bearingarms--2020-06-05--PA Gun Rights Rally Postponed Due To Threat

The media has been covering both protests and “ protests ” for more than a week now as outrage continues over the death of George Floyd while being arrested by police .
However , Floyd ’ s death and the overall theme of police brutality aren ’ t the only political events that people have planned .
Gun rights are still a thing worth fighting for , especially in states like Pennsylvania where the tide seems to have turned against Second Amendment advocates .
However , an upcoming rally has been postponed .
The annual Rally to Protect Your Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday at the Pennsylvania Capitol that often draws several hundreds of gun rights supporters from across the state has been postponed .
Rep. Daryl Metcalfe , R-Butler County , issued the following statement on Wednesday about his decision to call off the event : “ Just as importantly , law-abiding Pennsylvania firearm owners recognize that America has always been a nation of laws and unquestionably stand with President Donald Trump and law enforcement nationwide with respect to the restoration of law and order .
Based on new information we received earlier today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rally ’ s attendees , speakers and our men and women in blue who protect and serve , we must officially postpone this year ’ s Rally to Protect Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
” Of course , that ’ s upsetting , but just what information could they have received that would make them rethink a rally for such an important and foundational right ?
Well , it was a threat .
A gun rights rally scheduled to take place in Harrisburg on Monday has been indefinitely postponed after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the organizers said Thursday .
“ We couldn ’ t take that risk , ” said Kim Stolfer , president of Firearms Owners Against Crime , a Pennsylvania-based group that opposes new gun restrictions .
Stolfer provided additional details , saying he received an email Wednesday morning from someone he didn ’ t know who said he was aware of a threat being shared online .
“ Individuals were going to portray themselves as Second Amendment activists , ” Stolfer said , describing the threat .
“ They were going to mix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to start killing people .
And the effort was to denigrate and cause a loss of prestige among legislators by misuse of firearms and to destroy our reputation.
” That was certainly the right call .
Right now , people are already very ramped up and ready to engage in violence .
Providing a point where they could vent that anger and kill innocent people isn ’ t wise , especially when you have information that someone would try to do so .
And yes , there would be a backlash against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident to “ prove ” gun owners are unstable and can ’ t be trusted .
For the shooter or shooters , there would be virtually no downside .
Well , except for the fact that many of the rally-goers would likely be armed and would put the shooters down .
Then again , some people are willing to die for a cause .
All throughout the nation , people are already getting violent over the least provocation .
For many of them , people simply thinking differently is a provocation .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attend the rally with harmful intent , postponing it is the right call .
Some might argue that if guns are so useful for stopping attacks , why postpone ?
Of course , those folks aren ’ t gun people who know the best self-defense tactic possible is to avoid areas where you may be attacked .
That includes Second Amendment rallies with credible threats against them .
Stolfer made a very wise call and has my full support , for what it ’ s worth .

The media has been covering both protests and “protests” for more than a week now as outrage continues over the death of George Floyd while being arrested by police. However, Floyd’s death and the overall theme of police brutality aren’t the only political events that people have planned.
Gun rights are still a thing worth fighting for, especially in states like Pennsylvania where the tide seems to have turned against Second Amendment advocates.
However, an upcoming rally has been postponed.
The annual Rally to Protect Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms scheduled for Monday at the Pennsylvania Capitol that often draws several hundreds of gun rights supporters from across the state has been postponed. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler County, issued the following statement on Wednesday about his decision to call off the event: … “Just as importantly, law-abiding Pennsylvania firearm owners recognize that America has always been a nation of laws and unquestionably stand with President Donald Trump and law enforcement nationwide with respect to the restoration of law and order. Based on new information we received earlier today, and especially in the best interest of the rally’s attendees, speakers and our men and women in blue who protect and serve, we must officially postpone this year’s Rally to Protect Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.”
Of course, that’s upsetting, but just what information could they have received that would make them rethink a rally for such an important and foundational right?
Well, it was a threat.
A gun rights rally scheduled to take place in Harrisburg on Monday has been indefinitely postponed after a credible threat was made, one of the organizers said Thursday. “We couldn’t take that risk,” said Kim Stolfer, president of Firearms Owners Against Crime, a Pennsylvania-based group that opposes new gun restrictions. … Stolfer provided additional details, saying he received an email Wednesday morning from someone he didn’t know who said he was aware of a threat being shared online. “Individuals were going to portray themselves as Second Amendment activists,” Stolfer said, describing the threat. “They were going to mix with the crowd and then they were going to start killing people. And the effort was to denigrate and cause a loss of prestige among legislators by misuse of firearms and to destroy our reputation.”
That was certainly the right call.
Right now, people are already very ramped up and ready to engage in violence. Providing a point where they could vent that anger and kill innocent people isn’t wise, especially when you have information that someone would try to do so.
And yes, there would be a backlash against gun owners as anti-gunners use such an incident to “prove” gun owners are unstable and can’t be trusted. For the shooter or shooters, there would be virtually no downside. Well, except for the fact that many of the rally-goers would likely be armed and would put the shooters down. Then again, some people are willing to die for a cause.
All throughout the nation, people are already getting violent over the least provocation. For many of them, people simply thinking differently is a provocation. Since there were people claiming they planned to attend the rally with harmful intent, postponing it is the right call.
Some might argue that if guns are so useful for stopping attacks, why postpone? Of course, those folks aren’t gun people who know the best self-defense tactic possible is to avoid areas where you may be attacked. That includes Second Amendment rallies with credible threats against them.
Stolfer made a very wise call and has my full support, for what it’s worth.


bearingarms--2020-06-05--20 State AG's File Brief In Support Of The Right To Carry

A group of attorneys general from across the country have come together to back a challenge to Hawaii ’ s restrictive carry laws that ’ s currently before judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .
The appeals court has already ruled that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t protect a right to carry a concealed firearm , but Hawaii resident George Young is challenging a state law that requires a permit to open carry .
The state rarely grants licenses to average citizens , and a three judge panel on the 9th Circuit has already ruled that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to bear arms , and the Ninth Circuit says concealed carry isn ’ t protected by the Second Amendment , that must mean that the right to bear arms encompasses the right to open carry .
Now Young vs. Hawaii is before a broader panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit , and the AGs in Louisiana , Alabama , Arizona , Arkansas , Georgia , Idaho , Indiana , Kansas , Kentucky , Mississippi , Montana , Nebraska , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , South Carolina , South Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia are weighing in with support for Young and the right to bear arms .
The amicus brief authored by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry says out a strong case for the unconstitutional nature of Hawaii ’ s carry laws .
Hawaii ’ s permitting regime functions nearly as an outright ban on carrying firearms outside the home .
It is undisputed that “ no one other than a security guard—or someone similarly employed—had ever been issued an open carry license ” under the scheme .
But carrying a firearm outside the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right of the Second Amendment .
And so “ the law ’ s burden on the right ” here is severe .
Such a scheme can not survive any level of judicial review stricter than a rational basis test .
“ Rational basis ” is the lowest standard of court review , and basically only requires that the government only show that a law is “ rationally related ” to a “ legitimate ” government interest .
The state of Hawaii is arguing that their restrictive licensing policies are rationally related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the Second Amendment should offer no protection to those residents wanting to bear arms for self-defense .
In the newly filed amicus brief , the pro-Second Amendment AGs dispute that argument , noting that courts around the country have consistently reviewed gun control laws under either strict scrutiny ( the highest level of judicial review ) or intermediate scrutiny , a vague and fuzzy middle ground that ’ s allowed to courts to uphold many gun control laws .
Even under intermediate scrutiny , the AGs argue , Hawaii ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This Court has explained that , under intermediate scrutiny , a law is unconstitutional unless the law ’ s defenders can show “ ( 1 ) the government ’ s stated objective to be significant , substantial , or important ; and ( 2 ) a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective.
” Admittedly , Hawaii ’ s objective of securing public safety is “ significant , substantial , or important.
” But by adopting what is in effect blanket ban on carrying of firearms outside the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reasonable fit ” between its regulatory structure and its objective of public safety .
To shore up that weakness , the Amicus brief of New Jersey , et al.
, in support of the petition for rehearing en banc , cites to various academic studies suggesting that bans on carrying guns decrease crime rates .
But these studies do not demonstrate that Hawaii ’ s permitting scheme is proper under intermediate scrutiny , for two reasons .
First , other studies have come to the opposite conclusion—states that allow carrying a weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates of violent crime .
Thus , the safety benefits of Hawaii ’ s law are ambiguous or marginal .
And second , even if public safety were marginally improved by banning the public carry of weapons ( which Amici do not concede ) , a virtual ban would still not qualify as a “ reasonable fit ” under an intermediate balancing test .
Thus , the benefits of § 134-9 are , at best , marginal or ambiguous .
And the costs are high because § 134-9 strikes at the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-protection .
And so § 134-9 fails intermediate scrutiny .
It goes without saying that a law unable to withstand intermediate scrutiny is doomed under a strict scrutiny test .
Considering the fact that the right to bear arms is not only enshrined in our federal constitution , and almost every state constitution as well , it ’ s disappointing that not even half of the states attorneys general would throw their weight behind George Young ’ s challenge to Hawaii ’ s carry laws .
In fact , New Jersey Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twelve anti-gun AGs in support of Hawaii ’ s permitting requirements for open carry , arguing that the state law doesn ’ t violate anyone ’ s constitutional right to keep and bear arms , even though the law requires citizens to articulate a specific need ( self-defense doesn ’ t count ) to carry before a permit can be granted .
Ultimately , the argument in the Young case boil down to this : if the average citizen can not legally bear arms , is their constitutional right to keep and bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pretty clearly “ yes , ” but ultimately it ’ s a question the Supreme Court is going to have to answer , no matter the eventual decision by the Ninth Circuit in Young vs. Hawaii

