bearingarms--2020-12-22--New "Gun Safety" Study Is More Junk Than Science

Researchers at the Ohio State University claim to have discovered that gun owners ’ support for anti-gun measures like universal background checks , waiting periods , and gun storage laws is actually far higher than what polls suggest .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we take a closer look at the new report and why it bears far more resemblance to propaganda than actual research .
Let ’ s start with the basic premise of the so-called study and what it supposedly found .
Gun safety policies , including universal background checks and mandatory waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners , yet most Americans fail to recognize this fact , a new study suggests .
That disconnect may make it hard to adopt these policies , according to the researchers .
The study found that when people learned about the true levels of support for these policies , they were more likely to say both in public and private that they would support the policies .
That was true for gun owners as well as those who don ’ t own guns .
“ Many Americans misperceive the opinion climate about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their willingness to express their support in public , ” said Graham Dixon , lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at The Ohio State University .
“ When corrected , both gun owners and non-gun owners express stronger public support for these policies.
” So how did the researchers determine this ?
They used a “ 3-part survey study with a total of 1262 respondents ” ( both gun owners and non-gun owners ) .
And we all know how accurate polling is these days , right ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three separate surveys , each of which started out with a ” short statement about the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018″ before asking respondents several questions about their support for gun control .
In January 2019 , the research firm Ipsos administered a survey for the researchers with a nationally representative sample of 508 adults .
Gun owners represented 30 % of the sample , mirroring Gallup ’ s recent finding in a nationally representative poll .
More than 90 % of both gun owners and non-gun owners said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 85 % of non-gun owners and 72 % percent of gun owners supported mandatory waiting periods , and 83 % of non-gun owners and 63 % of gun owners supported safe storage laws .
“ The key finding was that despite high levels of support for these policies , most people significantly underestimated support among gun owners , ” Dixon said .
So , roughly 170 gun owners is supposed to be representative of the entire country .
Where were these gun owners located ?
How old were these gun owners ?
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t know any of that information , because the researchers don ’ t tell us .
I ’ d argue that there are likely some fairly significant regional differences in the attitudes of gun owners .
170 gun owners in New Jersey , for example , would likely give you different results than 170 gun owners in Texas .
Heck , for that matter surveying 170 gun owners in Dallas would probably give you a different result than surveying 170 gun owners in Amarillo or Abilene .
Besides , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attitudes towards one of the measures included in this new report .
Back in 2016 , voters in Maine had the chance to vote on a referendum that would have established a universal background check system .
Did it get 90 % of the vote ?
It did not .
In fact , the measure was defeated after 52 % of the voters rejected the idea .
That vote , in essence , was a survey of more than 770,000 Maine residents , and more than 366,000 of them said they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me like that might tell us a little more about what gun owners think about the issue than a survey of 170 self-identified gun owners .
I ’ d also argue that presenting information about the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School before asking the questions could also skew the results .
What if researchers had presented information about , say , a teenage girl using her mom ’ s pistol to shoot a knife-wielding intruder before they asked about mandatory storage laws and universal background checks ?
What if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check laws are impossible to proactively enforce , and that even after they ’ re in place , prosecutions or arrests for violations of the law are extraordinarily rare .
Do you think that might have influenced the respondents ?
I do .
But the study ’ s authors aren ’ t interested in portraying gun ownership in a positive light .
Their goal , according to the study ’ s objective , was to “ investigate factors that encourage greater private support for and public action on gun safety policy.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out how to gin up support for gun control , not truly investigate attitudes towards the actual policies .
I ’ m sure groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action will be thrilled with the new information on how to manipulate people ’ s emotions to get them to support gun control laws , but taxpayers in Ohio should be incensed that their tax dollars are being used to pay for ways to make gun control propaganda more effective .

Researchers at the Ohio State University claim to have discovered that gun owners’ support for anti-gun measures like universal background checks, waiting periods, and gun storage laws is actually far higher than what polls suggest. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we take a closer look at the new report and why it bears far more resemblance to propaganda than actual research.
Let’s start with the basic premise of the so-called study and what it supposedly found.
Gun safety policies, including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods, receive wide support among American gun owners, yet most Americans fail to recognize this fact, a new study suggests. That disconnect may make it hard to adopt these policies, according to the researchers. The study found that when people learned about the true levels of support for these policies, they were more likely to say both in public and private that they would support the policies. That was true for gun owners as well as those who don’t own guns. “Many Americans misperceive the opinion climate about gun safety, and that may inhibit their willingness to express their support in public,” said Graham Dixon, lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at The Ohio State University. “When corrected, both gun owners and non-gun owners express stronger public support for these policies.”
So how did the researchers determine this? They used a “3-part survey study with a total of 1262 respondents” (both gun owners and non-gun owners). And we all know how accurate polling is these days, right? And those 1262 respondents are spread out over three separate surveys, each of which started out with a ” short statement about the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018″ before asking respondents several questions about their support for gun control.
In January 2019, the research firm Ipsos administered a survey for the researchers with a nationally representative sample of 508 adults. Gun owners represented 30% of the sample, mirroring Gallup’s recent finding in a nationally representative poll. More than 90% of both gun owners and non-gun owners said they supported universal background checks. About 85% of non-gun owners and 72% percent of gun owners supported mandatory waiting periods, and 83% of non-gun owners and 63% of gun owners supported safe storage laws. “The key finding was that despite high levels of support for these policies, most people significantly underestimated support among gun owners,” Dixon said.
So, roughly 170 gun owners is supposed to be representative of the entire country. Where were these gun owners located? How old were these gun owners? How long had they owned a gun? We don’t know any of that information, because the researchers don’t tell us.
I’d argue that there are likely some fairly significant regional differences in the attitudes of gun owners. 170 gun owners in New Jersey, for example, would likely give you different results than 170 gun owners in Texas. Heck, for that matter surveying 170 gun owners in Dallas would probably give you a different result than surveying 170 gun owners in Amarillo or Abilene.
Besides, we already have a large scale study on attitudes towards one of the measures included in this new report. Back in 2016, voters in Maine had the chance to vote on a referendum that would have established a universal background check system. Did it get 90% of the vote? It did not. In fact, the measure was defeated after 52% of the voters rejected the idea. That vote, in essence, was a survey of more than 770,000 Maine residents, and more than 366,000 of them said they don’t support universal background checks. Seems to me like that might tell us a little more about what gun owners think about the issue than a survey of 170 self-identified gun owners.
I’d also argue that presenting information about the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School before asking the questions could also skew the results. What if researchers had presented information about, say, a teenage girl using her mom’s pistol to shoot a knife-wielding intruder before they asked about mandatory storage laws and universal background checks? What if they had told survey respondents that universal background check laws are impossible to proactively enforce, and that even after they’re in place, prosecutions or arrests for violations of the law are extraordinarily rare.
Do you think that might have influenced the respondents? I do.
But the study’s authors aren’t interested in portraying gun ownership in a positive light. Their goal, according to the study’s objective, was to “investigate factors that encourage greater private support for and public action on gun safety policy.” In other words, they’re trying to figure out how to gin up support for gun control, not truly investigate attitudes towards the actual policies.
I’m sure groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action will be thrilled with the new information on how to manipulate people’s emotions to get them to support gun control laws, but taxpayers in Ohio should be incensed that their tax dollars are being used to pay for ways to make gun control propaganda more effective.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--Why Ohio's Court Ruling On Bump Stocks Is Meaningless

There are a number of places that , in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting , began banning the controversial bump stocks .
As per usual , gun rights groups launched lawsuits to challenge the law .
Then the ATF reversed their decision on bump stock , thus making all state and local laws redundant .
The lawsuits , however , didn ’ t stop .
One in Ohio recently made it to the state supreme court .
A divided Ohio Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to a now-repealed ordinance in Ohio ’ s capital city banning bump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire rapidly .
The Columbus Dispatch reports that the state ’ s highest court ruled 4-3 Friday that two Ohio gun-rights groups , Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms Foundation , had no standing to sue the city of Columbus .
The court majority decided that the groups had suffered no harm in a case that the justices heard despite the fact that the Columbus City Council had repealed its ordinance a year ago .
Officials said that made the case moot but the court disagreed , saying the council could pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , the court didn ’ t rule on the validity of the law .
They ’ re simply saying no one had the appropriate standing to file the lawsuit in the first place .
As a result , the question of the validity of such bans in the state of Ohio .
In other words , it ’ s less than useless except as a matter of discussing standing .
Then , of course , even if they had found that the ban was unconstitutional , it wouldn ’ t have mattered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has no authority over federal regulations .
For that , you need the Supreme Court of the United States to rule such bans were unconstitutional .
While I ’ d like to think that they would , until such time as a case is put before them , we ’ ll never know .
The truth of the matter is that continuing the court case was a waste of resources , in my humble opinion .
Even if gun rights activists won , there was absolutely nothing to be gained .
Bump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become legal in the state regardless of what the federal government said .
That ’ s simply not how any of that works .
Money spent on the lawsuit–and lawsuits are expensive no matter who is involved–could have been used to rally the troops for elections , work to combat other anti-gun legislation , or any number of other tasks that would have accomplished more in the long-term , up to and including a possible overturn of the ATF ’ s regulations concerning the devices .
In other words , the decision is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grand scheme of things .
If it serves any purpose , it might be a fine time to revisit the term “ pick your battles.
” While I ’ m not saying capitulation is a winning strategy or anything I do believe it ’ s far better to step up to a fight you can gain something from winning than waste time and resources on a win that would change absolutely nothing .

