bearingarms--2020-07-29--Anti-Policing Group Says Cops Shouldn't Have Pursued Murder Suspects

I ’ m not opposed to every bit of police reform that ’ s been suggested over the past few months ( no-knock raids , for example , should be largely curtailed in my opinion ) , but one Detroit-area anti-policing organization has jumped the shark with its opposition to police pursuing a suspect in a quadruple shooting .
Detroit Will Breathe co-founder Tristan Taylor says that a high speed pursuit of the suspect back on July 23rd never should have happen , and according to The Detroit News he used that incident as well as two other officer involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firing of police chief James Craig on Tuesday .
Video footage released by police shows officers approach a blue Mercury Grand Marquis , which makes a U-turn and speeds away .
While Detroit police policy bans high-speed chases in most instances , they ’ re allowed when violent suspects are involved .
The footage shows officers tailing the car as it lurches through side streets and jumps onto the sidewalk several times , narrowly missing pedestrians before crashing into a tree .
Three men get out of the car and run in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels , the video shows .
One of the men is seen in the video with a pistol in his left hand .
As he runs , he turns , raises the gun and appears to point it at an officer before the officer fires a single , fatal shot that hit the suspect in his torso , Craig said .
During Tuesday ’ s press conference , Taylor said police should have never initiated the chase .
He was asked whether police should have let a homicide suspect go free , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am saying that .
There are other opportunities to apprehend them.
” Sure , there might be other opportunities to apprehend a murder suspect , but there might also be other opportunities for that suspect to flee again .
There ’ s also the possibility that the murder suspect might commit more acts of violence before police can take him into custody .
It ’ s a fundamentally unserious suggestion , but Taylor ’ s criticism of the pursuit was just one of several bizarre complaints Detroit Will Breathe members leveled against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference yesterday .
Lloyd Simpson , one of the group ’ s organizers , began Tuesday ’ s press conference by reading a statement in which he lambasted three officer-involved shootings in the past two-and-a-half weeks , and called for Craig to be fired .
On July 10 , Hakim Littleton fired a pistol at an officer ’ s head from about a foot away , seconds before police returned fire , killing him , in a confrontation captured on police body camera video .
Video of a July 23 incident also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnamed suspect brandishing a pistol seconds before officers fatally shot him .
That ’ s right .
They ’ re actually slamming police for shooting a suspect who had actually shot at a cop from a foot away .
In fact , Simpson and Taylor accused those officers of “ executing ” Littleton .
“ In two of the cases , the victims shot by the police were on the ground when they were shot , ” Simpson said .
“ Edited body cam footage clearly shows the young man ( in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in position to fire the weapon.
” A TV reporter pointed out that the videos released by police do not support Simpson ’ s claim that police initially shot the suspects while they were on the ground , and asked Detroit Will Breathe co-founder Tristan Taylor whether his group had a responsibility to put out accurate information .
“ Absolutely , and we can only do that when facts are given , ” he said .
Taylor walked back Simpson ’ s comments and stipulated that Littleton was standing when he was first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that officers continued firing rounds after Littleton fell to the ground .
“ That ’ s the thing that we find most disturbing about his shooting was the fact that the last shot was point-blank to the head , ” he said .
“ … we call these murders , especially someone who ’ s shot point-blank to the head , an execution .
They are the victims of police brutality.
” You can watch the bodycam video of the Hakim Littleton incident released by the Detroit police for yourself here : Officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant when Littleton walked up to officers , pulled a pistol out of his pocket , and fired a shot at an officer ’ s head ( thankfully missing his target ) .
Seconds later , officers return fire , killing Littleton .
The shooting was the subject of all kinds of rumors on social media , with some claiming that Littleton had been unarmed when he was shot .
Hundreds gathered at the site of the shooting , and officers were eventually forced to use tear gas after projectiles were thrown at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you still have activists like Detroit Will Breathe completely misrepresenting what happened in order to try to portray police as cold-blooded killers .
Detroit Police Chief James Craig is having none of it .
As for the pursuit of the suspect in the quadruple shooting , James was even more outspoken in his defense of officers .
Craig responded : “ What do we say to the families of the four shooting victims , one who succumbed to his injuries ?
Their lives matter , too .
We ’ re not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so he can possibly do harm to other people .
“ I ’ ve been in law enforcement longer than ( Taylor ) has been alive , ” the chief said .
“ Some of the things he ’ s saying clearly show he doesn ’ t know what he ’ s talking about .
If he thinks he can do a better job than me , and keep the people of Detroit safer , I ’ d like to hear his suggestions.
” I don ’ t think Detroit Will Breathe actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is full of “ demands ” ranging from “ defunding and demilitarizing the police ” to “ make Detroit a Sanctuary City ” to “ release all non-violent offenses , ” but nothing that would actually help the city combat the drug and gang violence that ’ s surged in recent months .
If the group had their way , police would be handcuffed while violent criminals would be empowered .
That might lead to fewer arrests , but it most certainly won ’ t result in safer streets .

I’m not opposed to every bit of police reform that’s been suggested over the past few months (no-knock raids, for example, should be largely curtailed in my opinion), but one Detroit-area anti-policing organization has jumped the shark with its opposition to police pursuing a suspect in a quadruple shooting. Detroit Will Breathe co-founder Tristan Taylor says that a high speed pursuit of the suspect back on July 23rd never should have happen, and according to The Detroit News he used that incident as well as two other officer involved shootings in Detroit this month to demand the firing of police chief James Craig on Tuesday.
Video footage released by police shows officers approach a blue Mercury Grand Marquis, which makes a U-turn and speeds away. While Detroit police policy bans high-speed chases in most instances, they’re allowed when violent suspects are involved. The footage shows officers tailing the car as it lurches through side streets and jumps onto the sidewalk several times, narrowly missing pedestrians before crashing into a tree. Three men get out of the car and run in different directions, with officers at their heels, the video shows. One of the men is seen in the video with a pistol in his left hand. As he runs, he turns, raises the gun and appears to point it at an officer before the officer fires a single, fatal shot that hit the suspect in his torso, Craig said. During Tuesday’s press conference, Taylor said police should have never initiated the chase. He was asked whether police should have let a homicide suspect go free, and he replied: “Yes, I am saying that. There are other opportunities to apprehend them.”
Sure, there might be other opportunities to apprehend a murder suspect, but there might also be other opportunities for that suspect to flee again. There’s also the possibility that the murder suspect might commit more acts of violence before police can take him into custody. It’s a fundamentally unserious suggestion, but Taylor’s criticism of the pursuit was just one of several bizarre complaints Detroit Will Breathe members leveled against the city’s police force during its press conference yesterday.
Lloyd Simpson, one of the group’s organizers, began Tuesday’s press conference by reading a statement in which he lambasted three officer-involved shootings in the past two-and-a-half weeks, and called for Craig to be fired. On July 10, Hakim Littleton fired a pistol at an officer’s head from about a foot away, seconds before police returned fire, killing him, in a confrontation captured on police body camera video. Video of a July 23 incident also was released by police, showing an unnamed suspect brandishing a pistol seconds before officers fatally shot him.
That’s right. They’re actually slamming police for shooting a suspect who had actually shot at a cop from a foot away. In fact, Simpson and Taylor accused those officers of “executing” Littleton.
“In two of the cases, the victims shot by the police were on the ground when they were shot,” Simpson said. “Edited body cam footage clearly shows the young man (in the July 23 incident) never having been in position to fire the weapon.” A TV reporter pointed out that the videos released by police do not support Simpson’s claim that police initially shot the suspects while they were on the ground, and asked Detroit Will Breathe co-founder Tristan Taylor whether his group had a responsibility to put out accurate information. “Absolutely, and we can only do that when facts are given,” he said. Taylor walked back Simpson’s comments and stipulated that Littleton was standing when he was first shot, but said he was disturbed that officers continued firing rounds after Littleton fell to the ground. “That’s the thing that we find most disturbing about his shooting was the fact that the last shot was point-blank to the head,” he said. “… we call these murders, especially someone who’s shot point-blank to the head, an execution. They are the victims of police brutality.”
You can watch the bodycam video of the Hakim Littleton incident released by the Detroit police for yourself here:
Officers were arresting another individual on a drug warrant when Littleton walked up to officers, pulled a pistol out of his pocket, and fired a shot at an officer’s head (thankfully missing his target). Seconds later, officers return fire, killing Littleton.
The shooting was the subject of all kinds of rumors on social media, with some claiming that Littleton had been unarmed when he was shot. Hundreds gathered at the site of the shooting, and officers were eventually forced to use tear gas after projectiles were thrown at the cops on scene. Weeks later, you still have activists like Detroit Will Breathe completely misrepresenting what happened in order to try to portray police as cold-blooded killers.
Detroit Police Chief James Craig is having none of it.
Craig said it’s “ridiculous” to call the shooting an execution. “That’s an example of taking what actually happens and creating a false narrative,” he said. “The officer who responded put his own life in danger to mitigate the threat to other officers.”
As for the pursuit of the suspect in the quadruple shooting, James was even more outspoken in his defense of officers.
Craig responded: “What do we say to the families of the four shooting victims, one who succumbed to his injuries? Their lives matter, too. We’re not going to let a violent suspect go free so he can possibly do harm to other people. “I’ve been in law enforcement longer than (Taylor) has been alive,” the chief said. “Some of the things he’s saying clearly show he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If he thinks he can do a better job than me, and keep the people of Detroit safer, I’d like to hear his suggestions.”
I don’t think Detroit Will Breathe actually has any serious suggestions. Their website is full of “demands” ranging from “defunding and demilitarizing the police” to “make Detroit a Sanctuary City” to “release all non-violent offenses,” but nothing that would actually help the city combat the drug and gang violence that’s surged in recent months. If the group had their way, police would be handcuffed while violent criminals would be empowered. That might lead to fewer arrests, but it most certainly won’t result in safer streets.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--Nova Scotia Gunman Smuggled Guns Into Country