A group of attorneys general from across the country have come together to back a challenge to Hawaii’s restrictive carry laws that’s currently before judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court has already ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to carry a concealed firearm, but Hawaii resident George Young is challenging a state law that requires a permit to open carry.
The state rarely grants licenses to average citizens, and a three judge panel on the 9th Circuit has already ruled that, since the Second Amendment specifically protects a right to bear arms, and the Ninth Circuit says concealed carry isn’t protected by the Second Amendment, that must mean that the right to bear arms encompasses the right to open carry.
Now Young vs. Hawaii is before a broader panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit, and the AGs in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia are weighing in with support for Young and the right to bear arms. The amicus brief authored by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry says out a strong case for the unconstitutional nature of Hawaii’s carry laws.
Hawaii’s permitting regime functions nearly as an outright ban on carrying firearms outside the home. It is undisputed that “no one other than a security guard—or someone similarly employed—had ever been issued an open carry license” under the scheme. But carrying a firearm outside the home is necessary for self-protection, a core right of the Second Amendment. And so “the law’s burden on the right” here is severe. Such a scheme cannot survive any level of judicial review stricter than a rational basis test.
“Rational basis” is the lowest standard of court review, and basically only requires that the government only show that a law is “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. The state of Hawaii is arguing that their restrictive licensing policies are rationally related to the legitimate government interest of public safety, and that the Second Amendment should offer no protection to those residents wanting to bear arms for self-defense.
In the newly filed amicus brief, the pro-Second Amendment AGs dispute that argument, noting that courts around the country have consistently reviewed gun control laws under either strict scrutiny (the highest level of judicial review) or intermediate scrutiny, a vague and fuzzy middle ground that’s allowed to courts to uphold many gun control laws. Even under intermediate scrutiny, the AGs argue, Hawaii’s licensing policy fails to pass the test.
This Court has explained that, under intermediate scrutiny, a law is unconstitutional unless the law’s defenders can show “(1) the government’s stated objective to be significant, substantial, or important; and (2) a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective.” Admittedly, Hawaii’s objective of securing public safety is “significant, substantial, or important.” But by adopting what is in effect blanket ban on carrying of firearms outside the home, Hawaii has failed to seek any “reasonable fit” between its regulatory structure and its objective of public safety. To shore up that weakness, the Amicus brief of New Jersey, et al., in support of the petition for rehearing en banc, cites to various academic studies suggesting that bans on carrying guns decrease crime rates. But these studies do not demonstrate that Hawaii’s permitting scheme is proper under intermediate scrutiny, for two reasons. First, other studies have come to the opposite conclusion—states that allow carrying a weapon with no permit at all have lower rates of violent crime. Thus, the safety benefits of Hawaii’s law are ambiguous or marginal. And second, even if public safety were marginally improved by banning the public carry of weapons (which Amici do not concede), a virtual ban would still not qualify as a “reasonable fit” under an intermediate balancing test. Thus, the benefits of § 134-9 are, at best, marginal or ambiguous. And the costs are high because § 134-9 strikes at the heart of a right the Second Amendment guarantees, self-protection. And so § 134-9 fails intermediate scrutiny. It goes without saying that a law unable to withstand intermediate scrutiny is doomed under a strict scrutiny test.
Considering the fact that the right to bear arms is not only enshrined in our federal constitution, and almost every state constitution as well, it’s disappointing that not even half of the states attorneys general would throw their weight behind George Young’s challenge to Hawaii’s carry laws. In fact, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has led a coalition of twelve anti-gun AGs in support of Hawaii’s permitting requirements for open carry, arguing that the state law doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even though the law requires citizens to articulate a specific need (self-defense doesn’t count) to carry before a permit can be granted.
Ultimately, the argument in the Young case boil down to this: if the average citizen cannot legally bear arms, is their constitutional right to keep and bear arms infringed? I think the answer is pretty clearly “yes,” but ultimately it’s a question the Supreme Court is going to have to answer, no matter the eventual decision by the Ninth Circuit in Young vs. Hawaii


bearingarms--2020-06-05--Minneapolis City Council Members Push To Disband Police Department

The Minneapolis City Council is set to meet today to discuss the state ’ s investigation into the city ’ s police department , but with many council members , including the city council president , pushing to defund or disband the department , it ’ s expected that the council will begin their discussions on how they could actually take that drastic step , and what would replace the department and its 800 officers .
So far , the council members that have expressed support for dismantling the department have been pretty short on details of what would come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council member Steve ] Fletcher published a lengthy Twitter thread saying the police department was “ irredeemably beyond reform , ” and a “ protection racket ” that slows down responses as political payback .
“ Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented , nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity , ” he wrote .
Fletcher says the entire council “ to some degree ” has been discussing disbanding the police department as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet know what that will look like .
He suspects it ’ s a transition that will take time , and the involvement – and possibly voting capacity – of residents .
The city council president has weighed in on Twitter , calling for replacing the MPD with a “ transformative new model ” of policing .
The “ defund police ” movement has exploded in popularity among celebrities , activists , and many local politicians in deep-blue Democrat-controlled cities since the protests and riots began after the killing of George Floyd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what traditional policing would be replaced by .
At The Atlantic , Annie Lowery ’ s come out in favor of the movement , but her piece spends far more time laying out the case for dismantling police departments while largely ignoring any discussion of what would come next .
A more radical option , one scrawled on cardboard signs and tagged on buildings and flooding social media , is to defund the cops .
What might that mean in practice ?
Not just smaller budgets and fewer officers , though many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean ending mass incarceration , cash bail , fines-and-fees policing , the war on drugs , and police militarization , as well as getting cops out of schools .
It would also mean funding housing-first programs , creating subsidized jobs for the formerly incarcerated , and expanding initiatives to have mental-health professionals and social workers respond to emergency calls .
I see a lot of buzzwords there , but not a lot of details .
I ’ m curious how “ fines-and-fees ” policing would work with violent crimes like armed robbery or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , as many politicians and activists seek to disband police departments , many of them are also still vocally supporting Joe Biden ’ s gun control agenda , which would impose all kinds of new federal crimes on non-violent firearms offenses like simple possession of a “ large capacity ” magazine or a semi-automatic rifle .
Biden ’ s plan also calls for state-level gun licensing laws , which have had a disproportionate effect on young black men in places like New York City .
At some point the supporters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to decide what they want more : an end to traditional policing or more gun control laws on the books .

The Minneapolis City Council is set to meet today to discuss the state’s investigation into the city’s police department, but with many council members, including the city council president, pushing to defund or disband the department, it’s expected that the council will begin their discussions on how they could actually take that drastic step, and what would replace the department and its 800 officers.
So far, the council members that have expressed support for dismantling the department have been pretty short on details of what would come next.
On Tuesday, [city council member Steve] Fletcher published a lengthy Twitter thread saying the police department was “irredeemably beyond reform,” and a “protection racket” that slows down responses as political payback. “Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity,” he wrote. Fletcher says the entire council “to some degree” has been discussing disbanding the police department as an option. He doesn’t yet know what that will look like. He suspects it’s a transition that will take time, and the involvement – and possibly voting capacity – of residents.
The city council president has weighed in on Twitter, calling for replacing the MPD with a “transformative new model” of policing.
Yes. We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with a transformative new model of public safety. https://t.co/FCfjoPy64k — Lisa Bender (@lisabendermpls) June 4, 2020
The “defund police” movement has exploded in popularity among celebrities, activists, and many local politicians in deep-blue Democrat-controlled cities since the protests and riots began after the killing of George Floyd, but there’s been little talk about what traditional policing would be replaced by. At The Atlantic, Annie Lowery’s come out in favor of the movement, but her piece spends far more time laying out the case for dismantling police departments while largely ignoring any discussion of what would come next.
A more radical option, one scrawled on cardboard signs and tagged on buildings and flooding social media, is to defund the cops. What might that mean in practice? Not just smaller budgets and fewer officers, though many activists advocate for that. It would mean ending mass incarceration, cash bail, fines-and-fees policing, the war on drugs, and police militarization, as well as getting cops out of schools. It would also mean funding housing-first programs, creating subsidized jobs for the formerly incarcerated, and expanding initiatives to have mental-health professionals and social workers respond to emergency calls.
I see a lot of buzzwords there, but not a lot of details. I’m curious how “fines-and-fees” policing would work with violent crimes like armed robbery or home invasion, for instance. And of course, as many politicians and activists seek to disband police departments, many of them are also still vocally supporting Joe Biden’s gun control agenda, which would impose all kinds of new federal crimes on non-violent firearms offenses like simple possession of a “large capacity” magazine or a semi-automatic rifle. Biden’s plan also calls for state-level gun licensing laws, which have had a disproportionate effect on young black men in places like New York City. At some point the supporters of the defund police movement are going to have to decide what they want more: an end to traditional policing or more gun control laws on the books.