There are a number of places that, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, began banning the controversial bump stocks. As per usual, gun rights groups launched lawsuits to challenge the law.
Then the ATF reversed their decision on bump stock, thus making all state and local laws redundant.
The lawsuits, however, didn’t stop. One in Ohio recently made it to the state supreme court.
A divided Ohio Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to a now-repealed ordinance in Ohio’s capital city banning bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly. The Columbus Dispatch reports that the state’s highest court ruled 4-3 Friday that two Ohio gun-rights groups, Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms Foundation, had no standing to sue the city of Columbus. The court majority decided that the groups had suffered no harm in a case that the justices heard despite the fact that the Columbus City Council had repealed its ordinance a year ago. Officials said that made the case moot but the court disagreed, saying the council could pass the ordinance again in the future.
Now, the court didn’t rule on the validity of the law. They’re simply saying no one had the appropriate standing to file the lawsuit in the first place. As a result, the question of the validity of such bans in the state of Ohio.
In other words, it’s less than useless except as a matter of discussing standing.
Then, of course, even if they had found that the ban was unconstitutional, it wouldn’t have mattered. After all, a state supreme court has no authority over federal regulations. For that, you need the Supreme Court of the United States to rule such bans were unconstitutional. While I’d like to think that they would, until such time as a case is put before them, we’ll never know.
The truth of the matter is that continuing the court case was a waste of resources, in my humble opinion. Even if gun rights activists won, there was absolutely nothing to be gained. Bump stocks weren’t going to suddenly become legal in the state regardless of what the federal government said. That’s simply not how any of that works.
Money spent on the lawsuit–and lawsuits are expensive no matter who is involved–could have been used to rally the troops for elections, work to combat other anti-gun legislation, or any number of other tasks that would have accomplished more in the long-term, up to and including a possible overturn of the ATF’s regulations concerning the devices.
In other words, the decision is newsworthy but ultimately less than meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If it serves any purpose, it might be a fine time to revisit the term “pick your battles.” While I’m not saying capitulation is a winning strategy or anything I do believe it’s far better to step up to a fight you can gain something from winning than waste time and resources on a win that would change absolutely nothing.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--Man With Recently Restored Gun Rights Runs Afoul Of VA Gun Law

As a gun person , I can ’ t imagine losing my gun rights .
While for some , it ’ s a bit of a non-issue since they don ’ t care anything about firearms in the first place , for many of us , it ’ s a big part of who we are as Americans .
Losing them would be a horror .
Yet , some who lose their gun rights do eventually have them restored .
For one Virginia man , it ’ s clear that he didn ’ t wait long after having his rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we know this ?
Because it wasn ’ t long before he ran afoul of one of the state ’ s latest gun control laws .
A Chesterfield County man who had his gun rights restored in June has been convicted of leaving a loaded firearm near his young son , who accidentally shot himself in the hand , in one of the first cases to be prosecuted under a new Virginia law that boosts the penalty for “ recklessly ” leaving guns near children .
Radell J. Bolden , 36 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court and was sentenced to 12 months in jail with all 12 months suspended .
Bolden also was ordered to complete 24 hours of community service , forfeit his gun and complete a firearm safety class .
The Chesterfield Commonwealth ’ s Attorney ’ s Office withdrew an accompanying charge against Bolden of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a nonviolent felony .
The charge was dropped after prosecutors learned that Bolden had been pardoned by Gov .
Ralph Northam on June 25 and had his gun rights restored .
The shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a month later , on July 20 .
So what precisely happened ?
Well , something that could have happened to plenty of folks .
According to a summary of evidence presented in court by Assistant Commonwealth ’ s Attorney LaToya Croxton , Bolden told authorities he had recently visited a shooting range and was in his bedroom cleaning his firearm .
While doing so , Bolden said he had to use the bathroom .
He then went into the bathroom , which was attached to the bedroom , and left his handgun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 8-year-old son was not in the bedroom at the time .
A short time later , Bolden said he heard a gunshot and that when he went back into the bedroom , he found his son suffering from a gunshot wound to his hand .
The child ’ s injury was not life-threatening .
Honestly , that ’ s something that could have happened to any number of us .
Oh , we can Monday morning quarterback this all day long .
We could say that Bolden should have locked the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken down the weapon before leaving the room .
We could say all kinds of things we would have done differently .
He didn ’ t , and now he ’ s being punished for it .
Luckily , while it seems that Bolden will have to forfeit the gun , he isn ’ t forfeiting his Second Amendment rights again .
Based on this report , it sounds like he ’ s still able to own firearms , otherwise , why bother making him take a gun safety class ?
That doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While this story could have been an absolute tragedy , the truth is that it ’ s only with firearms that parents are held responsible for momentary lapses in their attention .
It ’ s an inconsistency that is part of why gun rights are second class rights .

As a gun person, I can’t imagine losing my gun rights. While for some, it’s a bit of a non-issue since they don’t care anything about firearms in the first place, for many of us, it’s a big part of who we are as Americans. Losing them would be a horror.
Yet, some who lose their gun rights do eventually have them restored.
For one Virginia man, it’s clear that he didn’t wait long after having his rights restored to purchase a firearm. How do we know this? Because it wasn’t long before he ran afoul of one of the state’s latest gun control laws.
A Chesterfield County man who had his gun rights restored in June has been convicted of leaving a loaded firearm near his young son, who accidentally shot himself in the hand, in one of the first cases to be prosecuted under a new Virginia law that boosts the penalty for “recklessly” leaving guns near children. Radell J. Bolden, 36, was found guilty in Chesterfield General District Court and was sentenced to 12 months in jail with all 12 months suspended. Bolden also was ordered to complete 24 hours of community service, forfeit his gun and complete a firearm safety class. The Chesterfield Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office withdrew an accompanying charge against Bolden of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a nonviolent felony. The charge was dropped after prosecutors learned that Bolden had been pardoned by Gov. Ralph Northam on June 25 and had his gun rights restored. The shooting incident involving his son occurred less than a month later, on July 20.
That’s less than a month.
Ouch.
So what precisely happened? Well, something that could have happened to plenty of folks.
According to a summary of evidence presented in court by Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney LaToya Croxton, Bolden told authorities he had recently visited a shooting range and was in his bedroom cleaning his firearm. While doing so, Bolden said he had to use the bathroom. He then went into the bathroom, which was attached to the bedroom, and left his handgun lying on a dresser. Bolden said his 8-year-old son was not in the bedroom at the time. A short time later, Bolden said he heard a gunshot and that when he went back into the bedroom, he found his son suffering from a gunshot wound to his hand. The child’s injury was not life-threatening.
Honestly, that’s something that could have happened to any number of us.
Oh, we can Monday morning quarterback this all day long. We could say that Bolden should have locked the door. We could say he should have broken down the weapon before leaving the room. We could say all kinds of things we would have done differently.
He didn’t, and now he’s being punished for it.
Luckily, while it seems that Bolden will have to forfeit the gun, he isn’t forfeiting his Second Amendment rights again. Based on this report, it sounds like he’s still able to own firearms, otherwise, why bother making him take a gun safety class?
That doesn’t make this law good. While this story could have been an absolute tragedy, the truth is that it’s only with firearms that parents are held responsible for momentary lapses in their attention. It’s an inconsistency that is part of why gun rights are second class rights.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--Supposedly Pro-Gun Politician Embraces Carry Ban

Rhode Island State Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio , who ’ s earned an “ A ” -rating from the National Rifle Association in recent years , is now embracing a gun control bill ; going so far as calling it a top priority for 2021 .
The bill would bar those with concealed carry licenses from carrying on school grounds , even if you ’ re simply driving through a school parking lot to pick up your child .
Really ?
Because it ’ s been the law in Rhode Island for years that those with a concealed carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there hasn ’ t been an issue .
As far as not being able to see why anyone would have a reason to carry , I just gave one .
Plenty of parents with concealed carry licenses drop off and pick up their kids from school , but under the bill proposed by Ruggerio they ’ d be required to leave their gun behind , even if they ’ re not setting foot outside of their car .
What makes these even worse is that Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo had already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via an executive order back in 2018 .
If Raimondo ’ s action had the force of law , why is this legislation necessary ?
And if it didn ’ t have any actual impact on the law , why issue the order in the first place ?
Criminals aren ’ t going to pay the slightest attention to a declaration that schools are now gun-free zones , and you ’ d think Ruggerio would be cognizant of that fact .
In fact , I ’ m pretty sure that Ruggerio is well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far bigger impact on law-abiding gun owners than those willing to use a gun in the commission of a violent crime , but it doesn ’ t seem to matter .
Ruggerio ’ s choosing to make Democrats feel good at the expense of individual rights .
Frank Saccoccio , president and lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition , said the proposed ban on concealed weapons on school grounds “ doesn ’ t do anything but hurt law-abiding citizens.
” “ If you ’ re carrying a gun , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so why would your personal protection stop on school grounds ?
” he said .
Saccoccio said someone with a concealed-carry firearm could end up protecting others from a shooter .
He said that 30 years ago , state lawmakers allowed an exception in the law for those with concealed-carry permits on school grounds .
“ Since then , there have been zero instances of a concealed carry holder coming onto school grounds and hurting anyone , ” he said .
“ Why are we introducing these bills ?
” Sadly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruggerio ’ s bill isn ’ t the only gun control measure on tap for the next session .
And though it sounds odd , thanks to the defeat of one of the most powerful Democrats in the state legislature , anti-gun activists are feeling pretty good about their chances in 2021 .
Meanwhile , gun control proposals are expected to receive a warmer reception in the House than they did during the tenure of Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello , a Democrat who had an “ A ” rating from the NRA and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the November elections .
Warwick Democrat K. Joseph Shekarchi , who has a “ D ” rating from the NRA , is poised to become the new Speaker .
“ We are more optimistic in general , ” said Linda D. Finn , executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence .
The coalition backed 37 representatives who vowed to support bans on high-capacity magazines , “ assault-style ” weapons , and concealed guns on school grounds , she said .
Mattiello was tossed by voters in November , who elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barbara Ann Fenton-Fung will hopefully be a solid champion of the right to keep and bear arms , but as noted , she ’ s not taking over as House Speaker .
With Democrats still firmly in the majority of the House , replacing an “ A ” with a “ D ” -rated politician is going to come with consequences .
While Second Amendment activists aren ’ t giving up their fight at the statehouse , don ’ t be surprised if there ’ s a more local reaction to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Back in 2019 several communities across the state declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in response to bills that would have banned so-called assault weapons and “ high capacity ” magazines .
Those bills failed , but they ’ re once again a top priority for gun control activists , and with a clearer path to passage , at least in the House , we may very well see another wave of Second Amendment sanctuaries popping up in Rhode Island over the next few months as residents resist the unconstitutional infringements on their right @ @ @ @ @ @

