bearingarms--2020-11-16--Trump Supporters Attacked During Million MAGA March

While there are still questions about the outcome of the election , the truth is that President Donald Trump is still the president and he still has a lot of supporters .
Those same supporters took to the streets of Washington , D.C. over the weekend to show their support .
Unsurprisingly , there were counter-protestors there .
After all , it ’ s 2020 .
There ’ s always counter-protestors .
Also unsurprisingly , that resulted in clashes with the Trump supporters .
More than 20 people were arrested amid violent clashes between supporters of President Trump and counter-protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington , D.C. , on Saturday .
The march drew thousands of Trump supporters – even a brief cameo by the commander in chief himself – to the capital to back the president as he contests election results that favor President-elect Joe Biden .
In scenes captured on video , small groups of Trump supporters who attempted to enter the area around Black Lives Matter Plaza , about a block from the White House , were confronted by several hundred anti-Trump demonstrators who had gathered there .
Trump supporters who approached the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and saw their MAGA hats and pro-Trump flags snatched and burned , while counter-protesters cheered .
Honestly , there ’ s a lot of video at the Fox News link , so I suggest you go and look .
Yes , Trump supporters were attacked for the sin of being Trump supporters .
While Joe Biden can talk about unity all he wants , the truth is that there are a lot of people on the left who don ’ t want unity .
They want vengeance .
Four years ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left .
I didn ’ t vote for Trump , but he was by far preferable to Clinton , and the reaction from the left was hilarious .
But at no point did I want to see Clinton or Obama supporters punished .
Well , I guess that just means I ’ m a better person than many of our opponents .
They want to hurt people for disagreeing with them .
They want to destroy livelihoods .
They want to punish everyone on the right for the sin of not agreeing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to just go away ?
Even if it turns out that Joe Biden is indeed the winner , this isn ’ t going to disappear .
These aren ’ t the actions of people who are going to win gracefully .
No , these are the kind of actions that eventually lead to civil war .
Especially since Biden can ’ t be bothered to condemn these kinds of acts .
As of this writing , there ’ s absolutely no mention of these skirmishes on his Twitter feed , nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for unity were really calls for the right to sit down , shut up , and do what they ’ re told .
Biden doesn ’ t care about whether people attack his political opponents or not .
Is it any wonder so many people bought guns leading up to the election ?
Is it any wonder that the buying surge will continue indefinitely should the questions be settled with him as the winner ?
Remember that these people don ’ t disagree with you .
They hate you .
They want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They will physically hurt you if they get the chance .
Don ’ t give it to them .

While there are still questions about the outcome of the election, the truth is that President Donald Trump is still the president and he still has a lot of supporters. Those same supporters took to the streets of Washington, D.C. over the weekend to show their support.
Unsurprisingly, there were counter-protestors there. After all, it’s 2020. There’s always counter-protestors.
Also unsurprisingly, that resulted in clashes with the Trump supporters.
More than 20 people were arrested amid violent clashes between supporters of President Trump and counter-protesters following the “Million MAGA March” in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. The march drew thousands of Trump supporters – even a brief cameo by the commander in chief himself – to the capital to back the president as he contests election results that favor President-elect Joe Biden. In scenes captured on video, small groups of Trump supporters who attempted to enter the area around Black Lives Matter Plaza, about a block from the White House, were confronted by several hundred anti-Trump demonstrators who had gathered there. Trump supporters who approached the area were harassed, doused with water, and saw their MAGA hats and pro-Trump flags snatched and burned, while counter-protesters cheered.
Honestly, there’s a lot of video at the Fox News link, so I suggest you go and look.
Yes, Trump supporters were attacked for the sin of being Trump supporters. While Joe Biden can talk about unity all he wants, the truth is that there are a lot of people on the left who don’t want unity. They want vengeance.
Four years ago, I laughed at the meltdowns of the left. I didn’t vote for Trump, but he was by far preferable to Clinton, and the reaction from the left was hilarious.
But at no point did I want to see Clinton or Obama supporters punished.
Well, I guess that just means I’m a better person than many of our opponents. They want to hurt people for disagreeing with them. They want to destroy livelihoods. They want to punish everyone on the right for the sin of not agreeing with them.
Does anyone think that’s going to just go away? Even if it turns out that Joe Biden is indeed the winner, this isn’t going to disappear. These aren’t the actions of people who are going to win gracefully.
No, these are the kind of actions that eventually lead to civil war.
Especially since Biden can’t be bothered to condemn these kinds of acts. As of this writing, there’s absolutely no mention of these skirmishes on his Twitter feed, nor do I expect them.
His calls for unity were really calls for the right to sit down, shut up, and do what they’re told. Biden doesn’t care about whether people attack his political opponents or not.
Is it any wonder so many people bought guns leading up to the election? Is it any wonder that the buying surge will continue indefinitely should the questions be settled with him as the winner?
Remember that these people don’t disagree with you. They hate you. They want to hurt you and make your life miserable. They will physically hurt you if they get the chance.
Don’t give it to them.


bearingarms--2020-11-15--Death Of A California Gun Store

Death Of A California Gun Store

Fifteen years ago , Get A Gun opened its door to customers in the Bakersfield , California area , but on December 20th the business will be closing for good ; a victim to the state ’ s war on legal gun owners and firearm retailers .
In a post on Facebook , the store ’ s management says that California “ has chosen to penalize Firearms dealers with fines for minor issues , ” adding that the likelihood of an impending Biden/Harris administration also was a factor in the store ’ s closure .
Another issue for the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with the record-setting demand for guns and ammo from customers .
“ With Remington Shut down and Mossberg being shut down that has cut their rate of production to nothing and we can ’ t get product because the restrictions placed on them by their state governments , ” said Fire arm salesman , Utah Allen .
The store says that they have seen a large increase of first time buyers since the pandemic began back in March and that they have seen an almost 500 to 600 increase in ammunition and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they saw a similar increase back in 2016 during the election year but not like this .
Despite the need their last day will be December 20th .
For the past several days customers have been offering praise for the retailer and condolences on the closing of the business .
While it may seem odd for a gun shop to shut down during a period of record-high gun sales , Get a Gun isn ’ t the first firearms retailer to do so .
Earlier this year New York City ’ s oldest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out the lights after more than a century of doing business in the city ’ s Little Italy neighborhood .
John Jovino Gun Shop in Little Italy first opened up in 1911 but its owner Charles Hu says he can not pay rent without customers .
He says he had hoped to keep it open at least one more year , so he could retire after turning 75 .
“ I completed my mission .
I did a good job .
No violations .
I really feel so sorry I couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first gun shop the last gun shop…110 years .
To the end it ’ s seen 110 years .
We established January 1 , 1911 because that ’ s 110 years , I made it , ” Hu said .
I know a few other independent owners who ’ ve also been struggling for the past few months , though no one I know personally has had to shut down .
Still , the struggle is real for many retailers who ’ ve been unable to keep enough inventory on hand to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense ammunition or even popular models of handguns or modern sporting rifles .
As governors around the country announce new restrictions on public gatherings , restaurants , and retail establishments , we could soon see a return to the declaration that “ non-essential ” businesses must close .
In some states , like California and New York , those restrictions will likely include firearms retailers ( as we saw in the spring ) , and it ’ s likely that if another round of COVID-related closures does come to pass , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to have the money to re-open when lockdowns are lifted .
Get A Gun shutting down in Bakersfield may just be a taste of what ’ s to come , in other words .
The Great Gun Run of 2020 continues for the moment , but if anti-gun governors have anything to do about it , would-be gun buyers will soon face challenges even bigger than their local store not having 9mm or .223 in stock .
They may find their favorite local store has been forced to close for good .