bearingarms--2020-06-05--Jake Fromm Apologizes For Disgusting Texts

The University of Georgia is really the big college football team around my neck of the woods , even though we ’ re hours away from Athens , GA. As such , I ’ ve followed Buffalo Bills rookie Jake Fromm since his first snap as a Bulldog .
I always thought of him as a hell of a player and when he got drafted by the Bills , I thought they lucked out to get him .
But clearly , Jake has some problems .
In particular , the text messages from him that got leaked that were guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s apologized for .
Buffalo Bills rookie quarterback Jake Fromm apologized Thursday after screenshots emerged of a text conversation in which he said only “ elite white people ” should be able to purchase guns .
The conversation , which took place in 2019 and was posted to Twitter early Thursday morning , involved Fromm and a friend discussing guns .
Fromm wrote , “ But no guns are good .
They need to let me get suppressors , ” before adding , “ Just make them very expensive so only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Fromm went on to say he was not an “ elite white person ” later in the conversation .
“ I am extremely sorry that I chose to use the words ‘ elite white person ’ in a text message conversation , ” Fromm said in a statement posted to Twitter on Thursday afternoon .
“ Although I never meant to imply that I am an ‘ elite white person , ’ as later stated in the conversation , there ’ s no excuse for that word choice and sentiment .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I promise to commit myself to being part of the solution in this country.
” Yeah , there ’ s absolutely no one who isn ’ t going to be angered by Fromm ’ s comments .
However , since Jake has decided to “ stand against racism 100 % , ” allow me to pass along just how wrong his comments were .
I don ’ t care that he doesn ’ t think any guns are “ good.
” He ’ s a free man and welcome to form his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just make them very expensive so only elite white people can get them , ” is problematic in ways that neither he nor the mainstream media understand .
You see , gun control in this country didn ’ t start because of violent crime .
No , it started because the South lost the Civil War and the slaves were freed .
Now , you had all kinds of black folks running around and able to do all sorts of things they wouldn ’ t have been allowed to do before .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep blacks disarmed .
They were terrified of the black man and what he might do after years of subjugation , so they restricted his right to own guns .
Oh , the laws didn ’ t explicitly say “ black folks can ’ t own guns ” or anything , but there was an understanding that white sheriffs wouldn ’ t apply these laws to white gun owners .
Newly freed slaves , however ?
Oh , that was a different matter entirely .
Somewhere along the way , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universally–which , admittedly , laws should be–and gun control was held up as a solution to violent crime .
Yet its origins were in keeping a previously downtrodden population downtrodden .
Those early adopters of gun control knew that armed citizens had no need to fear , and that was a problem .
Fear is a more effective chain than steal , after all .
Today , those laws have expanded so that in many places , only the connected can really keep and bear arms .
Celebrities and wealthy individuals tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , well , many of those “ elites ” happen to be white .
Meanwhile , poor African Americans are often rolled up on “ weapons charges ” that aren ’ t always about criminal history but about going around nebulous and draconian restrictions to get a gun in the first place .
So yeah , Fromm ’ s comments were wrong , but for more reasons than preferring a different set of rules for the elites .
It ’ s also wrong because in making that comment , he betrayed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of gun control in this country .

The University of Georgia is really the big college football team around my neck of the woods, even though we’re hours away from Athens, GA. As such, I’ve followed Buffalo Bills rookie Jake Fromm since his first snap as a Bulldog. I always thought of him as a hell of a player and when he got drafted by the Bills, I thought they lucked out to get him.
But clearly, Jake has some problems. In particular, the text messages from him that got leaked that were guaranteed to make no one happy, messages he’s apologized for.
Buffalo Bills rookie quarterback Jake Fromm apologized Thursday after screenshots emerged of a text conversation in which he said only “elite white people” should be able to purchase guns. The conversation, which took place in 2019 and was posted to Twitter early Thursday morning, involved Fromm and a friend discussing guns. Fromm wrote, “But no guns are good. They need to let me get suppressors,” before adding, “Just make them very expensive so only elite white people can get them haha.” Fromm went on to say he was not an “elite white person” later in the conversation. “I am extremely sorry that I chose to use the words ‘elite white person’ in a text message conversation,” Fromm said in a statement posted to Twitter on Thursday afternoon. “Although I never meant to imply that I am an ‘elite white person,’ as later stated in the conversation, there’s no excuse for that word choice and sentiment. “I stand against racism 100%. I promise to commit myself to being part of the solution in this country.”
Yeah, there’s absolutely no one who isn’t going to be angered by Fromm’s comments.
However, since Jake has decided to “stand against racism 100%,” allow me to pass along just how wrong his comments were.
I don’t care that he doesn’t think any guns are “good.” He’s a free man and welcome to form his own opinions about things, but saying “just make them very expensive so only elite white people can get them,” is problematic in ways that neither he nor the mainstream media understand.
You see, gun control in this country didn’t start because of violent crime. No, it started because the South lost the Civil War and the slaves were freed. Now, you had all kinds of black folks running around and able to do all sorts of things they wouldn’t have been allowed to do before.
As a result, white officials began trying to keep blacks disarmed. They were terrified of the black man and what he might do after years of subjugation, so they restricted his right to own guns. Oh, the laws didn’t explicitly say “black folks can’t own guns” or anything, but there was an understanding that white sheriffs wouldn’t apply these laws to white gun owners.
Newly freed slaves, however? Oh, that was a different matter entirely.
Somewhere along the way, though, things changed and those laws were applied universally–which, admittedly, laws should be–and gun control was held up as a solution to violent crime. Yet its origins were in keeping a previously downtrodden population downtrodden. Those early adopters of gun control knew that armed citizens had no need to fear, and that was a problem. Fear is a more effective chain than steal, after all.
Today, those laws have expanded so that in many places, only the connected can really keep and bear arms. Celebrities and wealthy individuals tend to have little problem getting carry permits. And, well, many of those “elites” happen to be white.
Gun control really does benefit elite whites.
Meanwhile, poor African Americans are often rolled up on “weapons charges” that aren’t always about criminal history but about going around nebulous and draconian restrictions to get a gun in the first place.
So yeah, Fromm’s comments were wrong, but for more reasons than preferring a different set of rules for the elites. It’s also wrong because in making that comment, he betrayed a profound lack of knowledge about the racist history of gun control in this country.


bearingarms--2020-06-06--Officer Under Investigation After Posing With 3-Percenters

The chief of the Olympia , Washington police department says an internal investigation is taking place after an officer posed for a picture with several members of the group Three Percent of Washington early Friday morning .
The group of about a dozen gun owners were standing guard outside of a local gun store after the owner requested “ armed members of the community to make a presence in his parking lot ” over concerns that his store would be targeted by burglars .
Friday evening , Olympia ’ s interim police chief , Aaron Jelcick , released a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am disappointed and frustrated that the photo was taken at all , but particularly at this sensitive time in our city and nation , ” Jelcick wrote .
“ I regret that this photo may damage the trust our community places in us that we have worked so hard to build .
I apologize for the pain this has caused our community .
It is imperative that Olympia Police Officers uphold our values , remain neutral to the message at public demonstrations , and do not engage in or promote conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department or the City.
” Meanwhile , Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby accused the group of promoting white supremacy by flashing “ white power ” symbols .
“ After a long week for my community , I ’ m discouraged that I have to make a post like this , ” the mayor wrote .
“ I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members , some of whom are displaying white power signs .
I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government restricts me from discussing disciplinary measures , though my council and I are demanding a thorough investigation , ” she wrote .
“ As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms , a culture change within the police department and city government is clearly needed .
“ We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge .
The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia , and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ended her post with “ BLACK LIVES MATTER !
!
!
!
!
” There are a couple of problems with the mayor ’ s assertion that the armed citizens were on hand to promote white power , starting with the fact that the group of armed citizens were actually more diverse than the city itself .
At least one black gun owner is standing front and center in the picture , and Three Percent of Washington co-founder Matt Marshall says two Hispanic gun owners and one Jewish gun owner were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ defensive posture ” outside of the gun shop .
As for the supposed white power symbols being flashed by some in the group , Marshall says they ’ re actually holding up three fingers as a reference to the “ three percent ” movement .
None of that seems to matter to Mayor Selby , who seems to want to generate conflict rather than promote conversation and understanding .
Staffers with The Olympian newspaper managed to find and talk with Marshall about the armed citizens to get more information , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any research of her own .
Not only did she unfairly accuse the group of being racists , she also called the officer ’ s behavior “ abhorrent , ” and implied that the female officer was somehow promoting white power .
Things are bad enough at the moment without the mayor adding to the tensions .
The “ armed militia ” she refers to wasn ’ t about promoting white power , nor were they interested in trying to interfere or disrupt any peaceful protest .
In her statement , Selby spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ within the police department and city government.
” Perhaps she should lead that change by tendering her resignation if she ’ s not going to wait for the facts before demonizing a group of white , black , and brown gun owners who were on hand to prevent a gun shop from being burgled of being a bunch of white supremacists intent on causing mayhem in the city .

