bearingarms--2020-11-19--Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Students' Pro-2A Shirts

One of the ironies of the student walkouts a few years ago is that they were defended by educators claiming that students had their First Amendment rights .
In fairness , that claim was accurate .
Students do have First Amendment rights .
However , schools routinely ignored that right whenever it was convenient .
Take the zero-tolerance policy many schools implemented towards firearms .
They routinely used those policies to discipline students who wore clothing that depicted a firearm in any capacity .
That includes pro-Second Amendment messages .
Now , a federal court has told those schools to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has long protected student speech on public school grounds as long as it doesn ’ t “ materially and substantially interfere ” with the school ’ s operation .
Officials in two Wisconsin school districts came up with a novel way around the Tinker precedent : redefine what counts as “ speech.
” A federal judge swatted down this move in a consolidated case brought by students whose gun-themed clothing was banned on school grounds .
Officials claimed the clothing “ fail [ ed ] to convey a particularized message , ” so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Not only did Plaintiffs intend to convey a clear message in wearing their shirts , it also seems clear that school authorities understood the message Plaintiffs were intending to convey , at least to the extent their message included an appreciation for the right to own firearms , ” U.S. District Judge William Griesbach wrote in a short ruling earlier this month .
The two schools may yet be able to prove they were “ justified in prohibiting Plaintiffs from conveying their messages in the manner and place chosen by them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong that “ the shirts lack constitutional protection ” as a threshold matter .
Asked if the school officials ’ argument was common , a First Amendment expert told The College Fix they should have known better .
“ Restrictions of clothing based on the message that the clothing contains ( as opposed to content-neutral dress codes ) are treated as speech restrictions in K-12 schools , and are presumptively unconstitutional , ” UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh wrote in an email .
The problem , however , is that schools have decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ ll allow students to stage a walkout , but not wear particular shirts .
After all , when the judge said the schools may be about to prove they were justified , that ’ s because there ’ s a case that can be made about free speech not justifying disruptions to the school .
A school-wide walkout is a disruption .
A t-shirt ?
Not so much .
What this was really about was that the schools simply didn ’ t approve of the message , so they sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to punish anyone who strayed from the anti-gun orthodoxy .
And , because of that , they just got slapped down .
Hard .
Frankly , they should have .
However , it just goes to show you that those who would attack your Second Amendment rights are also the kind of folks who will work to quash your other rights as well .
Just like some members of Joe Biden ’ s transition team , those who would ignore your constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms have already demonstrated their utter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment seems a standard next target .
Luckily , the courts ruled right on this one .

One of the ironies of the student walkouts a few years ago is that they were defended by educators claiming that students had their First Amendment rights. In fairness, that claim was accurate. Students do have First Amendment rights.
However, schools routinely ignored that right whenever it was convenient. Take the zero-tolerance policy many schools implemented towards firearms. They routinely used those policies to discipline students who wore clothing that depicted a firearm in any capacity. That includes pro-Second Amendment messages.
Now, a federal court has told those schools to knock it off.
The Supreme Court has long protected student speech on public school grounds as long as it doesn’t “materially and substantially interfere” with the school’s operation. Officials in two Wisconsin school districts came up with a novel way around the Tinker precedent: redefine what counts as “speech.” A federal judge swatted down this move in a consolidated case brought by students whose gun-themed clothing was banned on school grounds. Officials claimed the clothing “fail[ed] to convey a particularized message,” so it wasn’t constitutionally protected. “Not only did Plaintiffs intend to convey a clear message in wearing their shirts, it also seems clear that school authorities understood the message Plaintiffs were intending to convey, at least to the extent their message included an appreciation for the right to own firearms,” U.S. District Judge William Griesbach wrote in a short ruling earlier this month. The two schools may yet be able to prove they were “justified in prohibiting Plaintiffs from conveying their messages in the manner and place chosen by them,” he concluded. But they are wrong that “the shirts lack constitutional protection” as a threshold matter. Asked if the school officials’ argument was common, a First Amendment expert told The College Fix they should have known better. “Restrictions of clothing based on the message that the clothing contains (as opposed to content-neutral dress codes) are treated as speech restrictions in K-12 schools, and are presumptively unconstitutional,” UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh wrote in an email.
The problem, however, is that schools have decided that certain speech is better than others. They’ll allow students to stage a walkout, but not wear particular shirts.
After all, when the judge said the schools may be about to prove they were justified, that’s because there’s a case that can be made about free speech not justifying disruptions to the school. A school-wide walkout is a disruption. A t-shirt? Not so much.
What this was really about was that the schools simply didn’t approve of the message, so they sought to stamp it out. They opted to punish anyone who strayed from the anti-gun orthodoxy.
And, because of that, they just got slapped down. Hard.
Frankly, they should have.
However, it just goes to show you that those who would attack your Second Amendment rights are also the kind of folks who will work to quash your other rights as well. Just like some members of Joe Biden’s transition team, those who would ignore your constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms have already demonstrated their utter disregard for any right, but the First Amendment seems a standard next target.
Luckily, the courts ruled right on this one.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--The 2A Is Bringing Americans Together, Not Driving Them Apart