Rhode Island State Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio, who’s earned an “A”-rating from the National Rifle Association in recent years, is now embracing a gun control bill; going so far as calling it a top priority for 2021. The bill would bar those with concealed carry licenses from carrying on school grounds, even if you’re simply driving through a school parking lot to pick up your child.
“Unless you are an officer of the law and required to carry it, I don’t see why anyone has any business carrying a gun on school property where there are young people,” Ruggerio said during a wide-ranging year-end interview with the Globe. “I just think it’s a recipe for disaster.”
Really? Because it’s been the law in Rhode Island for years that those with a concealed carry license could carry on school property, and there hasn’t been an issue.
As far as not being able to see why anyone would have a reason to carry, I just gave one. Plenty of parents with concealed carry licenses drop off and pick up their kids from school, but under the bill proposed by Ruggerio they’d be required to leave their gun behind, even if they’re not setting foot outside of their car.
What makes these even worse is that Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo had already banned lawfully carried firearms from school property via an executive order back in 2018. If Raimondo’s action had the force of law, why is this legislation necessary? And if it didn’t have any actual impact on the law, why issue the order in the first place?
Criminals aren’t going to pay the slightest attention to a declaration that schools are now gun-free zones, and you’d think Ruggerio would be cognizant of that fact. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Ruggerio is well aware that his proposal will have a far bigger impact on law-abiding gun owners than those willing to use a gun in the commission of a violent crime, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Ruggerio’s choosing to make Democrats feel good at the expense of individual rights.
Frank Saccoccio, president and lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, said the proposed ban on concealed weapons on school grounds “doesn’t do anything but hurt law-abiding citizens.” “If you’re carrying a gun, you’re carrying a gun for personal protection, so why would your personal protection stop on school grounds?” he said. Saccoccio said someone with a concealed-carry firearm could end up protecting others from a shooter. He said that 30 years ago, state lawmakers allowed an exception in the law for those with concealed-carry permits on school grounds. “Since then, there have been zero instances of a concealed carry holder coming onto school grounds and hurting anyone,” he said. “Why are we introducing these bills?”
Sadly, for gun owners in Rhode Island, Ruggerio’s bill isn’t the only gun control measure on tap for the next session. And though it sounds odd, thanks to the defeat of one of the most powerful Democrats in the state legislature, anti-gun activists are feeling pretty good about their chances in 2021.
Meanwhile, gun control proposals are expected to receive a warmer reception in the House than they did during the tenure of Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, a Democrat who had an “A” rating from the NRA and who lost his Cranston district seat in the November elections. Warwick Democrat K. Joseph Shekarchi, who has a “D” rating from the NRA, is poised to become the new Speaker. “We are more optimistic in general,” said Linda D. Finn, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. The coalition backed 37 representatives who vowed to support bans on high-capacity magazines, “assault-style” weapons, and concealed guns on school grounds, she said.
Mattiello was tossed by voters in November, who elected a pro-Second Amendment Republican in his stead. Barbara Ann Fenton-Fung will hopefully be a solid champion of the right to keep and bear arms, but as noted, she’s not taking over as House Speaker. With Democrats still firmly in the majority of the House, replacing an “A” with a “D”-rated politician is going to come with consequences.
While Second Amendment activists aren’t giving up their fight at the statehouse, don’t be surprised if there’s a more local reaction to any new gun control proposals as well. Back in 2019 several communities across the state declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in response to bills that would have banned so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” magazines.
Those bills failed, but they’re once again a top priority for gun control activists, and with a clearer path to passage, at least in the House, we may very well see another wave of Second Amendment sanctuaries popping up in Rhode Island over the next few months as residents resist the unconstitutional infringements on their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--DeWine Expected To Veto "Stand Your Ground" Bill

On Monday , I wrote about Ohio ’ s passage of a Stand Your Ground bill .
In particular , I wrote about just what Governor Mike DeWine would likely do with that bill .
While he has been trying to straddle the line between being pro-gun and anti-gun , he can ’ t do it forever .
I put my money on him vetoing the bill .
After all , it ’ s not like he hasn ’ t been beating the anti-gun drum for months now .
However , I could well be wrong .
I mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio politics .
Luckily for me , I ’ m not necessarily wrong in that assessment .
As Ohio lawmakers return for a final week of their lame duck session , Gov .
Mike DeWine is hinting he ’ ll veto a controversial gun bill they sent to him last week .
If he does reject the so-called “ Stand Your Ground ” bill , lawmakers may not be able to do anything about it .
In a call with reporters this weekend , DeWine said he ’ d have a lot more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I made my position very clear that we should not be taking up bills like that , when we have bills that have been in front of the legislature for a year where we have really the opportunity to directly save lives , ” DeWine said .
DeWine was , of course , pushing his STRONG Ohio bill .
What he doesn ’ t seem to grasp is that absolutely no one in the legislature wants to pass that dreck .
Yes , DeWine is convinced it will save lives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will do is make life a little more difficult for some people and accomplish absolutely nothing for anyone else .
If DeWine thinks that he can ram gun control down Ohioan ’ s throats , he ’ s going to be sorely mistaken .
In fact , it may well kill his political career if he continues to push measures like this while opposing commonsense laws like Stand Your Ground .
See , Ohio is a red state .
President Donald Trump took 53.3 percent of the vote , a pretty decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well to the right , which also means it has a lot of people who value their gun rights .
Those are people DeWine will need in his reelection bid in 2022 .
While many would forgive his STRONG Ohio package in and of itself–after all , he introduced it when tensions were high following the Dayton shooting–but it ’ s unlikely they ’ ll be that forgiving if he blocks a bill that would help keep people from being prosecuted for defending themselves .
Don ’ t be surprised to see DeWine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be surprised to see DeWine lose that primary .
I can ’ t say explicitly that it will happen .
I can only say that DeWine is likely to increase the odds of it happening if he vetos the bill .
I get that he ’ s unhappy the legislature hasn ’ t voted for his bill .
I ’ d prefer them to vote it down hard so he knows where he stands on this stuff myself .
Still , that ’ s no excuse to fail to sign a bill that @ @ @ @ @ @

On Monday, I wrote about Ohio’s passage of a Stand Your Ground bill. In particular, I wrote about just what Governor Mike DeWine would likely do with that bill.
While he has been trying to straddle the line between being pro-gun and anti-gun, he can’t do it forever. I put my money on him vetoing the bill. After all, it’s not like he hasn’t been beating the anti-gun drum for months now.
However, I could well be wrong. I mean, I’m not an expert on Ohio politics.
Luckily for me, I’m not necessarily wrong in that assessment.
As Ohio lawmakers return for a final week of their lame duck session, Gov. Mike DeWine is hinting he’ll veto a controversial gun bill they sent to him last week. If he does reject the so-called “Stand Your Ground” bill, lawmakers may not be able to do anything about it. In a call with reporters this weekend, DeWine said he’d have a lot more to say about the bill this week. “I made my position very clear that we should not be taking up bills like that, when we have bills that have been in front of the legislature for a year where we have really the opportunity to directly save lives,” DeWine said.
DeWine was, of course, pushing his STRONG Ohio bill. What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that absolutely no one in the legislature wants to pass that dreck. Yes, DeWine is convinced it will save lives, but it won’t. All it will do is make life a little more difficult for some people and accomplish absolutely nothing for anyone else.
That’s a winning strategy.
If DeWine thinks that he can ram gun control down Ohioan’s throats, he’s going to be sorely mistaken. In fact, it may well kill his political career if he continues to push measures like this while opposing commonsense laws like Stand Your Ground.
See, Ohio is a red state. President Donald Trump took 53.3 percent of the vote, a pretty decent margin. That means it leans pretty well to the right, which also means it has a lot of people who value their gun rights.
Those are people DeWine will need in his reelection bid in 2022.
While many would forgive his STRONG Ohio package in and of itself–after all, he introduced it when tensions were high following the Dayton shooting–but it’s unlikely they’ll be that forgiving if he blocks a bill that would help keep people from being prosecuted for defending themselves.
Don’t be surprised to see DeWine primaried. Also, don’t be surprised to see DeWine lose that primary. I can’t say explicitly that it will happen. I can only say that DeWine is likely to increase the odds of it happening if he vetos the bill.
I get that he’s unhappy the legislature hasn’t voted for his bill. I’d prefer them to vote it down hard so he knows where he stands on this stuff myself. Still, that’s no excuse to fail to sign a bill that he knows his constituents want.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--Self-Defense Shooting Prompts Calls To Arm Paramedics