The chief of the Olympia, Washington police department says an internal investigation is taking place after an officer posed for a picture with several members of the group Three Percent of Washington early Friday morning. The group of about a dozen gun owners were standing guard outside of a local gun store after the owner requested “armed members of the community to make a presence in his parking lot” over concerns that his store would be targeted by burglars.
Friday evening, Olympia’s interim police chief, Aaron Jelcick, released a statement announcing the investigation into the officer.
“I am disappointed and frustrated that the photo was taken at all, but particularly at this sensitive time in our city and nation,” Jelcick wrote. “I regret that this photo may damage the trust our community places in us that we have worked so hard to build. I apologize for the pain this has caused our community. It is imperative that Olympia Police Officers uphold our values, remain neutral to the message at public demonstrations, and do not engage in or promote conduct that will bring discredit to themselves, the Department or the City.”
Meanwhile, Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby accused the group of promoting white supremacy by flashing “white power” symbols.
“After a long week for my community, I’m discouraged that I have to make a post like this,” the mayor wrote. “I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members, some of whom are displaying white power signs. I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally unacceptable. “Our council/manager form of government restricts me from discussing disciplinary measures, though my council and I are demanding a thorough investigation,” she wrote. “As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms, a culture change within the police department and city government is clearly needed. “We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge. The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia, and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful protest can continue in our city.” She ended her post with “BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!”
There are a couple of problems with the mayor’s assertion that the armed citizens were on hand to promote white power, starting with the fact that the group of armed citizens were actually more diverse than the city itself. At least one black gun owner is standing front and center in the picture, and Three Percent of Washington co-founder Matt Marshall says two Hispanic gun owners and one Jewish gun owner were a part of the armed citizens in a “defensive posture” outside of the gun shop.
As for the supposed white power symbols being flashed by some in the group, Marshall says they’re actually holding up three fingers as a reference to the “three percent” movement.
None of that seems to matter to Mayor Selby, who seems to want to generate conflict rather than promote conversation and understanding. Staffers with The Olympian newspaper managed to find and talk with Marshall about the armed citizens to get more information, but the mayor chose to spout off without doing any research of her own. Not only did she unfairly accuse the group of being racists, she also called the officer’s behavior “abhorrent,” and implied that the female officer was somehow promoting white power.
Things are bad enough at the moment without the mayor adding to the tensions. The “armed militia” she refers to wasn’t about promoting white power, nor were they interested in trying to interfere or disrupt any peaceful protest. In her statement, Selby spoke about a need to change the culture “within the police department and city government.” Perhaps she should lead that change by tendering her resignation if she’s not going to wait for the facts before demonizing a group of white, black, and brown gun owners who were on hand to prevent a gun shop from being burgled of being a bunch of white supremacists intent on causing mayhem in the city.


bearingarms--2020-06-06--Minneapolis City Council Wants To Disband Police. They Have No Clue What Comes After That.

Minneapolis City Council members seem serious about disbanding the city ’ s police department and replacing it with… well , something , but they ’ re still offering few specifics to residents about what it might mean if the police force were to be repealed and replaced .
On Friday , city councilman Steve Fletcher wrote an opinion piece for Time magazine entitled , “ I ’ m A Minneapolis City Council Member .
We Must Disband Police- Here ’ s What Could Come Next.
” I was hoping to see some specific ideas about what non-policing might look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fletcher offers up only platitudes and political soundbites like this .
Our city needs a public safety capacity that doesn ’ t fear our residents .
That doesn ’ t need a gun at a community meeting .
That considers itself part of our community .
That doesn ’ t resort quickly to pepper spray when people are understandably angry .
That doesn ’ t murder black people .
We can reimagine what public safety means , what skills we recruit for , and what tools we do and do not need .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the systems of white supremacy in public safety that the death of black and brown lives has laid bare .
We can invest in cultural competency and mental health training , de-escalation and conflict resolution .
We can send a city response that that is appropriate to each situation and makes it better .
We can resolve confusion over a $ 20 grocery transaction without drawing a weapon or pulling out handcuffs .
Okay .
Maybe the city can do all these things , but Fletcher doesn ’ t actually explain how .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handle mental health calls instead of police , dispatching fire department EMT ’ s to overdose calls , and using “ unarmed community-oriented street teams on weekend nights downtown to focus on de-escalation , ” as well as relying on traffic cameras and traffic enforcement officers to cover traffic violations , but there are a few things Fletcher leaves out .
Armed robbery , for instance .
Carjackings .
Homicides .
Gang violence .
As it turns out , even before the killing of George Floyd turned much of the city into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was on the upswing in the city , as the Star-Tribune newspaper reported last November .
The nearly 13 % jump in violent crime mirrors a similar trend across the river in St. Paul , where law enforcement officials are scrambling to quell a recent spate of violence .
In Minneapolis , police data show that the city ’ s 37 homicides climbed 32 % from 28 this time last year , while aggravated assaults , rapes and robberies also rose during the first 10 months of the year , contributing to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to newly released Police Department statistics .
The data show that property crime reports were up nearly 15 % during the same period .
This comes on the heels of a sharp decline the year before , when the city logged 30-year lows in many crime categories , according to deputy police chief Erick Fors .
Interestingly enough , just a few months ago , Mayor Jacob Frey was calling for more police officers , not disbanding the police department .
The increase has emerged as a significant issue in the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boiling point this fall with the release of viral videos showing people being violently assaulted and robbed after leaving downtown bars .
Advocates of adding more officers worry about a reversal of a steady decline that began in the 1990s , as the city continues its rapid growth .
Mayor Jacob Frey , who has asked for 14 new officers , said the rising violence underscored the need for a different approach to addressing crime and its causes , pointing to recent bail reform efforts , increased “ resources for economic inclusion ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as a major hurdle for former offenders trying to reintegrate into society .
At the same time , he said the shortage of officers was likely a contributing factor , calling it “ unacceptable ” that thousands of high-priority 911 calls couldn ’ t be immediately assigned because of a lack of available police squads .
“ There ’ s no quicker way to erode trust in a police department [ than ] to call 911 and not have somebody show up , ” he said .
Well , I think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erode trust in a police department , but Frey was onto something .
I can ’ t help but wonder , though , what happens to trust in public officials when someone calls 911 and is told that there are no police at all ?
I ’ ll tell you what happens .
People start protecting themselves and their neighborhoods , and they don ’ t do it solely with hugs and sweet talk .
They arm themselves .
And in Minneapolis , it ’ s already happening .
Cesia Baires knocks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a neighboring taqueria just before curfew .
A woman opens the door .
Her two young children are inside .
“ Remember , ” she says to them in Spanish .
“ Same thing as yesterday .
I ’ m going to come check on you .
If there ’ s anything you guys need , give us a call right away.
” Meanwhile , a few men climb through the window and on to the roof to set up semi-automatic weapons as the curfew begins in Minneapolis .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do as a small-business owner , but then she found out these apartments were occupied .
“ Material things we can replace , that ’ s true , ” she says .
“ But there are families up here .
These aren ’ t empty buildings.
” As break-ins and fires raged in the first days of mass protests over the killing of yet another black man in an encounter with police , the city seemed to descend into a security vacuum .
She says the police disappeared from this neighborhood .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ started forming patrols to include people with licensed weapons .
“ I ’ m the one that ’ s checking everyone , ” she says .
“ If you ’ re up here with a gun and you ’ re not supposed to be here and you don ’ t have a license to carry , then I don ’ t allow you to even go to the rooftop .
Only people with guns are on the rooftop.
” KUOW reports that Baires ’ group , called Security Latinos De La Lake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups that have formed in the wake of the riots and looting in Minneapolis .
As curfew begins , the group splits off into their homes and businesses .
Inside Hernandez ’ s taqueria , he and Baires , the owner of Abi ’ s Cafe next door in the same building , work with others to barricade the front door .
Those licensed to carry move to the roof .
The rest stay inside with BB guns to scare people off .
“ I don ’ t want to be here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to hurt anybody .
But if we ’ re in danger , we ’ re probably going to use [ our weapons ] that ’ s for sure .
It ’ s going to be self-defense .
We ’ re not going to shoot anybody .
But if they start shooting , then it ’ s different.
” On the road out of this neighborhood , other groups have blocked off their streets , put warning signs up that people are watching and that trespassing would have consequences .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely no problem with this , but I can ’ t help but think that politicians like Steve Fletcher may not be quite as enthusiastic about armed neighborhood watch groups protecting their neighborhoods with AR-15s .
The city may have some vague idea about how they ’ d replace the Minneapolis Police Department if it disbanded , but residents have a much more concrete plan that they ’ re already putting into action .

