bearingarms--2020-02-10--While OK's Permitless Carry Means Fewer Licenses, It Means More

An article I came across earlier today had what may be the most “ duh ” headline I ’ ve ever seen , and in this line of work , I ’ ve seen a lot .
The article was about how since permitless carry passed in Oklahoma , fewer people are actually seeking to get permits .
Titled , “ Permitless carry has led to fewer issued licenses , fewer people taking classes , ” the headline is only shocking in that someone thought it was news .
After all , fewer people are going to go through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that requires training if they ’ re not required to do so in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms .
However , there was an interesting tidbit that only got touched on a couple of times in the article that I thought was quite interesting .
You see , while many of us ( and I ’ m looking at me on this one ) like to think of gun owners as a monolithic group , the truth is that there are a lot of people with varying degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the classes were filled with plenty of people who were just going through the motions .
They sat through the class because they were required to .
They didn ’ t actually care and didn ’ t do more than they needed to–a fact that illustrates why mandatory training is so stupid .
Now , though , those who are taking the training aren ’ t that group that just goes through the motions .
These are the folks who want to learn more , to know more .
They want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use their firearm in accordance with state law .
They ’ re asking better questions simply because the voluntary nature of the classes now make it so only the more motivated will bother to attend .
It ’ s part of why so many private citizens can outshoot the average police officer .
The officer does what they have to while the citizen does it because they want to .
In fact , this is a good lesson for states .
There ’ s nothing wrong with encouraging training , but unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through the motions to get the piece of paper .
After all , this dude was a certified instructor at one time .

An article I came across earlier today had what may be the most “duh” headline I’ve ever seen, and in this line of work, I’ve seen a lot. The article was about how since permitless carry passed in Oklahoma, fewer people are actually seeking to get permits.
Duh, right?
Titled, “Permitless carry has led to fewer issued licenses, fewer people taking classes,” the headline is only shocking in that someone thought it was news. After all, fewer people are going to go through the hassle of getting a permit in a state that requires training if they’re not required to do so in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.
However, there was an interesting tidbit that only got touched on a couple of times in the article that I thought was quite interesting.
This really isn’t surprising.
You see, while many of us (and I’m looking at me on this one) like to think of gun owners as a monolithic group, the truth is that there are a lot of people with varying degrees of interest. Prior to permitless carry, the classes were filled with plenty of people who were just going through the motions. They sat through the class because they were required to. They didn’t actually care and didn’t do more than they needed to–a fact that illustrates why mandatory training is so stupid.
Now, though, those who are taking the training aren’t that group that just goes through the motions. These are the folks who want to learn more, to know more. They want to take those extra steps to understand how to use their firearm in accordance with state law. They’re asking better questions simply because the voluntary nature of the classes now make it so only the more motivated will bother to attend.
It’s part of why so many private citizens can outshoot the average police officer. The officer does what they have to while the citizen does it because they want to.
In fact, this is a good lesson for states. There’s nothing wrong with encouraging training, but unless it’s voluntary, some will go through the motions to get the piece of paper.
After all, this dude was a certified instructor at one time.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Buttigieg Says War On Drugs A Failure, Wants War On Guns Instead

Pete Buttigieg , who ’ s suddenly leaped into the national spotlight after his strong showing in Iowa and polls showing him neck-and-neck with Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary , caught some heat over the weekend for his position that possession of drugs should be decriminalized .
Appearing on Fox News Sunday , Buttigieg was grilled by Chris Wallace about his stance .
Wallace pointed out that Buttigieg ’ s website says that all drugs would be decriminalized .
Buttigieg acknowledged his stance but said drug possession could also be a misdemeanor , a class of offense usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that jailing drug users “ shows a profound failure in our country ’ s mental health and addiction treatment system.
” “ The point is not the legal niceties , ” Buttigieg said .
“ The point is that we have learned through 40 years of a failed war on drugs that criminalizing addiction does not work .
Not only that , the incarceration does more harm than the offense that it ’ s intended to deal with.
” And yet what is Buttigieg ’ s preferred method of dealing with America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them into criminals and launching a war on guns to replace the war on drugs .
Buttigieg says criminalizing addiction doesn ’ t work , but for some reason he ’ s all into criminalizing the exercise of a fundamental right .
Here ’ s a portion of the gun control measures Buttigieg is backing .
• Enact red flag laws ( also known as extreme risk laws ) that disarm at-risk individuals and allow friends and family to intervene when they observe warning signs • Hold the gun industry accountable by repealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ( PLCAA ) to end gun industry immunity The gun licensing plan alone would be enough to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners into felons through the simple act of noncompliance .
Only at the end does Buttigieg offer up support for “ evidence-based urban gun violence intervention programs , ” largely as an afterthought .
Those are the programs that are dramatically reducing homicides and shootings when effectively put in place , but they ’ re barely mentioned by Buttigieg , who is much more interested in restricting the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street crime that plagues too many of our communities .
Though heroin and fentanyl have killed tens of thousands more Americans than evil individuals holding an AR-15 have , Buttigieg believes it should be legal for you buy heroin on the street , and a felony for you to purchase an AR-15 from a gun store .
In Buttigieg ’ s world , it would be fine for you to possess meth , but if you kept ahold of your grandfather ’ s revolver without getting a federal gun license , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , while Buttigieg has said he wouldn ’ t borrow a page from Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke ’ s campaign and demand Americans hand over their banned guns and magazines , the rhetoric he uses suggests that sooner or later ( and likely sooner ) he would , in fact , come for your guns .
“ I think the weapons of war can do no good in American neighborhoods , ” Buttigieg , an Afghanistan War veteran , said on “ New Day.
” “ I trained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they have one purpose , which is to destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible .
They have tactical uses in war zones .
Since when are American cities and neighborhoods supposed to be war zones ?
” If you really believe that AR-15 ’ s are “ weapons of war ” that don ’ t belong in the hands of American citizens , then you ’ re not going to be satisfied with letting millions of Americans continue to possess them , even if you ban their sale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s issue with O ’ Rourke was that he was putting the prospect of a gun control deal in jeopardy , not that he was morally or ethically opposed to demanding Americans turn over their legally-possessed firearms .
No , under a Pete Buttigieg presidency you ’ d be able to possess a syringe full of fentanyl without fear of federal prosecution , but that 20-round magazine could put you behind bars for years .
While Buttigieg might believe the war on drugs has been a failure , he seems intent on making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war on our guns .

Pete Buttigieg, who’s suddenly leaped into the national spotlight after his strong showing in Iowa and polls showing him neck-and-neck with Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary, caught some heat over the weekend for his position that possession of drugs should be decriminalized. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Buttigieg was grilled by Chris Wallace about his stance.
Wallace pointed out that Buttigieg’s website says that all drugs would be decriminalized. Buttigieg acknowledged his stance but said drug possession could also be a misdemeanor, a class of offense usually not punished with prison time. He argued that jailing drug users “shows a profound failure in our country’s mental health and addiction treatment system.” “The point is not the legal niceties,” Buttigieg said. “The point is that we have learned through 40 years of a failed war on drugs that criminalizing addiction does not work. Not only that, the incarceration does more harm than the offense that it’s intended to deal with.”
And yet what is Buttigieg’s preferred method of dealing with America’s 100-million gun owners? Turning them into criminals and launching a war on guns to replace the war on drugs. Buttigieg says criminalizing addiction doesn’t work, but for some reason he’s all into criminalizing the exercise of a fundamental right. Here’s a portion of the gun control measures Buttigieg is backing.
Institute universal background checks
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
Enact red flag laws (also known as extreme risk laws) that disarm at-risk individuals and allow friends and family to intervene when they observe warning signs
Hold the gun industry accountable by repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to end gun industry immunity
Establish a nationwide gun licensing system
Invest in evidence-based urban gun violence intervention programs proven to work
The gun licensing plan alone would be enough to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners into felons through the simple act of noncompliance. Only at the end does Buttigieg offer up support for “evidence-based urban gun violence intervention programs,” largely as an afterthought. Those are the programs that are dramatically reducing homicides and shootings when effectively put in place, but they’re barely mentioned by Buttigieg, who is much more interested in restricting the rights of legal gun owners than dealing with the street crime that plagues too many of our communities.
Though heroin and fentanyl have killed tens of thousands more Americans than evil individuals holding an AR-15 have, Buttigieg believes it should be legal for you buy heroin on the street, and a felony for you to purchase an AR-15 from a gun store. In Buttigieg’s world, it would be fine for you to possess meth, but if you kept ahold of your grandfather’s revolver without getting a federal gun license, you should go to prison.
By the way, while Buttigieg has said he wouldn’t borrow a page from Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s campaign and demand Americans hand over their banned guns and magazines, the rhetoric he uses suggests that sooner or later (and likely sooner) he would, in fact, come for your guns.
“I think the weapons of war can do no good in American neighborhoods,” Buttigieg, an Afghanistan War veteran, said on “New Day.” “I trained on weapons that are similar to these, and they have one purpose, which is to destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. They have tactical uses in war zones. Since when are American cities and neighborhoods supposed to be war zones?”
If you really believe that AR-15’s are “weapons of war” that don’t belong in the hands of American citizens, then you’re not going to be satisfied with letting millions of Americans continue to possess them, even if you ban their sale going forward. No, Buttigieg’s issue with O’Rourke was that he was putting the prospect of a gun control deal in jeopardy, not that he was morally or ethically opposed to demanding Americans turn over their legally-possessed firearms.
No, under a Pete Buttigieg presidency you’d be able to possess a syringe full of fentanyl without fear of federal prosecution, but that 20-round magazine could put you behind bars for years. While Buttigieg might believe the war on drugs has been a failure, he seems intent on making the same mistakes when it comes to a war on our guns.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--PA Town Feeling Heat Over Ignoring Preemption