A shootout in Pine Bluff , Arkansas last week left one man dead and two others injured , after an armed suspect shot and wounded a pair of paramedics who were treating the man ’ s girlfriend .
One of the paramedics was carrying a gun of his own , however , and returned fire , killing the attacker .
Unlike several other states that have passed legislation in recent years allowing for EMTs , paramedics , and even some firefighters to carry on the job , Arkansas law is silent on the issue .
Now , one state lawmaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
State Sen. Trent Garner of El Dorado , whose district includes Pine Bluff , said he had been contacted by several first-responders in the wake of last week ’ s shooting in Pine Bluff that left two paramedics injured from gunfire .
One of them had a gun , and after being shot three times by an assailant , was able to return fire , killing the man .
Garner said he did not believe there was any state law that would preclude a first-responder , such as an emergency medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but new legislation would make it clear that they can .
He said that any adjustment to the law would yield to an agency ’ s policy on whether employees may or may not carry a gun .
“ That ’ s not a legal matter , ” Garner said , referring to a company ’ s policy .
“ I don ’ t want to step in on that and override what a company is doing.
” Gardner has yet to formally introduce a bill , but says it could take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simplest bill , he says , would merely clarify state law and expressly state that it ’ s legal for first responders to carry with a concealed carry license .
Another option would be to set up a specific training regimen for first responders that would allow them to carry on the job .
The private ambulance company that the Pine Bluff paramedics worked for hasn ’ t said whether they specifically allow their employees to be armed on the job , but they also haven ’ t indicated that they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the paramedic who used his gun to defend himself and his partner .
Josh Bishop , the CEO of EASI Ambulance , did tell the El Dorado News that there are discussions about providing crews with body armor , but other ambulance providers around the state are taking a closer look at allowing employees to lawfully carry while they ’ re working .
Jon Swanson , head of MEMS , Little Rock ’ s municipal ambulance service that serves Pulaski County and several counties and cities in central Arkansas , said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow guns on their ambulances .
But he said that policy would be reviewed because of what happened in Pine Bluff .
“ I ’ m sure that we will consider this and re-evaluate the policy in light of this particular situation , ” Swanson said .
He said he did not know if there was overriding state law on the subject because he had never asked the question himself .
Despite his agency ’ s policy on the subject , he did say that had the one paramedic not had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished what he started , ” But he said such instances are rare and that arming people with guns raises ethical and legal questions .
In looking back at what happened , he said , it ’ s easy to say “ it ’ s good that they were able to defend themselves , ” but he added that that one instance might not be sufficient cause to arm all EMTs .
“ I honestly don ’ t know if that is the best option , ” he said .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , EMTs and paramedics aren ’ t cops , but they ’ re often called out to the same scenes , and may even arrive before police do .
What happens if they are confronted by an angry patient or relative and have no means of self-defense ?
Frankly , the reason why it ’ s easy to say “ it ’ s good that they were able to defend themselves ” is because it ’ s true .
I ’ d encourage Swanson and anyone else in Arkansas that ’ s setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the experience of states like West Virginia , which expressly allowed the practice via legislation in 2019 .
There ’ ve been no issues since that state ’ s new law took effect , and there ’ s no reason why Arkansas would be any different , especially given the fact that there doesn ’ t appear to be any legal barrier preventing paramedics from carrying right now , outside of their company ’ s policy .
It may be a sad fact of life , but it ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to protect themselves while on the job .

A shootout in Pine Bluff, Arkansas last week left one man dead and two others injured, after an armed suspect shot and wounded a pair of paramedics who were treating the man’s girlfriend. One of the paramedics was carrying a gun of his own, however, and returned fire, killing the attacker.
Unlike several other states that have passed legislation in recent years allowing for EMTs, paramedics, and even some firefighters to carry on the job, Arkansas law is silent on the issue. Now, one state lawmaker says it’s time to change that.
State Sen. Trent Garner of El Dorado, whose district includes Pine Bluff, said he had been contacted by several first-responders in the wake of last week’s shooting in Pine Bluff that left two paramedics injured from gunfire. One of them had a gun, and after being shot three times by an assailant, was able to return fire, killing the man. Garner said he did not believe there was any state law that would preclude a first-responder, such as an emergency medical technician, from having a concealed-carry permit, but new legislation would make it clear that they can. He said that any adjustment to the law would yield to an agency’s policy on whether employees may or may not carry a gun. “That’s not a legal matter,” Garner said, referring to a company’s policy. “I don’t want to step in on that and override what a company is doing.”
Gardner has yet to formally introduce a bill, but says it could take a couple of different forms. The simplest bill, he says, would merely clarify state law and expressly state that it’s legal for first responders to carry with a concealed carry license. Another option would be to set up a specific training regimen for first responders that would allow them to carry on the job.
The private ambulance company that the Pine Bluff paramedics worked for hasn’t said whether they specifically allow their employees to be armed on the job, but they also haven’t indicated that they’ll be taking any type of disciplinary action against the paramedic who used his gun to defend himself and his partner. Josh Bishop, the CEO of EASI Ambulance, did tell the El Dorado News that there are discussions about providing crews with body armor, but other ambulance providers around the state are taking a closer look at allowing employees to lawfully carry while they’re working.
Jon Swanson, head of MEMS, Little Rock’s municipal ambulance service that serves Pulaski County and several counties and cities in central Arkansas, said it is his agency’s police not to allow guns on their ambulances. But he said that policy would be reviewed because of what happened in Pine Bluff. “I’m sure that we will consider this and re-evaluate the policy in light of this particular situation,” Swanson said. He said he did not know if there was overriding state law on the subject because he had never asked the question himself. Despite his agency’s policy on the subject, he did say that had the one paramedic not had a gun, the assailant might have “finished what he started,” But he said such instances are rare and that arming people with guns raises ethical and legal questions. In looking back at what happened, he said, it’s easy to say “it’s good that they were able to defend themselves,” but he added that that one instance might not be sufficient cause to arm all EMTs. “I honestly don’t know if that is the best option,” he said. “We’re not law enforcement officers.”
No, EMTs and paramedics aren’t cops, but they’re often called out to the same scenes, and may even arrive before police do. What happens if they are confronted by an angry patient or relative and have no means of self-defense?
Frankly, the reason why it’s easy to say “it’s good that they were able to defend themselves” is because it’s true. I’d encourage Swanson and anyone else in Arkansas that’s setting policy for first responders to take a look at the experience of states like West Virginia, which expressly allowed the practice via legislation in 2019.
There’ve been no issues since that state’s new law took effect, and there’s no reason why Arkansas would be any different, especially given the fact that there doesn’t appear to be any legal barrier preventing paramedics from carrying right now, outside of their company’s policy. It may be a sad fact of life, but it’s still a fact that these first responders need to be able to protect themselves while on the job.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--The Three-Year Hunt For One Massive Buck

For deer hunter Shane Mayon , a buck nicknamed “ Hightower ” has been the one that got away , and not just once .
Over the course of three seasons , Mayon and his friends have encountered the enormous creature in person and on game cameras , but no one could ever land a shot .
As outdoor writer Brian Broom details at the Jackson Clarion-Ledger , Hightower quickly became the stuff of legend in the local area .
He ’ d grown into a 12-point in 2019 with a wide inside spread and long , heavy main beams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those that knew about him .
“ The buddies I hunt with , he was the topic of conversation , ” Mayon said .
“ Even in the off season it was , ‘ Hightower this , Hightower that.
’ Who was going to be the lucky one ?
” Mayon told Broom that thoughts of Hightower even kept him up at night , to the point that his wife asked what was going on with him .
Buck fever , that ’ s what .
Mayon was obsessed with the deer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever seen .
Throughout the fall , Hightower appeared regularly on the hunter ’ s game cameras , but Mayon failed to spot him in person .
That changed back on December 4 , when Shane Mayon and a buddy headed off into the woods a few hours before dark .
As Mayon was approaching his stand , he startled a four-point buck that took off crashing through the woods .
The hunter says he was sure that the deer ’ s loud exit would have spooked Hightower away if he was even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sun was sinking in the western sky , Shane Mayon laid eyes on his elusive prey .
Even though he felt his hunt was doomed , Mayon climbed into his stand .
He watched roughly 13 does browse on acorns during the hunt and at 4:25 p.m. he heard another coming .
“ I heard a rustling of leaves and it was him coming out of a creek bed , ” Mayon said .
“ When I saw the head I knew it was him.
” Mayon was getting nervous .
To complicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its highest magnification and he could find the deer in the scope .
He adjusted his scope and found an opening where the buck would pass .
“ I picked a little spot between two trees about 24 inches wide and as soon as I saw brown I put the crosshairs on him and squeezed the trigger , ” Mayon said .
I ’ m not going to spoil the ending because you should really check out Brian Broom ’ s original reporting for the rest of the story about Mayon and Hightower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for me wasn ’ t whether or not the hunt for Hightower was successful .
No , what stands out to me is the intensity of his pursuit because I ’ ve never experienced anything like that as a hunter , going after the same animal year after year after year .
Heck , I ’ ve never encountered a monster buck on my property , and honestly , you ’ re not going to find any Hightowers in my part of rural Virginia .
The closest I ’ ve come to having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be my sporadic attempts over the past two spring turkey seasons to get a good shot at one of the toms who make regular appearances on the edge of one of the pastures .
They seem to know exactly where to position themselves so that I can ’ t get off a safe shot , and I swear their gobbles have taken on a mocking tone as the months have gone on .
Even though I ’ ve come up empty-handed , however , I ’ ve still benefited from the experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both patience and perseverance , but I also get to spend time outdoors focused on nothing but the environment surrounding me .
In this day and age of constant connectivity , it ’ s a genuine blessing to spend time looking at gently sloping fields and the edge of the spring woods instead of a computer screen .
I ’ ve spied my neighbor ’ s Black Angus calves frolicking across a newly green pasture in the morning sun , heard the dogwoods and the black walnut trees come alive with the sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meal , and a hundred other hum-drum experiences that are anything but banal and ordinary when you ’ re in the moment .
Most states have just concluded one of the best deer seasons in quite a few years in terms of hunter participation .
While few of those who headed out to a tree stand or blind for the very first time ( or just the first time in a long time ) were able to take a shot at a buck the size of Hightower , they didn ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make some lasting memories .
Many of them were able to fill their freezer , spend time with family and friends , and spend a few hours a little more engaged with the world around them than the smartphone typically in front of their face .
Monster buck or not that seems like a pretty good time to me .