Fifteen years ago, Get A Gun opened its door to customers in the Bakersfield, California area, but on December 20th the business will be closing for good; a victim to the state’s war on legal gun owners and firearm retailers.
In a post on Facebook, the store’s management says that California “has chosen to penalize Firearms dealers with fines for minor issues,” adding that the likelihood of an impending Biden/Harris administration also was a factor in the store’s closure.
Another issue for the gun shop? Not being able to keep up with the record-setting demand for guns and ammo from customers.
“With Remington Shut down and Mossberg being shut down that has cut their rate of production to nothing and we can’t get product because the restrictions placed on them by their state governments,” said Fire arm salesman, Utah Allen. The store says that they have seen a large increase of first time buyers since the pandemic began back in March and that they have seen an almost 500 to 600 increase in ammunition and firearms sales. Get A Gun says they saw a similar increase back in 2016 during the election year but not like this. Despite the need their last day will be December 20th.
For the past several days customers have been offering praise for the retailer and condolences on the closing of the business.
While it may seem odd for a gun shop to shut down during a period of record-high gun sales, Get a Gun isn’t the first firearms retailer to do so. Earlier this year New York City’s oldest gun store also locked its doors and turned out the lights after more than a century of doing business in the city’s Little Italy neighborhood.
John Jovino Gun Shop in Little Italy first opened up in 1911 but its owner Charles Hu says he cannot pay rent without customers. He says he had hoped to keep it open at least one more year, so he could retire after turning 75. “I completed my mission. I did a good job. No violations. I really feel so sorry I couldn’t make it because you know the first gun shop the last gun shop…110 years. To the end it’s seen 110 years. We established January 1, 1911 because that’s 110 years, I made it,” Hu said.
I know a few other independent owners who’ve also been struggling for the past few months, though no one I know personally has had to shut down. Still, the struggle is real for many retailers who’ve been unable to keep enough inventory on hand to ensure that customers can find common calibers of self-defense ammunition or even popular models of handguns or modern sporting rifles.
As governors around the country announce new restrictions on public gatherings, restaurants, and retail establishments, we could soon see a return to the declaration that “non-essential” businesses must close. In some states, like California and New York, those restrictions will likely include firearms retailers (as we saw in the spring), and it’s likely that if another round of COVID-related closures does come to pass, some of these gun stores simply aren’t going to have the money to re-open when lockdowns are lifted.
Get A Gun shutting down in Bakersfield may just be a taste of what’s to come, in other words. The Great Gun Run of 2020 continues for the moment, but if anti-gun governors have anything to do about it, would-be gun buyers will soon face challenges even bigger than their local store not having 9mm or .223 in stock. They may find their favorite local store has been forced to close for good.


bearingarms--2020-11-15--Mexicans Want Guns To Combat Cartel Violence

Mexico isn ’ t a great place to visit .
Not right now , anyway .
After all , much of the country is gripped by violence as the drug cartels do battle with one another and the government .
Especially since they ’ re powerful enough to challenge the government , even .
We have seen a lot of good , innocent be slaughtered because the cartels didn ’ t like them .
Anyone from journalists to missionaries is fair game in these thugs ’ minds , and they don ’ t mind reminding everyone of this fact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sick of it .
Now , they ’ re starting to ask for the means to fight back .
As violent crime surges across the nation of 126 million , activists are raising the question : Is it time to loosen firearms restrictions so ordinary people can better protect themselves and their families ?
“ Let ’ s fight to regain our peace of mind .
Today Mexico needs you , ” the Official Mexican Association of Firearms Users A.C. said on Facebook .
“ We must ensure the existence of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children.
” The group has garnered more than 200,000 followers since it started its social media campaign in 2011 , routinely posting updates on security and related policy issues in Mexico , but has yet to win over lawmakers despite the rise in crime .
For crime victims like Julian LeBaron , the right to self-defense has become a top issue .
LeBaron , a Mexican-American , is part of an offshoot Mormon community that lost several family members last November in a cartel ambush .
In a tragic case of mistaken identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We come from a long tradition from the U.S. , where we believe our human rights don ’ t come from the government but come from the right to life , liberty and personal property .
Once people claim to represent you , they claim powers to do things that you are forbidden to do , ” he told Fox News .
“ Every person should have the means to defend themselves , especially if authorities don ’ t have the power to stop the crimes – especially organized crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico ’ s constitutional mandate , citizens are only allowed one handgun and up to nine long arms – all priced well above U.S. market value – provided they can show proof of belonging to a hunting or shooting club .
It ’ s important to remember that Mexico only has one legal gun store and that you have to file tons of paperwork just to gain access to the store .
Getting a gun lawfully there isn ’ t exactly easy .
It also hasn ’ t slowed down the cartels in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns aplenty , breaking whatever laws are required and there ’ s no reason to believe that ’ s likely to change .
While American anti-gunners want to blame the United States for Mexico ’ s violence problem , the real issue is that law-abiding citizens there are essentially disarmed by their government .
Yes , this despite having their right to keep and bear arms preserved in the Mexican constitution .
Let ’ s also remember that there are people here who would like to see the United States restrict guns to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening up firearm ownership would do a lot to help curb Mexican violence .
The cartels know that people can offer little resistance and what they can is ineffectual and mostly symbolic .
There ’ s no reason to take it seriously .
Put guns in those people ’ s hands and suddenly , they have a problem .
The people they want to prey on aren ’ t prey anymore .
My hope is that this movement in Mexico grows and we see them gain access to guns in a meaningful way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the cartels .

Mexico isn’t a great place to visit. Not right now, anyway. After all, much of the country is gripped by violence as the drug cartels do battle with one another and the government. Especially since they’re powerful enough to challenge the government, even.
We have seen a lot of good, innocent be slaughtered because the cartels didn’t like them. Anyone from journalists to missionaries is fair game in these thugs’ minds, and they don’t mind reminding everyone of this fact.
Frankly, the average citizen of Mexico is sick of it. Now, they’re starting to ask for the means to fight back.
As violent crime surges across the nation of 126 million, activists are raising the question: Is it time to loosen firearms restrictions so ordinary people can better protect themselves and their families? “Let’s fight to regain our peace of mind. Today Mexico needs you,” the Official Mexican Association of Firearms Users A.C. said on Facebook. “We must ensure the existence of our rights and a good future for our children.” The group has garnered more than 200,000 followers since it started its social media campaign in 2011, routinely posting updates on security and related policy issues in Mexico, but has yet to win over lawmakers despite the rise in crime. For crime victims like Julian LeBaron, the right to self-defense has become a top issue. LeBaron, a Mexican-American, is part of an offshoot Mormon community that lost several family members last November in a cartel ambush. In a tragic case of mistaken identity, gunmen killed 14 women and children. “We come from a long tradition from the U.S., where we believe our human rights don’t come from the government but come from the right to life, liberty and personal property. Once people claim to represent you, they claim powers to do things that you are forbidden to do,” he told Fox News. “Every person should have the means to defend themselves, especially if authorities don’t have the power to stop the crimes – especially organized crime. It becomes a vicious cycle.” Despite Mexico’s constitutional mandate, citizens are only allowed one handgun and up to nine long arms – all priced well above U.S. market value – provided they can show proof of belonging to a hunting or shooting club.
It’s important to remember that Mexico only has one legal gun store and that you have to file tons of paperwork just to gain access to the store. Getting a gun lawfully there isn’t exactly easy.
It also hasn’t slowed down the cartels in the slightest.
They have been getting guns aplenty, breaking whatever laws are required and there’s no reason to believe that’s likely to change. While American anti-gunners want to blame the United States for Mexico’s violence problem, the real issue is that law-abiding citizens there are essentially disarmed by their government.
Yes, this despite having their right to keep and bear arms preserved in the Mexican constitution.
Let’s also remember that there are people here who would like to see the United States restrict guns to such an insane degree.
Regardless, opening up firearm ownership would do a lot to help curb Mexican violence. The cartels know that people can offer little resistance and what they can is ineffectual and mostly symbolic. There’s no reason to take it seriously.
Put guns in those people’s hands and suddenly, they have a problem. The people they want to prey on aren’t prey anymore.
My hope is that this movement in Mexico grows and we see them gain access to guns in a meaningful way. Then we’ll be watching the end of the cartels.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--New Lawsuit Reveals Big Problems With D.C. Carry Laws

