bearingarms--2020-10-16--Gun Rights Activists In Newport News Stage Rally

With Virginia going on its recent anti-gun kick , it ’ s easy to forget just how many people in the Old Dominion State really value their Second Amendment rights .
However , when you look at the map of sanctuary counties that sprung up immediately following the elections , you shouldn ’ t really be surprised .
In Newport News , the city recently decided that open carry was not longer permitted in government buildings .
It was just one of a myriad of new local gun laws passed in recent months .
Gun owners in the city , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known .
Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights , which they say are being taken away from them .
A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings , facilities and parks .
“ We ain ’ t running !
We ain ’ t here to run !
” Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters , protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional .
“ We are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed .
We are unified , and if you mess with one of us , you are going to mess with all of us this time , ” said organizer Mike Dunn .
Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun .
In response , he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew ’ s “ OK. ” “ I thought it was good dialogue .
They didn ’ t have to talk to me – I appreciate they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good faith , ” said Chief Drew .
According to Chief Drew , the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters .
“ If it ’ s inside a city building or inside a city building or park – that ’ s what the ordinance addresses , ” he said .
That was smart , in my opinion .
You ’ re challenging the law but in such a way they can ’ t arrest you for it .
Don ’ t get me wrong , being arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you going to challenge the laws in the courts if there ’ s no case ?
–but this was about letting their voices be heard .
They pushed it right up to the line legally speaking , but that also shows just how stupid the law is .
If someone is a threat , they ’ re still a threat even if they can ’ t gain entry into the building .
They can just wait outside or whatever .
Honestly , the prohibition on open carry anywhere is kind of stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge fan of open carry for various reasons , I ’ ll be the first to point out that , as a general rule , criminals don ’ t display their weapons openly unless they intend to threaten someone .
Even then , they simply flash the gun and then conceal it again .
Open carry isn ’ t the problem and never has been .
All open carry does is make the Karens uncomfortable , which just means the Karens need to get the hell over it .
Gun rights are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the metric we use to determine if rights should be respected .
I don ’ t know that this rally will do any good , but I wish these folks the best .

With Virginia going on its recent anti-gun kick, it’s easy to forget just how many people in the Old Dominion State really value their Second Amendment rights. However, when you look at the map of sanctuary counties that sprung up immediately following the elections, you shouldn’t really be surprised.
In Newport News, the city recently decided that open carry was not longer permitted in government buildings. It was just one of a myriad of new local gun laws passed in recent months.
Gun owners in the city, however, decided to make their displeasure known.
Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them. A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings, facilities and parks. “We ain’t running! We ain’t here to run!” Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional. “We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn. Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.” “I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew. According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. “If it’s inside a city building or inside a city building or park – that’s what the ordinance addresses,” he said.
That was smart, in my opinion. You’re challenging the law but in such a way they can’t arrest you for it.
Don’t get me wrong, being arrested has its place in civil disobedience–how else are you going to challenge the laws in the courts if there’s no case?–but this was about letting their voices be heard. They pushed it right up to the line legally speaking, but that also shows just how stupid the law is.
If someone is a threat, they’re still a threat even if they can’t gain entry into the building. They can just wait outside or whatever.
Honestly, the prohibition on open carry anywhere is kind of stupid. While I’m generally not a huge fan of open carry for various reasons, I’ll be the first to point out that, as a general rule, criminals don’t display their weapons openly unless they intend to threaten someone. Even then, they simply flash the gun and then conceal it again.
Open carry isn’t the problem and never has been. All open carry does is make the Karens uncomfortable, which just means the Karens need to get the hell over it. Gun rights are rights and someone’s comfort isn’t the metric we use to determine if rights should be respected.
I don’t know that this rally will do any good, but I wish these folks the best.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--Delays In Gun Permit, CCW Applications Affecting Hundreds Of Thousands

We know that millions of Americans have become gun owners for the very first time in 2020 , but how many others are twiddling their thumbs and waiting for approval from their state or local governments before they can join them ?
Given the local issuance of gun permits in some states , it ’ s nearly impossible to know for certain exactly how many people are stuck in a bureaucratic limbo at the moment , but it ’ s fair to say that hundreds of thousands of Americans are currently being denied their right to keep and bear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in many jurisdictions .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we take a closer look at the situation in Illinois , where the state police are currently wading through a backlog of more than 140,000 FOID card applications and more than 26,000 concealed carry applications .
The problem has persisted for months despite repeated assurances by the Illinois State Police that more staff were being hired and trained to process the applications , and the wait times have only grown longer as the months have rolled by .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are running into issues .
The state police have extended the life of existing FOID cards an additional 18 months , which will supposedly allow them to process new applications faster , but Second Amendment groups and even some lawmakers in Illinois are pointing out that the extension doesn ’ t solve all of the problems .
Despite a temporary rule that extends the expiration dates for Firearm Owners Identification cards and concealed carry permits , many Illinois gun owners are still finding it difficult to buy weapons and ammunition .
That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , Oct. 14 , during a meeting of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules , a legislative body that oversees the state ’ s regulatory processes .
“ The problem that that a lot of my constituents are having is firearms dealers and businesses are not accepting the FOID cards that are expired , even though they know … that the state of Illinois has said , hey , they ’ re still good beyond the expiration date , ” state Sen. Paul Schimpf , R-Waterloo , said during the hearing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois State Rifle Association , confirmed Schimpf ’ s allegation that legal gun owners are being denied their ability to purchase firearms and ammunition because their FOID card has expired on paper , even though the state maintains it ’ s still valid .
“ I know that they ’ re worried about liability , ” he said .
“ And so , ( the rule ) might say that they ’ re okay , but the law says you can ’ t do it , and the executive order overrides the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plus the fact that these people can ’ t buy ammunition in Illinois .
“ And so they have to go on online and buy it , and to get it online , you have to supply the provider of that ammunition , the seller of that ammunition , with a valid FOID card and they don ’ t have a valid FOID card.
” Pearson said that has been especially frustrating for hunters because deer and waterfowl hunting seasons are coming soon .
“ And deer slugs in some places are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So , you know , you ’ re supposed to have a valid FOID card while you ’ re out hunting .
But of course , the executive order overrides that , so they ’ re not doing anything about it.
” This is a huge problem , and Pearson notes that there are currently a dozen lawsuits in progress challenging the FOID card delays and the FOID card mandate itself .
The issues aren ’ t just confined to Illinois either .
In North Carolina , wait times for pistol purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to legally buy a handgun ) stretch out for months in some counties , though under state law local sheriffs are supposed to process the applications within 14 days .
In Illinois as well , police have an obligation to process applications within 30 days , but suffer no penalties if they fail to do so .
Nor are the problems limited to applications for pistol purchase permits or Firearm Owner ID cards .
We ’ re also seeing extraordinary backlogs in concealed carry applications , including a wait time of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prompted a lawsuit on the part of Gun Owners of America .
A right delayed is a right denied , and it ’ s clear that hundreds of thousands of Americans are being denied their ability to protect themselves and their families with a firearm .
My hope is that the lawsuits challenging the bureaucratic backlogs will be successful , but ultimately these delays should serve as evidence for the scrapping of gun permit laws in their entirety .