For deer hunter Shane Mayon, a buck nicknamed “Hightower” has been the one that got away, and not just once. Over the course of three seasons, Mayon and his friends have encountered the enormous creature in person and on game cameras, but no one could ever land a shot.
As outdoor writer Brian Broom details at the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Hightower quickly became the stuff of legend in the local area.
He’d grown into a 12-point in 2019 with a wide inside spread and long, heavy main beams. He was always the talk among those that knew about him. “The buddies I hunt with, he was the topic of conversation,” Mayon said. “Even in the off season it was, ‘Hightower this, Hightower that.’ Who was going to be the lucky one?”
Mayon told Broom that thoughts of Hightower even kept him up at night, to the point that his wife asked what was going on with him.
Buck fever, that’s what. Mayon was obsessed with the deer, which was the biggest he’d ever seen. Throughout the fall, Hightower appeared regularly on the hunter’s game cameras, but Mayon failed to spot him in person. That changed back on December 4, when Shane Mayon and a buddy headed off into the woods a few hours before dark.
As Mayon was approaching his stand, he startled a four-point buck that took off crashing through the woods. The hunter says he was sure that the deer’s loud exit would have spooked Hightower away if he was even in the area, but as the sun was sinking in the western sky, Shane Mayon laid eyes on his elusive prey.
Even though he felt his hunt was doomed, Mayon climbed into his stand. He watched roughly 13 does browse on acorns during the hunt and at 4:25 p.m. he heard another coming. “I heard a rustling of leaves and it was him coming out of a creek bed,” Mayon said. “When I saw the head I knew it was him.” Mayon was getting nervous. To complicate things, his scope was set to its highest magnification and he could find the deer in the scope. He adjusted his scope and found an opening where the buck would pass. “I picked a little spot between two trees about 24 inches wide and as soon as I saw brown I put the crosshairs on him and squeezed the trigger,” Mayon said.
I’m not going to spoil the ending because you should really check out Brian Broom’s original reporting for the rest of the story about Mayon and Hightower, but honestly, the big takeaway for me wasn’t whether or not the hunt for Hightower was successful. No, what stands out to me is the intensity of his pursuit because I’ve never experienced anything like that as a hunter, going after the same animal year after year after year.
Heck, I’ve never encountered a monster buck on my property, and honestly, you’re not going to find any Hightowers in my part of rural Virginia. The closest I’ve come to having that same obsession over a particular animal would be my sporadic attempts over the past two spring turkey seasons to get a good shot at one of the toms who make regular appearances on the edge of one of the pastures. They seem to know exactly where to position themselves so that I can’t get off a safe shot, and I swear their gobbles have taken on a mocking tone as the months have gone on.
Even though I’ve come up empty-handed, however, I’ve still benefited from the experience. Sure, I get to practice both patience and perseverance, but I also get to spend time outdoors focused on nothing but the environment surrounding me. In this day and age of constant connectivity, it’s a genuine blessing to spend time looking at gently sloping fields and the edge of the spring woods instead of a computer screen. I’ve spied my neighbor’s Black Angus calves frolicking across a newly green pasture in the morning sun, heard the dogwoods and the black walnut trees come alive with the sharp tap-tap-tap of red-headed woodpeckers searching for a meal, and a hundred other hum-drum experiences that are anything but banal and ordinary when you’re in the moment.
Most states have just concluded one of the best deer seasons in quite a few years in terms of hunter participation. While few of those who headed out to a tree stand or blind for the very first time (or just the first time in a long time) were able to take a shot at a buck the size of Hightower, they didn’t need to have a Shane Mayon moment to make some lasting memories. Many of them were able to fill their freezer, spend time with family and friends, and spend a few hours a little more engaged with the world around them than the smartphone typically in front of their face. Monster buck or not that seems like a pretty good time to me.


bearingarms--2020-12-22--Understanding The Problems With "No Fly, No Buy" Proposals

The idea of banning anyone on the “ No Fly ” list from buying a firearm first gained popularity under President Barack Obama .
The idea espoused to the public is that no one wants terrorists to buy guns , so by restricting anyone on the “ No Fly ” list from purchasing a firearm , we ’ d be thwarting potential terrorist attacks on American soil .
The problem is that the “ No Fly ” list has no due process attached to it .
It ’ s really nothing more than a list of names of people the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of these are fairly common names .
As it ’ s applied in the airports , even young children are barred from boarding an airplane because their name is on a list .
Clearly , these kids aren ’ t a threat to national security .
And yet , some lawmakers wanted to use this to strip thousands of Americans of their gun rights , most of whom had done nothing wrong .
With President-Elect Joe Biden set to take office , we may see a return of this idea .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Supreme Court ruling this month , Tanzin v. Tamvir , No .
19-71 , offers a few valuable insights into the “ No Fly , No Buy ” gun control proposal championed by the Obama administration , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton , and Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown group , among others .
As a case in point , Tanzin v. Tamvir provides a concrete illustration of the many iniquities the use of the “ No Fly ” watchlist wreaks on innocent people .
The lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents placed them on the “ No Fly ” list in retaliation for their refusal to act as FBI informants and spy on their religious communities .
The evidence before the Court was that all of the plaintiffs are either citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States .
There was no suggestion that the men , their families , or their friends were suspected of terrorism or indeed , involvement in any criminal activity , and none “ poses , has ever posed , or has ever been accused of posing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Throughout most of the initial court proceedings , the government refused to confirm that the men were on the watchlist , provide the basis for their inclusion , or “ give them a meaningful opportunity to refute their designations.
” The initial court filings in 2013 detail repeated visits and calls in which FBI agents harassed and intimidated the plaintiffs – among other things , by demanding or performing lie-detector tests , questioning family members , and asking about gun use .
In one instance , FBI agents allegedly made an unannounced visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that his efforts to get congressional assistance regarding watchlist removal ( including help from Senator Chuck Schumer ) were pointless : “ Congressmen can ’ t do shit for you ; we ’ re the only ones who can take you off the list.
” It was only after the plaintiffs sued and four days before the argument date at the district court that they were notified they had been removed from the “ No Fly ” list .
FBI agents reportedly told the individual that Congress couldn ’ t do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the watch list .
Now , let ’ s keep in mind just how politicized the FBI has become .
Few on the political right actually trust the FBI to any significant degree .
Not as an organization .
With the way parts of the FBI seemed to declare their own jihad against President Donald Trump , it ’ s clear to many that there ’ s a leftward lean in the bureau .
And you want some expect us to trust them to keep a fair list ?
It ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is to get removed from the “ No Fly ” list and just how easily you can be put on there .
This is a man who reportedly just refused to be an FBI informant .
Even if there was significant terrorist activity as his mosque–something that doesn ’ t seem to be the case–refusing to be an informant is still within an individual ’ s rights .
Further , trying to get off the list led to clear cases of intimidation by FBI agents .
How long before gun owners will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their gun groups for FBI agents ?
How many will be told to start hanging out at gun stores and report back to FBI handlers or risk losing their gun rights ?
Let ’ s be honest , they can justify whatever they want by saying they ’ re investigating domestic terrorism and make it look legit .
Meanwhile , law-abiding Americans may have their names added to a list , all because they won ’ t spy on their friends .
Without some mechanisms for not just finding out you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding out how to get off of it , there ’ s no way such a list should even be considered for such a thing .
Even then , I ’ d still oppose it , of course , but at least then it would create the illusion they respect our Second Amendment rights .
As it is , it ’ s just another excuse to create more prohibited people for no valid reason .