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto really stepped in it when he and his city council passed their own assault weapon ban .
The problem is that the measure comes in a state with preemption on the books .
That means he can ’ t actually do that .
However , some times feel emboldened by Peduto ’ s actions , it seems , despite lacking the deep pockets of a city like Pittsburgh .
One town in particular thought they should pass their own gun control .
They ’ re already feeling the heat .
The Polk Township supervisors received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they continue to pursue its proposed firearms ordinance .
The Firearms Industry Consulting Group , a civil rights defense firm in Bechtelsville , wrote on behalf of their client , the Firearm Owners Against Crime based in McMurray , a suburb of Pittsburgh .
The letter stated , “ In the event Polk Township takes any further steps in enacting this proposal , FOAC is prepared to file private criminal complaints against each official involved in the proposing and enacting of the proposal and file suit against the Township , which will result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clearly , it is in the best of interest of all of those involved that the proposal not be considered .
Accordingly , I am respectfully requesting that no further action be taken in relation to the proposal or that it otherwise be removed from consideration .
In the event the Township refuses to do so , please let me know whether you will accept service of the Complaint or require service by the Sheriff.
” Attorney Joshua Prince , the letter ’ s author , contends that passing the ordinance would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 Crimes and Offenses of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes .
In fairness to Polk Township , they ’ re not trying to ban assault weapons .
Instead , the proposed regulation covers discharging a firearm .
It ’ s one of those things that a lot of people would look at and think , “ No big deal.
” And , in a lot of places , it probably wouldn ’ t be .
However , Polk Township is in Pennsylvania .
Further , most of the items the measure is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , there ’ s even less reason than normal for a township to be trying to pass gun control .
That ’ s an excellent question , but from way on the outside , it looks like towns are emboldened by the actions of Pittsburgh and figure they can swamp the system if they pass gun control measures .
They hope they can make it impossible for groups like Firearms Owners Against Crime to meet every challenge .
For that to happen , though , someone has to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Oh , it ’ s certainly possible that they just didn ’ t think this fell into the category of things covered by preemption .
They may have just figured regulations on discharging a gun , even on your own property , is a whole other ball of wax entirely .
But at this point , I ’ m not feeling remotely charitable .
With luck , the letter is sufficient warning and they ’ ll back down on the proposal .
If not , well , that ’ s what courtrooms @ @ @ @

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto really stepped in it when he and his city council passed their own assault weapon ban. The problem is that the measure comes in a state with preemption on the books. That means he can’t actually do that.
However, some times feel emboldened by Peduto’s actions, it seems, despite lacking the deep pockets of a city like Pittsburgh.
One town in particular thought they should pass their own gun control. They’re already feeling the heat.
The Polk Township supervisors received a letter Tuesday morning threatening legal action if they continue to pursue its proposed firearms ordinance. The Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a civil rights defense firm in Bechtelsville, wrote on behalf of their client, the Firearm Owners Against Crime based in McMurray, a suburb of Pittsburgh. The letter stated, “In the event Polk Township takes any further steps in enacting this proposal, FOAC is prepared to file private criminal complaints against each official involved in the proposing and enacting of the proposal and file suit against the Township, which will result in substantial additional burdens on the taxpayers. Clearly, it is in the best of interest of all of those involved that the proposal not be considered. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting that no further action be taken in relation to the proposal or that it otherwise be removed from consideration. In the event the Township refuses to do so, please let me know whether you will accept service of the Complaint or require service by the Sheriff.” Attorney Joshua Prince, the letter’s author, contends that passing the ordinance would be a first degree misdemeanor under Title 18 Crimes and Offenses of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.
In fairness to Polk Township, they’re not trying to ban assault weapons. Instead, the proposed regulation covers discharging a firearm. It’s one of those things that a lot of people would look at and think, “No big deal.”
And, in a lot of places, it probably wouldn’t be.
However, Polk Township is in Pennsylvania. Further, most of the items the measure is trying to regulate are already covered under state law. In other words, there’s even less reason than normal for a township to be trying to pass gun control.
So why?
That’s an excellent question, but from way on the outside, it looks like towns are emboldened by the actions of Pittsburgh and figure they can swamp the system if they pass gun control measures. They hope they can make it impossible for groups like Firearms Owners Against Crime to meet every challenge.
For that to happen, though, someone has to start. That means places like Polk Township.
Oh, it’s certainly possible that they just didn’t think this fell into the category of things covered by preemption. They may have just figured regulations on discharging a gun, even on your own property, is a whole other ball of wax entirely.
But at this point, I’m not feeling remotely charitable.
With luck, the letter is sufficient warning and they’ll back down on the proposal. If not, well, that’s what courtrooms were invented for.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--VA House Readies Tuesday Vote On Northam's Gun Ban

After narrowly passing out of a House committee last Friday , Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun bill is on track for a final vote by the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday .
If approved , HB961 would then head over to the state Senate , where four Democrat senators have already spoken in opposition to the bill as introduced .
I ’ m really pleased that David Adams , legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association was able to join me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current prospects in both the House and Senate .
Adams believes there ’ ll be bipartisan opposition to the gun ban bill , which also bans the continued possession of all ammunition magazines that can hold more than 12-rounds , as well as banning the future sale and manufacturing of many semi-automatic long guns and AR-pistols and all suppressors .
Whether there ’ s enough to defeat the bill in the House remains an open question .
According to Adams , as late as last Tuesday folks at the state capitol were hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes and Democrats weren ’ t planning on bringing up the bill .
Clearly something changed , and Adams believes it was intense lobbying by the governor ’ s office that ultimately led House Democrats to start moving on the bill .
Northam wants to sign something that he can call an “ assault weapons ” ban , even if the particulars get watered down in the process .
The important thing is to get the ban on the books .
Democrats will be in control of the legislature next year as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to “ close loopholes ” that “ allow Virginians to continue to possess these battlefield weapons of war ” in the 2021 session .
That ’ s why , no matter how many times this bill is amended , the original intent of the governor can not be forgotten .
Originally the governor was backing SB16 , which would have compelled Virginia gun owners to get rid of their so-called assault weapons along with any magazines capable of holding more than 10-rounds , all suppressors , and all “ trigger activators ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment Sanctuary movement began did Sen. Dick Saslaw , the bill ’ s sponsor , and Gov .
Northam begin to back off their support for the bill .
Northam realized he wasn ’ t going to be able to get everything he wanted this session , but he still believes he can reap the public relations victory that will come with passage of watered-down gun control legislation , even if the bills do nothing to prevent violent crime or protect Virginians .
Adams does have a little bit of good news for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crossover deadline for legislation coming up on Tuesday , a number of bad bills will be done for the year , including one that would have banned many large commercial ranges in the state , a bill targeting outdoor ranges , and a bill that would have banned all non-lead ammunition from being sold or possessed in the state .
That ’ s good , but there are still plenty of awful bills that will likely become terrible laws still making their way through the legislature .
Be sure to check out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around afterwards for today ’ s armed citizen story , the criminal history of the man suspected of ambushing several police officers in the Bronx of the weekend , and a Michigan officer honored for helping to save the life of a toddler last fall .

After narrowly passing out of a House committee last Friday, Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun bill is on track for a final vote by the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday. If approved, HB961 would then head over to the state Senate, where four Democrat senators have already spoken in opposition to the bill as introduced.
I’m really pleased that David Adams, legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association was able to join me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the latest language of the bill and its current prospects in both the House and Senate.
Adams believes there’ll be bipartisan opposition to the gun ban bill, which also bans the continued possession of all ammunition magazines that can hold more than 12-rounds, as well as banning the future sale and manufacturing of many semi-automatic long guns and AR-pistols and all suppressors. Whether there’s enough to defeat the bill in the House remains an open question.
According to Adams, as late as last Tuesday folks at the state capitol were hearing that HB961 didn’t have the votes and Democrats weren’t planning on bringing up the bill. Clearly something changed, and Adams believes it was intense lobbying by the governor’s office that ultimately led House Democrats to start moving on the bill.
Northam wants to sign something that he can call an “assault weapons” ban, even if the particulars get watered down in the process. The important thing is to get the ban on the books. Democrats will be in control of the legislature next year as well, and he can always push for them to “close loopholes” that “allow Virginians to continue to possess these battlefield weapons of war” in the 2021 session. That’s why, no matter how many times this bill is amended, the original intent of the governor cannot be forgotten. Originally the governor was backing SB16, which would have compelled Virginia gun owners to get rid of their so-called assault weapons along with any magazines capable of holding more than 10-rounds, all suppressors, and all “trigger activators” as well.
Only after the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement began did Sen. Dick Saslaw, the bill’s sponsor, and Gov. Northam begin to back off their support for the bill. Northam realized he wasn’t going to be able to get everything he wanted this session, but he still believes he can reap the public relations victory that will come with passage of watered-down gun control legislation, even if the bills do nothing to prevent violent crime or protect Virginians.
Adams does have a little bit of good news for gun owners in the state. With the crossover deadline for legislation coming up on Tuesday, a number of bad bills will be done for the year, including one that would have banned many large commercial ranges in the state, a bill targeting outdoor ranges, and a bill that would have banned all non-lead ammunition from being sold or possessed in the state. That’s good, but there are still plenty of awful bills that will likely become terrible laws still making their way through the legislature.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stick around afterwards for today’s armed citizen story, the criminal history of the man suspected of ambushing several police officers in the Bronx of the weekend, and a Michigan officer honored for helping to save the life of a toddler last fall.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Why MD's Push On Long Gun Regulation Is Horribly Misguided