We know that millions of Americans have become gun owners for the very first time in 2020, but how many others are twiddling their thumbs and waiting for approval from their state or local governments before they can join them? Given the local issuance of gun permits in some states, it’s nearly impossible to know for certain exactly how many people are stuck in a bureaucratic limbo at the moment, but it’s fair to say that hundreds of thousands of Americans are currently being denied their right to keep and bear arms because of the long backlogs of applications in many jurisdictions.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we take a closer look at the situation in Illinois, where the state police are currently wading through a backlog of more than 140,000 FOID card applications and more than 26,000 concealed carry applications. The problem has persisted for months despite repeated assurances by the Illinois State Police that more staff were being hired and trained to process the applications, and the wait times have only grown longer as the months have rolled by.
Even those who already possess a FOID card are running into issues. The state police have extended the life of existing FOID cards an additional 18 months, which will supposedly allow them to process new applications faster, but Second Amendment groups and even some lawmakers in Illinois are pointing out that the extension doesn’t solve all of the problems.
Despite a temporary rule that extends the expiration dates for Firearm Owners Identification cards and concealed carry permits, many Illinois gun owners are still finding it difficult to buy weapons and ammunition. That was one of the issues that came up Wednesday, Oct. 14, during a meeting of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a legislative body that oversees the state’s regulatory processes. “The problem that that a lot of my constituents are having is firearms dealers and businesses are not accepting the FOID cards that are expired, even though they know … that the state of Illinois has said, hey, they’re still good beyond the expiration date,” state Sen. Paul Schimpf, R-Waterloo, said during the hearing.
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, confirmed Schimpf’s allegation that legal gun owners are being denied their ability to purchase firearms and ammunition because their FOID card has expired on paper, even though the state maintains it’s still valid.
“I know that they’re worried about liability,” he said. “And so, (the rule) might say that they’re okay, but the law says you can’t do it, and the executive order overrides the law. It is a big quagmire. Plus the fact that these people can’t buy ammunition in Illinois. “And so they have to go on online and buy it, and to get it online, you have to supply the provider of that ammunition, the seller of that ammunition, with a valid FOID card and they don’t have a valid FOID card.” Pearson said that has been especially frustrating for hunters because deer and waterfowl hunting seasons are coming soon. “And deer slugs in some places are in short supply,” he said. “So, you know, you’re supposed to have a valid FOID card while you’re out hunting. But of course, the executive order overrides that, so they’re not doing anything about it.”
This is a huge problem, and Pearson notes that there are currently a dozen lawsuits in progress challenging the FOID card delays and the FOID card mandate itself.
The issues aren’t just confined to Illinois either. In North Carolina, wait times for pistol purchase permits (which are required in order to legally buy a handgun) stretch out for months in some counties, though under state law local sheriffs are supposed to process the applications within 14 days. In Illinois as well, police have an obligation to process applications within 30 days, but suffer no penalties if they fail to do so.
Nor are the problems limited to applications for pistol purchase permits or Firearm Owner ID cards. We’re also seeing extraordinary backlogs in concealed carry applications, including a wait time of more than a year in Philadelphia, which has prompted a lawsuit on the part of Gun Owners of America.
A right delayed is a right denied, and it’s clear that hundreds of thousands of Americans are being denied their ability to protect themselves and their families with a firearm. My hope is that the lawsuits challenging the bureaucratic backlogs will be successful, but ultimately these delays should serve as evidence for the scrapping of gun permit laws in their entirety.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--2A Coalition Sues Over Rhode Island Gun "Buyback"

I ’ ll admit , when I first saw the headline about the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition going to court to try to block a gun “ buyback ” event scheduled for this weekend in the cities of Providence and Central Falls , I didn ’ t think the groups would have much of a legal case .
These compensated confiscation events don ’ t actually do anything to reduce violent crime , but they are voluntary , so it ’ s not like we ’ re talking about anyone ’ s rights being violated by handing over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , after reading a summary of the legal challenge , I think the pro-gun group may actually have a case .
Central Falls and Providence are offering $ 200 Visa gift cards for handguns , $ 100 gift cards for rifles and shotguns , and $ 500 if the firearms are stolen .
The buyback is slated for Saturday morning at locations in both cities .
The fact the weapons would be destroyed after they are purchased is what prompted the request for an emergency temporary restraining order ( TRO ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight-count motion alleges the cities and their police departments would breach their duty to “ protect the private property of all individuals ” if they destroyed the weapons .
The motion also claims the defendants would be violating state law related to seized firearms and tampering with evidence .
“ This court may not sanction nor allow an intentional violation of the law , ” the motion states .
First of all , I ’ ve never heard of a “ buyback ” that specifically offered money for stolen firearms , and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously been reported stolen , I can ’ t help but think that officials in charge of the turn-in are actually encouraging the theft of a gun .
It ’ s absolutely bizarre , but the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition is also spot on when they say that the destruction of any firearm reported stolen would be legally problematic .
If a stolen firearm is turned in to authorities , police should work to return the gun to its rightful owner instead of destroying it to use in an art project .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ council members in Providence are also voicing their objections to this weekend ’ s “ buyback , ” though they seem less concerned about the prospect of melting down someone ’ s legally-owned firearm that was stolen and more concerned about the promise of amnesty for anyone turning in a gun that might have been stolen or used in a crime .
The Providence City Council passed a resolution Thursday night asking Mayor Jorge Elorza and Central Falls Mayor James Diossa to remove an amnesty promise for Saturday ’ s planned gun buyback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The non-binding resolution passed despite having the support of just one-third of the council , due to an unusual number of abstentions .
Five councilors voted in favor of asking Elorza to amend or cancel the event , three were opposed , and four councilors abstained from the vote .
Three members were absent from the meeting .
The resolution asks the two mayors to “ remove any promises of amnesty from the Gun Buyback Program and allow their Police Departments to test all guns received through the program , and if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Buyback Program altogether.
” One council member described her own objection to the gun turn-in event in very personal terms .
More than a decade ago , Councilwoman Nirva LaFortune ’ s partner was shot and killed in New York City , and his death remains unsolved .
“ We will never know if any of those guns returned were the ones used in his murder , ” LaFortune said .
“ I understand the effort and the intention of a gun buyback ; however , if we ’ re unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or if they were used in violent crimes , it doesn ’ t necessarily resolve the issue.
” She voted in favor of the resolution along with Councilors Helen Anthony , Sabina Matos , Carmen Castillo and David Salvatore .
The council members voting against the resolution spoke of their desire to see guns “ taken off the streets , ” but studies have shown no link between so-called buyback events and a reduction in violent crime , suicides , or accidents involving firearms .
Ordinarily , the main benefit of a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generates for local politicians , but this time around I don ’ t think that the mayors of Providence and Central Falls can even expect that .
Unless the cities can guarantee that any stolen firearms received as part of the turn-in will be returned to their lawful owners , I think the judge overseeing the emergency hearing on the Second Amendment Coalition ’ s lawsuit needs to put a halt to the planned “ buy back , ” and the cities need to go back to the drawing board to come up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in violent crime than the empty promises of their compensated confiscation schemes .

I’ll admit, when I first saw the headline about the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition going to court to try to block a gun “buyback” event scheduled for this weekend in the cities of Providence and Central Falls, I didn’t think the groups would have much of a legal case. These compensated confiscation events don’t actually do anything to reduce violent crime, but they are voluntary, so it’s not like we’re talking about anyone’s rights being violated by handing over a gun in exchange for a gift card.
However, after reading a summary of the legal challenge, I think the pro-gun group may actually have a case.
Central Falls and Providence are offering $200 Visa gift cards for handguns, $100 gift cards for rifles and shotguns, and $500 if the firearms are stolen. The buyback is slated for Saturday morning at locations in both cities. The fact the weapons would be destroyed after they are purchased is what prompted the request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Second Amendment Coalition. The eight-count motion alleges the cities and their police departments would breach their duty to “protect the private property of all individuals” if they destroyed the weapons. The motion also claims the defendants would be violating state law related to seized firearms and tampering with evidence. “This court may not sanction nor allow an intentional violation of the law,” the motion states.
First of all, I’ve never heard of a “buyback” that specifically offered money for stolen firearms, and by offering more money for guns that have previously been reported stolen, I can’t help but think that officials in charge of the turn-in are actually encouraging the theft of a gun. It’s absolutely bizarre, but the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition is also spot on when they say that the destruction of any firearm reported stolen would be legally problematic.
If a stolen firearm is turned in to authorities, police should work to return the gun to its rightful owner instead of destroying it to use in an art project.
As it turns out, several city council members in Providence are also voicing their objections to this weekend’s “buyback,” though they seem less concerned about the prospect of melting down someone’s legally-owned firearm that was stolen and more concerned about the promise of amnesty for anyone turning in a gun that might have been stolen or used in a crime.
The Providence City Council passed a resolution Thursday night asking Mayor Jorge Elorza and Central Falls Mayor James Diossa to remove an amnesty promise for Saturday’s planned gun buyback, or else cancel the event. The non-binding resolution passed despite having the support of just one-third of the council, due to an unusual number of abstentions. Five councilors voted in favor of asking Elorza to amend or cancel the event, three were opposed, and four councilors abstained from the vote. Three members were absent from the meeting. The resolution asks the two mayors to “remove any promises of amnesty from the Gun Buyback Program and allow their Police Departments to test all guns received through the program, and if that is not possible that they cancel the Gun Buyback Program altogether.”
One council member described her own objection to the gun turn-in event in very personal terms. More than a decade ago, Councilwoman Nirva LaFortune’s partner was shot and killed in New York City, and his death remains unsolved.
“We will never know if any of those guns returned were the ones used in his murder,” LaFortune said. “I understand the effort and the intention of a gun buyback; however, if we’re unable to trace back how these guns were used or if they were used in violent crimes, it doesn’t necessarily resolve the issue.” She voted in favor of the resolution along with Councilors Helen Anthony, Sabina Matos, Carmen Castillo and David Salvatore.
The council members voting against the resolution spoke of their desire to see guns “taken off the streets,” but studies have shown no link between so-called buyback events and a reduction in violent crime, suicides, or accidents involving firearms. Ordinarily, the main benefit of a gun turn-in program is the positive press it generates for local politicians, but this time around I don’t think that the mayors of Providence and Central Falls can even expect that.
Unless the cities can guarantee that any stolen firearms received as part of the turn-in will be returned to their lawful owners, I think the judge overseeing the emergency hearing on the Second Amendment Coalition’s lawsuit needs to put a halt to the planned “buy back,” and the cities need to go back to the drawing board to come up with a better way to address the increase in violent crime than the empty promises of their compensated confiscation schemes.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--Six Arrested After Shooting At Detroit Police

