bearingarms--2020-08-17--Canadian Gov Taking Bids On Designing Buyback

I don ’ t know how many people in Canada have AR-15 or similar rifles , but there is a fair number .
Following the shooting in Nova Scotia , where the killer reportedly smuggled the guns in from the United States–in other words , he obtained the guns illegally–Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unilaterally issued a ban on the weapons .
And people wonder why I refuse to even entertain discussions on repealing the Second Amendment .
Anyway , Trudeau did it .
Part of his plan called for an eventual “ buyback ” of these weapons .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprises to design the program .
The federal government is turning to the private sector to design and possibly help run a massive buyback of newly prohibited firearms .
Public Safety Canada has invited 15 consulting firms to come up with a “ range of options and approaches ” for the planned program to compensate gun owners .
The Liberals outlawed a wide range of firearms in early May , saying the guns were designed for the battlefield , not hunting or sport shooting .
The ban covers some 1,500 models and variants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning they can no longer be legally used , sold or imported .
In announcing the ban , the government proposed a program that would allow current owners to receive compensation for turning in the designated firearms or keep them through an exemption process yet to be worked out .
Sport shooters , firearm rights advocates and some Conservative MPs have questioned the value of the measures in fighting crime .
Is it wrong that my first reaction was , “ So now he finds the limits of government ?
” No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at screwing up so much stuff that we need to keep it far more limited than it currently is .
That ’ s especially true in a nation like Canada with a socialized healthcare system and draconian limits on free speech…oh , and that ’ s willing to ban an entire class of firearm because of what one criminal did with it .
Yet it ’ s when trying to design a process for the “ buyback ” –which is in quotes because the government isn ’ t buying back a damn thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place , so how can they buy it back ?
–that Trudeau recognizes that the government may not be able to find it ’ s own ass with two hands , a compass , GPS , a map , and someone giving them explicit directions ?
NOW he figures it out ?
At the end of the day , though , the gun rights advocates in Canada are right .
It won ’ t actually do a damn thing to stop crime .
It damn sure wouldn ’ t have stopped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he couldn ’ t legally own a firearm in Canada , so he smuggled them into the country–a crime in and of itself–before committing his atrocity with it .
Does anyone really think that there ’ s any law that could be passed that would have stopped this from happening ?
Is anyone that deluded ?
Then again , Trudeau seems to think he can stop it with a stroke of the pen , so I guess I have my answer .

I don’t know how many people in Canada have AR-15 or similar rifles, but there is a fair number. Following the shooting in Nova Scotia, where the killer reportedly smuggled the guns in from the United States–in other words, he obtained the guns illegally–Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unilaterally issued a ban on the weapons.
And people wonder why I refuse to even entertain discussions on repealing the Second Amendment.
Anyway, Trudeau did it. Part of his plan called for an eventual “buyback” of these weapons. Now, the government is taking bids from private enterprises to design the program.
The federal government is turning to the private sector to design and possibly help run a massive buyback of newly prohibited firearms. Public Safety Canada has invited 15 consulting firms to come up with a “range of options and approaches” for the planned program to compensate gun owners. The Liberals outlawed a wide range of firearms in early May, saying the guns were designed for the battlefield, not hunting or sport shooting. The ban covers some 1,500 models and variants of what the government considers assault-style weapons, meaning they can no longer be legally used, sold or imported. In announcing the ban, the government proposed a program that would allow current owners to receive compensation for turning in the designated firearms or keep them through an exemption process yet to be worked out. Sport shooters, firearm rights advocates and some Conservative MPs have questioned the value of the measures in fighting crime.
Is it wrong that my first reaction was, “So now he finds the limits of government?”
No, seriously, the government is good at screwing up so much stuff that we need to keep it far more limited than it currently is. That’s especially true in a nation like Canada with a socialized healthcare system and draconian limits on free speech…oh, and that’s willing to ban an entire class of firearm because of what one criminal did with it.
Yet it’s when trying to design a process for the “buyback”–which is in quotes because the government isn’t buying back a damn thing. They were never theirs in the first place, so how can they buy it back?–that Trudeau recognizes that the government may not be able to find it’s own ass with two hands, a compass, GPS, a map, and someone giving them explicit directions? NOW he figures it out?
The irony is palpable.
At the end of the day, though, the gun rights advocates in Canada are right. It won’t actually do a damn thing to stop crime. It damn sure wouldn’t have stopped the Nova Scotia shooter. After all, he couldn’t legally own a firearm in Canada, so he smuggled them into the country–a crime in and of itself–before committing his atrocity with it. Does anyone really think that there’s any law that could be passed that would have stopped this from happening? Is anyone that deluded?
Then again, Trudeau seems to think he can stop it with a stroke of the pen, so I guess I have my answer.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--What You Need To Know About The 9th Circuit's Mag Ban Decision

Ordinarily I try not to repeat guests on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , too frequently , but I ’ m really pleased to welcome back Rick Travis , development director for the California Rifle & Pistol Association to the show today .
Last week Rick joined me to talk about Kamala Harris ’ s anti-gun activities as District Attorney in San Francisco and Attorney General for California , but today he ’ s with me to talk about the excellent news on Friday in the Duncan v. Becerra case ; a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on the sale and possession of so-called large capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms .
The most important thing you need to know is that , for now anyway , the law remains in effect even though the 9th Circuit ’ s ruling declared that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez correctly decided the case when he issued his original decision striking down the law back in 2019 .
When Benitez issued his own opinion last year , after one week in which Californians could and did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps as many as 1,000,000 of them , in fact ) he then issued a stay for a portion of the decision : Californians could continue to possess their LCMs but could no longer legally purchase them .
For now , that stay remains in effect , according to the CRPA , which has posted a letter from the California Department of Justice on its website affirming that until the appeals process has been exhausted , it remains illegal to purchase a magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gun owners in California from loading up over the weekend , but my guess is the state is going to try to enforce the law as best it can while the stay remains in effect .
Travis says that Gov .
Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have until August 28th to decide their next step , and they ’ ve got a three options : accept the Ninth Circuit ’ s decision , appeal the decision of the three judge panel to an en banc panel of 11 judges from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court to hear the case .
At this point I think an en banc review is the most likely possibility , though as Rick Travis correctly points out , the Ninth Circuit isn ’ t nearly as anti-gun in its makeup as it was just a few years ago .
Thanks to judicial appointments by President Donald Trump over the last few years , the Ninth Circuit is near parity in terms of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans .
In other words , a reversal by an en banc panel isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Supreme Court also isn ’ t a sure thing for Newsom and Becerra , even though SCOTUS just denied the chance to hear nearly a dozen Second Amendment cases just a few months ago .
All of those cases were brought by gun owners and Second Amendment organizations , not by states trying to keep their anti-gun laws in place , as would be the case in California ’ s appeal .
The Supreme Court could easily pass on the Duncan case as well , which would leave the decision by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California , but all twelve of the western states covered by the Ninth Circuit .
Of course , as Travis points out , there ’ s a reason why SCOTUS might embrace the Duncan case even though it recently turned away so many other challenges to gun control laws ; the opinion by Judge Lee specifically decided that the state ’ s ban on magazines should be considered under strict scrutiny , or the highest level of judicial review .
Several of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have vocally expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another 2A case in order to provide guidance to lower courts on the proper standard of review to be used when gun control laws face a constitutional challenge , and the fact that the Ninth Circuit determined that the highest level of review is warranted should be music to the ears of justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas .
The biggest question is whether Chief Justice John Roberts would go along with the case , but that ’ s been the great unknown for several months now .
Be sure to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , and stick around afterwards for today ’ s armed citizen story and a truly terrific good deed of the day .

