bearingarms--2020-07-09--The Hypocrisy Of Gun Control In Current Political Climate

Gun control groups , not unlike the NRA , are single-issue groups .
In theory , they support a single issue and typically don ’ t defer to a given political party except and unless that party tends to line up with that single issue .
That means gun control groups tend to back Democrats , of course , but they ’ re not explicitly part of the Democratic machine .
On the same token , the NRA tends to back Republicans , but since they ’ ve also backed Democrats at various times , they ’ re not truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , gun control groups–organizations which routinely attack the NRA for siding with Republicans so often–are now ignoring the reality that surrounds us in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd .
For months now , guns have sold at record levels , and as Bethany Mandel points out over at Richocet , the gun control groups aren ’ t exactly acting like gun control groups .
Riots have overtaken cities and entire zones of cities have become utterly lawless , with local businesses getting hollowed out and children shot .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to turn to for defense , the police , have been nowhere to be seen ; ordered to stand down by gutless politicians who care more about appeasing social justice mobs than protecting residents .
As a result , Americans are taking defense into their own hands , buying out gun shops across the country .
In a rational world , anti-gun groups would see the surge in gun sales this lawlessness has caused and come out hard against the riots and the neutering of the police .
One would think .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , they ’ re siding with the rioters–the very people who have spurred so much of this gun-buying frenzy–and even tried to claim that gun rights are white supremacy in vain attempts to pretend that they ’ re maintaining their focus on gun control without having to actually face any real reality .
Now , the gun control groups don ’ t have a monopoly on this kind of thing .
Far from it , actually .
However , they ’ ve also been known to criticize any of their opponents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights , yet here we see them ultimately trying to ignore the reality right before them .
They won ’ t advocate putting down the unrest that has spurred millions to buy guns because they can ’ t be seen as siding with the right , despite the fact that in this case , their mission and the right just happen to be in alignment .
That ’ s not how this is supposed to work .
Especially as the same groups engage in mental gymnastics to try and make the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the racist , ignoring countless black men and women who defended their own lives thanks to the Second Amendment .
They simply can ’ t help themselves , though .
They ’ ve been in bed with the Democrats so long they simply can ’ t see anything but what the left declares as reality , even if it bears no resemblance to anyone who isn ’ t a raging liberal .
Personally , I ’ ll find common cause with anyone who will defend the Second Amendment , even liberal gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has picked their allies a different way .

Gun control groups, not unlike the NRA, are single-issue groups. In theory, they support a single issue and typically don’t defer to a given political party except and unless that party tends to line up with that single issue. That means gun control groups tend to back Democrats, of course, but they’re not explicitly part of the Democratic machine.
On the same token, the NRA tends to back Republicans, but since they’ve also backed Democrats at various times, they’re not truly a part of the Republican collective.
However, gun control groups–organizations which routinely attack the NRA for siding with Republicans so often–are now ignoring the reality that surrounds us in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.
For months now, guns have sold at record levels, and as Bethany Mandel points out over at Richocet, the gun control groups aren’t exactly acting like gun control groups.
Riots have overtaken cities and entire zones of cities have become utterly lawless, with local businesses getting hollowed out and children shot. The institutions we’re supposed to be able to turn to for defense, the police, have been nowhere to be seen; ordered to stand down by gutless politicians who care more about appeasing social justice mobs than protecting residents. As a result, Americans are taking defense into their own hands, buying out gun shops across the country. … In a rational world, anti-gun groups would see the surge in gun sales this lawlessness has caused and come out hard against the riots and the neutering of the police.
One would think. However, they’re not. Instead, they’re siding with the rioters–the very people who have spurred so much of this gun-buying frenzy–and even tried to claim that gun rights are white supremacy in vain attempts to pretend that they’re maintaining their focus on gun control without having to actually face any real reality.
Now, the gun control groups don’t have a monopoly on this kind of thing. Far from it, actually.
However, they’ve also been known to criticize any of their opponents to even remotely touch on anything outside of gun rights, yet here we see them ultimately trying to ignore the reality right before them.
They won’t advocate putting down the unrest that has spurred millions to buy guns because they can’t be seen as siding with the right, despite the fact that in this case, their mission and the right just happen to be in alignment.
That’s not how this is supposed to work.
Especially as the same groups engage in mental gymnastics to try and make the case that gun rights are the tools of the racist, ignoring countless black men and women who defended their own lives thanks to the Second Amendment. They simply can’t help themselves, though. They’ve been in bed with the Democrats so long they simply can’t see anything but what the left declares as reality, even if it bears no resemblance to anyone who isn’t a raging liberal.
Personally, I’ll find common cause with anyone who will defend the Second Amendment, even liberal gun owners. It seems the gun control crowd has picked their allies a different way.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Gun Sales Are Booming. What About Firearms Training?

We know that background checks for firearm purchases have been at record highs for several months now , and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that at least 2.5-million Americans have become gun owners since January .
How many of those new gun owners are simply sticking their new handgun in a safe versus going to the range or even sitting in front of the computer and getting some training ?
Tim Schmidt , founder and head of the U.S .
Concealed Carry Association , joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to share his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s pretty interesting .
Schmidt tells me that membership within USCCA is up 300 % since the start of the coronavirus crisis in March , and those new members are highly motivated in seeking out training , both virtual/online or range sessions offered by the organization .
That ’ s very good news , and it ’ s an indication that most new gun owners aren ’ t content to simply purchase a firearm without familiarizing themselves with it .
Of course , with ammunition increasingly hard to find , virtual training may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new gun owners , and while nothing can truly supplant range time , Schmidt says that there are plenty of practical and valuable training tactics available to gun owners to safely work on in their home .
Schmidt and I also spoke about some of the recent instances of gun owners behaving in less than exemplary fashion , like the woman in Michigan who is now facing assault charges after pulling a gun during an argument outside of a Chipotle .
Once again , according to Schmidt , the issue ultimately comes down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get the training she needed to know when it was both legal and proper for her to draw her gun , or she either forgot or ignored her training in the heat of the moment .
I believe government mandates for firearms training work about as well as mandates for wearing masks ; which is to say , not very well .
However , I strongly encourage voluntary firearms training on a regular basis , whether at home or at the range .
Schmidt tells me that he expects the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past the election , and that means we could see millions more Americans join their counterparts in exercising their Second Amendment rights for the very first time by the time we ring in the new year .
How those new gun owners vote is yet to be seen , but it sounds like many of them are at least educating and informing themselves on how to be safe and responsible with their new firearm .
Check out the entire interview with Tim Schmidt above , and stick around afterwards for more news , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bars for shooting a mother and daughter in an ambush attack , and a Socorro , Texas police officer in the right place at the right time to save an 8-year old boy from a burning building .

We know that background checks for firearm purchases have been at record highs for several months now, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that at least 2.5-million Americans have become gun owners since January. How many of those new gun owners are simply sticking their new handgun in a safe versus going to the range or even sitting in front of the computer and getting some training? Tim Schmidt, founder and head of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to share his thoughts and some anecdotal data that’s pretty interesting.
Schmidt tells me that membership within USCCA is up 300% since the start of the coronavirus crisis in March, and those new members are highly motivated in seeking out training, both virtual/online or range sessions offered by the organization. That’s very good news, and it’s an indication that most new gun owners aren’t content to simply purchase a firearm without familiarizing themselves with it.
Of course, with ammunition increasingly hard to find, virtual training may become a much more popular option for new gun owners, and while nothing can truly supplant range time, Schmidt says that there are plenty of practical and valuable training tactics available to gun owners to safely work on in their home.
Schmidt and I also spoke about some of the recent instances of gun owners behaving in less than exemplary fashion, like the woman in Michigan who is now facing assault charges after pulling a gun during an argument outside of a Chipotle. Once again, according to Schmidt, the issue ultimately comes down to training. Ether this woman didn’t get the training she needed to know when it was both legal and proper for her to draw her gun, or she either forgot or ignored her training in the heat of the moment.
I believe government mandates for firearms training work about as well as mandates for wearing masks; which is to say, not very well. However, I strongly encourage voluntary firearms training on a regular basis, whether at home or at the range. Schmidt tells me that he expects the current boom in new gun owners to continue past the election, and that means we could see millions more Americans join their counterparts in exercising their Second Amendment rights for the very first time by the time we ring in the new year.
How those new gun owners vote is yet to be seen, but it sounds like many of them are at least educating and informing themselves on how to be safe and responsible with their new firearm.
Check out the entire interview with Tim Schmidt above, and stick around afterwards for more news, including a Massachusetts father and son behind bars for shooting a mother and daughter in an ambush attack, and a Socorro, Texas police officer in the right place at the right time to save an 8-year old boy from a burning building.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Charges Expected After Two Allegedly Pulled Guns, Used Racist Langauge