Police in Detroit , Michigan say several people are in custody after occupants of two cars opened fire on police officers who were investigating the vehicles Thursday night .
Thankfully , the Detroit Free Press reports that none of the officers were struck by the gunshots , but it was still a dangerous situation for the officers .
At about 9 p.m. Thursday , police said officers were initially fired upon at West McNichols and Forrer .
An undercover police car in the auto theft section had been investigating a White Dodge Charger and a grey Jeep Grand Cherokee when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and then drove off .
Officers were not hit — nor did they fire back .
The officers and other responding units checked the area and located the suspect vehicles on the 15800 block of Robson .
There , officers confronted a face-off with the armed suspects until the arrests were made .
One of the cars under investigation had improper plates .
The Free Press report indicates that four suspects were taken into custody , but other media outlets , including Newsweek , are reporting that as many as six suspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with four individuals arrested inside the suspect vehicles and two other individuals taken into custody a short time later in a nearby home .
Authorities haven ’ t released any details about the suspects who were taken into custody , nor have they said whether this was an ambush of officers or a crime of opportunity , but we should learn more details about the case in the coming days .
Detroit is one of many cities across the country struggling to quell a spike in violence , and the violent crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest in the nation in 2019 .
Police chief James Craig attributed the high violent crime rate largely to two factors : More illegal guns on the street and people not knowing how to handle disputes .
And , Craig said , things have gotten worse on both fronts this year ; as of Monday homicides were up 23 % over the same period in 2019 , while nonfatal shootings were up 50 % .
All crime is down 12 % , driven by a 23 % drop in property crimes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Craig said .
“ We ’ ve seen significant increases in that .
It was up last year , but it ’ s gotten worse this year , with a lot of stress related to COVID.
” Craig said more illegal guns on the street also has resulted in more violent crimes .
“ I ’ m not talking about people who purchase guns legally and have a legal license to carry , ” Craig said .
“ Those aren ’ t the people causing the problems .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way to reduce violent crime in Detroit isn ’ t to try to curtail legal gun ownership , but to ensure that there are actual consequences for violent crimes .
With the arrests on Thursday , this makes at least seven people that have been accused of shooting at officers in Detroit this month .
I ’ m guessing that the suspects taken into custody for shooting at cops on Thursday night aren ’ t going to be quickly released to the streets , though the potential for a plea bargain remains @ @

Police in Detroit, Michigan say several people are in custody after occupants of two cars opened fire on police officers who were investigating the vehicles Thursday night.
Thankfully, the Detroit Free Press reports that none of the officers were struck by the gunshots, but it was still a dangerous situation for the officers.
At about 9 p.m. Thursday, police said officers were initially fired upon at West McNichols and Forrer. An undercover police car in the auto theft section had been investigating a White Dodge Charger and a grey Jeep Grand Cherokee when the occupants of both vehicles began shooting — and then drove off. Officers were not hit — nor did they fire back. The officers and other responding units checked the area and located the suspect vehicles on the 15800 block of Robson. There, officers confronted a face-off with the armed suspects until the arrests were made. One of the cars under investigation had improper plates.
The Free Press report indicates that four suspects were taken into custody, but other media outlets, including Newsweek, are reporting that as many as six suspects are now in custody in the attack, with four individuals arrested inside the suspect vehicles and two other individuals taken into custody a short time later in a nearby home.
Authorities haven’t released any details about the suspects who were taken into custody, nor have they said whether this was an ambush of officers or a crime of opportunity, but we should learn more details about the case in the coming days.
Detroit is one of many cities across the country struggling to quell a spike in violence, and the violent crime rate in the city was already the highest in the nation in 2019.
Police chief James Craig attributed the high violent crime rate largely to two factors: More illegal guns on the street and people not knowing how to handle disputes. And, Craig said, things have gotten worse on both fronts this year; as of Monday homicides were up 23% over the same period in 2019, while nonfatal shootings were up 50%. All crime is down 12%, driven by a 23% drop in property crimes. “A lot of our violence is argument-based,” Craig said. “We’ve seen significant increases in that. It was up last year, but it’s gotten worse this year, with a lot of stress related to COVID.” Craig said more illegal guns on the street also has resulted in more violent crimes. “I’m not talking about people who purchase guns legally and have a legal license to carry,” Craig said. “Those aren’t the people causing the problems. It’s illegal guns.”
Craig has been a vocal proponent of concealed carry as Detroit’s top cop, urging residents to obtain a concealed carry license and to take their own protection seriously. Craig rightfully argues that the criminal justice system is failing to adequately address those found in illegal possession of a firearm.
Detroit police officers arrest between 85-130 people weekly for illegally carrying guns, but Craig said they often end up back on the street with no bond. Often, the cases are pleaded down, resulting in probation. “When there’s no certainty for punishment for illegally carrying a gun, people continue carrying — and a lot of these people carrying guns illegally commit violent crimes,” Craig said.
In other words, the way to reduce violent crime in Detroit isn’t to try to curtail legal gun ownership, but to ensure that there are actual consequences for violent crimes.
With the arrests on Thursday, this makes at least seven people that have been accused of shooting at officers in Detroit this month. I’m guessing that the suspects taken into custody for shooting at cops on Thursday night aren’t going to be quickly released to the streets, though the potential for a plea bargain remains high.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--GOA Announces 21 Lawmakers Signed On To Oppose VA Rule

A lot of veterans make use of services through the Veterans Administration .
A lot who have other options don ’ t , of course , but many others do .
After all , it ’ s there , and it ’ s supposed to help veterans .
Granted , the scandals surrounding the VA are legion , and most of us already know about the legendary wait times for treatment and so on .
Hell , I still remember a Democrat during the healthcare debates saying single-payer would be like the VA as if it were a good thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait weeks for an appointment that should have taken a day or two at most .
Anyway , it seems a recent change in the rules has the VA submitting information to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS check .
This presents something of a problem , and Gun Owners of America has kicked off a petition to try to kill the rule .
Twenty-One Congressmen Support GOA ’ s Petition to VA for Rulemaking Springfield , VA – Gun Owners of America ( GOA ) Director of Federal Affairs Aidan Johnston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 21 Members of Congress led by Representative Andy Biggs wrote a letter to the President urging him to take action to eliminate the VA Fiduciary Rule , which has arbitrarily disarmed over 250,000 of our nation ’ s veterans.
” “ After Gun Owners of America , Gun Owners Foundation , and the Independence Fund submitted our petition for rulemaking to the Department of Veterans Affairs , we received overwhelming support from public officials.
” “ We were grateful to see leaders like Representative Chip Roy and Dr. Phil Roe write their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of veterans ’ rights.
” “ Gun Owners of America is equally thankful for the support expressed by Representative Biggs and his 20 Republican colleagues who urged President Trump to take up our petition for rulemaking.
” “ We hope to see the Trump Administration take this first step towards eliminating the VA fiduciary rule , restoring the rights of these veterans post haste , and ending this dark chapter of Second Amendment history.
” The problem is that there are people who are deemed incompetent to handle their VA benefits on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of reasons , but the ruling comes in one of two ways .
One way is that a court makes the ruling .
This isn ’ t very different from how most non-veterans would be declared incompetent .
However , another way is that someone within the VA can make the determination on their own .
In theory , they need supporting evidence , but for me , the problem is still that some bureaucrat is making a determination about someone else ’ s civil liberties .
Even if there is supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to some schmuck in an office to make that determination .
And yet , this “ finding ” gets reported to the NICS as someone being “ adjudicated as mentally defective , ” thus ineligible to own a firearm .
Further , it looks like this is really about being financially competent .
Now , one might think that if you ’ re not competent with your finances , you ’ re not competent to handle anything else , yet there are a plethora of reasons someone might be bad with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to make other decisions for themselves .
ADHD , for example , is often associated with being bad with money , but that doesn ’ t make someone incompetent in general .
So yeah , this rule needs to be smacked down and smacked down hard .
If someone is too incompetent to be trusted with their own decision-making–and not just bad with money , but unable to be trusted with anything–then that needs to be left up to a court to determine , not some schmuck working at the VA @