Following the mass shooting in Nova Scotia , Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jumped on the chance to change gun laws in his country .
He turned a whole lot of Canadians into potential criminals by banning so-called “ assault weapons.
” Owners have a grace period in which they can take steps lawfully to get rid of such weapons , of course , but the point remains that they ’ re out their property because of stuff they had nothing to do with .
At the heart of Trudeau ’ s actions was the international anti-gunners idea that everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual , even if that individual didn ’ t have the guns legally… What ’ s more , Trudeau ’ s gun ban wouldn ’ t have stopped him anyway .
The gunman in the Nova Scotia shooting that killed 22 people was alleged to have trafficked drugs and firearms from the United States , according to newly unsealed documents from Nova Scotia Provincial Court .
Following the shooting , one unidentified witness told police that they were aware that “ [ Gabriel Wortman ] had smuggled guns and drugs from Maine for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the documents say .
The same witness , who first met the gunman in 2011 , also told police that the gunman “ builds fires and burns bodies , is a sexual predator , and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy , Nova Scotia.
” The new allegations , which have not been tested in court , were made in search warrant applications that investigators filed following the shooting to collect evidence on the gunman ’ s properties in Portapique , N.S.
, and Dartmouth , N.S.
, as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations are true , then just how in the hell would a gun ban in Canada stop this kind of thing ?
The answer is that it wouldn ’ t .
If he smuggled guns , he was going to get guns anyway .
It should be noted that Canadian identification doesn ’ t work for lawful gun sales in the United States , so he didn ’ t buy them lawfully here .
He then took them across the border and violated both American export laws and Canadian import laws .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t give a damn about any laws up to and including murder laws .
Look , these vile creatures that carry out these mass shootings don ’ t actually care about being law-abiding citizens .
They may try to look it , but they don ’ t care about anything except themselves .
The idea that a new law will stop them is beyond ridiculous .
This is someone who illegally imported guns into the country that he used to slaughter innocent people , including one RCMP officer .
Does anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dissuaded by a gun ban ?
Of course not .
They do what they want regardless of the laws in place .
All Trudeau did was punish his countrymen who obey the laws on a daily basis and don ’ t hurt a soul .
Meanwhile , the next maniac looking to make a name for himself by gunning down folks will still gun them down .
He won ’ t be dissuaded by anything Trudeau has done and everyone with even half a brain knows it .

Following the mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jumped on the chance to change gun laws in his country. He turned a whole lot of Canadians into potential criminals by banning so-called “assault weapons.” Owners have a grace period in which they can take steps lawfully to get rid of such weapons, of course, but the point remains that they’re out their property because of stuff they had nothing to do with.
At the heart of Trudeau’s actions was the international anti-gunners idea that everyone should pay for the sins of the individual, even if that individual didn’t have the guns legally…
…which the Nova Scotia killer didn’t.
What’s more, Trudeau’s gun ban wouldn’t have stopped him anyway.
The gunman in the Nova Scotia shooting that killed 22 people was alleged to have trafficked drugs and firearms from the United States, according to newly unsealed documents from Nova Scotia Provincial Court. Following the shooting, one unidentified witness told police that they were aware that “[Gabriel Wortman] had smuggled guns and drugs from Maine for years and had a stockpile of guns,” the documents say. The same witness, who first met the gunman in 2011, also told police that the gunman “builds fires and burns bodies, is a sexual predator, and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy, Nova Scotia.” The new allegations, which have not been tested in court, were made in search warrant applications that investigators filed following the shooting to collect evidence on the gunman’s properties in Portapique, N.S., and Dartmouth, N.S., as well as vehicles and electronic devices.
If these allegations are true, then just how in the hell would a gun ban in Canada stop this kind of thing?
The answer is that it wouldn’t. If he smuggled guns, he was going to get guns anyway. It should be noted that Canadian identification doesn’t work for lawful gun sales in the United States, so he didn’t buy them lawfully here. He then took them across the border and violated both American export laws and Canadian import laws.
Why, it’s almost like he didn’t give a damn about any laws up to and including murder laws.
Look, these vile creatures that carry out these mass shootings don’t actually care about being law-abiding citizens. They may try to look it, but they don’t care about anything except themselves. The idea that a new law will stop them is beyond ridiculous.
This is someone who illegally imported guns into the country that he used to slaughter innocent people, including one RCMP officer. Does anyone really think that such a person would be dissuaded by a gun ban?
Of course not. They do what they want regardless of the laws in place.
All Trudeau did was punish his countrymen who obey the laws on a daily basis and don’t hurt a soul.
Meanwhile, the next maniac looking to make a name for himself by gunning down folks will still gun them down. He won’t be dissuaded by anything Trudeau has done and everyone with even half a brain knows it.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--St. Louis Couple Say Charges Are Politically Motivated, Want Prosecutor Off Case

The attorney for Mark and Patricia McCloskey has filed a motion to disqualify the prosecutor who brought charges of unlawful use of a weapon against the couple after they displayed firearms while hundreds of protesters marched through their private neighborhood earlier this summer .
Joel Schwartz claims that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ’ s decision to go after the couple was motivated by politics , not justice , and says that Gardner used the McCloskeys as campaign fodder for her re-election bid , including fundraising appeals that referenced the case .
According to Wednesday ’ s court filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before charges were filed , Gardner ’ s campaign literature read : “ You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansion ” and “ ..President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens.. ” The campaign literature contained links to donate .
The filing also states campaign literature was sent after the charges , again referencing the McCloskey ’ s case and links to donate .
The McCloskeys ’ attorneys state the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of the case .
“ Here , a reasonable person with access to all the facts would find that there was at least the appearance of impropriety , in that Ms. Gardner ’ s decision may have been affected by her personal , political , financial , and professional interests , and that her neutrality , judgement , and ability to administer the law in an objective manner may have been compromised , ” the filing wrote .
The Democrat primary for St. Louis elections will be held on August 4th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep blue city , the winner of the primary is virtually guaranteed victory in November .
Gardner has a number of challengers for the Circuit Attorney position , and it ’ s clear that she ’ s tried to use the McCloskey case to raise her own profile in the weeks before Election Day .
Schwartz isn ’ t asking for the charges to be dismissed outright , only that Gardner be removed from the case and a special prosecutor be appointed in her place .
Given the fact that Gardner herself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the couple entering pre-trial diversion , which would allow them to avoid a criminal record , it ’ s hard to justify the additional expense of a special prosecutor , especially after Gov .
Mike Parson has stated that if the McCloskeys are convicted , he ’ ll pardon the pair .
If this were really about justice , the McCloskeys wouldn ’ t be facing criminal charges for protecting themselves and their property at all .
From the get-go , the zealous attempts by Gardner to prosecute the husband and wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on generating headlines and attention than public safety .
The case should be dismissed entirely , as Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has requested , but at the very least Gardner shouldn ’ t have anything to do with the prosecution going forward .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

The attorney for Mark and Patricia McCloskey has filed a motion to disqualify the prosecutor who brought charges of unlawful use of a weapon against the couple after they displayed firearms while hundreds of protesters marched through their private neighborhood earlier this summer. Joel Schwartz claims that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s decision to go after the couple was motivated by politics, not justice, and says that Gardner used the McCloskeys as campaign fodder for her re-election bid, including fundraising appeals that referenced the case.
According to Wednesday’s court filing, in one email, sent out before charges were filed, Gardner’s campaign literature read: “You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansion” and “..President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens..” The campaign literature contained links to donate. The filing also states campaign literature was sent after the charges, again referencing the McCloskey’s case and links to donate. The McCloskeys’ attorneys state the campaign emails show Gardner has personal interest in the outcome of the case. “Here, a reasonable person with access to all the facts would find that there was at least the appearance of impropriety, in that Ms. Gardner’s decision may have been affected by her personal, political, financial, and professional interests, and that her neutrality, judgement, and ability to administer the law in an objective manner may have been compromised,” the filing wrote.
The Democrat primary for St. Louis elections will be held on August 4th, and given the politics of the deep blue city, the winner of the primary is virtually guaranteed victory in November. Gardner has a number of challengers for the Circuit Attorney position, and it’s clear that she’s tried to use the McCloskey case to raise her own profile in the weeks before Election Day.
Schwartz isn’t asking for the charges to be dismissed outright, only that Gardner be removed from the case and a special prosecutor be appointed in her place. Given the fact that Gardner herself has said that she’d be fine with the couple entering pre-trial diversion, which would allow them to avoid a criminal record, it’s hard to justify the additional expense of a special prosecutor, especially after Gov. Mike Parson has stated that if the McCloskeys are convicted, he’ll pardon the pair.
If this were really about justice, the McCloskeys wouldn’t be facing criminal charges for protecting themselves and their property at all. From the get-go, the zealous attempts by Gardner to prosecute the husband and wife appear to have been based far more on generating headlines and attention than public safety. The case should be dismissed entirely, as Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has requested, but at the very least Gardner shouldn’t have anything to do with the prosecution going forward.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--Politico Attacks Trump, Conservatives Over Chicago Violence