There ’ s a right way and a wrong way to be a gun owner .
For the most part , the majority of gun owners do it right .
They don ’ t pull their guns over stupid stuff and mostly just live their lives .
Yet from time to time , we hear of cases where some people are just outright idiots .
Based on the accusations against two North Carolina men , some go beyond that .
A woman said that two men pulled a gun on her and her daughter and used racist language near a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Zariel Balogun said as she was leaving BJ ’ s with her daughter , she noticed a black truck in her rear view mirror as she waited at the four-way stop .
“ It didn ’ t seem like he was going to stop at the stop sign , so I honked my horn , ” she said .
The driver got into the passing lane , but then approached her on the left hand side and started using racial epithets at her and her teenage daughter , she explained .
Balogun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truck and one of the men pulled out a gun .
“ When he pulled his gun out , I informed him , ‘ Put your gun away because you ’ re not going to do anything with it , ’ ” she said .
She said that the man was wearing a “ Make American Great Again ” hat , reversed his car , drove up beside her and said , “ You guys are the very reason why we have to make America Great Again.
” Then , he continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If , of course , it actually happened .
I ’ m skeptical that it did , though .
The reason is that this just feels too damn convenient .
One just happened to be wearing a MAGA hat at the moment he starts slinging racial slurs and using sexist language ?
Sorry , but we ’ ve seen too many of these supposed “ hate crimes ” come up as hoaxes for me to take her at her word .
We ’ ll have to wait and see .
However , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s imperative that we all denounce this kind of thing .
I ’ m not ready to just take the accusations at face value , but I ’ m willing to acknowledge the possibility that this is accurate .
Not everyone on any side is a saint , after all .
No cause is so noble that it won ’ t attract fuggheads and all that jazz .
Yet if you ’ re someone who might do something like this , don ’ t .
You ’ re not helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men left her alone .
She added : Sounds like a hell of a reason to get your own firearm , if you ask me .
I mean , if someone pulled a gun on me , it might induce me to pick up a firearm and get a permit so I could carry it .
I ’ d be damned if I risked my life or my child ’ s life by not being able to meet such a threat .
Especially if racism is as much of a problem as some @ @ @

There’s a right way and a wrong way to be a gun owner. For the most part, the majority of gun owners do it right. They don’t pull their guns over stupid stuff and mostly just live their lives.
Yet from time to time, we hear of cases where some people are just outright idiots.
Based on the accusations against two North Carolina men, some go beyond that.
A woman said that two men pulled a gun on her and her daughter and used racist language near a shopping center in Raleigh on Monday night. Zariel Balogun said as she was leaving BJ’s with her daughter, she noticed a black truck in her rear view mirror as she waited at the four-way stop. “It didn’t seem like he was going to stop at the stop sign, so I honked my horn,” she said. The driver got into the passing lane, but then approached her on the left hand side and started using racial epithets at her and her teenage daughter, she explained. Balogun told WRAL News two men were inside the truck and one of the men pulled out a gun. “When he pulled his gun out, I informed him, ‘Put your gun away because you’re not going to do anything with it,’” she said. She said that the man was wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat, reversed his car, drove up beside her and said, “You guys are the very reason why we have to make America Great Again.” Then, he continued to use racist and sexist language.
Very troubling.
If, of course, it actually happened.
I’m skeptical that it did, though. The reason is that this just feels too damn convenient. One just happened to be wearing a MAGA hat at the moment he starts slinging racial slurs and using sexist language?
Sorry, but we’ve seen too many of these supposed “hate crimes” come up as hoaxes for me to take her at her word. We’ll have to wait and see.
However, if it turns out these claims are legit, it’s imperative that we all denounce this kind of thing. I’m not ready to just take the accusations at face value, but I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility that this is accurate. Not everyone on any side is a saint, after all. No cause is so noble that it won’t attract fuggheads and all that jazz.
Yet if you’re someone who might do something like this, don’t. You’re not helping anyone.
Eventually, Balogun claims the men left her alone. She added:
“If he wanted to shoot, there’s nothing that I could have done,” she said, “He pointed the gun at me and my child.”
Sounds like a hell of a reason to get your own firearm, if you ask me. I mean, if someone pulled a gun on me, it might induce me to pick up a firearm and get a permit so I could carry it. I’d be damned if I risked my life or my child’s life by not being able to meet such a threat.
Especially if racism is as much of a problem as some people argue.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Federal Judge: Cuomo Can Consider Gun Stores "Non-Essential Businesses"

A legal challenge to Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s order declaring non-essential businesses , including gun stores , to close because of the COVID-19 coronavirus was dealt a setback this week when a federal judge declared that the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers weren ’ t violated by the shutdown of most retailers .
The lawsuit was brought by Long Island-based Dark Storm Industries , which had argued that Cuomo ’ s non-essential business declaration amounted to a violation of the right to keep and bear arms , since New Yorkers hoping to purchase a firearm would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Lawrence Kahn disagreed , however , and in his decision pointed out that plenty of New Yorkers found a way to purchase a firearm since the order went into effect in March .
After the orders were issued , Dark Storm contacted the Cuomo administration , which relayed that the company could continue business with law enforcement and the military , but not civilians .
As a result , Dark Storm closed for business , even as other gun sellers such as Walmart , which sells a far broader array of types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open .
Because guns were available even during the height of the pandemic , Second Amendment rights were not unduly infringed upon , Kahn stated in Wednesday ’ s ruling .
The Cuomo administration “ made a policy decision about which businesses qualified as ‘ essential ’ and which did not .
In the face of a global pandemic , the court is loath to second-guess those policy decisions , ” Kahn stated in his ruling .
“ Having found that the burden on plaintiffs ’ Second Amendment rights is insubstantial , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of heightened scrutiny to the executive orders.
” Under Cuomo ’ s order , essential businesses like Wal-Mart or hardware stores were allowed to remain open , and could continue to sell firearms , but the vast majority of gun shops were told to close , unless they were small stores with only one employee ( another exemption in Cuomo ’ s original stay-at-home order ) .
It ’ s true that firearms were still available to purchase in New York State even after Cuomo declared gun stores to be non-essential , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the burden placed on gun buyers .
The two states that didn ’ t register any year-over-year increase in firearm background checks were New York and Massachusetts .
In New York , the number of checks hovered just below normal levels .
In Massachusetts , background checks saw a significant year-over-year decrease , falling 66 % … In each of the five states where gun stores were deemed nonessential , The Trace contacted retailers to inquire whether they were open .
In Michigan , 15 of 20 stores said that they were open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not answer their phones .
In Washington , all 10 dealers contacted were also selling guns , but some emphasized that they required customers to schedule appointments to ensure social distancing .
In New Mexico , 9 out of 10 dealers contacted were open throughout April ; in New York , four out of 10 stores contacted said the same .
The remaining stores in both states did not answer calls .
While background checks were soaring across the United States , they were stagnant in New York .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ordered closure of gun stores did have an impact on New Yorkers hoping to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
Wal-Mart , for example , doesn ’ t sell handguns or modern sporting rifles , so folks wanting a handgun for self-defense couldn ’ t turn to the giant retailer even if its gun counter was open and staffed .
Some stores may have chosen to quietly remain open despite Cuomo ’ s order , but even The Trace was forced to acknowledge that 60 % of the shops they contacted were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the stores they contacted that remained open were either not full-time firearms retailers , or small shops that fell under the governor ’ s sole-employee exemption .
While some guns were sold to some New Yorkers , the evidence from around the country indicates that if gun shops had been allowed to remain open in New York State , background checks would have soared to record highs instead of being slightly down from April of 2019 .
That suggests that an unknown number of New York residents really were deprived of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to Cuomo ’ s coronavirus order .
Dark Storm Industries , which makes NY-compliant AR-15s , didn ’ t qualify under any of the governor ’ s exemptions and did shut down for several months .
They could be forced to do so again if New York , which is currently in Phase 3 of its reopen plan , sees another spike in cases and the governor issues another executive order .
Another prolonged shutdown could end up forcing DSI to close its doors for good , so I ’ m hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals , even if they may be facing long odds there as well .

A legal challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s order declaring non-essential businesses, including gun stores, to close because of the COVID-19 coronavirus was dealt a setback this week when a federal judge declared that the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers weren’t violated by the shutdown of most retailers.
The lawsuit was brought by Long Island-based Dark Storm Industries, which had argued that Cuomo’s non-essential business declaration amounted to a violation of the right to keep and bear arms, since New Yorkers hoping to purchase a firearm would be unable to do so. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn disagreed, however, and in his decision pointed out that plenty of New Yorkers found a way to purchase a firearm since the order went into effect in March.
After the orders were issued, Dark Storm contacted the Cuomo administration, which relayed that the company could continue business with law enforcement and the military, but not civilians. As a result, Dark Storm closed for business, even as other gun sellers such as Walmart, which sells a far broader array of types of goods, were allowed to remain open. Because guns were available even during the height of the pandemic, Second Amendment rights were not unduly infringed upon, Kahn stated in Wednesday’s ruling. The Cuomo administration “made a policy decision about which businesses qualified as ‘essential’ and which did not. In the face of a global pandemic, the court is loath to second-guess those policy decisions,” Kahn stated in his ruling. “Having found that the burden on plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights is insubstantial, the court has no need to apply any form of heightened scrutiny to the executive orders.”
Under Cuomo’s order, essential businesses like Wal-Mart or hardware stores were allowed to remain open, and could continue to sell firearms, but the vast majority of gun shops were told to close, unless they were small stores with only one employee (another exemption in Cuomo’s original stay-at-home order). It’s true that firearms were still available to purchase in New York State even after Cuomo declared gun stores to be non-essential, but I disagree with the judge about the burden placed on gun buyers.
Back in May, USA Today ran a story produced with the help of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun news outlet The Trace, which noted that even in states that had declared gun stores to be non-essential, sales were booming. One exception, however, was the state of New York.
The two states that didn’t register any year-over-year increase in firearm background checks were New York and Massachusetts. In New York, the number of checks hovered just below normal levels. In Massachusetts, background checks saw a significant year-over-year decrease, falling 66%… In each of the five states where gun stores were deemed nonessential, The Trace contacted retailers to inquire whether they were open. In Michigan, 15 of 20 stores said that they were open to walk-in customers. The remaining five did not answer their phones. In Washington, all 10 dealers contacted were also selling guns, but some emphasized that they required customers to schedule appointments to ensure social distancing. In New Mexico, 9 out of 10 dealers contacted were open throughout April; in New York, four out of 10 stores contacted said the same. The remaining stores in both states did not answer calls.
While background checks were soaring across the United States, they were stagnant in New York. That’s an indication to me that Cuomo’s ordered closure of gun stores did have an impact on New Yorkers hoping to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Wal-Mart, for example, doesn’t sell handguns or modern sporting rifles, so folks wanting a handgun for self-defense couldn’t turn to the giant retailer even if its gun counter was open and staffed. Some stores may have chosen to quietly remain open despite Cuomo’s order, but even The Trace was forced to acknowledge that 60% of the shops they contacted were closed. It could very well be that the stores they contacted that remained open were either not full-time firearms retailers, or small shops that fell under the governor’s sole-employee exemption.
While some guns were sold to some New Yorkers, the evidence from around the country indicates that if gun shops had been allowed to remain open in New York State, background checks would have soared to record highs instead of being slightly down from April of 2019. That suggests that an unknown number of New York residents really were deprived of their ability to purchase a firearm for self-defense thanks to Cuomo’s coronavirus order.
Dark Storm Industries, which makes NY-compliant AR-15s, didn’t qualify under any of the governor’s exemptions and did shut down for several months. They could be forced to do so again if New York, which is currently in Phase 3 of its reopen plan, sees another spike in cases and the governor issues another executive order. Another prolonged shutdown could end up forcing DSI to close its doors for good, so I’m hoping that the company will appeal Kahn’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, even if they may be facing long odds there as well.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Study Creates Term 'Excess Firearms.' WTF Are Those?