A lot of veterans make use of services through the Veterans Administration. A lot who have other options don’t, of course, but many others do. After all, it’s there, and it’s supposed to help veterans.
Granted, the scandals surrounding the VA are legion, and most of us already know about the legendary wait times for treatment and so on. Hell, I still remember a Democrat during the healthcare debates saying single-payer would be like the VA as if it were a good thing. Clearly, he never had to wait weeks for an appointment that should have taken a day or two at most.
Anyway, it seems a recent change in the rules has the VA submitting information to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS check.
This presents something of a problem, and Gun Owners of America has kicked off a petition to try to kill the rule.
Twenty-One Congressmen Support GOA’s Petition to VA for Rulemaking
Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) Director of Federal Affairs Aidan Johnston released the following statement: “Yesterday, 21 Members of Congress led by Representative Andy Biggs wrote a letter to the President urging him to take action to eliminate the VA Fiduciary Rule, which has arbitrarily disarmed over 250,000 of our nation’s veterans.” “After Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and the Independence Fund submitted our petition for rulemaking to the Department of Veterans Affairs, we received overwhelming support from public officials.” “We were grateful to see leaders like Representative Chip Roy and Dr. Phil Roe write their letter to POTUS last week in defense of veterans’ rights.” “Gun Owners of America is equally thankful for the support expressed by Representative Biggs and his 20 Republican colleagues who urged President Trump to take up our petition for rulemaking.” “We hope to see the Trump Administration take this first step towards eliminating the VA fiduciary rule, restoring the rights of these veterans post haste, and ending this dark chapter of Second Amendment history.”
The problem is that there are people who are deemed incompetent to handle their VA benefits on their own. This could be for a number of reasons, but the ruling comes in one of two ways.
One way is that a court makes the ruling. This isn’t very different from how most non-veterans would be declared incompetent.
However, another way is that someone within the VA can make the determination on their own. In theory, they need supporting evidence, but for me, the problem is still that some bureaucrat is making a determination about someone else’s civil liberties. Even if there is supporting evidence, it shouldn’t be up to some schmuck in an office to make that determination.
And yet, this “finding” gets reported to the NICS as someone being “adjudicated as mentally defective,” thus ineligible to own a firearm.
Further, it looks like this is really about being financially competent. Now, one might think that if you’re not competent with your finances, you’re not competent to handle anything else, yet there are a plethora of reasons someone might be bad with their benefits money and yet competent enough to be able to make other decisions for themselves. ADHD, for example, is often associated with being bad with money, but that doesn’t make someone incompetent in general.
So yeah, this rule needs to be smacked down and smacked down hard.
If someone is too incompetent to be trusted with their own decision-making–and not just bad with money, but unable to be trusted with anything–then that needs to be left up to a court to determine, not some schmuck working at the VA.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--Man Arrested For Firing Shot While Chasing Rittenhouse

Defense attorneys for 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse have consistently maintained that their client was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed two men during unrest in Kenosha , Wisconsin , in August , arguing that the teenager was being chased by a group of people , including one man who fired a shot into the air while pursuing Rittenhouse before the teen was cornered by Joseph Rosenbaum , who was reaching for Rittenhouse ’ s rifle when he fired at Rosenbaum in self-defense .
The man who fired that shot is now facing charges of his own , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the case to buttress their self-defense claims .
Thirty-five-year-old Joshua Ziminski is facing a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct-use of a dangerous weapon , but Rittenhouse ’ s attorneys are likely to argue that Ziminski ’ s shot , fired from behind Rittenhouse , is evidence that Rittenhouse was in legitimate fear for his life when he shot and killed Rosenbaum .
His lawyers say Rittenhouse — who faces homicide charges — acted in self-defense in all three shootings .
An 11-minute video his defense produced first highlighted Ziminski ’ s possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t identify him by that name .
An hourlong analysis of different videos from that evening by Neil Kiernan , a Michigan-based blogger , posted Sept. 26 , properly identified Ziminski and breaks down his presence near the gas station where Rittenhouse first fires his AR-15 rifle , killing Rosenbaum .
Ziminski and his wife are seen with Rosenbaum several times , including as they all confront Rittenhouse right before Rosenbaum starts chasing Rittenhouse into the car lot where their encounter turned fatal .
When Kenosha detectives interviewed Ziminski on Oct. 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ warning shot ” and that gun he used , and is seen holding in various videos from that evening , has since been stolen .
Well , that ’ s awfully convenient , isn ’ t it ?
Unfortunately for Ziminski , despite police not being able to locate the firearm that was in his possession , he ’ s still caught on multiple videos firing the “ warning shot ” just before Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum .
Ziminski faces a maximum possible sentence of 9-months if convicted on his misdemeanor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major role in Rittenhouse ’ s defense .
Prosecutors in Kenosha failed to mention Ziminski or the shot that he fired as he was chasing Rittenhouse in their original charging documents , even though video of the incident had already emerged showing Ziminski ( unidentified at the time ) firing at least one round into the air as he pursued the Illinois teen , who was running away from the mob .
Rittenhouse himself is still in Illinois as his attorneys fight extradition to Wisconsin , with a hearing scheduled for next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll confess to being confused by the legal strategy being used by Rittenhouse ’ s lawyers because , at this point , I ’ d want to get to a preliminary hearing as quickly as possible .
That ’ s going to be the first real opportunity for the teen ’ s defense team to argue before a judge that prosecutors haven ’ t determined that there ’ s probable cause to bind Rittenhouse over for trial , as well as to offer up their own evidence that their client was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the legal team defending Kyle Rittenhouse is hoping that prosecutors will drop the murder and aggravated assault charges on their own , perhaps after the election is over , but at the moment the Kenosha County D.A.
’ s office has offered no indication that it ’ s reconsidering the charges leveled against the teen , and the best chance for an early dismissal of the charges remains with the judge who ’ ll eventually preside over the preliminary hearing when and if it ’ s scheduled .

Defense attorneys for 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse have consistently maintained that their client was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed two men during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August, arguing that the teenager was being chased by a group of people, including one man who fired a shot into the air while pursuing Rittenhouse before the teen was cornered by Joseph Rosenbaum, who was reaching for Rittenhouse’s rifle when he fired at Rosenbaum in self-defense.
The man who fired that shot is now facing charges of his own, and Rittenhouse’s attorneys will almost certainly use the case to buttress their self-defense claims. Thirty-five-year-old Joshua Ziminski is facing a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct-use of a dangerous weapon, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys are likely to argue that Ziminski’s shot, fired from behind Rittenhouse, is evidence that Rittenhouse was in legitimate fear for his life when he shot and killed Rosenbaum.
His lawyers say Rittenhouse — who faces homicide charges — acted in self-defense in all three shootings. An 11-minute video his defense produced first highlighted Ziminski’s possible role in the events, but didn’t identify him by that name. An hourlong analysis of different videos from that evening by Neil Kiernan, a Michigan-based blogger, posted Sept. 26, properly identified Ziminski and breaks down his presence near the gas station where Rittenhouse first fires his AR-15 rifle, killing Rosenbaum. Ziminski and his wife are seen with Rosenbaum several times, including as they all confront Rittenhouse right before Rosenbaum starts chasing Rittenhouse into the car lot where their encounter turned fatal. When Kenosha detectives interviewed Ziminski on Oct. 7, he said he had fired a “warning shot” and that gun he used, and is seen holding in various videos from that evening, has since been stolen.
Well, that’s awfully convenient, isn’t it? Unfortunately for Ziminski, despite police not being able to locate the firearm that was in his possession, he’s still caught on multiple videos firing the “warning shot” just before Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum.
Ziminski faces a maximum possible sentence of 9-months if convicted on his misdemeanor charge, but he could also play a major role in Rittenhouse’s defense. Prosecutors in Kenosha failed to mention Ziminski or the shot that he fired as he was chasing Rittenhouse in their original charging documents, even though video of the incident had already emerged showing Ziminski (unidentified at the time) firing at least one round into the air as he pursued the Illinois teen, who was running away from the mob.
Rittenhouse himself is still in Illinois as his attorneys fight extradition to Wisconsin, with a hearing scheduled for next week in Lake County, Illinois. I’ll confess to being confused by the legal strategy being used by Rittenhouse’s lawyers because, at this point, I’d want to get to a preliminary hearing as quickly as possible. That’s going to be the first real opportunity for the teen’s defense team to argue before a judge that prosecutors haven’t determined that there’s probable cause to bind Rittenhouse over for trial, as well as to offer up their own evidence that their client was acting in self-defense.
It could be that the legal team defending Kyle Rittenhouse is hoping that prosecutors will drop the murder and aggravated assault charges on their own, perhaps after the election is over, but at the moment the Kenosha County D.A.’s office has offered no indication that it’s reconsidering the charges leveled against the teen, and the best chance for an early dismissal of the charges remains with the judge who’ll eventually preside over the preliminary hearing when and if it’s scheduled.