The idea of Chicago being violence is as uncontroversial as saying the sky is blue and the grass is generally green .
It ’ s not exactly something many people can truly dispute .
The numbers speak for themselves .
Further , we can all see how already high violent crime has spiked since riots swept the nation , engulfing so many major cities in fire and hatred .
Yes , it ’ s gotten worse .
It ’ s so bad that President Donald Trump spoke of sending federal officers into town to clean up the streets .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue with Chicago .
It ’ s been a long-time issue for those on the right .
The prospect of federal agents being deployed to Chicago marked the realization of long-held conservative aspirations .
Conservative media for decades have painted America ’ s third-largest city as a national hub of gun violence and gang activity , crippled by what they see as political correctness thwarting real solutions .
Now President Donald Trump is indulging the dream more than any national leader in recent history , attempting to turn a major liberal city into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver law and order across the country .
The president ’ s drumbeat of attention on Chicago — with a pledge to send in hundreds of federal agents to quell the city ’ s gun violence problem — has turned into a stampede of voices designed to rally his troops in the culture wars .
“ If I were mayor of Chicago , I would be begging the president to help me out here in terms of providing more resources ” to control gun violence , said John Lott , a prominent conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rifle Association .
Lott , president of the pro-gun Crime Prevention Research Center , accused city leadership of years of neglect due to “ politically correct ” restrictions , budget reductions and cuts to the police force , leading to lower conviction rates for murders and fewer disincentives against crime .
And he said Trump ’ s overtures should be welcomed .
“ I wouldn ’ t be yelling at him and calling him a racist for trying to help , because the people that are having their lives destroyed are poor Blacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind , though , this is horrible .
It ’ s something no president should do ; as if Chicago is just fine as it is .
Only , even Politico has to admit that it ’ s not .
Instead , though , they lash out and seemingly try to lay the blame for all of the Windy City ’ s ills on guns .
Nevermind that Illinois is a very gun controlled state by American standards .
Nevermind that Chicago had even more strict gun control for years and that never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Instead , they want to paint it as if President Trump has somehow crossed a line .
However , the truth of the matter is that Chicago and Mayor Lori Lightfoot clearly can ’ t handle the violent crime that plagues the city .
While anti-gunners may love to blame firearms , there ’ s nothing legal in Chicago that ’ s not legal in the vast majority of the nation–places that don ’ t have Chicago ’ s violent crime rate , either , I might add–so clearly the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or anything else is actually mentioned in Politico ’ s article .
Nothing at all except to demonize Trump and the right , as if they ’ re really the ones responsible for Chicago ’ s problems .
Instead , they ’ re engaging in political narcissism much like Lightfoot does by blaming all Chicago ’ s issues on outside forces .
Nothing is of their own making , they ’ re just helpless victims of what everyone else is doing to them .
At least Lightfoot had enough sense to team up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city ’ s problems .
Politico , however , doesn ’ t have to do any such thing .
They just get to stomp their feet and hold their breath until they get their way .
Meanwhile , the rest of us will just laugh as they turn blue and pass out instead .

The idea of Chicago being violence is as uncontroversial as saying the sky is blue and the grass is generally green. It’s not exactly something many people can truly dispute. The numbers speak for themselves.
Further, we can all see how already high violent crime has spiked since riots swept the nation, engulfing so many major cities in fire and hatred. Yes, it’s gotten worse.
It’s so bad that President Donald Trump spoke of sending federal officers into town to clean up the streets.
Trump isn’t the only one taking issue with Chicago. It’s been a long-time issue for those on the right.
Apparently, Politico isn’t happy about that.
The prospect of federal agents being deployed to Chicago marked the realization of long-held conservative aspirations. Conservative media for decades have painted America’s third-largest city as a national hub of gun violence and gang activity, crippled by what they see as political correctness thwarting real solutions. Now President Donald Trump is indulging the dream more than any national leader in recent history, attempting to turn a major liberal city into an election-year example of his pledge to deliver law and order across the country. The president’s drumbeat of attention on Chicago — with a pledge to send in hundreds of federal agents to quell the city’s gun violence problem — has turned into a stampede of voices designed to rally his troops in the culture wars. “If I were mayor of Chicago, I would be begging the president to help me out here in terms of providing more resources” to control gun violence, said John Lott, a prominent conservative gun researcher frequently cited by the National Rifle Association. Lott, president of the pro-gun Crime Prevention Research Center, accused city leadership of years of neglect due to “politically correct” restrictions, budget reductions and cuts to the police force, leading to lower conviction rates for murders and fewer disincentives against crime. And he said Trump’s overtures should be welcomed. “I wouldn’t be yelling at him and calling him a racist for trying to help, because the people that are having their lives destroyed are poor Blacks,” Lott said.
In their mind, though, this is horrible. It’s something no president should do; as if Chicago is just fine as it is.
Only, even Politico has to admit that it’s not.
Instead, though, they lash out and seemingly try to lay the blame for all of the Windy City’s ills on guns. Nevermind that Illinois is a very gun controlled state by American standards. Nevermind that Chicago had even more strict gun control for years and that never quelled the violence. Nevermind any of that.
Instead, they want to paint it as if President Trump has somehow crossed a line.
However, the truth of the matter is that Chicago and Mayor Lori Lightfoot clearly can’t handle the violent crime that plagues the city. While anti-gunners may love to blame firearms, there’s nothing legal in Chicago that’s not legal in the vast majority of the nation–places that don’t have Chicago’s violent crime rate, either, I might add–so clearly the issue lies somewhere else.
None of that or anything else is actually mentioned in Politico’s article. Nothing at all except to demonize Trump and the right, as if they’re really the ones responsible for Chicago’s problems.
Instead, they’re engaging in political narcissism much like Lightfoot does by blaming all Chicago’s issues on outside forces. Nothing is of their own making, they’re just helpless victims of what everyone else is doing to them.
At least Lightfoot had enough sense to team up with the feds to deal with her city’s problems. Politico, however, doesn’t have to do any such thing. They just get to stomp their feet and hold their breath until they get their way.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will just laugh as they turn blue and pass out instead.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--Congresswoman Uses El Paso Anniversary To Push Gun Control

It ’ s coming up on the one-year anniversary of the El Paso shooting .
That means it ’ s time for the obligatory moment when someone tries to use the bodies of the slain as a soapbox once again to push gun control .
This year , we have a United States Representative who has opted to be among the first to engage in the morbid and disgusting ritual .
U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar stressed the need for government action against gun violence as El Paso approaches the one-year anniversary of the Walmart mass shooting .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ El Paso Democrat said Monday during a press call with the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety .
“ The vast majority of Americans believe you should be able to walk into a Walmart without fearing that you , too , will be taken down by a semiautomatic weapon .
America is better than this.
” Sure .
Everyone does believe you should be able to walk into Walmart without fear of getting shot .
I should be able to walk into Walmart without fear of seeing someone the size of a humpback whale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ain ’ t happening either .
The truth of the matter is that violence can find you anywhere and everywhere , and almost none of it is somewhere you should expect to get shot .
That ’ s because the evil beings–I can ’ t quite work up the nerve to call them “ people ” right now–that carry out these attacks don ’ t want to go where people expect to get shot .
They pick their targets because you should expect to feel safe .
But that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Escobar urged the Senate and the White House to act on gun control legislation , naming H.R .
8 , a bill that would require background checks for firearms sales .
The bill , known as the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 , seeks new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties .
It would prohibit a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer , manufacturer or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check .
Which wouldn ’ t do a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nothing at all .
You see , the police at the time noted that the shooter bought his weapon legally .
A recent report on additional charges notes he bought it off the internet .
For both of those to be correct , the killer would have had to have had it shipped to a licensed gun dealer and undergone a NICS check .
That ’ s the exact same background check Escobar is trying to use El Paso to push as a requirement for everyone .
The problem is that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background checks .
They often shouldn ’ t be–there ’ s often a history of domestic violence with these creatures–but they can and do .
What ’ s more , Escobar should know this .
She should know both how he got the gun and that he passed the background check .
She knows this and still pushes this disingenuous nonsense .
Then again , for anti-gun lawmakers , mass shootings are just a pretext to push for various measures .
Those measures don ’ t really have to have anything to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just banking on most people being too ill-informed to realize it .