The idea of banning anyone on the “No Fly” list from buying a firearm first gained popularity under President Barack Obama. The idea espoused to the public is that no one wants terrorists to buy guns, so by restricting anyone on the “No Fly” list from purchasing a firearm, we’d be thwarting potential terrorist attacks on American soil.
The problem is that the “No Fly” list has no due process attached to it. It’s really nothing more than a list of names of people the federal government believes to be terrorists. Some of these are fairly common names. As it’s applied in the airports, even young children are barred from boarding an airplane because their name is on a list.
Clearly, these kids aren’t a threat to national security.
And yet, some lawmakers wanted to use this to strip thousands of Americans of their gun rights, most of whom had done nothing wrong. With President-Elect Joe Biden set to take office, we may see a return of this idea. And that’s a huge problem.
A Supreme Court ruling this month, Tanzin v. Tamvir, No. 19-71, offers a few valuable insights into the “No Fly, No Buy” gun control proposal championed by the Obama administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group, among others. … As a case in point, Tanzin v. Tamvir provides a concrete illustration of the many iniquities the use of the “No Fly” watchlist wreaks on innocent people. The lawsuit involved practicing Muslims who claimed that FBI agents placed them on the “No Fly” list in retaliation for their refusal to act as FBI informants and spy on their religious communities. The evidence before the Court was that all of the plaintiffs are either citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. There was no suggestion that the men, their families, or their friends were suspected of terrorism or indeed, involvement in any criminal activity, and none “poses, has ever posed, or has ever been accused of posing, a threat to aviation security.” Throughout most of the initial court proceedings, the government refused to confirm that the men were on the watchlist, provide the basis for their inclusion, or “give them a meaningful opportunity to refute their designations.” The initial court filings in 2013 detail repeated visits and calls in which FBI agents harassed and intimidated the plaintiffs – among other things, by demanding or performing lie-detector tests, questioning family members, and asking about gun use. In one instance, FBI agents allegedly made an unannounced visit to one of the men to tell him that his efforts to get congressional assistance regarding watchlist removal (including help from Senator Chuck Schumer) were pointless: “Congressmen can’t do shit for you; we’re the only ones who can take you off the list.” It was only after the plaintiffs sued and four days before the argument date at the district court that they were notified they had been removed from the “No Fly” list.
FBI agents reportedly told the individual that Congress couldn’t do anything for them, that the FBI controlled the watch list.
Now, let’s keep in mind just how politicized the FBI has become. Few on the political right actually trust the FBI to any significant degree. Not as an organization. With the way parts of the FBI seemed to declare their own jihad against President Donald Trump, it’s clear to many that there’s a leftward lean in the bureau.
And you want some expect us to trust them to keep a fair list?
No, sorry.
It’s clear from this court case just how hard it is to get removed from the “No Fly” list and just how easily you can be put on there. This is a man who reportedly just refused to be an FBI informant. Even if there was significant terrorist activity as his mosque–something that doesn’t seem to be the case–refusing to be an informant is still within an individual’s rights.
Further, trying to get off the list led to clear cases of intimidation by FBI agents.
How long before gun owners will be told they need to start spying on their gun groups for FBI agents? How many will be told to start hanging out at gun stores and report back to FBI handlers or risk losing their gun rights? Let’s be honest, they can justify whatever they want by saying they’re investigating domestic terrorism and make it look legit.
Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans may have their names added to a list, all because they won’t spy on their friends.
Without some mechanisms for not just finding out you’re on the list but also for finding out how to get off of it, there’s no way such a list should even be considered for such a thing. Even then, I’d still oppose it, of course, but at least then it would create the illusion they respect our Second Amendment rights.
As it is, it’s just another excuse to create more prohibited people for no valid reason.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--BREAKING: ATF Doc Suspends Proposed Pistol Brace Guidance

After receiving more than 50,000 comments in just a matter of days , the Bureau of Alcohol , Firearms , Tobacco , and Explosives appears to be putting its proposed guidance on pistol stabilizing braces on ice , at least for the time being .
In a document posted to the ATF ’ s website on Wednesday afternoon , associate deputy director Marvin Richardson wrote : Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General , ATF is withdrawing , pending further Department of Justice review , the notice and request for comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ‘ Stabilizing Braces ’ , ” that was published on December 18 , 2020 .
85 FR 82516 .
As explained in the notice , the proposed guidance was not a regulation .
The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document .
The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law , regulation , or other legally binding requirement .
The withdrawal won ’ t be official until it appears in the Federal Register , which could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Christmas holidays , but at the moment it appears the proposed guidance has been paused .
So where does that leave the issue of whether or not firearms equipped with pistol braces are going to be considered short barreled rifles that must be registered under the National Firearms Act ?
It ’ s unclear , honestly .
The problem is that the ATF has basically been using the “ we know it when we see it ” approach for years now , rather than establishing a clear set of guidelines for pistol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re in compliance with the law .
That hasn ’ t changed , even with the ATF ’ s withdrawal of the proposed guidance .
The agency has taken the first step by suspending the proposed guidance , which also would have established an amnesty for all gun owners to register their firearms equipped with pistol braces , but now it needs to follow through by actually working with the industry to come up with the clear standards that they ’ ve been asking for .
The response from gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more than what the agency was expecting .
As I mentioned on Twitter today , comments were pouring in to the ATF even faster than they did when the agency tried to ban green tip ammo back in 2015 .
If you ’ re reading this and submitted your comment to the ATF , thank you .
There ’ s no doubt in my mind that the response from the 2A community made an impact .
I was planning on writing a story tomorrow about a comment submitted by Ryan Petty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018 .
If you don ’ t know Ryan , you might think that his comment was going to be all in favor of the ATF ’ s vague and arbitrary guidance that the agency had proposed , but that ’ s not the case .
Ryan is a firm believer in the right of armed self-defense and our right to keep and bear arms , and even though the ATF appears to be putting the guidance on hold , I still think his comment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thank him for sharing it with me .
“ Losing my daughter Alaina in the Parkland school attack gave me a voice in the debate surrounding the Second Amendment .
As a Commissioner tasked with investigating the tragedy , it was immediately clear that no infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners would have changed the events of that day .
The latest proposed ATF regulations will do nothing to improve the safety or security of Americans .
We must be vigilant against those that would take our liberties while offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Again , thank you to the Second Amendment community for your vigilance .
Our job isn ’ t done and the fight isn ’ t over , however .
As the ATF stated , they could reschedule this guidance after that “ further review ” by the DOJ , and it ’ s entirely possible that the proposed guidance gets reintroduced after Joe Biden ’ s pick for Attorney General takes over the job .
We ’ ll continue to keep a close watch on what ’ s happening with the proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ update on Monday ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co .

After receiving more than 50,000 comments in just a matter of days, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives appears to be putting its proposed guidance on pistol stabilizing braces on ice, at least for the time being. In a document posted to the ATF’s website on Wednesday afternoon, associate deputy director Marvin Richardson wrote:
Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the proposed guidance was not a regulation. The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document. The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement.
The withdrawal won’t be official until it appears in the Federal Register, which could take a couple of days thanks to the Christmas holidays, but at the moment it appears the proposed guidance has been paused. So where does that leave the issue of whether or not firearms equipped with pistol braces are going to be considered short barreled rifles that must be registered under the National Firearms Act? It’s unclear, honestly.
The problem is that the ATF has basically been using the “we know it when we see it” approach for years now, rather than establishing a clear set of guidelines for pistol brace makers and gun owners to know if they’re in compliance with the law.
That hasn’t changed, even with the ATF’s withdrawal of the proposed guidance. The agency has taken the first step by suspending the proposed guidance, which also would have established an amnesty for all gun owners to register their firearms equipped with pistol braces, but now it needs to follow through by actually working with the industry to come up with the clear standards that they’ve been asking for.
The response from gun owners to the proposed rule was clearly far more than what the agency was expecting. As I mentioned on Twitter today, comments were pouring in to the ATF even faster than they did when the agency tried to ban green tip ammo back in 2015.
At this rate, the number of comments will dwarf the 80K received over the ATF’s attempt to ban green tip ammo in 2015, despite the public comment period being almost two weeks shorter than it was five years ago. https://t.co/g73UOj4FQx — Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) December 23, 2020
If you’re reading this and submitted your comment to the ATF, thank you. There’s no doubt in my mind that the response from the 2A community made an impact.
I was planning on writing a story tomorrow about a comment submitted by Ryan Petty, whose daughter was murdered in the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. If you don’t know Ryan, you might think that his comment was going to be all in favor of the ATF’s vague and arbitrary guidance that the agency had proposed, but that’s not the case. Ryan is a firm believer in the right of armed self-defense and our right to keep and bear arms, and even though the ATF appears to be putting the guidance on hold, I still think his comment is worth sharing in its entirety, and I thank him for sharing it with me.
“Losing my daughter Alaina in the Parkland school attack gave me a voice in the debate surrounding the Second Amendment. As a Commissioner tasked with investigating the tragedy, it was immediately clear that no infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners would have changed the events of that day. The latest proposed ATF regulations will do nothing to improve the safety or security of Americans. We must be vigilant against those that would take our liberties while offering nothing more than the illusion of safety.”
Again, thank you to the Second Amendment community for your vigilance. Our job isn’t done and the fight isn’t over, however. As the ATF stated, they could reschedule this guidance after that “further review” by the DOJ, and it’s entirely possible that the proposed guidance gets reintroduced after Joe Biden’s pick for Attorney General takes over the job. We’ll continue to keep a close watch on what’s happening with the proposed guidance, and look for an extensive update on Monday’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Man Shot And Killed In Defensive Gun Use At Gun Range

