bearingarms--2020-06-24--GOA Alleges VA State Police Running Illegal Background Checks

On Tuesday , we reported on a new lawsuit filed in Virginia that takes on the state ’ s new universal background check law , which is scheduled to take effect on July 1st .
The lawsuit is being brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America , along with several individual plaintiffs , and seeks an injunction blocking the law from going into effect on July 1st .
Already in Virginia private transfers conducted at gun shows in the state can go through background checks if private sellers volunteer to do so , but contained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about the legality of that process .
Back in 2015 , Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring decided that he was going to unilaterally end concealed carry recognition with dozens of states , which caused a major backlash from gun owners in Virginia and neighboring states .
Governor Terry McAuliffe , always eager to appear to be moderate , crafted an agreement with the ( at the time ) Republican controlled legislature .
In exchange for what amounts to universal recognition of other states ’ concealed carry licenses , the legislature signed off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun shows .
SB 715 sailed through the legislature , and while few checks have been conducted in the years since , it ’ s been an option for those who want to use it .
As outlined in the lawsuit , and in a new column by GOA ’ s Erich Pratt , the Virginia State Police apparently never had the legal authority to run those voluntary checks .
Apparently realizing that S.B .
715 ’ s private background checks could not be implemented under federal law , the administration of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General began to scheme with the FBI , under its anti-gun Director James Comey , to find a way to end-run the federal prohibition on NICS checks for private sales .
From November 2015 to January of 2016 , the VSP and the FBI exchanged a series of emails , which were recently obtained by Gun Owners of America through a state records request .
In those nonpublic emails , the FBI advised Virginia that it could not approve use of the NICS System for a private “ voluntary background check , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call the background check a “ permit ” system for the buyer — which it ’ s clearly not — then the FBI could approve VSP ’ s use of the NICS System under the federal exception for NICS checks for “ issuance of a firearm-related … permit or license.
” 28 C.F.R .
§ 25.6 ( j ) ( 1 ) .
Of course , S.B .
715 neither establishes nor requires a “ permit ” or a “ license ” to conduct a sale between private parties , but those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the English language , the McAuliffe administration drafted an Executive Order to create — out of thin air — a “ special permit ” to run a “ voluntary background check.
” Tada !
Problem solved ?
VSP asked the FBI if the draft Executive Order and the proposed “ special permit program ” would qualify for the federal exemption .
On January 4 , 2016 , the FBI replied that such a “ permit ” system would qualify , but that “ Virginia … will have to determine whether its law allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Executive Order.
” Unbelievably , after Comey ’ s FBI signed off on the nonsensical “ special permit program ” as long as the state approved the establishment of such a program via an executive order , McAuliffe failed to actually issue the EO .
Pratt says that means that for the past four years , any voluntary background check performed by the Virginia State Police has been illegal , though law enforcement from the FBI on down have apparently turned a blind eye to it .
These voluntary checks will go away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check law takes effect on July 1st , but McAuliffe , current governor Ralph Northam , and the Virginia State Police still owe gun owners an explanation .
At the moment , it sure looks like these gun control advocates haven ’ t been willing to follow the law , even though that ’ s what they demand of gun owners in the state .

On Tuesday, we reported on a new lawsuit filed in Virginia that takes on the state’s new universal background check law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1st. The lawsuit is being brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America, along with several individual plaintiffs, and seeks an injunction blocking the law from going into effect on July 1st. Already in Virginia private transfers conducted at gun shows in the state can go through background checks if private sellers volunteer to do so, but contained within the new lawsuit is some stunning information about the legality of that process.
Back in 2015, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring decided that he was going to unilaterally end concealed carry recognition with dozens of states, which caused a major backlash from gun owners in Virginia and neighboring states. Governor Terry McAuliffe, always eager to appear to be moderate, crafted an agreement with the (at the time) Republican controlled legislature. In exchange for what amounts to universal recognition of other states’ concealed carry licenses, the legislature signed off on the voluntary background checks at Virginia gun shows. SB 715 sailed through the legislature, and while few checks have been conducted in the years since, it’s been an option for those who want to use it.
As outlined in the lawsuit, and in a new column by GOA’s Erich Pratt, the Virginia State Police apparently never had the legal authority to run those voluntary checks.
Apparently realizing that S.B. 715’s private background checks could not be implemented under federal law, the administration of Virginia’s anti-gun Democrat Governor and Attorney General began to scheme with the FBI, under its anti-gun Director James Comey, to find a way to end-run the federal prohibition on NICS checks for private sales. From November 2015 to January of 2016, the VSP and the FBI exchanged a series of emails, which were recently obtained by Gun Owners of America through a state records request. In those nonpublic emails, the FBI advised Virginia that it could not approve use of the NICS System for a private “voluntary background check,” but if VSP would instead agree to call the background check a “permit” system for the buyer — which it’s clearly not — then the FBI could approve VSP’s use of the NICS System under the federal exception for NICS checks for “issuance of a firearm-related … permit or license.” 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(j)(1). Of course, S.B. 715 neither establishes nor requires a “permit” or a “license” to conduct a sale between private parties, but those are “just words.” Getting cutesy with the English language, the McAuliffe administration drafted an Executive Order to create — out of thin air — a “special permit” to run a “voluntary background check.” Tada! Problem solved? VSP asked the FBI if the draft Executive Order and the proposed “special permit program” would qualify for the federal exemption. On January 4, 2016, the FBI replied that such a “permit” system would qualify, but that “Virginia … will have to determine whether its law allows the establishment of a firearms-related permit by Executive Order.”
Unbelievably, after Comey’s FBI signed off on the nonsensical “special permit program” as long as the state approved the establishment of such a program via an executive order, McAuliffe failed to actually issue the EO. Pratt says that means that for the past four years, any voluntary background check performed by the Virginia State Police has been illegal, though law enforcement from the FBI on down have apparently turned a blind eye to it.
These voluntary checks will go away if the state’s universal background check law takes effect on July 1st, but McAuliffe, current governor Ralph Northam, and the Virginia State Police still owe gun owners an explanation. At the moment, it sure looks like these gun control advocates haven’t been willing to follow the law, even though that’s what they demand of gun owners in the state.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--LA County Sheriff Promises Increase In Concealed Carry Licenses

Los Angeles County is home to more than ten million people , but only a few hundred county residents have been able to acquire a concealed carry license , thanks to the sheriff ’ s policy requiring applicants to demonstrate “ good cause ” for carrying a firearm .
Self-defense isn ’ t seen as a legitimate reason in LA County .
Neither is the fact that the Second Amendment states that the “ right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” With open carry of firearms banned across the state , a concealed carry license is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise their right to bear arms , and it ’ s a right denied to almost everyone inside the county borders .
That could soon change , if we ’ re to believe Sheriff Alex Villanueva , who announced today that far more approvals will be coming in the near future .
The Daily Bulletin newspaper highlighted in 2016 just how bad the problem is in Los Angeles County in a feature about police chiefs in independent cities in the county handing over their authority to issue licenses to the sheriff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active concealed carry permits issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff and only 50 to 60 of those were issued to residents , according to Nishida .
In addition to the standard concealed carry licenses that residents apply for , police chiefs and county sheriffs issue three other kinds of licenses to judges , reserve police officers and people who work but do not live in the issuing authority ’ s jurisdiction .
“ It ’ s virtually impossible for the average person to get a permit , ” said La Verne resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the city police was denied for a lack of “ good cause.
” Reeves , a university professor and an ordained minister , said he hasn ’ t applied with the county sheriff because he doubts his application would be approved .
“ I just know the reputation of the county , and it ’ s pretty futile , ” he said .
By 2018 , according to the Fresno Bee , there were 424 concealed carry licenses active in Los Angeles County .
If only about one quarter of the active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens , we can estimate that in 2018 , about 100 average Joes and Janes in the county had been able to acquire their carry license .
Even if Sheriff Villanueva comes through on his promise , a 400 % increase in license approvals likely won ’ t help gun owners like Keith Reeves are still likely to find themselves denied .
Let ’ s assume that the number of concealed carry licenses possessed by average citizens in Los Angeles County has continued to grow at the same pace it did between 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at somewhere around 200 regular citizens who ’ ve obtained a concealed carry license .
A 400 % increase in approvals means that 800 citizens in a county of 10-million would be approved to exercise their right to bear arms .
That ’ s still nowhere near close to meeting the demand .
Sure , the county might pad its numbers by including judges , reserve police officers and and other “ special ” people , but even a fourfold increase from 600 total permits would be less than 2,500 licenses in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I guarantee there are far more than 2,500 residents of Los Angeles County would would like to be able to exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense .
In neighboring Orange County , for example , as of 2018 there were more than 12,000 concealed carry licenses for a population about a third the size of Los Angeles County .
Kern County , to the north of Los Angeles County , had nearly 9,000 active concealed carry licenses with a population around 900,000 .
In the counties surround Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to carry a firearm , about 4 out of every 1,000 residents have a concealed carry license .
If Los Angeles County had the same ratio , it would be home to about 40,000 concealed carry licensees , not the 400 or so reported in 2018 .
Sheriff Alex Villanueva ’ s announcement of a potential 400 % increase doesn ’ t go nearly far enough , in other words .
If the sheriff is serious about reforming the concealed carry licensing in his office , the answer is simple : drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shall-issue system .
When the average citizen in Los Angeles County can exercise their right to bear arms , Villanueva can take a bow .
Wednesday ’ s pledge isn ’ t even close to getting us to the finish line , and is likely far more of a political two-step than an actual step forward for the Second Amendment rights of the gun owners in the county .

