn ’ t bother me .
It certainly does.
” Whitmer added , “ These protests , in a perverse way , make it likelier that we ’ re going to stay in a stay-home posture.
” If the protests make it more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked down , that ’ s her decision .
People have a right to peaceably assemble , they have a right to protest , and for now , anyway , they have the right to legally carry on the capitol grounds and in the capitol building .
At the moment , Michigan is currently using about 66-percent of ICU beds and less than 33-percent of all ventilators in the state .
Hospitalizations for the coronavirus in the state have dropped by about 65-percent since early April , and the number of new cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , the state has bent the curve downward , but Whitmer ’ s still threatening to keep the state locked down because people are speaking up .
Today ’ s protest may not have been as large as previous gatherings , but I think organizers should be pleased that several hundred individuals turned out in a cold spring rain to get their message across peacefully .
Gov .
Whitmer spent a lot of time this week hoping to convince Michiganders to be afraid of those protesting , but those exercising their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday proved her wrong .

A crowd of about 250 people gathered outside of the state capitol building in Lansing, Michigan, on Thursday for the first reopen rally since lawmakers in the state began pushing for a ban on lawfully carried firearms inside the building. According to local press accounts, about a dozen or so of the protesters came bearing arms, while some attendees chastised local media for focusing almost exclusively on those exercising their Second Amendment rights while ignoring the economic reasons that brought folks from across the state to the capitol steps.
“The govenor is lying to you, I hope this is live,” one of the protesters, Laura Roush, said. Roush told News 10 she is running for a spot in the Michigan House of Representatives. She said the media is focusing more on gun carriers and sign carriers, when in reality, their whole group is more peaceful than not. “I did that to bring attention to the fact that the media is focusing on a few people that might look more threatening, when we as a group are not threatening,” Roush told News 10. “We are here to just show that we have rights, that we want to protect our rights, I mean what’s happening right now is ridiculous.” She said people deserve to be able to work. “We deserve to go out there and be the soldiers we are to protect our way of life and that is us going out and working right now,” Roush said.
WILX-TV reports that capitol police made one arrest during the protest, but says the individual arrested was carrying an axe, not an AR-15 or a firearm. The Detroit Free Press, meanwhile, reported that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was playing up the prospect of unrest by protesters before the event even took place.
In the days leading up to the protest, officials braced for a tense affair given similarly themed, volatile gatherings last month and threatening online chatter directed at Whitmer recently. “The fact of the matter is the Michigan Capitol is one of the few in the country where people can come bearing guns. … What we anticipate seeing tomorrow is people using those guns to intimidate others,” Whitmer said Wednesday.
I’m sure the governor is disappointed that the protest was a peaceful one because she’ll have a hard time trying to portray the attendees as violent extremists intent on doing harm. Whitmer was definitely a focus of the protest, with several speakers demanding the governor step down or be removed from office.
As a light but steady rain fell on Capitol Plaza, the protesters, with dozens of members of the media on-hand, gathered to listen to speakers, who were positioned under a popup canopy on the steps of the statehouse and called for Whitmer’s arrest or resignation, even demanding the state Legislature take a vote of no-confidence. The first few speakers seemed to find great favor with neither political party, though they stated a preference for Republicans because they said they’re not as bad as Democrats. Early speakers expressed a more Libertarian streak, and said Whitmer is bucking more to be Joe Biden’s vice-presidential nominee than to keep the interests of her constituency at heart.
While the Free Press reported that only a handful of protesters were visibly armed, NPR ignored the vast majority of protest attendees and painted a picture of a protest comprised solely of guys and gals with guns.
Despite heavy rain, armed protesters gathered Thursday at the State Capitol in Michigan in what the organizing group, Michigan United for Liberty, has branded “judgment day.” This was the third planned demonstration since Michigan has been under a stay-at-home-order from Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Ahead of Thursday’s protest, comments were made in private Facebook groups threatening Whitmer and lawmakers with violence, according to reporting by the Detroit Metro Times. When asked about the threats in a Wednesday appearance on ABC’s The View Whitmer said, “I would be not truthful if I said it didn’t bother me. It certainly does.” Whitmer added, “These protests, in a perverse way, make it likelier that we’re going to stay in a stay-home posture.”
If the protests make it more likely that the governor keeps the state locked down, that’s her decision. People have a right to peaceably assemble, they have a right to protest, and for now, anyway, they have the right to legally carry on the capitol grounds and in the capitol building.
At the moment, Michigan is currently using about 66-percent of ICU beds and less than 33-percent of all ventilators in the state. Hospitalizations for the coronavirus in the state have dropped by about 65-percent since early April, and the number of new cases continues to decline as well. In other words, the state has bent the curve downward, but Whitmer’s still threatening to keep the state locked down because people are speaking up.
Today’s protest may not have been as large as previous gatherings, but I think organizers should be pleased that several hundred individuals turned out in a cold spring rain to get their message across peacefully. Gov. Whitmer spent a lot of time this week hoping to convince Michiganders to be afraid of those protesting, but those exercising their First and Second Amendment rights in Lansing on Thursday proved her wrong.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--NJ Ex-Cops File Suit Over Gun Carry Restrictions

Police officers have a unique position in American society .
By virtue of their job , they piss people off pretty much every time they go to work .
Sure , you might be cool with getting pulled over for speeding because you know you were , but some get outright furious that they were the ones pulled over for it .
And that ’ s just the pedestrian stuff .
Every arrest they make runs the risk of creating an enemy , one who might well seek revenge at some other point .
Just how big that risk turns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of factors , of course , but that ’ s all beyond the officer ’ s control .
As such , even some former officers carry firearms to protect themselves from these potential enemies .
Unfortunately , some former officers are upset about the rules the state puts on them in order for them to carry .
A New Jersey law that requires extra hurdles for retired cops who want to carry a concealed firearm is illegal and state officials should be barred from enforcing it , two police organizations allege in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , retired officers who have federal permission to carry concealed firearms must apply for a separate permit , meet different qualifications and pay additional fees to gain that privilege in New Jersey , according to the suit .
New Jersey also adds improper age restrictions and wrongly gives state officials “ unfettered discretion ” to deny permits , the lawsuit says .
The complaint was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Newark .
The plaintiffs are the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association , the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police and three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to force New Jersey to allow retired officers to possess hollow-point bullets .
Of course , this is New Jersey .
This is the same state where average citizens can ’ t even get a concealed carry permit .
In the mind of state officials , they ’ re being downright magnanimous with retired police officers .
The problem here is that these officers are asking for special consideration that the average citizen of New Jersey simply can not get .
They want to carry hollowpoints , which I understand .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus making them safer for everyone except the bad guy , yet the state bans them .
However , it bans them for everyone .
Retired police officers aren ’ t special in this regard , and that ’ s a big part of what ’ s bothering them .
What I ’ m curious about is how many of these officers supported the shall-issue permitting laws ?
How many thought private citizens should be required to have a “ good ” reason before a permit is issued ?
I ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who did are now upset that they are the ones facing restrictions .
Don ’ t get me wrong , all of these restrictions are total BS and a violation of the Law Enforcement Officers ’ Safety Act ( LEOSA ) and the state should lose big-time in court .
I ’ m just saying that the average , law-abiding citizen in New Jersey is also subject to danger in their day-to-day lives and they don ’ t get any special treatment .
Instead , they get hosed by their home state .

Police officers have a unique position in American society. By virtue of their job, they piss people off pretty much every time they go to work. Sure, you might be cool with getting pulled over for speeding because you know you were, but some get outright furious that they were the ones pulled over for it.
And that’s just the pedestrian stuff.
Every arrest they make runs the risk of creating an enemy, one who might well seek revenge at some other point. Just how big that risk turns out to be depends on a number of factors, of course, but that’s all beyond the officer’s control.
As such, even some former officers carry firearms to protect themselves from these potential enemies.
Unfortunately, some former officers are upset about the rules the state puts on them in order for them to carry.
A New Jersey law that requires extra hurdles for retired cops who want to carry a concealed firearm is illegal and state officials should be barred from enforcing it, two police organizations allege in a new federal lawsuit. Under state law, retired officers who have federal permission to carry concealed firearms must apply for a separate permit, meet different qualifications and pay additional fees to gain that privilege in New Jersey, according to the suit. New Jersey also adds improper age restrictions and wrongly gives state officials “unfettered discretion” to deny permits, the lawsuit says. The complaint was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Newark. The plaintiffs are the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police and three retired federal officers. The lawsuit also seeks to force New Jersey to allow retired officers to possess hollow-point bullets.
Of course, this is New Jersey. This is the same state where average citizens can’t even get a concealed carry permit. In the mind of state officials, they’re being downright magnanimous with retired police officers.
The problem here is that these officers are asking for special consideration that the average citizen of New Jersey simply cannot get. They want to carry hollowpoints, which I understand. The expansion reduces the risk of overpenetration, thus making them safer for everyone except the bad guy, yet the state bans them.
However, it bans them for everyone. Retired police officers aren’t special in this regard, and that’s a big part of what’s bothering them.
What I’m curious about is how many of these officers supported the shall-issue permitting laws? How many thought private citizens should be required to have a “good” reason before a permit is issued? I’d be willing to bet that a fair number who did are now upset that they are the ones facing restrictions.
Don’t get me wrong, all of these restrictions are total BS and a violation of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA) and the state should lose big-time in court.
I’m just saying that the average, law-abiding citizen in New Jersey is also subject to danger in their day-to-day lives and they don’t get any special treatment. Instead, they get hosed by their home state.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--SAF Leader Says Mexico Deserves Answers About Operation Fast and Furious