A Washington , D.C man is suing over the revocation of his concealed carry license , and the troubling case provides plenty of evidence that the city is still doing everything it can to curtail the Second Amendment rights of residents , even after federal courts ruled that the city ’ s “ good cause ” standard for issuing licenses violated the Constitution .
Allen Whitaker , a single parent raising two daughters in the District , is a legal gun owner who ’ s had a valid concealed carry license since November of 2018 .
A few months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Metropolitan Police Department that his license to carry was being revoked .
Not because of any conviction or even arrest , but because of a simple police contact with Whitaker back in April .
According to his lawsuit , Whitaker , along with his girlfriend and his cousin , had gone to a gun range in Upper Marlboro , Maryland on April 29th , and as they left the range he stored his firearm in a lockbox in the trunk of his car , but kept his empty holster on his hip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitaker ’ s daughter from her mother ’ s home , and then made a brief detour to a nearby convenience store so she could get something to drink .
A verbal altercation between some guys was taking place as Whitaker pulled in , but he parked away from the confrontation and went inside to buy some water .
As he was walking back to the car , however , a Prince George ’ s County police cruiser pulled in front of him , and the officer got out of the car and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cousin , ordering them to put their hands above their heads or he would shoot .
When the officer patted Whitaker down , he found the empty holster and then placed Whitaker in handcuffs .
Arriving officers then searched Whitaker ’ s car ( without his consent , according to his attorney ) , but couldn ’ t find his gun , even after he told them where it was located .
Eventually Whitaker himself had to pull the lockbox out of the trunk and present his firearm to police , who confiscated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return it ) .
Whitaker ’ s girlfriend , meanwhile was found to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana , though neither he nor his girlfriend were arrested or cited for any criminal violation .
Still , when Whitaker applied for to register a new firearm , since his Glock had not been returned to him by Prince George ’ s police , he was told that not only was his registration permit being denied , but his concealed carry license was being revoked as well .
According to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ due to exhibiting a propensity to violence or instability that may reasonable [ sic ] render the person ’ s possession of a concealed pistol a danger to the person or another [ . ]
” To buttress their claims , the MPD cited Whitaker ’ s “ extensive ” criminal history , which in reality amounts to a couple of minor infractions for misdemeanor marijuana possession and having speakers that were too loud back in 2007 .
Whitaker was once accused of assault , but it looks like no charges were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of carrying a concealed knife in Ohio was dismissed .
Most importantly , the MPD knew about every one of these incidents when they approved Whitaker to own and carry a firearm .
Only after the stop by Prince George ’ s police did they move to revoke his carry license .
After Whitaker appealed the revocation , he received another letter from the MPD in February of this year , now claiming that his license had been stripped from him for an entirely new reason .
In addition to discovering new information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct , the revocation decision was the result of a deliberate and principled change in the Chief s position on what it means to have “ exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person ’ s possession of a concealed pistol a danger to the person or another , ” under D.C. Mun .
Regs .
tit .
24 , § 2335.1 ( d ) .
The Chief revised his interpretation of the regulation as the result of an incident involving another CPL holder that occurred after Under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation , conduct that is violent or criminal demonstrating low self-control , regardless of whether it results in a criminal conviction , may be grounds for denial , revocation , or suspension of a CPL on the basis of unsuitability .
In other words , the city revised its “ suitability ” standard , broadening its scope in the process and making giving the chief even more subjective power to determine whether a D.C. resident gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
Even an encounter with police that doesn ’ t lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conviction , can now apparently be grounds to deprive individuals of their right to bear arms in our nation ’ s capitol .
Mr. Whitaker was not a participant in the argument that occurred at the gas station that day .
He did not engage in any violence or threatened violence or unstable conduct .
Yet the P.G .
County police handcuffed Mr. Whitaker and detained him and his family for a total of three hours , only to ultimately release them without filing any charge .
Further , the police seized Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small , legal amount of marijuana that belonged to Mr. Whitaker ’ s girlfriend without any legal justification for doing so .
In fact , Mr. Whitaker was a victim of illegal conduct by the P.G .
County Police on April 29 , 2019 .
Yet he acted calmly and followed all directions while subject to an unlawful three-hour detention .
He exhibited no violent or criminal behavior throughout the encounter , nor any behavior that demonstrates low self control .
Whether Washington , D.C. officials want to admit it or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to have a disproportionate impact on black residents like Mr. Whitaker .
According to studies , black drivers are more likely to be pulled over by police and more likely to have their vehicle searched than white drivers .
If a simple encounter with a police officer that doesn ’ t lead to any criminal charges can still be the basis of denial for a concealed carry license , then it ’ s almost guaranteed that more black D.C. residents are either going to be denied their license to carry or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case , simply by virtue of them being subject to more police stops .
Leslie McAdoo Gordon , the D.C. attorney representing Allen Whitaker , told me that when she heard her client ’ s story for the first time , she was “ appalled , and thought ” this is wrong , and we need to do something about that.
” I agree , and I wish Whitaker well in his fight to regain his right to carry in the face of Washington , D.C. ’ s unconscionable decision to revoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

A Washington, D.C man is suing over the revocation of his concealed carry license, and the troubling case provides plenty of evidence that the city is still doing everything it can to curtail the Second Amendment rights of residents, even after federal courts ruled that the city’s “good cause” standard for issuing licenses violated the Constitution.
Allen Whitaker, a single parent raising two daughters in the District, is a legal gun owner who’s had a valid concealed carry license since November of 2018. A few months ago, however, Whitaker was informed by the Metropolitan Police Department that his license to carry was being revoked. Not because of any conviction or even arrest, but because of a simple police contact with Whitaker back in April.
According to his lawsuit, Whitaker, along with his girlfriend and his cousin, had gone to a gun range in Upper Marlboro, Maryland on April 29th, and as they left the range he stored his firearm in a lockbox in the trunk of his car, but kept his empty holster on his hip. The couple stopped to pick up Whitaker’s daughter from her mother’s home, and then made a brief detour to a nearby convenience store so she could get something to drink.
A verbal altercation between some guys was taking place as Whitaker pulled in, but he parked away from the confrontation and went inside to buy some water. As he was walking back to the car, however, a Prince George’s County police cruiser pulled in front of him, and the officer got out of the car and pointed a gun at Whitaker and his cousin, ordering them to put their hands above their heads or he would shoot. When the officer patted Whitaker down, he found the empty holster and then placed Whitaker in handcuffs.
Arriving officers then searched Whitaker’s car (without his consent, according to his attorney), but couldn’t find his gun, even after he told them where it was located. Eventually Whitaker himself had to pull the lockbox out of the trunk and present his firearm to police, who confiscated the gun (and have yet to return it).
Whitaker’s girlfriend, meanwhile was found to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana, though neither he nor his girlfriend were arrested or cited for any criminal violation. Still, when Whitaker applied for to register a new firearm, since his Glock had not been returned to him by Prince George’s police, he was told that not only was his registration permit being denied, but his concealed carry license was being revoked as well.
According to the Metropolitan Police Department, the revocation was “due to exhibiting a propensity to violence or instability that may reasonable [sic] render the person’s possession of a concealed pistol a danger to the person or another[.]”
To buttress their claims, the MPD cited Whitaker’s “extensive” criminal history, which in reality amounts to a couple of minor infractions for misdemeanor marijuana possession and having speakers that were too loud back in 2007. Whitaker was once considered a “suspect” in an assault, but it looks like no charges were ever brought, and a 2007 charge of carrying a concealed knife in Ohio was dismissed as well.
Most importantly, the MPD knew about every one of these incidents when they approved Whitaker to own and carry a firearm. Only after the stop by Prince George’s police did they move to revoke his carry license. After Whitaker appealed the revocation, he received another letter from the MPD in February of this year, now claiming that his license had been stripped from him for an entirely new reason.
In addition to discovering new information about Mr. Whitaker’s April 2019 conduct, the revocation decision was the result of a deliberate and principled change in the Chief s position on what it means to have “exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person’s possession of a concealed pistol a danger to the person or another,” under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, § 2335.1 (d). The Chief revised his interpretation of the regulation as the result of an incident involving another CPL holder that occurred after Mr. Whitaker’s CPL had been issued. * * * Under the Chief s new interpretation of the regulation, conduct that is violent or criminal demonstrating low self-control, regardless of whether it results in a criminal conviction, may be grounds for denial, revocation, or suspension of a CPL on the basis of unsuitability.
In other words, the city revised its “suitability” standard, broadening its scope in the process and giving the chief even more subjective power to determine whether a D.C. resident gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Even an encounter with police that doesn’t lead to an arrest, much less a conviction, can now apparently be grounds to deprive individuals of their right to bear arms in our nation’s capitol.
Mr. Whitaker was not a participant in the argument that occurred at the gas station that day. He did not engage in any violence or threatened violence or unstable conduct. Yet the P.G. County police handcuffed Mr. Whitaker and detained him and his family for a total of three hours, only to ultimately release them without filing any charge. Further, the police seized Mr. Whitaker’s lawfully registered handgun and a small, legal amount of marijuana that belonged to Mr. Whitaker’s girlfriend without any legal justification for doing so. In fact, Mr. Whitaker was a victim of illegal conduct by the P.G. County Police on April 29, 2019. Yet he acted calmly and followed all directions while subject to an unlawful three-hour detention. He exhibited no violent or criminal behavior throughout the encounter, nor any behavior that demonstrates low self control.
Whether Washington, D.C. officials want to admit it or not, their new suitability standard is likely going to have a disproportionate impact on black residents like Mr. Whitaker. According to studies, black drivers are more likely to be pulled over by police and more likely to have their vehicle searched than white drivers. If a simple encounter with a police officer that doesn’t lead to any criminal charges can still be the basis of denial for a concealed carry license, then it’s almost guaranteed that more black D.C. residents are either going to be denied their license to carry or have it revoked, as in Whitaker’s case, simply by virtue of them being subject to more police stops.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon, the D.C. attorney representing Allen Whitaker, told me that when she heard her client’s story for the first time, she was “appalled”, and thought ”this is wrong, and we need to do something about that.”
I agree, and I wish Whitaker well in his fight to regain his right to carry in the face of Washington, D.C.’s unconscionable decision to revoke his license to carry over a non-incident.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--IN Woman Charged With Straw Buying Guns Used In Police Shooting