Ordinarily I try not to repeat guests on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, too frequently, but I’m really pleased to welcome back Rick Travis, development director for the California Rifle & Pistol Association to the show today. Last week Rick joined me to talk about Kamala Harris’s anti-gun activities as District Attorney in San Francisco and Attorney General for California, but today he’s with me to talk about the excellent news on Friday in the Duncan v. Becerra case; a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California’s ban on the sale and possession of so-called large capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The most important thing you need to know is that, for now anyway, the law remains in effect even though the 9th Circuit’s ruling declared that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez correctly decided the case when he issued his original decision striking down the law back in 2019. When Benitez issued his own opinion last year, after one week in which Californians could and did purchase “large capacity magazines” (perhaps as many as 1,000,000 of them, in fact) he then issued a stay for a portion of the decision: Californians could continue to possess their LCMs but could no longer legally purchase them.
For now, that stay remains in effect, according to the CRPA, which has posted a letter from the California Department of Justice on its website affirming that until the appeals process has been exhausted, it remains illegal to purchase a magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds. That didn’t stop many gun stores and gun owners in California from loading up over the weekend, but my guess is the state is going to try to enforce the law as best it can while the stay remains in effect.
Travis says that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have until August 28th to decide their next step, and they’ve got a three options: accept the Ninth Circuit’s decision, appeal the decision of the three judge panel to an en banc panel of 11 judges from the Ninth Circuit, or ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. At this point I think an en banc review is the most likely possibility, though as Rick Travis correctly points out, the Ninth Circuit isn’t nearly as anti-gun in its makeup as it was just a few years ago. Thanks to judicial appointments by President Donald Trump over the last few years, the Ninth Circuit is near parity in terms of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans.
In other words, a reversal by an en banc panel isn’t a slam dunk here. The Supreme Court also isn’t a sure thing for Newsom and Becerra, even though SCOTUS just denied the chance to hear nearly a dozen Second Amendment cases just a few months ago. All of those cases were brought by gun owners and Second Amendment organizations, not by states trying to keep their anti-gun laws in place, as would be the case in California’s appeal. The Supreme Court could easily pass on the Duncan case as well, which would leave the decision by the three judge panel in place not only in California, but all twelve of the western states covered by the Ninth Circuit.
Of course, as Travis points out, there’s a reason why SCOTUS might embrace the Duncan case even though it recently turned away so many other challenges to gun control laws; the opinion by Judge Lee specifically decided that the state’s ban on magazines should be considered under strict scrutiny, or the highest level of judicial review. Several of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have vocally expressed the need for SCOTUS to take up another 2A case in order to provide guidance to lower courts on the proper standard of review to be used when gun control laws face a constitutional challenge, and the fact that the Ninth Circuit determined that the highest level of review is warranted should be music to the ears of justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The biggest question is whether Chief Justice John Roberts would go along with the case, but that’s been the great unknown for several months now.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Rick Travis above, and stick around afterwards for today’s armed citizen story and a truly terrific good deed of the day.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Alabama Self-Defense Case Shows Need For "Large Capacity" Magazines

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to make it a federal crime to own an ammunition magazine that can hold more than ten rounds , but a self-defense story out of Cullman County , Alabama is a perfect example of why the government shouldn ’ t be imposing arbitrary limits on your ability to protect yourself .
According to Cullman County Sheriff Matt Gentry , a homeowner in the county was forced to defend his life after four men broke into his home early Monday morning .
We don ’ t know how many of the suspects were armed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun and exchanged fire with the homeowner , according to Sheriff Gentry , who praised the armed citizen for being able to defend themselves in a statement on the sheriff ’ s department ’ s Facebook page .
“ This is a great example of citizens utilizing their second amendment rights and protecting themselves and their family .
I have often stated that law enforcement can be minutes away when you only have seconds to defend yourself and your family .
That ’ s why we at the sheriff ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon for self defense but also being proficient in how to use it , ” I ’ m glad to see Sheriff Gentry ’ s vocal support for the right to keep and bear arms here .
I just wish he would have taken it one step further and referenced the Ninth Circuit ’ s decision last Friday declaring California ’ s ban on “ large capacity magazines ” unconstitutional .
After all , this case of self-defense demonstrates why a law-abiding gun owner would want and have need to use a so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Kenneth Lee wrote in his opinion in Duncan v. Becerra , Beyond the clear constitutional issues with magazine bans , there ’ s also a very pragmatic reason to be be opposed to the Biden/Harris plan to make possession of a “ large capacity magazine ” a federal crime .
I had the chance to speak to J. Eric Dietz , director of the Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University about his research into the defensive benefits of larger magazine capacity .
According to Dietz , computer modeling shows that the bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of surviving a home invasion like the one that occurred in Cullman County , Alabama .
You can check out the full interview below , but here ’ s the most important part of what he had to say : Constitutionally speaking , a magazine ban is a clear infringement on the right to keep and bear arms by forbidding the possession of something that ’ s in common use ( as Judge Lee noted in his decision in Duncan v. Becerra , more than half of all ammunition magazines in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) for lawful purposes .
From a common sense perspective , a magazine ban inhibits the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their loved ones .
And frankly , from a criminal justice reform perspective , a magazine ban is another non-violent possessory offense that doesn ’ t fight crime but actually creates a criminal offense where one didn ’ t previously exist .
Of course , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don ’ t care about any of those things any more than they ’ re bothered by the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeowner in Cullman , Alabama would likely face more time behind bars for possessing a “ large capacity magazine ” than the four guys who tried to break into his home would be facing for their alleged home invasion .
The most anti-gun ticket in American history is fully on board with making possession of the 17-round magazine that came with your Glock a federal crime , even if their actions would turn tens of millions of currently law-abiding gun owners into outlaws overnight .

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to make it a federal crime to own an ammunition magazine that can hold more than ten rounds, but a self-defense story out of Cullman County, Alabama is a perfect example of why the government shouldn’t be imposing arbitrary limits on your ability to protect yourself.
According to Cullman County Sheriff Matt Gentry, a homeowner in the county was forced to defend his life after four men broke into his home early Monday morning.
The suspects were met by the owners who were armed. When they tried to leave, the suspects were followed by one of the homeowners and shots were fired. One suspect was hit and is being treated at a hospital. Three suspects have been detained, counting the suspect in the hospital, and one suspect got away in their vehicle.
We don’t know how many of the suspects were armed, but at least one of them had a gun and exchanged fire with the homeowner, according to Sheriff Gentry, who praised the armed citizen for being able to defend themselves in a statement on the sheriff’s department’s Facebook page.
“This is a great example of citizens utilizing their second amendment rights and protecting themselves and their family. I have often stated that law enforcement can be minutes away when you only have seconds to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we at the sheriff’s office are proponents of not only having a weapon for self defense but also being proficient in how to use it,”
I’m glad to see Sheriff Gentry’s vocal support for the right to keep and bear arms here. I just wish he would have taken it one step further and referenced the Ninth Circuit’s decision last Friday declaring California’s ban on “large capacity magazines” unconstitutional. After all, this case of self-defense demonstrates why a law-abiding gun owner would want and have need to use a so-called large capacity magazine in self-defense. As Judge Kenneth Lee wrote in his opinion in Duncan v. Becerra,
Law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas where the law enforcement is overtaxed may defend themselves in their homes with a handgun outfitted with LCMs. And in incidents of mass chaos and unrest, law enforcement simply may be unable to protect the people, leaving them solely responsible for their own safety in a seemingly Hobbesian world.
Beyond the clear constitutional issues with magazine bans, there’s also a very pragmatic reason to be be opposed to the Biden/Harris plan to make possession of a “large capacity magazine” a federal crime. I had the chance to speak to J. Eric Dietz, director of the Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University about his research into the defensive benefits of larger magazine capacity. According to Dietz, computer modeling shows that the bigger the magazine, the greater the odds of surviving a home invasion like the one that occurred in Cullman County, Alabama. You can check out the full interview below, but here’s the most important part of what he had to say:
This is not really new. Anybody who’s got military or law enforcement time knows more guns in a gun fight on the friendly side are good and the outcome is usually better because of that. So I think this reinforces maybe our gut reaction to the magazine bans and the magazine capacity issue overall.”
Constitutionally speaking, a magazine ban is a clear infringement on the right to keep and bear arms by forbidding the possession of something that’s in common use (as Judge Lee noted in his decision in Duncan v. Becerra, more than half of all ammunition magazines in the country have a capacity greater than ten rounds) for lawful purposes. From a common sense perspective, a magazine ban inhibits the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their loved ones. And frankly, from a criminal justice reform perspective, a magazine ban is another non-violent possessory offense that doesn’t fight crime but actually creates a criminal offense where one didn’t previously exist.
Of course, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t care about any of those things any more than they’re bothered by the fact that under the Biden/Harris plan, this homeowner in Cullman, Alabama would likely face more time behind bars for possessing a “large capacity magazine” than the four guys who tried to break into his home would be facing for their alleged home invasion. The most anti-gun ticket in American history is fully on board with making possession of the 17-round magazine that came with your Glock a federal crime, even if their actions would turn tens of millions of currently law-abiding gun owners into outlaws overnight.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Oregon State Police Angered By DA's Decision Not To Prosecute

Imagine you ’ re a police officer who is stepping in to help a local police department quell civil unrest , the kind of unrest that ’ s been a nightly occurrence for weeks upon weeks .
Now imagine that the local district attorney decides he ’ s not going to prosecute people you arrest for injuring your fellow officers because he says it ’ s your own faults they did it .
How would you respond ?
My guess is that you wouldn ’ t be too inclined to help .
For what it ’ s worth , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Police last week .
The Oregon State Police is ending its agreement to help Portland police protect the Hatfield Federal Courthouse , the scene of many of the protests over the past 76 nights .
The 2-week agreement was struck between Gov .
Kate Brown and Vice President Mike Pence to get federal officers out of Portland after weeks of violent confrontations with protesters .
But the violent protests are back and there is a growing split over whether those arrested will be charged .
KOIN 6 News learned the reason they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are angry over new Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt ’ s decision not to prosecute most of those arrested .
Since the protests began in Portland more than 75 nights ago , more than 500 people have been arrested .
So far , less than 50 are being prosecuted .
In a statement , the Oregon State Police said : “ The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a priority.
” Asked if OSP troopers would be pulling out of Portland immediately , officials told KOIN 6 News the answer is yes .
Honestly , I don ’ t blame them .
Every agency has limited resources , after all , so it makes strategic sense to use them where they can be the most effective .
In the case of a state agency that ’ s helping a local government , that means pulling out if local officials refuse to prosecute those who they arrest .
Why waste resources when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s especially true when the DA in question basically said he doesn ’ t care if officers get hurt .
Their officers .
It ’ s not rocket science here .
Anyone with half a brain knows why the OSP pulled out and anyone with half a brain can imagine the impact .
Especially since OSP began protecting the federal courthouse in an effort to quell the outrage over the Department of Homeland Security doing their actual jobs .
Now , the attacks against the federal building in Portland seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means it might not be that big of an issue , but there ’ s been something of an upsurge in “ protests ” around the building .
Without OSP there , that means DHS will likely fill that roll .
We know how that will go over , now don ’ t we .
The district attorney ’ s decision , while likely to play well with the mob , isn ’ t doing any favors for the Portland Police Department , though , and expect that to play out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the department and the DA ’ s office interact should be…interesting .