As we ’ ve reported over the past few days , the Obama administration ’ s gun-walking program called Operation Fast and Furious is back in the spotlight after former Mexican President Felipe Calderon and current Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador have publicly quarreled over whether or not the Calderon administration was ever informed of details of the operation before it began .
Earlier this week , Mexico ’ s foreign minister sent a note to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City seeking any information about discussions between the Obama and Calderon administrations regarding the program , which allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Second Amendment Foundation executive director Alan Gottlieb joins me to discuss the brewing international incident and says he ’ s reached out to the White House to urge them to cooperate with Lopez Obrador ’ s request for answers to the lingering questions .
Gottlieb calls Fast and Furious a “ scandal of monumental proportions , ” and points out that the Obama/Biden administration at “ first feigned ignorance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Oversight Committee , claiming executive privilege until a federal court ordered them to be turned over to investigators.
” The SAF head says that he sympathizes with Lopez Obrador in his search for answers , and believes the American people are also entitled to know some of the still-hidden details about the operation .
“ Under Barack Obama , Joe Biden and former Attorney General Eric Holder , the federal Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) allowed more than 2,000 firearms to get into criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been killed , including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry .
“ Mexico and every U.S. citizen deserves not only an apology but Holder and several other former Obama/Biden administration officials should have been criminally prosecuted , ” he stated .
“ Bad actors should be punished , not law abiding American gun owners , as Joe Biden has proposed with his gun control agenda if elected president.
” Gottlieb says it ’ s clear to him that the Obama-Biden administration was hoping to use the increased violence in Mexico to push for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , and adds that Joe Biden himself should be facing some questions about what , if anything , the administration said about Operation Fast and Furious to their Mexican counterparts .
I also had the chance to talk with Gottlieb about some of the continued court cases that have been filed around the country in the wake of stay-at-home orders declaring gun stores non-essential businesses .
The Second Amendment activist praised the ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that allowed gun stores to reopen and says work continues in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought against several California counties , cities , and officials over gun store closures in the Bay-area of the state .
Check out the entire interview above , and stick around for more stories , including a Tennessee man facing attempted murder charges just weeks after he was allowed to bond out of jail on charges of stealing and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon , a North Dakota man arrested on murder charges who ’ s now been cleared by prosecutors , and a Brooklyn man in the right place at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from drowning in the chilly waters off Coney Island .
On tomorrow ’ s program , we ’ ll be talking with Culpeper County , Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins , who says he isn ’ t going to trample on anyone ’ s constitutional rights by enforcing Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s latest coronavirus-related executive order .

As we’ve reported over the past few days, the Obama administration’s gun-walking program called Operation Fast and Furious is back in the spotlight after former Mexican President Felipe Calderon and current Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador have publicly quarreled over whether or not the Calderon administration was ever informed of details of the operation before it began. Earlier this week, Mexico’s foreign minister sent a note to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City seeking any information about discussions between the Obama and Calderon administrations regarding the program, which allowed thousands of firearms to be walked across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Second Amendment Foundation executive director Alan Gottlieb joins me to discuss the brewing international incident and says he’s reached out to the White House to urge them to cooperate with Lopez Obrador’s request for answers to the lingering questions.
Gottlieb calls Fast and Furious a “scandal of monumental proportions,” and points out that the Obama/Biden administration at “first feigned ignorance, then withheld thousands of subpoenaed documents from the House Oversight Committee, claiming executive privilege until a federal court ordered them to be turned over to investigators.”
The SAF head says that he sympathizes with Lopez Obrador in his search for answers, and believes the American people are also entitled to know some of the still-hidden details about the operation.
“Under Barack Obama, Joe Biden and former Attorney General Eric Holder, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed more than 2,000 firearms to get into criminal hands in Mexico. Many people have been killed, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. “Mexico and every U.S. citizen deserves not only an apology but Holder and several other former Obama/Biden administration officials should have been criminally prosecuted,” he stated. “Bad actors should be punished, not law abiding American gun owners, as Joe Biden has proposed with his gun control agenda if elected president.”
Gottlieb says it’s clear to him that the Obama-Biden administration was hoping to use the increased violence in Mexico to push for a ban on modern sporting rifles here in the United States, and adds that Joe Biden himself should be facing some questions about what, if anything, the administration said about Operation Fast and Furious to their Mexican counterparts.
I also had the chance to talk with Gottlieb about some of the continued court cases that have been filed around the country in the wake of stay-at-home orders declaring gun stores non-essential businesses. The Second Amendment activist praised the ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that allowed gun stores to reopen and says work continues in several other challenges, including a case brought against several California counties, cities, and officials over gun store closures in the Bay-area of the state.
Check out the entire interview above, and stick around for more stories, including a Tennessee man facing attempted murder charges just weeks after he was allowed to bond out of jail on charges of stealing and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, a North Dakota man arrested on murder charges who’s now been cleared by prosecutors, and a Brooklyn man in the right place at the right time to save a woman from drowning in the chilly waters off Coney Island.
On tomorrow’s program, we’ll be talking with Culpeper County, Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins, who says he isn’t going to trample on anyone’s constitutional rights by enforcing Gov. Ralph Northam’s latest coronavirus-related executive order.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--Over 100 Inmates Released From Rikers Busted For New Offenses

When deciding whether or not to release inmates from jail , public officials probably tried to weigh the risks .
Would the public be in greater danger if inmates were released , or would more people lose their lives being locked up with COVID-19 patients ?
It shouldn ’ t have been an easy decision , and I get the move .
I really do .
They ’ d personally be on the hook if the virus tore through jails because of overcrowding and officials did nothing to try and mitigate the threat .
However , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with who got released .
In fact , in New York alone , over 100 inmates from Rikers Island have been arrested for new crimes .
Over 100 inmates who were released from Rikers Island due to coronavirus concerns have been arrested again .
Police sources claim that released inmates have been responsible for 190 arrests since the pandemic hit .
Of the 1500 inmates released in March , 7 % have reoffended , according to a New York Post report .
Democratic New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ordered the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 91 inmates out of every 1,000 tested positive for coronavirus , according to The Intercept .
Democratic New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio said that prisoners over 50 or with pre-existing health conditions that would make them more susceptible to coronavirus would be prioritized for release .
About a quarter of those arrested have been busted for burglary , but at least some others have been arrested for violent crimes .
DeBlasio ’ s prioritization probably didn ’ t help .
As we ’ ve seen , when you create criteria like age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well be releasing some of the very worst people possible .
For example , Washington almost released a notorious serial killer .
So far , there ’ s no word of New York having gone that far , but they ’ ve gone far enough .
The problem is that officials in the notoriously liberal state felt like they had to do something to protect inmates .
Unfortunately , the only thing they could think of under the circumstances was to let them out and allow them to run roughshod over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are criminals .
Many are career criminals .
If released , what do you think they ’ re going to do ?
You ’ re deluded if you think they ’ re going to take up knitting and join a book club .
No , they ’ re going back to their criminal ways .
They ’ re going to rob , steal , and hurt people .
They ’ re going right back to doing what they know .
After all , if they get arrested , they know they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general population for as long as the pandemic continues .
Oh , they ’ ll do more time in the long run , but these folks aren ’ t known for weighing the long-term consequences of their actions anyway .
If they did , they wouldn ’ t be criminals in the first place , most likely .
The question is , just how many people are going to be hurt in the long run because of these people .
Even if all of the re-arrested were busted for burglary , that still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times that we already find ourselves in .
And the thing is , they ’ re not all arrested for burglary .
Some are doing much worse and expect to see still more come before this is all over .