Ever since Parkland , long guns have become the proverbial boogieman for the anti-gun forces .
They took what can only be described as a horrible tragedy and made it sound like AR-15s and other long guns , particularly in the hands of certain lawful adults , are a problem that desperately needs to be solved .
Several states have stepped up to try to address this made-up issue .
Now , Maryland is working toward that same “ goal.
” The Maryland House of Delegates , on Tuesday , Feb. 4 , voted 87-47 in favor of House bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to require background checks for secondary sales or transfers of rifles and shotguns .
The legislation has been a point of contentious debate since its introduction , with proponents arguing the law will help keep gun owners accountable for their firearms — and opponents saying the law criminalizes people who simply want to share hunting rifles .
Before the vote kicked off on the House floor Tuesday , Del .
Jeff Ghrist , R-36-Caroline , who voted against what he called the “ way too broad ” legislation , said , “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrowing guns from one another.
” The proposed law would make it illegal for a gun owner to sell , rent , gift or loan their rifle or shotgun to someone else without authorization from a licensee who is to perform a background check on a potential new owner and then lawfully facilitate the firearm transfer for a “ reasonable fee.
” Now , we ’ ve spilled a lot of digital ink on why rules like these are absolutely stupid .
They don ’ t stop black-market sales , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns .
All it does is interfere with the actions of law-abiding individuals .
Perhaps more importantly , though , is that it completely misses the reality of crime that these lawmakers claim they ’ re trying to address .
You see , despite what you see in the movies , criminals aren ’ t all standing around with AR-15s slung across their chests in a two-point rig .
They ’ re usually some low-level thug instead .
Guess what they tend to use ?
Did you say “ a handgun ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You earned it .
In fact , when addressing the homicide problem in Baltimore–where most of the state ’ s homicides seem to come from , after all–it ’ s important to note just how much more common handguns are than rifles .
Even knives and clubs are used more often to murder than a long gun .
Of course , post-Parkland , much of the talk surrounding long guns and crime centers on mass shootings .
There ’ s a perception out there that the AR-15 is the preferred firearm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even claimed as much .
However , 62 percent of all mass shootings are carried out with a handgun , not a rifle of any sort .
So , let me ask , just what is this bill really trying to do ?
Really , what ’ s it trying to accomplish ?
I ’ ll tell you what it will do .
It ’ ll make it harder to get people interested in hunting or other shooting sports , depriving the state of the revenue for new hunting licenses , all because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own city .

Ever since Parkland, long guns have become the proverbial boogieman for the anti-gun forces. They took what can only be described as a horrible tragedy and made it sound like AR-15s and other long guns, particularly in the hands of certain lawful adults, are a problem that desperately needs to be solved.
Several states have stepped up to try to address this made-up issue. Now, Maryland is working toward that same “goal.”
The Maryland House of Delegates, on Tuesday, Feb. 4, voted 87-47 in favor of House bill 4 — a controversial bill that seeks to require background checks for secondary sales or transfers of rifles and shotguns. The legislation has been a point of contentious debate since its introduction, with proponents arguing the law will help keep gun owners accountable for their firearms — and opponents saying the law criminalizes people who simply want to share hunting rifles. Before the vote kicked off on the House floor Tuesday, Del. Jeff Ghrist, R-36-Caroline, who voted against what he called the “way too broad” legislation, said, “This is going to affect people who are borrowing guns from one another.” The proposed law would make it illegal for a gun owner to sell, rent, gift or loan their rifle or shotgun to someone else without authorization from a licensee who is to perform a background check on a potential new owner and then lawfully facilitate the firearm transfer for a “reasonable fee.”
Now, we’ve spilled a lot of digital ink on why rules like these are absolutely stupid. They don’t stop black-market sales, for example, nor do they stop people from stealing guns. All it does is interfere with the actions of law-abiding individuals.
Perhaps more importantly, though, is that it completely misses the reality of crime that these lawmakers claim they’re trying to address.
You see, despite what you see in the movies, criminals aren’t all standing around with AR-15s slung across their chests in a two-point rig. They’re usually some low-level thug instead. Guess what they tend to use?
Go on, guess.
Did you say “a handgun?” If so, give yourself a cookie. You earned it.
In fact, when addressing the homicide problem in Baltimore–where most of the state’s homicides seem to come from, after all–it’s important to note just how much more common handguns are than rifles. Even knives and clubs are used more often to murder than a long gun.
Of course, post-Parkland, much of the talk surrounding long guns and crime centers on mass shootings. There’s a perception out there that the AR-15 is the preferred firearm of the mass shooter. Some politicians have even claimed as much.
However, 62 percent of all mass shootings are carried out with a handgun, not a rifle of any sort.
So, let me ask, just what is this bill really trying to do? Really, what’s it trying to accomplish?
I’ll tell you what it will do. It’ll make it harder to get people interested in hunting or other shooting sports, depriving the state of the revenue for new hunting licenses, all because Baltimore can’t clean up their own city.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Dems Protest Myrtle Beach Gun Show Ahead of SC Primary

We ’ re just a few weeks away from the presidential primary in South Carolina , and local Democrats are doing everything they can to remind gun owners and Second Amendment supporters what is at stake in the November elections .
Horry County Democrats were outside the Myrtle Beach Gun and Knife Show over the weekend , but they were there to protest , not hunt for bargains .
Common sense has nothing to do with the anti-gun agenda Wolfe was promoting over the weekend .
Nor does it have anything to do with public safety .
No , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun show in Myrtle Beach were there for one reason : to attack the right to keep and bear arms , and it sounds like actual attendees and vendors were well aware of the threat posed by the Democrats ’ anti-gun agenda .
Why does Wolfe think that additional gun control laws are the answer ?
After all , we ’ ve seen plenty of violence in places with the gun control laws she wants already on the books , and they ’ ve done nothing to prevent killers from using firearms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
I suspect that Wolfe hasn ’ t done a lot of deep thinking on this issue , but is instead parroting the talking points from the national party and the anti-Second Amendment candidates who are running for president .
I suspect this was also an attempt by local Democrats to scuttle a proposed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution that will soon be up for a vote in the county .
The Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution will be up for public discussion when Horry County commissioners meet on February 18th .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be there to oppose the measure , though I ’ m guessing they ’ ll be far outnumbered by residents encouraging their commissioners to back the resolution , just as they were dwarfed by the number of attendees at the Myrtle Beach Gun and Knife Show over the weekend .
The anti-gun attitudes on display by local Democrats may be welcomed by candidates like Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg , Bernie Sanders , and Elizabeth Warren , but they ’ re not finding a warm reception among most residents in Horry County @

We’re just a few weeks away from the presidential primary in South Carolina, and local Democrats are doing everything they can to remind gun owners and Second Amendment supporters what is at stake in the November elections. Horry County Democrats were outside the Myrtle Beach Gun and Knife Show over the weekend, but they were there to protest, not hunt for bargains.
Rosemary Wolfe, with the Gun Sense Committee of the Horry County Democratic Party, said their issue isn’t just with the gun show itself. “We want full background checks, extended background checks. We want a ban on assault rifles,” Wolfe said. She said these are common sense things that need to be done. Wolfe added that she thinks Horry County as a sanctuary city could put guns in the wrong people’s hands.
Common sense has nothing to do with the anti-gun agenda Wolfe was promoting over the weekend. Nor does it have anything to do with public safety.
No, the South Carolina Democrats who were protesting the gun show in Myrtle Beach were there for one reason: to attack the right to keep and bear arms, and it sounds like actual attendees and vendors were well aware of the threat posed by the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda.
Back inside the gun show, Cormac Arms and Outfitters co-owner Douglas Kahn said they want gun safety too. “We also offer safety classes and training classes so those people know how to handle a firearm and know how to safely use a firearm,” Kahn said. Wolfe, however, said she has concerns. “What I really fear is more mass shootings and incidents that come right here to South Carolina,” she said.
Why does Wolfe think that additional gun control laws are the answer? After all, we’ve seen plenty of violence in places with the gun control laws she wants already on the books, and they’ve done nothing to prevent killers from using firearms in the commission of their acts of wanton violence.
I suspect that Wolfe hasn’t done a lot of deep thinking on this issue, but is instead parroting the talking points from the national party and the anti-Second Amendment candidates who are running for president. I suspect this was also an attempt by local Democrats to scuttle a proposed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution that will soon be up for a vote in the county.
Horry County Council approved the first reading of the ordinance. It must go before two more readings. If approved, the ordinance would protect the rights of residents to bear arms and ensure they would not have to comply in the event state or federal government officials try to take their guns. During the council meeting, those for and against the ordinance spoke up. “I’ve been here for 90 years. I haven’t spent any time in jail, haven’t been arrested, but people want to take my weapon away,” said one Horry County resident.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution will be up for public discussion when Horry County commissioners meet on February 18th. I’m sure that Wolfe and county Democrats will be there to oppose the measure, though I’m guessing they’ll be far outnumbered by residents encouraging their commissioners to back the resolution, just as they were dwarfed by the number of attendees at the Myrtle Beach Gun and Knife Show over the weekend. The anti-gun attitudes on display by local Democrats may be welcomed by candidates like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, but they’re not finding a warm reception among most residents in Horry County.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Are Dems Shifting Further Left On Guns?