Imagine you’re a police officer who is stepping in to help a local police department quell civil unrest, the kind of unrest that’s been a nightly occurrence for weeks upon weeks. Now imagine that the local district attorney decides he’s not going to prosecute people you arrest for injuring your fellow officers because he says it’s your own faults they did it.
How would you respond?
My guess is that you wouldn’t be too inclined to help.
For what it’s worth, that was the official position of the Oregon State Police last week.
The Oregon State Police is ending its agreement to help Portland police protect the Hatfield Federal Courthouse, the scene of many of the protests over the past 76 nights. The 2-week agreement was struck between Gov. Kate Brown and Vice President Mike Pence to get federal officers out of Portland after weeks of violent confrontations with protesters. But the violent protests are back and there is a growing split over whether those arrested will be charged. KOIN 6 News learned the reason they’re ending their agreement is because they are angry over new Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt’s decision not to prosecute most of those arrested. Since the protests began in Portland more than 75 nights ago, more than 500 people have been arrested. So far, less than 50 are being prosecuted. In a statement, the Oregon State Police said: “The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority.” Asked if OSP troopers would be pulling out of Portland immediately, officials told KOIN 6 News the answer is yes.
Well…that’s pretty blunt.
Honestly, I don’t blame them. Every agency has limited resources, after all, so it makes strategic sense to use them where they can be the most effective. In the case of a state agency that’s helping a local government, that means pulling out if local officials refuse to prosecute those who they arrest. Why waste resources when nothing will come of it?
That’s especially true when the DA in question basically said he doesn’t care if officers get hurt. Their officers.
It’s not rocket science here. Anyone with half a brain knows why the OSP pulled out and anyone with half a brain can imagine the impact. Especially since OSP began protecting the federal courthouse in an effort to quell the outrage over the Department of Homeland Security doing their actual jobs.
Now, the attacks against the federal building in Portland seems to have died down for the most part, which means it might not be that big of an issue, but there’s been something of an upsurge in “protests” around the building. Without OSP there, that means DHS will likely fill that roll.
We know how that will go over, now don’t we.
The district attorney’s decision, while likely to play well with the mob, isn’t doing any favors for the Portland Police Department, though, and expect that to play out in the future. In fact, watching how the department and the DA’s office interact should be…interesting.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Philly's "Gun Turn-In" Didn't Make A Dent In Weekend Shootings

Philadelphia officials touted a “ gun turn-in ” event held over the weekend as a way to reduce the increase in shootings in the city , but while the event went off without a hitch and even managed to collect a few dozen firearms , it didn ’ t have an impact on the violence on city streets .
At least seven people were killed and more than 25 others injured in shootings and stabbings over the weekend in the city of brotherly love , which is actually an increase compared to the previous weekend in the city .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they attempted to break up a block party that had swelled to several hundred individuals after shots were fired , wounding five people .
The homicide rate is now the highest that it ’ s been since 2007 , and city officials have responded with ineffectual ideas like asking people to hand over unwanted firearms .
From WPVI-TV in Philly : Guns and ammunition could be turned in at two locations , at churches in Germantown and Point Breeze .
Both are areas that have experienced recent gun violence .
“ Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could potentially end up , and be involved in a shooting , ” said Bilal Qayyum , president of Father ’ s Day rally committee , which helped organize the day ’ s firearm disposal .
In total 43 guns were turned in , which is a step in the right direction to help save lives , especially children ’ s , whose lives have been innocently caught in the crossfire of shootouts .
“ Right now we ’ re facing an emergency here in the city of Philadelphia when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen children being shot and murdered , we ’ ve seen pregnant women being shot and murdered , ” said [ Philadelphia City Council member Kenyatta ] Johnson .
Note the anti-gun bias on the part of the local television station .
Is the turning in of 43 guns really a “ step in the right direction ” if a ) these guns aren ’ t being used in crimes and b ) violence actually increased during the weekend that the turn-in event was held ?
The goal here shouldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free , ” which is virtually impossible .
The goal should be to get people to stop shooting one another .
In order to do that , one community activist says the answer isn ’ t more gun control laws , but a greater emphasis on “ violence interrupters ” in high crime neighborhoods .
Reverend Mark Kelly Tyler , pastor of Mother Bethel AME and a member of the Power to Live Free campaign , which addresses gun violence , told NBC10 resources should be invested back into the communities that struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we go block by block , neighborhood by neighborhood and develop a unique plan and find the credible messengers in those communities , in every community there is somebody who can stop the violence in that community , ” he said .
Reverend Tyler referred to those individuals as “ violence interrupters.
” He believes the city ’ s gun violence can and will be curbed if the city creates paid positions with adequate training for them .
“ Persons whose only job when they wake up and go to bed is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Reverend Tyler said .
“ When they hear of an impending beef between two groups they are there to intervene and to try to point people into a different direction.
” I think that programs like the one described by Reverend Tyler have their place .
Studies have shown that they can be effective in reducing homicides and shootings , though there ’ s much stronger evidence showing that violence interrupters are more successful when they ’ re part of an overall strategy that combines violence reduction efforts alongside increased federal prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Philly residents , District Attorney Larry Krasner has taken a soft-on-crime approach instead .
A perfect example of his office ’ s mentality was a plea deal recently negotiated with 31-year old Jovaun Patterson , who shot a man back in 2018 as he was washing his car .
Krasner offered Patterson a 3-to-10 year prison sentence , which likely would have resulted in Patterson being set free after serving less than two years behind bars .
U.S. Attorney William McSwain , however , stepped in and took over the case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week Patterson received a 14-year sentence .
If Philadelphia officials are serious about stopping violent crime , they ’ re going to need the help of federal prosecutors , not just violence interrupters .
Sadly , it looks like the Democrats in charge of Philadelphia are banking on a strategy that relies on the party taking control of the state legislature in November , undoing statewide firearms preemption , and imposing all kinds of new local gun laws on Philly residents instead of getting tough on the city ’ s violent criminals @

Philadelphia officials touted a “gun turn-in” event held over the weekend as a way to reduce the increase in shootings in the city, but while the event went off without a hitch and even managed to collect a few dozen firearms, it didn’t have an impact on the violence on city streets.
At least seven people were killed and more than 25 others injured in shootings and stabbings over the weekend in the city of brotherly love, which is actually an increase compared to the previous weekend in the city. In fact Philly police had to dodge bullets as they attempted to break up a block party that had swelled to several hundred individuals after shots were fired, wounding five people.
The homicide rate is now the highest that it’s been since 2007, and city officials have responded with ineffectual ideas like asking people to hand over unwanted firearms. From WPVI-TV in Philly:
Guns and ammunition could be turned in at two locations, at churches in Germantown and Point Breeze. Both are areas that have experienced recent gun violence. “Every gun off the street is a gun that could potentially end up, and be involved in a shooting,” said Bilal Qayyum, president of Father’s Day rally committee, which helped organize the day’s firearm disposal. In total 43 guns were turned in, which is a step in the right direction to help save lives, especially children’s, whose lives have been innocently caught in the crossfire of shootouts. “Right now we’re facing an emergency here in the city of Philadelphia when it comes to gun violence, we’ve seen children being shot and murdered, we’ve seen pregnant women being shot and murdered,” said [Philadelphia City Council member Kenyatta] Johnson.
Note the anti-gun bias on the part of the local television station. Is the turning in of 43 guns really a “step in the right direction” if a) these guns aren’t being used in crimes and b) violence actually increased during the weekend that the turn-in event was held? The goal here shouldn’t be to try to make Philadelphia “gun free,” which is virtually impossible. The goal should be to get people to stop shooting one another.
In order to do that, one community activist says the answer isn’t more gun control laws, but a greater emphasis on “violence interrupters” in high crime neighborhoods.
Reverend Mark Kelly Tyler, pastor of Mother Bethel AME and a member of the Power to Live Free campaign, which addresses gun violence, told NBC10 resources should be invested back into the communities that struggle the most with violence. “If we go block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood and develop a unique plan and find the credible messengers in those communities, in every community there is somebody who can stop the violence in that community,” he said. Reverend Tyler referred to those individuals as “violence interrupters.” He believes the city’s gun violence can and will be curbed if the city creates paid positions with adequate training for them. “Persons whose only job when they wake up and go to bed is to make sure this community is safe,” Reverend Tyler said. “When they hear of an impending beef between two groups they are there to intervene and to try to point people into a different direction.”
I think that programs like the one described by Reverend Tyler have their place. Studies have shown that they can be effective in reducing homicides and shootings, though there’s much stronger evidence showing that violence interrupters are more successful when they’re part of an overall strategy that combines violence reduction efforts alongside increased federal prosecution for repeat, violent offenders.
Unfortunately for Philly residents, District Attorney Larry Krasner has taken a soft-on-crime approach instead. A perfect example of his office’s mentality was a plea deal recently negotiated with 31-year old Jovaun Patterson, who shot a man back in 2018 as he was washing his car. Krasner offered Patterson a 3-to-10 year prison sentence, which likely would have resulted in Patterson being set free after serving less than two years behind bars.
U.S. Attorney William McSwain, however, stepped in and took over the case, bringing it to federal court, where last week Patterson received a 14-year sentence.
“The law-abiding citizens of this city know where the U.S. Attorneys Office stands. We stand with them and our law enforcement partners,” McSwain said. McSwain says his office will continue taking cases from the district attorney if the time doesn’t meet the crime. “Jovaun Patterson has been sentenced to over 14 years in federal prison … and now will serve what we think is an appropriate sentence,” McSwain said.
If Philadelphia officials are serious about stopping violent crime, they’re going to need the help of federal prosecutors, not just violence interrupters. Sadly, it looks like the Democrats in charge of Philadelphia are banking on a strategy that relies on the party taking control of the state legislature in November, undoing statewide firearms preemption, and imposing all kinds of new local gun laws on Philly residents instead of getting tough on the city’s violent criminals.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Gun Grabbers Want Convention Momentum