Los Angeles County is home to more than ten million people, but only a few hundred county residents have been able to acquire a concealed carry license, thanks to the sheriff’s policy requiring applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a firearm. Self-defense isn’t seen as a legitimate reason in LA County. Neither is the fact that the Second Amendment states that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” With open carry of firearms banned across the state, a concealed carry license is the only way for residents to legally exercise their right to bear arms, and it’s a right denied to almost everyone inside the county borders.
That could soon change, if we’re to believe Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who announced today that far more approvals will be coming in the near future.
NEW: In a live stream just now, L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said he expects to begin increasing the amount of concealed carry permits he issues by as much as 400%. CCWs are notoriously difficult to obtain in LA. @FOXLA — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) June 24, 2020
The Daily Bulletin newspaper highlighted in 2016 just how bad the problem is in Los Angeles County in a feature about police chiefs in independent cities in the county handing over their authority to issue licenses to the sheriff’s office.
There are currently only 220 active concealed carry permits issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff and only 50 to 60 of those were issued to residents, according to Nishida. In addition to the standard concealed carry licenses that residents apply for, police chiefs and county sheriffs issue three other kinds of licenses to judges, reserve police officers and people who work but do not live in the issuing authority’s jurisdiction. “It’s virtually impossible for the average person to get a permit,” said La Verne resident Keith Reeves, whose concealed carry application to the city police was denied for a lack of “good cause.” Reeves, a university professor and an ordained minister, said he hasn’t applied with the county sheriff because he doubts his application would be approved. “I just know the reputation of the county, and it’s pretty futile,” he said.
By 2018, according to the Fresno Bee, there were 424 concealed carry licenses active in Los Angeles County. If only about one quarter of the active licenses in 2016 were possessed by regular citizens, we can estimate that in 2018, about 100 average Joes and Janes in the county had been able to acquire their carry license.
Even if Sheriff Villanueva comes through on his promise, a 400% increase in license approvals likely won’t help gun owners like Keith Reeves are still likely to find themselves denied. Let’s assume that the number of concealed carry licenses possessed by average citizens in Los Angeles County has continued to grow at the same pace it did between 2016 and 2018. We’re likely looking at somewhere around 200 regular citizens who’ve obtained a concealed carry license.
A 400% increase in approvals means that 800 citizens in a county of 10-million would be approved to exercise their right to bear arms. That’s still nowhere near close to meeting the demand. Sure, the county might pad its numbers by including judges, reserve police officers and and other “special” people, but even a fourfold increase from 600 total permits would be less than 2,500 licenses in the biggest metropolitan area in the country, and I guarantee there are far more than 2,500 residents of Los Angeles County would would like to be able to exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense.
In neighboring Orange County, for example, as of 2018 there were more than 12,000 concealed carry licenses for a population about a third the size of Los Angeles County. Kern County, to the north of Los Angeles County, had nearly 9,000 active concealed carry licenses with a population around 900,000.
In the counties surround Los Angeles that do view self-defense as a valid reason to carry a firearm, about 4 out of every 1,000 residents have a concealed carry license. If Los Angeles County had the same ratio, it would be home to about 40,000 concealed carry licensees, not the 400 or so reported in 2018. Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s announcement of a potential 400% increase doesn’t go nearly far enough, in other words. If the sheriff is serious about reforming the concealed carry licensing in his office, the answer is simple: drop the good cause requirement and move to a shall-issue system. When the average citizen in Los Angeles County can exercise their right to bear arms, Villanueva can take a bow. Wednesday’s pledge isn’t even close to getting us to the finish line, and is likely far more of a political two-step than an actual step forward for the Second Amendment rights of the gun owners in the county.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Many MA Police Departments Still Not Processing New Gun Licenses

While the state of Massachusetts is getting ready to move into Phase Three of its coronavirus recovery plan , many police departments around the state , including the Boston Police Department , have yet to resume processing applications for Firearms ID cards ( required to purchase a firearm at retail ) and License to Carry permits .
Most departments have resumed renewals for the licenses required to exercise your right to keep and bear arms in the state , but those hoping to become a gun owner , or hoping to exercise their right to bear arms , have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I ’ m joined by Jim Wallace , the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League , who says that the organization has been in contact with the state ’ s Department of Public Safety regarding the delays .
While the state police aren ’ t responsible for issuing these licenses and FID cards , Wallace says they ’ ve promised to reach out to any jurisdictions that have put gun owners in a holding pattern to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good news , but Wallace and GOAL are still asking Massachusetts residents to inform them of any localities that are continuing to play games with the Second Amendment rights of residents .
Not only does GOAL need to know about these jurisdictions so they can inform DPS , they ’ re also seeking potential plaintiffs who ’ ve fallen victim to these delays in case they need to go to court over the issue .
Also on today ’ s program , we highlight an Arkansas man in jail on charges of aggravated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a firearm just months after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in a previous shooting .
Despite that felony guilty plea , Christopher Alan Whitman was sentenced to just four years of probation for his crime , putting him back out on the street .
Today ’ s armed citizen story involves two home invaders in Long Beach , California who were met with gunfire when they began assaulting the residents inside .
Finally , our good deed of the day involves a Pennsylvania man who saved the life of a police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word .

While the state of Massachusetts is getting ready to move into Phase Three of its coronavirus recovery plan, many police departments around the state, including the Boston Police Department, have yet to resume processing applications for Firearms ID cards (required to purchase a firearm at retail) and License to Carry permits. Most departments have resumed renewals for the licenses required to exercise your right to keep and bear arms in the state, but those hoping to become a gun owner, or hoping to exercise their right to bear arms, have been stuck in a legal limbo for months now.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I’m joined by Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, who says that the organization has been in contact with the state’s Department of Public Safety regarding the delays. While the state police aren’t responsible for issuing these licenses and FID cards, Wallace says they’ve promised to reach out to any jurisdictions that have put gun owners in a holding pattern to try to rectify the situation.
That’s good news, but Wallace and GOAL are still asking Massachusetts residents to inform them of any localities that are continuing to play games with the Second Amendment rights of residents. Not only does GOAL need to know about these jurisdictions so they can inform DPS, they’re also seeking potential plaintiffs who’ve fallen victim to these delays in case they need to go to court over the issue.
Also on today’s program, we highlight an Arkansas man in jail on charges of aggravated assault and being a felon in possession of a firearm just months after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in a previous shooting. Despite that felony guilty plea, Christopher Alan Whitman was sentenced to just four years of probation for his crime, putting him back out on the street.
Today’s armed citizen story involves two home invaders in Long Beach, California who were met with gunfire when they began assaulting the residents inside. Finally, our good deed of the day involves a Pennsylvania man who saved the life of a police officer trapped in a burning vehicle. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Gun Rights Advocates Push For Removal Of Idaho City Councilman

We ’ ve given and given to anti-gunners throughout the years and they have continued to demand more and more .
There ’ s been no effort to meet us partway on anything .
They simply want us to capitulate to their demands and none of us are interested in going that direction .
Not anymore , especially since their idea of compromise is to just not take as much as they really wanted to in the first place .
Refusing to give up ground isn ’ t a bad thing .
It ’ s how we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point and how we ’ ll get back those that were lost in days gone by .
However , sometimes , we need to take a long moment and recognize when the gun rights side might be going a little too far .
Now , I get being upset by Blakey ’ s comments .
Honestly , I wouldn ’ t want to have that conversation with him either , simply because there ’ s nothing to talk about .
However , I ’ m not sure I can agree with recalling him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , our entire society is tense and ready to blow up at every perceived slight .
Blakey ’ s comments were ridiculous , but trying to remove him from office now is nothing more than a right-leaning attempt at Cancel Culture , something so many of us decry when leftists try it .
Sure , vote him out of office next election .
Find someone who recognizes the importance of our right and support them to take his seat .
Voting Blakey out will get the message across just fine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t do anything except encourage leftists to keep up their Cancel Culture ways .
Granted , they don ’ t need much encouragement these days , to be fair , but still , I don ’ t think this is the way to get the point across .
Further , what if the recall effort fails ?
Blakey can then act with impunity knowing full well that his opponents can ’ t do anything about it .
It also means he ’ ll be emboldened come next election .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , why would anyone believe they can beat him in a straight-up election ?
Or , maybe not .
Either way , though , I ’ m not sure this is a good idea , not because Blakey was right with what he said , but because I don ’ t think it benefits gun rights in any way .