bearingarms--2020-10-16--Media Attempts To Distort Barrett's Record

When someone is nominated to the Supreme Court , everyone ’ s probably going to disagree with how they ruled on something .
After all , to make it to the highest court in the land , you ’ ve got to have done something first .
As a result , anyone who makes it there will make some rulings that may not be particularly popular .
However , it ’ s primarily in this day and age that we see the media take those things they disagree with and distort them beyond all recognition to smear the nominee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting plenty of that .
Unsurprisingly , Salon is taking part .
upreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett argued in a dissent last year that felons should be allowed to own guns , a position Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee long opposed before defending President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench .
Barrett , who was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by Trump , broke with two fellow Republican-appointed judges with more than 70 years of experience and Attorney General Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend gun rights for felon , according to The Washington Post .
The case , Kanter v. Barr , was brought by Rickey Kanter , a Wisconsin businessman who pleaded guilty to mail fraud .
Kanter sued the Justice Department and the state of Wisconsin after completing his sentence , because federal and state laws prohibit felons from purchasing firearms .
A district court rejected Kanter ’ s claims in January 2018 , and a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel upheld the ruling 2-1 .
Barrett cast the lone dissenting opinion .
“ She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , a member of the committee , told The Post .
“ She would go much farther than her mentor Scalia did in striking down common sense measures.
” Except , Barrett didn ’ t argue that felons should be allowed to buy guns .
She ruled that non-violent felons shouldn ’ t be disarmed as a matter of law since they represent no threat to the public .
Nothing in her dissent said violent felons should be permitted to purchase firearms , which is an important distinction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a crime that almost never is associated with violence .
As a result , there ’ s no public need to keep these people disarmed , and public need is the justification given for all sorts of infringements on the Second Amendment .
Look , it ’ s been estimated that each American may commit as many as three felonies per day .
I ’ m not sure that the number is quite that high for some of us , but many statutes are written overly broad , and any number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without realizing it .
Since ignorance of the law is no defense , it ’ s not hard for someone else to find themselves jammed up over a misunderstanding .
Should they also lose their Second Amendment rights ?
Let ’ s be honest here ; we say that when someone gets out of prison , they ’ ve paid their debt to society , but they haven ’ t .
For a felony conviction , especially a non-violent felony , we continue treating them like a hardened criminal that can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society for the rest of their life .
And Barrett called out one aspect of that , noting that non-violent felons aren ’ t the problem .
Frankly , her position isn ’ t that extreme if you think about it .
There ’ s been a move over recent years to address how we treat felons , noting that they are often unable to get jobs or do anything else that doesn ’ t lead them down the path to recidivism .
Barrett ’ s dissent is really along a similar vein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing will change the blatant way Salon is trying to mischaracterize that dissent to be something it most definitely isn ’ t .

When someone is nominated to the Supreme Court, everyone’s probably going to disagree with how they ruled on something. After all, to make it to the highest court in the land, you’ve got to have done something first. As a result, anyone who makes it there will make some rulings that may not be particularly popular.
However, it’s primarily in this day and age that we see the media take those things they disagree with and distort them beyond all recognition to smear the nominee.
And, of course, Barrett is getting plenty of that. Unsurprisingly, Salon is taking part.
upreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett argued in a dissent last year that felons should be allowed to own guns, a position Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee long opposed before defending President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench. Barrett, who was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by Trump, broke with two fellow Republican-appointed judges with more than 70 years of experience and Attorney General Bill Barr’s Department of Justice to defend gun rights for felon, according to The Washington Post. The case, Kanter v. Barr, was brought by Rickey Kanter, a Wisconsin businessman who pleaded guilty to mail fraud. Kanter sued the Justice Department and the state of Wisconsin after completing his sentence, because federal and state laws prohibit felons from purchasing firearms. A district court rejected Kanter’s claims in January 2018, and a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel upheld the ruling 2-1. Barrett cast the lone dissenting opinion. “She is extreme on this issue,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the committee, told The Post. “She would go much farther than her mentor Scalia did in striking down common sense measures.”
Except, Barrett didn’t argue that felons should be allowed to buy guns. She ruled that non-violent felons shouldn’t be disarmed as a matter of law since they represent no threat to the public.
Nothing in her dissent said violent felons should be permitted to purchase firearms, which is an important distinction. Kanter was convicted of mail fraud, a crime that almost never is associated with violence. As a result, there’s no public need to keep these people disarmed, and public need is the justification given for all sorts of infringements on the Second Amendment.
Look, it’s been estimated that each American may commit as many as three felonies per day. I’m not sure that the number is quite that high for some of us, but many statutes are written overly broad, and any number of people can run afoul of the law without realizing it. Since ignorance of the law is no defense, it’s not hard for someone else to find themselves jammed up over a misunderstanding.
Should they also lose their Second Amendment rights?
Let’s be honest here; we say that when someone gets out of prison, they’ve paid their debt to society, but they haven’t. For a felony conviction, especially a non-violent felony, we continue treating them like a hardened criminal that can’t be trusted to be a part of society for the rest of their life.
And Barrett called out one aspect of that, noting that non-violent felons aren’t the problem.
Frankly, her position isn’t that extreme if you think about it. There’s been a move over recent years to address how we treat felons, noting that they are often unable to get jobs or do anything else that doesn’t lead them down the path to recidivism. Barrett’s dissent is really along a similar vein if you think about it.
Yet nothing will change the blatant way Salon is trying to mischaracterize that dissent to be something it most definitely isn’t.


bearingarms--2020-10-17--Sorry, NYTimes, But There's Only One Constitution

The left ’ s descent into malevolent and feigned ignorance on the topic of judicial originalism took another plunge downward into the abyss on Friday with the publication of Jamelle Bouie ’ s latest column for the New York Times , entitled “ Which Constitution Is Amy Coney Barrett Talking About ?
” Bouie claims that in actuality , we really have two Constitutions ; the one we all know about that was ratified in 1787 , and the Constitution that came about as a result of the Civil War in the 1860s .
Barrett ’ s Constitution is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and made official the following year .
That ’ s why her formulation for originalism rests on ratification , as she states at the outset of a paper she wrote called “ Originalism and Stare Decisis.
” Many Americans think the same , identifying the Constitution with the document drafted by James Madison to supplant the Articles of Confederation and create more stable ground for national government .
But there ’ s a strong argument that this Constitution died with the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12 , 1861 .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t call it a strong one .
After all , the Constitution wasn ’ t replaced or repealed as a result of the Civil War .
It was amended , which is the proper way to change the Constitution ( as opposed to declaring it a “ living , breathing document ” that changes with the times without any actual amendments to the document itself ) .
Whereas the Constitution of 1787 established a white republic in which the right to property meant the right to total domination of other human beings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy that made the federal government what Charles Sumner called the “ custodian of freedom ” and a caretaker of equal rights .
To that end , the framers of this “ second founding ” — men like Thaddeus Stevens , Lyman Trumbull and John Bingham — understood these new amendments as expansive and revolutionary .
And they were .
Just as the original Constitution codified the victories ( and contradictions ) of the Revolution , so too did the Reconstruction Constitution do the same in relation to the Civil War .
Revolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution were additions to the original Constitution , just like all of the amendments that came before and after .
While amendments may negate a previously written specific part of the Constitution , none of them amount to a second Constitution in and of themselves .
They all build on what came before .
Take the Fourteenth Amendment , for example .
Bouie ’ s correct that the amendment makes the federal government a caretaker of rights , as opposed to the Second Amendment , which specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What rights , though ?
Bouie claims that the “ Second Constitution ” fundamentally differed from the actual Constitution ratified in 1787 , but in actuality , neither the Thirteenth , Fourteenth , or Fifteenth Amendments created new rights .
They extended the protections of existing rights to a class of Americans that had previously been denied their liberty .
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside .
No State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .
The most radical part of the Fourteenth Amendment may be in its recognition that individual rights need to be protected against encroachment by the states and local governments as well as by federal authorities .
However , it ’ s still in line with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; that individual citizens possess certain rights that may not be infringed upon or violated by governments .
Originalists have no problem with constitutional amendments .
In fact , it amuses me to see politicians claim that judicial originalists like Amy Coney Barrett only rely on the Constitution as it was written in 1787 , and then complain about originalist interpretations of the Second Amendment , which wasn ’ t ratified until 1791 .
In the McDonald case that struck down Chicago ’ s ban on handguns on the grounds that the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms from infringements by any layer of government , Justice Samuel Alito buttressed his argument in part by citing the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment .
Alito has described himself as a “ pratical originalist , ” so clearly originalists like Judge Amy Coney Barrett have no problem looking at the Constitution not just as it was written in 1787 , but as it has been amended over the past 233 years .
The real issue is with intelligent pundits , politicians , and influencers playing dumb about what originalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett as someone who would take Americans backwards , rather than a judge who would ensure that the Constitution continues to serve as a protection for their individual rights .