Compared to many people I know , my collection of firearms is pretty modest .
It ’ s enough for the media to freak out over if the police were to raid my house , of course , but not nearly as many as some folks I know .
The thing is , most of us have various guns for specific reasons .
Now , sometimes those reasons are “ it ’ s cool and I like it , ” but they ’ re still reasons .
However , it seems a recent study coined a new term we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the lips of every anti-gunner we encounter .
Amazingly , a new “ study ” is making headlines , despite the fact that it relies on obviously faulty assumptions , irrational methodology and has not been peer-reviewed .
The authors cite themselves as support for spurious statements like “ Surges in firearm purchasing…have been well documented in association with mass shootings and significant political events and are followed by population-level increases in firearm violence.
” Crime data for the most recent months isn ’ t available yet , but we know history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy more of something they think will soon be scarce .
Just as there was an increase in toilet paper buying during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic , adults are more likely to legally purchase a certain firearm they have been thinking about when there is a political discussion of banning that firearm .
Does that mean those purchases are , as the author argues , “ excess ” firearms ?
Any chef will tell you they require different types of knives for different kitchen tasks .
Any hunter will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same firearm for self-defense as they would in the field .
All guns are not the same and do not meet the same needs for law-abiding citizens that choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms .
The difference is , although there are more homicides each year committed with knives than with Modern Sporting Rifles , no one seems to argue seriously against owning any knives or for limiting the number that a home may possess because more than one is excessive .
Different firearms have different purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a .30-06 for deer hunting , but .338 Lapua for long-range shooting .
You might also have a .22 LR for hunting squirrels or rabbits and a 12-gauge semi-auto for ducks as well as an AR-15 for home defense , a handgun for day-to-day carry , and any number of other guns for any other reason you care to conjure .
Guns fit different roles in our lives , up to including just outright affection .
How many people bought .44 Magnums just because Dirty Harry had one ?
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on my list for a someday purchase simply because James Bond used it .
Yet does that make them “ excess ?
” The author of this takedown of the study , Elizabeth McGuigan from the NSSF , adds : The gymnastics used by the authors to determine what is considered “ excess purchases ” could alone take an entire study to critique .
But picking apart their process would mean accepting that the premise is sound .
Which it simply is not .
There is no such thing as “ excess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is demand .
There are legal , heavily regulated sales .
There are law-abiding adults possessing and using firearms in compliance with federal , state and local laws .
To assert that there have been “ excess purchases ” of over 2 million firearms is a thinly veiled , deeply biased assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the legal purchase of a firearm .
With this in mind , the model doesn ’ t matter .
This study comes down to a simple equation : garbage in , garbage out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no evidence to show these legally purchased firearms have been used in any crimes .
However , we ’ re going to start seeing guns referred to as “ excess firearms ” or “ excess guns ” very soon , I ’ m quite sure .
That despite the fact that it ’ s a completely BS term .
So , dig in .
We ’ re about to have more stupid to deal with .

Compared to many people I know, my collection of firearms is pretty modest. It’s enough for the media to freak out over if the police were to raid my house, of course, but not nearly as many as some folks I know.
The thing is, most of us have various guns for specific reasons. Now, sometimes those reasons are “it’s cool and I like it,” but they’re still reasons.
However, it seems a recent study coined a new term we’re all likely to hear soon enough on the lips of every anti-gunner we encounter.
Amazingly, a new “study” is making headlines, despite the fact that it relies on obviously faulty assumptions, irrational methodology and has not been peer-reviewed. The authors cite themselves as support for spurious statements like “Surges in firearm purchasing…have been well documented in association with mass shootings and significant political events and are followed by population-level increases in firearm violence.” Crime data for the most recent months isn’t available yet, but we know history proves otherwise. Sure, Americans tend to buy more of something they think will soon be scarce. Just as there was an increase in toilet paper buying during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, adults are more likely to legally purchase a certain firearm they have been thinking about when there is a political discussion of banning that firearm. Does that mean those purchases are, as the author argues, “excess” firearms? Any chef will tell you they require different types of knives for different kitchen tasks. Any hunter will tell you they would not rely on the same firearm for self-defense as they would in the field. All guns are not the same and do not meet the same needs for law-abiding citizens that choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The difference is, although there are more homicides each year committed with knives than with Modern Sporting Rifles, no one seems to argue seriously against owning any knives or for limiting the number that a home may possess because more than one is excessive.
Precisely.
Different firearms have different purposes. For example, you may have a .30-06 for deer hunting, but .338 Lapua for long-range shooting. You might also have a .22 LR for hunting squirrels or rabbits and a 12-gauge semi-auto for ducks as well as an AR-15 for home defense, a handgun for day-to-day carry, and any number of other guns for any other reason you care to conjure.
Guns fit different roles in our lives, up to including just outright affection. How many people bought .44 Magnums just because Dirty Harry had one? I’m not going to lie; a Walther PPK is on my list for a someday purchase simply because James Bond used it.
Yet does that make them “excess?”
The author of this takedown of the study, Elizabeth McGuigan from the NSSF, adds:
The gymnastics used by the authors to determine what is considered “excess purchases” could alone take an entire study to critique. But picking apart their process would mean accepting that the premise is sound. Which it simply is not. There is no such thing as “excess purchases.” There is supply and there is demand. There are legal, heavily regulated sales. There are law-abiding adults possessing and using firearms in compliance with federal, state and local laws. To assert that there have been “excess purchases” of over 2 million firearms is a thinly veiled, deeply biased assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the legal purchase of a firearm. With this in mind, the model doesn’t matter. This study comes down to a simple equation: garbage in, garbage out. In fact, the authors recognize that there is no evidence to show these legally purchased firearms have been used in any crimes.
However, we’re going to start seeing guns referred to as “excess firearms” or “excess guns” very soon, I’m quite sure. That despite the fact that it’s a completely BS term.
So, dig in. We’re about to have more stupid to deal with.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Money, Greed, And Self-Defense: Murder Plot Foiled By Armed Couple