It’s coming up on the one-year anniversary of the El Paso shooting. That means it’s time for the obligatory moment when someone tries to use the bodies of the slain as a soapbox once again to push gun control.
This year, we have a United States Representative who has opted to be among the first to engage in the morbid and disgusting ritual.
U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar stressed the need for government action against gun violence as El Paso approaches the one-year anniversary of the Walmart mass shooting. “This is not a controversial issue,” the El Paso Democrat said Monday during a press call with the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety. “The vast majority of Americans believe you should be able to walk into a Walmart without fearing that you, too, will be taken down by a semiautomatic weapon. America is better than this.”
Sure. Everyone does believe you should be able to walk into Walmart without fear of getting shot.
I should be able to walk into Walmart without fear of seeing someone the size of a humpback whale wearing yoga pants, too, but that ain’t happening either.
The truth of the matter is that violence can find you anywhere and everywhere, and almost none of it is somewhere you should expect to get shot. That’s because the evil beings–I can’t quite work up the nerve to call them “people” right now–that carry out these attacks don’t want to go where people expect to get shot. They pick their targets because you should expect to feel safe.
The problem is, perfect safety doesn’t exist.
But that’s not an excuse in Escobar’s mind.
Escobar urged the Senate and the White House to act on gun control legislation, naming H.R. 8, a bill that would require background checks for firearms sales. The bill, known as the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, seeks new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties. It would prohibit a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check.
Which wouldn’t do a thing to prevent this kind of tragedy. Nothing at all.
You see, the police at the time noted that the shooter bought his weapon legally. A recent report on additional charges notes he bought it off the internet. For both of those to be correct, the killer would have had to have had it shipped to a licensed gun dealer and undergone a NICS check.
That’s the exact same background check Escobar is trying to use El Paso to push as a requirement for everyone.
The problem is that these killers are generally able to pass those background checks. They often shouldn’t be–there’s often a history of domestic violence with these creatures–but they can and do.
What’s more, Escobar should know this. She should know both how he got the gun and that he passed the background check. She knows this and still pushes this disingenuous nonsense.
Then again, for anti-gun lawmakers, mass shootings are just a pretext to push for various measures. Those measures don’t really have to have anything to do with what happened. They’re just banking on most people being too ill-informed to realize it.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--NYC Mayor Blames Court Closures For Crime Spike As Shootings Top 2019 Totals

With shootings and homicides in New York City at levels not seen since in the 1990s , Mayor Bill de Blasio is desperate to get a handle on the city ’ s spike in violent crime , though perhaps not desperate enough to bring back the undercover police unit that was responsible for many of the arrests for illegal gun possession in the city .
Instead , de Blasio has tried to set up community-oriented efforts to “ take back ” high-crime neighborhoods , while continuing to cast blame at anyone and everything he can in an attempt to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again claimed that the city ’ s spike in shootings can be pinned on the city ’ s court system , which has been operating on a limited basis for several months thanks to coronavirus closures orders .
“ It ’ s a perfect storm where we ’ ve seen so much dislocation in this city , so much pain , so much frustration , and in the middle of all that we don ’ t even have the normal things that we depend on to make sure we can stop violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Blasio said .
He also listed the court system as a problem on Monday and on Friday of last week , but court officials said they never really close and they are moving cases everyday .
“ It is wrong to say that the District Attorneys are not prosecuting or that the court system is not functioning , ” Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark said .
“ It is certainly wrong to suggest that the recent uptick in shootings has been caused by the changes in court.
” It ’ s wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t functioning , but it ’ s also wrong to claim that the courts are operating as they normally do .
WPIX-TV in New York points out that cases may be moving , but only so far .
Trials have been on hold , but courts conducted arraignments virtually starting in the middle of March when courts were closed over health concerns .
In a July 20 message , Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that more than 19,000 people had been arraigned since March in New York City criminal courts .
Grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Aug. 10 .
“ The public rightly expects , and must have confidence , that our courts are being faithful to our mission : doing justice , upholding the rule of law and responsibly standing against the disruption of the pandemic , ” she wrote in the message to court workers .
There were 650 preliminary hearings for all incarcerated defendants over the last month , New York Courts spokesman Lucian Chalfen said .
They also calendared more than 800 in person appearances aimed at adjudicating the pending cases de Blasio “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeating the same factually incorrect narrative doesn ’ t make it magically come true , ” Chalfen said in an emailed statement .
“ Today , a felony jury trial resumed in Bronx Supreme Court .
The Mayor used the word innovative , well , creating a virtual court system that never existed before and has done 21,000 arraignments since mid-March should qualify as innovative.
” Meanwhile , a pair of criminal justice advocates are demanding that de Blasio address the city ’ s spike in crime through non-law enforcement means entirely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NY Daily News that the way to sharply reduce shootings is to focus efforts on the small number of people who are actually responsible for them .
I actually think there ’ s a place for these kinds of efforts , but they ’ re not exactly quick fixes .
With the NYPD reporting this week that the city has already blown past the number of shootings for all of 2019 , something needs to be done fast .
The answer is simple , though it ’ s not necessarily easy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ means ensuring that when shots are fired , arrests are made , charges are filed , and cases are resolved quickly and with actual consequences .
Why is crime spiking in New York City ?
Ultimately , it ’ s because criminals believe they can get away with it , and at the moment , they ’ re absolutely right .

With shootings and homicides in New York City at levels not seen since in the 1990s, Mayor Bill de Blasio is desperate to get a handle on the city’s spike in violent crime, though perhaps not desperate enough to bring back the undercover police unit that was responsible for many of the arrests for illegal gun possession in the city. Instead, de Blasio has tried to set up community-oriented efforts to “take back” high-crime neighborhoods, while continuing to cast blame at anyone and everything he can in an attempt to avoid responsibility.
On Tuesday, de Blasio once again claimed that the city’s spike in shootings can be pinned on the city’s court system, which has been operating on a limited basis for several months thanks to coronavirus closures orders.
“It’s a perfect storm where we’ve seen so much dislocation in this city, so much pain, so much frustration, and in the middle of all that we don’t even have the normal things that we depend on to make sure we can stop violence like a functioning court system,” de Blasio said. He also listed the court system as a problem on Monday and on Friday of last week, but court officials said they never really close and they are moving cases everyday. “It is wrong to say that the District Attorneys are not prosecuting or that the court system is not functioning,” Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark said. “It is certainly wrong to suggest that the recent uptick in shootings has been caused by the changes in court.”
It’s wrong to say that the court system isn’t functioning, but it’s also wrong to claim that the courts are operating as they normally do. WPIX-TV in New York points out that cases may be moving, but only so far.
Trials have been on hold, but courts conducted arraignments virtually starting in the middle of March when courts were closed over health concerns. In a July 20 message, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that more than 19,000 people had been arraigned since March in New York City criminal courts. Grand Jury operations will resume in the city on Aug. 10. “The public rightly expects, and must have confidence, that our courts are being faithful to our mission: doing justice, upholding the rule of law and responsibly standing against the disruption of the pandemic,” she wrote in the message to court workers. There were 650 preliminary hearings for all incarcerated defendants over the last month, New York Courts spokesman Lucian Chalfen said. They also calendared more than 800 in person appearances aimed at adjudicating the pending cases de Blasio “constantly references.” “By the Mayor repeating the same factually incorrect narrative doesn’t make it magically come true,” Chalfen said in an emailed statement. “Today, a felony jury trial resumed in Bronx Supreme Court. The Mayor used the word innovative, well, creating a virtual court system that never existed before and has done 21,000 arraignments since mid-March should qualify as innovative.”
Meanwhile, a pair of criminal justice advocates are demanding that de Blasio address the city’s spike in crime through non-law enforcement means entirely. Lucy Lang and Tyler Nims write in the NY Daily News that the way to sharply reduce shootings is to focus efforts on the small number of people who are actually responsible for them.
Instead of harsher policing and more incarceration, the right responses should be based on what we now know about gun violence. Experts increasingly recognize that those who engage in violence have usually witnessed violence or been victimized, that violence spreads through exposure, and that its transmission can be mitigated and prevented. The cycles of trauma and retribution that lead to street violence among small networks of people can be stopped with adequate wraparound support to victims, and with proven interventions from community organizations. Some programs involve “credible messengers” — often people who were previously incarcerated — who use their reputation and experience in the neighborhood to mediate conflicts and engage young people in prosocial services.
I actually think there’s a place for these kinds of efforts, but they’re not exactly quick fixes. With the NYPD reporting this week that the city has already blown past the number of shootings for all of 2019, something needs to be done fast. The answer is simple, though it’s not necessarily easy. It starts with accountability, and that means ensuring that when shots are fired, arrests are made, charges are filed, and cases are resolved quickly and with actual consequences. Why is crime spiking in New York City? Ultimately, it’s because criminals believe they can get away with it, and at the moment, they’re absolutely right.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--New Survey Claims Most Gun Owners Favor Gun Control