The left’s descent into malevolent and feigned ignorance on the topic of judicial originalism took another plunge downward into the abyss on Friday with the publication of Jamelle Bouie’s latest column for the New York Times, entitled “Which Constitution Is Amy Coney Barrett Talking About?” Bouie claims that in actuality, we really have two Constitutions; the one we all know about that was ratified in 1787, and the Constitution that came about as a result of the Civil War in the 1860s.
Barrett’s Constitution is the Constitution of 1787, written in Philadelphia and made official the following year. That’s why her formulation for originalism rests on ratification, as she states at the outset of a paper she wrote called “Originalism and Stare Decisis.” Many Americans think the same, identifying the Constitution with the document drafted by James Madison to supplant the Articles of Confederation and create more stable ground for national government. But there’s a strong argument that this Constitution died with the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.
There’s an argument, but I wouldn’t call it a strong one. After all, the Constitution wasn’t replaced or repealed as a result of the Civil War. It was amended, which is the proper way to change the Constitution (as opposed to declaring it a “living, breathing document” that changes with the times without any actual amendments to the document itself).
Whereas the Constitution of 1787 established a white republic in which the right to property meant the right to total domination of other human beings, the Reconstruction Constitution established a biracial democracy that made the federal government what Charles Sumner called the “custodian of freedom” and a caretaker of equal rights. To that end, the framers of this “second founding” — men like Thaddeus Stevens, Lyman Trumbull and John Bingham — understood these new amendments as expansive and revolutionary. And they were. Just as the original Constitution codified the victories (and contradictions) of the Revolution, so too did the Reconstruction Constitution do the same in relation to the Civil War.
Revolutionary or not, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution were additions to the original Constitution, just like all of the amendments that came before and after. While amendments may negate a previously written specific part of the Constitution, none of them amount to a second Constitution in and of themselves. They all build on what came before.
Take the Fourteenth Amendment, for example. Bouie’s correct that the amendment makes the federal government a caretaker of rights, as opposed to the Second Amendment, which specifically limits the power of the federal government. What rights, though? Bouie claims that the “Second Constitution” fundamentally differed from the actual Constitution ratified in 1787, but in actuality, neither the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendments created new rights. They extended the protections of existing rights to a class of Americans that had previously been denied their liberty.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The most radical part of the Fourteenth Amendment may be in its recognition that individual rights need to be protected against encroachment by the states and local governments as well as by federal authorities. However, it’s still in line with the idea behind the first ten amendments; that individual citizens possess certain rights that may not be infringed upon or violated by governments.
Originalists have no problem with constitutional amendments. In fact, it amuses me to see politicians claim that judicial originalists like Amy Coney Barrett only rely on the Constitution as it was written in 1787, and then complain about originalist interpretations of the Second Amendment, which wasn’t ratified until 1791.
In the McDonald case that struck down Chicago’s ban on handguns on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms from infringements by any layer of government, Justice Samuel Alito buttressed his argument in part by citing the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment.
“It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Alito said. “A provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.”
Alito has described himself as a “pratical originalist,” so clearly originalists like Judge Amy Coney Barrett have no problem looking at the Constitution not just as it was written in 1787, but as it has been amended over the past 233 years. The real issue is with intelligent pundits, politicians, and influencers playing dumb about what originalism really means in order to falsely portray Amy Coney Barrett as someone who would take Americans backwards, rather than a judge who would ensure that the Constitution continues to serve as a protection for their individual rights.


bearingarms--2020-10-17--Accused Murderer Can't Bond Out Because Of Guns At Home

Our entire legal system is predicated on the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty .
However , there are times when we don ’ t actually act that way , and for pretty good reason .
For example , if someone is a flight risk , they likely will be held in jail so they will actually face trial .
The phrase “ innocent until proven guilty ” only goes so far in our legal system , after all .
An accused Texas killer ’ s case brings up an interesting example .
After all , he met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid on him , but he ’ s still not out of jail to await trial .
Why ?
He ’ s got guns .
A cache of guns is keeping a murder suspect in jail , even though he has posted a $ 1 million bond .
Court records show 33-year-old Andrew Beard came up with the bond just days after his arrest last week .
But today a judge signed an order holding the bond insufficient after police disclosed Beard has 18 firearms in his Rowlett home .
Former prosecutor Toby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Beard can get out .
Now , Beard is accused of murder , which is a serious crime .
Police say he wore blackface and a fake beard when he killed 24-year-old Alyssa Burkett , the mother of his one-year-old child .
In other words , he allegedly gunned down the mother of his own child .
So , the judge handed him a massive bond .
Well , Beard met it , but now because of those guns at home , he still can ’ t get out .
One one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s point .
This is a man accused of a fairly heinous crime and so sending him home where he ’ s got access to firearms may represent something of a problem .
However , the bigger point here is that Beard hasn ’ t been convicted of any crime .
He ’ s only accused of a crime , which isn ’ t remotely the same thing .
Plenty of people have been accused of a crime , only for it to be found out later they didn ’ t do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Second Amendment rights based on an accusation ?
That said , judges often restrict the rights of people accused of crimes until after their trial is over .
Their movement is restricted and sometimes they ’ re even on house arrest as they await their day in court .
I honestly don ’ t know on this one .
Beard maintains his rights until and unless he ’ s convicted , but does the judge have a point here ?
I mean , this is someone accused of shooting a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to guns and no restriction on his movement , will he kill again ?
For me , though , this is more of an academic interest .
I don ’ t give a damn if Beard has his rights at the moment or not , except in an abstract sense .
If he did this particular crime , I want him to rot in prison until they stick a needle in his arm and put him out of our misery .
The problem is that if they can do this to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do it for a crime I didn ’ t commit .
It should be interesting to see how this proceeds .

Our entire legal system is predicated on the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty. However, there are times when we don’t actually act that way, and for pretty good reason. For example, if someone is a flight risk, they likely will be held in jail so they will actually face trial. The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” only goes so far in our legal system, after all.
An accused Texas killer’s case brings up an interesting example. After all, he met the one million dollar bond the judge laid on him, but he’s still not out of jail to await trial. Why? He’s got guns.
A cache of guns is keeping a murder suspect in jail, even though he has posted a $1 million bond. Court records show 33-year-old Andrew Beard came up with the bond just days after his arrest last week. But today a judge signed an order holding the bond insufficient after police disclosed Beard has 18 firearms in his Rowlett home. Former prosecutor Toby Shook says the guns have to go before Beard can get out.
Now, Beard is accused of murder, which is a serious crime. Police say he wore blackface and a fake beard when he killed 24-year-old Alyssa Burkett, the mother of his one-year-old child. In other words, he allegedly gunned down the mother of his own child.
So, the judge handed him a massive bond.
Well, Beard met it, but now because of those guns at home, he still can’t get out.
One one hand, I see the judge’s point. This is a man accused of a fairly heinous crime and so sending him home where he’s got access to firearms may represent something of a problem.
However, the bigger point here is that Beard hasn’t been convicted of any crime. He’s only accused of a crime, which isn’t remotely the same thing. Plenty of people have been accused of a crime, only for it to be found out later they didn’t do it. Are we going to restrict people’s Second Amendment rights based on an accusation?
That said, judges often restrict the rights of people accused of crimes until after their trial is over. Their movement is restricted and sometimes they’re even on house arrest as they await their day in court.
I honestly don’t know on this one.
Beard maintains his rights until and unless he’s convicted, but does the judge have a point here? I mean, this is someone accused of shooting a woman in cold blood. If he has access to guns and no restriction on his movement, will he kill again?
For me, though, this is more of an academic interest. I don’t give a damn if Beard has his rights at the moment or not, except in an abstract sense. If he did this particular crime, I want him to rot in prison until they stick a needle in his arm and put him out of our misery. The problem is that if they can do this to him, they might do it to me and do it for a crime I didn’t commit.
It should be interesting to see how this proceeds.