This may be one of the most insane stories of self-defense I ’ ve run across in quite some time .
A couple in Yellow Springs , Ohio , has been cleared by prosecutors and a grand jury , who determined the pair acted in self-defense when they shot and killed the man ’ s ex-wife and her new husband , who had apparently driven from North Carolina to Ohio intent on murdering the couple .
The ambush actually took place back in February , but due to coronavirus-related court closures , the grand jury wasn ’ t able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks ago .
Based on the evidence presented , it likely took jurors just a few minutes to clear the couple of any potential charges .
Evidence previously not released publicly was among materials that led investigators to believe the deceased , Cheryl Sanders , 59 , and her husband , Robert “ Reed ” Sanders , 56 , had driven to Ohio from their home in North Carolina with the intention of killing Cheryl Sanders ’ ex-husband , Robert “ Lindsey ” Duncan , and Duncan ’ s wife , Molly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They had a checklist , ” Greene County Prosecutor Stephen K. Haller said in a phone interview last week .
The Yellow Springs News detailed some of the items on that checklist , and they ’ re almost cartoonishly evil .
A piece of lined notebook paper bears the handwritten heading , in all uppercase letters , “ Be prepared prior to leaving for Y.S.
” Under that , also in all uppercase letters is written : A couple lines down , in a mix of upper and lower case letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alibi —B : Cheryl is out of danger / ability to drive back to Asheville A numbered , nine-point to-do list follows and includes such details as “ Have camera operational , ” “ Call AA prior to departure to verify Lindsey location , ” “ Purchase airplane fuel , ” “ Testosterone injection , ” “ Purchase car/truck prior to leaving for Y.S.
, ” “ Phones are charged from Verizon.
” Police were able to recover the checklist after the Sanders ’ s made their drive and launched their attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 12 , the Duncans were driving back to their home after breakfast .
Lindsey Duncan parked the car at the top of the driveway and got out to check the mailbox .
As he was getting back in the vehicle , he saw a man wearing a mask and holding a gun , walking up to his wife ’ s side of the car .
According to the transcript of his Feb. 12 interview with sheriff ’ s deputies , Lindsey said he owns a gun , but had left it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Molly if her gun was in the car .
Both Duncans have Ohio conceal carry permits , which they told investigators they had obtained out of fear that Cheryl Sanders wanted to do them harm .
They obtained the permits when they moved about four years ago to the area , where Molly has family nearby .
With Molly ’ s gun in hand , Lindsey said he exchanged fire with the man later identified as Reed Sanders .
Lindsey said his ex-wife then pulled up in a vehicle , got out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before being shot by Duncan .
The Greene County coroner said in February that the apparent cause of death for the Sanderses was multiple gunshot wounds .
Investigators reported finding three weapons at the scene and multiple shell casings .
The Duncans were not physically hurt in the altercation .
The alleged motive in the attack on the Duncans , according to the local prosecutor , was money and greed .
Lindsey Duncan had a lot of the former and Cheryl Sanders and her husband apparently had a killer dose of the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Duncan made a lot of money off of an herbal extract , enough in fact that he could pay a $ 9-million fine levied by the Federal Trade Commission back in 2015 over deceptive advertising claims for his green coffee bean extract .
Still , despite motive and evidence pointing toward a case of justifiable homicide , Haller chose to present the case to a grand jury rather than decide himself whether to file charges .
“ Two people were killed , ” he said .
“ We take that very seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand jury.
” The autopsy found that Reed Sanders was shot five times , with one bullet in his back and another in his buttocks ; and Cheryl Sanders was shot four times .
In a statement to thepress two days after the shooting , Lindsey Duncan said he ’ d acted “ on pure instinct.
” Haller said that going to the grand jury gave the Duncans “ the opportunity to tell their story [ to the jurors ] , and it gave the grand jury the opportunity to ask them questions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a pretty solid sense that Lindsey Duncan had acted in self-defense , Haller said he was aware of some sentiments in the public suggesting that the Duncans ’ stories didn ’ t add up , that the shooting was a set-up of some kind .
Letting the grand jury make the decision about culpability helps “ put this to rest once and for all , ” he added .
“ As I see it , this is a traditional , classic self-defense case.
” I don ’ t know about traditional or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty clear cut case of self-defense .
I think the grand jury made the right decision .
It ’ s just a shame that the same can ’ t be said of Cheryl and Reed Sanders .

This may be one of the most insane stories of self-defense I’ve run across in quite some time. A couple in Yellow Springs, Ohio, has been cleared by prosecutors and a grand jury, who determined the pair acted in self-defense when they shot and killed the man’s ex-wife and her new husband, who had apparently driven from North Carolina to Ohio intent on murdering the couple.
The ambush actually took place back in February, but due to coronavirus-related court closures, the grand jury wasn’t able to hear the case until just a few weeks ago. Based on the evidence presented, it likely took jurors just a few minutes to clear the couple of any potential charges.
Evidence previously not released publicly was among materials that led investigators to believe the deceased, Cheryl Sanders, 59, and her husband, Robert “Reed” Sanders, 56, had driven to Ohio from their home in North Carolina with the intention of killing Cheryl Sanders’ ex-husband, Robert “Lindsey” Duncan, and Duncan’s wife, Molly, at the Duncans’ Grinnell Road home. “They had a checklist,” Greene County Prosecutor Stephen K. Haller said in a phone interview last week.
The Yellow Springs News detailed some of the items on that checklist, and they’re almost cartoonishly evil.
A piece of lined notebook paper bears the handwritten heading, in all uppercase letters, “Be prepared prior to leaving for Y.S.” Under that, also in all uppercase letters is written: —Objective: Cause pain for Lindsey
Primary: Kill him
Secondary: Burn house down
Third: Kill him/her A couple lines down, in a mix of upper and lower case letters, is written: —A: Have alibi
—B: Cheryl is out of danger / ability to drive back to Asheville
A numbered, nine-point to-do list follows and includes such details as “Have camera operational,” “Call AA prior to departure to verify Lindsey location,” “Purchase airplane fuel,” “Testosterone injection,” “Purchase car/truck prior to leaving for Y.S.,” “Phones are charged from Verizon.”
Police were able to recover the checklist after the Sanders’s made their drive and launched their attack on the Duncans. On the morning of February 12, the Duncans were driving back to their home after breakfast. Lindsey Duncan parked the car at the top of the driveway and got out to check the mailbox. As he was getting back in the vehicle, he saw a man wearing a mask and holding a gun, walking up to his wife’s side of the car.
According to the transcript of his Feb. 12 interview with sheriff’s deputies, Lindsey said he owns a gun, but had left it in the house earlier, and so he asked Molly if her gun was in the car. Both Duncans have Ohio conceal carry permits, which they told investigators they had obtained out of fear that Cheryl Sanders wanted to do them harm. They obtained the permits when they moved about four years ago to the area, where Molly has family nearby. With Molly’s gun in hand, Lindsey said he exchanged fire with the man later identified as Reed Sanders. Lindsey said his ex-wife then pulled up in a vehicle, got out and also threatened them with a gun before being shot by Duncan. The Greene County coroner said in February that the apparent cause of death for the Sanderses was multiple gunshot wounds. Investigators reported finding three weapons at the scene and multiple shell casings. The Duncans were not physically hurt in the altercation.
The alleged motive in the attack on the Duncans, according to the local prosecutor, was money and greed. Lindsey Duncan had a lot of the former and Cheryl Sanders and her husband apparently had a killer dose of the latter. Greene County Prosecutor Stephen K. Haller says Duncan made a lot of money off of an herbal extract, enough in fact that he could pay a $9-million fine levied by the Federal Trade Commission back in 2015 over deceptive advertising claims for his green coffee bean extract.
Still, despite motive and evidence pointing toward a case of justifiable homicide, Haller chose to present the case to a grand jury rather than decide himself whether to file charges.
“Two people were killed,” he said. “We take that very seriously. It deserved a review by the grand jury.” The autopsy found that Reed Sanders was shot five times, with one bullet in his back and another in his buttocks; and Cheryl Sanders was shot four times. In a statement to thepress two days after the shooting, Lindsey Duncan said he’d acted “on pure instinct.” Haller said that going to the grand jury gave the Duncans “the opportunity to tell their story [to the jurors], and it gave the grand jury the opportunity to ask them questions.” While the prosecutor’s office had a pretty solid sense that Lindsey Duncan had acted in self-defense, Haller said he was aware of some sentiments in the public suggesting that the Duncans’ stories didn’t add up, that the shooting was a set-up of some kind. Letting the grand jury make the decision about culpability helps “put this to rest once and for all,” he added. “As I see it, this is a traditional, classic self-defense case.”
I don’t know about traditional or classic, but it’s a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. I think the grand jury made the right decision. It’s just a shame that the same can’t be said of Cheryl and Reed Sanders.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--Anti-Gunner Claims McCloskeys' Gun Handling Problem For Us

When the McCloskeys brought out their guns to face a mob that they claim threatened their lives and their homes , they catapulted into a national talking point .
Everyone had an opinion , and many were critical of how the McCloskeys handled themselves .
It was clear to many of us that they didn ’ t have a lot of training time with their weapons and that was noted by a great many people in the gun community .
Few on this side of the divide felt they acted wrongly by presenting their guns before an angry mob .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many instances of stuff being wrecked not to take it seriously .
However , it seems the anti-gunners are going to try and use this to attack gun rights .
It ’ s inconceivable and abhorrent to me that gun owners could be so careless , and that as a society we haven ’ t taken the steps to require proper training , safety and accountability measures for civilian gun ownership .
Our legislators need to reexamine the gun laws in this country — especially in Missouri .
Responsible gun owners need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who don ’ t practice it .
When the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at a crowd , demonstrating lethal intent when none was warranted , I wasn ’ t there to relay the kind of message any instructor would have done in basic training .
As a civilian , I can ’ t make them do push-ups until lactic acid pumps through their arms and they can ’ t hold a rifle upright .
But we can and we should and we must do more to ensure that those who possess firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The author of this piece , Peter Lucier , is a member of the Everytown Veterans Advisory Council .
In other words , he ’ s a vehement anti-gunner who doesn ’ t think you or I should have access to certain weapons ; or any weapons , ultimately .
However , what Lucier is missing here is that much of the criticism of the McCloskeys ’ weapons handling skills didn ’ t come from anti-gunners .
It came from people in the gun rights community .
We criticized and pointed out what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ultimately believe that training is essential .
He says we need to decry it , but he ’ s so stuck in the anti-gun bubble that he failed to note that we ’ d done just that .
We just oppose mandating it , unlike Lucier .
Gun rights are fundamental human rights , a right protected in the Constitution .
Rights need to be used responsibly , but we don ’ t require training prior to exercising any other fundamental right .
While I ’ m sure Lucier would argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human life that guns do , he ’ d be wrong .
Misusing free speech can incite a mob that results in the loss of human life .
I mean , we ’ ve seen angry mobs kill innocent people recently , as a matter of fact , so let ’ s not pretend it can ’ t happen .
Further , governments are responsible for more loss of life over the last century than private citizens ever could .
Yet we don ’ t require special training in order to vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was ostensibly a democratic republic .
For Lucier to pretend that gun rights are somehow different just proves that he , just as so many of his Everytown cohorts , believes that the Second Amendment is a second-class right .
He wants to deny people their basic civil liberties until they meet the criteria he deems appropriate , and he ’ s using the McCloskeys to do it .
That ’ s funny , especially since the McCloskeysaren ’ tt exactly part of the gun rights crowd .
Well , they weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-gun media and their buddies have attacked them , they might just rethink that .