I ’ ve covered Second Amendment issues , including defensive uses of a firearm , on a full-time basis for almost 17 years now , and while I ’ ve seen more than a few armed citizen stories involving owners or employees of gun stores who ’ ve used their firearms in self-defense while on the job , this is the first defensive gun use at a gun range that I can recall .
Pennsylvania state troopers say a man opened fire on his friend at a state-owned gun range in Greene Township on Tuesday , striking him several times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing the original attacker .
Police say an investigation revealed that Robert Eppley was shooting downrange before he turned and started shooting at a 28-year-old man from Erie .
Police say a 67-year-old Erie man allegedly saw what was happening and opened fire on Eppley , who was shot multiple times and died at the scene .
Officials say the 28-year-old man is being treated for multiple gunshot wounds at a hospital , and the 67-year-old man was taken into custody for questioning .
He was later released His name and the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released .
No charges were immediately announced .
I can ’ t imagine that the 67-year old is going to be facing any charges here .
He not only saved the 28-year old ’ s life by stopping the attack , but potentially others as well .
Police say that not only were the two friends at the range , but they had their girlfriends with them too .
The couples had apparently driven separately to the range , and so far , anyway , no eyewitnesses have described any argument or confrontation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Eppley ’ s motivation was , so it ’ s possible he would have stopped after killing his friend .
It ’ s also quite possible he would have tried to take the lives of others as well .
The 67-year old who watched Eppely turn on his friend after firing five rounds down range didn ’ t freeze up or run away .
He saw the threat to human life and eliminated it .
If Gov .
Tom Wolf wasn ’ t such an anti-gun dingus he ’ d give this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll likely just ignore this story or even use it as an excuse to call for more gun control laws in the state .
Thankfully the man Eppley shot is already out of the hospital and is expected to fully recover , though I ’ m sure that for all four individuals it ’ s going to take a long time to truly get over what happened on Tuesday .
It ’ s a tragic situation , but not nearly as tragic as it could have been , thanks to the presence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 67-year old life-saver .

I’ve covered Second Amendment issues, including defensive uses of a firearm, on a full-time basis for almost 17 years now, and while I’ve seen more than a few armed citizen stories involving owners or employees of gun stores who’ve used their firearms in self-defense while on the job, this is the first defensive gun use at a gun range that I can recall.
Pennsylvania state troopers say a man opened fire on his friend at a state-owned gun range in Greene Township on Tuesday, striking him several times before another range-goer intervened, shooting and killing the original attacker.
Police say an investigation revealed that Robert Eppley was shooting downrange before he turned and started shooting at a 28-year-old man from Erie. Police say a 67-year-old Erie man allegedly saw what was happening and opened fire on Eppley, who was shot multiple times and died at the scene. Officials say the 28-year-old man is being treated for multiple gunshot wounds at a hospital, and the 67-year-old man was taken into custody for questioning. He was later released His name and the name of the wounded man weren’t released. No charges were immediately announced.
I can’t imagine that the 67-year old is going to be facing any charges here. He not only saved the 28-year old’s life by stopping the attack, but potentially others as well. Police say that not only were the two friends at the range, but they had their girlfriends with them too. The couples had apparently driven separately to the range, and so far, anyway, no eyewitnesses have described any argument or confrontation beforehand.
We don’t know what Eppley’s motivation was, so it’s possible he would have stopped after killing his friend. It’s also quite possible he would have tried to take the lives of others as well. The 67-year old who watched Eppely turn on his friend after firing five rounds down range didn’t freeze up or run away. He saw the threat to human life and eliminated it. If Gov. Tom Wolf wasn’t such an anti-gun dingus he’d give this man a medal, but he’ll likely just ignore this story or even use it as an excuse to call for more gun control laws in the state.
Thankfully the man Eppley shot is already out of the hospital and is expected to fully recover, though I’m sure that for all four individuals it’s going to take a long time to truly get over what happened on Tuesday. It’s a tragic situation, but not nearly as tragic as it could have been, thanks to the presence of mind, quick reaction, and marksmanship of the 67-year old life-saver.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Del. Kirk Cox On His Run For Governor And Dems' Gun Ban Plans

Earlier today we reported that Virginia Democrats are backing away from their plans to pass a gun , magazine , and suppressor ban in the 2021 legislative session , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co Delegate Kirk Cox joins the show with his reaction to the news , as well as a conversation about why Cox is running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination and why he believes that he ’ s the best candidate to unify the state ’ s somewhat fractured party .
Cox says that he ’ s pleased that Democrats are apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 , but he ’ s also right when he notes that the lawmakers who voted in favor of Northam ’ s ban when it came up for vote in the legislature earlier this year haven ’ t changed their mind on the issue .
Instead , they ’ re trying to avoid gun control as a campaign issue in 2021 , but Cox says if Democrats are successful in keeping control of the state House and the governor ’ s mansion they ’ ll be back with their ban in 2022 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s correct about that .
As for his gubernatorial agenda , Cox tells me that he wants to repeal the gun control laws that were enacted by Democrats in 2020 , but cautions that until Republicans are able to take control of the state Senate ( which won ’ t happen until at least 2023 ) it ’ s unlikely that there ’ ll be enough votes in legislature to roll back the laws already in place .
If Republicans win the governorship in 2021 and manage to capture the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contend with a divided legislature , which would be good in terms of preventing more bad gun control laws from going on the books but would also make it difficult to pass pro-Second Amendment legislation as well .
This was a wide ranging interview and conversation , so I encourage you to check out the whole thing in the video window above , even if you ’ re not a Virginian .
The political fights in the commonwealth next year are going to be a preview of what we can expect in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisions in both the Republican and Democrat parties at the national level are mirrored in the fractures on the Right and the Left in Virginia politics as well .
To that end , I asked Cox , who ’ s entering his 32nd year in the legislature , why Virginia gun owners should go with an “ establishment ” pick as opposed to someone running as an outsider .
The former state House Speaker responded by asserting that Republicans should want someone who knows how the system works and can actually get things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have surgery you ’ d want someone with experience performing the operation , not just someone whose diagnosis you agree with .
From gun control and marijuana legalization to Medicaid expansion the role of a citizen legislature , we covered a lot of ground in a half hour , and I appreciate Cox for spending the time with me .
As an FYI , I ’ ve also extended an invitation to state Senator Amanda Chase , who ’ s Cox ’ s primary rival for the GOP nomination , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she would run as independent after the state ’ s Republican Party announced that the gubernatorial candidate would be chosen at a convention comprised of delegates instead of a primary open to all voters , but walked back her decision a few days later , saying she realizes that an independent campaign would assure a split among Republican voters and guarantee a Democratic retention of the governor ’ s mansion .
I ’ ve also asked Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s press office for an interview with the governor regarding his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not holding my breath waiting for a response .
I ’ d love to have him as a guest on Cam & Co in the future , but something tells me that his schedule is just going to be so busy over the next few months that he won ’ t be able to make it work .
Ah , who am I kidding ?
I won ’ t even get a response from his press office .
The only time anti-gun politicians like Northam pay attention to gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrict their right to keep and bear arms .

Earlier today we reported that Virginia Democrats are backing away from their plans to pass a gun, magazine, and suppressor ban in the 2021 legislative session, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co Delegate Kirk Cox joins the show with his reaction to the news, as well as a conversation about why Cox is running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination and why he believes that he’s the best candidate to unify the state’s somewhat fractured party.
Cox says that he’s pleased that Democrats are apparently getting gun-shy about pushing gun control in 2021, but he’s also right when he notes that the lawmakers who voted in favor of Northam’s ban when it came up for vote in the legislature earlier this year haven’t changed their mind on the issue.
Instead, they’re trying to avoid gun control as a campaign issue in 2021, but Cox says if Democrats are successful in keeping control of the state House and the governor’s mansion they’ll be back with their ban in 2022, and I have no doubt that he’s correct about that.
As for his gubernatorial agenda, Cox tells me that he wants to repeal the gun control laws that were enacted by Democrats in 2020, but cautions that until Republicans are able to take control of the state Senate (which won’t happen until at least 2023) it’s unlikely that there’ll be enough votes in legislature to roll back the laws already in place. If Republicans win the governorship in 2021 and manage to capture the House, the governor is still going have to contend with a divided legislature, which would be good in terms of preventing more bad gun control laws from going on the books but would also make it difficult to pass pro-Second Amendment legislation as well.
This was a wide ranging interview and conversation, so I encourage you to check out the whole thing in the video window above, even if you’re not a Virginian. The political fights in the commonwealth next year are going to be a preview of what we can expect in the 2022 federal midterm elections, and the divisions in both the Republican and Democrat parties at the national level are mirrored in the fractures on the Right and the Left in Virginia politics as well.
To that end, I asked Cox, who’s entering his 32nd year in the legislature, why Virginia gun owners should go with an “establishment” pick as opposed to someone running as an outsider. The former state House Speaker responded by asserting that Republicans should want someone who knows how the system works and can actually get things done, noting that if you had to have surgery you’d want someone with experience performing the operation, not just someone whose diagnosis you agree with.
From gun control and marijuana legalization to Medicaid expansion the role of a citizen legislature, we covered a lot of ground in a half hour, and I appreciate Cox for spending the time with me.
As an FYI, I’ve also extended an invitation to state Senator Amanda Chase, who’s Cox’s primary rival for the GOP nomination, at least at the moment. Chase had declared that she would run as independent after the state’s Republican Party announced that the gubernatorial candidate would be chosen at a convention comprised of delegates instead of a primary open to all voters, but walked back her decision a few days later, saying she realizes that an independent campaign would assure a split among Republican voters and guarantee a Democratic retention of the governor’s mansion.
I’ve also asked Gov. Ralph Northam’s press office for an interview with the governor regarding his about-face on his gun ban, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response. I’d love to have him as a guest on Cam & Co in the future, but something tells me that his schedule is just going to be so busy over the next few months that he won’t be able to make it work. Ah, who am I kidding? I won’t even get a response from his press office. The only time anti-gun politicians like Northam pay attention to gun owners is when he’s trying to restrict their right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Anti-Gunners Blasts NRA Over Joke