When deciding whether or not to release inmates from jail, public officials probably tried to weigh the risks. Would the public be in greater danger if inmates were released, or would more people lose their lives being locked up with COVID-19 patients? It shouldn’t have been an easy decision, and I get the move. I really do. They’d personally be on the hook if the virus tore through jails because of overcrowding and officials did nothing to try and mitigate the threat.
However, it doesn’t look like officials were all that careful with who got released. In fact, in New York alone, over 100 inmates from Rikers Island have been arrested for new crimes.
Over 100 inmates who were released from Rikers Island due to coronavirus concerns have been arrested again. Police sources claim that released inmates have been responsible for 190 arrests since the pandemic hit. Of the 1500 inmates released in March, 7% have reoffended, according to a New York Post report. Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered the release of the prisoners in late March after approximately 91 inmates out of every 1,000 tested positive for coronavirus, according to The Intercept. Democratic New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio said that prisoners over 50 or with pre-existing health conditions that would make them more susceptible to coronavirus would be prioritized for release.
About a quarter of those arrested have been busted for burglary, but at least some others have been arrested for violent crimes.
DeBlasio’s prioritization probably didn’t help. As we’ve seen, when you create criteria like age and health conditions for release, you may well be releasing some of the very worst people possible. For example, Washington almost released a notorious serial killer. So far, there’s no word of New York having gone that far, but they’ve gone far enough.
The problem is that officials in the notoriously liberal state felt like they had to do something to protect inmates. Unfortunately, the only thing they could think of under the circumstances was to let them out and allow them to run roughshod over the law-abiding people of New York.
These are criminals. Many are career criminals. If released, what do you think they’re going to do? You’re deluded if you think they’re going to take up knitting and join a book club.
No, they’re going back to their criminal ways. They’re going to rob, steal, and hurt people. They’re going right back to doing what they know.
After all, if they get arrested, they know they’ll probably get released right back into the general population for as long as the pandemic continues. Oh, they’ll do more time in the long run, but these folks aren’t known for weighing the long-term consequences of their actions anyway. If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals in the first place, most likely.
The question is, just how many people are going to be hurt in the long run because of these people. Even if all of the re-arrested were busted for burglary, that still hurts people. Especially in tough economic times that we already find ourselves in.
And the thing is, they’re not all arrested for burglary. Some are doing much worse and expect to see still more come before this is all over.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--Bloomberg's Anti-Gun Newsroom Takes Aim At Gun Stores

Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun news outlet The Trace has partnered up with USA Today for a story about gun stores remaining open during the coronavirus pandemic , and as you can imagine , the reporters take a dim view of gun stores that have continued to serve customers , even in states that have declared them to be “ non-essential ” businesses .
The Trace ‘ s Champe Barton and Daniel Nass , along with USA Today ’ s Kevin Johnson , found that in some states that had ordered gun stores closed , April ’ s NICS background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
In Washington state , for instance , checks increased 45 % over April 2019 ; in New Mexico , they increased 15 % .
Checks increased by 112 % in Michigan , where at least part of the surge may be attributed to a March 3 ruling by the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , according to a spokesperson for the Michigan State Police .
That ruling said that firearms dealers can not accept a Michigan-issued concealed carry permit in lieu of conducting a background check , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously not counted –– to the FBI data .
Of course the reporters found plenty of gun control advocates who are clutching their pearls over this development .
Anthony Coulson , a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent who is an expert on the background check system , said the increased gun sales rendered the stay-at-home orders “ meaningless.
” “ What ’ s the motivation for implementing a nonessential order if it ’ s not going to be enforced and has no impact ?
” Coulson asked .
Good question .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully enforce stay-at-home measures without turning into an authoritarian police state ?
Coulson ’ s wrong , by the way , that there ’ s been no enforcement taken against gun stores .
It ’ s just that the enforcement has been largely arbitrary and capricious .
In Grants , New Mexico , Papas Pawn and Guns has been fined $ 60,000 for remaining open in defiance of Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham ’ s emergency order , and The Trace spoke to another New Mexico gun owner who ’ s remained open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ two little girls at home to feed.
” Christian Heyne , the vice president of policy for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence called gun stores ’ disobedience deeply concerning .
The United States relies on gun stores , as federally licensed businesses , to follow state and federal guidelines to ensure the safety of communities across the country , he said , “ so it is incredibly alarming to think that there are a number of gun dealers that are essentially going rogue.
” No , they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting business by the books , including background checks on every sale .
These stores are basically declaring themselves essential , and in many cases , they ’ re doing so with the support of local law enforcement .
In Michigan , for example , a spokesperson for the state ’ s Attorney General ’ s office told the Detroit Free Press that nonessential businesses could face forced closures and up to 90 days in jail for refusing to comply with the governor ’ s order .
The Michigan State Police recently cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking it to close or face harsher penalties .
But several of the Michigan gun retailers interviewed for this story said that local authorities were aware of their operations and had taken no action .
When provided background check data suggesting noncompliance among gun stores in the state , a spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general ’ s office said that enforcement was being handled at the local level .
He added : “ There has been nothing in Governor Whitmer ’ s executive orders that has specifically referenced firearm retailers.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores of exploiting “ loopholes ” to remain open , which is another way of saying that some retailers have found a way to continue operating their business without violating a state ’ s emergency order .
Ryan Blake , who runs High Plains Gun Shop six hours east of Burnett ’ s store , in Clovis , New Mexico , said his store had been approved to stay open by local authorities .
“ We ’ re essentially a department of an essential business since we ’ re located in a hardware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So we ’ ve fallen under a gray area.
” Likewise , Paul Smith , who runs S & S Gun Sales in Auburn , New York , said he found a loophole in Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s order .
“ We were not originally on the list of essential businesses , but being a single proprietor gun store owner , I realized I could be open when I choose to , ” he said .
New Mexico Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham ’ s office , which has the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stay-at-home order , did not respond to requests for comment .
In New York , a spokesperson for the Empire State Development Corporation , which determines which businesses are considered essential under Cuomo ’ s order , said that gun stores , like all non-essential retail , were permitted to have one person in the shop to fulfill online orders .
If The Trace ‘ s billionaire backer had his way , every gun store in the country would be shut down on general principle , not because of a stay-at-home order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand the fact that Americans are purchasing firearms in record numbers , and it drives them crazy to know that many of the folks coming in to these retail establishments have never owned a gun in their life until now .

Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun news outlet The Trace has partnered up with USA Today for a story about gun stores remaining open during the coronavirus pandemic, and as you can imagine, the reporters take a dim view of gun stores that have continued to serve customers, even in states that have declared them to be “non-essential” businesses. The Trace‘s Champe Barton and Daniel Nass, along with USA Today’s Kevin Johnson, found that in some states that had ordered gun stores closed, April’s NICS background check figures were higher than April of 2019.
In Washington state, for instance, checks increased 45% over April 2019; in New Mexico, they increased 15%. Checks increased by 112% in Michigan, where at least part of the surge may be attributed to a March 3 ruling by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to a spokesperson for the Michigan State Police. That ruling said that firearms dealers cannot accept a Michigan-issued concealed carry permit in lieu of conducting a background check, adding gun transfers to permit holders – previously not counted –– to the FBI data.
Of course the reporters found plenty of gun control advocates who are clutching their pearls over this development.
Anthony Coulson, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent who is an expert on the background check system, said the increased gun sales rendered the stay-at-home orders “meaningless.” “What’s the motivation for implementing a nonessential order if it’s not going to be enforced and has no impact?” Coulson asked.
Good question. Here’s another: How does a state fully enforce stay-at-home measures without turning into an authoritarian police state? Coulson’s wrong, by the way, that there’s been no enforcement taken against gun stores. It’s just that the enforcement has been largely arbitrary and capricious. In Grants, New Mexico, Papas Pawn and Guns has been fined $60,000 for remaining open in defiance of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order, and The Trace spoke to another New Mexico gun owner who’s remained open despite fines because he says he has “two little girls at home to feed.”
Christian Heyne, the vice president of policy for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence called gun stores’ disobedience deeply concerning. The United States relies on gun stores, as federally licensed businesses, to follow state and federal guidelines to ensure the safety of communities across the country, he said, “so it is incredibly alarming to think that there are a number of gun dealers that are essentially going rogue.”
No, they’re not going rogue. They’re still conducting business by the books, including background checks on every sale. These stores are basically declaring themselves essential, and in many cases, they’re doing so with the support of local law enforcement.
In Michigan, for example, a spokesperson for the state’s Attorney General’s office told the Detroit Free Press that nonessential businesses could face forced closures and up to 90 days in jail for refusing to comply with the governor’s order. The Michigan State Police recently cited an Owosso barber shop for noncompliance, asking it to close or face harsher penalties. But several of the Michigan gun retailers interviewed for this story said that local authorities were aware of their operations and had taken no action. When provided background check data suggesting noncompliance among gun stores in the state, a spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general’s office said that enforcement was being handled at the local level. He added: “There has been nothing in Governor Whitmer’s executive orders that has specifically referenced firearm retailers.”
The Trace and USA Today also accuse gun stores of exploiting “loopholes” to remain open, which is another way of saying that some retailers have found a way to continue operating their business without violating a state’s emergency order.
Ryan Blake, who runs High Plains Gun Shop six hours east of Burnett’s store, in Clovis, New Mexico, said his store had been approved to stay open by local authorities. “We’re essentially a department of an essential business since we’re located in a hardware store,” he said. “So we’ve fallen under a gray area.” Likewise, Paul Smith, who runs S&S Gun Sales in Auburn, New York, said he found a loophole in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s order. “We were not originally on the list of essential businesses, but being a single proprietor gun store owner, I realized I could be open when I choose to,” he said. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office, which has the authority to issue exemptions to New Mexico’s stay-at-home order, did not respond to requests for comment. In New York, a spokesperson for the Empire State Development Corporation, which determines which businesses are considered essential under Cuomo’s order, said that gun stores, like all non-essential retail, were permitted to have one person in the shop to fulfill online orders.
If The Trace‘s billionaire backer had his way, every gun store in the country would be shut down on general principle, not because of a stay-at-home order. Gun control groups can’t stand the fact that Americans are purchasing firearms in record numbers, and it drives them crazy to know that many of the folks coming in to these retail establishments have never owned a gun in their life until now.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--Maine Man Sold Guns Illegally To Supplement Income