Anti-gunners love to argue that their opinions are the mainstream ones .
They tend to say that everyone really agrees with them except for gun owners and that we really need to get with the times .
While some surveys have shown that , others have contradicted the claim .
Honestly , when it comes to public opinion , it really depends on a lot of factors including just how questions are phrased .
Yet it seems that there ’ s a new survey claiming that most gun owners support gun control .
The majority of U.S. gun owners support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report not vocally supporting these policies because they feel disrespected by health advocates .
A new Boston University School of Public Health ( BUSPH ) study sheds new light on the opinions and practices of U.S. gun owners , casting doubt on the way gun owners have been portrayed in policy discussions and media , and even how they perceive themselves .
The survey results , published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine , show that the majority of gun owners support many gun violence prevention policies , including background checks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with domestic violence restraining orders .
But most of these gun owners report that they do not make their support public because they are alienated by the rhetoric of gun violence prevention advocates .
“ Most people think gun violence prevention is a contentious issue , but our survey reveals that gun owners overwhelmingly support policies such as universal background checks and red flag laws , ” says study co-author Claire Boine , a research scholar at BUSPH .
These numbers come from the 2019 National Lawful Use of Guns Survey which asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which is certainly accurate .
However , does that mean these people represent gun owners at large about the rest ?
Well , maybe not .
You see , the panel wasn ’ t a bunch of random people selected out of the phone book .
No , these were people who signed up on the site KnowledgePanel , which means they ’ re people who were interested in being surveyed .
Now , that might not sound like a big difference , but it also may suggest a part of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about gun control .
This is something the researchers acknowledged .
The primary limitation of this paper is the possibility of selection bias , both in terms of the representativeness of the initial panel and potential nonresponse bias .
Previous research has demonstrated that the KnowledgePanel produces estimates that are nationally representative21 and the demographics of this sample are similar to those of gun owners nationally in the General Social Survey.10A comparison of survey respondents and nonrespondents revealed that there were no differences in terms of political party or ideology .
The survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an Internet panel survey and is far higher than the range typically seen with nonprobability , opt-in panels ( 2 % –16 % ) .22 So , while KnowledgePanel does tend to represent the public at large , there is an anomaly with regard to the response rate .
That may suggest a minority clamoring to be heard rather than representative of gun owners at large .
However , while the researchers acknowledge the possibility of selection bias , they don ’ t seem to really believe that to be the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) : Ironically , only 8 % of survey respondents identified themselves as being like the typical gun owner , according to the survey .
“ The NRA pulled one of the biggest illusions in history by making 8 % of gun owners feel like they are the majority , and the other 92 % feel like the minority .
The NRA does not represent gun owners in this country , and it is time for the media and policymakers to give a voice to the silent majority , ” [ study co-author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , represents all you need to know about the researchers .
The National Rifle Association represents millions of people .
Namely , their membership .
There are other gun owners who aren ’ t members simply because they think the NRA is too extreme .
Others won ’ t join because they think the NRA is too willing to compromise .
To say they ’ ve pulled an “ illusion ” is to accuse them of something akin to fraud .
That ’ s simply not the case .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that we ’ re still missing some key information .
In particular , what the questions are .
For example , many gun owners support background checks for new gun purchases at gun stores .
A question that ’ s improperly phrased may make a respondent think of these background checks only to have the study authors decide they really support universal background checks .
That ’ s why we need the actual questions ; so we can determine whether the study left room for misunderstanding or tried to ask leading questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gunners will make much of this study , they shouldn ’ t .
Right now , it ’ s mostly sound and fury , signifying nothing .

Anti-gunners love to argue that their opinions are the mainstream ones. They tend to say that everyone really agrees with them except for gun owners and that we really need to get with the times. While some surveys have shown that, others have contradicted the claim.
Honestly, when it comes to public opinion, it really depends on a lot of factors including just how questions are phrased.
Plus, opinions change rather quickly.
Yet it seems that there’s a new survey claiming that most gun owners support gun control.
The majority of U.S. gun owners support measures such as background checks, but report not vocally supporting these policies because they feel disrespected by health advocates. A new Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) study sheds new light on the opinions and practices of U.S. gun owners, casting doubt on the way gun owners have been portrayed in policy discussions and media, and even how they perceive themselves. The survey results, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, show that the majority of gun owners support many gun violence prevention policies, including background checks, permit requirements, and prohibitions for individuals with domestic violence restraining orders. But most of these gun owners report that they do not make their support public because they are alienated by the rhetoric of gun violence prevention advocates. “Most people think gun violence prevention is a contentious issue, but our survey reveals that gun owners overwhelmingly support policies such as universal background checks and red flag laws,” says study co-author Claire Boine, a research scholar at BUSPH.
These numbers come from the 2019 National Lawful Use of Guns Survey which asked 2,086 admitted gun owners about their opinions.
The study found that:
Nearly 70% of gun owners reported that a reason for their reluctance to engage in gun violence prevention was that they feel alienated because they perceive gun control advocates as blaming them for the gun violence problem, not understanding gun ownership, and not understanding much about guns.
Which is certainly accurate.
However, does that mean these people represent gun owners at large about the rest? Well, maybe not.
You see, the panel wasn’t a bunch of random people selected out of the phone book. No, these were people who signed up on the site KnowledgePanel, which means they’re people who were interested in being surveyed. Now, that might not sound like a big difference, but it also may suggest a part of their psyche may have wanted to be asked about gun control.
This is something the researchers acknowledged.
The primary limitation of this paper is the possibility of selection bias, both in terms of the representativeness of the initial panel and potential nonresponse bias. Previous research has demonstrated that the KnowledgePanel produces estimates that are nationally representative21 and the demographics of this sample are similar to those of gun owners nationally in the General Social Survey.10A comparison of survey respondents and nonrespondents revealed that there were no differences in terms of political party or ideology. The survey completion rate of 57% is excellent for an Internet panel survey and is far higher than the range typically seen with nonprobability, opt-in panels (2%–16%).22
So, while KnowledgePanel does tend to represent the public at large, there is an anomaly with regard to the response rate. That may suggest a minority clamoring to be heard rather than representative of gun owners at large.
However, while the researchers acknowledge the possibility of selection bias, they don’t seem to really believe that to be the case. (From the first link above):
Ironically, only 8% of survey respondents identified themselves as being like the typical gun owner, according to the survey. “The NRA pulled one of the biggest illusions in history by making 8% of gun owners feel like they are the majority, and the other 92% feel like the minority. The NRA does not represent gun owners in this country, and it is time for the media and policymakers to give a voice to the silent majority,” [study co-author Claire] Boine says.
And that, of course, represents all you need to know about the researchers.
The National Rifle Association represents millions of people. Namely, their membership. There are other gun owners who aren’t members simply because they think the NRA is too extreme. Others won’t join because they think the NRA is too willing to compromise. To say they’ve pulled an “illusion” is to accuse them of something akin to fraud. That’s simply not the case.
As for the study, it should be noted that we’re still missing some key information. In particular, what the questions are.
For example, many gun owners support background checks for new gun purchases at gun stores. A question that’s improperly phrased may make a respondent think of these background checks only to have the study authors decide they really support universal background checks. That’s why we need the actual questions; so we can determine whether the study left room for misunderstanding or tried to ask leading questions.
While I’m sure the anti-gunners will make much of this study, they shouldn’t. Right now, it’s mostly sound and fury, signifying nothing.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--Are Ammo Shortages The New Normal For 2020?

If you ’ ve been to a gun store lately , you probably noticed how threadbare the shelves are starting to look .
After months of record high background checks for firearm purchases and soaring demand for ammunition , it ’ s nearly impossible to find common self-defense calibers or even popular plinking rounds like .22LR .
We know that the problem is one of supply and demand , with manufacturers getting squeezed on both ends at the moment .
Customers are buying ammunition faster than companies can make it , and the manufacturers are also having an increasingly difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
The result ?
This could be the new normal for months to come .
Demand for guns and ammo has never been higher according to Firearms Sales Manager Z. Farhat at Green Acres Sporting Goods .
Business , he said , is up by about 300 % .
“ We ’ re selling at an all-time pace .
We have never been this busy , and I think the gun business has never been this busy , ” Farhat said .
He said it ’ s simply a matter of supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not getting any products , so the quantities are getting limited and there is a massive shortage on you know ammo and certain firearms , ” he said .
Farhat said the pandemic , coupled with nationwide protests and it being an election year , have created the perfect storm .
“ We ’ ve already been told from the manufacturers mostly like , it ’ s looking like maybe late third quarter , maybe late fall , and it could be pushed into winter or 2021 until we get a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s an increased demand for ammunition components like copper right now , exacerbated by the fact that other industries are starting to ramp up their own production after months of slowdowns due to the coronavirus .
Copper prices set a two-year high a couple of weeks ago , and have been hovering close to those highs ever since .
We did get one piece of good news on Tuesday when workers at Chile ’ s largest copper mine agreed to a new contract , ending the threat of a strike for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex turned out more than 260,000 tons of copper in 2019 , and the closure of the mine , even temporarily , could have an already tough situation far worse for ammunition manufacturers .
For the time being , it looks like the scarce stock of ammunition will continue .
Manufacturers will keep producing as much as they can while dealing with their own supply chain issues , but consumer demand will ensure that any boxes of ammunition that get to your local store will be purchased almost as soon as its put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had some great advice on how to avoid the ammunition shortages , but unfortunately most gun owners are in the same boat at the moment .
For all of us , patience and persistence are going to be key in the months ahead .