Gun control activists claim that if everyone had to go through a criminal background check to buy a gun , that would somehow impact criminals and their access to firearms .
Nevermind that most seem to get theirs via the black market , of course , because that doesn ’ t matter .
Nor does it matter how else criminals actually get guns .
A 35-year-old Indiana woman was charged in federal court Nov. 13 , accused of lying during the purchase of firearms used in the Nov. 6 shooting of two police officers in the city of Delafield .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office for the Northern District of Indiana , Heather Bentley of Warsaw , Indiana , purchased three firearms Nov. 4 .
Bentley certified that she was the actual buyer of the firearms , according to a news release from the court .
But according to authorities , Bentley bought the firearms on behalf of two men , who gave her more than $ 1,500 to purchase them .
Bentley indicated that two individuals who were fleeing from police and who she knew to be felons had asked her to buy the guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges in this case allege the defendant made a straw purchase , which is when a person acquires a firearm from a federal firearms licensee for someone else , who is either ineligible to purchase the firearm or wishes to conceal their identity , ” said Kristen de Tineo , special agent in charge for the Chicago Field Division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives in a news release .
“ ATF will continue to investigate these serious violations , which put not only the community at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this complaint , law enforcement as well.
” Let ’ s be honest here , Bentley isn ’ t that unusual .
Straw buys happen all the time .
People who can ’ t legally purchase firearms get someone else to buy them guns .
It ’ s a far too common occurrence , to be sure .
You ’ re also never going to stop it .
See , straw buying is already illegal .
It ’ s a federal crime and land someone some serious prison time .
Despite that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sometimes it ’ s for money , sometimes it ’ s because they ’ re stupid , or any of a million other reasons .
None of those matter .
What matters is that they still do it .
For as long as people are going to buy guns and others will be forbidden from doing so , some will for those who can ’ t .
About the only law that will prevent straw buys is banning the sale of handguns entirely .
It ’ s just too bad for anti-gunners that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means something else will have to be considered .
Or , conversely , anti-gunners can start to realize that gun control doesn ’ t really work and perhaps spend their time doing something far more productive , like trying to teach lawnchairs to compose symphonies .
I ’ m not holding my breath on that happening , of course , but a guy can dream .
Instead , though , what we ’ ll see is anti-gunners use this to try to justify some kind of law that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead just screw things up for the rest of us .

Gun control activists claim that if everyone had to go through a criminal background check to buy a gun, that would somehow impact criminals and their access to firearms.
Nevermind that most seem to get theirs via the black market, of course, because that doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter how else criminals actually get guns.
Like straw buys.
A 35-year-old Indiana woman was charged in federal court Nov. 13, accused of lying during the purchase of firearms used in the Nov. 6 shooting of two police officers in the city of Delafield. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, Heather Bentley of Warsaw, Indiana, purchased three firearms Nov. 4. Bentley certified that she was the actual buyer of the firearms, according to a news release from the court. But according to authorities, Bentley bought the firearms on behalf of two men, who gave her more than $1,500 to purchase them. Bentley indicated that two individuals who were fleeing from police and who she knew to be felons had asked her to buy the guns, the news release noted. “The charges in this case allege the defendant made a straw purchase, which is when a person acquires a firearm from a federal firearms licensee for someone else, who is either ineligible to purchase the firearm or wishes to conceal their identity,” said Kristen de Tineo, special agent in charge for the Chicago Field Division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in a news release. “ATF will continue to investigate these serious violations, which put not only the community at risk, but, as illustrated in this complaint, law enforcement as well.”
Let’s be honest here, Bentley isn’t that unusual. Straw buys happen all the time. People who can’t legally purchase firearms get someone else to buy them guns. It’s a far too common occurrence, to be sure.
You’re also never going to stop it.
See, straw buying is already illegal. It’s a federal crime and land someone some serious prison time. Despite that, though, people still do it. Sometimes it’s for money, sometimes it’s because they’re stupid, or any of a million other reasons. None of those matter. What matters is that they still do it.
For as long as people are going to buy guns and others will be forbidden from doing so, some will for those who can’t. About the only law that will prevent straw buys is banning the sale of handguns entirely. It’s just too bad for anti-gunners that the Supreme Court has already nixed that.
That means something else will have to be considered.
Or, conversely, anti-gunners can start to realize that gun control doesn’t really work and perhaps spend their time doing something far more productive, like trying to teach lawnchairs to compose symphonies.
I’m not holding my breath on that happening, of course, but a guy can dream.
Instead, though, what we’ll see is anti-gunners use this to try to justify some kind of law that doesn’t actually impact these kinds of actions but instead just screw things up for the rest of us.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Why The Delays For Gun Licenses Could Soon Get Even Worse

We ’ re already seeing delays of nine months or more in some cases , but with another round of COVID-related closures already underway in states from California to New Jersey , gun owners applying for their carry license or would-be gun owners in states like Illinois who need a permit to simply own a gun could soon see their wait time stretch out even further .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation joins me to talk about what the courts might have to say about the delays and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional rights .
Swearer acknowledged that the good news for gun owners is that several legal challenges to the current delays are already underway , so if we do see another round of coronavirus-related closures , the courts are already primed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the delays , and that means that the Supreme Court could potentially agree to hear a case while the permit delays are still a live issue .
As for the legal argument itself , Swearer says that while judges may be reluctant to toss out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun licensing law entirely , the plaintiffs challenging the delays in processing have a valid point .
It ’ s not just gun owners who have a legal obligation under many of these statutes .
Most issuing authorities at either the state or local level have their own responsibility to process applications in a timely manner , and if they ’ re not upholding their end of the law then there should be some sort of consequence .
Swearer believes it ’ s likely that courts could rule against departments like the Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications by the time limit imposed by state statute , but enforcing any decision will be difficult .
In Illinois , for example , the backlog of FOID card applications now has applicants waiting an average of 122 days for their gun permit application to be processed , though the state is obligated by the letter of the law to complete the process within 30 days of the application being received .
If a judge were to declare that the state of Illinois must hire more workers to speed up the process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drag their feet in complying with the judicial order ?
We ’ re swimming in uncharted legal waters here , since the last time the country dealt with a pandemic and public health orders that shuttered large swaths of the government was a century ago .
Back then , concealed carry licenses weren ’ t really a thing , and FOID cards certainly didn ’ t exist , so it ’ s not like courts have a lot of precedent they can look back on when deciding if the months-long delays amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just an inconvenient part of living through a public health emergency .
I know what side of the argument I come down on , and we ’ ve already seen a couple of encouraging court cases from New England .
In one case back in May , a federal judge ruled that Gov .
Charlie Baker ’ s order to close Massachusetts gun stores violated the Second Amendment rights of residents , and another U.S. District judge in June ordered several police departments in Connecticut to resume fingerprinting applicants for a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t disappear in a state of emergency .
In fact , our need to protect ourselves may become more acute during those times .
Certainly at the moment we see increased civil unrest and soaring crime rates in many cities , and it ’ s kind of hard to argue that our right of self-defense and our right to keep and bear arms is somehow less important or fundamental because COVID cases are rising as well , though that ’ s the position taken by many anti-gun politicians .
Be sure to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the video window above , and stick around after for even more Second Amendment news of the day , including an armed homeowner who thwarted an attempted burglary without ever having to pull the trigger .