Gun Grabbers Want Convention Momentum

The 2020 elections are going to see guns and gun control play a significant role .
That ’ s been clear from the get-go as candidates tripped over themselves to establish their anti-Second Amendment bonafides .
As a result , we are now seeing a team of two of the worst as nominee and vice presidential nominee .
It ’ s going to be a thing .
As a result , anti-gunners are looking forward to picking up a bit of momentum at the Democratic National Convention .
The nation ’ s biggest gun control advocacy groups are looking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent momentum sparked by New York ’ s lawsuit against the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) .
Anti-gun violence organizations are expecting presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden to highlight the issue during his acceptance speech Thursday .
“ What we always expect from him on our issue is just really strong and thoughtful leadership .
He knows our organization well .
He ’ s been working with us for over 30 years , ” said Brady PAC Executive Director Brian Lemek .
Brady PAC , the sister organization of the nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted that Biden helped pass the Brady Bill in 1993 , which implemented the modern background check system that advocates are now pushing to reform .
Everytown for Gun Safety , which has also contributed significantly to Biden ’ s campaign after not making any direct campaign contributions in 2016 , is hoping for more than just a mention of gun control during the former vice president ’ s prime-time speech .
“ Given his decades-long leadership on gun safety , we wouldn ’ t be surprised if Joe Biden made this issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we can be absolutely certain that Biden , who has pledged to take action on gun safety in his first 100 days of office and committed $ 900 million in local violence intervention programs , will be the strongest gun sense president we ’ ve ever seen , ” said John Feinblatt , president of Everytown for Gun Safety .
In other words , they ’ re convinced that gun control is going to be a big issue .
I don ’ t think they ’ re wrong .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they believe .
You see , gun control got a swell in support following a series of high-profile mass shootings .
From Parkland to Dayton , things just seemed to keep piling up and the anti-gun movement was quick to capitalize .
Then COVID-19 came to our shores .
That prompted many to go out and buy a gun .
Or , more specifically , to try and buy a gun .
According to Rassmussen , 27 percent of gun owners bought one in the last six months .
We also know from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation that the majority of these gun owners are new gun owners .
This is bad for the anti-gunners .
You see , they ’ ve made their money for years over lying about how easy it is to buy a gun .
The “ gun show loophole ” and the “ internet loophole ; ” things of that sort .
They believed you could get a gun easy-peasy with no hassle .
The problem is , they found out otherwise .
Gun dealers with a web presence had to tell buyers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun and have it shipped to their home , thus exploding that myth .
They found out that buying a gun without a background check–even in states without universal background checks–wasn ’ t as simple as they thought .
The entire framework around gun control shattered .
It just seems that the anti-gunners don ’ t realize it yet .
Their position is further eroded by the lawlessness that ’ s engulfed our major cities .
People who might have been open to gun control are now wary of being unarmed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this particular movement , a movement I believe will play a factor come November .
I just don ’ t think it ’ ll be the way Democrats have envisioned it .

The 2020 elections are going to see guns and gun control play a significant role. That’s been clear from the get-go as candidates tripped over themselves to establish their anti-Second Amendment bonafides. As a result, we are now seeing a team of two of the worst as nominee and vice presidential nominee.
It’s going to be a thing.
As a result, anti-gunners are looking forward to picking up a bit of momentum at the Democratic National Convention.
The nation’s biggest gun control advocacy groups are looking to the Democratic National Convention to build off recent momentum sparked by New York’s lawsuit against the National Rifle Association (NRA). Anti-gun violence organizations are expecting presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden to highlight the issue during his acceptance speech Thursday. “What we always expect from him on our issue is just really strong and thoughtful leadership. He knows our organization well. He’s been working with us for over 30 years,” said Brady PAC Executive Director Brian Lemek. Brady PAC, the sister organization of the nation’s oldest anti-gun violence advocacy group, touted that Biden helped pass the Brady Bill in 1993, which implemented the modern background check system that advocates are now pushing to reform. … Everytown for Gun Safety, which has also contributed significantly to Biden’s campaign after not making any direct campaign contributions in 2016, is hoping for more than just a mention of gun control during the former vice president’s prime-time speech. “Given his decades-long leadership on gun safety, we wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Biden made this issue a key part of his convention message. And we can be absolutely certain that Biden, who has pledged to take action on gun safety in his first 100 days of office and committed $900 million in local violence intervention programs, will be the strongest gun sense president we’ve ever seen,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.
In other words, they’re convinced that gun control is going to be a big issue.
I don’t think they’re wrong. They’re just not right for the reasons they believe.
You see, gun control got a swell in support following a series of high-profile mass shootings. From Parkland to Dayton, things just seemed to keep piling up and the anti-gun movement was quick to capitalize.
Then COVID-19 came to our shores.
That prompted many to go out and buy a gun. Or, more specifically, to try and buy a gun.
According to Rassmussen, 27 percent of gun owners bought one in the last six months. We also know from reports of gun stores all over the nation that the majority of these gun owners are new gun owners.
This is bad for the anti-gunners.
You see, they’ve made their money for years over lying about how easy it is to buy a gun. The “gun show loophole” and the “internet loophole;” things of that sort. They believed you could get a gun easy-peasy with no hassle.
The problem is, they found out otherwise.
Gun dealers with a web presence had to tell buyers that no, they couldn’t buy a gun and have it shipped to their home, thus exploding that myth. They found out that buying a gun without a background check–even in states without universal background checks–wasn’t as simple as they thought.
The entire framework around gun control shattered. It just seems that the anti-gunners don’t realize it yet.
Their position is further eroded by the lawlessness that’s engulfed our major cities. People who might have been open to gun control are now wary of being unarmed.
Yet Democrats have hitched their wagon to this particular movement, a movement I believe will play a factor come November. I just don’t think it’ll be the way Democrats have envisioned it.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Armed Citizens Fight Back In Chicago

Armed Citizens Fight Back In Chicago

As residents of the city of Chicago suffered through another violent weekend that left at least five people dead and more than 60 others wounded , some are turning to the Second Amendment to help keep them safe .
One legal gun owner and concealed carry licensee was able to protect himself when shots were fired at him as he sat in his car on Sunday afternoon .
According to officials , a 24-year-old FOID and concealed carry cardholder was in a vehicle on the street when another 24-year-old man opened fire , striking the man in the vehicle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man in the vehicle then produced his own firearm and began shooting , striking the initial shooter in the torso .
Both suspect and victim were taken to a local hospital , where at last report they were both in serious condition .
Meanwhile , a jewelry store owner in the city says he ’ s been protecting his business from looters with a gun of his own .
Terry Te , who owns Imperial Jewelers , told FOX Business ’ s Neil Cavuto that looters already destroyed his business once , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t happen again .
“ After the first round of looting back in May , they destroyed our building , ” Te said on “ Cavuto Live.
” “ So this time , I just wanted to stop as much destruction as possible and decided to come down right away after I heard the alarm ring.
” He added : “ There ’ s so many looters from everywhere.
” Te was armed and wearing a vest when he confronted the looters , and thankfully the individuals trying to steal Te ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with any merchandise , which Te had locked up in the store ’ s safe .
The violence in Chicago this past weekend wasn ’ t limited to the downtown area .
According to WLS-TV , there were shootings in virtually every sector of the city , including a double shooting Saturday morning on a major thoroughfare .
An expressway shooting Saturday morning left two women hurt , one of them critically , on the Eisenhower Expressway in Austin on the West Side .
The women were shot at 4:13 a.m. in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Illinois State Police .
A 25-year-old was taken to Stroger Hospital in critical condition , Chicago Fire Department officials said .
The other woman , 21 , was taken to the same hospital in fair-to-serious condition .
Remarkably , Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot wasn ’ t asked a single question about the surge in shootings when she appeared on CBS News ’ “ Face the Nation ” on Sunday .
The closest that host Margaret Brennan came to bringing up the subject was when she asked the mayor about violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downtown area on Saturday night , leading to the arrest of two dozen people and more than a dozen injured police officers .
The political violence is certainly worth talking about , but it ’ s absolutely bizarre that Brennan would give Lightfoot a pass on the street violence overwhelming Chicago in order to lob softball questions about Lightfoot ’ s support for Kamala Harris as Joe Biden ’ s running mate .
There ’ s really nothing newsworthy about a Democrat supporting the Democrat ticket , but Lightfoot ’ s failure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the subject of at least a few critical questions .
With violence seemingly out of control and Lightfoot unable or unwilling to do much about it , expect more armed citizens like Terry Te to use their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves , their families , and their businesses amidst the growing chaos .