If you’ve been to a gun store lately, you probably noticed how threadbare the shelves are starting to look. After months of record high background checks for firearm purchases and soaring demand for ammunition, it’s nearly impossible to find common self-defense calibers or even popular plinking rounds like .22LR. We know that the problem is one of supply and demand, with manufacturers getting squeezed on both ends at the moment. Customers are buying ammunition faster than companies can make it, and the manufacturers are also having an increasingly difficult time getting the materials they need as well.
The result? This could be the new normal for months to come.
Demand for guns and ammo has never been higher according to Firearms Sales Manager Z. Farhat at Green Acres Sporting Goods. Business, he said, is up by about 300%. “We’re selling at an all-time pace. We have never been this busy, and I think the gun business has never been this busy,” Farhat said. He said it’s simply a matter of supply and demand. “We’re not getting any products, so the quantities are getting limited and there is a massive shortage on you know ammo and certain firearms,” he said. Farhat said the pandemic, coupled with nationwide protests and it being an election year, have created the perfect storm. “We’ve already been told from the manufacturers mostly like, it’s looking like maybe late third quarter, maybe late fall, and it could be pushed into winter or 2021 until we get a lot of the product,” he said.
There’s an increased demand for ammunition components like copper right now, exacerbated by the fact that other industries are starting to ramp up their own production after months of slowdowns due to the coronavirus. Copper prices set a two-year high a couple of weeks ago, and have been hovering close to those highs ever since.
We did get one piece of good news on Tuesday when workers at Chile’s largest copper mine agreed to a new contract, ending the threat of a strike for the time being. The Centinela mine complex turned out more than 260,000 tons of copper in 2019, and the closure of the mine, even temporarily, could have an already tough situation far worse for ammunition manufacturers.
For the time being, it looks like the scarce stock of ammunition will continue. Manufacturers will keep producing as much as they can while dealing with their own supply chain issues, but consumer demand will ensure that any boxes of ammunition that get to your local store will be purchased almost as soon as its put out on the shelf.
I wish had some great advice on how to avoid the ammunition shortages, but unfortunately most gun owners are in the same boat at the moment. For all of us, patience and persistence are going to be key in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--Driver, "Protestor" Pull Guns On One Another At Oregon Riot

From day-to-day , it ’ s hard to keep up with whatever insanity is going on .
Time and time again , we see more and more stupidity flowing all around this great country .
It ’ s like the world is running overtime just to push more and more of what we ’ re seeing all over the nation .
On Monday , Cam wrote about how groups on both sides in Utah are arming up .
More and more , guns are working their way into protests .
As Cam noted , though , when the two sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other side isn ’ t completely awful and can have a civil conversation .
The problem is , though , people are still viewing one another as existential threats .
Groups like Utah , or the NFAC squaring off with the Three Percenters , all represent an escalation that should have us all concerned .
However , it ’ s not just the armed groups that may stir things up .
Indeed leftists are showing their solidarity with Portland militants by staging riots of their own in various U.S. cities — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a smaller Oregon city as well .
Hundreds showed up in Eugene on Saturday night — less than two hours from Portland and with only 177,000 residents — and set off fireworks at a county jail and federal courthouse while attacking businesses with employees trapped inside , Fox News reported .
In the end seven adults and one juvenile were arrested , the network said , after which an anti-capitalist , anti-fascist group of teens that became known amid the Portland rioting appeared to raise money for the jailbirds .
The Pacific Northwest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retweeted messages directing people to use mobile payment service Venmo to send bail funds , Fox News added .
The report also included this tidbit : From there , it went about as you would expect : Now , I don ’ t actually blame the guy in the vehicle .
Especially troubling is the fact that the door is open .
The report doesn ’ t say who opened the door , but if it was the “ protestors , ” then we ’ ve got even more reason for the driver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this situation could easily have ended up much like Austin .
It didn ’ t , but it could have .
Look , folks , let ’ s be clear here .
This mess is quickly getting out of hand .
The worst part is that I don ’ t feel right telling anyone not to carry a gun to a protest , especially if they feel like they ’ ll need one .
The right to keep and bear arms applies to us all regardless of ethnicity or ideology .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t help but feel like some folks are carrying guns to protests not because they feel threatened , but because the hope they ’ ll feel threatened .
They ’ re hoping to spark off something and get a chance to shoot their enemies .
That ’ s not good , but how does it stop ?
How do we put an end to this without sacrificing what matters ?
I ask because I ’ m not a “ peace at any cost ” kind of guy .
Some prices are too high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can we stop it without having to give up everything that matters to us ?
I ’ m afraid we all know the answer to that one .

From day-to-day, it’s hard to keep up with whatever insanity is going on. Time and time again, we see more and more stupidity flowing all around this great country. It’s like the world is running overtime just to push more and more of what we’re seeing all over the nation.
On Monday, Cam wrote about how groups on both sides in Utah are arming up.
More and more, guns are working their way into protests. As Cam noted, though, when the two sides talk, they tend to find out the other side isn’t completely awful and can have a civil conversation. The problem is, though, people are still viewing one another as existential threats. Groups like Utah, or the NFAC squaring off with the Three Percenters, all represent an escalation that should have us all concerned.
However, it’s not just the armed groups that may stir things up.
Indeed leftists are showing their solidarity with Portland militants by staging riots of their own in various U.S. cities — and things heated up over the weekend in a smaller Oregon city as well. Hundreds showed up in Eugene on Saturday night — less than two hours from Portland and with only 177,000 residents — and set off fireworks at a county jail and federal courthouse while attacking businesses with employees trapped inside, Fox News reported. In the end seven adults and one juvenile were arrested, the network said, after which an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist group of teens that became known amid the Portland rioting appeared to raise money for the jailbirds. The Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front’s unverified account retweeted messages directing people to use mobile payment service Venmo to send bail funds, Fox News added.
The report also included this tidbit:
This was in Eugene, Ore. yesterday at the violent antifa gathering. They blocked off the streets and prevented a driver from using the road. When they surrounded him, he brandished a gun. One of the far-left protesters then brandished a gun back. pic.twitter.com/WY1TgdI738 — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 26, 2020
From there, it went about as you would expect:
The pair jaw with each other in the clip, and the driver appears to say “get the f*** out” while the militant quickly replies “no.” Fox News said it wasn’t clear if either man in the video was among the arrestees.
Now, I don’t actually blame the guy in the vehicle. Especially troubling is the fact that the door is open. The report doesn’t say who opened the door, but if it was the “protestors,” then we’ve got even more reason for the driver to pull his weapon.
In fact, this situation could easily have ended up much like Austin. It didn’t, but it could have.
Look, folks, let’s be clear here. This mess is quickly getting out of hand. The worst part is that I don’t feel right telling anyone not to carry a gun to a protest, especially if they feel like they’ll need one. The right to keep and bear arms applies to us all regardless of ethnicity or ideology.
On the same token, I can’t help but feel like some folks are carrying guns to protests not because they feel threatened, but because the hope they’ll feel threatened. They’re hoping to spark off something and get a chance to shoot their enemies.
That’s not good, but how does it stop? How do we put an end to this without sacrificing what matters? I ask because I’m not a “peace at any cost” kind of guy. Some prices are too high, after all. The question is, can we stop it without having to give up everything that matters to us?
I’m afraid we all know the answer to that one.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--Left's Latest Troll: Why Don't Conservative Gun Owners Back Portland Riots?