A retired man in Maine is in court charged with multiple counts of selling firearms without a license .
You see , while Maine is a pretty pro-gun state that lacks universal background check requirements , the gentleman in question was buying and selling guns in an effort to make a profit .
He was selling them like a business .
The problem ?
He lacked the federal license to do so .
It seems he had an understandable reason for breaking this particular law , though .
A 71-year-old Lisbon man appeared remotely Wednesday in U.S. District Court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a federal firearms license .
Wendell Millett , who winters in St. Petersburg , Florida , was released on bail .
He has claimed that he buys and sells many items besides guns , including boats and lawnmowers .
Millet was trying to supplement his Social Security income , according to his attorney , Verne Paradie of Lewiston .
“ He was not trying to be a black-market dealer or intending for them to get into the wrong hands , ” Paradie said .
“ He enjoys it .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , it is illegal to sell guns to make a profit without a federal firearms license .
Millett had a license from February 1989 to September 1994 but let it lapse , according to court documents .
I get it .
I really do understand where he ’ s coming from .
Of course , that last paragraph isn ’ t quite accurate .
It ’ s illegal to buy and sell several guns in an effort to generate a continuing profit , but there ’ s nothing illegal about making money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I sell an SKS that I paid $ 100 for at the going rate for today , I ’ d more than triple my money .
That ’ s not illegal in the least .
Selling ten of them , however , is .
The difference is a matter of scale .
Millet didn ’ t just sell a gun or two per year , he ’ s accused of selling more than the allowable number .
It should also be noted that Millet sold plenty of other goods in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye at those .
He may have sold dozens of them per year , and still nothing .
It ’ s only the guns that created a problem .
However , Millet was a licensed gun dealer for five years .
That suggests he actually knew he was breaking the law , and that ’ s not going to work out well for him .
Not that it should matter , mind you , but my opinion on this isn ’ t going to sway a court .
The law is the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular law is about to be overturned , either , which means Millet will likely go to prison where all of his expenses will be paid for by the taxpayers , so he won ’ t need to supplement his social security .
That said , I do think Millet was trying to be careful with who he sold guns to .
I ’ m quite sure he sold them to people who he felt were good , decent , law-abiding folks , much like any of the rest of us would do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t be a crime to buy and sell guns to make a little bit of money on the side .
Unfortunately for Millet , though , it is .

A retired man in Maine is in court charged with multiple counts of selling firearms without a license. You see, while Maine is a pretty pro-gun state that lacks universal background check requirements, the gentleman in question was buying and selling guns in an effort to make a profit. He was selling them like a business.
The problem? He lacked the federal license to do so.
It seems he had an understandable reason for breaking this particular law, though.
A 71-year-old Lisbon man appeared remotely Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Portland on five counts of selling guns without a federal firearms license. Wendell Millett, who winters in St. Petersburg, Florida, was released on bail. He has claimed that he buys and sells many items besides guns, including boats and lawnmowers. Millet was trying to supplement his Social Security income, according to his attorney, Verne Paradie of Lewiston. “He was not trying to be a black-market dealer or intending for them to get into the wrong hands,” Paradie said. “He enjoys it. It’s a hobby for him.” Under federal law, it is illegal to sell guns to make a profit without a federal firearms license. Millett had a license from February 1989 to September 1994 but let it lapse, according to court documents.
I get it. I really do understand where he’s coming from.
Of course, that last paragraph isn’t quite accurate. It’s illegal to buy and sell several guns in an effort to generate a continuing profit, but there’s nothing illegal about making money on a deal. For example, if I sell an SKS that I paid $100 for at the going rate for today, I’d more than triple my money. That’s not illegal in the least.
Selling ten of them, however, is.
The difference is a matter of scale. Millet didn’t just sell a gun or two per year, he’s accused of selling more than the allowable number.
It should also be noted that Millet sold plenty of other goods in the same manner and no one is batting an eye at those. He may have sold dozens of them per year, and still nothing. It’s only the guns that created a problem.
However, Millet was a licensed gun dealer for five years. That suggests he actually knew he was breaking the law, and that’s not going to work out well for him.
Not that it should matter, mind you, but my opinion on this isn’t going to sway a court. The law is the law. It’s unlike that this particular law is about to be overturned, either, which means Millet will likely go to prison where all of his expenses will be paid for by the taxpayers, so he won’t need to supplement his social security.
That said, I do think Millet was trying to be careful with who he sold guns to. I’m quite sure he sold them to people who he felt were good, decent, law-abiding folks, much like any of the rest of us would do in our home states. It really shouldn’t be a crime to buy and sell guns to make a little bit of money on the side.
Unfortunately for Millet, though, it is.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--MT Arena Can Host HS Graduation, But Gun Show A No-No

A Billings , Montana gun show scheduled to take place in late May has been nixed by officials in Yellowstone County , but organizers are crying foul after those same health officials gave the green light for a high school graduation to take place in the same event space days earlier .
The Billings Gazette reports that health officials say there are big differences between the two events scheduled at First Interstate Arena at Metra Park .
The gun show is a “ large , uncontrolled environment , ” according to Barbara Schneeman , a spokeswoman for the county ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ s no way for organizers to maintain social distancing measures , but gun show organizers and arena management said were prepared for any contingency .
However , MetraPark Marketing Director Ray Massie said the venue had plans in place to control the flow of attendees and maintain social distancing at the gun show , which was set for May 29-31 .
“ We probably are more controlled than what you would have in a typical retail location , ” he said .
The dispute illustrates the nuance in reopening guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd size threshold for large events like a graduation or gun show .
Rather , meeting health rules depends on the nature of events and regulations in place .
That graduations could be held while the gun show was shut out was frustrating to gun show organizer Brian Kjensmo , who highlighted the economic costs of COVID-19 shutdowns .
It would have been the gun show ’ s 21st year .
“ Everybody ’ s feeling the effects of it , ” said Kjensmo .
Massey said organizers reduced the number of usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , moved from the Montana Pavilion building to the larger arena , created a floor plan for controlling the flow of people , and there were plans to limit crowd size to 500 total people .
Not good enough , according to the health department spokeswoman .
I get where the health department is coming from , but at the same time , Montana has reported 459 coronavirus cases statewide , and the state health department says that 423 of those individuals have recovered , while another 16 people have died from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment there are only 20 confirmed active coronavirus cases in all of Montana .
Billings isn ’ t exactly in the middle of a huge outbreak , in other words .
Additionally , organizers and arena management disagree with the health department in Yellowstone County comparing the gun show to a trade show , and say a better comparison would be to a shopping mall .
Under the state ’ s re-open plan , most retail establishments in malls are allowed to re-open in Phase One of the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to ten per store .
There ’ s likely to be even more frustration when the reopening plans don ’ t make a lot of sense , and honestly , the plans to block the gun show from taking place don ’ t make much sense at all .
Here ’ s hoping that arena officials and gun show organizers can come to some kind of agreement with the county health board .
If not , perhaps a legal challenge is in order .