Minneapolis City Council members seem serious about disbanding the city’s police department and replacing it with… well, something, but they’re still offering few specifics to residents about what it might mean if the police force were to be repealed and replaced.
On Friday, city councilman Steve Fletcher wrote an opinion piece for Time magazine entitled, “I’m A Minneapolis City Council Member. We Must Disband Police- Here’s What Could Come Next.” I was hoping to see some specific ideas about what non-policing might look like, but for the most part, Fletcher offers up only platitudes and political soundbites like this.
Our city needs a public safety capacity that doesn’t fear our residents. That doesn’t need a gun at a community meeting. That considers itself part of our community. That doesn’t resort quickly to pepper spray when people are understandably angry. That doesn’t murder black people. We can reimagine what public safety means, what skills we recruit for, and what tools we do and do not need. We can play a role in combating the systems of white supremacy in public safety that the death of black and brown lives has laid bare. We can invest in cultural competency and mental health training, de-escalation and conflict resolution. We can send a city response that that is appropriate to each situation and makes it better. We can resolve confusion over a $20 grocery transaction without drawing a weapon or pulling out handcuffs.
Okay. Maybe the city can do all these things, but Fletcher doesn’t actually explain how. He mentions sending mental health professionals out to handle mental health calls instead of police, dispatching fire department EMT’s to overdose calls, and using “unarmed community-oriented street teams on weekend nights downtown to focus on de-escalation,” as well as relying on traffic cameras and traffic enforcement officers to cover traffic violations, but there are a few things Fletcher leaves out.
Armed robbery, for instance. Carjackings. Homicides. Gang violence. As it turns out, even before the killing of George Floyd turned much of the city into a burned-out war zone, violent crime was on the upswing in the city, as the Star-Tribune newspaper reported last November.
The nearly 13% jump in violent crime mirrors a similar trend across the river in St. Paul, where law enforcement officials are scrambling to quell a recent spate of violence. In Minneapolis, police data show that the city’s 37 homicides climbed 32% from 28 this time last year, while aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies also rose during the first 10 months of the year, contributing to the increase in reports of violent crime, according to newly released Police Department statistics. The data show that property crime reports were up nearly 15% during the same period. This comes on the heels of a sharp decline the year before, when the city logged 30-year lows in many crime categories, according to deputy police chief Erick Fors.
Interestingly enough, just a few months ago, Mayor Jacob Frey was calling for more police officers, not disbanding the police department.
The increase has emerged as a significant issue in the debate over police resources, which reached a boiling point this fall with the release of viral videos showing people being violently assaulted and robbed after leaving downtown bars. Advocates of adding more officers worry about a reversal of a steady decline that began in the 1990s, as the city continues its rapid growth. Mayor Jacob Frey, who has asked for 14 new officers, said the rising violence underscored the need for a different approach to addressing crime and its causes, pointing to recent bail reform efforts, increased “resources for economic inclusion” and further investment in affordable housing, seen as a major hurdle for former offenders trying to reintegrate into society. At the same time, he said the shortage of officers was likely a contributing factor, calling it “unacceptable” that thousands of high-priority 911 calls couldn’t be immediately assigned because of a lack of available police squads. “There’s no quicker way to erode trust in a police department [than] to call 911 and not have somebody show up,” he said.
Well, I think we might have found a quicker way to erode trust in a police department, but Frey was onto something. I can’t help but wonder, though, what happens to trust in public officials when someone calls 911 and is told that there are no police at all?
I’ll tell you what happens. People start protecting themselves and their neighborhoods, and they don’t do it solely with hugs and sweet talk. They arm themselves. And in Minneapolis, it’s already happening.
Cesia Baires knocks on the three apartment doors above her restaurant and a neighboring taqueria just before curfew. A woman opens the door. Her two young children are inside. “Remember,” she says to them in Spanish. “Same thing as yesterday. I’m going to come check on you. If there’s anything you guys need, give us a call right away.” Meanwhile, a few men climb through the window and on to the roof to set up semi-automatic weapons as the curfew begins in Minneapolis. It’s something Baires never thought she would have to do as a small-business owner, but then she found out these apartments were occupied. “Material things we can replace, that’s true,” she says. “But there are families up here. These aren’t empty buildings.” As break-ins and fires raged in the first days of mass protests over the killing of yet another black man in an encounter with police, the city seemed to descend into a security vacuum. She says the police disappeared from this neighborhood. That’s when she and others started forming patrols to include people with licensed weapons. “I’m the one that’s checking everyone,” she says. “If you’re up here with a gun and you’re not supposed to be here and you don’t have a license to carry, then I don’t allow you to even go to the rooftop. Only people with guns are on the rooftop.”
KUOW reports that Baires’ group, called Security Latinos De La Lake, is just one of several armed neighborhood groups that have formed in the wake of the riots and looting in Minneapolis.
As curfew begins, the group splits off into their homes and businesses. Inside Hernandez’s taqueria, he and Baires, the owner of Abi’s Cafe next door in the same building, work with others to barricade the front door. “All right. You ready, guys?” “Ready,” the group responds. Those licensed to carry move to the roof. The rest stay inside with BB guns to scare people off. “I don’t want to be here,” Hernandez says. “We don’t want to hurt anybody. But if we’re in danger, we’re probably going to use [our weapons] that’s for sure. It’s going to be self-defense. We’re not going to shoot anybody. But if they start shooting, then it’s different.” On the road out of this neighborhood, other groups have blocked off their streets, put warning signs up that people are watching and that trespassing would have consequences.
As a Second Amendment advocate, I have absolutely no problem with this, but I can’t help but think that politicians like Steve Fletcher may not be quite as enthusiastic about armed neighborhood watch groups protecting their neighborhoods with AR-15s. The city may have some vague idea about how they’d replace the Minneapolis Police Department if it disbanded, but residents have a much more concrete plan that they’re already putting into action.


bearingarms--2020-06-06--'Police Violence' Discussion Sparks Conversation On Swatting

I still remember the first account I read of someone being swatted .
It was Erik Erikson , who wrote about how the police showed up after someone called and claimed Erikson had murdered his family .
I read , horrified , and wondered what it must be like for someone to have to deal with this .
Almost immediately , I could see how the incident could have gone very wrong .
Since then , I ’ ve read and heard about numerous cases of people being swatted .
Now , with much of the discussion focused on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media , T.C .
Sottek over at The Verge figured it was time to talk about this in the context of swatting .
Americans in all 50 states are protesting against police brutality .
That alone should be all anyone needs to know that something is gravely wrong and that police violence has touched every community in the nation .
And yet , as people continue to deny what they are seeing , it ’ s important to remember the reasons why police brutality is undeniable .
One of those is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a death threat : calling on SWAT teams to terrorize people in their homes .
It ’ s important to understand that police raids like this did not appear overnight once people started increasingly making hoax calls .
It had to already be a feature of American policing : a ready-made infrastructure that could be exploited by modern trolls and wrongdoers .
Another routine feature of these raids : Police often don ’ t even knock on people ’ s doors before entering , drastically increasing the chances that someone will be killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court rebuking this practice , the court carved out an exception that has been exploited by police across the country .
Two months before the killing of George Floyd , Kentucky police broke into the home of 26-year-old emergency room technician Breonna Taylor and shot her eight times , killing her .
As police expert Radley Balko reported , Kentucky police didn ’ t even bother meeting the bar set by the exception , and executed an illegal no-knock warrant before killing Taylor .
Even when it ’ s easy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immense power , they often don ’ t even bother meeting these lowest expectations .
Now , I ’ m pretty sure Sottek and I don ’ t agree on much , and while I feel like he goes a little too far at points in this piece , particularly in trying to tie swatting to race , he still makes a good point about swatting in general .
The act of swatting is an act of violence .
The difference is the person committing the swatting is trying to commit violence by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon .
In many cases , the attempt at swatting doesn ’ t work , thankfully , but even in failing to cause injury or death , they create a massive headache .
Plus , some trolls engage in many swatting attempts of an individual , something that may slow response times should anything actually happen at those addresses .
Swatting is a significant problem , even if they ’ re still fairly isolated incidents , especially for the Second Amendment community .
After all , if you hear your front door kicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you going to assume it ’ s the police ?
Or , are you going to figure it ’ s someone breaking in and respond with your firearm ?
Now , imagine the officer who is executing a no-knock warrant on a house they believe has a violent individual in it when the homeowner starts shooting at the dark-clad intruders .
Yeah , it can get messy very quickly .
Unfortunately , while legislators in various places have tried to deal with swatting , their efforts are generally along the lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since so many people who do these crimes think they ’ ll get away with it , those are pretty well useless .
While right now , people are talking more about people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , and for understandable reason , this is a topic we should have a conversation about as well .