As violent protests have dragged on for months in places like Portland , Seattle , New York , and Chicago , the Left has found itself struggling to find messaging that appeals to the majority of Americans , who may be on board with things like police reform , but haven ’ t shown much appetite to defund law enforcement or abolish agencies completely .
Even in Washington State , a new poll shows support for defunding the police tops out at about 33 % of those surveyed , though about twice that many say they back moving some police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health assistance .
The American people may be in a mood for reform , but not for revolution , yet that ’ s exactly what the violent demonstrators are demanding .
In their world , Donald Trump is a fascist , DHS employees are storm troopers , and they ’ re the valiant and brave French resistance , only without the guns .
Maybe that ’ s why the new argument on the Left is that gun owners should put on their black berets and man the barricades with their unarmed comrades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tongue-in-cheek example of this argument in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times , where he urged the NRA to join with the anarchists , Antifa-types , and others who want to burn it all down in order to build on the ashes .
For years you warned us that the right to bear arms was necessary to the security of a free State , to safeguard against tyrannical government , and to ward off “ jack-booted government thugs ” with the “ power to take away our constitutional rights , break in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our property , and even injure or kill us.
” And for years we criticized you , thinking tyranny unlikely .
And now we need you and your well-regulated militia .
Unmarked troops in unmarked vans are preying on citizens who are exercising the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .
As you yourselves have lamented , “ not too long ago , it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ With that reality before us .
Unable to protect ourselves from this violent oppressor .
First of all , I don ’ t think Parker really believes he was wrong to criticize gun owners for fearing tyranny .
I ’ m also convinced that Parker knows we ’ re not actually living under tyranny right now either .
It ’ s just another attempt by the Left to try to co-opt support for their agenda by appealing to a cause that enjoys much more widespread approval , and Parker ’ s not alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gun owners to join the cause .
Vanderbilt University ’ s Amy Cooter , a lecturer in sociology , makes many of the same arguments as Parker , though with slightly less snark .
Militias and many other Second Amendment advocates have long argued that their primary desire to own firearms – often , many of them – is rooted in a need to protect themselves and their families from a tyrannical federal government , or to discourage the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place .
But with the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tyranny and dictatorship ” have already arrived on the streets – in the shape of unidentified federal troops using questionable tactics – militia groups appear reluctant to throw their lot in with protesters .
In fact , many have been supporting government action to suppress peaceful demonstrators .
Let ’ s stop there for a moment .
That mayor that Cooter cites is none other than Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot , who did indeed warn that “ tyranny and dictatorship ” is here , but then turned around and welcomed an influx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackle the rising violent crime on Chicago ’ s streets .
If Lightfoot truly believed that Donald Trump was a dictator , I have a hard time believing that she ’ d be on board with the DOJ bringing Operation LeGend to town .
Cooter goes on to say that while some gun owners may actually be backing the demonstrators , “ there are still militia members who support the police.
” I can only speak for myself , but I simply don ’ t think that what ’ s taking place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You want to see what tyranny looks like ?
Go to Hong Kong , where pro-democracy leaders are facing years in prison ; not because they tried to set fire to a courthouse with a Molotov cocktail , but because they are advocating for independence .
Arrested for banners and signs , not bricks and explosive devices .
That ’ s tyranny .
And unlike the protesters in Portland , pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong won ’ t see any entertainers or academics speak out publicly in defense of their rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
Here in the supposedly tyrannical United States , the opinion pages of virtually every newspaper published contains criticism of President Trump on a daily basis .
Two of the major cable news outlets depend on opposition to the president to generate ratings ( though in the case of CNN , it ’ s not working out too well ) .
You know how you know you ’ re not living under a tyrant ?
You can write a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times calling the president a tyrant and nothing happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knock on the door at 3 a.m. by the secret police .
There ’ s no risk that you ’ re going to be sent off to a re-education camp in North Dakota to do hard labor and think about your mistakes for a decade or longer .
There ’ s no state-run media that will cancel your show because you upset the president .
You won ’ t even damage your “ social credit ” score by insulting the president on live TV .
If anything , it will only enhance your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we not living under tyranny , the violent demonstrators in Portland are the aggressors here .
They ’ re the ones setting the city on fire , not the police .
They ’ re the ones trying to burn down the federal courthouse , not police .
Parker and Cooter completely ignore the fact that federal law enforcement was called out to Portland in response to violent demonstrations , not to create them .
Oh , I know , I know .
Donald Trump is running as the “ law and order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal troops ” to Portland to start trouble , knowing that the protesters wouldn ’ t be able to stop themselves from escalating their violence in response .
Why ’ d they try to blind police officers with lasers ?
“ It ’ s not our fault , ” they cry .
“ The orange devil made us do it !
” The great thing about collectivism is you don ’ t have to take individual responsibility for your actions , at least until the collectivists actually end up in charge ( then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slacking on your job , but that ’ s another story altogether ) .
I won ’ t say we ’ re a long way from tyranny , but we ’ re clearly not there yet , and we ever do end up there the Left is at least as likely to be the side to impose it as the Right .
What really concerns me most at the moment is that I get the feeling that guys like Pardis Parker would be just fine with tyranny , as long as he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , I ’ m sure he ’ d say the same thing about me as well .
I guess we ’ ll have to wait to see who ends up as the camper and who gets to be the counselor when we both end up in the re-education camp .

As violent protests have dragged on for months in places like Portland, Seattle, New York, and Chicago, the Left has found itself struggling to find messaging that appeals to the majority of Americans, who may be on board with things like police reform, but haven’t shown much appetite to defund law enforcement or abolish agencies completely. Even in Washington State, a new poll shows support for defunding the police tops out at about 33% of those surveyed, though about twice that many say they back moving some police funds to things like officer training or mental health assistance.
The American people may be in a mood for reform, but not for revolution, yet that’s exactly what the violent demonstrators are demanding. In their world, Donald Trump is a fascist, DHS employees are storm troopers, and they’re the valiant and brave French resistance, only without the guns. Maybe that’s why the new argument on the Left is that gun owners should put on their black berets and man the barricades with their unarmed comrades.
Stand-up comedian Pardis Parker provided a tongue-in-cheek example of this argument in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times, where he urged the NRA to join with the anarchists, Antifa-types, and others who want to burn it all down in order to build on the ashes.
For years you warned us that the right to bear arms was necessary to the security of a free State, to safeguard against tyrannical government, and to ward off “jack-booted government thugs” with the “power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” And for years we criticized you, thinking tyranny unlikely. But we were wrong. And now we need you and your well-regulated militia. Unmarked troops in unmarked vans are preying on citizens who are exercising the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As you yourselves have lamented, “not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.” And yet here we are. With that reality before us. Unable to protect ourselves from this violent oppressor.
First of all, I don’t think Parker really believes he was wrong to criticize gun owners for fearing tyranny. I’m also convinced that Parker knows we’re not actually living under tyranny right now either. It’s just another attempt by the Left to try to co-opt support for their agenda by appealing to a cause that enjoys much more widespread approval, and Parker’s not alone in his attempts to persuade America’s gun owners to join the cause.
Vanderbilt University’s Amy Cooter, a lecturer in sociology, makes many of the same arguments as Parker, though with slightly less snark.
Militias and many other Second Amendment advocates have long argued that their primary desire to own firearms – often, many of them – is rooted in a need to protect themselves and their families from a tyrannical federal government, or to discourage the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place. But with the mayor of a major U.S. city warning that “tyranny and dictatorship” have already arrived on the streets – in the shape of unidentified federal troops using questionable tactics – militia groups appear reluctant to throw their lot in with protesters. In fact, many have been supporting government action to suppress peaceful demonstrators.
Let’s stop there for a moment. That mayor that Cooter cites is none other than Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, who did indeed warn that “tyranny and dictatorship” is here, but then turned around and welcomed an influx of federal law enforcement officers to help tackle the rising violent crime on Chicago’s streets. If Lightfoot truly believed that Donald Trump was a dictator, I have a hard time believing that she’d be on board with the DOJ bringing Operation LeGend to town.
Cooter goes on to say that while some gun owners may actually be backing the demonstrators, “there are still militia members who support the police.”
Commentators have observed that silence from them and other Second Amendment supporters certainly seems to be hypocritical, at best, and possibly supportive of tyranny in the current context. That’s not the way they see it. They argue that one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect citizens from others who might infringe on their rights or safety. They support police who say that Portland authorities have failed to protect regular people from violent protesters.
I can only speak for myself, but I simply don’t think that what’s taking place in Portland is an example of government tyranny. You want to see what tyranny looks like? Go to Hong Kong, where pro-democracy leaders are facing years in prison; not because they tried to set fire to a courthouse with a Molotov cocktail, but because they are advocating for independence.
Four students have been arrested in Hong Kong in the first police operation to enforce China’s new national security law for the territory. The four were detained for “inciting secession” on social media after the new law began on 1 July, police said. A pro-independence group said those arrested included its former leader, Tony Chung. Beijing’s controversial new law criminalises subversion, secession and collusion with foreign forces. Previous arrests under the new law have been made for slogans and banners at protests.
Arrested for banners and signs, not bricks and explosive devices. That’s tyranny. And unlike the protesters in Portland, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong won’t see any entertainers or academics speak out publicly in defense of their rights, because there is no free press in China. Here in the supposedly tyrannical United States, the opinion pages of virtually every newspaper published contains criticism of President Trump on a daily basis. Two of the major cable news outlets depend on opposition to the president to generate ratings (though in the case of CNN, it’s not working out too well).
You know how you know you’re not living under a tyrant? You can write a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times calling the president a tyrant and nothing happens to you. There’s no knock on the door at 3 a.m. by the secret police. There’s no risk that you’re going to be sent off to a re-education camp in North Dakota to do hard labor and think about your mistakes for a decade or longer. There’s no state-run media that will cancel your show because you upset the president. You won’t even damage your “social credit” score by insulting the president on live TV. If anything, it will only enhance your status as an influencer.
Not only are we not living under tyranny, the violent demonstrators in Portland are the aggressors here. They’re the ones setting the city on fire, not the police. They’re the ones trying to burn down the federal courthouse, not police. Parker and Cooter completely ignore the fact that federal law enforcement was called out to Portland in response to violent demonstrations, not to create them.
Oh, I know, I know. Donald Trump is running as the “law and order” candidate, so he sent “federal troops” to Portland to start trouble, knowing that the protesters wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from escalating their violence in response. Why’d they try to blind police officers with lasers? “It’s not our fault,” they cry. “The orange devil made us do it!” The great thing about collectivism is you don’t have to take individual responsibility for your actions, at least until the collectivists actually end up in charge (then you get sent to the gulag for slacking on your job, but that’s another story altogether).
I won’t say we’re a long way from tyranny, but we’re clearly not there yet, and we ever do end up there the Left is at least as likely to be the side to impose it as the Right. What really concerns me most at the moment is that I get the feeling that guys like Pardis Parker would be just fine with tyranny, as long as he was on the side with power. Of course, I’m sure he’d say the same thing about me as well. I guess we’ll have to wait to see who ends up as the camper and who gets to be the counselor when we both end up in the re-education camp.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--Is This Major US Bank Preparing To Give The Gun Industry The Cold Shoulder?