When the McCloskeys brought out their guns to face a mob that they claim threatened their lives and their homes, they catapulted into a national talking point. Everyone had an opinion, and many were critical of how the McCloskeys handled themselves. It was clear to many of us that they didn’t have a lot of training time with their weapons and that was noted by a great many people in the gun community.
Few on this side of the divide felt they acted wrongly by presenting their guns before an angry mob. I mean, we’d seen too many instances of stuff being wrecked not to take it seriously.
However, it seems the anti-gunners are going to try and use this to attack gun rights.
It’s inconceivable and abhorrent to me that gun owners could be so careless, and that as a society we haven’t taken the steps to require proper training, safety and accountability measures for civilian gun ownership. Our legislators need to reexamine the gun laws in this country — especially in Missouri. Responsible gun owners need to be vocal about safety and decry those who don’t practice it. When the McCloskeys pointed their weapons at a crowd, demonstrating lethal intent when none was warranted, I wasn’t there to relay the kind of message any instructor would have done in basic training. As a civilian, I can’t make them do push-ups until lactic acid pumps through their arms and they can’t hold a rifle upright. But we can and we should and we must do more to ensure that those who possess firearms learn and practice basic safety principles.
The author of this piece, Peter Lucier, is a member of the Everytown Veterans Advisory Council. In other words, he’s a vehement anti-gunner who doesn’t think you or I should have access to certain weapons; or any weapons, ultimately.
However, what Lucier is missing here is that much of the criticism of the McCloskeys’ weapons handling skills didn’t come from anti-gunners. It came from people in the gun rights community. We criticized and pointed out what they were doing wrong because we almost all ultimately believe that training is essential. He says we need to decry it, but he’s so stuck in the anti-gun bubble that he failed to note that we’d done just that.
We just oppose mandating it, unlike Lucier.
Gun rights are fundamental human rights, a right protected in the Constitution. Rights need to be used responsibly, but we don’t require training prior to exercising any other fundamental right. While I’m sure Lucier would argue that none of those have the ramifications on human life that guns do, he’d be wrong.
Misusing free speech can incite a mob that results in the loss of human life. I mean, we’ve seen angry mobs kill innocent people recently, as a matter of fact, so let’s not pretend it can’t happen.
Further, governments are responsible for more loss of life over the last century than private citizens ever could. Yet we don’t require special training in order to vote. Remember, Hitler came to power in what was ostensibly a democratic republic.
For Lucier to pretend that gun rights are somehow different just proves that he, just as so many of his Everytown cohorts, believes that the Second Amendment is a second-class right. He wants to deny people their basic civil liberties until they meet the criteria he deems appropriate, and he’s using the McCloskeys to do it. That’s funny, especially since the McCloskeysaren’tt exactly part of the gun rights crowd.
Well, they weren’t, anyway. Now that the anti-gun media and their buddies have attacked them, they might just rethink that.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--The Racism Of Gun Control Perfectly Distilled Into A Single Tweet

I have to confess that as much as I love to read , I ’ d never run across an author by the name of Allison Burnett until I was scrolling through my Twitter feed Wednesday evening and stumbled upon one of the true gems that the social media cesspool manages to spill out every now and then ; a tweet so gobsmackingly racist , paternalistic , and elitist in its intent that I had to check to make sure this wasn ’ t some satirical account like Titania McGrath .
Nope .
Allison Burnett is the real deal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he ’ s actually saying here .
Wooo boy .
Another way to put it would be “ If it takes arresting every armed black protester in America to get racist conservatives to finally get on board with my gun control agenda , let ’ s do it !
” That , uh , sounds pretty freaking racist to me , especially coming from a 61-year old white dude who wouldn ’ t actually be impacted by any of the gun control laws he ’ s calling for .
As I pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says he ’ s thrilled by the sight of armed black men , but he ’ s thrilled for what it means for him and his cause of gun control , not what it meant for those men who were carrying guns .
Burnett is thrilled because he believes the sight of armed black men will make conservatives want to ban guns , or at least the open carrying of long guns , as Ronald Reagan did when he signed the Mulford Act in 1968 as governor of California after Black Panthers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building .
I ’ ve got news for Burnett ; it ’ s not going to happen .
The Second Amendment community is the biggest tent going in American politics right now , and we ’ re not going to stand by and let any party attack the right of all the People to keep and bear arms .
Burnett , on the other hand , is okay with these guys going to prison if it means he gets his “ commonsense ” gun control laws .
Rather than seeing them as empowered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he seems to regard them as mere instruments of his own fervent desire for more gun control .
Do you think Allison Burnett ever stopped to think if any of those guys might disagree with him ?
Or do their minds not matter ?
Sadly , I think Burnett said out loud what many gun control advocates are quietly thinking to themselves .
Why speak out against these armed black protesters ?
For consistency ’ s sake ?
Get real .
They honestly think that the Right will collectively wet themselves over black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how they feel .
The projection is real .
Self-defense is a human right , and the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the People .
Allison Burnett may be fine with seeing black gun owners as pawns in the fight over gun control , but I guarantee you that ’ s not how they see themselves .
In fact , I imagine some of the armed protesters might be a little ticked at the idea that Burnett was hoping to use the images of black men exercising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control agenda .
When gun owners talk about the racism inherent in gun control laws , we ’ re usually not provided with such an explicit example , so for that , I guess we should thank Allison Burnett for his tweet .

I have to confess that as much as I love to read, I’d never run across an author by the name of Allison Burnett until I was scrolling through my Twitter feed Wednesday evening and stumbled upon one of the true gems that the social media cesspool manages to spill out every now and then; a tweet so gobsmackingly racist, paternalistic, and elitist in its intent that I had to check to make sure this wasn’t some satirical account like Titania McGrath.
Nope. Allison Burnett is the real deal, and probably really, really unaware of what he’s actually saying here.
I’ve been saying this for years — that the only way to get the Right to reconsider its gun obsession is to have POC walking down our city streets legally armed to the teeth. I’m thrilled to see this. https://t.co/5PM3Evh7XT — Allison Burnett (@Allison_Burnett) July 8, 2020
Wooo boy. Another way to put it would be “If it takes arresting every armed black protester in America to get racist conservatives to finally get on board with my gun control agenda, let’s do it!” That, uh, sounds pretty freaking racist to me, especially coming from a 61-year old white dude who wouldn’t actually be impacted by any of the gun control laws he’s calling for.
As I pointed out in my reply to Burnett, he says he’s thrilled by the sight of armed black men, but he’s thrilled for what it means for him and his cause of gun control, not what it meant for those men who were carrying guns. Burnett is thrilled because he believes the sight of armed black men will make conservatives want to ban guns, or at least the open carrying of long guns, as Ronald Reagan did when he signed the Mulford Act in 1968 as governor of California after Black Panthers openly carried firearms in the state capitol building.
I’ve got news for Burnett; it’s not going to happen. The Second Amendment community is the biggest tent going in American politics right now, and we’re not going to stand by and let any party attack the right of all the People to keep and bear arms.
Burnett, on the other hand, is okay with these guys going to prison if it means he gets his “commonsense” gun control laws. Rather than seeing them as empowered Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights, he seems to regard them as mere instruments of his own fervent desire for more gun control. Do you think Allison Burnett ever stopped to think if any of those guys might disagree with him? Or do their minds not matter?
Sadly, I think Burnett said out loud what many gun control advocates are quietly thinking to themselves. Why speak out against these armed black protesters? For consistency’s sake? Get real. They honestly think that the Right will collectively wet themselves over black men with guns, because that’s how they feel. The projection is real.
Self-defense is a human right, and the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the People. Allison Burnett may be fine with seeing black gun owners as pawns in the fight over gun control, but I guarantee you that’s not how they see themselves. In fact, I imagine some of the armed protesters might be a little ticked at the idea that Burnett was hoping to use the images of black men exercising their Second Amendment rights to push his gun control agenda. When gun owners talk about the racism inherent in gun control laws, we’re usually not provided with such an explicit example, so for that, I guess we should thank Allison Burnett for his tweet.


bearingarms--2020-07-09--City of Seattle Tells Employees To Risk Their Safety For Leftist Causes