Anti-Gunners Blasts NRA Over Joke

Within any community , there are bound to be some jokes shared by those within the community .
Those in-jokes help people feel like they ’ re part of the community .
Even if the jokes aren ’ t particularly funny , they ’ re still shared on some level by the community .
Even those who don ’ t agree with the jokes at least understand them .
Yet for those outside of the community , well…they don ’ t always look like jokes .
Sometimes , though , some folks want to go out of their way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s what some folks did with a joke shared by the National Rifle Association .
It looks like some people need to ask Santa for a sense of humor .
Theirs ’ is obviously either missing or broken .
First , people don ’ t open other people ’ s Christmas presents as a general rule .
As such , Junior wouldn ’ t be likely to open Mom or Dad ’ s presents .
If one of them bought a firearm and wrapped it as “ from Santa , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Junior open it .
I mean , for crying out loud .
One of the in-jokes within the firearm community is about having to overcome spousal resistance to purchase firearms .
It ’ s a long-running gag with some gun stores supposedly offering you a second receipt that says the gun costs what you told your wife it cost rather than what actually cost .
It ’ s a joke .
This is just a Christmas variation on that gag .
I mean , anyone with half a brain knows that all it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep your spouse from saying anything in front of the kids .
Behind closed doors , though , all bets are off .
Honestly , anyone with half a brain knows it ’ s a joke .
For the humorless scolds out there , people who like guns aren ’ t allowed to joke about anything , ever .
I ’ m pretty sure the memes about losing guns in boating accidents would cause them to stroke out .
Like they always say , f*** ’ em if they can ’ t take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what I ’ ve seen of this crowd , there ’ s not nearly enough alcohol on the planet to make me do that .

Within any community, there are bound to be some jokes shared by those within the community. Those in-jokes help people feel like they’re part of the community. Even if the jokes aren’t particularly funny, they’re still shared on some level by the community. Even those who don’t agree with the jokes at least understand them.
Yet for those outside of the community, well…they don’t always look like jokes.
Sometimes, though, some folks want to go out of their way to take a joke out of context. That’s what some folks did with a joke shared by the National Rifle Association.
The National Rifle Association has urged Americans to wraps guns for under the tree this Christmas. The gun rights advocacy group posted a picture of a sparkling handgun in a festive gift box to its Twitter account. And it gave its 895,000 followers a seemingly tongue-in-cheek “pro-tip” on how to get a weapon this Christmas if their husband, wife or partner is against the idea. “Buy the gun you want. Wrap it and mark it from Santa. Your spouse will have to along with it or they’ll ruin Christmas for the kids,” they tweeted. Social media users were quick to attack the group for the advert. “Can you find *one* reputable gun safety expert who thinks a box with a handgun and some loose bullets in a gift-wrapped box under the Christmas tree, placed amongst gifts that are presumably toys for Santa-believing aged children, is responsible gun ownership? Just one?” tweeted a user called WellRegulatedMilitia.
It looks like some people need to ask Santa for a sense of humor. Theirs’ is obviously either missing or broken.
First, people don’t open other people’s Christmas presents as a general rule. As such, Junior wouldn’t be likely to open Mom or Dad’s presents. If one of them bought a firearm and wrapped it as “from Santa,” they’re not going to let Junior open it.
I mean, for crying out loud.
One of the in-jokes within the firearm community is about having to overcome spousal resistance to purchase firearms. It’s a long-running gag with some gun stores supposedly offering you a second receipt that says the gun costs what you told your wife it cost rather than what actually cost. It’s a joke.
This is just a Christmas variation on that gag. I mean, anyone with half a brain knows that all it would do, at most, is keep your spouse from saying anything in front of the kids. Behind closed doors, though, all bets are off.
Honestly, anyone with half a brain knows it’s a joke.
For the humorless scolds out there, people who like guns aren’t allowed to joke about anything, ever. I’m pretty sure the memes about losing guns in boating accidents would cause them to stroke out.
Like they always say, f*** ’em if they can’t take a joke. Of course, based on what I’ve seen of this crowd, there’s not nearly enough alcohol on the planet to make me do that.


bearingarms--2020-12-23--Increased Gun Sales Mean Increased Gun Stores

The Law of Supply and Demand isn ’ t a suggestion .
It is a hard and fast fact of economic life .
The way supply and demand work is well understood by economists and while some like to think it can be subverted or ignored , it really can ’ t .
They think that if you just pass a few more laws , the laws of economics will take a back seat to the laws of men .
One thing that does happen as a general thing is that if you have high demand , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase the supply .
Right now , the demand for guns is increasing and some are trying to help increase the available supply in some places .
Once indifferent to the world of guns , an instructor said he found ample opportunity to open up a business when firearms purchases and pistol permits soared .
“ I never thought I would be doing this .
It just kind of just fell into place , ” said Joshua Serafino , owner of Lock N ’ Load , a firearms academy located at 1573 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really into ( firearms ) , never was really against them.
” Not until a friend of his encouraged him to obtain his carrying license did he find the notion of guns appealing .
He said he reserved a particular fondness for the Beretta M9 , once a primary sidearm for the U.S. military .
He gradually pursued various certifications for teaching classes , but it was a peripheral interest .
He was working as a security technician full-time .
When COVID-19 broke out , the demand for pistol-permit classes increased along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for about a month and a half at one point running classes five days a week , ” said Serafino .
“ Then my next thought process was : ‘ Why am I sending all these students to other gun stores when I can send them to myself.
’ ” Serafino is not alone .
A number of other people are either opening gun stores or at least exploring whether it ’ s feasible to do so themselves .
This is , of course , good for gun buyers .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s also good for the industry as it creates more outlets for people to meet their needs .
While some will decry this , it ’ s important to remember that communities benefit from these openings .
Oh , sure , I can go into all the ways more guns help a community , but we all know there will be those who dismiss them out of hand .
So , instead , let ’ s talk about how new businesses pay taxes to their local government .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They pay employees which helps spur economic growth .
They rent facilities and pay for utilities , all of which also help fuel the economy .
In every way , gun stores benefit local communities well beyond the Second Amendment arguments .
Frankly , with what we ’ ve seen in increased gun sales this year , I ’ m not surprised to see more gun stores open .
It was only a matter of time before someone stepped in to meet that demand .

The Law of Supply and Demand isn’t a suggestion. It is a hard and fast fact of economic life. The way supply and demand work is well understood by economists and while some like to think it can be subverted or ignored, it really can’t. They think that if you just pass a few more laws, the laws of economics will take a back seat to the laws of men.
They don’t.
One thing that does happen as a general thing is that if you have high demand, and it’s feasible, someone else will try to increase the supply.
Right now, the demand for guns is increasing and some are trying to help increase the available supply in some places.
Once indifferent to the world of guns, an instructor said he found ample opportunity to open up a business when firearms purchases and pistol permits soared. “I never thought I would be doing this. It just kind of just fell into place,” said Joshua Serafino, owner of Lock N’ Load, a firearms academy located at 1573 Meriden-Waterbury Turnpike. “I was never really into (firearms), never was really against them.” Not until a friend of his encouraged him to obtain his carrying license did he find the notion of guns appealing. He said he reserved a particular fondness for the Beretta M9, once a primary sidearm for the U.S. military. He gradually pursued various certifications for teaching classes, but it was a peripheral interest. He was working as a security technician full-time. When COVID-19 broke out, the demand for pistol-permit classes increased along with firearms purchases. “I was sold out for about a month and a half at one point running classes five days a week,” said Serafino. “Then my next thought process was: ‘Why am I sending all these students to other gun stores when I can send them to myself.’”
Makes sense to me.
Serafino is not alone. A number of other people are either opening gun stores or at least exploring whether it’s feasible to do so themselves. This is, of course, good for gun buyers. After all, competition is good for the consumer, but it’s also good for the industry as it creates more outlets for people to meet their needs.
While some will decry this, it’s important to remember that communities benefit from these openings.
Oh, sure, I can go into all the ways more guns help a community, but we all know there will be those who dismiss them out of hand. So, instead, let’s talk about how new businesses pay taxes to their local government. They generate sales tax revenue as well. They pay employees which helps spur economic growth. They rent facilities and pay for utilities, all of which also help fuel the economy.
In every way, gun stores benefit local communities well beyond the Second Amendment arguments.
Frankly, with what we’ve seen in increased gun sales this year, I’m not surprised to see more gun stores open. It was only a matter of time before someone stepped in to meet that demand.