Could Wells Fargo be ready to walk away from its relationship with the firearms industry ?
It looks like an increasingly likely position for the financial giant , according to Dennis Santiago , who writes at RedState.com that the bank ’ s operating committee is meeting today and could decide to end the institution ’ s stated policy of “ providing fair and equal access to banking services to the firearms industry.
” Wells Fargo may instead adopt a business position aligning itself with the Environmental and Social Responsibility Group ( ESRG ) policies , the business reporting term for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large banks such as Bank of America and Citigroup that would refuse to do business with companies that manufacture or sell semi-automatic modern sporting rifle , also known by their media narrative name , semi-automatic assault weapon .
JP Morgan Chase , the biggest domestic US bank , does not say it has such a policy but there have been instances where credit card processing services operated by JPM have been denied to gun dealers by third party vendors in the past .
Unconfirmed rumblings are that pre-meeting calls may have already been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies informing them that Well Fargo may begin withdrawing financial services shortly after the meeting .
It is not clear if such a change in policy will affect commercial lending and business services just for domestic civilian goods ; or if the policy will be a blanket abandonment of manufacturers including those making military , law enforcement , or export market firearms .
Dennis Santiago joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk more about the rumblings that he ’ s hearing , and what it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did decide to adopt the politically correct position of refusing to do business with firearms manufacturers .
One other bit of evidence that Wells Fargo may be getting ready to turn its back on gun companies is the fact that the bank just helped to provide $ 7.5-million in funding for anti-gun research through the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research .
As the organization touted in a Thursday press release : After receiving 238 letters of interest and inviting 48 full proposals representing $ 23 million in proposed research , the Collaborative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee selected nine research projects , five dissertation awards , and one white paper award to fund in its second round of grantmaking .
With support from the Missouri Foundation for Health , four of the funded projects , totaling $ 1.95 million , address gun violence in Missouri , which has some of the nation ’ s highest rates of gun violence .
In addition , the Research Advisory Committee has invited three other grant applicants to revise and resubmit their proposals .
If all three are accepted , the committee is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3.1 million in funding for a total of $ 10.6 million in awards .
In 2019 , Wells Fargo committed to spending $ 10-million to support “ gun violence research ” over three years , and so far they ’ ve made good on their word .
If the company wants to spend some of its corporate profits on gun control , that ’ s their decision , but if they do decide to curb providing financial services to the firearms industry , they could run afoul of regulators .
Santiago says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brian P. Brooks ( whom Santiago describes as the “ sheriff of the banks ” ) is well aware that banks are still under pressure to limit their dealings with unfavored industries like the firearms sector .
In fact , just a week ago , Brooks responded to a request by Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan to look into charges that big banks are discriminating against the oil and gas exploration industry , and brought up the Obama-era Operation Chokepoint ; in which the FDIC pressured banks to end their relationships with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other disfavored sectors of the economy .
“ I share your concerns regarding these decisions .
The oil and gas sector is critically important to our national economy .
It supports 10.3 million jobs in the United States , constitutes nearly 8 percent of our GDP,1 and many communities depend on it , such as the Alaska Native communities whom you highlight .
Oil is the most actively traded commodity in the world .
Given the industry ’ s importance and ubiquity in our daily lives , I am skeptical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputational risk ” to the banks that serve it .
As requested , the OCC will take a serious look at these banks ’ actions .
The OCC intends to seek additional information from the banks involved to understand the rationale for these decisions as well as their effect on our national economy and local communities .
This will , in turn , help us analyze whether these actions violate any duty or obligation under federal laws .
For example , 12 U.S.C .
§ 1 ( a ) requires the OCC to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to financial services.
” “ I had hoped that the banking industry ’ s experience with , and the eventual discrediting of , Operation Chokepoint would be a sufficient object lesson about the perils of discriminating against businesses that , while unpopular to some , are nevertheless legal for all and demanded by many in our market economy .
Unfortunately , your letter suggests that that may not have been the case.
” It may be time for Brooks to take a serious look at the actions of banks when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
Already big financial institutions like Bank of America and Citibank have adopted policies that keep them from funding any gun companies .
If Wells Fargo follows suit , it could dry up capital and leave companies with very few options going forward , crippling the industry at a time when demand for firearms has never been higher .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Dennis Santiago in the video window above , and stay tuned for updates on Wells Fargo ’ s impending decision .

Could Wells Fargo be ready to walk away from its relationship with the firearms industry? It looks like an increasingly likely position for the financial giant, according to Dennis Santiago, who writes at RedState.com that the bank’s operating committee is meeting today and could decide to end the institution’s stated policy of “providing fair and equal access to banking services to the firearms industry.”
Wells Fargo may instead adopt a business position aligning itself with the Environmental and Social Responsibility Group (ESRG) policies, the business reporting term for “political correctness”, of other large banks such as Bank of America and Citigroup that would refuse to do business with companies that manufacture or sell semi-automatic modern sporting rifle, also known by their media narrative name, semi-automatic assault weapon. JP Morgan Chase, the biggest domestic US bank, does not say it has such a policy but there have been instances where credit card processing services operated by JPM have been denied to gun dealers by third party vendors in the past. Unconfirmed rumblings are that pre-meeting calls may have already been placed with the CFO’s of companies informing them that Well Fargo may begin withdrawing financial services shortly after the meeting. It is not clear if such a change in policy will affect commercial lending and business services just for domestic civilian goods; or if the policy will be a blanket abandonment of manufacturers including those making military, law enforcement, or export market firearms.
Dennis Santiago joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk more about the rumblings that he’s hearing, and what it would mean for the industry if Wells Fargo did decide to adopt the politically correct position of refusing to do business with firearms manufacturers. One other bit of evidence that Wells Fargo may be getting ready to turn its back on gun companies is the fact that the bank just helped to provide $7.5-million in funding for anti-gun research through the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research. As the organization touted in a Thursday press release:
After receiving 238 letters of interest and inviting 48 full proposals representing $23 million in proposed research, the Collaborative’s independent, nonpartisan Research Advisory Committee selected nine research projects, five dissertation awards, and one white paper award to fund in its second round of grantmaking. With support from the Missouri Foundation for Health, four of the funded projects, totaling $1.95 million, address gun violence in Missouri, which has some of the nation’s highest rates of gun violence. In addition, the Research Advisory Committee has invited three other grant applicants to revise and resubmit their proposals. If all three are accepted, the committee is prepared to commit up to an additional $3.1 million in funding for a total of $10.6 million in awards.
In 2019, Wells Fargo committed to spending $10-million to support “gun violence research” over three years, and so far they’ve made good on their word. If the company wants to spend some of its corporate profits on gun control, that’s their decision, but if they do decide to curb providing financial services to the firearms industry, they could run afoul of regulators.
Santiago says that the acting Comptroller of the Currency, Brian P. Brooks (whom Santiago describes as the “sheriff of the banks”) is well aware that banks are still under pressure to limit their dealings with unfavored industries like the firearms sector. In fact, just a week ago, Brooks responded to a request by Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan to look into charges that big banks are discriminating against the oil and gas exploration industry, and brought up the Obama-era Operation Chokepoint; in which the FDIC pressured banks to end their relationships with “sindustries” like firearms, payday lending, and other disfavored sectors of the economy.
“I share your concerns regarding these decisions. The oil and gas sector is critically important to our national economy. It supports 10.3 million jobs in the United States, constitutes nearly 8 percent of our GDP,1 and many communities depend on it, such as the Alaska Native communities whom you highlight. Oil is the most actively traded commodity in the world. Given the industry’s importance and ubiquity in our daily lives, I am skeptical of claims that the sector poses a “reputational risk” to the banks that serve it. As requested, the OCC will take a serious look at these banks’ actions. The OCC intends to seek additional information from the banks involved to understand the rationale for these decisions as well as their effect on our national economy and local communities. This will, in turn, help us analyze whether these actions violate any duty or obligation under federal laws. For example, 12 U.S.C. § 1(a) requires the OCC to ensure that banks provide “fair access” to financial services.” “I had hoped that the banking industry’s experience with, and the eventual discrediting of, Operation Chokepoint would be a sufficient object lesson about the perils of discriminating against businesses that, while unpopular to some, are nevertheless legal for all and demanded by many in our market economy. Unfortunately, your letter suggests that that may not have been the case.”
It may be time for Brooks to take a serious look at the actions of banks when it comes to providing services to the firearms industry as well. Already big financial institutions like Bank of America and Citibank have adopted policies that keep them from funding any gun companies. If Wells Fargo follows suit, it could dry up capital and leave companies with very few options going forward, crippling the industry at a time when demand for firearms has never been higher.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Dennis Santiago in the video window above, and stay tuned for updates on Wells Fargo’s impending decision.