We’re already seeing delays of nine months or more in some cases, but with another round of COVID-related closures already underway in states from California to New Jersey, gun owners applying for their carry license or would-be gun owners in states like Illinois who need a permit to simply own a gun could soon see their wait time stretch out even further.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation joins me to talk about what the courts might have to say about the delays and how the permitting laws themselves impact our constitutional rights.
Swearer acknowledged that the good news for gun owners is that several legal challenges to the current delays are already underway, so if we do see another round of coronavirus-related closures, the courts are already primed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the delays, and that means that the Supreme Court could potentially agree to hear a case while the permit delays are still a live issue.
As for the legal argument itself, Swearer says that while judges may be reluctant to toss out a state’s concealed carry or gun licensing law entirely, the plaintiffs challenging the delays in processing have a valid point. It’s not just gun owners who have a legal obligation under many of these statutes. Most issuing authorities at either the state or local level have their own responsibility to process applications in a timely manner, and if they’re not upholding their end of the law then there should be some sort of consequence.
Swearer believes it’s likely that courts could rule against departments like the Illinois State Police, ordering them to process applications by the time limit imposed by state statute, but enforcing any decision will be difficult. In Illinois, for example, the backlog of FOID card applications now has applicants waiting an average of 122 days for their gun permit application to be processed, though the state is obligated by the letter of the law to complete the process within 30 days of the application being received. If a judge were to declare that the state of Illinois must hire more workers to speed up the process, what happens if the Illinois State Police drag their feet in complying with the judicial order?
We’re swimming in uncharted legal waters here, since the last time the country dealt with a pandemic and public health orders that shuttered large swaths of the government was a century ago. Back then, concealed carry licenses weren’t really a thing, and FOID cards certainly didn’t exist, so it’s not like courts have a lot of precedent they can look back on when deciding if the months-long delays amount to an infringement on a constitutional right or are just an inconvenient part of living through a public health emergency.
I know what side of the argument I come down on, and we’ve already seen a couple of encouraging court cases from New England. In one case back in May, a federal judge ruled that Gov. Charlie Baker’s order to close Massachusetts gun stores violated the Second Amendment rights of residents, and another U.S. District judge in June ordered several police departments in Connecticut to resume fingerprinting applicants for a state gun license.
Our rights don’t disappear in a state of emergency. In fact, our need to protect ourselves may become more acute during those times. Certainly at the moment we see increased civil unrest and soaring crime rates in many cities, and it’s kind of hard to argue that our right of self-defense and our right to keep and bear arms is somehow less important or fundamental because COVID cases are rising as well, though that’s the position taken by many anti-gun politicians.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Amy Swearer in the video window above, and stick around after for even more Second Amendment news of the day, including an armed homeowner who thwarted an attempted burglary without ever having to pull the trigger.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Despite Failing To Flip State, TX Dems Roll Out Gun Control Bills

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in an effort to flip a number of states blue , an attempt to push gun control down the throats of the American people .
One of the states anti-gunners hoped to win big was Texas .
After all , flipping the state many Americans identify as so vehemently pro-gun and giving them the Virginia treatment would have been a huge coup .
As we all know , that didn ’ t exactly work out as planned .
Despite the setback , though , it seems that anti-gun lawmakers in the state somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their gun control bills anyway .
At least 16 gun control bills have already been filed for the upcoming Texas Legislative Session beginning in January , setting the stage for a contentious battle over the gun rights of private citizens .
One of the bills is HB 196 , filed by Irving State Representative Terry Meza .
Her bill would remove a homeowner ’ s legal right under the Castle Doctrine to use a firearm in the defense of their homestead against an intruder .
Meza believes homeowners are too quick to pull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and HB 196 would essentially gut that provision from the Castle Doctrine .
“ I ’ m not condoning stealing , it is against the law , “ Meza says , “ but it ’ s not an offense that is punishable by death.
” Meza claims she ’ s already become the target of intense scrutiny online .
“ People are already attacking me on Facebook saying I ’ m against the 2nd Amendment , ” she says .
Well , um…that ’ s because you are , Ms. Meza .
See @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home isn ’ t about protecting the property .
It ’ s about protecting the people within that home .
See , if somone breaks into a home where someone currently is , there ’ s a very good chance they intend to harm that individual .
People have been killed because they surprised a burglar .
That ’ s why those provisions exist , so people don ’ t have to try to get away from someone who means to hurt them .
Anyone trying to gut that provision isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are , of course , a lot of other gun control bills that have been filed as well including one that would ban the private sale of guns at gun shows .
Another would kill preemption .
Still another would end campus carry in the state despite absolutely no issues arising from the practice–something anti-gunners swore would be a huge problem .
Then there are four separate bills that take on two particular issues .
Two would ban the sale and possession of certain “ commonly owned semi-automatic firearms ” while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a certain size .
Do any of these bills have a chance in hell of passing ?
Probably not .
However , if these are the bills they roll out when they get a mudhole stomped on their butts , you kind of have to wonder what they would have done if they ’ d actually won .
Either way , it seems clear that anti-gunners aren ’ t letting their failure hold them back too much .
It also serves as a remind of just how important it is to beat @ @ @ @ @ @

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in an effort to flip a number of states blue, an attempt to push gun control down the throats of the American people. One of the states anti-gunners hoped to win big was Texas.
After all, flipping the state many Americans identify as so vehemently pro-gun and giving them the Virginia treatment would have been a huge coup.
As we all know, that didn’t exactly work out as planned.
Despite the setback, though, it seems that anti-gun lawmakers in the state somehow figure they’ll roll out all their gun control bills anyway.
At least 16 gun control bills have already been filed for the upcoming Texas Legislative Session beginning in January, setting the stage for a contentious battle over the gun rights of private citizens. One of the bills is HB 196, filed by Irving State Representative Terry Meza. Her bill would remove a homeowner’s legal right under the Castle Doctrine to use a firearm in the defense of their homestead against an intruder. Meza believes homeowners are too quick to pull the trigger during a home invasion, and HB 196 would essentially gut that provision from the Castle Doctrine. “I’m not condoning stealing, it is against the law, “Meza says, “but it’s not an offense that is punishable by death.” Meza claims she’s already become the target of intense scrutiny online. “People are already attacking me on Facebook saying I’m against the 2nd Amendment,” she says.
Well, um…that’s because you are, Ms. Meza.
See, using a firearm to defend your home isn’t about protecting the property. It’s about protecting the people within that home. See, if somone breaks into a home where someone currently is, there’s a very good chance they intend to harm that individual. People have been killed because they surprised a burglar.
That’s why those provisions exist, so people don’t have to try to get away from someone who means to hurt them.
Anyone trying to gut that provision isn’t rational, they’re anti-Second Amendment.
There are, of course, a lot of other gun control bills that have been filed as well including one that would ban the private sale of guns at gun shows. Another would kill preemption. Still another would end campus carry in the state despite absolutely no issues arising from the practice–something anti-gunners swore would be a huge problem.
Then there are four separate bills that take on two particular issues. Two would ban the sale and possession of certain “commonly owned semi-automatic firearms” while the other two would ban magazines greater than a certain size.
In Texas.
Do any of these bills have a chance in hell of passing? Probably not. However, if these are the bills they roll out when they get a mudhole stomped on their butts, you kind of have to wonder what they would have done if they’d actually won.
Either way, it seems clear that anti-gunners aren’t letting their failure hold them back too much. It also serves as a remind of just how important it is to beat them each and every election.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Stop Blaming Guns For Suicides

Stop Blaming Guns For Suicides

Nearly two-thirds of all firearm fatalities each year are the result of someone taking their own life .
Anti-gunners routinely leave that part out when they ’ d slinging numbers around because people don ’ t view suicides the same way they do homicides or accidents .
After all , someone commits suicide by making a conscious decision to take their own life .
It ’ s on them and no one else .
And since two-thirds of those firearm-related fatalities are suicides , it ’ s no wonder that anti-gunners try to obscure the truth .
Unfortunately for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims by simply pointing this fact out .
That ’ s why there ’ s now a push not just to acknowledge this , but to blame guns for those suicides .
According to national health statistics , 24,432 Americans used guns to kill themselves in 2018 , up from 19,392 in 2010 .
People who kill themselves in this way are usually those with ready access to firearms : gun owners and their family members .
Gun owners are not more suicidal than people who don ’ t own guns , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fatal .
Now , nearly a year after the coronavirus pandemic began , unleashing a tide of economic dislocation and despair , experts are bracing for a rise in suicides .
Gun sales have risen steadily since March , and as shutdowns aimed at containing the virus have disrupted lives and led to social isolation , studies have shown an increase in anxiety and suicidal ideation .
“ So many people are struggling right now , ” said Jennifer Stuber , an associate professor of social work who helped found the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center .
“ The indicators are that a perfect storm is about to hit.
” She noted that people who purchase guns to protect themselves from civil unrest and a possible rise in crime “ may actually be incurring more potential risk in terms of harm that can come to their family.
” OK , let ’ s break down the facts .
First , that 24,432 suicides with a firearm ?
That accounts for just a tad over half of all suicides in the country .
It sounds to me like people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill themselves without firearms .
Oh , but that ’ s an increase since 2010 , right ?
Sure .
But overall suicides are also up during that same period .
Further , while firearms may be the most effective means for someone to take their own life , it ’ s not the only effective means to do so .
There are plenty of other ways to claim your own life and be pretty sure you ’ re going to be successful .
While guns might be more effective , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points of different , which is practically statistical noise .
In other words , guns aren ’ t the problem .
Suicide isn ’ t a political issue , it ’ s a mental health one .
Just today I read a good friend lamenting a buddy of his from the Marine Corps who claimed his own life .
The issue there wasn ’ t access to firearms , but that so many who serve have ended up broken mentally and emotionally by what they endured .
Please , for the love of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make this about guns and recognize that tens of thousands of people are still claiming their own lives with things that aren ’ t firearms and instead focus on solutions that can help everyone .