As residents of the city of Chicago suffered through another violent weekend that left at least five people dead and more than 60 others wounded, some are turning to the Second Amendment to help keep them safe. One legal gun owner and concealed carry licensee was able to protect himself when shots were fired at him as he sat in his car on Sunday afternoon.
According to officials, a 24-year-old FOID and concealed carry cardholder was in a vehicle on the street when another 24-year-old man opened fire, striking the man in the vehicle in the right shoulder. Police said the man in the vehicle then produced his own firearm and began shooting, striking the initial shooter in the torso.
Both suspect and victim were taken to a local hospital, where at last report they were both in serious condition.
Meanwhile, a jewelry store owner in the city says he’s been protecting his business from looters with a gun of his own. Terry Te, who owns Imperial Jewelers, told FOX Business’s Neil Cavuto that looters already destroyed his business once, and he wants to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
“After the first round of looting back in May, they destroyed our building,” Te said on “Cavuto Live.” “So this time, I just wanted to stop as much destruction as possible and decided to come down right away after I heard the alarm ring.” He added: “There’s so many looters from everywhere.”
Te was armed and wearing a vest when he confronted the looters, and thankfully the individuals trying to steal Te’s inventory didn’t get away with any merchandise, which Te had locked up in the store’s safe.
The violence in Chicago this past weekend wasn’t limited to the downtown area. According to WLS-TV, there were shootings in virtually every sector of the city, including a double shooting Saturday morning on a major thoroughfare.
An expressway shooting Saturday morning left two women hurt, one of them critically, on the Eisenhower Expressway in Austin on the West Side. The women were shot at 4:13 a.m. in the eastbound lanes of I-290 near Laramie Avenue, according to Illinois State Police. A 25-year-old was taken to Stroger Hospital in critical condition, Chicago Fire Department officials said. The other woman, 21, was taken to the same hospital in fair-to-serious condition.
Remarkably, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot wasn’t asked a single question about the surge in shootings when she appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. The closest that host Margaret Brennan came to bringing up the subject was when she asked the mayor about violent protests that had broken out in the downtown area on Saturday night, leading to the arrest of two dozen people and more than a dozen injured police officers.
The political violence is certainly worth talking about, but it’s absolutely bizarre that Brennan would give Lightfoot a pass on the street violence overwhelming Chicago in order to lob softball questions about Lightfoot’s support for Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s running mate. There’s really nothing newsworthy about a Democrat supporting the Democrat ticket, but Lightfoot’s failure to keep the peace in Chicago should have been the subject of at least a few critical questions. With violence seemingly out of control and Lightfoot unable or unwilling to do much about it, expect more armed citizens like Terry Te to use their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families, and their businesses amidst the growing chaos.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--Can Government Place Game Cameras On YOUR Land? Yep

Imagine you ’ re walking through your land .
Maybe it ’ s your personal land or it ’ s the land you lease for hunting .
Maybe it ’ s something else .
Either way , you ’ re walking through it and you see something .
It ’ s a game camera secured to a tree .
Now , you know you didn ’ t put it there .
If you lease the land , maybe you know already that the owner didn ’ t put it there either .
You take a look at it .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re like most people , you ’ d probably figure a poacher put it up to try and figure out where to hunt on land they ’ re not legally allowed to so .
It ’ s sure as hell what I ’ d think .
Yet it seems that there may be another alternative , one that I personally think is more terrifying .
Seated at his kitchen table , finishing off the remains of a Saturday breakfast , Hunter Hollingsworth ’ s world was rocked by footsteps on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door , punctuated by an aggressive order : “ Open up or we ’ ll kick the door down.
” Surrounded on all sides of his house , and the driveway blocked , Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state wildlife officials packing pistols , shotguns and rifles .
And what was Hollingsworth ’ s crime ?
Drugs , armed robbery , assault , money laundering ?
Not quite .
Months prior , in 2018 , the Tennessee landowner removed a game camera secretly strapped to a tree on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to monitor his activity without apparent sanction or probable cause .
Repeat : Hollingsworth ’ s residence was searched by U.S. government and state officials , dressed to the nines in assault gear , seeking to regain possession of a trail camera—the precise camera they had surreptitiously placed on his private acreage after sneaking onto his property at night , loading the camera with active SD and SIM cards , and zip-tying the device roughly 10 ’ high up a tree—all without a warrant .
That ’ s right .
The sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home because of a game camera .
But , that can ’ t be legal , can it ?
Well , actually , they can .
The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance , but for roughly a century , SCOTUS has ruled that private land—is not private .
Fourth Amendment protections against “ unreasonable searches and seizures ” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual ’ s immediate dwelling area , according to SCOTUS .
However , SCOTUS ’ Open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Montana , New York , Oregon and Vermont through protections granted by state constitutions , and for many American landowners , the more they discover about Open Fields—the more questions they have regarding the bounds of government power .
In Tennessee , Hollingsworth and Terry Rainwaters , another landowner who discovered multiple trail cameras on his property placed by the state , are taking their cases to state court , claiming violations of the Tennessee State Constitution .
The Rainwaters and Hollingsworth stories contain alarming claims regarding the behavior of wildlife officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Open Fields , states ’ rights , and the sanctity of private property .
And I wish them the best of luck .
While I tend to support game laws , the truth of the matter is that I ’ ve also seen some questionable behavior by game authorities .
For example , a family member of my wife ’ s was cited by a game warden for illegal hunting on his own land .
The problem ?
The only thing he was “ hunting ” was the identity of the individual who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah , he had a gun on him , but do you blame him ?
It ’ s important to understand that with regard to these cameras , they ’ re not marked .
There ’ s nothing on them saying “ Department of Wildlife ” or whatever the relevant agency calls itself .
So , what can you do ?
Well , Hollingsworth and Rainwaters are doing one of the things you can do .
Taking it to court is certainly a good step .
But what if you find a camera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options ?
I can ’ t tell you that .
I can mention that some of my friends who were aware of this story made some suggestions that were amusing .
One was to use the camera to take pictures of the male genitalia .
Another suggested uploading geriatric porn onto the sim card .
I won ’ t tell you to do those things , but if you do and I find out about it , I ’ ll probably laugh my rear off .
Either way , though , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swarming a person ’ s home for trying to actually combat poaching on that land , because that ’ s what we ’ re really talking about here .
Unmarked game cameras mysteriously showing up on someone ’ s land is a problem , and I don ’ t think the government should get a pass on that .