Gun rights aren’t negotiable.
We’ve given and given to anti-gunners throughout the years and they have continued to demand more and more. There’s been no effort to meet us partway on anything. They simply want us to capitulate to their demands and none of us are interested in going that direction. Not anymore, especially since their idea of compromise is to just not take as much as they really wanted to in the first place.
Refusing to give up ground isn’t a bad thing. It’s how we’re going to hold onto our right at this point and how we’ll get back those that were lost in days gone by.
However, sometimes, we need to take a long moment and recognize when the gun rights side might be going a little too far.
Now, I get being upset by Blakey’s comments. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to have that conversation with him either, simply because there’s nothing to talk about.
However, I’m not sure I can agree with recalling him because of his comments.
Look, right now, our entire society is tense and ready to blow up at every perceived slight. Blakey’s comments were ridiculous, but trying to remove him from office now is nothing more than a right-leaning attempt at Cancel Culture, something so many of us decry when leftists try it.
Sure, vote him out of office next election. Find someone who recognizes the importance of our right and support them to take his seat. Voting Blakey out will get the message across just fine.
Removing him from office, however, won’t do anything except encourage leftists to keep up their Cancel Culture ways.
Granted, they don’t need much encouragement these days, to be fair, but still, I don’t think this is the way to get the point across.
Further, what if the recall effort fails? Blakey can then act with impunity knowing full well that his opponents can’t do anything about it. It also means he’ll be emboldened come next election. After all, if you couldn’t recall him, why would anyone believe they can beat him in a straight-up election?
Or, maybe not.
Either way, though, I’m not sure this is a good idea, not because Blakey was right with what he said, but because I don’t think it benefits gun rights in any way.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Rhode Island Governor Approves 'Ghost Gun' Ban

Governor Gina Raimondo has made it quite clear that she ’ s not a fan of guns .
Her tiny state is one of the most gun controlled states in the nation , often overlooked because of its size and not because of the encroachments on civil liberties .
In fact , I ’ m pretty sure Raimondo has never met a gun control law she didn ’ t like .
The same is true of far too many lawmakers in the state .
That ’ s how they ended up with one more rule the criminals will ignore .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ plastic , but federal law already requires them to have a certain amount of metal in them , enough to be picked up by metal detectors .
If the law is sufficient to stop criminals from doing things , then surely the federal law against undetectable weapons is enough to stop 3-D printed guns that can evade detection , right ?
Ghost guns , however , are any gun that is produced by someone without a serial number .
It doesn ’ t necessarily require a kit to manufacture .
Plenty of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various firearms already .
They don ’ t need a kit to do a damn thing , especially with sufficient expertise .
And despite Raimondo ’ s claims , these measures do nothing to make anyone in her state any safer .
Criminals will continue to disregard such laws because , well , they ’ re criminals , and that ’ s precisely what they do .
They ’ ll print guns if they want to , they ’ ll sell those guns if they want to , and no law is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making these guns to sell without a license was already illegal , and that didn ’ t stop anyone .
The truth of the matter is that this isn ’ t really about safety .
Raimondo is making that case , but it ’ s not .
I think on some level , she knows it ’ s not .
No , it ’ s not even about control .
It seems like that sometimes , but anti-gunners aren ’ t supervillains looking to stomp us all just as soon as we give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really about feelings .
This is all about making people feel safer rather than doing anything to make folks safer .
It ’ s about presenting something that will allow folks to delude themselves into feeling like their lives are a tad bit better without having to do anything substantive to make that happen .
Raimondo is selling Rhode Islanders a bill of goods and praying she can keep the con going long enough to either leave office gracefully or get elected to some higher office .
That ’ s it .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to let her get away with it .

Governor Gina Raimondo has made it quite clear that she’s not a fan of guns. Her tiny state is one of the most gun controlled states in the nation, often overlooked because of its size and not because of the encroachments on civil liberties.
In fact, I’m pretty sure Raimondo has never met a gun control law she didn’t like. The same is true of far too many lawmakers in the state.
That’s how they ended up with one more rule the criminals will ignore.
The governor of Rhode Island on Tuesday signed into law bills that ban 3D-printed guns and so-called “ghost guns” in the state. The bills, the first ones Gov. Gina Raimondo has signed during the coronavirus pandemic, are “a matter of public health,” she said. “I am proud to sign them because it is an important step forward in common sense gun reforms that make Rhode Island communities safer,” the Democratic governor said. Sponsored by state Sen. Cynthia Coyne, D-Barrington, and state Rep. Patricia Serpa, D-West Warwick, the bills were approved by the legislature last week. 3-D printed guns are generally plastic and undetectable by metal detectors. Ghost guns are available in kits, don’t require a background check to purchase and lack serial numbers.
Uh…no. 3-D printed guns are mostly plastic, but federal law already requires them to have a certain amount of metal in them, enough to be picked up by metal detectors. If the law is sufficient to stop criminals from doing things, then surely the federal law against undetectable weapons is enough to stop 3-D printed guns that can evade detection, right?
Ghost guns, however, are any gun that is produced by someone without a serial number. It doesn’t necessarily require a kit to manufacture. Plenty of people have CAD files for milling receivers for various firearms already. They don’t need a kit to do a damn thing, especially with sufficient expertise.
And despite Raimondo’s claims, these measures do nothing to make anyone in her state any safer.
Criminals will continue to disregard such laws because, well, they’re criminals, and that’s precisely what they do. They’ll print guns if they want to, they’ll sell those guns if they want to, and no law is going to stop them. After all, making these guns to sell without a license was already illegal, and that didn’t stop anyone.
The truth of the matter is that this isn’t really about safety. Raimondo is making that case, but it’s not. I think on some level, she knows it’s not.
No, it’s not even about control. It seems like that sometimes, but anti-gunners aren’t supervillains looking to stomp us all just as soon as we give up our guns.
It’s really about feelings. This is all about making people feel safer rather than doing anything to make folks safer. It’s about presenting something that will allow folks to delude themselves into feeling like their lives are a tad bit better without having to do anything substantive to make that happen.
Raimondo is selling Rhode Islanders a bill of goods and praying she can keep the con going long enough to either leave office gracefully or get elected to some higher office. That’s it.
And the sad thing is, Rhode Islanders are going to let her get away with it.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Sen. Loeffler Introduces 'Gun Owner Privacy Act'

No one voted for Sen. Kelly Loeffler to be a senator from Georgia .
That ’ s not a slam , just a fact .
Loeffler was appointed to fill the seat by Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) after Sen. Johnny Isakson ( R ) resigned from office due to health reasons at the end of 2019 .
She hasn ’ t been in office long and is now trying to hold onto her seat , but so far , the people of Georgia haven ’ t elected her for anything .
However , if she keeps introducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people in the state will change that .
Loeffler ’ s bill , the Gun Owner Privacy Act , would ban the use of federal funds to store personal information collected during background checks attached to gun purchases .
Federal agencies are already barred from creating a database of gun owners , but the legislation will give citizens recourse for any infringements on their privacy .
While the law would not apply to Americans who fail background checks , those whose records are illegally stored will be able to sue agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler also introduced a resolution condemning what she said were “ laws that unduly inhibit and infringe upon the rights of a law-abiding individual to carry a firearm outside of the home.
” The resolution attacks limits on gun-carry permits as “ unlawful infringements of the rights granted by the Second Amendment.
“ She called on the legislature to step up to protect gun rights .
“ The Second Amendment is our Founding Fathers ’ reaffirmation of our natural God-given right to defend life , liberty and property , ” Loeffler said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Free Beacon .
“ Law-abiding citizens should be free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without overly intrusive government regulation.
” Loeffler specifically singled out an incident in Maine where a former state trooper argued the government was keeping records of who bought what firearms , thus creating an illegal database , an example of what her bill would seek to prevent .
Of course , there ’ s no hope in hell of this bill passing .
As much as I ’ d like to see this become law , as things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen is this bill passes in the Senate and then dies in obscurity in the House .
It ’ s not likely to happen , and we all know it .
However , Loeffler is in a tough political fight .
A bill like this could shore up support for her prior to the election in November , where she ’ ll face two Democrats and a fellow Republican , the top two finishers likely ending up in a runoff unless one amasses a majority of the votes .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an insider trading scandal .
Loeffler was one of several Republican lawmakers accused of trading stocks ahead of a stock market crash after being briefed that such a thing was likely .
While the Justice Department has finished its investigation into Loeffler and isn ’ t filing any charges , such a thing is probably not going to help her in November .
So , a good , pro-gun bill makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint .
However , it ’ s also a good bill that needs to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sincerely meant or the result of political calculation–and I honestly don ’ t know that either way–because far too many people think the identities of gun owners shouldn ’ t be private , that they should be public record with all our personal information available to just anyone .
We shouldn ’ t need protections like this , yet we do .
It ’ s only a shame that Loeffler ’ s bill won ’ t go much of anywhere .