Are Dems Shifting Further Left On Guns?

Gun control is all abuzz as the Democratic candidates battle one another for a shot at President Donald Trump .
While it ’ s just one of the issues up for debate , almost all of them have some plan that calls for the restriction of our right to keep and bear arms .
Even the tamest of the bunch want to reinstitute an assault weapon ban–a ban that did nothing to reduce crime , it should be noted .
This time around , though , things have gotten a bit…interesting .
Washington Free Beacon staff writer Stephen Gutowski on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the left on gun control at a faster rate in recent years .
“ I think the Democratic Party has moved much further left on this issue over the last four to six years than they had been over the last several decades going back to the ’ 90s because it had long been viewed as a political loser for them , ” Gutowski said during an interview on Newsmax TV .
With the exception of a few vehemently anti-gun locales–namely places like California , Illinois , Massachusetts , etc–gun control wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m still not convinced that it actually is , all things considered , but I don ’ t set strategy for the Democratic National Party , either .
Right now , they feel emboldened , so they ’ re pushing more and more .
Gutowski spoke about Virginia , but the truth is the pattern can be seen at the national level .
While candidates who tried to use gun control as their sole issue like Beto O ’ Rourke or Rep. Eric “ Nuke ’ em All ” Swalwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden continue on .
Even unlikeable Mike Bloomberg is surging .
It seems that gun control is definitely something Democratic voters want .
The problem , though , is just how extreme some of these proposals have gotten .
They ’ re not content with a return of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban .
They ’ re calling for everything under the sun they can think of and they ’ re prepared to denounce you as someone who actually wants kids to be killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on board with their lunacy .
That ’ s just the way of the world this year , or so it seems .
However , as Gutowski pointed out , it ’ s not the slam dunk Democrats may like to think .
After all , the assault weapon confiscation attempt died horribly in the Virginia legislature .
While there ’ s still an effort to ban the weapons , the bill is significantly watered down .
That suggests that lawmakers felt the heat and recognize that if they want more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to check their ego on this issue .
The question is , can we generate the political firepower to replicate this success on a national stage ?
Can we get tens of thousands of people at protests scattered throughout the nation in order to combat federal gun control regulations ?
Because it ’ s clear that Democrats are going to come after our guns should they take power .
If they do , it ’ s not going to be a slight inconvenience like 1994 ’ s assault weapon ban was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to really hurt .

Gun control is all abuzz as the Democratic candidates battle one another for a shot at President Donald Trump. While it’s just one of the issues up for debate, almost all of them have some plan that calls for the restriction of our right to keep and bear arms. Even the tamest of the bunch want to reinstitute an assault weapon ban–a ban that did nothing to reduce crime, it should be noted.
This time around, though, things have gotten a bit…interesting.
Washington Free Beacon staff writer Stephen Gutowski on Friday said the Democratic Party has shifted to the left on gun control at a faster rate in recent years. “I think the Democratic Party has moved much further left on this issue over the last four to six years than they had been over the last several decades going back to the ’90s because it had long been viewed as a political loser for them,” Gutowski said during an interview on Newsmax TV.
Gutowski is absolutely correct.
With the exception of a few vehemently anti-gun locales–namely places like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc–gun control wasn’t a winning issue for Democrats. I’m still not convinced that it actually is, all things considered, but I don’t set strategy for the Democratic National Party, either.
Right now, they feel emboldened, so they’re pushing more and more. Gutowski spoke about Virginia, but the truth is the pattern can be seen at the national level. While candidates who tried to use gun control as their sole issue like Beto O’Rourke or Rep. Eric “Nuke ’em All” Swalwell have fallen by the wayside, others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden continue on. Even unlikeable Mike Bloomberg is surging.
It seems that gun control is definitely something Democratic voters want.
The problem, though, is just how extreme some of these proposals have gotten. They’re not content with a return of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. They’re calling for everything under the sun they can think of and they’re prepared to denounce you as someone who actually wants kids to be killed if you’re not 100 percent on board with their lunacy.
That’s just the way of the world this year, or so it seems.
However, as Gutowski pointed out, it’s not the slam dunk Democrats may like to think. After all, the assault weapon confiscation attempt died horribly in the Virginia legislature. While there’s still an effort to ban the weapons, the bill is significantly watered down. That suggests that lawmakers felt the heat and recognize that if they want more than a term in office, it might behoove them to check their ego on this issue.
The question is, can we generate the political firepower to replicate this success on a national stage? Can we get tens of thousands of people at protests scattered throughout the nation in order to combat federal gun control regulations?
Because it’s clear that Democrats are going to come after our guns should they take power. If they do, it’s not going to be a slight inconvenience like 1994’s assault weapon ban was. No, this time it’s going to really hurt.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Three More AZ Counties Declare Themselves 2A Sanctuaries

Somewhere , Joe Biden is probably scribbling the names of Yuvapai and La Paz counties on a pad of paper , just in case he needs to send a few Hellfire missiles their way after the Arizona counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries .
The unanimous votes by commissioners in both counties means the pair join Mojave County in the state as the first Second Amendment sanctuaries , and FOX10 in Phoenix reports that the resolutions had overwhelming support from both public officials as well residents in the counties .
The Yavapai County board approved its resolution after previously hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
About 120 people packed the meeting room and dozens more filled the lobby Wednesday as 25 people spoke in favor and three against , The Daily Courier reported .
Under the measures , the supervisors vowed to defend state and federal constitutional rights , including the U.S. Constitution ’ s Second Amendment .
The measure also said the supervisors won ’ t spend public money or use other government resources to enforce laws that unconstitutionally infringe on gun rights .
Many of those who addressed the Yavapai County board urged the supervisors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws in other states infringed on gun owners ’ rights .
“ We see this type of total disregard for our Second Amendment rights under attack .
This is about our rights , protecting our freedoms and liberty , ” Prescott resident Sherrie Hanna said .
Another supporter , Chris Kuknyo allowed that “ a resolution has no teeth ” but said it “ sends a message to our governor and other people that we won ’ t tolerate it , and we will fight against it.
” While Fox 10 reports that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mojave County , the White Mountain Independent newspaper says that Apache County also quietly approved a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution in the past few days .
That language is substantially similar to many of the resolutions approved by over 100 Virginia counties , cities , and towns over the past several months , and it ’ s another sign that , even in pro-Second Amendment states like Arizona , gun owners are hoping to send a message to lawmakers that may be considering restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at any specific bill or anti-gun politician , but that doesn ’ t make them any less important .
Whether it ’ s a reactive move like what we ’ ve seen in Virginia , or a proactive move like in Arizona , these Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions are a clear message to anti-gun lawmakers that Americans aren ’ t going to simply roll over and give up their rights .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Somewhere, Joe Biden is probably scribbling the names of Yuvapai and La Paz counties on a pad of paper, just in case he needs to send a few Hellfire missiles their way after the Arizona counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.
The unanimous votes by commissioners in both counties means the pair join Mojave County in the state as the first Second Amendment sanctuaries, and FOX10 in Phoenix reports that the resolutions had overwhelming support from both public officials as well residents in the counties.
The Yavapai County board approved its resolution after previously hearing hours of testimony in December and January. About 120 people packed the meeting room and dozens more filled the lobby Wednesday as 25 people spoke in favor and three against, The Daily Courier reported. Under the measures, the supervisors vowed to defend state and federal constitutional rights, including the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The measure also said the supervisors won’t spend public money or use other government resources to enforce laws that unconstitutionally infringe on gun rights. Many of those who addressed the Yavapai County board urged the supervisors to take a stand, arguing that laws in other states infringed on gun owners’ rights. “We see this type of total disregard for our Second Amendment rights under attack. This is about our rights, protecting our freedoms and liberty,” Prescott resident Sherrie Hanna said. Another supporter, Chris Kuknyo allowed that “a resolution has no teeth” but said it “sends a message to our governor and other people that we won’t tolerate it, and we will fight against it.”
While Fox 10 reports that Yavapai and La Paz counties have joined Mojave County, the White Mountain Independent newspaper says that Apache County also quietly approved a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution in the past few days.
That language is substantially similar to many of the resolutions approved by over 100 Virginia counties, cities, and towns over the past several months, and it’s another sign that, even in pro-Second Amendment states like Arizona, gun owners are hoping to send a message to lawmakers that may be considering restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The resolutions in Arizona aren’t aimed at any specific bill or anti-gun politician, but that doesn’t make them any less important. Whether it’s a reactive move like what we’ve seen in Virginia, or a proactive move like in Arizona, these Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions are a clear message to anti-gun lawmakers that Americans aren’t going to simply roll over and give up their rights.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Biden Talks About Using Hellfire Missiles Against American Gun Owners