Imagine you’re walking through your land. Maybe it’s your personal land or it’s the land you lease for hunting. Maybe it’s something else. Either way, you’re walking through it and you see something. It’s a game camera secured to a tree.
Now, you know you didn’t put it there. If you lease the land, maybe you know already that the owner didn’t put it there either. You take a look at it. There’s no markings or anything.
If you’re like most people, you’d probably figure a poacher put it up to try and figure out where to hunt on land they’re not legally allowed to so. It’s sure as hell what I’d think.
Yet it seems that there may be another alternative, one that I personally think is more terrifying.
Seated at his kitchen table, finishing off the remains of a Saturday breakfast, Hunter Hollingsworth’s world was rocked by footsteps on his front porch and pounding at the door, punctuated by an aggressive order: “Open up or we’ll kick the door down.” Surrounded on all sides of his house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles. And what was Hollingsworth’s crime? Drugs, armed robbery, assault, money laundering? Not quite. Months prior, in 2018, the Tennessee landowner removed a game camera secretly strapped to a tree on his private land by wildlife officials in order to monitor his activity without apparent sanction or probable cause. Repeat: Hollingsworth’s residence was searched by U.S. government and state officials, dressed to the nines in assault gear, seeking to regain possession of a trail camera—the precise camera they had surreptitiously placed on his private acreage after sneaking onto his property at night, loading the camera with active SD and SIM cards, and zip-tying the device roughly 10’ high up a tree—all without a warrant.
That’s right. The sent a swarm of officers to Hollingsworth’s home because of a game camera.
But, that can’t be legal, can it?
Well, actually, they can.
The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance, but for roughly a century, SCOTUS has ruled that private land—is not private. Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual’s immediate dwelling area, according to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS’ Open Fields doctrine has been bucked in Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon and Vermont through protections granted by state constitutions, and for many American landowners, the more they discover about Open Fields—the more questions they have regarding the bounds of government power. In Tennessee, Hollingsworth and Terry Rainwaters, another landowner who discovered multiple trail cameras on his property placed by the state, are taking their cases to state court, claiming violations of the Tennessee State Constitution. The Rainwaters and Hollingsworth stories contain alarming claims regarding the behavior of wildlife officials and raise a bevy of questions over Open Fields, states’ rights, and the sanctity of private property.
And I wish them the best of luck.
While I tend to support game laws, the truth of the matter is that I’ve also seen some questionable behavior by game authorities. For example, a family member of my wife’s was cited by a game warden for illegal hunting on his own land. The problem? The only thing he was “hunting” was the identity of the individual who parked a truck on his property. Yeah, he had a gun on him, but do you blame him?
It’s important to understand that with regard to these cameras, they’re not marked. There’s nothing on them saying “Department of Wildlife” or whatever the relevant agency calls itself.
So, what can you do?
Well, Hollingsworth and Rainwaters are doing one of the things you can do. Taking it to court is certainly a good step.
But what if you find a camera on your property? What are your options?
I can’t tell you that. I can mention that some of my friends who were aware of this story made some suggestions that were amusing. One was to use the camera to take pictures of the male genitalia. Another suggested uploading geriatric porn onto the sim card.
I won’t tell you to do those things, but if you do and I find out about it, I’ll probably laugh my rear off.
Either way, though, I’m particularly alarmed by the idea of swarming a person’s home for trying to actually combat poaching on that land, because that’s what we’re really talking about here. Unmarked game cameras mysteriously showing up on someone’s land is a problem, and I don’t think the government should get a pass on that.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--With Shootings Skyrocketing, NY Lawmaker Seeks To Punish Gun Manufacturers

It was another violent weekend in New York City , with at least five people killed and more than 40 wounded in dozens of shootings across the five boroughs .
So far this year there ’ ve been nearly 900 shootings in the city , an increase of about 100 % over last year , and on Sunday evening President Donald Trump insinuated that he may be sending more federal law enforcement to the city .
Some New York lawmakers , however , seem to have a different strategy in mind .
Rather than go after the city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after firearm manufacturers as well .
State Senator Zellnor Myrie ( D-Brooklyn ) , says he ’ s introducing legislation today that would change the state ’ s criminal nuisance law to include the sale and manufacture of firearms .
With shootings up more than 75 % in the city so far this year , Myrie said there are several actions lawmakers can take to stem the violence including increasing economic opportunity , funding schools and providing more resources for organizations with track records of preventing violence .
But he believes that attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long way to ending gun violence altogether .
“ In the wake of a gun violence epidemic plaguing the city , state , and nation , we have a duty to hold all responsible parties accountable , ” he said .
” While communities of color have died disproportionately from gun violence and COVID-19 over the past five months , gun manufacturers have seen their stocks and profits soar .
Something isn ’ t right with that equation.
” The reason for those soaring stock prices is simple : record numbers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm , many of them for the very first time .
They ’ re not turning around and committing these acts of violence in New York City ; a place so restrictive that anyone who applies for permission to keep a gun in their home will have to pay hundreds of dollars in application fees and wait for months to be approved or denied .
It seems like Sen. Myrie wants to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals , instead of actually holding the individuals who pull the trigger responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both chambers of the state legislature , the odds are good that Myrie ’ s bill will be approved in the weeks ahead , and Gov .
Andrew Cuomo is almost certain to sign the bill if it gets to his desk .
The legislation won ’ t do anything to protect New Yorkers .
In fact , if approved it will make things far worse , as some manufacturers may choose to stop doing business in the state .
Criminals who acquire their guns on the black market won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but residents hoping to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights may find themselves stymied by the law if gun companies were to pull out of the retail market in the state .
Myrie says he believes that his legislation provides an end run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which was designed to prohibit the kind of junk lawsuits that the senator is trying to enable .
If the bill does become law , inevitably it will be challenged in court , but in the meantime it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun ownership than a tool to bring down New York City ’ s soaring crime rate .

It was another violent weekend in New York City, with at least five people killed and more than 40 wounded in dozens of shootings across the five boroughs. So far this year there’ve been nearly 900 shootings in the city, an increase of about 100% over last year, and on Sunday evening President Donald Trump insinuated that he may be sending more federal law enforcement to the city.
Some New York lawmakers, however, seem to have a different strategy in mind. Rather than go after the city’s violent criminals, they want to go after firearm manufacturers as well. State Senator Zellnor Myrie (D-Brooklyn), says he’s introducing legislation today that would change the state’s criminal nuisance law to include the sale and manufacture of firearms.
With shootings up more than 75% in the city so far this year, Myrie said there are several actions lawmakers can take to stem the violence including increasing economic opportunity, funding schools and providing more resources for organizations with track records of preventing violence. But he believes that attacking the root of the problem will go a long way to ending gun violence altogether. “In the wake of a gun violence epidemic plaguing the city, state, and nation, we have a duty to hold all responsible parties accountable,” he said. ”While communities of color have died disproportionately from gun violence and COVID-19 over the past five months, gun manufacturers have seen their stocks and profits soar. Something isn’t right with that equation.”
The reason for those soaring stock prices is simple: record numbers of Americans are choosing to legally purchase a firearm, many of them for the very first time. They’re not turning around and committing these acts of violence in New York City; a place so restrictive that anyone who applies for permission to keep a gun in their home will have to pay hundreds of dollars in application fees and wait for months to be approved or denied.
It seems like Sen. Myrie wants to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals, instead of actually holding the individuals who pull the trigger responsible for their crimes. With an anti-gun majority in both chambers of the state legislature, the odds are good that Myrie’s bill will be approved in the weeks ahead, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo is almost certain to sign the bill if it gets to his desk.
The legislation won’t do anything to protect New Yorkers. In fact, if approved it will make things far worse, as some manufacturers may choose to stop doing business in the state. Criminals who acquire their guns on the black market won’t be phased by the new law, but residents hoping to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights may find themselves stymied by the law if gun companies were to pull out of the retail market in the state.
Myrie says he believes that his legislation provides an end run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was designed to prohibit the kind of junk lawsuits that the senator is trying to enable. If the bill does become law, inevitably it will be challenged in court, but in the meantime it would serve more as a barrier to legal gun ownership than a tool to bring down New York City’s soaring crime rate.


bearingarms--2020-08-17--After Deadly Weekend In Cincinnati, DeWine Wants Gun Control

Most Monday mornings , if we write about a violent weekend someplace , we ’ re typically talking about Chicago .
To be fair , we usually talk about Chicago because it ’ s the place where there tends to be a lot of violence to talk about .
However , this is a new world , unfortunately , and the violence doesn ’ t just propagate in the Windy City .
It ’ s everywhere .
This past weekend , one of the worst violence hotspots was Cincinnati , Ohio .
At least 18 people were shot , four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cincinnati , police said .
Ten people were shot on East McMicken Avenue and Lang Street in Over-the-Rhine , four were shot on Chalfonte Place in Avondale , and three were shot near Lincoln and Gilbert avenues in Walnut Hills .
An additional shooting later Sunday morning was reported by The Associated Press , bringing the total wounded to 18 .
During the incident at Over-the-Rhine , one died at the scene and another at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center ; they were identified in a statement as 34-year-old Robert Rogers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to be separate , independent incidents , but horrific and tragic that we have this much violence and potential for that much loss of life in our city , ” Assistant Police Chief Paul Neudigate said .
To be sure , it sounds awful and I mourn for all of those who lost loved ones in the violence .
What I ’ d rather not mourn , however , are the gun rights of law-abiding Ohioans .
Yet that ’ s precisely what Governor Mike DeWine seems to think the problem actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Cincinnati early Sunday killed four people , injured 14 in four separate incidents , and renewed calls for action statewide on gun violence which were first voiced a year ago after Dayton ’ s Oregon District shooting .
“ Ohio must act , ” Gov Mike DeWine said in a statement issues Sunday .
“ As more and more people are hurt and killed by gun violence , I am again urging Ohio ’ s legislature to pass our # STRONGOhio bill .
This bill will help protect our citizens while also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights.
” Oh boy , where do we start ?
First , we don ’ t really know much about these particular incidents .
Police are still investigating , so we don ’ t even really know who carried out these attacks or why they did it .
We damn sure don ’ t know anything about how they obtained their weapons in the first place .
In other words , we have absolutely no information to suggest that DeWine ’ s gun control proposals would have done a damn thing to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how effective gun control historically has been , I ’ d say it wouldn ’ t have done much .
However , that ’ s especially true for DeWine ’ s bill .
It pushes non-mandatory background checks and increased penalties for gun crime , which may be all fine and good , as well as crisis intervention , but we don ’ t know whether this was a “ crisis ” kind of attack or if it was something else .
DeWine is taking a page out of the Democrats ’ playbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about his gun control bill .
It ’ s not , and the STRONG Ohio bill wouldn ’ t have accomplished a damn thing to prevent those deadly attacks .