No one voted for Sen. Kelly Loeffler to be a senator from Georgia.
That’s not a slam, just a fact. Loeffler was appointed to fill the seat by Gov. Brian Kemp (R) after Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) resigned from office due to health reasons at the end of 2019. She hasn’t been in office long and is now trying to hold onto her seat, but so far, the people of Georgia haven’t elected her for anything.
Yet, anyway.
However, if she keeps introducing legislation like this, I suspect a lot of people in the state will change that.
Loeffler’s bill, the Gun Owner Privacy Act, would ban the use of federal funds to store personal information collected during background checks attached to gun purchases. Federal agencies are already barred from creating a database of gun owners, but the legislation will give citizens recourse for any infringements on their privacy. While the law would not apply to Americans who fail background checks, those whose records are illegally stored will be able to sue agencies in federal court and collect damages. Loeffler also introduced a resolution condemning what she said were “laws that unduly inhibit and infringe upon the rights of a law-abiding individual to carry a firearm outside of the home.” The resolution attacks limits on gun-carry permits as “unlawful infringements of the rights granted by the Second Amendment.“ She called on the legislature to step up to protect gun rights. “The Second Amendment is our Founding Fathers’ reaffirmation of our natural God-given right to defend life, liberty and property,” Loeffler said in a statement first obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “Law-abiding citizens should be free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without overly intrusive government regulation.”
Loeffler specifically singled out an incident in Maine where a former state trooper argued the government was keeping records of who bought what firearms, thus creating an illegal database, an example of what her bill would seek to prevent.
Of course, there’s no hope in hell of this bill passing. As much as I’d like to see this become law, as things currently stand, the best that could happen is this bill passes in the Senate and then dies in obscurity in the House. It’s not likely to happen, and we all know it.
However, Loeffler is in a tough political fight. A bill like this could shore up support for her prior to the election in November, where she’ll face two Democrats and a fellow Republican, the top two finishers likely ending up in a runoff unless one amasses a majority of the votes.
It’s also likely an effort to distance herself from an insider trading scandal. Loeffler was one of several Republican lawmakers accused of trading stocks ahead of a stock market crash after being briefed that such a thing was likely. While the Justice Department has finished its investigation into Loeffler and isn’t filing any charges, such a thing is probably not going to help her in November.
So, a good, pro-gun bill makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint.
However, it’s also a good bill that needs to pass, regardless of whether it’s sincerely meant or the result of political calculation–and I honestly don’t know that either way–because far too many people think the identities of gun owners shouldn’t be private, that they should be public record with all our personal information available to just anyone. We shouldn’t need protections like this, yet we do.
It’s only a shame that Loeffler’s bill won’t go much of anywhere.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Anti-Gunners Continue Pushing Police Issues As Gun Issues

Gun rights are a fundamental part of the American experience .
The Bill of Rights protects some very specific rights for Americans , rights that shouldn ’ t need protection but clearly do .
After all , they ’ re trampled on in every other nation on Earth .
One of those rights is expressed in the Second Amendment : “ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the people ’ s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” In other words , our right to own arms–regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being essential to our nation ’ s security .
Today , we have a writer over at The New Republic trying to blame police excesses and brutality on the Second Amendment .
Law enforcement has been infected by America ’ s gun culture , as Derek Thompson has recently argued in The Atlantic .
“ [ C ] elebrating widespread gun ownership , ” he writes , “ makes it all but inevitable that the United States has more armed police than similarly rich countries , more panicky officers , more adversarial police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more civilian killings.
” Underscoring this domestic arms race , a larger philosophical issue looms : Police have adopted the same fundamental societal outlook as gun rights advocates : Arms are synonymous with law and order .
Whatever process of public safety reform may await the United States , a radical reform of gun culture must be part of the conversation .
Consider how our gun culture makes American society needlessly treacherous , for police and citizens alike .
The U.S. lacks the most basic of firearms regulations : universal background checks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absence of such constraints , gun rights advocates have promoted laws enabling armed citizens to carry their guns in public—and , in many states , shielding them from criminal and civil liabilities for causing damage to people and property .
Oh , that last paragraph is a doozy , ain ’ t it ?
What a blatant misrepresentation .
Those laws simply bar people from being sued for the lawful use of a weapon , particularly in self-defense .
What it means is that if I am forced to shoot someone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his family can file a lawsuit against me for having shot him in self-defense .
There ’ s no state in the nation that prevents people from being sued for damages resulting from an unlawful shooting .
Yet the writer doesn ’ t frame it that way .
He doesn ’ t see it that way .
Meanwhile , he ’ s pretending that the issues we currently have with police are solely the result of our gun culture .
Nevermind that guns aren ’ t new and have been a part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that landscape has existed .
Nevermind that the reason departments have stepped up their armament was because of the actions of criminals , not law-abiding citizens .
Criminals , it should be noted , that can ’ t lawfully own guns in the first place .
See , the writer , Firmin DeBrabander , is ready to cast every evil he sees as being the result of guns .
Yet , who does he want to turn to in order to disarm people ?
Who does he want to trust to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of this country ?
That ’ s right , the police .
He wants to empower them to raid people ’ s homes with red flag orders and to determine who gets to exercise a fundamental right .
He wants to empower these same police officers to have even more control and more of a monopoly on the use of force so that you and I can ’ t defend ourselves effectively , all while decrying these very same police officers .
Sorry , but I ’ m not buying it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anti-gunners know they ’ re losing ground .
The recent riots following months of lockdown due to the pandemic and the runs on guns these events triggered have put gun control on its butt .
Millions of people found out about the lies they ’ ve been fed by people like DeBrabander for years .
They found out that no , you can ’ t buy a gun on the internet and that in many places , it ’ s not that easy to buy a gun at all .
Because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They know that all the headway they made following Parkland is slipping away , so they have to do something .
That something is to try and paint police abuses as if they ’ re related to the Second Amendment in some pathetic hope that people will latch on to that .
They ’ re also hoping you won ’ t recognize that criminals already have guns and they are the ones using them on police , not the law-abiding citizens who will be impacted by gun control laws .

Gun rights are a fundamental part of the American experience. The Bill of Rights protects some very specific rights for Americans, rights that shouldn’t need protection but clearly do. After all, they’re trampled on in every other nation on Earth.
One of those rights is expressed in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, our right to own arms–regardless of what form they might take–is protected as being essential to our nation’s security.
Yet anti-gunners continually reject that.
Today, we have a writer over at The New Republic trying to blame police excesses and brutality on the Second Amendment.
Law enforcement has been infected by America’s gun culture, as Derek Thompson has recently argued in The Atlantic. “[C]elebrating widespread gun ownership,” he writes, “makes it all but inevitable that the United States has more armed police than similarly rich countries, more panicky officers, more adversarial police encounters, more officer shootings, and more civilian killings.” Underscoring this domestic arms race, a larger philosophical issue looms: Police have adopted the same fundamental societal outlook as gun rights advocates: Arms are synonymous with law and order. Whatever process of public safety reform may await the United States, a radical reform of gun culture must be part of the conversation. Consider how our gun culture makes American society needlessly treacherous, for police and citizens alike. The U.S. lacks the most basic of firearms regulations: universal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers. In the absence of such constraints, gun rights advocates have promoted laws enabling armed citizens to carry their guns in public—and, in many states, shielding them from criminal and civil liabilities for causing damage to people and property.
Oh, that last paragraph is a doozy, ain’t it? What a blatant misrepresentation.
Those laws simply bar people from being sued for the lawful use of a weapon, particularly in self-defense. What it means is that if I am forced to shoot someone to protect my life, neither he nor his family can file a lawsuit against me for having shot him in self-defense. There’s no state in the nation that prevents people from being sued for damages resulting from an unlawful shooting.
Yet the writer doesn’t frame it that way. He doesn’t see it that way.
Meanwhile, he’s pretending that the issues we currently have with police are solely the result of our gun culture. Nevermind that guns aren’t new and have been a part of our national landscape for as long as that landscape has existed. Nevermind that the reason departments have stepped up their armament was because of the actions of criminals, not law-abiding citizens. Criminals, it should be noted, that can’t lawfully own guns in the first place.
See, the writer, Firmin DeBrabander, is ready to cast every evil he sees as being the result of guns.
Yet, who does he want to turn to in order to disarm people? Who does he want to trust to be the sole holder of firearms in his Utopian version of this country? That’s right, the police.
He wants to empower them to raid people’s homes with red flag orders and to determine who gets to exercise a fundamental right. He wants to empower these same police officers to have even more control and more of a monopoly on the use of force so that you and I can’t defend ourselves effectively, all while decrying these very same police officers.
Sorry, but I’m not buying it.
This is nothing more than anti-gun opportunism.
Anti-gunners know they’re losing ground. The recent riots following months of lockdown due to the pandemic and the runs on guns these events triggered have put gun control on its butt. Millions of people found out about the lies they’ve been fed by people like DeBrabander for years. They found out that no, you can’t buy a gun on the internet and that in many places, it’s not that easy to buy a gun at all.
Because of that, they’re worried. They know that all the headway they made following Parkland is slipping away, so they have to do something.
That something is to try and paint police abuses as if they’re related to the Second Amendment in some pathetic hope that people will latch on to that.
They’re also hoping you won’t recognize that criminals already have guns and they are the ones using them on police, not the law-abiding citizens who will be impacted by gun control laws.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--AG's in 16 States Embrace Background Checks On Ammo Purchases