A Billings, Montana gun show scheduled to take place in late May has been nixed by officials in Yellowstone County, but organizers are crying foul after those same health officials gave the green light for a high school graduation to take place in the same event space days earlier.
The Billings Gazette reports that health officials say there are big differences between the two events scheduled at First Interstate Arena at Metra Park. The gun show is a “large, uncontrolled environment,” according to Barbara Schneeman, a spokeswoman for the county’s public health agency. Schneeman says that there’s no way for organizers to maintain social distancing measures, but gun show organizers and arena management said were prepared for any contingency.
However, MetraPark Marketing Director Ray Massie said the venue had plans in place to control the flow of attendees and maintain social distancing at the gun show, which was set for May 29-31. “We probably are more controlled than what you would have in a typical retail location,” he said. The dispute illustrates the nuance in reopening guidelines; there’s not a yes-or-no crowd size threshold for large events like a graduation or gun show. Rather, meeting health rules depends on the nature of events and regulations in place. That graduations could be held while the gun show was shut out was frustrating to gun show organizer Brian Kjensmo, who highlighted the economic costs of COVID-19 shutdowns. It would have been the gun show’s 21st year. “Everybody’s feeling the effects of it,” said Kjensmo. Massey said organizers reduced the number of usual booths from about 80 to about 50, moved from the Montana Pavilion building to the larger arena, created a floor plan for controlling the flow of people, and there were plans to limit crowd size to 500 total people.
Not good enough, according to the health department spokeswoman.
“You have no way of really controlling the physical distance between people,” she said. In comparison, the planned graduations have assigned seating, separate entrances depending on tickets, staff on hand to help enforce distancing, and a choreographed plan that lasts only a few hours, she said.
I get where the health department is coming from, but at the same time, Montana has reported 459 coronavirus cases statewide, and the state health department says that 423 of those individuals have recovered, while another 16 people have died from the virus in the state. That means at the moment there are only 20 confirmed active coronavirus cases in all of Montana. Billings isn’t exactly in the middle of a huge outbreak, in other words.
Additionally, organizers and arena management disagree with the health department in Yellowstone County comparing the gun show to a trade show, and say a better comparison would be to a shopping mall. Under the state’s re-open plan, most retail establishments in malls are allowed to re-open in Phase One of the state’s re-open plan, though customers will be limited to ten per store.
Kjensmo was critical of what he felt was a buck-passing of sorts between local, state, and the federal government on reopening plans. He’d been calling vendors to notify them of the shutdown. “To say they’re unhappy is an understatement,” he said. Schneeman said county health officials have been in touch with the Metra about the event; Massie said that he was hoping for a meeting with health officials “in the next couple days” about potential modifications for Metra events. He acknowledged that health officials face “difficult choices.” Schneeman said that it’s fair to recognize that there’s likely to be frustration with reopening plans.
There’s likely to be even more frustration when the reopening plans don’t make a lot of sense, and honestly, the plans to block the gun show from taking place don’t make much sense at all. Here’s hoping that arena officials and gun show organizers can come to some kind of agreement with the county health board. If not, perhaps a legal challenge is in order.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--Trio Of Pro-2A Bills Advancing In Louisiana Legislature

The most incredible part of this story , to me anyway , is the fact that Louisiana legislators are meeting at all at the moment .
Many state capitols remain close with legislative sessions suspended due to the coronavirus , but in Baton Rouge on Wednesday lawmakers on a key House committee approved three pro-Second Amendment measures by wide margins .
HB 334 would remove the requirement that congregants approve the lawful carrying of firearms inside houses of worship .
“ Common sense should tell us that we shouldn ’ t have to protect ourselves in church , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican who sponsored House Bill 334 .
“ Criminals have certainly defined another narrative for us.
” Will Hall of the Louisiana Baptist Convention helped create the existing law that allows congregations to decide if concealed guns are allowed in a church .
He said HB334 would remove the ability of congregations to decide what they want for their own churches and probably force them to hire security since they won ’ t know who is carrying firearms into the sanctuary .
HB 140 is a measure that would limit the abilities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine where firearms can be lawfully carried in their jurisdictions .
Tom Gresham , longtime Second Amendment advocate and host of Gun Talk , was among those testifying in favor of the change , but there were critics of the bill on hand as well .
Karen White , of the Louisiana Municipal Association , said no evidence has been shown that local ordinances have caused any problems , except for a few anecdotes about incidents in other states .
But what House Bill 140 would do is “ obliterate ” ordinances in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hammond , Kenner , and Thibodaux – that limit carrying firearms into playgrounds , water parks , public parks , public buildings and commercial establishments where families and children visit .
Despite White ’ s objections , the committee approved the preemption bill on a 7-3 vote .
The committee also unanimously approved HB 781 , sponsored by Rep. Blake Miguez , which would prohibit the ability of elected officials to interfere with the transfer of firearms and ammunition during a state of emergency .
During debate on the bill , Miguez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send a message ” to local officials to keep their hands off the Second Amendment during an emergency .
He was alluding to the City of New Orleans , which after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 banned guns .
State law has since been changed to forbid confiscation but to allow local governments to suspend the local sale of firearms during a declared emergency .
New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell correctly cited her authority to issue an emergency order in March as being lodged in the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act includes wording that would allow a local governmental executive to suspend the sale of firearms during the emergency .
All three of the bills will now head to the House floor , and I expect that they ’ ll be received positively .
Louisiana gun owners shouldn ’ t take their success for granted , however , and they should be contacting their state representatives now to encourage them to support HB 781 , HB 334 , and HB 140 .

The most incredible part of this story, to me anyway, is the fact that Louisiana legislators are meeting at all at the moment. Many state capitols remain close with legislative sessions suspended due to the coronavirus, but in Baton Rouge on Wednesday lawmakers on a key House committee approved three pro-Second Amendment measures by wide margins.
HB 334 would remove the requirement that congregants approve the lawful carrying of firearms inside houses of worship.
“Common sense should tell us that we shouldn’t have to protect ourselves in church,” said state Rep. Bryan Fontenot, the Thibodaux Republican who sponsored House Bill 334. “Criminals have certainly defined another narrative for us.” Will Hall of the Louisiana Baptist Convention helped create the existing law that allows congregations to decide if concealed guns are allowed in a church. He said HB334 would remove the ability of congregations to decide what they want for their own churches and probably force them to hire security since they won’t know who is carrying firearms into the sanctuary.
HB 140 is a measure that would limit the abilities of local towns and parishes in Louisiana to determine where firearms can be lawfully carried in their jurisdictions. Tom Gresham, longtime Second Amendment advocate and host of Gun Talk, was among those testifying in favor of the change, but there were critics of the bill on hand as well.
Karen White, of the Louisiana Municipal Association, said no evidence has been shown that local ordinances have caused any problems, except for a few anecdotes about incidents in other states. But what House Bill 140 would do is “obliterate” ordinances in communities – like Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Kenner, and Thibodaux – that limit carrying firearms into playgrounds, water parks, public parks, public buildings and commercial establishments where families and children visit.
Despite White’s objections, the committee approved the preemption bill on a 7-3 vote. The committee also unanimously approved HB 781, sponsored by Rep. Blake Miguez, which would prohibit the ability of elected officials to interfere with the transfer of firearms and ammunition during a state of emergency. During debate on the bill, Miguez said that the state needs to “send a message” to local officials to keep their hands off the Second Amendment during an emergency.
He was alluding to the City of New Orleans, which after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 banned guns. State law has since been changed to forbid confiscation but to allow local governments to suspend the local sale of firearms during a declared emergency. New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell correctly cited her authority to issue an emergency order in March as being lodged in the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. Section 727 of the disaster act includes wording that would allow a local governmental executive to suspend the sale of firearms during the emergency.
All three of the bills will now head to the House floor, and I expect that they’ll be received positively. Louisiana gun owners shouldn’t take their success for granted, however, and they should be contacting their state representatives now to encourage them to support HB 781, HB 334, and HB 140.