I still remember the first account I read of someone being swatted. It was Erik Erikson, who wrote about how the police showed up after someone called and claimed Erikson had murdered his family. I read, horrified, and wondered what it must be like for someone to have to deal with this. Almost immediately, I could see how the incident could have gone very wrong.
Since then, I’ve read and heard about numerous cases of people being swatted.
Now, with much of the discussion focused on what many call “police violence” in the media, T.C. Sottek over at The Verge figured it was time to talk about this in the context of swatting.
Americans in all 50 states are protesting against police brutality. That alone should be all anyone needs to know that something is gravely wrong and that police violence has touched every community in the nation. And yet, as people continue to deny what they are seeing, it’s important to remember the reasons why police brutality is undeniable. One of those is the internet’s favorite way of making a death threat: calling on SWAT teams to terrorize people in their homes. … It’s important to understand that police raids like this did not appear overnight once people started increasingly making hoax calls. It had to already be a feature of American policing: a ready-made infrastructure that could be exploited by modern trolls and wrongdoers. … Another routine feature of these raids: Police often don’t even knock on people’s doors before entering, drastically increasing the chances that someone will be killed, either accidentally or intentionally. Despite the Supreme Court rebuking this practice, the court carved out an exception that has been exploited by police across the country. Two months before the killing of George Floyd, Kentucky police broke into the home of 26-year-old emergency room technician Breonna Taylor and shot her eight times, killing her. As police expert Radley Balko reported, Kentucky police didn’t even bother meeting the bar set by the exception, and executed an illegal no-knock warrant before killing Taylor. Even when it’s easy for police to follow laws that give them immense power, they often don’t even bother meeting these lowest expectations.
Now, I’m pretty sure Sottek and I don’t agree on much, and while I feel like he goes a little too far at points in this piece, particularly in trying to tie swatting to race, he still makes a good point about swatting in general.
The act of swatting is an act of violence. The difference is the person committing the swatting is trying to commit violence by proxy, using law enforcement as their weapon.
In many cases, the attempt at swatting doesn’t work, thankfully, but even in failing to cause injury or death, they create a massive headache. Plus, some trolls engage in many swatting attempts of an individual, something that may slow response times should anything actually happen at those addresses.
Swatting is a significant problem, even if they’re still fairly isolated incidents, especially for the Second Amendment community. After all, if you hear your front door kicked in at three in the morning, are you going to assume it’s the police? Or, are you going to figure it’s someone breaking in and respond with your firearm?
Now, imagine the officer who is executing a no-knock warrant on a house they believe has a violent individual in it when the homeowner starts shooting at the dark-clad intruders.
Yeah, it can get messy very quickly.
Unfortunately, while legislators in various places have tried to deal with swatting, their efforts are generally along the lines of stiffer punishments for people caught swatting. Since so many people who do these crimes think they’ll get away with it, those are pretty well useless.
While right now, people are talking more about people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and for understandable reason, this is a topic we should have a conversation about as well.


bearingarms--2020-06-07--Northern Virginia Gun Owners Brace For New Local Laws

City council members in Alexandria , Virginia are set to approve several local gun measures on Tuesday , even before a new state law weakening the state ’ s firearms preemption law takes effect on July 1st .
The Virginia Citizens Defense League issued an alert to members on Friday with details of the proposed ordinance and urging gun owners to contact city council members to oppose the measure .
The ordinance , which would take effect on July 1st , would ban the possession of firearms in city parks , government buildings , community centers , and permitted events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ordinance treated as a Class 1 misdemeanor .
Technically , the Alexandria City Council has already passed a ban on firearms on city property , thought it never took effect .
Back in 2019 , the city council unanimously approved an ordinance almost identical to the measure they ’ ll consider this coming Tuesday .
As local news site The Zebra reported at the time : City council has unanimously ordained that the possession , carrying or transportation of firearms in buildings owned , leased or operated by the City ; or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community owned or used by the City , is prohibited .
The ordinance also states that the possession , carrying , storage or transportation of firearms by City employees , agents or volunteers in workplaces owned , operated or managed by the City is prohibited .
“ That ’ s the street , that ’ s the sidewalk… you can have a gun if you can get it into your house , so long as you keep it in your house , you can have it , ” said Dino Drudi , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ordinance .
“ That ’ s a more extreme gun ban than many of the gun control communities had before the Supreme Court struck it down.
” If the city council reaffirms its anti-gun ordinance on Tuesday , it may soon find itself as the first locality in the state to face a lawsuit over new local gun control laws .
Virginia had , until this year anyway , a firearms preemption statute on the books that left gun laws up to the state legislature , but Gov .
Ralph Northam signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a package of seven gun control bills that will become law in the state on July 1st .
While Alexandria may be the first to pass a local gun control ordinance , they won ’ t be the last .
Over the next few weeks , expect to see similar ordinances introduced in localities throughout northern Virginia , as well as cities like Richmond and Charlottesville as anti-gun politicians take advantage of the newfound opportunity to restrict the right to keep and bear arms .
Thanks in part to the efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment Sanctuary resolutions and ordinances , however , I believe that most of the local governments in the state will take a pass on imposing any new restrictions on legal gun owners .

City council members in Alexandria, Virginia are set to approve several local gun measures on Tuesday, even before a new state law weakening the state’s firearms preemption law takes effect on July 1st. The Virginia Citizens Defense League issued an alert to members on Friday with details of the proposed ordinance and urging gun owners to contact city council members to oppose the measure.
The ordinance, which would take effect on July 1st, would ban the possession of firearms in city parks, government buildings, community centers, and permitted events on city streets, with violations of the ordinance treated as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Technically, the Alexandria City Council has already passed a ban on firearms on city property, thought it never took effect. Back in 2019, the city council unanimously approved an ordinance almost identical to the measure they’ll consider this coming Tuesday. As local news site The Zebra reported at the time:
City council has unanimously ordained that the possession, carrying or transportation of firearms in buildings owned, leased or operated by the City; or in parks and in any recreational or community owned or used by the City, is prohibited. The ordinance also states that the possession, carrying, storage or transportation of firearms by City employees, agents or volunteers in workplaces owned, operated or managed by the City is prohibited. “That’s the street, that’s the sidewalk… you can have a gun if you can get it into your house, so long as you keep it in your house, you can have it,” said Dino Drudi, a public speaker at the second reading of the ordinance. “That’s a more extreme gun ban than many of the gun control communities had before the Supreme Court struck it down.”
If the city council reaffirms its anti-gun ordinance on Tuesday, it may soon find itself as the first locality in the state to face a lawsuit over new local gun control laws. Virginia had, until this year anyway, a firearms preemption statute on the books that left gun laws up to the state legislature, but Gov. Ralph Northam signed legislation that dramatically weakens the statute as part of a package of seven gun control bills that will become law in the state on July 1st.
While Alexandria may be the first to pass a local gun control ordinance, they won’t be the last. Over the next few weeks, expect to see similar ordinances introduced in localities throughout northern Virginia, as well as cities like Richmond and Charlottesville as anti-gun politicians take advantage of the newfound opportunity to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks in part to the efforts of Virginia gun owners in establishing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions and ordinances, however, I believe that most of the local governments in the state will take a pass on imposing any new restrictions on legal gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-06-07--No, Trumps Actions Won't Make 2A Supporters Back Biden

Normally , I don ’ t address most of the letters to the editor I come across .
After all , most of them are idiotic at best and few do anything except rehash tired talking points .
However , from time to time , one will spark something that I feel like I have to address .
The letter is , again , nothing new .
It ’ s reiterating something I ’ ve heard on social media plenty , but I figured it needed to be addressed .
The letter starts with framing the gun rights argument that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ useful in opposing a tyrannical government .
It then continues : President Trump has now threatened to use military force against American citizens protesting the murder of George Floyd .
Has the gun rights advocates ’ worst nightmare come true ?
Will they and their lobbyists now challenge Trump ’ s threats and consider who they support in November ’ s presidential election ?
Of course , this is nothing more than an attempt to guilt people into a preferred action , and a clumsy one .
However , as it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places , I figured I ’ d go ahead and answer it point by point .
What President Trump was addressing was not peaceful protestors but rioters who were burning , looting , and even killing .
Further , he warned governors to take action , or else he would step in and use the Insurrection Act to call up federal troops and put an end to the rioting .
He said nothing about peaceful protests , none of which require anything except for a law enforcement presence to not just help keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from attacking the protestors .
However , the letter writer does something the left is notorious for doing and that ’ s equating two very different things as if they ’ re the same .
They use the term “ protestor ” when that is equating peaceful marchers and rioters as one and the same .
That ’ s a misnomer and an attempt to manipulate language to misinform people into thinking Trump is going to send the 101st Airborne after people marching peacefully in Bismark .
Now , for the money paragraph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least , not in the way the writer is trying to imply .
Our “ worst nightmare ” isn ’ t a president stepping in to put down a situation that can be considered as insurrection .
In fact , that ’ s a legitimate function of the government .
People are being hurt and even killed by these riots , so stepping in when governors and mayors won ’ t could easily be seen as a reasonable response , so no , it ’ s not our worst nightmare come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and things change .
That ’ s usually the tripwire we talk about and for good reason .
Look , many of us may not necessarily agree that using the Insurrection Act is a good thing , but Trump is still a far better choice when it comes to our gun rights than Joe Biden .
While Libertarian Jo Jorgensen may well also be pro-gun , she ’ s also going to be fortunate to get more than two percent of the vote .
Many would argue that ’ s throwing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s amusing how the moment they figure they need gun owners–who else could possibly stand up to the military deploying to quash riots in our cities–they can just demand us to turn our backs on everything , including the vilification we ’ ve received by these very same people year after year .
Now , they want gun owners and we ’ re supposed to just forget all they ’ ve said .
Joe Biden wants to deeply infringe on our Second Amendment rights , so deeply that I ’ d vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Trump does something they think we won ’ t like , we ’ re supposed to just jump ship and join hands with them so we can sing Kumbayah ?
Oh , hell no .
Especially when the entire exercise just illustrates how little they ’ ve bothered to listen to us over all these years .