California ’ s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018 .
Since then , tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government ’ s database of gun owners , while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition .
Back in April , a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law , but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect for the time being , though the case ( known as Rhode vs. Becerra ) is still actively being litigated .
On Monday , a coalition of 16 attorneys general , all of them Democrats , filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court ’ s injunction .
If you live in Illinois , Connecticut , Delaware , the District of Columbia , Hawaii , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , New Jersey , New Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rhode Island , Virginia , or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want .
First , the amici States object to the district court ’ s conclusion that the Second Amendment constrained California ’ s ability to enact the ammunition regulations at issue here .
As the Supreme Court has recognized , the Second Amendment allows States to address the harmful effects of gun violence through new regulations .
And California ’ s ammunition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country—are an appropriate exercise of that prerogative .
Second , the amici States disagree with the district court ’ s apparent view that California ’ s interests in public safety and crime prevention can not be substantiated by the types of evidence presented here .
On the contrary , it is settled that States may support their interests in public safety and crime prevention with a wide range of evidence , including social science studies and legislative findings .
First off , there ’ s no other state in the country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the requirement was part of the SAFE Act signed into law in New York in 2013 .
The New York State Police never figured out how to actually conduct the background checks , however , and in 2015 Gov .
Andrew Cuomo suspended the requirement due to the failure of his administration to find a way to implement the law .
The AG ’ s brief ignores New York ’ s failure and tries instead to point to laws in several states that they claim bear a strong resemblance to the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a number of States have also extended background checks or similar requirements to ammunition sales within their jurisdictions .
Indeed , four States in addition to California require some form of background check to purchase ammunition .
Connecticut , Illinois , Massachusetts , and New Jersey currently require that individuals possess a license or firearms identification card—which requires passing a background check—before purchasing ammunition .
The District of Columbia also imposes restrictions on ammunition sales ; District residents may only purchase ammunition if they are listed as a registered owner of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the ammunition they seek to purchase .
D.C. Code Ann .
§§ 7-2505.02 ( d ) , 7-2506.01 .
Nonresidents seeking to purchase ammunition must demonstrate that they lawfully possess a firearm of the same caliber or gauge .
Id .
§ 7-2505.02 ( d ) .
And like California , the District also requires all ammunition sales to be conducted in-person .
None of the states mentioned by the AG ’ s require background checks to be performed before every ammunition purchase , and none of them prohibit ammunition purchased out-of-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners .
In fact , if that ’ s the law in Washington , D.C. , no gun owner in the city would be able to purchase ammunition , because there are zero gun stores in the District .
It ’ s laughable that the anti-gun attorneys general are citing a law that is utterly unenforceable in their quest to have California ’ s ammunition background check law declared constitutional .
If you ’ re a Second Amendment legal nerd , be sure to read the entire brief .
And if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with AG ’ s backing California ’ s asinine infringement on the right to keep and bear arms , you better contact your lawmakers now and urge them to reject any attempt to impose California-style ammunition purchase restrictions , even if your attorney general has given the go-ahead .

California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.
Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.
If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.
First, the amici States object to the district court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment constrained California’s ability to enact the ammunition regulations at issue here. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment allows States to address the harmful effects of gun violence through new regulations. And California’s ammunition regulations—which are similar to numerous laws across the country—are an appropriate exercise of that prerogative. Second, the amici States disagree with the district court’s apparent view that California’s interests in public safety and crime prevention cannot be substantiated by the types of evidence presented here. On the contrary, it is settled that States may support their interests in public safety and crime prevention with a wide range of evidence, including social science studies and legislative findings.
First off, there’s no other state in the country that requires background checks on ammunition sales, though the requirement was part of the SAFE Act signed into law in New York in 2013. The New York State Police never figured out how to actually conduct the background checks, however, and in 2015 Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the requirement due to the failure of his administration to find a way to implement the law.
The AG’s brief ignores New York’s failure and tries instead to point to laws in several states that they claim bear a strong resemblance to the law being challenged in California.
Relevant here, a number of States have also extended background checks or similar requirements to ammunition sales within their jurisdictions. Indeed, four States in addition to California require some form of background check to purchase ammunition. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey currently require that individuals possess a license or firearms identification card—which requires passing a background check—before purchasing ammunition. The District of Columbia also imposes restrictions on ammunition sales; District residents may only purchase ammunition if they are listed as a registered owner of a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition they seek to purchase. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2505.02(d), 7-2506.01. Nonresidents seeking to purchase ammunition must demonstrate that they lawfully possess a firearm of the same caliber or gauge. Id. § 7-2505.02(d). And like California, the District also requires all ammunition sales to be conducted in-person.
None of the states mentioned by the AG’s require background checks to be performed before every ammunition purchase, and none of them prohibit ammunition purchased out-of-state from being brought back home by legal gun owners. In fact, if that’s the law in Washington, D.C., no gun owner in the city would be able to purchase ammunition, because there are zero gun stores in the District. It’s laughable that the anti-gun attorneys general are citing a law that is utterly unenforceable in their quest to have California’s ammunition background check law declared constitutional.
If you’re a Second Amendment legal nerd, be sure to read the entire brief. And if you live in one of these 16 states with AG’s backing California’s asinine infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you better contact your lawmakers now and urge them to reject any attempt to impose California-style ammunition purchase restrictions, even if your attorney general has given the go-ahead.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Challenge To Constitutional Carry Law Rejected By Oklahoma Supreme Court

Justices on Oklahoma ’ s highest court turned away an initiative petition Tuesday that would have allowed voters to weigh in on whether or not to keep the state ’ s Constitutional Carry law in place .
The state Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the summary of the proposed ballot initiative was insufficient , and anti-gun activists hoping to bring the issue before voters will have to start the process over before they can begin to collect signatures to put the issue before voters .
Moms Demand Action and Rep. Lowe have been trying to get the open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the legislature and signed into law by Gov .
Kevin Stitt in 2019 .
Last year the anti-gun activists first attempted to repeal the law via a voter referendum , but fell far short of the required number of signatures to get on the ballot .
Lowe next tried to get a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect in November of 2019 , but he state Supreme Court declined to intervene and on November 1st of last year permitless carry became legal across the state of Oklahoma .
The gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In January of this year , Lowe filed legislation to repeal permitless carry , but the bill died in a House committee in February .
Lowe knew that his attempt to undo constitutional carry wasn ’ t likely to succeed in the pro-2A state legislature , so in early February , even before his bill had been killed , Lowe announced plans to once again try to bring his repeal bill before voters once again .
That was Lowe ’ s latest effort , and his latest defeat .
I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally accepted that permitless carry is here to stay in the Sooner State , but something tells me that when the state legislature convenes for the 2021 session , one of the first pieces of legislation that will be filed will be another version of Lowe ’ s repeal bill .
Lowe may think these repeated efforts prove him to be a tireless fighter in pursuit of some greater justice , but actually they just make him look like an ineffectual and out-of-touch politician who refuses to accept that most Oklahomans don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if he fails time after time , the effort is likely guaranteed to earn him some campaign cash from Moms Demand Action and other gun control groups , so why not at least go through the motions of trying to get rid of constitutional carry ?
The money still spends whether you ’ re successful or not .

Justices on Oklahoma’s highest court turned away an initiative petition Tuesday that would have allowed voters to weigh in on whether or not to keep the state’s Constitutional Carry law in place. The state Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the summary of the proposed ballot initiative was insufficient, and anti-gun activists hoping to bring the issue before voters will have to start the process over before they can begin to collect signatures to put the issue before voters.
SQ 809, filed by Rep. Jason Lowe, D-Oklahoma City, and supported by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, would have had to collect 95,000 signatures in a 90-day period to qualify for the ballot.
Moms Demand Action and Rep. Lowe have been trying to get the open carry law repealed since it was approved by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt in 2019. Last year the anti-gun activists first attempted to repeal the law via a voter referendum, but fell far short of the required number of signatures to get on the ballot.
Lowe next tried to get a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect in November of 2019, but he state Supreme Court declined to intervene and on November 1st of last year permitless carry became legal across the state of Oklahoma. The gun control advocate wasn’t finished however. In January of this year, Lowe filed legislation to repeal permitless carry, but the bill died in a House committee in February. Lowe knew that his attempt to undo constitutional carry wasn’t likely to succeed in the pro-2A state legislature, so in early February, even before his bill had been killed, Lowe announced plans to once again try to bring his repeal bill before voters once again.
That was Lowe’s latest effort, and his latest defeat. I’d like to think that Lowe has now finally accepted that permitless carry is here to stay in the Sooner State, but something tells me that when the state legislature convenes for the 2021 session, one of the first pieces of legislation that will be filed will be another version of Lowe’s repeal bill.
Lowe may think these repeated efforts prove him to be a tireless fighter in pursuit of some greater justice, but actually they just make him look like an ineffectual and out-of-touch politician who refuses to accept that most Oklahomans don’t object to the law. Still, even if he fails time after time, the effort is likely guaranteed to earn him some campaign cash from Moms Demand Action and other gun control groups, so why not at least go through the motions of trying to get rid of constitutional carry? The money still spends whether you’re successful or not.