In personal defense classes , one of the first things many instructors tell you is that despite carrying a gun , it ’ s important that you don ’ t go places with a higher risk of you becoming the victim of a crime .
You don ’ t pull money out of the ATM at night in a sketchy part of town or do other , similarly stupid things .
After all , the number one thing you have to do to protect yourself is not to go places where you figure you might end up being hurt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not talking about playing sports where you might get a relatively minor injury or anything .
That ’ s just one of the risks of living , after all , yet because living our lives is inherently risky enough , the last thing you need to do is raise that risk factor by being stupid .
Yet the City of Seattle recently held a training where white employees are told that in order to not be racist , they have to risk their personal safety .
The City of Seattle held a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White staffers and instructing them on “ undoing your own whiteness ” in order to be held accountable by people of color , according to documents obtained by a public records request .
The session took place on June 12 , as protesters took part in the so-called “ Capitol Hill Organized Protest ” in the Capitol Hill district .
One handout distributed in the session reportedly declared how “ racism is not our fault but we are responsible.
” Another said White staffers must give up “ the land ” and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be an “ accomplice ” for racial justice .
“ Racism is not our fault but we are responsible , ” one bullet point declared .
In order to be considered “ accomplices , ” White employees must give up “ comfort , ” “ guaranteed physical safety , ” “ expectations or presumptions of emotional safety , ” “ control over other people and over the land , ” and “ relationships with some other white people.
” Of course , the talk about “ guaranteed physical safety ” is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who opt not to attend certain protests out of fear they ’ ll turn into a riot and they might be hurt .
Which , of course , has been a pretty real threat .
However , the problem is that people should always examine the risk factors for themselves and make a determination of which risks are acceptable to them .
For people who don ’ t think protests will turn into riots , then there ’ s minimal risk for them to consider .
For others , especially in places like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into riots night after night , the idea that someone should put aside concerns for personal safety simply because the left deems the cause good enough is ridiculous .
And it should be noted that only the white employees underwent this indoctrination attempt .
In other words , it ’ s up to white employees to risk their personal safety–per the instructions of their employers , mind you–or else potentially be thought of as racist .
Look , I ’ m going to lay it out for you .
If you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be racist .
Don ’ t look at other ethnicities as superior or inferior .
Don ’ t look at your own ethnicity as superior or inferior .
Treat everyone decently unless they , as an individual , give you reason not to .
Don ’ t treat other ethnicities differently simply because they ’ re a different ethnicity .
There .
Thank you for attending my Ted Talk .
It ain ’ t rocket science , yet this particular bit of “ training ” is nothing more than an attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior they may simply not be up for .
It ’ s not enlightening , it ’ s abusive .
If you ’ re an employee of the city of Seattle , don ’ t listen to them .
Do what you feel comfortable doing and if your employer has an issue with this , hoist your middle finger unto them in an act of righteous defiance .

In personal defense classes, one of the first things many instructors tell you is that despite carrying a gun, it’s important that you don’t go places with a higher risk of you becoming the victim of a crime. You don’t pull money out of the ATM at night in a sketchy part of town or do other, similarly stupid things.
After all, the number one thing you have to do to protect yourself is not to go places where you figure you might end up being hurt, right?
Of course, I’m not talking about playing sports where you might get a relatively minor injury or anything. That’s just one of the risks of living, after all, yet because living our lives is inherently risky enough, the last thing you need to do is raise that risk factor by being stupid.
Yet the City of Seattle recently held a training where white employees are told that in order to not be racist, they have to risk their personal safety.
The City of Seattle held a racially segregated employee training session aimed at White staffers and instructing them on “undoing your own whiteness” in order to be held accountable by people of color, according to documents obtained by a public records request. The session took place on June 12, as protesters took part in the so-called “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” in the Capitol Hill district. One handout distributed in the session reportedly declared how “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” Another said White staffers must give up “the land” and their “guaranteed physical safety” in order to be an “accomplice” for racial justice. … “Racism is not our fault but we are responsible,” one bullet point declared. In order to be considered “accomplices,” White employees must give up “comfort,” “guaranteed physical safety,” “expectations or presumptions of emotional safety,” “control over other people and over the land,” and “relationships with some other white people.”
Of course, the talk about “guaranteed physical safety” is nothing more than an attempt to shame people who opt not to attend certain protests out of fear they’ll turn into a riot and they might be hurt.
Which, of course, has been a pretty real threat.
However, the problem is that people should always examine the risk factors for themselves and make a determination of which risks are acceptable to them. For people who don’t think protests will turn into riots, then there’s minimal risk for them to consider. For others, especially in places like New York or Minneapolis where they turned into riots night after night, the idea that someone should put aside concerns for personal safety simply because the left deems the cause good enough is ridiculous.
And it should be noted that only the white employees underwent this indoctrination attempt.
In other words, it’s up to white employees to risk their personal safety–per the instructions of their employers, mind you–or else potentially be thought of as racist.
Folks, I can’t make this stuff up.
Look, I’m going to lay it out for you. If you don’t want to be racist, then…don’t be racist. Don’t look at other ethnicities as superior or inferior. Don’t look at your own ethnicity as superior or inferior. Treat everyone decently unless they, as an individual, give you reason not to. Don’t treat other ethnicities differently simply because they’re a different ethnicity.
There. Thank you for attending my Ted Talk.
It ain’t rocket science, yet this particular bit of “training” is nothing more than an attempt to guilt white employees into engaging in behavior they may simply not be up for. It’s not enlightening, it’s abusive.
If you’re an employee of the city of Seattle, don’t listen to them. Do what you feel comfortable doing and if your employer has an issue with this, hoist your middle finger unto them in an act of righteous defiance.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--FL Gun Owner Shoots, Kills Multiple Armed Intruders

A Pasco County , Florida man who believes he was targeted after posting pictures of his gun collection online shot three men who broke into his home early Friday morning , killing two and injuring a third .
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told reporters Friday afternoon that the victim was awake and alone in his home playing video games when he heard the sound of glass breaking coming from the rear of the home .
Grabbing his firearm , the homeowner went to check out the noise .
As he was walking down a narrow hallway towards the rear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intruder armed with a gun of his own .
The homeowner shot and killed the first intruder and then took out the second one , who was right behind the first .
At some point , one of the three intruders managed to fire a gun .
But , the homeowner was able to shoot him , too , before his gun jammed .
When the homeowner ’ s gun jammed , he went to grab another one .
At that moment , the third intruder managed to get up and run away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his tracks and held him at gunpoint outside until Pasco County deputies arrived .
Authorities say the 19-year-old surviving intruder was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive .
He is being charged with two counts of second-degree homicide and one count of home invasion robbery .
I love the fact that the intruder was able to run outside , only to be stopped by another armed homeowner before he could get away .
That ’ s some 2A teamwork right there .
According to WTSP-TV , the homeowner told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his firearms on his social media accounts , and authorities say they believe that this was “ not a totally random situation , ” though they haven ’ t confirmed if the homeowner was targeted due to his online presence .
As for the suspects , Sheriff Nocco says all three of them have lengthy criminal histories .
19-year old Jeremiah Tramel , the surviving suspect , has at least one battery charge on his record , and Nocco described the two deceased home invaders as having “ very violent ” criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made clear that , “ the victim in this case exercised his Second Amendment right to protect himself inside his home , ” and said that under Florida law , the victim ’ s name would not be released to the public , in part because of concerns that he could be targeted for another attack by associates of the three home invaders .
Heck , at this point you could even have a social justice mob try to come after this guy , though I think that would be a bad idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I hope that Jeremiah Tramel is ultimately able to explain to investigators why the three men decided to arm up and rob the home of a self-described “ gun enthusiast.
” Did they simply think that because it was three against one they ’ d automatically come out on top ?
If so they were woefully mistaken .
Sheriff Nocco described in his press briefing how the homeowner encountered the three men as he walked down a narrow hallway .
All three were basically stacked in a row , and only one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the homeowner .
Play stupid games , win stupid prizes , and this home invasion was a stupid idea from the get-go .
I ’ m glad to see the homeowner is alive and unharmed , though I imagine his social media presence may be undergoing some major renovations in the future .

A Pasco County, Florida man who believes he was targeted after posting pictures of his gun collection online shot three men who broke into his home early Friday morning, killing two and injuring a third. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told reporters Friday afternoon that the victim was awake and alone in his home playing video games when he heard the sound of glass breaking coming from the rear of the home.
Grabbing his firearm, the homeowner went to check out the noise. As he was walking down a narrow hallway towards the rear of the home, he spotted an intruder armed with a gun of his own.
The homeowner shot and killed the first intruder and then took out the second one, who was right behind the first. At some point, one of the three intruders managed to fire a gun. But, the homeowner was able to shoot him, too, before his gun jammed. When the homeowner’s gun jammed, he went to grab another one. At that moment, the third intruder managed to get up and run away. But, a neighbor stopped him in his tracks and held him at gunpoint outside until Pasco County deputies arrived. Authorities say the 19-year-old surviving intruder was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive. He is being charged with two counts of second-degree homicide and one count of home invasion robbery.
I love the fact that the intruder was able to run outside, only to be stopped by another armed homeowner before he could get away. That’s some 2A teamwork right there.
According to WTSP-TV, the homeowner told authorities that he regularly shows off some of his firearms on his social media accounts, and authorities say they believe that this was “not a totally random situation,” though they haven’t confirmed if the homeowner was targeted due to his online presence.
As for the suspects, Sheriff Nocco says all three of them have lengthy criminal histories. 19-year old Jeremiah Tramel, the surviving suspect, has at least one battery charge on his record, and Nocco described the two deceased home invaders as having “very violent” criminal charges in the past.
Nocco also made clear that, “the victim in this case exercised his Second Amendment right to protect himself inside his home,” and said that under Florida law, the victim’s name would not be released to the public, in part because of concerns that he could be targeted for another attack by associates of the three home invaders. Heck, at this point you could even have a social justice mob try to come after this guy, though I think that would be a bad idea for reasons that should be self-evident.
I hope that Jeremiah Tramel is ultimately able to explain to investigators why the three men decided to arm up and rob the home of a self-described “gun enthusiast.” Did they simply think that because it was three against one they’d automatically come out on top? If so they were woefully mistaken. Sheriff Nocco described in his press briefing how the homeowner encountered the three men as he walked down a narrow hallway. All three were basically stacked in a row, and only one of them even got a shot off against the homeowner.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and this home invasion was a stupid idea from the get-go. I’m glad to see the homeowner is alive and unharmed, though I imagine his social media presence may be undergoing some major renovations in the future.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--De Blasio Unveils "Take Back The Block" Plan To Tackle NYC Crime Spike