Most Monday mornings, if we write about a violent weekend someplace, we’re typically talking about Chicago. To be fair, we usually talk about Chicago because it’s the place where there tends to be a lot of violence to talk about.
However, this is a new world, unfortunately, and the violence doesn’t just propagate in the Windy City. It’s everywhere.
This past weekend, one of the worst violence hotspots was Cincinnati, Ohio.
At least 18 people were shot, four fatally, during a violent night in Cincinnati, police said. Ten people were shot on East McMicken Avenue and Lang Street in Over-the-Rhine, four were shot on Chalfonte Place in Avondale, and three were shot near Lincoln and Gilbert avenues in Walnut Hills. An additional shooting later Sunday morning was reported by The Associated Press, bringing the total wounded to 18. During the incident at Over-the-Rhine, one died at the scene and another at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center; they were identified in a statement as 34-year-old Robert Rogers and 30-year-old Jaquiez Grant. “These all seem to be separate, independent incidents, but horrific and tragic that we have this much violence and potential for that much loss of life in our city,” Assistant Police Chief Paul Neudigate said.
To be sure, it sounds awful and I mourn for all of those who lost loved ones in the violence.
What I’d rather not mourn, however, are the gun rights of law-abiding Ohioans. Yet that’s precisely what Governor Mike DeWine seems to think the problem actually is.
An outbreak of gun violence in Cincinnati early Sunday killed four people, injured 14 in four separate incidents, and renewed calls for action statewide on gun violence which were first voiced a year ago after Dayton’s Oregon District shooting. “Ohio must act,” Gov Mike DeWine said in a statement issues Sunday. “As more and more people are hurt and killed by gun violence, I am again urging Ohio’s legislature to pass our #STRONGOhio bill. This bill will help protect our citizens while also respecting the Second Amendment and due process rights.”
Oh boy, where do we start?
First, we don’t really know much about these particular incidents. Police are still investigating, so we don’t even really know who carried out these attacks or why they did it. We damn sure don’t know anything about how they obtained their weapons in the first place.
In other words, we have absolutely no information to suggest that DeWine’s gun control proposals would have done a damn thing to stop this attack or not. Based on how effective gun control historically has been, I’d say it wouldn’t have done much.
However, that’s especially true for DeWine’s bill. It pushes non-mandatory background checks and increased penalties for gun crime, which may be all fine and good, as well as crisis intervention, but we don’t know whether this was a “crisis” kind of attack or if it was something else. DeWine is taking a page out of the Democrats’ playbook, though, and making a shooting all about his gun control bill.
It’s not, and the STRONG Ohio bill wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing to prevent those deadly attacks.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Judge Rules NRA Lacks Standing On NY Gun Store Closures

In legal circles , there ’ s a concept called “ standing.
” In other words , you have to show you ’ ve been harmed by a law before you can challenge that law .
The idea is that it prevents random people from filing lawsuits to challenge any manner of law for whatever silly reason .
However , the problem is that now standing is a bit more thorny than that .
Even people who may seem to have good reason to challenge are often found to not have standing .
And that ’ s what just happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unsurprisingly .
A federal judge says the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) has no standing to sue New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo over his order closing gun stores during COVID-19 because it is not an “ essential ” business , reports Reuters .
In a ruling Friday , U.S. District Judge Mae D ’ Agostino also rejected subsequent NRA arguments that its ability to “ conduct day-to-day advocacy for its members had been impaired ” by Cuomo ’ s March 20 order .
The lawsuit was one of several filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reaction to shutdown orders on gun shops .
“ Although we respectfully disagree that the NRA lacked standing to pursue this case — then or now — we were pleased the action brought attention to an abuse of power against gun retailers , ” William Brewer , a lawyer for the NRA , said in a statement .
I ’ m sort of going to disagree with the NRA on this one .
You see , their ability to advocate for gun owners wasn ’ t really inhibited by the closures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ start and it ’ s not surprising that the judge would toss it out .
However , I believe the NRA does have standing .
Or , more specifically , there are reasons why their lack of standing is irrelevant .
You see , Cuomo ’ s order to shut down gun stores impacted two sets of people .
One set is the gun store owners themselves .
Obviously , they couldn ’ t earn a living , so they were negatively impacted .
The other set is the people interested in buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so because all the stores were closed .
Yet the NRA often represents the interests of both groups .
Through their advocacy for gun rights , they defend not just gun stores but gun buyers , so they are kind of the perfect organization to file this lawsuit .
Especially in a state that ’ s really very hostile toward the idea of civilian ownership of firearms .
After all , take a look at Cuomo ’ s anti-gun rhetoric .
He ’ s ready to try and wreck an entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , conversely , look at Attorney General Letitia James and her ill-advised lawsuit against the NRA .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine that a law-abiding citizen would be fearful of filing a lawsuit against the state under such circumstances .
Hell , I ’ d be hesitant .
But New York is already doing everything it can to the NRA .
There ’ s nothing more it can try , really , so the NRA is the perfect entity to try and take them on .
While I understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my layman ’ s understanding of the law , it ’ s the right one , it really shouldn ’ t be .

In legal circles, there’s a concept called “standing.” In other words, you have to show you’ve been harmed by a law before you can challenge that law. The idea is that it prevents random people from filing lawsuits to challenge any manner of law for whatever silly reason.
However, the problem is that now standing is a bit more thorny than that. Even people who may seem to have good reason to challenge are often found to not have standing.
And that’s what just happened to the NRA. In New York, unsurprisingly.
A federal judge says the National Rifle Association (NRA) has no standing to sue New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over his order closing gun stores during COVID-19 because it is not an “essential” business, reports Reuters. In a ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino also rejected subsequent NRA arguments that its ability to “conduct day-to-day advocacy for its members had been impaired” by Cuomo’s March 20 order. The lawsuit was one of several filed by gun rights groups across the U.S. in reaction to shutdown orders on gun shops. “Although we respectfully disagree that the NRA lacked standing to pursue this case — then or now — we were pleased the action brought attention to an abuse of power against gun retailers,” William Brewer, a lawyer for the NRA, said in a statement.
I’m sort of going to disagree with the NRA on this one.
You see, their ability to advocate for gun owners wasn’t really inhibited by the closures. It was a bogus argument from the start and it’s not surprising that the judge would toss it out.
However, I believe the NRA does have standing. Or, more specifically, there are reasons why their lack of standing is irrelevant.
You see, Cuomo’s order to shut down gun stores impacted two sets of people. One set is the gun store owners themselves. Obviously, they couldn’t earn a living, so they were negatively impacted.
The other set is the people interested in buying a firearm, but who were unable to do so because all the stores were closed.
Yet the NRA often represents the interests of both groups. Through their advocacy for gun rights, they defend not just gun stores but gun buyers, so they are kind of the perfect organization to file this lawsuit.
Especially in a state that’s really very hostile toward the idea of civilian ownership of firearms. After all, take a look at Cuomo’s anti-gun rhetoric. He’s ready to try and wreck an entire industry because of his personal beliefs. Or, conversely, look at Attorney General Letitia James and her ill-advised lawsuit against the NRA.
It’s not difficult to imagine that a law-abiding citizen would be fearful of filing a lawsuit against the state under such circumstances. Hell, I’d be hesitant.
But New York is already doing everything it can to the NRA. There’s nothing more it can try, really, so the NRA is the perfect entity to try and take them on. While I understand the judge’s decision and, based on my layman’s understanding of the law, it’s the right one, it really shouldn’t be.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Seattle Reaping Whirlwind Of Defunding Police

Seattle jumped to support the “ Defund Police ” movement .
It was almost like they were waiting for it , they jumped so quickly .
It ’ s not surprising , though .
The cities of the Pacific-Northwest are hard progressive in ways that make Berkeley stand up and say , “ Whoa now , let ’ s not get carried away.
” So yeah , they defunded their police department–though not as far as some might prefer .
Well , they ’ re pretty much what you ’ d expect .
Last week , the Seattle City Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department , leading the city ’ s first black female police chief to resign .
The council defunded the police even after antifa rioters had wreaked havoc on the city in the name of racial justice .
In one particularly memorable case , rioters used a van loaded with explosives to blow open a police station .
On Sunday , rioters fired explosives at police , wounding at least three of them .
Some businesses in the city have had enough .
“ What [ the ] city council has done has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global pandemic , by far , absolutely , ” Joe Raetzer , co-owner of Steepologie Teas with his wife Andrea , told the Fox affiliate Q13 last week .
His wife said there are “ only so many times you can hire people and lay them off because they don ’ t want to be in this location , they already didn ’ t feel safe pre-COVID , pre-riots.
” Steepologie Teas boasted more than 300 loose-leaf teas on 4th Avenue .
Seattle Apartments Magazine rated the tea shop “ hands down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tea store has closed down permanently .
Of the city council ’ s move to cut police funding , Andrea Raetzer told Eater Seattle , “ It might seem like a small cut , but this is where it starts .
“ The SPD was already shorthanded .
We would have rather paid more taxes to help the homeless and drug crisis situation than take SPD off the streets.
” Andrea Raetzer explained that protest is a feature of life in Seattle , but the violent rioters have completely subverted peaceful protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closing , businesses are leaving the city , and the rioting has continued ?
The truth of the matter is that trying to appease the mob is a losing proposition .
All it does is empower the mob , it encourages them .
It makes them believe that they have the power to make you do anything in the world .
It ’ s trying to appease a bully .
All that it does is encourage the bully .
He or she knows she owns you .
The moment you stop doing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back up where they left off…and that ’ s if they ever really stopped .
That ’ s all these “ protestors ” actually are .
Not all protestors , mind you .
There are legitimate things to protest , both against and for .
There are things I vehemently disagree with , but those protesting in favor of them are actually protesting and no trying to destroy things .
I have no issue with that .
These “ protestors ” get quotation marks because the media likes to call them that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them rioters .
Call them looters .
Call them street thugs with a political agenda .
Any and all apply .
And they ’ re driving off the people who fund the city .
If this keeps up , Seattle is going to become a no-go zone for most of America .