bearingarms--2020-06-24--Chicago Braces For Even More Violent Summer

When people talk about their 2020 Bingo cards , the idea of “ violence in Chicago ” doesn ’ t really make the card most of the time .
While we ’ re talking about rampaging mutant squirrels or other bizarre occurrences–are murder hornets still a thing ?
–the idea of violence in Chicago is kind of like that free square in the middle of the card .
We all know that ’ s going to happen .
However , it appears that Chi-Town is bracing for an even more violent summer than what we ’ re used to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ several days has law enforcement on edge , with some warning that a turbulent brew of a pandemic , protests against racism , historic surges in gun sales and a rancorous election year could make it an especially deadly summer .
Although mass shootings — often defined as four or more killed , excluding the shooter — are down sharply this year , other non-suicidal gun deaths are on pace to exceed last year , according to the Gun Violence Archive .
That increase came before the start of summer , when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ venture outside more , and before Independence Day , which historically has been one of the deadliest days each year .
The spike may have many causes , gun experts say , including an American public increasingly stressed by the coronavirus pandemic , which has roiled the economy and kept them at home , deep divisions over racial justice and policing , and the political divides of a presidential election year .
“ There ’ s something going on at the moment , these underlying tensions , ” said James Densley , professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Metropolitan State University .
“ Everyone ’ s been cooped up for so long with the pandemic , and then we had this sort of explosion of anger and grief after George Floyd ’ s killing.
” And , well , let ’ s be honest .
The thugs on the ground in Chicago don ’ t need these over-arching socio-economic reasons to kill one another .
They shoot each other over turf and beef .
A lot of that doesn ’ t have anything to do with COVID-19 or police brutality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get away with killing people .
However , Summer does tend to represent a time when violence spikes , especially in a place like Chicago .
For some reason , the heat makes people more violent and I guess the Windy City doesn ’ t have enough air conditioning as it is .
It ’ s going to get much , much worse there .
Of course , that uptick in violence will be used by some to justify more gun control .
Nevermind that Illinois is one of the most gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have every law talked about on the national stage and guess what ?
None of that does a damn thing .
Criminals keep on getting guns in spite of it .
You ’ d think at some point , someone would look at all of these laws in places like Illinois and recognize that maybe , just maybe , those laws aren ’ t doing anything and so they should consider another approach .
They won ’ t , though , because on some level , it ’ s not about making people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people compliant .

When people talk about their 2020 Bingo cards, the idea of “violence in Chicago” doesn’t really make the card most of the time. While we’re talking about rampaging mutant squirrels or other bizarre occurrences–are murder hornets still a thing?–the idea of violence in Chicago is kind of like that free square in the middle of the card. We all know that’s going to happen.
However, it appears that Chi-Town is bracing for an even more violent summer than what we’re used to.
A spate of shootings over the past several days has law enforcement on edge, with some warning that a turbulent brew of a pandemic, protests against racism, historic surges in gun sales and a rancorous election year could make it an especially deadly summer. Although mass shootings — often defined as four or more killed, excluding the shooter — are down sharply this year, other non-suicidal gun deaths are on pace to exceed last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. That increase came before the start of summer, when there is traditionally a spike during as people venture outside more, and before Independence Day, which historically has been one of the deadliest days each year. The spike may have many causes, gun experts say, including an American public increasingly stressed by the coronavirus pandemic, which has roiled the economy and kept them at home, deep divisions over racial justice and policing, and the political divides of a presidential election year. “There’s something going on at the moment, these underlying tensions,” said James Densley, professor of law enforcement and criminal justice at Metropolitan State University. “Everyone’s been cooped up for so long with the pandemic, and then we had this sort of explosion of anger and grief after George Floyd’s killing.”
And, well, let’s be honest. The thugs on the ground in Chicago don’t need these over-arching socio-economic reasons to kill one another. They shoot each other over turf and beef. A lot of that doesn’t have anything to do with COVID-19 or police brutality, except for maybe taking advantage of those to get away with killing people.
However, Summer does tend to represent a time when violence spikes, especially in a place like Chicago. For some reason, the heat makes people more violent and I guess the Windy City doesn’t have enough air conditioning as it is. It’s going to get much, much worse there.
Of course, that uptick in violence will be used by some to justify more gun control. Nevermind that Illinois is one of the most gun controlled states in the nation. They have every law talked about on the national stage and guess what? None of that does a damn thing. Criminals keep on getting guns in spite of it.
You’d think at some point, someone would look at all of these laws in places like Illinois and recognize that maybe, just maybe, those laws aren’t doing anything and so they should consider another approach. They won’t, though, because on some level, it’s not about making people safer. It’s about making people compliant.


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Everytown Ad Buy Takes Issue With Iowa Preemption Bill

While I understand why anti-gunners hate preemption , it ’ s important to understand that we don ’ t really see much in the way of evidence that preemption makes anyone less safe .
What few studies in existence suggesting as much tend to be horribly flawed and not worth the paper they ’ re printed on , but most of the anti-preemption rhetoric is just typical alarmist BS .
Of course , for a group like Everytown For Gun Safety , alarmist BS is their stock-in-trade .
That ’ s why they ’ re now claiming that a preemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe .
In the wake of the Iowa Legislature ’ s abbreviated 2020 session , a nationwide gun safety advocacy organization launched a digital ad aimed at lawmakers who voted to restrict local governments from enacting gun control measures in their own communities .
House File 2502 , awaiting Gov .
Kim Reynolds ’ signature , prohibits cities and counties from enforcing restrictions that go further than state law on using firearms at shooting ranges and carrying weapons on school grounds , at county courthouses and businesses .
The bill states certain restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry firearms into a public building that screens for weapons and has armed guards .
Beginning July 1 , the bill prohibits local governments from enacting an ordinance , motion , resolution or amendment to regulate the storage of weapons or ammunition and states that “ any individual adversely affected ” by a city or county policy regulating firearms “ may take legal action to seek damages that have resulted out of the violation.
” Of course , that ’ s just typical preemption language , the kind that exists in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , preemption creates a uniform level of gun laws , thus preventing someone from becoming a criminal in one town for doing the exact same thing that ’ s legal in another town .
People can keep up with the laws that might impact them much more easily , thus making it easier for them to comply .
However , for Everytown , that ’ s just not a thing they can accept .
In response , Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund is out with a new ad criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing gun safety laws.
” Everytown already released two digital ads this year calling on Iowa lawmakers to “ pass common-sense gun laws in 2020 or be voted out of office.
” The new ad buy “ is the first investment marking Everytown ’ s commitment to holding Iowa state Republicans accountable at the ballot box this November for failing to act on gun safety during the legislative session , ” Everytown said in a press release .
Of course , Iowa went for Trump in 2016 with over 51 percent , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
Or , more specifically , Michael Bloomberg ’ s money .
Unfortunately , they ’ re making up their own facts .
The truth is , preemption doesn ’ t actually stop any gun control from being passed , it merely says it has to come from the state level .
A city that feels they need gun control could ask their local representatives in the statehouse to pass something and , in theory , that could be done .
Is it likely to happen ?
Probably not , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single city have an impact on anyone who might pass through that city , and that could be a lot of people .
That ’ s why preemption is a thing in the first place ; because cities are far too happy to infringe on people ’ s civil liberties .
And I ’ m pretty sure most folks in Iowa understand that quite well .

While I understand why anti-gunners hate preemption, it’s important to understand that we don’t really see much in the way of evidence that preemption makes anyone less safe. What few studies in existence suggesting as much tend to be horribly flawed and not worth the paper they’re printed on, but most of the anti-preemption rhetoric is just typical alarmist BS.
Of course, for a group like Everytown For Gun Safety, alarmist BS is their stock-in-trade.
That’s why they’re now claiming that a preemption bill in Iowa is making people less safe.
In the wake of the Iowa Legislature’s abbreviated 2020 session, a nationwide gun safety advocacy organization launched a digital ad aimed at lawmakers who voted to restrict local governments from enacting gun control measures in their own communities. House File 2502, awaiting Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signature, prohibits cities and counties from enforcing restrictions that go further than state law on using firearms at shooting ranges and carrying weapons on school grounds, at county courthouses and businesses. The bill states certain restrictions only can be imposed on people seeking to carry firearms into a public building that screens for weapons and has armed guards. Beginning July 1, the bill prohibits local governments from enacting an ordinance, motion, resolution or amendment to regulate the storage of weapons or ammunition and states that “any individual adversely affected” by a city or county policy regulating firearms “may take legal action to seek damages that have resulted out of the violation.”
Of course, that’s just typical preemption language, the kind that exists in many other states without any kind of issue. After all, preemption creates a uniform level of gun laws, thus preventing someone from becoming a criminal in one town for doing the exact same thing that’s legal in another town. People can keep up with the laws that might impact them much more easily, thus making it easier for them to comply.
However, for Everytown, that’s just not a thing they can accept.
In response, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund is out with a new ad criticizing lawmakers for passing legislation “that weakens existing gun safety laws.” Everytown already released two digital ads this year calling on Iowa lawmakers to “pass common-sense gun laws in 2020 or be voted out of office.” The new ad buy “is the first investment marking Everytown’s commitment to holding Iowa state Republicans accountable at the ballot box this November for failing to act on gun safety during the legislative session,” Everytown said in a press release.
Of course, Iowa went for Trump in 2016 with over 51 percent, which suggests they’re probably wasting their money. Or, more specifically, Michael Bloomberg’s money.
I’m fine with that.
Unfortunately, they’re making up their own facts. The truth is, preemption doesn’t actually stop any gun control from being passed, it merely says it has to come from the state level. A city that feels they need gun control could ask their local representatives in the statehouse to pass something and, in theory, that could be done.
Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but that’s because gun control laws in a single city have an impact on anyone who might pass through that city, and that could be a lot of people. That’s why preemption is a thing in the first place; because cities are far too happy to infringe on people’s civil liberties.
And I’m pretty sure most folks in Iowa understand that quite well.