bearingarms--2020-05-14--Anti-Gun Media Turns On Connecticut Governor

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont has his anti-gun credentials firmly in place .
No one in this country is really going to mistake him for a pro-gunner .
That ’ s true of most governors in the northeastern United States , I ’ m afraid .
However , is it possible to be too anti-gun for the media ?
Well , an editorial at a Connecticut news site certainly suggests that Lamont has crossed that line .
Second Amendment advocates have a legitimate gripe that one of Gov .
Ned Lamont ’ s executive orders is effectively conflicting with the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.
” So while we disagree with these irrational decisions by many of you to run out and buy guns in response to a pandemic , we will stand by your constitutional right to do so .
The right is infringed because state citizens can not currently obtain a permit .
And under Connecticut law , a person without a permit can not purchase a firearm or ammunition or carry a firearm .
Instead , while letting the stores operate , Lamont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prohibits state and local police from refusing to collect fingerprints for the purpose of a criminal-history record checks .
In other words , while police could still theoretically process the fingerprints , the legal requirement that they do so was suspended by the order .
Now , that ’ s a huge problem .
If people can ’ t get fingerprinted so they can get a required license , they are effectively deprived of their Second Amendment rights .
This isn ’ t a three-day waiting period we ’ re talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those , a case can be made that such a waiting period doesn ’ t deny anyone their right , only delays it .
Yet as things stand , we don ’ t know the trajectory of the virus .
We don ’ t know when things will get better , whether or not they ’ ll then get worse again , or anything .
We don ’ t really know if we ’ ll get back to normal .
That makes the departments refusing to do fingerprinting an open-ended infringement and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unconstitutional , one with no defined endpoint is particularly heinous .
It seems the editorial board somewhat agrees .
So while the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller , 2008 , made it clear reasonable limits could be placed on the right to bear arms , it also found “ the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes , most notably for self-defense within the home.
” The Connecticut Constitution states : “ Every citizen has a right to bear arms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If someone who meets the legal requirements wants to buy a gun in response to a pandemic , it his or her right and it should not be infringed .
While they don ’ t outright side with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and their lawsuit to challenge Lamont ’ s order , they offer important support .
It should be noted that the board does state their support for gun control–they ’ re not a bunch of pro-gun journalists who somehow ended up at the same place–but Lamont ’ s actions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing , the should be applauded for clearly having some principles .
While I ’ m sure I disagree with the members of that board on so many different issues it ’ s not even funny , they made a stand based on their beliefs , a stand that will likely earn them scorn from their “ side.
” Yet stand they did .
Of course , they should also be applauded for being right on this .
Lamont ’ s order that lifted the requirement for police departments to fingerprint people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fix it , but he hasn ’ t .
I can ’ t imagine he hasn ’ t heard of the problems his order has caused , yet he ’ s done nothing .
That ’ s because people like Lamont generally don ’ t give a damn about people like you .
They don ’ t care about your fears or concerns , much less your rights .
They ’ re fine with you being disarmed for as long as possible because they can claim that fewer guns mean less violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violence are still buying guns left and right .
They don ’ t get licenses .
They don ’ t get background checks .
They only get fingerprinted when they ’ re arrested–those fingerprintings are still going on in Connecticut , it should be noted–and they buy guns regardless .
What the editorial board missed , though , was that this is something that can happen any time you place a licensing requirement on the right to bear arms .
When you tell people they have to have a license to exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then what you ’ ve effectively done is taken the right and turned it into a privilege .
You can only exercise your right if the state allows it .
Right now , they ’ re not .
They ’ re permitting the very people who are responsible for a key step to refused to carry out that step , thus denying whole swaths of the state their constitutionally-protected right .
That ’ s what happens when you require licenses .
It makes it far too easy to block law-abiding citizens from buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they may feel they need to buy a gun the most .

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont has his anti-gun credentials firmly in place. No one in this country is really going to mistake him for a pro-gunner. That’s true of most governors in the northeastern United States, I’m afraid.
However, is it possible to be too anti-gun for the media?
Well, an editorial at a Connecticut news site certainly suggests that Lamont has crossed that line.
Second Amendment advocates have a legitimate gripe that one of Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive orders is effectively conflicting with the U.S. constitutional directive that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So while we disagree with these irrational decisions by many of you to run out and buy guns in response to a pandemic, we will stand by your constitutional right to do so. The right is infringed because state citizens cannot currently obtain a permit. And under Connecticut law, a person without a permit cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition or carry a firearm. … Instead, while letting the stores operate, Lamont in another order suspended the state law that prohibits state and local police from refusing to collect fingerprints for the purpose of a criminal-history record checks. In other words, while police could still theoretically process the fingerprints, the legal requirement that they do so was suspended by the order.
Now, that’s a huge problem. If people can’t get fingerprinted so they can get a required license, they are effectively deprived of their Second Amendment rights. This isn’t a three-day waiting period we’re talking about here either. While I disagree with those, a case can be made that such a waiting period doesn’t deny anyone their right, only delays it.
Yet as things stand, we don’t know the trajectory of the virus. We don’t know when things will get better, whether or not they’ll then get worse again, or anything. We don’t really know if we’ll get back to normal.
That makes the departments refusing to do fingerprinting an open-ended infringement and not a simple delay. While any delay is unconstitutional, one with no defined endpoint is particularly heinous.
It seems the editorial board somewhat agrees.
So while the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008, made it clear reasonable limits could be placed on the right to bear arms, it also found “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” The Connecticut Constitution states: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” If someone who meets the legal requirements wants to buy a gun in response to a pandemic, it his or her right and it should not be infringed.
While they don’t outright side with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and their lawsuit to challenge Lamont’s order, they offer important support.
It should be noted that the board does state their support for gun control–they’re not a bunch of pro-gun journalists who somehow ended up at the same place–but Lamont’s actions are too much even for them.
For one thing, the should be applauded for clearly having some principles. While I’m sure I disagree with the members of that board on so many different issues it’s not even funny, they made a stand based on their beliefs, a stand that will likely earn them scorn from their “side.” Yet stand they did.
Of course, they should also be applauded for being right on this. Lamont’s order that lifted the requirement for police departments to fingerprint people created this mess. He can unilaterally fix it, but he hasn’t. I can’t imagine he hasn’t heard of the problems his order has caused, yet he’s done nothing.
That’s because people like Lamont generally don’t give a damn about people like you. They don’t care about your fears or concerns, much less your rights. They’re fine with you being disarmed for as long as possible because they can claim that fewer guns mean less violence. Meanwhile, the criminals who actually cause the violence are still buying guns left and right. They don’t get licenses. They don’t get background checks. They only get fingerprinted when they’re arrested–those fingerprintings are still going on in Connecticut, it should be noted–and they buy guns regardless.
What the editorial board missed, though, was that this is something that can happen any time you place a licensing requirement on the right to bear arms. When you tell people they have to have a license to exercise that right, or any other, then what you’ve effectively done is taken the right and turned it into a privilege. You can only exercise your right if the state allows it.
Right now, they’re not. They’re permitting the very people who are responsible for a key step to refused to carry out that step, thus denying whole swaths of the state their constitutionally-protected right.
That’s what happens when you require licenses. It makes it far too easy to block law-abiding citizens from buying guns, particularly in the moments when they may feel they need to buy a gun the most.


bearingarms--2020-05-15--Gun Control Activists Demand Canadian Handgun Ban

Justin Trudeau ’ s recent ban on thousands of makes and models of commonly owned firearms doesn ’ t go far enough for gun control advocates in Canada , who are now pushing for a nationwide ban on handguns as well .
At the CBC website , pundit Tony Keene claims there ’ s no reason whatsoever for any Canadian to own a handgun , and argues it ’ s time to ban most firearms and lock up anyone who dares not comply .
The more guns in society , the more gun deaths .
Legal guns have a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And even a law-abiding gun owner can cross over to the dark side under stress , delusion and paranoia .
People who rave about owning these devices of death are often referred to as “ gun enthusiasts.
” This makes about as much sense as “ poison gas enthusiasts ” or “ land mine enthusiasts.
” Collecting and slavering over devices which are primarily designed to kill people is not normal .
Personally , I think it ’ s much more abnormal to want to put tens of thousands of your countrymen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they already own , but maybe that ’ s just me .
In Keene ’ s world , firearms collectors can ’ t be enthralled by the craftsmanship or the history that goes along with a particular firearm .
No , they must be bloodthirsty monsters who deserve the scorn of their fellow Canadians , and who would be better off locked up in a jail cell .
• A total and absolute ban on handgun sales , and on handgun ownership by private citizens .
( With long prison terms for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns to bolt-action rifles and limited-magazine shotguns .
• Firm enforcement of minimum sentences for possession of any restricted weapon , and even more stringent penalties for anyone committing a crime with a firearm .
• Exemptions , under strict controls , where subsistence hunting is a way of life .
Add to this a heightened border vigilance against guns coming from the United States , and not only will gun crime decrease , so will accidental deaths and suicides .
And no , it won ’ t take away our freedom or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer .
You ’ re never going to ban your way to safety , despite Keene ’ s argument .
The U.S.-Mexico border is heavily patrolled , yet cartels have little trouble smuggling illegal drugs into this country .
Increased vigilance on the U.S.-Canadian border won ’ t stop drug cartels or gun traffickers entirely , and “ long prison terms ” for Canadians who maintain possession of their legally purchased firearms isn ’ t feasible .
There are an estimated 3,000,000 gun owners in Canada , and a prison population of about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being set free on low bonds in Canada , but Keene wants the judicial system to prioritize people whose only crime would be keeping the guns already in their possession ?
Smells like tyranny with a hint of maple syrup to me .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we dig even deeper into Keene ’ s pile of bull excrement , as well as discussing why Trudeau ’ s gun ban wouldn ’ t work out well if , say , Joe Biden tried to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got the story of a Texas man charged with murder when he should have been behind bars , an armed citizen in Missouri , and an oil patch worker in Oklahoma in the right place at the right time to help find an elderly man suffering from dementia who ’ d gone missing .