bearingarms--2020-10-18--Debate Moderators Duck Biden's Gun Ban Plan

Even though we ’ re on pace for the busiest year in history in terms of U.S. gun sales , the Second Amendment and gun control wasn ’ t a topic of the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
The issues didn ’ t come up in either Trump or Biden ’ s recent town halls , and now we ’ ve learned that the final debate between the two presidential candidates won ’ t feature a single question about gun control or support for the Second Amendment either .
The Commission on Presidential debates announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second and final debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden set to take place next week .
The topics are : “ Fighting COVID-19 , ” “ American Families , ” “ Race in America , ” “ Climate Change , ” “ National Security ” and “ Leadership.
” The final debate between Trump and Biden is scheduled to take place on October 22 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m .
ET in Tennessee .
The format is the same as the first debate : Each segment will last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have two minutes to respond after the moderator , NBC ’ s Kristen Welker , opens each segment with a question .
Welker will then use the rest of the time in the segment to facilitate further discussion on the topic .
For millions of new gun owners , these issues have become increasingly important , and tens of millions of Americans who would be impacted by Joe Biden ’ s gun ban plans deserve to hear at least a couple of minutes of debate over his idea to force gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and large capacity magazines to the government in exchange for a little cash , or else fork over $ 200 per item in order to register them under the National Firearms Act .
They deserve to hear Biden attempt to explain why he believes that someone who doesn ’ t register their lawfully purchased AR-15 with the government or hand it over should spend ten years in a federal prison for violating the National Firearms Act .
They won ’ t get the chance .
The Biden/Harris campaign and even gun control groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this campaign cycle , and the media has been more than willing to avoid asking any difficult questions to anti-gun candidates about the specifics of their gun control agenda .
According to the Gallup poll , “ crime ” is seen as an important issue for 79 % of voters , with “ gun policy ” not far behind at 68 % .
A deeper look at the poll indicates that there ’ s a partisan divide on the issues , however , with far more Republicans than Democrats saying that both issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Democrats or Democrat-leaners say that crime is an important issue to them , 85 % of Republicans and leaners say the same thing .
The gap between red and blue voters on “ gun policy ” is even larger .
Just 60 % of Democrats and leaners call gun policy and important issue , but 76 % of GOP voters and leaners call the issue an important one .
Joe Biden is demanding the confiscation of millions of lawfully-owned firearms and tens of millions of legally possessed ammunition magazines , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gun owners across the country , yet he ’ s not going be asked a single question about it during any of the presidential debates .
Instead , “ climate change , ” which Gallup found was an important issue to just 55 % of respondents ( and only 23 % of Republicans ) will be included in the final debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
If Biden does manage to get to Election Day without ever being asked tough questions about his anti-gun policy proposals , the media won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its job , it will have actively aided and abetted the Biden campaign in its strategy to duck an issue that is critically important to broad swaths of the electorate .
Ignorance won ’ t be blissful for the voters who ’ ve been told repeatedly that Biden ’ s only in favor of “ common sense gun safety regulations ” without ever learning the truth behind the Democratic candidate ’ s actual agenda .

Even though we’re on pace for the busiest year in history in terms of U.S. gun sales, the Second Amendment and gun control wasn’t a topic of the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The issues didn’t come up in either Trump or Biden’s recent town halls, and now we’ve learned that the final debate between the two presidential candidates won’t feature a single question about gun control or support for the Second Amendment either.
The Commission on Presidential debates announced on Friday the six topics for the second and final debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden set to take place next week. The topics are: “Fighting COVID-19,” “American Families,” “Race in America,” “Climate Change,” “National Security” and “Leadership.” The final debate between Trump and Biden is scheduled to take place on October 22 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET in Tennessee. The format is the same as the first debate: Each segment will last about 15 minutes, and the candidates will have two minutes to respond after the moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, opens each segment with a question. Welker will then use the rest of the time in the segment to facilitate further discussion on the topic.
For millions of new gun owners, these issues have become increasingly important, and tens of millions of Americans who would be impacted by Joe Biden’s gun ban plans deserve to hear at least a couple of minutes of debate over his idea to force gun owners to hand over their so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines to the government in exchange for a little cash, or else fork over $200 per item in order to register them under the National Firearms Act. They deserve to hear Biden attempt to explain why he believes that someone who doesn’t register their lawfully purchased AR-15 with the government or hand it over should spend ten years in a federal prison for violating the National Firearms Act.
They won’t get the chance. The Biden/Harris campaign and even gun control groups themselves have been downplaying their agenda during this campaign cycle, and the media has been more than willing to avoid asking any difficult questions to anti-gun candidates about the specifics of their gun control agenda.
Polls have indicated that this year Republicans hold an edge among voters who are concerned about public safety and “gun policy” , which may be one reason why gun control supporters are so reluctant to talk about the Biden/Harris plan in front of the cameras.
According to the Gallup poll, “crime” is seen as an important issue for 79% of voters, with “gun policy” not far behind at 68%. A deeper look at the poll indicates that there’s a partisan divide on the issues, however, with far more Republicans than Democrats saying that both issues are important to them. While 70% of Democrats or Democrat-leaners say that crime is an important issue to them, 85% of Republicans and leaners say the same thing. The gap between red and blue voters on “gun policy” is even larger. Just 60% of Democrats and leaners call gun policy and important issue, but 76% of GOP voters and leaners call the issue an important one.
Joe Biden is demanding the confiscation of millions of lawfully-owned firearms and tens of millions of legally possessed ammunition magazines, which in turn would impact tens of millions of gun owners across the country, yet he’s not going be asked a single question about it during any of the presidential debates. Instead, “climate change,” which Gallup found was an important issue to just 55% of respondents (and only 23% of Republicans) will be included in the final debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
If Biden does manage to get to Election Day without ever being asked tough questions about his anti-gun policy proposals, the media won’t just have failed to do its job, it will have actively aided and abetted the Biden campaign in its strategy to duck an issue that is critically important to broad swaths of the electorate. Ignorance won’t be blissful for the voters who’ve been told repeatedly that Biden’s only in favor of “common sense gun safety regulations” without ever learning the truth behind the Democratic candidate’s actual agenda.


bearingarms--2020-10-18--Alarming Number Of Guns Stolen Out Of Cars In Nashville

I try not to have too many pet peeves , for the most part , because most of the time , things that annoy me may not have a greater impact to the world and , as such , all having a pet peeve does is allow you to feel superior .
Since I generally don ’ t go out of my way to feel superior to other people except pedophiles and Justin Bieber fans , there ’ s just no point .
However , there is one that I ’ m not interested in letting go , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave firearms in their cars .
Metro Police said more than 550 guns have been stolen from vehicles in Nashville so far this year .
Just last week , police said 21 guns were stolen from vehicles and 8 of those vehicles were easy targets as they were unlocked .
Now , let ’ s keep a few things in mind here .
First , I ’ ll admit that it seems many of these were locked cars and there are times when there ’ s not much you can do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to go into a building where firearms are prohibited , so you leave your gun behind .
For most of us , though , that means locking it in the glove box or something .
Others will stash it in the center console , but make sure to lock the car so people can ’ t gain easy entry .
However , there are also a ton of people who are bound and determined to leave a gun in the car for an indefinite period of time .
They just stash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it there in case they need it .
Then they get used to ignoring it and leave the damn car unlocked and allow a criminal to get their gun .
Look , I get all the Second Amendment arguments , the idea that someone should have a right to do just that .
In fact , I agree with them .
Someone should have a right to leave a gun in their car .
But having the right to do something doesn ’ t mean that you should do that thing .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at anyone you pass on the street .
That doesn ’ t mean it ’ s something you should go out and do for your personal amusement .
What I ’ m talking about is gun owners acting irresponsibly .
When gun owners act irresponsibly , it makes our fight to protect our Second Amendment rights just that much harder .
People see these stories and hear about how gun owners in Nashville are leaving guns in their cars and getting them stolen , then roll their eyes when we talk about responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re one and the same .
They don ’ t comprehend any difference .
Further , this prompts lawmakers to look to punish people who get their firearms stolen in such a way , which makes it harder for the guy or gal who really is doing everything right , but had their gun stolen anyway because he was in a place where carrying a gun was off-limits when his or her car got hit .
Please , for the love of all that is holy , please stop doing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @

I try not to have too many pet peeves, for the most part, because most of the time, things that annoy me may not have a greater impact to the world and, as such, all having a pet peeve does is allow you to feel superior. Since I generally don’t go out of my way to feel superior to other people except pedophiles and Justin Bieber fans, there’s just no point.
However, there is one that I’m not interested in letting go, and that’s how so many people seem to leave firearms in their cars.
Metro Police said more than 550 guns have been stolen from vehicles in Nashville so far this year. Just last week, police said 21 guns were stolen from vehicles and 8 of those vehicles were easy targets as they were unlocked.
Now, let’s keep a few things in mind here.
First, I’ll admit that it seems many of these were locked cars and there are times when there’s not much you can do. You’re carrying your firearm and you have to go into a building where firearms are prohibited, so you leave your gun behind. For most of us, though, that means locking it in the glove box or something. Others will stash it in the center console, but make sure to lock the car so people can’t gain easy entry.
However, there are also a ton of people who are bound and determined to leave a gun in the car for an indefinite period of time. They just stash a gun in the car and leave it there in case they need it. Then they get used to ignoring it and leave the damn car unlocked and allow a criminal to get their gun.
Nice, freaking job, moron.
Look, I get all the Second Amendment arguments, the idea that someone should have a right to do just that. In fact, I agree with them. Someone should have a right to leave a gun in their car.
But having the right to do something doesn’t mean that you should do that thing. You have a right to sling racial slurs at anyone you pass on the street. That doesn’t mean it’s something you should go out and do for your personal amusement.
What I’m talking about is gun owners acting irresponsibly.
When gun owners act irresponsibly, it makes our fight to protect our Second Amendment rights just that much harder. People see these stories and hear about how gun owners in Nashville are leaving guns in their cars and getting them stolen, then roll their eyes when we talk about responsible gun owners. In their mind, we’re one and the same. They don’t comprehend any difference.
Further, this prompts lawmakers to look to punish people who get their firearms stolen in such a way, which makes it harder for the guy or gal who really is doing everything right, but had their gun stolen anyway because he was in a place where carrying a gun was off-limits when his or her car got hit.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop doing this crap.
For all our sakes.