Nearly two-thirds of all firearm fatalities each year are the result of someone taking their own life. Anti-gunners routinely leave that part out when they’d slinging numbers around because people don’t view suicides the same way they do homicides or accidents. After all, someone commits suicide by making a conscious decision to take their own life. It’s on them and no one else.
And since two-thirds of those firearm-related fatalities are suicides, it’s no wonder that anti-gunners try to obscure the truth.
Unfortunately for them, it becomes easy to debunk their claims by simply pointing this fact out. That’s why there’s now a push not just to acknowledge this, but to blame guns for those suicides.
According to national health statistics, 24,432 Americans used guns to kill themselves in 2018, up from 19,392 in 2010. People who kill themselves in this way are usually those with ready access to firearms: gun owners and their family members. Gun owners are not more suicidal than people who don’t own guns, but attempts with guns are more likely to be fatal. Now, nearly a year after the coronavirus pandemic began, unleashing a tide of economic dislocation and despair, experts are bracing for a rise in suicides. Gun sales have risen steadily since March, and as shutdowns aimed at containing the virus have disrupted lives and led to social isolation, studies have shown an increase in anxiety and suicidal ideation. “So many people are struggling right now,” said Jennifer Stuber, an associate professor of social work who helped found the University of Washington’s Forefront Suicide Prevention center. “The indicators are that a perfect storm is about to hit.” She noted that people who purchase guns to protect themselves from civil unrest and a possible rise in crime “may actually be incurring more potential risk in terms of harm that can come to their family.”
OK, let’s break down the facts.
First, that 24,432 suicides with a firearm? That accounts for just a tad over half of all suicides in the country. It sounds to me like people are finding plenty of other ways to kill themselves without firearms.
Oh, but that’s an increase since 2010, right? Sure. But overall suicides are also up during that same period.
Further, while firearms may be the most effective means for someone to take their own life, it’s not the only effective means to do so. There are plenty of other ways to claim your own life and be pretty sure you’re going to be successful. While guns might be more effective, we’re talking about a couple of percentage points of different, which is practically statistical noise.
In other words, guns aren’t the problem.
Suicide isn’t a political issue, it’s a mental health one. Just today I read a good friend lamenting a buddy of his from the Marine Corps who claimed his own life. The issue there wasn’t access to firearms, but that so many who serve have ended up broken mentally and emotionally by what they endured.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop trying to make this about guns and recognize that tens of thousands of people are still claiming their own lives with things that aren’t firearms and instead focus on solutions that can help everyone.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--New Jersey's Gun Control Laws Aren't Stopping Shootings

In order to become a legal gun owner in the Garden State , residents have to apply to their local police department in order to receive either a Firearms ID card ( valid for purchases of long guns ) or a pistol purchase permit ( which allows an individual to purchase one handgun ) .
The process can be extensive , and can even require applicants to submit character references to their local police department before they get their permission slip to exercise a constitutional right .
The process to obtain a license to carry is even more onerous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state currently possess a carry license .
Despite those barriers to legal gun ownership , or maybe because of them , there are still plenty of guns in the hands of criminals in New Jersey , and the state ’ s draconian gun control laws aren ’ t doing anything to reduce the increasing levels of violence in the state .
From 2010 through 2019 , Paterson averaged 88 shootings per year , with an average of 103 victims , including 15 fatalities , according to city statistics .
This year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase over the past decade , and the number of victims is almost 40 % higher .
“ It ’ s been a tough year , but it ’ s not unique to Paterson , ” Col. Patrick J. Callahan , superintendent of the New Jersey State Police , said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon .
“ This is something that ’ s occurring in large cities across the country.
” Callahan said New Jersey has endured a 25 % increase in shootings compared with this same time in 2019 , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 35 % higher .
How can this be ?
Shouldn ’ t the state ’ s restrictive gun laws be preventing criminals from illegally obtaining firearms and using them in robberies , carjackings , home invasions , and drive-by shootings ?
Clearly New Jersey ’ s gun control laws aren ’ t having the impact on violent criminals that anti-gun politicians promise , and with the state ’ s criminal courts once again going dark because of COVID-19 concerns , criminals who are busted for a gun-related offense will likely be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , the state has already released more than 2,000 inmates from New Jersey jails and prisons , and officials say the population behind bars will be cut by 35 % within the next four months .
Meanwhile , the average resident in Paterson , or Trenton , or Camden still faces almost insurmountable challenges if they attempt to become a legal gun owner .
In addition to navigating the maze of red tape imposed by the state , applicants are being forced to wait for months in many cases before they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a legal limbo while the criminals who ignore the law continue to wage war on their communities with their illegally obtained firearms .
This is a recipe for disaster , and we ’ re already watching it play out across the state .
Real lives are being impacted , real people are unable to protect their families , and real criminals are getting away with murder thanks to the state ’ s backwards and bizarre priorities .

In order to become a legal gun owner in the Garden State, residents have to apply to their local police department in order to receive either a Firearms ID card (valid for purchases of long guns) or a pistol purchase permit (which allows an individual to purchase one handgun). The process can be extensive, and can even require applicants to submit character references to their local police department before they get their permission slip to exercise a constitutional right.
The process to obtain a license to carry is even more onerous, and only a handful of people in the state currently possess a carry license. Despite those barriers to legal gun ownership, or maybe because of them, there are still plenty of guns in the hands of criminals in New Jersey, and the state’s draconian gun control laws aren’t doing anything to reduce the increasing levels of violence in the state.
From 2010 through 2019, Paterson averaged 88 shootings per year, with an average of 103 victims, including 15 fatalities, according to city statistics. This year’s shooting incidents mark a 22% increase over the past decade, and the number of victims is almost 40% higher. “It’s been a tough year, but it’s not unique to Paterson,” Col. Patrick J. Callahan, superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “This is something that’s occurring in large cities across the country.” Callahan said New Jersey has endured a 25% increase in shootings compared with this same time in 2019, while the number of homicides from gun violence is 35% higher.
How can this be? Shouldn’t the state’s restrictive gun laws be preventing criminals from illegally obtaining firearms and using them in robberies, carjackings, home invasions, and drive-by shootings?
Clearly New Jersey’s gun control laws aren’t having the impact on violent criminals that anti-gun politicians promise, and with the state’s criminal courts once again going dark because of COVID-19 concerns, criminals who are busted for a gun-related offense will likely be put right back out on the street. In fact, the state has already released more than 2,000 inmates from New Jersey jails and prisons, and officials say the population behind bars will be cut by 35% within the next four months.
Meanwhile, the average resident in Paterson, or Trenton, or Camden still faces almost insurmountable challenges if they attempt to become a legal gun owner. In addition to navigating the maze of red tape imposed by the state, applicants are being forced to wait for months in many cases before they’re approved or denied, stuck in a legal limbo while the criminals who ignore the law continue to wage war on their communities with their illegally obtained firearms.
This is a recipe for disaster, and we’re already watching it play out across the state. Real lives are being impacted, real people are unable to protect their families, and real criminals are getting away with murder thanks to the state’s backwards and bizarre priorities.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Reality Shows How Wrong Biden Really Is On Guns

When it comes to firearms , there ’ s one thing you can trust Joe Biden on .
You can trust him to get pretty much everything as wrong as humanly possible .
Both Biden and his vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris have a long history of anti-Second Amendment commentary .
Both have made it clear that they oppose the individual right to bear arms , for example .
Neither Democratic nominee Joe Biden nor his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris of California , believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , the government may restrict law-abiding citizens ’ ability to possess any firearm , and for any reason .
This is exactly what Harris argued in an amicus brief she signed onto in the foundational Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller .
The filing with the Supreme Court argued that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government from issuing a complete ban on the possession of operable handguns inside the home .
Harris is not alone .
Just last year , Biden himself told a town hall audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court majority in the Heller case .
The Daily Signal goes on to highlight multiple cases of law-abiding citizens using firearms defensively , showing just how wrongly Biden views on the issue actually are .
However , it ’ s also important to understand that when it comes to Biden ’ s opinions on guns , it ’ s probably faster to talk about what he ’ s actually gotten right .
This is the same Joe Biden who advised Americans to not worry about AR-15s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for self-defense .
Now , that part alone isn ’ t awful advice .
I don ’ t agree with it , but a lot of knowledgable people advise folks similarly .
Where they depart from Biden , though , is where they go from there .
You see , Biden advised people to just blast away through the door at potential threats .
Anyone with any sense should be able to see why that ’ s a bad idea .
You simply don ’ t know who is on the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much less whether they ’ re a real threat or not .
Several people have followed Biden ’ s “ advice.
” All were charged for doing so .
More recently , Biden opted to get involved in police use of force , something he probably knows even less about than personal defense .
This is when Biden famously advised police to shoot suspects in the leg .
Of course , shooting someone in the leg doesn ’ t actually stop them from hurting innocent people including law enforcement , nor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survive the event .
After all , the femoral artery is a thing that exists .
Rupturing that can be just as deadly as shooting someone in the heart , but it does give them enough time to take someone else with them .
At every avenue , Biden is wrong when he speaks on firearms .
In fact , he ’ s so wrong that it would be impressive if he wasn ’ t positioned to have enough power to use that poor understanding to bear on the American people .