Normally, I don’t address most of the letters to the editor I come across. After all, most of them are idiotic at best and few do anything except rehash tired talking points. However, from time to time, one will spark something that I feel like I have to address.
That’s what happened this time.
The letter is, again, nothing new. It’s reiterating something I’ve heard on social media plenty, but I figured it needed to be addressed. The letter starts with framing the gun rights argument that we oppose gun control because guns are useful in opposing a tyrannical government. It then continues:
President Trump has now threatened to use military force against American citizens protesting the murder of George Floyd. Has the gun rights advocates’ worst nightmare come true? Will they and their lobbyists now challenge Trump’s threats and consider who they support in November’s presidential election?
Of course, this is nothing more than an attempt to guilt people into a preferred action, and a clumsy one.
However, as it’s been brought up in a number of places, I figured I’d go ahead and answer it point by point.
To repeat:
President Trump has now threatened to use military force against American citizens protesting the murder of George Floyd.
This is a lie.
What President Trump was addressing was not peaceful protestors but rioters who were burning, looting, and even killing. Further, he warned governors to take action, or else he would step in and use the Insurrection Act to call up federal troops and put an end to the rioting.
He said nothing about peaceful protests, none of which require anything except for a law enforcement presence to not just help keep them peaceful but also to prevent others from attacking the protestors.
However, the letter writer does something the left is notorious for doing and that’s equating two very different things as if they’re the same. They use the term “protestor” when that is equating peaceful marchers and rioters as one and the same. That’s a misnomer and an attempt to manipulate language to misinform people into thinking Trump is going to send the 101st Airborne after people marching peacefully in Bismark.
Now, for the money paragraph, sentence by sentence:
Has the gun rights advocates’ worst nightmare come true?
Not really. At least, not in the way the writer is trying to imply. Our “worst nightmare” isn’t a president stepping in to put down a situation that can be considered as insurrection.
In fact, that’s a legitimate function of the government. People are being hurt and even killed by these riots, so stepping in when governors and mayors won’t could easily be seen as a reasonable response, so no, it’s not our worst nightmare come true.
But come for our guns, and things change. That’s usually the tripwire we talk about and for good reason.
Will they and their lobbyists now challenge Trump’s threats and consider who they support in November’s presidential election?
Why? Because Orange Man Bad?
Look, many of us may not necessarily agree that using the Insurrection Act is a good thing, but Trump is still a far better choice when it comes to our gun rights than Joe Biden. While Libertarian Jo Jorgensen may well also be pro-gun, she’s also going to be fortunate to get more than two percent of the vote. Many would argue that’s throwing a vote away.
Further, it’s amusing how the moment they figure they need gun owners–who else could possibly stand up to the military deploying to quash riots in our cities–they can just demand us to turn our backs on everything, including the vilification we’ve received by these very same people year after year. Now, they want gun owners and we’re supposed to just forget all they’ve said.
Joe Biden wants to deeply infringe on our Second Amendment rights, so deeply that I’d vote for a pet rock over him, and because Trump does something they think we won’t like, we’re supposed to just jump ship and join hands with them so we can sing Kumbayah? Oh, hell no.
Especially when the entire exercise just illustrates how little they’ve bothered to listen to us over all these years.


bearingarms--2020-06-08--Facebook Deletes Candidate's Warning To Antifa

The riots that have engulfed so much of our great nation are deeply problematic .
After all , businesses already struggling after months of quarantine have since been burned to the ground , making it almost impossible for many business owners to recover .
Communities with already limited choices for grocery stores are now food deserts , all in the name of social justice .
Yet some have figured the best way to stop the stupidity is to warn groups like Antifa that such violence will be met with force .
Unfortunately , political candidates who issue such warnings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deleted .
Facebook deleted a campaign ad from a GOP candidate in Georgia because she was brandishing a gun in the political commercial .
Marjorie Greene is running in Georgia ’ s 14th District , and she already grabbed attention with a campaign ad where she warns Antifa to stay out of Georgia .
In the ad , Greene is standing on the porch of a local business , and she is armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle .
“ I have a message for Antifa terrorists , ” Greene says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ You won ’ t burn our churches , loot our businesses or destroy our homes , ” Greene tells Antifa .
Greene posted the campaign ad on Tuesday , but it was deleted by Facebook on Thursday .
Facebook told Greene ’ s campaign that the ad was pulled because it violated the company ’ s policies against promoting the use of firearms .
Yes , because promoting self-defense is just so problematic .
That ’ s the problem with Facebook ’ s policy , though .
They don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and promoting self-defense .
As a private company , they can do as they wish , but they look downright idiotic at this point .
Greene ’ s warning did feature an AR-15 , which is lawful , but that ’ s enough for the social media giant to feel the need to step in .
Rest assured , it had likely been reported a thousand times by her opponents .
However , Greene ’ s comments make perfect sense .
It ’ s perfectly rational to tell a group known for promoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a given area because residents there aren ’ t interested in playing nicely with you if you pull that crap there .
Greene was celebrated by many Georgians .
Yet there is an upside for Greene .
Sure , her ad was taken down by Facebook , but now some in the national media are writing about her and boosting her profile , giving her tons of free media that will allow her campaign to thrive even without the paid ad .
Further , many will likely donate to her campaign as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way , Facebook has just done Greene a huge favor by completely freaking out over the appearance of a firearm in her ad .
The Streisand Effect is an actual thing , after all , and there ’ s no reason it can help promote a pro-gun voice for the Georgia General Assembly .
In fact , it will , and will likely help her obtain even higher office if that ’ s what she wants to do .
Not that Facebook was trying to do her any favors , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the silver lining when possible .

The riots that have engulfed so much of our great nation are deeply problematic. After all, businesses already struggling after months of quarantine have since been burned to the ground, making it almost impossible for many business owners to recover. Communities with already limited choices for grocery stores are now food deserts, all in the name of social justice.
Yet some have figured the best way to stop the stupidity is to warn groups like Antifa that such violence will be met with force.
Unfortunately, political candidates who issue such warnings on social media may well have their warnings deleted.
Facebook deleted a campaign ad from a GOP candidate in Georgia because she was brandishing a gun in the political commercial. Marjorie Greene is running in Georgia’s 14th District, and she already grabbed attention with a campaign ad where she warns Antifa to stay out of Georgia. In the ad, Greene is standing on the porch of a local business, and she is armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. “I have a message for Antifa terrorists,” Greene says. “Stay the hell out of Northwest Georgia.” “You won’t burn our churches, loot our businesses or destroy our homes,” Greene tells Antifa. Greene posted the campaign ad on Tuesday, but it was deleted by Facebook on Thursday. Facebook told Greene’s campaign that the ad was pulled because it violated the company’s policies against promoting the use of firearms.
Yes, because promoting self-defense is just so problematic.
That’s the problem with Facebook’s policy, though. They don’t know how to differentiate between promoting guns and promoting self-defense. As a private company, they can do as they wish, but they look downright idiotic at this point.
Greene’s warning did feature an AR-15, which is lawful, but that’s enough for the social media giant to feel the need to step in.
Rest assured, it had likely been reported a thousand times by her opponents.
However, Greene’s comments make perfect sense. It’s perfectly rational to tell a group known for promoting and agitating for riots to be careful in a given area because residents there aren’t interested in playing nicely with you if you pull that crap there. Greene was celebrated by many Georgians.
Yet there is an upside for Greene.
Sure, her ad was taken down by Facebook, but now some in the national media are writing about her and boosting her profile, giving her tons of free media that will allow her campaign to thrive even without the paid ad. Further, many will likely donate to her campaign as a show of support.
So, in a way, Facebook has just done Greene a huge favor by completely freaking out over the appearance of a firearm in her ad. The Streisand Effect is an actual thing, after all, and there’s no reason it can help promote a pro-gun voice for the Georgia General Assembly. In fact, it will, and will likely help her obtain even higher office if that’s what she wants to do.
Not that Facebook was trying to do her any favors, though. Still, I like to find the silver lining when possible.


bearingarms--2020-06-08--Man Busted Bringing Gun To Kansas Protest

There are times when guns are probably appropriate at a protest .
In particular , when you ’ re protesting against gun control measures .
The firearm becomes a visual representation of the right , a reminder that not only to people oppose gun control but that they also have guns .
Sure , it freaks some people out , but considering how violent some leftists have gotten at recent protests , that ’ s probably not a bad thing in and of itself .
While I wasn ’ t in favor of guns at protests calling for states ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least there was no violence taking place .
Yet , in recent “ protests , ” the protesters also had guns .
The problem is that they used them to shoot people , killing several .
It looks like police in Kansas at least stopped one person who may have had similar intentions .
A Kansas man who initially was arrested after throwing water bottles at police officers during protests at the Country Club Plaza was charged in federal court today with illegally possessing a firearm , according to the United State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Hijacking a peaceful protest by attacking police officers engaged in their duty to protect the public carries significant consequences in this district , ” said U.S. Attorney Tim Garrison .
“ Illegally carrying a loaded handgun to a public demonstration multiplies those consequences with federal penalties .
I have no tolerance for anyone who hides behind the lawful exercise of constitutional rights as cover for their criminal acts .
We are working alongside our local law enforcement partners to protect the public and maintain order.
” Matthew E. Madden , 22 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City , Missouri , with one count of being a drug user in possession of a firearm .
In other words , this wasn ’ t a law-abiding citizen who was lawfully carrying a firearm while he protested for what he perceived as injustices in the system .
While I may not agree with what people might be protesting , I support their right to peacefully protest .
I also support their right to do it armed , even if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Madden doesn ’ t seem to have been doing that .
A purported drug user , he can ’ t legally own a firearm .
The fact that he was unlawfully carrying a gun to a protest suggests there ’ s a good likelihood that he intended to use that firearm for malicious purposes .
Oh , it ’ s possible that he figured there would be trouble and wanted to defend himself , but if you really expect trouble somewhere , you simply don ’ t go .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was heading to a protest .
Again , it just seems likely he was more interested in starting trouble than ending it .
As such , he ’ s not the first , nor will he be the last , I ’ m afraid .
Far too many people are interested in protests becoming violent , and that ’ s a huge problem .
Luckily , Madden didn ’ t get the chance .
Instead , he ’ ll likely spend some time in court , followed by a jail cell .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this one person trying to stir up trouble .