Hey Joe Biden !
You just tanked in the Iowa caucuses and your approval in New Hampshire is in free fall , with a couple of polls out this weekend showing you in fifth place .
What are you going to do to right the ship ?
Oh , you ’ re going to talk about the Second Amendment ?
Yeah , that should work .
Yeah , that should go over well in the Live Free or Die state .
The former vice president took a page from Eric “ Duke Nukem ” Swalwell ’ s campaign by threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners who would resist his gun control agenda at a campaign stop in New Hampshire over the weekend .
It ’ s unclear from Biden ’ s rant what exactly would trigger him to call out a Hellfire missile strike on gun owners who object to his gun control plans , but it ’ s an idiotic argument to begin with .
Let ’ s just say for the sake of argument that things got super squirrelly here in the United States and we did end up in the awful situation of armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is a lot bigger than , say Vietnam or Afghanistan , two places that have shown that the doctrine of asymmetric warfare is alive and well as a military strategy , even in a day and age of Hellfire missiles and armed drones .
Tactically speaking , I don ’ t think Biden is correct .
Beyond the tactical misfire , however , Biden is making a huge mistake by nonchalantly threatening to bomb American towns and cities because he ’ s bothered by a quote from Thomas Jefferson .
I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military force against Americans who don ’ t comply with his gun control laws , Biden ’ s just himself a hole that he ’ s going to have a hard time climbing out of .
I believe that Americans are concerned about the deep divides in this nation , but Biden ’ s comments only serve to exacerbate them .
Biden ’ s been talking up bipartisanship on the campaign trail , but that message of reaching out across the aisle is completely negated when he starts talking about firing Hellfire missiles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wilds of western Virginia .
It didn ’ t work out well for Swalwell ’ s campaign , and it ’ s not going to help Biden in his bid to become president .
There are 100,000,000 American gun owners and 400,000,000 privately owned arms in this country .
Biden ’ s not going to be able to strike us all down with Hellfire missiles , no matter how much he might want to .
It ’ s a silly talking point , and one that dances right around the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun laws in places like New York , New Jersey , and California , where compliance rates for new bans on firearms and magazines are in the single digits .
That ’ s the reality that Biden and other anti-gun politicians have to deal with , and threatening airstrikes isn ’ t a realistic strategy .
In fact , it ’ s a call to tyranny .

Hey Joe Biden! You just tanked in the Iowa caucuses and your approval in New Hampshire is in free fall, with a couple of polls out this weekend showing you in fifth place. What are you going to do to right the ship? Oh, you’re going to talk about the Second Amendment? Yeah, that should work.
Biden: “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.” pic.twitter.com/npmW40DHS2 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 9, 2020
Yeah, that should go over well in the Live Free or Die state.
The former vice president took a page from Eric “Duke Nukem” Swalwell’s campaign by threatening to use military force against American gun owners who would resist his gun control agenda at a campaign stop in New Hampshire over the weekend. It’s unclear from Biden’s rant what exactly would trigger him to call out a Hellfire missile strike on gun owners who object to his gun control plans, but it’s an idiotic argument to begin with.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that things got super squirrelly here in the United States and we did end up in the awful situation of armed resistance to government tyranny. The United States is a lot bigger than, say Vietnam or Afghanistan, two places that have shown that the doctrine of asymmetric warfare is alive and well as a military strategy, even in a day and age of Hellfire missiles and armed drones. Tactically speaking, I don’t think Biden is correct.
Beyond the tactical misfire, however, Biden is making a huge mistake by nonchalantly threatening to bomb American towns and cities because he’s bothered by a quote from Thomas Jefferson. I would argue that by invoking the threat of military force against Americans who don’t comply with his gun control laws, Biden’s just himself a hole that he’s going to have a hard time climbing out of.
I believe that Americans are concerned about the deep divides in this nation, but Biden’s comments only serve to exacerbate them. Biden’s been talking up bipartisanship on the campaign trail, but that message of reaching out across the aisle is completely negated when he starts talking about firing Hellfire missiles at recalcitrant gun owners in Montana or the wilds of western Virginia. It didn’t work out well for Swalwell’s campaign, and it’s not going to help Biden in his bid to become president.
There are 100,000,000 American gun owners and 400,000,000 privately owned arms in this country. Biden’s not going to be able to strike us all down with Hellfire missiles, no matter how much he might want to. It’s a silly talking point, and one that dances right around the fact that we’re already seeing resistance to gun laws in places like New York, New Jersey, and California, where compliance rates for new bans on firearms and magazines are in the single digits. That’s the reality that Biden and other anti-gun politicians have to deal with, and threatening airstrikes isn’t a realistic strategy. In fact, it’s a call to tyranny.


bearingarms--2020-02-10--Bernie's Gun Views Didn't Evolve, He's Just Pandering

For all the horrible positions Senator Bernie Sanders has taken through the years , about the only thing he was good on was guns .
That ’ s right , the avowed socialist actually supported the Second Amendment .
It ’ s shocking , but it ’ s true .
Of course , now that past support for the Second Amendment is being used against Bernie in the Democratic Primary .
In response , Sanders is now claiming his stance on guns has “ evolved.
” Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont on Friday defended his past positions on gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rural ” state but said his views have now changed .
“ The world has changed , and my views have changed , ” Mr. Sanders said at the eighth Democratic presidential debate , while also saying he was “ proud ” to have a D-minus rating from the National Rifle Association now .
“ I come , like New Hampshire , from a very , very rural state , ” he said .
“ In Vermont , until two years ago we had virtually no gun control legislation .
… I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his views only changed because of political expediency .
He knows damn good and well that ’ s the only issue he ’ s really vulnerable on from the left .
As he ’ s running for the nomination in a party that ’ s shifting more and more to the left on a wide variety of issues , that ’ s the only wedge his opponents are going to find .
So , they ’ re going after it .
Bernie ’ s views shifted because it ’ s necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This from a man who his supporters like to claim isn ’ t a typical politician , that he ’ s so much more than all of that .
No , Bernie is a politician just like the rest of them on the Democratic primary ballot .
He ’ s just got positions that he held when they were only popular in his state that are now popular with the party at large .
That ’ s all .
As a senator , he didn ’ t need to hold positions popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appease Vermont voters , and somehow , he did .
Now , he wants more .
While it wasn ’ t much of an issue four years ago , guns weren ’ t the driving force for Democrats they were then .
Gun control was desirable but politically untenable for the party in national elections .
No one went after Bernie ’ s stance on guns because it wasn ’ t a stance worth attacking .
No good would come of it .
Now , though ?
Now Democrat smell blood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re moving in for the kill .
The problem for Sanders is that now he has to back peddle .
So , he ’ s claiming he evolved on the issue , but the truth is that he ’ s pandering to the base just like every other Democrat vying for a shot at their name being on the ticket .
He ’ s telling the primary voters precisely what they want to hear .
Nevermind that none of that stuff will make anyone safer .
Nevermind that guns are used 2.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that includes so-called assault weapons .
Let ’ s also ignore the fact that most crimes are committed with handguns and not those so-called assault weapons .
That includes the majority of mass shootings , too .
No , Bernie didn ’ t shift because the word changed .
The world is as it was .
What changed is what the Democratic voters want to hear .

For all the horrible positions Senator Bernie Sanders has taken through the years, about the only thing he was good on was guns. That’s right, the avowed socialist actually supported the Second Amendment. It’s shocking, but it’s true.
Of course, now that past support for the Second Amendment is being used against Bernie in the Democratic Primary.
In response, Sanders is now claiming his stance on guns has “evolved.”
Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont on Friday defended his past positions on gun control as representative of the views of his “rural” state but said his views have now changed. “The world has changed, and my views have changed,” Mr. Sanders said at the eighth Democratic presidential debate, while also saying he was “proud” to have a D-minus rating from the National Rifle Association now. “I come, like New Hampshire, from a very, very rural state,” he said. “In Vermont, until two years ago we had virtually no gun control legislation. … I represented that perspective.”
The thing is, his views only changed because of political expediency. He knows damn good and well that’s the only issue he’s really vulnerable on from the left. As he’s running for the nomination in a party that’s shifting more and more to the left on a wide variety of issues, that’s the only wedge his opponents are going to find.
So, they’re going after it.
Bernie’s views shifted because it’s necessary to have a shot at winning the nomination.
This from a man who his supporters like to claim isn’t a typical politician, that he’s so much more than all of that. No, Bernie is a politician just like the rest of them on the Democratic primary ballot. He’s just got positions that he held when they were only popular in his state that are now popular with the party at large. That’s all.
As a senator, he didn’t need to hold positions popular with the nation. He just needed to appease Vermont voters, and somehow, he did.
Now, he wants more.
While it wasn’t much of an issue four years ago, guns weren’t the driving force for Democrats they were then. Gun control was desirable but politically untenable for the party in national elections. No one went after Bernie’s stance on guns because it wasn’t a stance worth attacking. No good would come of it.
Now, though? Now Democrat smell blood in the Second Amendment waters and they’re moving in for the kill. The problem for Sanders is that now he has to back peddle.
So, he’s claiming he evolved on the issue, but the truth is that he’s pandering to the base just like every other Democrat vying for a shot at their name being on the ticket. He’s telling the primary voters precisely what they want to hear.
Nevermind that none of that stuff will make anyone safer. Nevermind that guns are used 2.5 million times each year to save human life and that includes so-called assault weapons. Let’s also ignore the fact that most crimes are committed with handguns and not those so-called assault weapons. That includes the majority of mass shootings, too.
No, Bernie didn’t shift because the word changed. The world is as it was.
What changed is what the Democratic voters want to hear.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Iowa Committee Advances Preemption Bill