When it comes to firearms, there’s one thing you can trust Joe Biden on. You can trust him to get pretty much everything as wrong as humanly possible.
Both Biden and his vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris have a long history of anti-Second Amendment commentary. Both have made it clear that they oppose the individual right to bear arms, for example.
Neither Democratic nominee Joe Biden nor his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In other words, according to them, the government may restrict law-abiding citizens’ ability to possess any firearm, and for any reason. This is exactly what Harris argued in an amicus brief she signed onto in the foundational Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The filing with the Supreme Court argued that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government from issuing a complete ban on the possession of operable handguns inside the home. … Harris is not alone. Just last year, Biden himself told a town hall audience that he wouldn’t have come to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court majority in the Heller case.
The Daily Signal goes on to highlight multiple cases of law-abiding citizens using firearms defensively, showing just how wrongly Biden views on the issue actually are.
However, it’s also important to understand that when it comes to Biden’s opinions on guns, it’s probably faster to talk about what he’s actually gotten right.
This is the same Joe Biden who advised Americans to not worry about AR-15s or handguns but to get a shotgun for self-defense. Now, that part alone isn’t awful advice. I don’t agree with it, but a lot of knowledgable people advise folks similarly. Where they depart from Biden, though, is where they go from there.
You see, Biden advised people to just blast away through the door at potential threats.
Anyone with any sense should be able to see why that’s a bad idea. You simply don’t know who is on the other side of the door or what they want, much less whether they’re a real threat or not.
Several people have followed Biden’s “advice.” All were charged for doing so.
More recently, Biden opted to get involved in police use of force, something he probably knows even less about than personal defense. This is when Biden famously advised police to shoot suspects in the leg.
Of course, shooting someone in the leg doesn’t actually stop them from hurting innocent people including law enforcement, nor is it a guarantee that the suspect will survive the event. After all, the femoral artery is a thing that exists. Rupturing that can be just as deadly as shooting someone in the heart, but it does give them enough time to take someone else with them.
At every avenue, Biden is wrong when he speaks on firearms. In fact, he’s so wrong that it would be impressive if he wasn’t positioned to have enough power to use that poor understanding to bear on the American people.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Brady Head Pretends Election Was Mandate For Gun Control

This is the most desperate post-election spin that I ’ ve seen from the gun control crowd .
In a new piece at Newsweek , Brady president Kris Brown and Parkland dad Fred Guttenberg claim that the anti-gun movement “ has never seen a more solid endorsement of its cause than in the election of Biden , the greatest gun violence prevention champion our movement has ever had in the White House.
” Yeah , right .
Let ’ s not forget that gun control was such a non-issue in the election that Brady itself ran ads for candidates that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Safety did the same thing , cutting campaign ads that focused on climate change and healthcare while avoiding bringing up Biden ’ s support for a sweeping gun and magazine ban .
In fact , even in the post-election environment , Brown is reluctant to talk specifics about any of Biden ’ s gun policies , perhaps because deep down she knows that at a time of record-high gun sales and declining support for new gun laws , Americans aren ’ t really interested in the policies she ’ s peddling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsweek doesn ’ t mention Biden ’ s gun ban at all .
Instead , the pair briefly reference public polling on “ red flag ” laws and “ universal background checks ” and claim that Biden has a mandate to act .
The American people voted decisively for Biden and Harris , who ran on the most comprehensive gun violence prevention platform in history .
Organizers , particularly Black and brown organizers , young people and victims of gun violence across the nation , have worked together to ensure gun violence prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re standing in the sun on this issue because of their work .
And , with a partner in the White House , we ’ re ready to show how we can work together to achieve needed change .
I actually laughed out loud when I read Brown boast that activists worked to ensure that gun control was “ a critical electoral issue.
” Biden ’ s gun control plans never came up in any of the presidential debates , while the candidate himself rarely brought up the issue on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other anti-gun groups did everything they could do downplay the issue before voters .
In the end , they still got their rear ends handed to them on Election Day .
Yes , it looks at the moment like Biden has won the election , but he has absolutely no coattails whatsoever .
Pro-2A candidates will pick up at least ten seats in the House , and the best anti-gun activists can hope for is a 50-50 Senate with VP Kamala Harris casting tie-breaking votes on controversial issues .
In state legislatures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control advocates .
They failed to flip a single legislative chamber despite Michael Bloomberg pouring millions of dollars into targeted campaigns from Arizona to Pennsylvania .
Meanwhile , Second Amendment voters were able to establish pro-2A majorities in both chambers of the New Hampshire state legislature while maintaining every one of their current majorities .
At the federal level , there ’ s a good chance that Republicans will keep control of the Senate by winning at least one of the two runoff elections in Georgia , denying Brady and other gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gun ban , at least legislatively .
And honestly , if gun control is such a winning issue with voters at the moment , why are both Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff avoiding talk of gun control in their Senate races down in Georgia ?
Ossoff ’ s even running ads talking about how he ’ ll “ defend ” the Second Amendment instead of playing up his support for bans on modern sporting rifles and mandatory gun licenses for all gun owners .
I know that in today ’ s political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledge election failures .
Putting a positive spin on results , no matter how good or bad , is just par for the course , and while it ’ s not surprising to see Kris Brown ’ s claims of an electoral mandate on gun control , it ’ s also not convincing .
Gun control advocates may end up with their guy in the White House , but it ’ s clear that Americans did not cast their vote to empower Biden ’ s anti-gun agenda .

This is the most desperate post-election spin that I’ve seen from the gun control crowd. In a new piece at Newsweek, Brady president Kris Brown and Parkland dad Fred Guttenberg claim that the anti-gun movement “has never seen a more solid endorsement of its cause than in the election of Biden, the greatest gun violence prevention champion our movement has ever had in the White House.”
Yeah, right. Let’s not forget that gun control was such a non-issue in the election that Brady itself ran ads for candidates that never mentioned the issue. Everytown for Gun Safety did the same thing, cutting campaign ads that focused on climate change and healthcare while avoiding bringing up Biden’s support for a sweeping gun and magazine ban.
In fact, even in the post-election environment, Brown is reluctant to talk specifics about any of Biden’s gun policies, perhaps because deep down she knows that at a time of record-high gun sales and declining support for new gun laws, Americans aren’t really interested in the policies she’s peddling.
Brown and Guttenberg’s piece at Newsweek doesn’t mention Biden’s gun ban at all. Instead, the pair briefly reference public polling on “red flag” laws and “universal background checks” and claim that Biden has a mandate to act.
The American people voted decisively for Biden and Harris, who ran on the most comprehensive gun violence prevention platform in history. Organizers, particularly Black and brown organizers, young people and victims of gun violence across the nation, have worked together to ensure gun violence prevention was understood as a critical electoral issue. We’re standing in the sun on this issue because of their work. And, with a partner in the White House, we’re ready to show how we can work together to achieve needed change.
I actually laughed out loud when I read Brown boast that activists worked to ensure that gun control was “a critical electoral issue.” Biden’s gun control plans never came up in any of the presidential debates, while the candidate himself rarely brought up the issue on the campaign trail, while Brady and other anti-gun groups did everything they could do downplay the issue before voters. In the end, they still got their rear ends handed to them on Election Day. Yes, it looks at the moment like Biden has won the election, but he has absolutely no coattails whatsoever.
Pro-2A candidates will pick up at least ten seats in the House, and the best anti-gun activists can hope for is a 50-50 Senate with VP Kamala Harris casting tie-breaking votes on controversial issues. In state legislatures, the news is even worse for gun control advocates. They failed to flip a single legislative chamber despite Michael Bloomberg pouring millions of dollars into targeted campaigns from Arizona to Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Second Amendment voters were able to establish pro-2A majorities in both chambers of the New Hampshire state legislature while maintaining every one of their current majorities.
At the federal level, there’s a good chance that Republicans will keep control of the Senate by winning at least one of the two runoff elections in Georgia, denying Brady and other gun control activists the opportunity to impose Biden’s gun ban, at least legislatively.
And honestly, if gun control is such a winning issue with voters at the moment, why are both Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff avoiding talk of gun control in their Senate races down in Georgia? Ossoff’s even running ads talking about how he’ll “defend” the Second Amendment instead of playing up his support for bans on modern sporting rifles and mandatory gun licenses for all gun owners.
I know that in today’s political environment, no interest group can easily acknowledge election failures. Putting a positive spin on results, no matter how good or bad, is just par for the course, and while it’s not surprising to see Kris Brown’s claims of an electoral mandate on gun control, it’s also not convincing. Gun control advocates may end up with their guy in the White House, but it’s clear that Americans did not cast their vote to empower Biden’s anti-gun agenda.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Biden Transition Team Has A Problem With Your 1A Rights Too