With shootings and other violent crime soaring in New York City , Mayor Bill de Blasio has spent much of the last week focused on social justice stunts like painting a “ Black Lives Matter ” mural in front of Trump Tower and banning all large gatherings with the exception of anti-police protests .
On Friday , however , the mayor announced his big idea to combat the growing violence , and said it will be rolled out immediately starting in Harlem this weekend .
The “ Take Back The Block ” plan released by the mayor actually calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas , but de Blasio would much rather talk about the un-armed citizens that the mayor says are key to the effort ’ s success .
De Blasio said shell-shocked residents would “ see a combination of things happening , ” including “ increased NYPD presence at hotspots at key locations , more patrol officers on foot , in vehicles — but also more community presence.
” “ Because that is the key to this : community leaders , committee organizations , walking with police officers , showing common cause , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several criminal justice experts about de Blasio ’ s plan , all of whom panned the proposals laid out by the mayor .
“ I think he deserves to tell the city that it ’ s his policy that is getting people killed , ” said former NYPD cop Eugene O ’ Donnell who ’ s now a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice .
“ He stood down anti-crime [ efforts ] and doesn ’ t want people arrested .
‘ Fess up…There ’ s an acceptable level of death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that.
” Another John Jay professor , Maria Haberman , said , “ The only way that is effective in curbing violent behavior is saturated patrol , not using community members.
” “ I would not recommend sending inexperienced members of the community to areas where they can become victims of shootings or other violent exchanges , ” she said .
“ Community members might be willing , but they do not have the experience .
What you are doing is exposing community members to random violence.
” Honestly , the mayor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations effort than a public safety plan , and they also run afoul of his newly-imposed COVID-19 measures .
Despite the mayor ’ s closure of city parks and a ban on all large gatherings , de Blasio says he wants to hold pick-up basketball games , open up local churches , and even hold a ‘ youth town hall ” to combat violent crime .
Does the mayor really think any drug or gang-related violence in New York will be prevented because the perpetrators will lose interest in their crime and decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead ?
It ’ s clear that de Blasio is flailing to come up with something to reverse the massive increase in shootings and homicides in New York City , but the real problem is that , as Eugene O ’ Donnell told the Post , it ’ s de Blasio ’ s policies that have helped create the disastrous situation playing out on city streets .
De Blasio ’ s soft-on-crime approach , coupled with the city ’ s draconian gun control laws , means that violent criminals are often released within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would be considered a danger to the community by most rational people .
The city ’ s court system has nearly ground to a halt because of the coronavirus , which leaves hundreds of individuals charged with violent crimes walking the streets when they should be behind bars .
I hope that this weekend is calmer and more peaceful than what we ’ ve seen in recent weeks , but if that proves to be the case in Harlem , I ’ m sure that de Blasio is going to take away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists instead of the increased police presence .
If de Blasio was serious about reducing the spiking violence , there are a couple of things he could do .
In the short term , get the courts functioning again , particularly when it comes to violent crimes .
Reduce the number of plea bargains offered , and end plea bargains for repeat violent offenders or those facing murder and attempted murder charges .
End the no-bail policy that returns many suspected criminals to the streets almost immediately , even if they have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the community .
In the medium and long term , the mayor should be overhauling the city ’ s gun laws to get rid of the discriminatory and prohibitively expensive gun licenses , establishing a shall-issue system for concealed carry licenses , and reaching out to a broad array of pro-2A groups to develop a plan to bring back a culture of responsible gun ownership in the city .
For decades now , the Second Amendment has been pushed to the margins of society instead of being recognized as a fundamental right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to change that , though I know de Blasio would put on a “ Make America Great Again ” hat before he ’ d ever support the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms .

With shootings and other violent crime soaring in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has spent much of the last week focused on social justice stunts like painting a “Black Lives Matter” mural in front of Trump Tower and banning all large gatherings with the exception of anti-police protests. On Friday, however, the mayor announced his big idea to combat the growing violence, and said it will be rolled out immediately starting in Harlem this weekend.
The “Take Back The Block” plan released by the mayor actually calls for an increase in law enforcement in high-crime areas, but de Blasio would much rather talk about the un-armed citizens that the mayor says are key to the effort’s success.
De Blasio said shell-shocked residents would “see a combination of things happening,” including “increased NYPD presence at hotspots at key locations, more patrol officers on foot, in vehicles — but also more community presence.” “Because that is the key to this: community leaders, committee organizations, walking with police officers, showing common cause,” he said.
The NY Post spoke with several criminal justice experts about de Blasio’s plan, all of whom panned the proposals laid out by the mayor.
“I think he deserves to tell the city that it’s his policy that is getting people killed,” said former NYPD cop Eugene O’Donnell who’s now a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “He stood down anti-crime [efforts] and doesn’t want people arrested. ‘Fess up…There’s an acceptable level of death on his watch and he should admit that.” Another John Jay professor, Maria Haberman, said, “The only way that is effective in curbing violent behavior is saturated patrol, not using community members.” “I would not recommend sending inexperienced members of the community to areas where they can become victims of shootings or other violent exchanges,” she said. “Community members might be willing, but they do not have the experience. What you are doing is exposing community members to random violence.”
Honestly, the mayor’s plan sounds more like a public relations effort than a public safety plan, and they also run afoul of his newly-imposed COVID-19 measures. Despite the mayor’s closure of city parks and a ban on all large gatherings, de Blasio says he wants to hold pick-up basketball games, open up local churches, and even hold a ‘youth town hall” to combat violent crime. Does the mayor really think any drug or gang-related violence in New York will be prevented because the perpetrators will lose interest in their crime and decide to shoot hoops for a few minutes instead?
It’s clear that de Blasio is flailing to come up with something to reverse the massive increase in shootings and homicides in New York City, but the real problem is that, as Eugene O’Donnell told the Post, it’s de Blasio’s policies that have helped create the disastrous situation playing out on city streets. De Blasio’s soft-on-crime approach, coupled with the city’s draconian gun control laws, means that violent criminals are often released within hours of their arrest, even if they would be considered a danger to the community by most rational people. The city’s court system has nearly ground to a halt because of the coronavirus, which leaves hundreds of individuals charged with violent crimes walking the streets when they should be behind bars.
I hope that this weekend is calmer and more peaceful than what we’ve seen in recent weeks, but if that proves to be the case in Harlem, I’m sure that de Blasio is going to take away the wrong message and credit those community activists instead of the increased police presence.
If de Blasio was serious about reducing the spiking violence, there are a couple of things he could do. In the short term, get the courts functioning again, particularly when it comes to violent crimes. Reduce the number of plea bargains offered, and end plea bargains for repeat violent offenders or those facing murder and attempted murder charges. End the no-bail policy that returns many suspected criminals to the streets almost immediately, even if they have a history of violence and pose a threat to the community.
In the medium and long term, the mayor should be overhauling the city’s gun laws to get rid of the discriminatory and prohibitively expensive gun licenses, establishing a shall-issue system for concealed carry licenses, and reaching out to a broad array of pro-2A groups to develop a plan to bring back a culture of responsible gun ownership in the city. For decades now, the Second Amendment has been pushed to the margins of society instead of being recognized as a fundamental right of New Yorkers. It’s time to change that, though I know de Blasio would put on a “Make America Great Again” hat before he’d ever support the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--2A Activists Prep For Gun Control Push During Virginia Special Session

Gov .
Ralph Northam held a ceremonial signing of several gun control bills that are already law on Thursday , just in case anyone had forgotten that the Democrat-controlled legislature approved a half-dozen bills earlier this year that took effect on July 1st .
The centerpiece of Northam ’ s anti-gun agenda , however , failed to get out of the state Senate during the regular session .
HB961 would have banned so-called “ assault weapons , ” ammunition magazines that could hold more than 13-rounds , as well as all lawfully owned suppressors .
Four Democrats joined every Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are growing concerns that the bill could be coming back in an anticipated special session later this summer .
Phillip Van Cleave , head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about what gun owners should expect from the special session , which has yet to be formally announced by Northam .
With tax revenues taking a hit from the coronavirus closures , however , lawmakers will almost certainly be called back into session to try to revise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are already talking about broadening the scope of the session to include non-budgetary measures like police reform .
“ We have seen and we have heard aggressive change is needed now , and we see this all over the commonwealth and the country , ” House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn , D-Fairfax , said Thursday .
“ As the speaker and certainly as an elected official and leader , it ’ s our job to listen , but also I feel strongly it ’ s our job to act quickly.
” But precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Ralph Northam are prepared to advance remains to be seen .
Filler-Corn , who sets the agenda for the House and controls the flow of legislation , says she ’ s still working with lawmakers to develop a package of bills , which she said will be informed by listening sessions with constituents .
“ We ’ re spending a lot of time looking at exactly the scope and what we can do , ” she said .
“ So I ’ m not prepared to list that out .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to move quickly during the special session.
” Will those quick moves include another attempt at passing Northam ’ s gun , magazine , and suppressor ban ?
While nothing ’ s official , some Democrats like Del .
Ken Plum are definitely hinting that HB961 or a revised version of the gun ban bill will be on the agenda .
The Governor is expected to call a special session for probably late August .
It will have the broadest agenda of any special session on record .
In addition to making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be asked to enact new laws to further ease access to voting with the challenges COVID-19 makes for voters and to reform policing in very fundamental ways .
Already the interested parties are starting their email campaigns to sway legislators on these issues .
None of these issues are over until it is over .
One of the highlights of the regular session was the passage of my bill to require a background check for all gun purchases .
Already the opponents of gun safety legislation have filed a lawsuit seeking an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they contend are unconstitutional .
I believe the courts will support the law as a necessary action of the legislature to keep the public safe .
The VCDL is one of those interested parties that has begun an email campaign to lobby lawmakers .
In fact , more than 11,000 people have used the organization ’ s online portal to send a message to their representatives urging them to say “ No ” to any additional gun control laws , even as lawsuits filed by the VCDL and Gun Owners of America challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and universal background check measures work their way through the court system .
Given the spike in gun sales in the state ( and the nation ) since early March , it ’ s quite possible that as many as 100,000 Virginians have become gun owners since Democrats took control of the state legislature last November .
We need each and every one of them to stand up for their Second Amendment rights and to stay in touch with their lawmakers in the days and weeks ahead .
I believe that if Northam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the special session , we can once again defeat it , but we need new and long-time gun owners to be engaged starting now in order to increase our chances for success .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Phillip Van Cleave in the video window above , and stick around afterwards for more news , including a young man arrested in the murder of an 11-year old in Washington , D.C. who was out on bail on a felon in possession of a firearm charge , a self-defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in charges for the armed employee of a gas station who protected himself from an armed robber , and a Houston , Texas man in the right place and at the right time to help both officers and a suspect who was resisting arrest .