Seattle jumped to support the “Defund Police” movement. It was almost like they were waiting for it, they jumped so quickly. It’s not surprising, though. The cities of the Pacific-Northwest are hard progressive in ways that make Berkeley stand up and say, “Whoa now, let’s not get carried away.” So yeah, they defunded their police department–though not as far as some might prefer.
The results?
Well, they’re pretty much what you’d expect.
Last week, the Seattle City Council voted to slash funding for the police department, leading the city’s first black female police chief to resign. The council defunded the police even after antifa rioters had wreaked havoc on the city in the name of racial justice. In one particularly memorable case, rioters used a van loaded with explosives to blow open a police station. On Sunday, rioters fired explosives at police, wounding at least three of them. Some businesses in the city have had enough. “What [the] city council has done has been more detrimental to our business than a global pandemic, by far, absolutely,” Joe Raetzer, co-owner of Steepologie Teas with his wife Andrea, told the Fox affiliate Q13 last week. His wife said there are “only so many times you can hire people and lay them off because they don’t want to be in this location, they already didn’t feel safe pre-COVID, pre-riots.” Steepologie Teas boasted more than 300 loose-leaf teas on 4th Avenue. Seattle Apartments Magazine rated the tea shop “hands down the best tea in Seattle.” Now, the tea store has closed down permanently. Of the city council’s move to cut police funding, Andrea Raetzer told Eater Seattle, “It might seem like a small cut, but this is where it starts. “The SPD was already shorthanded. We would have rather paid more taxes to help the homeless and drug crisis situation than take SPD off the streets.” Andrea Raetzer explained that protest is a feature of life in Seattle, but the violent rioters have completely subverted peaceful protest.
Is anyone surprised that stores are closing, businesses are leaving the city, and the rioting has continued?
The truth of the matter is that trying to appease the mob is a losing proposition. All it does is empower the mob, it encourages them. It makes them believe that they have the power to make you do anything in the world.
It’s trying to appease a bully. All that it does is encourage the bully. He or she knows she owns you. The moment you stop doing what they want, they’ll pick back up where they left off…and that’s if they ever really stopped.
That’s all these “protestors” actually are.
Not all protestors, mind you. There are legitimate things to protest, both against and for. There are things I vehemently disagree with, but those protesting in favor of them are actually protesting and no trying to destroy things. I have no issue with that.
These “protestors” get quotation marks because the media likes to call them that, but the proper term is to call them rioters. Call them looters. Call them street thugs with a political agenda. Any and all apply.
And they’re driving off the people who fund the city. If this keeps up, Seattle is going to become a no-go zone for most of America.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--2020 Election Pits "Rage Moms" Against "Defense Moms"

Democrats are increasingly pinning their hopes for a Joe Biden victory on “ rage moms , ” a group of voters that the New York Times describes as “ a political uprising , built on the anger of women who find themselves constantly — and indefinitely — expected to be teacher , caregiver , employee and parent.
” According to the Times , women have reported participating in protests at nearly twice the rate as men since 2018 , and a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll conducted in June of this year found the same is true for moms with children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rage moms are railing in Facebook groups about school shutdowns and in teacher union meetings about reopening without proper protection from the virus .
They ’ re also packing virtual town halls with frustrations about schools , child care and the lack of leadership .
“ There ’ s nobody giving us solutions , ” said Kim Lopez , a mother of three in Glendale , Ariz. , and part-time financial assistant , who is still unsure what her children ’ s schooling will look like this year .
Ms. Lopez said she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when she brought her children to a small Black Lives Matter protest in the Phoenix suburbs .
“ It ’ s as if they don ’ t care what happens to families.
” Ms. Lopez is exactly the kind of voter Democrats hope will push them to victory in November , and they are aiming to turn that frustration with government inaction into a vote against Mr. Trump .
The problem with this is that many of the moms who might be filled with rage these days happen to live in cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats for decades .
Take the “ Wall of Moms ” in Portland , Oregon , for example .
Sure , they ’ re angry anti-Trump voters , but they ’ re also critical of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Oregon Governor Kate Brown , both of whom are Democrats .
I have no doubt that “ rage moms ” are real , but the New York Times fails to take note of its counterweight : “ defense moms.
” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , as many as 2-million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time since January of this year , and a good number of them are women of voting age .
They might be just as concerned as the “ rage moms ” about their job security and how they ’ re going to juggle supervising their kids ’ online education while working , but they ’ re also gravely concerned about the sharp increase in violent crime in many Democrat-controlled cities , as well as the seemingly unending political violence on the streets of New York City , Chicago , Washington , D.C. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities that never seem to make the national news .
You probably didn ’ t see anything about the twelve people , including Antifa members , who were arrested in Richmond , Virginia this past weekend , for instance , but I guarantee you that lots of moms in the state are aware of the continued unrest , particularly if they ’ re the mom of a student at Virginia Commonwealth University in the city ’ s downtown area .
I know a couple of moms of students who are terrified that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assaulted by those intent on causing trouble , and they blame Gov .
Ralph Northam and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney far than they do Donald Trump .
These defense moms may not be Donald Trump ’ s biggest fans , but they know that the increased violent crime , civil unrest , and attempted crackdowns on the Second Amendment that we ’ re seeing in Democrat-run states and cities would be magnified a thousand-fold by a Biden/Harris administration .
Rage moms may show up to the polls on Election Day intent on voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be answered by defense moms who are equally as determined to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who want to turn the entire country into one big Portland or Seattle .

Democrats are increasingly pinning their hopes for a Joe Biden victory on “rage moms,” a group of voters that the New York Times describes as “a political uprising, built on the anger of women who find themselves constantly — and indefinitely — expected to be teacher, caregiver, employee and parent.”
According to the Times, women have reported participating in protests at nearly twice the rate as men since 2018, and a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll conducted in June of this year found the same is true for moms with children in the home.
Now, the rage moms are railing in Facebook groups about school shutdowns and in teacher union meetings about reopening without proper protection from the virus. They’re also packing virtual town halls with frustrations about schools, child care and the lack of leadership. “There’s nobody giving us solutions,” said Kim Lopez, a mother of three in Glendale, Ariz., and part-time financial assistant, who is still unsure what her children’s schooling will look like this year. Ms. Lopez said she never considered herself political until this summer, when she brought her children to a small Black Lives Matter protest in the Phoenix suburbs. “It’s as if they don’t care what happens to families.” Ms. Lopez is exactly the kind of voter Democrats hope will push them to victory in November, and they are aiming to turn that frustration with government inaction into a vote against Mr. Trump.
The problem with this is that many of the moms who might be filled with rage these days happen to live in cities and states that have been controlled by Democrats for decades. Take the “Wall of Moms” in Portland, Oregon, for example. Sure, they’re angry anti-Trump voters, but they’re also critical of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Oregon Governor Kate Brown, both of whom are Democrats.
I have no doubt that “rage moms” are real, but the New York Times fails to take note of its counterweight: “defense moms.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, as many as 2-million Americans have purchased firearms for the very first time since January of this year, and a good number of them are women of voting age. They might be just as concerned as the “rage moms” about their job security and how they’re going to juggle supervising their kids’ online education while working, but they’re also gravely concerned about the sharp increase in violent crime in many Democrat-controlled cities, as well as the seemingly unending political violence on the streets of New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Portland, and a host of other cities that never seem to make the national news.
You probably didn’t see anything about the twelve people, including Antifa members, who were arrested in Richmond, Virginia this past weekend, for instance, but I guarantee you that lots of moms in the state are aware of the continued unrest, particularly if they’re the mom of a student at Virginia Commonwealth University in the city’s downtown area. I know a couple of moms of students who are terrified that their child is going to be harassed or assaulted by those intent on causing trouble, and they blame Gov. Ralph Northam and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney far than they do Donald Trump.
These defense moms may not be Donald Trump’s biggest fans, but they know that the increased violent crime, civil unrest, and attempted crackdowns on the Second Amendment that we’re seeing in Democrat-run states and cities would be magnified a thousand-fold by a Biden/Harris administration. Rage moms may show up to the polls on Election Day intent on voting out Donald Trump, but they’ll be answered by defense moms who are equally as determined to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who want to turn the entire country into one big Portland or Seattle.