Iowa Committee Advances Preemption Bill

All throughout this great land , there ’ s a distinct impression that the idea of preemption is under attack .
Of course , I ’ m someone that has advanced that notion , mostly because it ’ s true .
It seems that I keep finding stories of communities that are considering hoisting their middle fingers to state law and ignoring preemption .
As a result , it sure feels like the idea is under attack .
That doesn ’ t mean that others out there aren ’ t looking at it as a great idea .
An Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 615 ) Monday that would prohibit local ordinances from being stricter than state law for gun accessories such as high capacity magazines .
The wide-ranging proposal also states that if local governments ban weapons at public buildings , they must also provide screening and armed security .
“ The point is that putting up a no-gun sign has no effect on bad people , ” said Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition who supports the bill .
“ It does affect the good people : their ability to defend themselves.
” Opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wessel-Kroeschell , D-Ames , said requiring additional security could be cost prohibitive in some communities and that the proposal strips local governments of any input on gun safety .
“ I have a large university in my community , which makes it very unique from , say , Des Moines , which has different obstacles in their way in terms of public safety , or as opposed to a smaller town , ” Wessel-Kroeschell said .
“ I think we need to give some control to our local communities where they make those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the people who want to cram universal background checks and assault weapon bans down our throat at a federal level are also the very same people who rail against preemption by talking about local control .
Of course , I get it .
For them , any gun control is good gun control .
Since they can ’ t ram it down our throats , at least not right now , they ’ re all about local control .
However , preemption keeps law-abiding gun owners out of jail because they stepped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only find on a map .
Without preemption , cities can create an unnavigable patchwork of gun control laws that could easily land a citizen in hot water simply because they were in the wrong place and violated the wrong law .
That ’ s something no one should have to endure .
While Wessel-Kroeschell is lamenting how small towns aren ’ t able to screen , she ’ s actually illustrating why gun bans are so pointless at most places .
After all , if you can ’ t afford a metal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , how are you going to do much of anything else ?
Without those screenings , gun bans amount to the honor system , something criminals and potential mass shooters don ’ t subscribe to .
My hope is that the bill gets passed .
Residents in Iowa deserve to have the protection preemption provides to law-abiding gun owners .
After all , it helps them truly be law-abiding and not just think they are .
Which is probably why anti-gunners hate it so much , really .

All throughout this great land, there’s a distinct impression that the idea of preemption is under attack. Of course, I’m someone that has advanced that notion, mostly because it’s true. It seems that I keep finding stories of communities that are considering hoisting their middle fingers to state law and ignoring preemption.
As a result, it sure feels like the idea is under attack.
That doesn’t mean that others out there aren’t looking at it as a great idea.
An Iowa House subcommittee passed a bill (HSB 615) Monday that would prohibit local ordinances from being stricter than state law for gun accessories such as high capacity magazines. The wide-ranging proposal also states that if local governments ban weapons at public buildings, they must also provide screening and armed security. “The point is that putting up a no-gun sign has no effect on bad people,” said Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition who supports the bill. “It does affect the good people: their ability to defend themselves.” Opponents at the meeting such as Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, said requiring additional security could be cost prohibitive in some communities and that the proposal strips local governments of any input on gun safety. “I have a large university in my community, which makes it very unique from, say, Des Moines, which has different obstacles in their way in terms of public safety, or as opposed to a smaller town,” Wessel-Kroeschell said. “I think we need to give some control to our local communities where they make those decisions.”
I’m always amazed at the people who want to cram universal background checks and assault weapon bans down our throat at a federal level are also the very same people who rail against preemption by talking about local control.
Of course, I get it. For them, any gun control is good gun control. Since they can’t ram it down our throats, at least not right now, they’re all about local control.
However, preemption keeps law-abiding gun owners out of jail because they stepped across the wrong invisible line you can only find on a map. Without preemption, cities can create an unnavigable patchwork of gun control laws that could easily land a citizen in hot water simply because they were in the wrong place and violated the wrong law. That’s something no one should have to endure.
While Wessel-Kroeschell is lamenting how small towns aren’t able to screen, she’s actually illustrating why gun bans are so pointless at most places. After all, if you can’t afford a metal detector and a deputy to sit by it, how are you going to do much of anything else? Without those screenings, gun bans amount to the honor system, something criminals and potential mass shooters don’t subscribe to.
My hope is that the bill gets passed. Residents in Iowa deserve to have the protection preemption provides to law-abiding gun owners. After all, it helps them truly be law-abiding and not just think they are.
Which is probably why anti-gunners hate it so much, really.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--KY Student Charged After Bringing Gun To School

Guns aren ’ t allowed on school campuses .
We all know this .
I mean , it ’ s kind of the one thing that really should be universally known about schools .
However , it sometimes happens .
Most of the time , it ’ s an intentional kind of thing .
Someone carries a firearm onto a school campus because they simply don ’ t care about following the rules .
Yet that ’ s not universally true by any stretch of the imagination .
Students at Rosspoint Elementary School alerted officials after another student talked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press release from Harlan County Schools .
When staff members questioned him , they found the gun in his backpack .
There was no ammunition in the gun or the backpack .
“ I can ’ t commend our students and staff enough for their actions this morning , ” said Superintendent Brent Roark .
“ The students knew exactly what to do and responded appropriately .
Our teachers and staff are trained in preparedness and they responded appropriately as well .
The weapon was not loaded and the student made no threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was taken into custody by police and taken to appear before a court-designated worker .
He was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Weapon on School Property , according to the sheriff ’ s office .
“ I realize we live in an area where hunting and shooting are common practice to many , ” said Jim T. Whitaker , Harlan County safe schools coordinator .
“ Parents should ensure that anytime young people have participated in such activities away from school that firearms and ammunition are secured in order to prevent such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d been camping with his parents and the gun was left in his backpack by mistake .
Seeing as how there was no ammo with the weapon , that ’ s plausible .
Besides , had his parents disputed that account , that likely would have been included .
You see , when I was in high school , my classmates often went hunting before school in the morning .
My hunting was all on the weekend , but they did it during the week before school .
As such , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trucks in the parking lot , or so it seemed at the time .
Guess how many issues we had because of that ?
Zero .
Of course , we were in high school , not elementary school , but still .
Folks , all I can say is that if you go out with your guns , make sure they ’ re all accounted for at steps along the way .
Make sure they all make it back into the car at the end of the excursion then make sure they all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun safe .
That would be the ideal play going forward to keep something like this from happening .
However , let ’ s also remember one very important thing .
Had this student had nefarious intentions , he ’ d have likely taken greater care in concealing what he had and no law on the books would have stopped him from doing so .
That ’ s something to remember when we talk about school shootings and mass shootings in general .
It ’ s something that will routinely get ignored @ @ @

Guns aren’t allowed on school campuses. We all know this. I mean, it’s kind of the one thing that really should be universally known about schools.
However, it sometimes happens. Most of the time, it’s an intentional kind of thing. Someone carries a firearm onto a school campus because they simply don’t care about following the rules.
Yet that’s not universally true by any stretch of the imagination.
Students at Rosspoint Elementary School alerted officials after another student talked about having a holster, according to a press release from Harlan County Schools. When staff members questioned him, they found the gun in his backpack. There was no ammunition in the gun or the backpack. “I can’t commend our students and staff enough for their actions this morning,” said Superintendent Brent Roark. “The students knew exactly what to do and responded appropriately. Our teachers and staff are trained in preparedness and they responded appropriately as well. The weapon was not loaded and the student made no threats to or against anyone. The student was taken into custody by police and taken to appear before a court-designated worker. He was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Weapon on School Property, according to the sheriff’s office. … “I realize we live in an area where hunting and shooting are common practice to many,” said Jim T. Whitaker, Harlan County safe schools coordinator. “Parents should ensure that anytime young people have participated in such activities away from school that firearms and ammunition are secured in order to prevent such incidents.”
At an elementary school.
The study reportedly claimed he’d been camping with his parents and the gun was left in his backpack by mistake. Seeing as how there was no ammo with the weapon, that’s plausible. Besides, had his parents disputed that account, that likely would have been included.
It’s funny, though.
You see, when I was in high school, my classmates often went hunting before school in the morning. My hunting was all on the weekend, but they did it during the week before school. As such, there were guns in at least half the trucks in the parking lot, or so it seemed at the time. Guess how many issues we had because of that? Zero.
Of course, we were in high school, not elementary school, but still.
Folks, all I can say is that if you go out with your guns, make sure they’re all accounted for at steps along the way. Make sure they all make it back into the car at the end of the excursion then make sure they all make it back in the house and the gun safe.
That would be the ideal play going forward to keep something like this from happening.
However, let’s also remember one very important thing. Had this student had nefarious intentions, he’d have likely taken greater care in concealing what he had and no law on the books would have stopped him from doing so. That’s something to remember when we talk about school shootings and mass shootings in general.
It’s something that will routinely get ignored, though.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--VA House Passes Northam's Gun Ban Bill In 51-48 Vote