Gov. Ralph Northam held a ceremonial signing of several gun control bills that are already law on Thursday, just in case anyone had forgotten that the Democrat-controlled legislature approved a half-dozen bills earlier this year that took effect on July 1st. The centerpiece of Northam’s anti-gun agenda, however, failed to get out of the state Senate during the regular session. HB961 would have banned so-called “assault weapons,” ammunition magazines that could hold more than 13-rounds, as well as all lawfully owned suppressors. Four Democrats joined every Republican in voting against the measure, but there are growing concerns that the bill could be coming back in an anticipated special session later this summer.
Phillip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about what gun owners should expect from the special session, which has yet to be formally announced by Northam. With tax revenues taking a hit from the coronavirus closures, however, lawmakers will almost certainly be called back into session to try to revise the state’s budget, and Democrats are already talking about broadening the scope of the session to include non-budgetary measures like police reform.
“We have seen and we have heard aggressive change is needed now, and we see this all over the commonwealth and the country,” House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax, said Thursday. “As the speaker and certainly as an elected official and leader, it’s our job to listen, but also I feel strongly it’s our job to act quickly.” But precisely what reforms the House, Senate and Gov. Ralph Northam are prepared to advance remains to be seen. Filler-Corn, who sets the agenda for the House and controls the flow of legislation, says she’s still working with lawmakers to develop a package of bills, which she said will be informed by listening sessions with constituents. “We’re spending a lot of time looking at exactly the scope and what we can do,” she said. “So I’m not prepared to list that out. … The bottom line is we’re going to move quickly during the special session.”
Will those quick moves include another attempt at passing Northam’s gun, magazine, and suppressor ban? While nothing’s official, some Democrats like Del. Ken Plum are definitely hinting that HB961 or a revised version of the gun ban bill will be on the agenda.
The Governor is expected to call a special session for probably late August. It will have the broadest agenda of any special session on record. In addition to making tough decisions on the budget, legislators will be asked to enact new laws to further ease access to voting with the challenges COVID-19 makes for voters and to reform policing in very fundamental ways. Already the interested parties are starting their email campaigns to sway legislators on these issues. None of these issues are over until it is over. One of the highlights of the regular session was the passage of my bill to require a background check for all gun purchases. Already the opponents of gun safety legislation have filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction blocking the expanded background checks that they contend are unconstitutional. I believe the courts will support the law as a necessary action of the legislature to keep the public safe.
The VCDL is one of those interested parties that has begun an email campaign to lobby lawmakers. In fact, more than 11,000 people have used the organization’s online portal to send a message to their representatives urging them to say “No” to any additional gun control laws, even as lawsuits filed by the VCDL and Gun Owners of America challenging the state’s new one-gun-a-month law and universal background check measures work their way through the court system.
Given the spike in gun sales in the state (and the nation) since early March, it’s quite possible that as many as 100,000 Virginians have become gun owners since Democrats took control of the state legislature last November. We need each and every one of them to stand up for their Second Amendment rights and to stay in touch with their lawmakers in the days and weeks ahead. I believe that if Northam’s gun ban bill comes up in the special session, we can once again defeat it, but we need new and long-time gun owners to be engaged starting now in order to increase our chances for success.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Phillip Van Cleave in the video window above, and stick around afterwards for more news, including a young man arrested in the murder of an 11-year old in Washington, D.C. who was out on bail on a felon in possession of a firearm charge, a self-defense shooting in California that could still result in charges for the armed employee of a gas station who protected himself from an armed robber, and a Houston, Texas man in the right place and at the right time to help both officers and a suspect who was resisting arrest.


bearingarms--2020-07-10--Shooting Over Mask Refusal Result In Murder Charge

Look , I get why some people outright refuse to wear a mask .
I ’ m a fairly contrary individual , really .
If the masses demand I do something , my standard protocol is to refuse out of general principle .
So , when you ’ re going to demand that I wear a mask , even if it ’ s not an N95 mask , due to COVID-19 , I ’ m going to raise an eyebrow , at a minimum .
And I ’ m someone who lives in a town that was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
Yet because of that experience , I also get why some people get really irate about others not wearing masks .
However , some people apparently take it way too far .
A California security guard was charged with murder Wednesday after prosecutors say he shot a 50-year-old man at a supermarket because he was not wearing a mask .
The incident occurred at the Gardena market in South California on Sunday , when the customer , Jerry Lewis , reportedly entered the store without a mask and got into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lewis reportedly left the story , only to return a short time later and renew his argument with Hawkins .
However , it doesn ’ t appear that Lewis made any threatening comments or anything that could have been considered to have instigated such a reaction .
In fact , the Los Angeles District Attorney ’ s office argues that Lewis was walking away .
Now , someone is dead .
Of course , it would be easy to lash out about the mask mandate and blame it for this .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case to be made for it .
Yet part of the problem–a huge part–is that Hawkins never should have been an armed security guard , apparently .
Oh , if you ’ re less than clear who is the felon , it appears that both of them are , which means no guns in that household .
And yet , Hawkins worked as armed security ?
How could he have gotten a gun in such a gun controlled state ?
We know the answer , of course , because felons have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ages .
A better question , however , is how the hell did Hawkins get hired as armed security with a felony conviction ?
Did the company not know how to do a background check ?
Are those forbidden in California or something ?
Look , I believe that we need to give convicted felons a chance when they get out , otherwise we shouldn ’ t be surprised by recidivism .
However , there are certain jobs we should probably not let them do .
For example , ones they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed freaking security at a grocery store .
Someone going to get sued by Lewis ’ s family .
We all know it , and I can ’ t say that I ’ ll be overly shocked to see it happen .
They ’ re going to get sued , they ’ re going to either lose or settle out of court , and there ’ s no two ways about it .
Meanwhile , Lewis is dead and Hawkins is probably going to prison for it .
Both he and his wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever good that will do them .

Look, I get why some people outright refuse to wear a mask. I’m a fairly contrary individual, really. If the masses demand I do something, my standard protocol is to refuse out of general principle. So, when you’re going to demand that I wear a mask, even if it’s not an N95 mask, due to COVID-19, I’m going to raise an eyebrow, at a minimum.
And I’m someone who lives in a town that was one of the hardest hit in the world at one point.
Yet because of that experience, I also get why some people get really irate about others not wearing masks. However, some people apparently take it way too far.
A California security guard was charged with murder Wednesday after prosecutors say he shot a 50-year-old man at a supermarket because he was not wearing a mask. The incident occurred at the Gardena market in South California on Sunday, when the customer, Jerry Lewis, reportedly entered the store without a mask and got into an argument with the guard, Umeir Hawkins.
Lewis reportedly left the story, only to return a short time later and renew his argument with Hawkins. However, it doesn’t appear that Lewis made any threatening comments or anything that could have been considered to have instigated such a reaction. In fact, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office argues that Lewis was walking away.
Now, someone is dead.
Of course, it would be easy to lash out about the mask mandate and blame it for this. To be fair, there’s certainly a case to be made for it. Yet part of the problem–a huge part–is that Hawkins never should have been an armed security guard, apparently.
Hawkins and his wife Sabrina Carter were each charged with one count of possession of a handgun by a felon, stemming from a prior conviction in 2013 for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, according to a press release by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Oh, if you’re less than clear who is the felon, it appears that both of them are, which means no guns in that household.
And yet, Hawkins worked as armed security?
How could he have gotten a gun in such a gun controlled state?
We know the answer, of course, because felons have had zero trouble getting guns in California for ages.
A better question, however, is how the hell did Hawkins get hired as armed security with a felony conviction? Did the company not know how to do a background check? Are those forbidden in California or something?
Look, I believe that we need to give convicted felons a chance when they get out, otherwise we shouldn’t be surprised by recidivism. However, there are certain jobs we should probably not let them do. For example, ones they’re not legally allowed to fill, like armed freaking security at a grocery store.
Someone going to get sued by Lewis’s family. We all know it, and I can’t say that I’ll be overly shocked to see it happen. They’re going to get sued, they’re going to either lose or settle out of court, and there’s no two ways about it.
Meanwhile, Lewis is dead and Hawkins is probably going to prison for it.
Both he and his wife have entered not guilty pleas, for whatever good that will do them.