While we may not know the outcome of the election until after the courts are finished with the cases , Joe Biden is still going forward as if he ’ s the president-elect .
In fairness , he probably should .
If the courts find for President Trump , he ’ s out a bit of time and energy–something a man his age doesn ’ t have much of–but if it doesn ’ t , then he ’ s out time for transitioning the government that he can never get back .
While I hope his time is wasted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , a member of Biden ’ s transition team is giving us a good glimpse into how little any of our rights matter to the former vice president .
Now , let ’ s remember that many of those “ false narratives ” were shared in good faith by people who believed those narratives .
Besides , Russia advanced false narratives playing to both sides .
And we live in a country where burning the American flag is considered protected speech , but Stengel wants to punish people for doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What about the Christian Bible ?
Would that fall into the same view in Stengel ’ s mind ?
He actually called the diplomat ’ s question “ fair , ” but let ’ s also remember that this is a region of the world that believes it ’ s fair to chunk gay men off of rooftops and prevent women from leaving the house unescorted by a male relative .
I ’ m not sure I really give two damns what they consider right and anyone who thinks their criticism is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even less about .
Look , free speech is far less controversial than our Second Amendment rights .
It shouldn ’ t be the case , yet it is .
Meanwhile , we have a member of Biden ’ s transition team openly calling for infringement on our right to speak our minds in unapproved ways .
And yet , this is someone Biden turned to and is trusting as he looks to take office in January .
We already know that Biden has little appreciation for our Second Amendment rights .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little he respects our rights .
At least now we know that with Biden , there ’ s no reason to believe any of our rights are sacred .
To those who voted for the man , both living and dead , I say that you simply brought this not just on yourselves but potentially on the rest of us .
At least the dead voters had an excuse .

While we may not know the outcome of the election until after the courts are finished with the cases, Joe Biden is still going forward as if he’s the president-elect.
In fairness, he probably should. If the courts find for President Trump, he’s out a bit of time and energy–something a man his age doesn’t have much of–but if it doesn’t, then he’s out time for transitioning the government that he can never get back. While I hope his time is wasted, it’s not a bad move.
Unfortunately, a member of Biden’s transition team is giving us a good glimpse into how little any of our rights matter to the former vice president.
President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime. Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered. He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.” Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election. “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.
Now, let’s remember that many of those “false narratives” were shared in good faith by people who believed those narratives. Besides, Russia advanced false narratives playing to both sides.
And we live in a country where burning the American flag is considered protected speech, but Stengel wants to punish people for doing the same thing to a particular book?
What about the Christian Bible? Would that fall into the same view in Stengel’s mind?
He actually called the diplomat’s question “fair,” but let’s also remember that this is a region of the world that believes it’s fair to chunk gay men off of rooftops and prevent women from leaving the house unescorted by a male relative. I’m not sure I really give two damns what they consider right and anyone who thinks their criticism is “fair” is someone who I care even less about.
Look, free speech is far less controversial than our Second Amendment rights. It shouldn’t be the case, yet it is. Meanwhile, we have a member of Biden’s transition team openly calling for infringement on our right to speak our minds in unapproved ways.
And yet, this is someone Biden turned to and is trusting as he looks to take office in January.
We already know that Biden has little appreciation for our Second Amendment rights. His entire gun control platform shows just how little he respects our rights.
At least now we know that with Biden, there’s no reason to believe any of our rights are sacred.
To those who voted for the man, both living and dead, I say that you simply brought this not just on yourselves but potentially on the rest of us. At least the dead voters had an excuse.


bearingarms--2020-11-17--Ninth Circuit To Hear Challenge To Newsom's COVID Clampdown

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments today in a case that could rein in some of the most onerous coronavirus restrictions put in place by California Gov .
Gavin Newsom , which have led to delays in the processing of background checks for would-be gun owners in the state .
Now , that ’ s not the primary thrust of Givens v. Newsom , which deals primarily with violations of the 1st and 14th Amendment , but the impact that Newsom ’ s orders have had on those trying to exercise their Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case .
According to the lawsuit , under Newsom ’ s order mandating all residents to “ heed current state public health directives , ” requiring people to stay at home , neither the governor ’ s order nor state public health directives exempt demonstrations , protests , or other First Amendment-protected activities from enforcement .
[ Ron ] Givens also protests the state ’ s failure to process background checks for those purchasing firearms , as well as employment background checks for gun stores , which he claims deprives Californians of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christine ] Bish intends to protest the extent and duration of the state ’ s shelter-in-place order .
According to the pair ’ s lawyers , the governor has specifically ordered the California Highway Patrol to deny protest and rally permits at the State Capitol , a core First Amendment speech venue .
The governor ’ s orders thus deny all California residents the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech , free assembly , and petition the government .
In June , the U.S. Department of Justice invoked protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue in court that California ’ s restrictions on in-person protests related to the coronavirus pandemic should be invalidated .
The DOJ ’ s argument is contained in an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit .
The document was submitted to support Givens and Bish , who were denied permits to stage protests against Newsom ’ s COVID-19 executive orders .
The plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction .
The Givens case is one of two legal challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the federal court system .
Back in August , a coalition of Second Amendment organizations filed suit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra over the same issue ; delays in the background check process that have resulted in a 30-day waiting period for many gun buyers .
The lawsuit alleges that Becerra ’ s Bureau of Firearms began delaying waiting periods on background checks for prospective firearm purchasers in April , due to apparent staffing reductions stemming from the coronavirus pandemic .
The practice delayed “ tens of thousands ” of transactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law , the plaintiffs allege .
Becerra ’ s office could not immediately be reached for comment regarding the lawsuit , though the state Department of Justice has previously stated that California law does allow it to take up to 30 days to complete background checks .
The Ninth Circuit won ’ t release any decision in the Givens case today , but given the fact that Newsom is issuing new lockdowns this week , I would anticipate that the appeals court won ’ t dawdle too long before handing down its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numerous violations of constitutional rights that have been imposed by officials like Newsom and Becerra .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments today in a case that could rein in some of the most onerous coronavirus restrictions put in place by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, which have led to delays in the processing of background checks for would-be gun owners in the state.
Now, that’s not the primary thrust of Givens v. Newsom, which deals primarily with violations of the 1st and 14th Amendment, but the impact that Newsom’s orders have had on those trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights is still an important part of the case.
According to the lawsuit, under Newsom’s order mandating all residents to “heed current state public health directives,” requiring people to stay at home, neither the governor’s order nor state public health directives exempt demonstrations, protests, or other First Amendment-protected activities from enforcement. [Ron] Givens also protests the state’s failure to process background checks for those purchasing firearms, as well as employment background checks for gun stores, which he claims deprives Californians of their Second Amendment rights. [Co-plaintiff Christine] Bish intends to protest the extent and duration of the state’s shelter-in-place order. According to the pair’s lawyers, the governor has specifically ordered the California Highway Patrol to deny protest and rally permits at the State Capitol, a core First Amendment speech venue. The governor’s orders thus deny all California residents the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and petition the government. In June, the U.S. Department of Justice invoked protests over the killing of George Floyd to argue in court that California’s restrictions on in-person protests related to the coronavirus pandemic should be invalidated. The DOJ’s argument is contained in an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The document was submitted to support Givens and Bish, who were denied permits to stage protests against Newsom’s COVID-19 executive orders. The plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
The Givens case is one of two legal challenges to the delays in background checks underway in the federal court system. Back in August, a coalition of Second Amendment organizations filed suit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra over the same issue; delays in the background check process that have resulted in a 30-day waiting period for many gun buyers.
The lawsuit alleges that Becerra’s Bureau of Firearms began delaying waiting periods on background checks for prospective firearm purchasers in April, due to apparent staffing reductions stemming from the coronavirus pandemic. The practice delayed “tens of thousands” of transactions across the state, in violation of state law, the plaintiffs allege. Becerra’s office could not immediately be reached for comment regarding the lawsuit, though the state Department of Justice has previously stated that California law does allow it to take up to 30 days to complete background checks.
The Ninth Circuit won’t release any decision in the Givens case today, but given the fact that Newsom is issuing new lockdowns this week, I would anticipate that the appeals court won’t dawdle too long before handing down its opinion and hopefully puts a stop to the numerous violations of constitutional rights that have been imposed by officials like Newsom and Becerra.