The Virginia House of Delegates approved HB961 Tuesday afternoon , sending the gun , magazine , suppressor , and trigger activator ban to the state Senate on a narrow 51-48 vote .
There was bipartisan opposition to the bill , with several Democrats voting against the proposal , but only Democrats supported the gun ban measure .
The bill was modified on the House floor in order to bring more Democrats on board .
The original provision making it a felony to possess a magazine that can accept more than 12-rounds of ammunition was amended to make possession a misdemeanor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense if you truly believe that possessing this magazines is tantamount to possessing a weapon of war , but if you ’ re a Democrat who ’ s looking at this from a political angle , not public safety , it ’ s just another bargaining chip that can be used to deliver a few more votes .
In fact , I ’ m growing increasingly concerned that Virginia state senators will modify the bill even further , introducing a grandfather clause for owners of existing magazines but putting a ban in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazines over 12-rounds .
The language we ’ ve seen from Democrats like Sen. Lynwood Lewis is that they can ’ t support any bill that would take guns or magazines from Virginians .
Would a grandfather clause give them the political cover to vote for the bill ?
I don ’ t know , but it worries me , and I hope every Virginia gun owner is contacting their state senator and telling them to oppose HB961 in any form .
Sen. Lewis did help to defeat one of Gov .
Northam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when he joined fellow Democrat Chap Petersen and every Republican state senator in opposing SB 67 , which would have fined gun owners who failed to report their lost or stolen firearms to police within 24 hours of their absence .
If those two senators vote against HB961 , it won ’ t get to Northam ’ s desk , and it ’ s a good sign to see them buck the governor ’ s wishes , though a similar measure passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to be able to say he got a gun ban into law in Virginia , and I suspect he ’ s willing to horsetrade a lot of the specifics in order to make it happen .
Gun owners have to understand that any ban on the future sale of specific firearms , magazines , or suppressors also amounts to a future ban on the current possession of those items .
We saw this with the original gun ban language supported by Northam , which contained no grandfather clauses whatsoever .
Northam and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they ’ re whittling the bill down to what will pass .
If they ’ re able to get HB961 to Northam ’ s desk this year , he ’ ll happily sign it , though it doesn ’ t go nearly as far as he wants .
It ’ s much easier to add to a law than it is to take it away , and Democrats believe they can expand the legislation in 2021 , even if they don ’ t get everything they want this year .
HB961 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state Senate , and every contact gun owners can make with their state senator will help the cause .
Be polite , be civil , but be clear : there ’ s no way you can support them if they support HB961 in any form .

The Virginia House of Delegates approved HB961 Tuesday afternoon, sending the gun, magazine, suppressor, and trigger activator ban to the state Senate on a narrow 51-48 vote. There was bipartisan opposition to the bill, with several Democrats voting against the proposal, but only Democrats supported the gun ban measure.
The bill was modified on the House floor in order to bring more Democrats on board. The original provision making it a felony to possess a magazine that can accept more than 12-rounds of ammunition was amended to make possession a misdemeanor offense. This doesn’t make sense if you truly believe that possessing this magazines is tantamount to possessing a weapon of war, but if you’re a Democrat who’s looking at this from a political angle, not public safety, it’s just another bargaining chip that can be used to deliver a few more votes.
In fact, I’m growing increasingly concerned that Virginia state senators will modify the bill even further, introducing a grandfather clause for owners of existing magazines but putting a ban in place on the future purchase or sale of magazines over 12-rounds. The language we’ve seen from Democrats like Sen. Lynwood Lewis is that they can’t support any bill that would take guns or magazines from Virginians. Would a grandfather clause give them the political cover to vote for the bill? I don’t know, but it worries me, and I hope every Virginia gun owner is contacting their state senator and telling them to oppose HB961 in any form.
Sen. Lewis did help to defeat one of Gov. Northam’s gun control proposals on Tuesday, when he joined fellow Democrat Chap Petersen and every Republican state senator in opposing SB 67, which would have fined gun owners who failed to report their lost or stolen firearms to police within 24 hours of their absence. If those two senators vote against HB961, it won’t get to Northam’s desk, and it’s a good sign to see them buck the governor’s wishes, though a similar measure passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
There’s no doubt that Northam wants to be able to say he got a gun ban into law in Virginia, and I suspect he’s willing to horsetrade a lot of the specifics in order to make it happen. Gun owners have to understand that any ban on the future sale of specific firearms, magazines, or suppressors also amounts to a future ban on the current possession of those items. We saw this with the original gun ban language supported by Northam, which contained no grandfather clauses whatsoever.
Northam and anti-gun activists started with what they wanted, and they’re whittling the bill down to what will pass. If they’re able to get HB961 to Northam’s desk this year, he’ll happily sign it, though it doesn’t go nearly as far as he wants. It’s much easier to add to a law than it is to take it away, and Democrats believe they can expand the legislation in 2021, even if they don’t get everything they want this year.
HB961 is not assured of passage in the state Senate, and every contact gun owners can make with their state senator will help the cause. Be polite, be civil, but be clear: there’s no way you can support them if they support HB961 in any form.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Anti-Gun Activists Target 1st Amendment Rights Of 2A Supporters

Gun control advocates aren ’ t just using litigation , legislation , and regulations to target the right to keep and bear arms .
They ’ re also engaged in a cultural fight to change the hearts and minds of Americans when it comes to gun ownership .
They want to de-normalize the exercise of a civil right , and to shame people into disarming , or at least remain silent instead of vocally supporting the right .
That ’ s why the city of Los Angeles tried to impose a blacklist of companies that supported the NRA , requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the city had to disclose any support for or relationship with the NRA .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , the president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association , Chuck Michel , joins me to discuss the lawsuit the NRA brought against the city , and the fact that the NRA is now able to drop the case because the city has repealed the unconstitutional ordinance rather than continue to try to defend it in court .
In December , the NRA won a preliminary injunction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 21 , the City Council voted to repeal the law .
In the settlement filing , the NRA said it was satisfied that the city “ can not and shall not re-enact ” the law or any similar measure .
The NRA won ’ t seek damages in the case .
The city agreed to negotiate over how much it will pay toward the organization ’ s legal fees and costs .
This attack on the freedom of association is just one in a series of moves by anti-gun activists in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ve also seen a push to ban gun shows across the state , depriving gun owners of the opportunity to peacefully assemble to buy and sell firearms , as well as engage in political or educational activities .
Thankfully , gun owners in California are continuing to speak out , and Chuck and I also discuss a very important book written by a Californian who ’ s seen both sides of the issue .
David Frankel was an attorney at Petit & Martin in San Francisco when a deranged man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opened fire , killing eight people .
In the aftermath , Frankel helped to create Legal Community Against Violence , which in effect operates as an anti-gun litigation firm ( it ’ s now called the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ) .
Over time , however , Frankel ’ s views on gun control and gun ownership changed , and he ’ s now gone from litigating in support of gun control laws to litigating in support of the Second Amendment rights of Americans .
His journey is detailed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Mass Shooting Survivor ’ s Story , and it ’ s one that every gun owner should read .
Also on today ’ s program ; an armed Ohio man who stopped an armed burglar and held him for deputies , a man accused of a double murder in Chicago who walked away with probation for an earlier robbery charge , and an Arizona police officer who came to the aid of an elderly victim of a scam artist .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word @

Gun control advocates aren’t just using litigation, legislation, and regulations to target the right to keep and bear arms. They’re also engaged in a cultural fight to change the hearts and minds of Americans when it comes to gun ownership. They want to de-normalize the exercise of a civil right, and to shame people into disarming, or at least remain silent instead of vocally supporting the right.
That’s why the city of Los Angeles tried to impose a blacklist of companies that supported the NRA, requiring that any vendor hoping to do business with the city had to disclose any support for or relationship with the NRA. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., the president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Chuck Michel, joins me to discuss the lawsuit the NRA brought against the city, and the fact that the NRA is now able to drop the case because the city has repealed the unconstitutional ordinance rather than continue to try to defend it in court.
In December, the NRA won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. On Jan. 21, the City Council voted to repeal the law. In the settlement filing, the NRA said it was satisfied that the city “cannot and shall not re-enact” the law or any similar measure. The NRA won’t seek damages in the case. The city agreed to negotiate over how much it will pay toward the organization’s legal fees and costs.
This attack on the freedom of association is just one in a series of moves by anti-gun activists in California to chill the speech of gun owners. We’ve also seen a push to ban gun shows across the state, depriving gun owners of the opportunity to peacefully assemble to buy and sell firearms, as well as engage in political or educational activities.
Thankfully, gun owners in California are continuing to speak out, and Chuck and I also discuss a very important book written by a Californian who’s seen both sides of the issue. David Frankel was an attorney at Petit & Martin in San Francisco when a deranged man walked into the offices in 1993 and opened fire, killing eight people. In the aftermath, Frankel helped to create Legal Community Against Violence, which in effect operates as an anti-gun litigation firm (it’s now called the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence).
Over time, however, Frankel’s views on gun control and gun ownership changed, and he’s now gone from litigating in support of gun control laws to litigating in support of the Second Amendment rights of Americans. His journey is detailed in the incredibly moving book Coming to Terms: A Mass Shooting Survivor’s Story, and it’s one that every gun owner should read.
Also on today’s program; an armed Ohio man who stopped an armed burglar and held him for deputies, a man accused of a double murder in Chicago who walked away with probation for an earlier robbery charge, and an Arizona police officer who came to the aid of an elderly victim of a scam artist.
Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Some In Iowa Bothered By Permit Holders Dropping Off Their Kids