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Criminal Justice Reform Should Include Decriminalizing The Second Amendment

We seem to be caught in a moment somewhere between reform or revolution .
Change policing and the criminal justice system via legislation , or the angry mob will do to the nation what it did to the statue of anti-slavery hero Hans Christian Heg and Senate Democrat Tim Carpenter in Madison , Wisconsin the other night .
While I believe in the right of revolution , I can ’ t imagine a less inspiring group of Americans to follow into battle than the useful idiots and fellow travelers who ’ ve fallen in line behind Marxist rebels without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each single statue or busted up Starbucks at a time .
So , I ’ m on team reform , broadly speaking , though I certainly don ’ t support every measure that ’ s been tossed into the political arena lately .
I ’ ve written before about my objections to no-knock raids , support for body cameras , and other policing reforms .
On the other hand , I don ’ t support bail reforms that automatically let many individuals back out on the street after they ’ ve been charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing a little more talk about the idea of reforming plea bargains these days and I ’ m glad to see it .
Every day on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co I have a segment called the Recidivist Report ( formerly the Deal of the Day , as in “ plea deal ” ) highlighting a sweetheart of a deal offered to a criminal defendant .
Today , for example , I highlighted the case of 21-year old Divine Hill of Gastonia , North Carolina , who was charged back in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least six shots into an occupied home .
Earlier this week , Hill accepted a guilty plea in the case .
During an appearance on Monday , June 22 before Gaston County Superior Court Judge David Phillips , Hill agreed to plead guilty to one count of discharging a weapon into occupied property .
In exchange for the plea , prosecutor Chad Smith agreed to dismiss the attempted first-degree murder and felony conspiracy charges .
Phillips sentenced Hill to between 20 and 36 months in prison , but agreed to suspend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probation for 30 months .
Hill , who had no prior convictions , was credited with the 81 days he ’ s spent in jail awaiting his court date .
He was represented by Gastonia attorney David Hoyle .
So basically , what prosecutors originally described as attempted first degree murder will be punished with less than three months of jail time .
Even taking into account the fact that Hill doesn ’ t have any previous convictions , doesn ’ t that seem awfully light for shooting off six rounds into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage of stories like this , unfortunately .
I ’ ve found multiple examples every weekday for more than fifteen years of hosting Cam & Co .
Meanwhile , gun control advocates like Joe Biden are hoping to empower states to implement New York-style gun licensing laws , which , unless they too are plea bargained away , can send people to prison for years for simply possessing an unlicensed firearm in public .
It ’ s ridiculous to send people to prison for simply having a gun when we ’ re handing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill someone with one .
The flip side of under-sentencing is overcharging , where prosecutors through every possible charge at a defendant and then offer them a plea bargain , saving the time and expense of a trial , but at the cost of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury and potentially coercing defendants into accepting a plea bargain because of the potentially lengthy sentence they would receive if convicted of all charges at a trial .
You ’ ll almost certainly get guilty parties to take that plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal system , including a number of judges , are acknowledging that innocent people plead guilty too , overwhelmed by the prospect of spending a good chunk of their life in prison for a crime they didn ’ t commit .
An unbelievable 97 % of felony cases in this country are resolved via a plea bargain , and the results show that the system is open to be abused in many ways .
When gun owners say that we need to focus on enforcing existing laws , this is exactly what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using public safety as the excuse to push criminal penalties for things like owning a 20-round magazine .
Quit making it impossible for the average person to legally own and carry a firearm through exorbitant fees and using discretionary policies that allow for denials even though they ’ re not prohibited by law from owning a firearm .
These policies actually create illegal gun possession cases in high crime neighborhoods , as people decide it ’ s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six and carry a firearm illegally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s considered a protected right in most places is considered a felony offense in some of our biggest cities .
Gun control laws create gun crimes .
They take a legal activity and impose criminal sanctions on it , sending people to prison for doing something that was perfectly legal a day earlier , and in fact is probably still legal in a neighboring state .
Despite their public embrace of policing and criminal justice reform , gun control advocates ( including Joe Biden ) have a laundry list of new , non-violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by armed agents of the State and prosecutors in a court of law .
While the criminal justice system is proving itself incapable of taking seriously someone who nearly killed a woman , Biden ’ s embraced the Bloomberg model of state laws that put people in prison for simply carrying a firearm without a license .
Here ’ s another problem : these offenses are also likely to be plea bargained down , with repeat offenders and those with long criminal histories still receiving plea deals on a regular basis in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broken system only increases its dysfunction , yet that ’ s exactly what Biden and most Democrats want to do , because it ’ s a fundamental part of the gun control movement .
Reforming the criminal justice system should include rejecting that agenda , as well as taking existing dumb , non-violent offenses off the books entirely .
Start to rebuild a culture that respects and embraces our Second Amendment rights , after decades of attempts to de-normalize gun ownership among in urban areas and among racial minority groups .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these cities , along with the responsibility that comes with exercising your rights .
If cities want to spend millions on “ violence interruptors , ” that ’ s fine , but they should cough up some coin to educate young residents about their Second Amendment rights and responsibilities , and push campaigns to promote opportunities for training and education .
Embrace gun ranges , encourage competitive shooting , and the re-establishment of a culture of responsible gun ownership .
Enacting these reforms would free up space in the criminal justice system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement resources to violent offenders , while offering an opportunity to empower more Americans to exercise their constitutional rights .
They ’ re measures that will save lives , make neighborhoods safer places , and respect the constitutional rights of all Americans .
And as long as the gun control movement has their way , we ’ ll never see any of them enacted .

We seem to be caught in a moment somewhere between reform or revolution. Change policing and the criminal justice system via legislation, or the angry mob will do to the nation what it did to the statue of anti-slavery hero Hans Christian Heg and Senate Democrat Tim Carpenter in Madison, Wisconsin the other night. While I believe in the right of revolution, I can’t imagine a less inspiring group of Americans to follow into battle than the useful idiots and fellow travelers who’ve fallen in line behind Marxist rebels without a clue in trying to start one, each single statue or busted up Starbucks at a time.
So, I’m on team reform, broadly speaking, though I certainly don’t support every measure that’s been tossed into the political arena lately. I’ve written before about my objections to no-knock raids, support for body cameras, and other policing reforms. On the other hand, I don’t support bail reforms that automatically let many individuals back out on the street after they’ve been charged with violent offenses.
I’m seeing a little more talk about the idea of reforming plea bargains these days and I’m glad to see it. Every day on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co I have a segment called the Recidivist Report (formerly the Deal of the Day, as in “plea deal”) highlighting a sweetheart of a deal offered to a criminal defendant.
Today, for example, I highlighted the case of 21-year old Divine Hill of Gastonia, North Carolina, who was charged back in February with attempted first degree murder after firing at least six shots into an occupied home. Earlier this week, Hill accepted a guilty plea in the case.
During an appearance on Monday, June 22 before Gaston County Superior Court Judge David Phillips, Hill agreed to plead guilty to one count of discharging a weapon into occupied property. In exchange for the plea, prosecutor Chad Smith agreed to dismiss the attempted first-degree murder and felony conspiracy charges. Phillips sentenced Hill to between 20 and 36 months in prison, but agreed to suspend the sentence on the condition Hill undergo supervised probation for 30 months. Hill, who had no prior convictions, was credited with the 81 days he’s spent in jail awaiting his court date. He was represented by Gastonia attorney David Hoyle.
So basically, what prosecutors originally described as attempted first degree murder will be punished with less than three months of jail time. Even taking into account the fact that Hill doesn’t have any previous convictions, doesn’t that seem awfully light for shooting off six rounds into an occupied home? And there are no shortage of stories like this, unfortunately. I’ve found multiple examples every weekday for more than fifteen years of hosting Cam & Co.
Meanwhile, gun control advocates like Joe Biden are hoping to empower states to implement New York-style gun licensing laws, which, unless they too are plea bargained away, can send people to prison for years for simply possessing an unlicensed firearm in public. It’s ridiculous to send people to prison for simply having a gun when we’re handing out probationary sentences to people who try to kill someone with one.
The flip side of under-sentencing is overcharging, where prosecutors through every possible charge at a defendant and then offer them a plea bargain, saving the time and expense of a trial, but at the cost of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury and potentially coercing defendants into accepting a plea bargain because of the potentially lengthy sentence they would receive if convicted of all charges at a trial. You’ll almost certainly get guilty parties to take that plea, but more and more voices in the legal system, including a number of judges, are acknowledging that innocent people plead guilty too, overwhelmed by the prospect of spending a good chunk of their life in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. An unbelievable 97% of felony cases in this country are resolved via a plea bargain, and the results show that the system is open to be abused in many ways.
When gun owners say that we need to focus on enforcing existing laws, this is exactly what we’re talking about. Stop using public safety as the excuse to push criminal penalties for things like owning a 20-round magazine. Quit making it impossible for the average person to legally own and carry a firearm through exorbitant fees and using discretionary policies that allow for denials even though they’re not prohibited by law from owning a firearm. These policies actually create illegal gun possession cases in high crime neighborhoods, as people decide it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six and carry a firearm illegally, though only for self-defense. What’s considered a protected right in most places is considered a felony offense in some of our biggest cities.
Gun control laws create gun crimes. They take a legal activity and impose criminal sanctions on it, sending people to prison for doing something that was perfectly legal a day earlier, and in fact is probably still legal in a neighboring state. Despite their public embrace of policing and criminal justice reform, gun control advocates (including Joe Biden) have a laundry list of new, non-violent crimes that they want to be enforced by armed agents of the State and prosecutors in a court of law.
While the criminal justice system is proving itself incapable of taking seriously someone who nearly killed a woman, Biden’s embraced the Bloomberg model of state laws that put people in prison for simply carrying a firearm without a license. Here’s another problem: these offenses are also likely to be plea bargained down, with repeat offenders and those with long criminal histories still receiving plea deals on a regular basis in New York City. Adding more laws to a broken system only increases its dysfunction, yet that’s exactly what Biden and most Democrats want to do, because it’s a fundamental part of the gun control movement.
Reforming the criminal justice system should include rejecting that agenda, as well as taking existing dumb, non-violent offenses off the books entirely. Start to rebuild a culture that respects and embraces our Second Amendment rights, after decades of attempts to de-normalize gun ownership among in urban areas and among racial minority groups. It’s time to re-normalize gun ownership in these cities, along with the responsibility that comes with exercising your rights.
If cities want to spend millions on “violence interruptors,” that’s fine, but they should cough up some coin to educate young residents about their Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, and push campaigns to promote opportunities for training and education. Embrace gun ranges, encourage competitive shooting, and the re-establishment of a culture of responsible gun ownership.
Enacting these reforms would free up space in the criminal justice system, reduce plea bargains, redirect law enforcement resources to violent offenders, while offering an opportunity to empower more Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. They’re measures that will save lives, make neighborhoods safer places, and respect the constitutional rights of all Americans. And as long as the gun control movement has their way, we’ll never see any of them enacted.