Justin Trudeau’s recent ban on thousands of makes and models of commonly owned firearms doesn’t go far enough for gun control advocates in Canada, who are now pushing for a nationwide ban on handguns as well. At the CBC website, pundit Tony Keene claims there’s no reason whatsoever for any Canadian to own a handgun, and argues it’s time to ban most firearms and lock up anyone who dares not comply.
The more guns in society, the more gun deaths. Legal guns have a way of being stolen and becoming illegal. And even a law-abiding gun owner can cross over to the dark side under stress, delusion and paranoia. People who rave about owning these devices of death are often referred to as “gun enthusiasts.” This makes about as much sense as “poison gas enthusiasts” or “land mine enthusiasts.” Collecting and slavering over devices which are primarily designed to kill people is not normal.
Personally, I think it’s much more abnormal to want to put tens of thousands of your countrymen in prison for maintaining possession of the firearms that they already own, but maybe that’s just me. In Keene’s world, firearms collectors can’t be enthralled by the craftsmanship or the history that goes along with a particular firearm. No, they must be bloodthirsty monsters who deserve the scorn of their fellow Canadians, and who would be better off locked up in a jail cell.
A suggested scenario: A total and absolute ban on handgun sales, and on handgun ownership by private citizens. (With long prison terms for violation.) Restriction of long guns to bolt-action rifles and limited-magazine shotguns. Firm enforcement of minimum sentences for possession of any restricted weapon, and even more stringent penalties for anyone committing a crime with a firearm. Exemptions, under strict controls, where subsistence hunting is a way of life. Add to this a heightened border vigilance against guns coming from the United States, and not only will gun crime decrease, so will accidental deaths and suicides. And no, it won’t take away our freedom or democracy. But it will make us safer.
You’re never going to ban your way to safety, despite Keene’s argument. The U.S.-Mexico border is heavily patrolled, yet cartels have little trouble smuggling illegal drugs into this country. Increased vigilance on the U.S.-Canadian border won’t stop drug cartels or gun traffickers entirely, and “long prison terms” for Canadians who maintain possession of their legally purchased firearms isn’t feasible. There are an estimated 3,000,000 gun owners in Canada, and a prison population of about 40,000 inmates. Even violent criminals are being set free on low bonds in Canada, but Keene wants the judicial system to prioritize people whose only crime would be keeping the guns already in their possession? Smells like tyranny with a hint of maple syrup to me.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we dig even deeper into Keene’s pile of bull excrement, as well as discussing why Trudeau’s gun ban wouldn’t work out well if, say, Joe Biden tried to do the same thing. We’ve also got the story of a Texas man charged with murder when he should have been behind bars, an armed citizen in Missouri, and an oil patch worker in Oklahoma in the right place at the right time to help find an elderly man suffering from dementia who’d gone missing.


bearingarms--2020-05-15--Disgraced Parkland Deputy Reinstated With Back Pay

In the immediate aftermath of Parkland , I had a lot to say over the Broward County Sheriff ’ s Office and their response to the shooting .
In particular , the lack of response .
Broward deputies hid outside while children were being gunned down by a freaking maniac .
Much of my focus was school resource officer Scot Peterson , the man charged specifically with protecting the school .
However , he wasn ’ t alone in dropping the ball .
A number of other deputies arrived and took shelter outside , trying to contain the shooter rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the established policy , by the way .
Those officers were fired , as was Peterson , and while the former school resource officer is the only one facing charges , they all want their jobs back .
Peterson ’ s bid failed .
A Florida sheriff ’ s sergeant who lost his job after it was discovered he hid behind his car when a shooter at a high school in Parkland first opened fire will reportedly get his job back with back pay .
Sgt .
Brian Miller , of the Broward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first supervisor to respond to the 2018 shooting that took the lives of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School , according to the Sun-Sentinel .
An arbitration ruling this week found the sheriff ’ s office “ violated ” Miller ’ s “ constitutional due process rights and improperly terminated him , ” the BSO Deputies Association , a union that represents deputies and sergeants said , according to the Miami Herald .
Miller will also receive full back pay and get back his seniority .
He made more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the responding sergeant , was likely the one responsible for the other deputies holding back .
In other words , he was more responsible than most for the number of lives lost .
Only Peterson bears more .
Now , I get that the courts of ruled police don ’ t have a duty to protect individuals .
I understand that completely .
Keep in mind that the law in Florida bans people from carrying guns for their own protection on school campuses .
In my mind , if the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should assume the responsibility to keep people safe from such attacks to any reasonable extent .
Sure , they can ’ t prevent them from happening , necessarily , but they can at least respond .
Now , the individual who may well have been the most responsible outside of the officer actually assigned to the school not only gets his job back but gets a huge payment for having done absolutely nothing since 2018 .
That ’ s about two years of wages that he didn ’ t actually earn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will soon return to school so Miller and his fellow deputies can let them all down once again .
The only saving grace is that mass shootings are rare enough that this school should never see one again , at least not for entire generations at the very least .
It ’ s a good thing , too , because those students sure can ’ t trust the sheriff ’ s department to come to their rescue .
It should be noted , however , that the arbitrator ’ s ruling doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller ’ s actions that day .
Instead , the matter is about how his employment was terminated , not whether he did what he was supposed to do at a critical time .
They ’ re not even saying he deserved to keep his job , necessarily .
Instead , they ’ re just saying that the department didn ’ t go through the correct process to terminate his employment .
That ’ s an important thing for people , including Miller , to think about .

In the immediate aftermath of Parkland, I had a lot to say over the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and their response to the shooting. In particular, the lack of response. Broward deputies hid outside while children were being gunned down by a freaking maniac.
Much of my focus was school resource officer Scot Peterson, the man charged specifically with protecting the school.
However, he wasn’t alone in dropping the ball. A number of other deputies arrived and took shelter outside, trying to contain the shooter rather than engage him. That went against the established policy, by the way.
Those officers were fired, as was Peterson, and while the former school resource officer is the only one facing charges, they all want their jobs back. Peterson’s bid failed.
Not everyone’s did.
A Florida sheriff’s sergeant who lost his job after it was discovered he hid behind his car when a shooter at a high school in Parkland first opened fire will reportedly get his job back with back pay. Sgt. Brian Miller, of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, was the first supervisor to respond to the 2018 shooting that took the lives of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to the Sun-Sentinel. An arbitration ruling this week found the sheriff’s office “violated” Miller’s “constitutional due process rights and improperly terminated him,” the BSO Deputies Association, a union that represents deputies and sergeants said, according to the Miami Herald. Miller will also receive full back pay and get back his seniority. He made more than $137,000 in 2018.
Miller, as the responding sergeant, was likely the one responsible for the other deputies holding back. In other words, he was more responsible than most for the number of lives lost. Only Peterson bears more.
Now, I get that the courts of ruled police don’t have a duty to protect individuals. I understand that completely.
I just don’t care.
Keep in mind that the law in Florida bans people from carrying guns for their own protection on school campuses. In my mind, if the government requires people to be disarmed, then it should assume the responsibility to keep people safe from such attacks to any reasonable extent. Sure, they can’t prevent them from happening, necessarily, but they can at least respond.
Here, the didn’t.
Now, the individual who may well have been the most responsible outside of the officer actually assigned to the school not only gets his job back but gets a huge payment for having done absolutely nothing since 2018. That’s about two years of wages that he didn’t actually earn.
Meanwhile, the next batch of kids will soon return to school so Miller and his fellow deputies can let them all down once again.
The only saving grace is that mass shootings are rare enough that this school should never see one again, at least not for entire generations at the very least. It’s a good thing, too, because those students sure can’t trust the sheriff’s department to come to their rescue.
It should be noted, however, that the arbitrator’s ruling doesn’t really have anything to do with Miller’s actions that day. Instead, the matter is about how his employment was terminated, not whether he did what he was supposed to do at a critical time. They’re not even saying he deserved to keep his job, necessarily. Instead, they’re just saying that the department didn’t go through the correct process to terminate his employment.
That’s an important thing for people, including Miller, to think about.