There are times when guns are probably appropriate at a protest. In particular, when you’re protesting against gun control measures. The firearm becomes a visual representation of the right, a reminder that not only to people oppose gun control but that they also have guns. Sure, it freaks some people out, but considering how violent some leftists have gotten at recent protests, that’s probably not a bad thing in and of itself.
While I wasn’t in favor of guns at protests calling for states’ economies to be opened back up, at least there was no violence taking place.
Yet, in recent “protests,” the protesters also had guns. The problem is that they used them to shoot people, killing several.
It looks like police in Kansas at least stopped one person who may have had similar intentions.
A Kansas man who initially was arrested after throwing water bottles at police officers during protests at the Country Club Plaza was charged in federal court today with illegally possessing a firearm, according to the United State’s Attorney’s office. “Hijacking a peaceful protest by attacking police officers engaged in their duty to protect the public carries significant consequences in this district,” said U.S. Attorney Tim Garrison. “Illegally carrying a loaded handgun to a public demonstration multiplies those consequences with federal penalties. I have no tolerance for anyone who hides behind the lawful exercise of constitutional rights as cover for their criminal acts. We are working alongside our local law enforcement partners to protect the public and maintain order.” Matthew E. Madden, 22, Kansas City, Kan., was charged in a criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, with one count of being a drug user in possession of a firearm.
In other words, this wasn’t a law-abiding citizen who was lawfully carrying a firearm while he protested for what he perceived as injustices in the system.
While I may not agree with what people might be protesting, I support their right to peacefully protest. I also support their right to do it armed, even if I also disagree with the wisdom of doing so.
Madden doesn’t seem to have been doing that. A purported drug user, he can’t legally own a firearm. The fact that he was unlawfully carrying a gun to a protest suggests there’s a good likelihood that he intended to use that firearm for malicious purposes.
Oh, it’s possible that he figured there would be trouble and wanted to defend himself, but if you really expect trouble somewhere, you simply don’t go. That’s Self-Defense 101.
Yet, Madden was heading to a protest.
Again, it just seems likely he was more interested in starting trouble than ending it. As such, he’s not the first, nor will he be the last, I’m afraid. Far too many people are interested in protests becoming violent, and that’s a huge problem.
Luckily, Madden didn’t get the chance. Instead, he’ll likely spend some time in court, followed by a jail cell. Meanwhile, others can protest peacefully without worrying about this one person trying to stir up trouble.


bearingarms--2020-06-08--Pro-Police Site Taken Down Amid Anti-Cop Hysteria

At the moment , police officers are in an awful position .
The good officers–and they make up the bulk of the police officers in this country–are being held accountable not just for what other officers did , but often for what officers in completely different states have done .
It ’ s hardly fair , yet most officers know that life isn ’ t fair .
However , there are a handful of outfits that have been unapologetically pro-cop , and one is Blue Lives Matter .
Of course , with a name like that , you ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , the site is being taken down after its parent company faced an internal backlash .
Employees of a media company that owns Sports Illustrated and Maxim want the publisher to shut down a pro-police website .
The call to pull the plug on Defense Maven , a website also known as Blue Lives Matter , came during a staff meeting Friday where Maven Media Brands announced an across-the-board 15 % salary cut to counter the deep losses in advertising revenue triggered by the coronavirus , the Daily Beast reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers pointed to the nationwide George Floyd protests as the reason behind their demand , Daily Beast reported .
In a chat that took place simultaneously , the Daily Beast said , workers used the words “ embarrassing , ” “ a disgrace ” and “ horrible ” to describe the Blue Lives Matter website and criticized lax editorial restrictions that they said allow readers to make racist comments “ with no monitoring ” and no fact-checking .
Except , no site fact-checks the comments sections .
I mean , so many comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ours , of course , but that ’ s because Bearing Arms readers or those of any of our sister sites are far too intelligent and sophisticated for dumpster-fire behavior ) .
It ’ s generally accepted that one does not read the comments .
I also doubt there were any actual racist comments .
Instead , it ’ s more likely that there were comments that went against the narrative in less than polite ways , and that was the real problem .
Yet the comment section is just an excuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these employees didn ’ t like working for a company that also held up a pro-police website .
That ’ s all it was about .
They especially didn ’ t like it when they were told they were getting their pay cut .
Yet , over at HotAir , Jazz Shaw offered his thoughts on the offended employees : There are a couple of bits of irony to note in this story .
The workers who complained about how embarrassing , disgraceful and horrible the Blue Lives Matter site is work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine publications to be sure , but the woke crowd who worries about feminist ideals might not be so wild about Maxim nor the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition . )
But somehow , reporting on news about attacks on police officers and honoring the fallen is… disgraceful .
Blue Lives Matter illustrates the war on police in this country .
It talks about officers lost in the line of duty , those injured in various ways , and things of that sort .
And yet , people who work for Maxim , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just barely able to be sold somewhere other than behind the counter , is perfectly acceptable .
Unfortunately , what ’ s not hilarious is that a website that was dedicated to serving law enforcement and their families , that told people that police were targeted by violent jackwagons on a daily basis , is being shut down because the harpies can ’ t handle it .

At the moment, police officers are in an awful position. The good officers–and they make up the bulk of the police officers in this country–are being held accountable not just for what other officers did, but often for what officers in completely different states have done. It’s hardly fair, yet most officers know that life isn’t fair.
However, there are a handful of outfits that have been unapologetically pro-cop, and one is Blue Lives Matter.
Of course, with a name like that, you’d kind of expect them to be pro-police. However, the site is being taken down after its parent company faced an internal backlash.
Employees of a media company that owns Sports Illustrated and Maxim want the publisher to shut down a pro-police website. The call to pull the plug on Defense Maven, a website also known as Blue Lives Matter, came during a staff meeting Friday where Maven Media Brands announced an across-the-board 15% salary cut to counter the deep losses in advertising revenue triggered by the coronavirus, the Daily Beast reported, citing sources at the meeting. The workers pointed to the nationwide George Floyd protests as the reason behind their demand, Daily Beast reported. In a chat that took place simultaneously, the Daily Beast said, workers used the words “embarrassing,” “a disgrace” and “horrible” to describe the Blue Lives Matter website and criticized lax editorial restrictions that they said allow readers to make racist comments “with no monitoring” and no fact-checking.
Except, no site fact-checks the comments sections. I mean, so many comment sections are absolute dumpster fires anyway (not ours, of course, but that’s because Bearing Arms readers or those of any of our sister sites are far too intelligent and sophisticated for dumpster-fire behavior). It’s generally accepted that one does not read the comments.
I also doubt there were any actual racist comments. Instead, it’s more likely that there were comments that went against the narrative in less than polite ways, and that was the real problem.
Yet the comment section is just an excuse. No, the problem is that these employees didn’t like working for a company that also held up a pro-police website. That’s all it was about.
They especially didn’t like it when they were told they were getting their pay cut.
Yet, over at HotAir, Jazz Shaw offered his thoughts on the offended employees:
There are a couple of bits of irony to note in this story. The workers who complained about how embarrassing, disgraceful and horrible the Blue Lives Matter site is work for Maxim and Sports Illustrated. (Both fine publications to be sure, but the woke crowd who worries about feminist ideals might not be so wild about Maxim nor the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.) But somehow, reporting on news about attacks on police officers and honoring the fallen is… disgraceful.
Precisely.
Blue Lives Matter illustrates the war on police in this country. It talks about officers lost in the line of duty, those injured in various ways, and things of that sort. And yet, people who work for Maxim, which is just a skin magazine that’s just barely able to be sold somewhere other than behind the counter, is perfectly acceptable.
Absolutely hilarious.
Unfortunately, what’s not hilarious is that a website that was dedicated to serving law enforcement and their families, that told people that police were targeted by violent jackwagons on a daily basis, is being shut down because the harpies can’t handle it.