bearingarms--2020-06-25--Sheriff Warns Of Anti-Gun Governor On Biden's VP Short List

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has emerged on the short list of potential running mates for Joe Biden , according to CNBC , and now one of the state ’ s most outspoken sheriffs is speaking out against the idea .
Citing her “ government experience and her deep background in health and aging , ” the network paints a glowing portrait of the governor , including her efforts to impose new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in the state .
Lujan Grisham has gained a reputation as a dogged fighter for her passion projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She came into the governor ’ s office after a resounding electoral victory in 2018 — beating Republican Steve Pearce by nearly 15 percentage points .
But by mid-2019 , her approval rating had fallen after she took progressive stances on gun control and abortion .
On guns , she signed a law expanding background checks for nearly all firearms sales .
Politicians in more than two dozen counties out of 33 total pushed back on the law , signing “ Second Amendment sanctuary ” declarations in protest .
The following year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , warning sheriffs that if they don ’ t intend to enforce it , “ they should resign as a law enforcement officer and leader in that community.
” On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , one of those sheriffs sits down with me to talk about Grisham ’ s record , and why he believes it would be a big mistake to put her a heartbeat away from the presidency if Biden wins in November .
Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace is a Democrat himself , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s long objected to Grisham ’ s gun control agenda as an unconstitutional overreach that does nothing to reduce violent crime while infringing on the rights of state residents .
Mace helped lead the push for counties to declare themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries , and he ’ s one of many sheriffs who vocally opposed the governor ’ s push for a red flag law as well .
Now Grisham is pushing a police reform bill , and Mace says that during a recent special session of the legislature called by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not allowed inside the Capitol to testify or lobby for or against the legislation .
The sheriff says , however , that several members of Moms Demand Action were spotted inside the building speaking with lawmakers about the bill .
Gun control groups have embraced the idea that “ police violence is gun violence ” while still pushing for new non-violent felony offenses that would be enforced by armed police officers .
That ’ s especially true for the red flag law embraced by Grisham , which doesn ’ t even mention “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for social services or health professionals to even speak with the subject of a red flag order before a court hearing .
The law simply uses the civil court system to declare someone a danger to themselves or others ( without the judge ever speaking with the person before passing judgement ) , and orders police officers to go seize their guns .
After that , the supposedly dangerous person is left with their knives , car keys , pills , and everything else they own .
We already have civil commitment laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow for truly dangerous people to be involuntarily committed for treatment , but frankly , that ’ s expensive .
Red flag laws are a much cheaper alternative .
They don ’ t require any in-patient treatment or hospitalization , but they still allow politicians to proclaim that they ’ re doing something to help mentally troubled individuals .
It ’ s not just the Right who should find these red flag laws objectionable , and Grisham ’ s enthusiastic embrace of the law may cause her some problems from younger voters on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be one of the biggest priorities for Democrats .
As Mace and I discuss on today ’ s show , Grisham ’ s love of red flag laws is just part of a broader problem for gun control supporters : laws without enforcement are meaningless .
At a time when de-policing is de rigueur on the Left , gun control advocates will sooner or later have to try explain to their allies why gun licensing and registration laws , red flag laws , gun bans , magazine restrictions , and the like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many young black men going to prison for something that isn ’ t even a crime in most states .
Already some “ gun violence prevention ” advocates are moving away from the traditional calls for more gun laws , and Grisham and Biden ’ s longtime embrace of gun control measures are going to cause them problems with more members of the American public than they might think .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , which is highly informative and worth a watch .
My thanks to Sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll be back tomorrow with wrap up of the week on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co .

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has emerged on the short list of potential running mates for Joe Biden, according to CNBC, and now one of the state’s most outspoken sheriffs is speaking out against the idea. Citing her “government experience and her deep background in health and aging,” the network paints a glowing portrait of the governor, including her efforts to impose new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in the state.
Lujan Grisham has gained a reputation as a dogged fighter for her passion projects — even the politically volatile ones. She came into the governor’s office after a resounding electoral victory in 2018 — beating Republican Steve Pearce by nearly 15 percentage points. But by mid-2019, her approval rating had fallen after she took progressive stances on gun control and abortion. On guns, she signed a law expanding background checks for nearly all firearms sales. Politicians in more than two dozen counties out of 33 total pushed back on the law, signing “Second Amendment sanctuary” declarations in protest. The following year, she signed a red-flag gun bill into law, warning sheriffs that if they don’t intend to enforce it, “they should resign as a law enforcement officer and leader in that community.”
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, one of those sheriffs sits down with me to talk about Grisham’s record, and why he believes it would be a big mistake to put her a heartbeat away from the presidency if Biden wins in November. Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace is a Democrat himself, though a decidedly conservative one, and he’s long objected to Grisham’s gun control agenda as an unconstitutional overreach that does nothing to reduce violent crime while infringing on the rights of state residents. Mace helped lead the push for counties to declare themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, and he’s one of many sheriffs who vocally opposed the governor’s push for a red flag law as well.
Now Grisham is pushing a police reform bill, and Mace says that during a recent special session of the legislature called by the governor, members of the public were not allowed inside the Capitol to testify or lobby for or against the legislation. The sheriff says, however, that several members of Moms Demand Action were spotted inside the building speaking with lawmakers about the bill. Gun control groups have embraced the idea that “police violence is gun violence” while still pushing for new non-violent felony offenses that would be enforced by armed police officers.
That’s especially true for the red flag law embraced by Grisham, which doesn’t even mention “mental health” and has no room for social services or health professionals to even speak with the subject of a red flag order before a court hearing. The law simply uses the civil court system to declare someone a danger to themselves or others (without the judge ever speaking with the person before passing judgement), and orders police officers to go seize their guns. After that, the supposedly dangerous person is left with their knives, car keys, pills, and everything else they own.
We already have civil commitment laws on the books in every state that allow for truly dangerous people to be involuntarily committed for treatment, but frankly, that’s expensive. Red flag laws are a much cheaper alternative. They don’t require any in-patient treatment or hospitalization, but they still allow politicians to proclaim that they’re doing something to help mentally troubled individuals. It’s not just the Right who should find these red flag laws objectionable, and Grisham’s enthusiastic embrace of the law may cause her some problems from younger voters on the Left who believe that police reform should be one of the biggest priorities for Democrats.
As Mace and I discuss on today’s show, Grisham’s love of red flag laws is just part of a broader problem for gun control supporters: laws without enforcement are meaningless. At a time when de-policing is de rigueur on the Left, gun control advocates will sooner or later have to try explain to their allies why gun licensing and registration laws, red flag laws, gun bans, magazine restrictions, and the like are good ideas when they result in many young black men going to prison for something that isn’t even a crime in most states. Already some “gun violence prevention” advocates are moving away from the traditional calls for more gun laws, and Grisham and Biden’s longtime embrace of gun control measures are going to cause them problems with more members of the American public than they might think.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, which is highly informative and worth a watch. My thanks to Sheriff Mace for joining me today, and we’ll be back tomorrow with wrap up of the week on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.