bearingarms--2020-10-19--An Anti-Gunner's Journey Toward Potential Gun Ownership

People become anti-gun for a number of reasons .
For many , it ’ s simply that they ’ re told it will make things better .
Some just don ’ t like the idea of people being able to have weapons .
For others , they or someone they know has been the victim of a horrific shooting .
There are far , far more reasons than just these , as well .
However , I tend to have a bit more sympathy for those who come to be anti-gun after a terrible experience with themselves or someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t agree with it , by and large , I can at least understand how those feelings develop .
Yet in the Washington Post this week , they had a bit of a human interest story about a guy who has been anti-gun–a literal hoplophobe–and how he opted to face his fears .
In a nation plagued by gun violence , in a state scarred by mass shootings and bitterly divided over how to prevent them , would firing a weapon help Karns heal — or inflict more damage ?
A month earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same gun range in a span of five days .
Karns had heard about the suicides but wasn ’ t dissuaded .
“ C ’ mon in , ” CJ shouted , swinging open the door to the range as the pops suddenly grew louder .
Karns followed him to the end of an empty row of shooting bays , where his friend Jennifer Curran , a firefighter and avid gun owner , set down two black carrying cases and a green metal ammo box on the concrete floor .
As Karns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she unzipped one of her cases and pulled out a Glock 9mm handgun , setting it carefully on the table in front of him .
She showed him how to load its magazine and aim through its sights .
Karns slid the bullets into the magazine , thinking of the one that had been fired into his neck .
“ Are you ready ?
” she asked , taking the loaded magazine from him .
That ’ s right , he opted to face his literal fear and go shooting .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He apparently took a round to the neck , so he has some reasons to be afraid .
However , he also has made something of a crusade of being afraid of guns .
In fact , remember the Lobby Day protests earlier this year ?
( Yeah , that was just this year , though it feels like five years ago thanks to it being 2020 . )
Well , Karns was there confronting pro-gun people .
OK , so Karns is a bit of a jerk about his anti-gun crusade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confronting people at a pro-gun rally , then didn ’ t want to be recorded because , well , he was being a bit of a jerk apparently .
Yet Karns also suffered from PTSD after a couple of gun-related incidents .
One was his proximity to a murder-suicide .
The other was being shot after trying to stop an attack on a neighbor .
So yeah , I get him being shaken .
But , he still saw no problem with stirring stuff up while surrounded by armed people .
Then again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of his PTSD , though , Karns ran into all kinds of problems .
He drank and put on a ton of weight , which led to other health issues .
So eventually , he opted to try shooting .
Some in his life were worried it would lead to a relapse of his past problems , but Karns tried it anyway .
The result ?
“ Richmond will always be the place where I was shot , the place where my marriage fell apart , the place where I got drunk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied for a job in Maine , helping others recover from trauma and addiction .
Three days after his trip to the range , he drove up to his family ’ s summer home , where Anna — college on hold because of the pandemic — was waiting for him .
Karns felt more at peace far from the noise and politics and memories of Virginia .
In Maine , he could hear the echo of hunters ’ guns as he hiked along rural trails with Anna , trying to be the father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sound bothered him less now .
And since the trip to the range , a strange idea had taken hold of him .
There were bears in these parts .
Karns could really use a gun .
Of course , Karns had reason to be bothered .
I don ’ t agree with him and wish he ’ d had more grounding in the rights portion of gun rights before his first encounter with gun violence , but he didn ’ t have it .
If he did , he might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not the tools being misused .
However , by facing his fears over firearms , he managed to get past his issues to the point that now he ’ s considering getting a firearm himself .
He also sees that protection and self-defense isn ’ t just about crime .
Many of the millions of people who use a firearm to defend themselves every years aren ’ t using them against armed assailants .
They ’ re using them against wild animals , things like bears .
The big question becomes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or will that mellow as well ?

People become anti-gun for a number of reasons. For many, it’s simply that they’re told it will make things better. Some just don’t like the idea of people being able to have weapons. For others, they or someone they know has been the victim of a horrific shooting. There are far, far more reasons than just these, as well.
However, I tend to have a bit more sympathy for those who come to be anti-gun after a terrible experience with themselves or someone else being shot. While I don’t agree with it, by and large, I can at least understand how those feelings develop.
Yet in the Washington Post this week, they had a bit of a human interest story about a guy who has been anti-gun–a literal hoplophobe–and how he opted to face his fears.
In a nation plagued by gun violence, in a state scarred by mass shootings and bitterly divided over how to prevent them, would firing a weapon help Karns heal — or inflict more damage? A month earlier, two men had killed themselves at the same gun range in a span of five days. Karns had heard about the suicides but wasn’t dissuaded. “C’mon in,” CJ shouted, swinging open the door to the range as the pops suddenly grew louder. Karns followed him to the end of an empty row of shooting bays, where his friend Jennifer Curran, a firefighter and avid gun owner, set down two black carrying cases and a green metal ammo box on the concrete floor. As Karns picked at a box of bullets, she unzipped one of her cases and pulled out a Glock 9mm handgun, setting it carefully on the table in front of him. She showed him how to load its magazine and aim through its sights. Karns slid the bullets into the magazine, thinking of the one that had been fired into his neck. “Are you ready?” she asked, taking the loaded magazine from him.
That’s right, he opted to face his literal fear and go shooting.
Now, Karns is someone who has been shot. He apparently took a round to the neck, so he has some reasons to be afraid.
However, he also has made something of a crusade of being afraid of guns. In fact, remember the Lobby Day protests earlier this year? (Yeah, that was just this year, though it feels like five years ago thanks to it being 2020.) Well, Karns was there confronting pro-gun people.
Wearing a running jacket, glasses and a Brandeis University baseball cap, he began asking strangers why they needed body armor and high-powered weapons. Soon a small crowd had gathered around him, with some calling him an “agitator.” He was chatting with a pair of teenagers sporting heavy rifles over their slender shoulders when a man in his 30s approached. He invoked what he claimed were Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics showing that guns save 2.5 million people a year from crime. “You can look that up,” said the man, an AR-15-style rifle across his chest. “Don’t take my word for it.” Bystanders began to film the conversation as it grew more heated, ignoring Karns’s requests that they stop.
OK, so Karns is a bit of a jerk about his anti-gun crusade. After all, he was actively confronting people at a pro-gun rally, then didn’t want to be recorded because, well, he was being a bit of a jerk apparently.
Yet Karns also suffered from PTSD after a couple of gun-related incidents. One was his proximity to a murder-suicide. The other was being shot after trying to stop an attack on a neighbor.
So yeah, I get him being shaken.
But, he still saw no problem with stirring stuff up while surrounded by armed people. Then again, PTSD works weird.
As a result of his PTSD, though, Karns ran into all kinds of problems. He drank and put on a ton of weight, which led to other health issues.
So eventually, he opted to try shooting. Some in his life were worried it would lead to a relapse of his past problems, but Karns tried it anyway. The result?
“Richmond will always be the place where I was shot, the place where my marriage fell apart, the place where I got drunk,” he said. He had applied for a job in Maine, helping others recover from trauma and addiction. Three days after his trip to the range, he drove up to his family’s summer home, where Anna — college on hold because of the pandemic — was waiting for him. Karns felt more at peace far from the noise and politics and memories of Virginia. In Maine, he could hear the echo of hunters’ guns as he hiked along rural trails with Anna, trying to be the father she’d never known. But the sound bothered him less now. And since the trip to the range, a strange idea had taken hold of him. There were bears in these parts. Karns could really use a gun.
Funny, huh?
Of course, Karns had reason to be bothered. I don’t agree with him and wish he’d had more grounding in the rights portion of gun rights before his first encounter with gun violence, but he didn’t have it. If he did, he might have recognized that the problem is with people, not the tools being misused.
However, by facing his fears over firearms, he managed to get past his issues to the point that now he’s considering getting a firearm himself. He also sees that protection and self-defense isn’t just about crime. Many of the millions of people who use a firearm to defend themselves every years aren’t using them against armed assailants. They’re using them against wild animals, things like bears.
The big question becomes, will Karns maintain his anti-gun stance, or will that mellow as well?