bearingarms--2020-05-15--L.A. Robberies Rise, Mask Requirements Partially Blamed

COVID-19 has changed a lot of things for a lot of people .
Among those who saw change were prisoners who were suddenly released from their incarcerations , all so some politician could cover their butts .
However , it wasn ’ t just them who saw the difference .
In fact , most of us are experiencing some differences in how life works .
For many people , there ’ s a requirement that they wear a mask in order to go about their day .
The idea is that while cloth masks aren ’ t nearly as good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still better than nothing and if everyone wears them , we can go about our days in relative peace .
There ’ s just one hiccup to that .
And Santa Ana police confirmed Thursday that robberies in the city have increased by 50 % since the lockdown .
In an April robbery , a thief hid his face with a bandana at a doughnut shop on Bristol .
The cashier was caught off guard when the thief pulled out a gun and placed it on the counter .
The thief then emptied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the norm , ” Cpl .
Anthony Bertagna , with Santa Ana PD , said .
“ So we ’ re seeing more an more suspects wearing the mast and using that to their benefit.
” Police said they were not exactly sure why there has been such an increase in robberies , but said it could be related to the number of inmates released from area jails due to the pandemic .
I mean , who could have seen that releasing a bunch of criminals might cause a rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
Couple that with a requirement that everyone wear masks , which means it ’ s harder for them to be identified after the crime , but also makes it so potential victims aren ’ t alerted to a problem until it ’ s too late , and you have a recipe for a problem .
Robbers are able to hold up a store or individual , then escape while keeping their face covered , making identification difficult , if not impossible .
Plus , as they leave the store , they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to blend in with the public .
They can protect their identity indefinitely .
Now , am I saying that people shouldn ’ t wear masks ?
No , I ’ m not .
What I am saying , though , is that when you couple a mask requirement with thousands of recently-released criminals , ou are going to get a recipe for disaster , which is what we ’ re seeing .
Frankly , is it any wonder that so many Americans have flocked to gun stores to arm themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses being robbed , but how long until they turn their attentions to the rest of us ?
That is why people are buying guns , ladies and gentlemen .
That right there .
The crime statistics for 2020 are going to look a little weird , to say the least , but we can at least rest a bit easier knowing how many more law-abiding citizens there are with guns today than there were just three months ago .
In fact , there are so many that these guys complying with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start decreasing their numbers the hard way if they ’ re not careful .
Armed citizens aren ’ t likely to become prey .

COVID-19 has changed a lot of things for a lot of people. Among those who saw change were prisoners who were suddenly released from their incarcerations, all so some politician could cover their butts.
However, it wasn’t just them who saw the difference. In fact, most of us are experiencing some differences in how life works.
For many people, there’s a requirement that they wear a mask in order to go about their day. The idea is that while cloth masks aren’t nearly as good as N95 masks, they’re still better than nothing and if everyone wears them, we can go about our days in relative peace.
There’s just one hiccup to that.
And Santa Ana police confirmed Thursday that robberies in the city have increased by 50% since the lockdown. In an April robbery, a thief hid his face with a bandana at a doughnut shop on Bristol. The cashier was caught off guard when the thief pulled out a gun and placed it on the counter. The thief then emptied both registers before getting away. “It’s the norm,” Cpl. Anthony Bertagna, with Santa Ana PD, said. “So we’re seeing more an more suspects wearing the mast and using that to their benefit.” Police said they were not exactly sure why there has been such an increase in robberies, but said it could be related to the number of inmates released from area jails due to the pandemic.
You’re shocked, right?
I mean, who could have seen that releasing a bunch of criminals might cause a rise in crime? It’s un-possible!
Couple that with a requirement that everyone wear masks, which means it’s harder for them to be identified after the crime, but also makes it so potential victims aren’t alerted to a problem until it’s too late, and you have a recipe for a problem.
Robbers are able to hold up a store or individual, then escape while keeping their face covered, making identification difficult, if not impossible. Plus, as they leave the store, they don’t need to uncover their faces in order to blend in with the public. They can protect their identity indefinitely.
Now, am I saying that people shouldn’t wear masks? No, I’m not.
What I am saying, though, is that when you couple a mask requirement with thousands of recently-released criminals, ou are going to get a recipe for disaster, which is what we’re seeing.
Frankly, is it any wonder that so many Americans have flocked to gun stores to arm themselves? Right now, it’s businesses being robbed, but how long until they turn their attentions to the rest of us? That is why people are buying guns, ladies and gentlemen. That right there.
The crime statistics for 2020 are going to look a little weird, to say the least, but we can at least rest a bit easier knowing how many more law-abiding citizens there are with guns today than there were just three months ago.
In fact, there are so many that these guys complying with the mask law to hide their identity might start decreasing their numbers the hard way if they’re not careful.
Armed citizens aren’t likely to become prey.


bearingarms--2020-05-15--Trooper Says Maine State Police Illegally Collected Data On Gun Owners

A state trooper in Maine has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the state police , alleging that the law enforcement entity illegally collected and maintained data on a number of residents , including those who had submitted background checks to purchase firearms .
The lawsuit , filed in federal court , claims that allegations a state agency was routinely collecting and keeping information longer than allowed by law , and in some cases collecting information it was never entitled to in the first place .
George Loder , 50 , of Scarborough is suing the Maine Intelligence Analysis Center , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demoted after he told his bosses that the center was collecting and maintaining data illegally , including information about people who had applied to buy guns from firearms dealers , those who legally protested and those who worked at a Maine international camp for Israeli and Arab teens .
The center is responsible for sharing information with other law enforcement agencies .
Loder alleges that staff at the center illegally gathered and kept information gleaned from social media about people who legally protested in September 2018 against Central Maine Power Co. ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border to Lewiston .
State police maintain a database that can be searched to determine if a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun .
Applications to purchase firearms are supposed to be destroyed after the sale is approved but the center stored that information in the database , the suit claims .
Loder originally went to the Maine Human Rights Commission with his complaint .
While that agency is still investigating Loder ’ s claims , once he received a right-to-sue letter , Loder proceeded with his whistleblower suit .
The attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Loder ’ s complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission , said that Loder did not report suspected illegal activity at the center until after he was removed from a task force based in Portland and told he had to work at the center in Augusta .
The office concluded that Loder had not presented evidence that the center had violated the Whistleblowers ’ Protection Act .
While Loder ’ s lawsuit doesn ’ t specify how the illegally obtained or maintained data was used , the state chapter of the ACLU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official investigation .
Zachary Heiden , legal director for the ACLU of Maine , called Loder ’ s allegations “ extremely serious.
” “ The Department of Public Safety should conduct an internal investigation and should publish the results ; the governor should appoint an independent body to investigate the allegations ; and the Maine Legislature should exercise its oversight responsibility , ” he said .
“ These are incredibly serious allegations , with implications for the fundamental rights of all Mainers , and they demand a serious response.
” I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will want to know if there is any truth to the allegations about keeping background check records for gun buyers .
That sounds like a backdoor gun registry , and if Mainers wanted gun registration laws , they would have voted for them .
Instead , if Loder ’ s allegations are correct , the state police secretly maintained these records at the expense of the civil rights of the state ’ s gun owners .
Loder may have blown the whistle to a federal judge , but lawmakers in the state also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall on the shadows of the Maine Intelligence Analysis Center and the state police with a full investigation into the allegations .

A state trooper in Maine has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the state police, alleging that the law enforcement entity illegally collected and maintained data on a number of residents, including those who had submitted background checks to purchase firearms.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, claims that allegations a state agency was routinely collecting and keeping information longer than allowed by law, and in some cases collecting information it was never entitled to in the first place.
George Loder, 50, of Scarborough is suing the Maine Intelligence Analysis Center, and its supervisors, claiming he was demoted after he told his bosses that the center was collecting and maintaining data illegally, including information about people who had applied to buy guns from firearms dealers, those who legally protested and those who worked at a Maine international camp for Israeli and Arab teens. The center is responsible for sharing information with other law enforcement agencies. Loder alleges that staff at the center illegally gathered and kept information gleaned from social media about people who legally protested in September 2018 against Central Maine Power Co.’s proposed transmission corridor stretching from the Quebec border to Lewiston. State police maintain a database that can be searched to determine if a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun. Applications to purchase firearms are supposed to be destroyed after the sale is approved but the center stored that information in the database, the suit claims.
Loder originally went to the Maine Human Rights Commission with his complaint. While that agency is still investigating Loder’s claims, once he received a right-to-sue letter, Loder proceeded with his whistleblower suit.
The attorney general’s office, in answer to Loder’s complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission, said that Loder did not report suspected illegal activity at the center until after he was removed from a task force based in Portland and told he had to work at the center in Augusta. The office concluded that Loder had not presented evidence that the center had violated the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.
While Loder’s lawsuit doesn’t specify how the illegally obtained or maintained data was used, the state chapter of the ACLU says it’s time for an official investigation. Zachary Heiden, legal director for the ACLU of Maine, called Loder’s allegations “extremely serious.”
“The Department of Public Safety should conduct an internal investigation and should publish the results; the governor should appoint an independent body to investigate the allegations; and the Maine Legislature should exercise its oversight responsibility,” he said. “These are incredibly serious allegations, with implications for the fundamental rights of all Mainers, and they demand a serious response.”
I’m guessing that Second Amendment supporters in particular will want to know if there is any truth to the allegations about keeping background check records for gun buyers. That sounds like a backdoor gun registry, and if Mainers wanted gun registration laws, they would have voted for them. Instead, if Loder’s allegations are correct, the state police secretly maintained these records at the expense of the civil rights of the state’s gun owners. Loder may have blown the whistle to a federal judge, but lawmakers in the state also have a duty to let some sunshine fall on the shadows of the Maine Intelligence Analysis Center and the state police with a full investigation into the allegations.