Let ’ s say you ’ re someone who carries a firearm on a regular basis .
For the sake of argument , let ’ s say you ’ re someone who legitimately has reason to believe you may be targeted for a crime due to something other than chance .
Maybe you carry a lot of money around , making you a potential target for robbery .
Maybe you ’ re someone who has gotten a number of death threats .
Perhaps you ’ re a single mother who has a stalker you ’ re concerned about .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people and after you leave the house in the morning , you have to take your kids to school .
In theory , it shouldn ’ t be a big deal .
You ’ ve got a permit , for crying out loud .
You shouldn ’ t need one , but the law says you do and you ’ re complying with the law .
You shouldn ’ t have an issue dropping your kid off at school with your weapon on your person .
Yet in many states , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s worse , in Iowa , some people are upset by a bill that seeks to change that .
Several groups and some teenagers from Des Moines spoke out against the proposal .
They point to gun violence hitting close to home , with four teenagers dying in the first five weeks of this year .
Members of the ‘ We Can End Gun Violence Coalition ’ argue it would lead to fewer restrictions on guns .
“ We ’ re not saying people don ’ t have gun rights , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re all hunters or know hunters , but we ’ re trying to make sure common-sense gun safety gas a place in Iowa.
” Of course , hunting has absolutely nothing to do with this and Frost either knows this or is literally too stupid to muster enough brainpower to breathe without a constant reminder .
This is about people being able to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves .
At the top of this post , I mentioned people who have a higher probability of being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that was to make a point .
Overall , anyone can be the victim of a crime on any given day .
In fact , on any given day , someone will be the victim of a violent crime .
Allowing parents who drop their kids off while armed doesn ’ t really change that fact .
It doesn ’ t increase the odds of someone being a victim , either .
What it does do , though , is making it so law-abiding citizens don ’ t have to fool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given errand and then try to re-arm themselves after they ’ re clear .
God knows the criminals aren ’ t .
They ’ re ignoring those laws and carrying a gun anywhere they please , up to and including inside the schools themselves .
So why do people like Frost oppose this measure ?
The answer is simple .
They want any wedge they can get on gun control .
At some point , when they try to expand gun control , they ’ ll use things like this to justify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to justify the next law .
On and on it will go until Iowa looks like Illinois .
All gun control has the same endgame , which is total disarmament .
Let ’ s not forget that .
They ’ re just content to take what they can get now , all so they can take more tomorrow .

Let’s say you’re someone who carries a firearm on a regular basis. For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re someone who legitimately has reason to believe you may be targeted for a crime due to something other than chance. Maybe you carry a lot of money around, making you a potential target for robbery. Maybe you’re someone who has gotten a number of death threats. Perhaps you’re a single mother who has a stalker you’re concerned about.
Now, imagine you’re any of these people and after you leave the house in the morning, you have to take your kids to school.
In theory, it shouldn’t be a big deal. You’ve got a permit, for crying out loud. You shouldn’t need one, but the law says you do and you’re complying with the law. You shouldn’t have an issue dropping your kid off at school with your weapon on your person.
Yet in many states, that actually is a problem.
What’s worse, in Iowa, some people are upset by a bill that seeks to change that.
Several groups and some teenagers from Des Moines spoke out against the proposal. They point to gun violence hitting close to home, with four teenagers dying in the first five weeks of this year. Members of the ‘We Can End Gun Violence Coalition’ argue it would lead to fewer restrictions on guns. “We’re not saying people don’t have gun rights,” said Rep. Jennifer Frost (D-Windsor Heights). “We’re all hunters or know hunters, but we’re trying to make sure common-sense gun safety gas a place in Iowa.”
Of course, hunting has absolutely nothing to do with this and Frost either knows this or is literally too stupid to muster enough brainpower to breathe without a constant reminder.
This is about people being able to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves.
At the top of this post, I mentioned people who have a higher probability of being the victim of a crime than most folks, but that was to make a point. Overall, anyone can be the victim of a crime on any given day. In fact, on any given day, someone will be the victim of a violent crime. Allowing parents who drop their kids off while armed doesn’t really change that fact. It doesn’t increase the odds of someone being a victim, either.
What it does do, though, is making it so law-abiding citizens don’t have to fool with trying to disarm for that one given errand and then try to re-arm themselves after they’re clear.
God knows the criminals aren’t. They’re ignoring those laws and carrying a gun anywhere they please, up to and including inside the schools themselves.
So why do people like Frost oppose this measure? The answer is simple. They want any wedge they can get on gun control. At some point, when they try to expand gun control, they’ll use things like this to justify the next law, which will then be used to justify the next law. On and on it will go until Iowa looks like Illinois.
All gun control has the same endgame, which is total disarmament. Let’s not forget that. They’re just content to take what they can get now, all so they can take more tomorrow.


bearingarms--2020-02-11--Colorado DA Throws Cold Water On Gun Storage Bill

Anti-gun lawmakers in Colorado are aiming to pass legislation requiring gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and inaccessible unless the firearms are “ in use ” or under the control of the gun owner , but one prosecutor in the state says he ’ s not convinced the law will make a difference .
Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler says he hasn ’ t seen the specific language of the proposed legislation , but says that existing state law already allows for the prosecution of parents who allow their children to get access to a gun to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brauchler sounded dubious about the effectiveness of the proposed storage law , as well as a bill requiring gun owners to report gun thefts to police within a mandated time period , or else become a criminal themselves .
“ It looks like , if you look at what coroners have reported and some other stuff , that the safe storage bill , if it was 100 % effective , it could address up to six homicides or injuries — I think it was homicides –a year , across the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small number .
I mean , every one of those lives matters .
“ But that ’ s the best-case scenario for that particular law .
But I agree with you , enforcement is extremely , extremely tricky .
I think they both sound very common sense-y , and that ’ s why I think they are going to end up passing .
People are going to go , ‘ Well , of course , you shouldn ’ t leave guns lying around .
The issue is , we already have laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a child abuse statute that says if you put a kid in a position to hurt themselves or others , we can already prosecute you for that .
We don ’ t need a safe-storage bill for that.
” Brauchler ’ s right , but unfortunately Democrats in charge of the state legislature in Colorado seem to care very little about whether or not a gun control law actually works , as long as they can pass it and claim they “ did something.
” Back in 2013 , for example , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on magazines that can accept more than 15-rounds of ammunition .
Since then , studies have shown that background checks have not increased , news reports have demonstrated that the magazine ban is virtually unenforceable , and violent crime has shot up by over 25-percent .
If Democrats were seriously concerned about the effectiveness of these laws , they ’ d be taking a second look at them .
Instead , anti-gun lawmakers are doubling down on the idea that they can ban their way to safety by targeting legal gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s violent criminals .
Not only are gun owners losing their rights because of the war on guns perpetrated by these politicians , Coloradans are losing their lives thanks to the lawmakers ’ focus on legislation aimed at the law-abiding while ignoring proven strategies to reduce shootings in the state ’ s high-crime neighborhoods .

Anti-gun lawmakers in Colorado are aiming to pass legislation requiring gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and inaccessible unless the firearms are “in use” or under the control of the gun owner, but one prosecutor in the state says he’s not convinced the law will make a difference.
Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler says he hasn’t seen the specific language of the proposed legislation, but says that existing state law already allows for the prosecution of parents who allow their children to get access to a gun to hurt themselves.
Speaking on KHOW radio, Brauchler sounded dubious about the effectiveness of the proposed storage law, as well as a bill requiring gun owners to report gun thefts to police within a mandated time period, or else become a criminal themselves.
“It looks like, if you look at what coroners have reported and some other stuff, that the safe storage bill, if it was 100% effective, it could address up to six homicides or injuries — I think it was homicides –a year, across the state of Colorado. And that’s not a small number. I mean, every one of those lives matters. “But that’s the best-case scenario for that particular law. But I agree with you, enforcement is extremely, extremely tricky. I think they both sound very common sense-y, and that’s why I think they are going to end up passing. People are going to go, ‘Well, of course, you shouldn’t leave guns lying around. The issue is, we already have laws that allow us to prosecute adults under a child abuse statute that says if you put a kid in a position to hurt themselves or others, we can already prosecute you for that. We don’t need a safe-storage bill for that.”
Brauchler’s right, but unfortunately Democrats in charge of the state legislature in Colorado seem to care very little about whether or not a gun control law actually works, as long as they can pass it and claim they “did something.”
Back in 2013, for example, Democrats rammed through universal background checks and a ban on magazines that can accept more than 15-rounds of ammunition. Since then, studies have shown that background checks have not increased, news reports have demonstrated that the magazine ban is virtually unenforceable, and violent crime has shot up by over 25-percent. If Democrats were seriously concerned about the effectiveness of these laws, they’d be taking a second look at them.
Instead, anti-gun lawmakers are doubling down on the idea that they can ban their way to safety by targeting legal gun owners instead of focusing on the state’s violent criminals. Not only are gun owners losing their rights because of the war on guns perpetrated by these politicians, Coloradans are losing their lives thanks to the lawmakers’ focus on legislation aimed at the law-abiding while ignoring proven strategies to reduce shootings in the state’s high-crime neighborhoods.