According to Time magazine , racial tensions are fueling a rise in gun ownership among black Americans .
Could gun ownership itself be a way to help defuse those tensions ?
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I sit down with Tony Simon , the founder of DiversityShoot.com , to talk about the Second Amendment ’ s potential in bridging the many divides in our current culture .
Simon ’ s monthly events , which have been primarily been held at Gun 4 Hire range in Woodland Park , New Jersey for several years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners , newbies , and some folks who ’ ve never shot a gun before in their lives .
People of all walks of life , political ideologies , religions , and races get together to shoot at targets and shoot the breeze , finding connections in the shared experience of exercising their individual right to keep and bear arms .
When it comes to Time ‘ s assertion that fear of white supremacists is what ’ s driving gun ownership among black Americans , Simon believes that might be true for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civil unrest and increased crime in many cities is also an important factor that Time completely ignores in favor of their desired narrative .
“ It ’ s funny because Time and the mainstream media take no responsibility for the fact that they ’ ve pushed this fear .
They ’ ve pushed this distrust between people the entirety of 2020 .
Ever since the ‘ mostly peaceful ’ protests started happening , and they couldn ’ t get enough of showing it and trying to show the divide , ” Simon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people along with everybody else saw was one , a lack of police response .
The fact that elected officials allowed this violence to happen .
And they see property destroyed , ” Simon continued .
“ So they want to keep their families safe like everyone else , and they know that the best way to keep your family safe , especially when the government has let you down , is to arm yourself .
So that ’ s what ’ s happening .
It ’ s not ‘ Oh my goodness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to come burn my burn my home down.
’ It ’ s all of these people are not being checked by law enforcement and I ’ m going to have to defend myself against whomever comes to cause my family harm . '
” Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Tony Simon in the video window above , including our discussion about the future of Diversity Shoot , which is up in the air ( in the short term , anyway ) after Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
For the past several months the Diversity Shoots have been taking place at a range in Easton , PA because New Jersey Gov .
Phil Murphy has limited indoor range capacity to 25 % , which makes it virtually impossible for Simon to hold the events in New Jersey , where he lives .
Simon will be holding a Diversity Shoot this evening , but that could be the last one before the travel restrictions are lifted .
It ’ s truly a shame that the governor ’ s emergency orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of socially distanced gatherings that can help us find some common ground in these divided times .

According to Time magazine, racial tensions are fueling a rise in gun ownership among black Americans. Could gun ownership itself be a way to help defuse those tensions? On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I sit down with Tony Simon, the founder of DiversityShoot.com, to talk about the Second Amendment’s potential in bridging the many divides in our current culture.
Simon’s monthly events, which have been primarily been held at Gun 4 Hire range in Woodland Park, New Jersey for several years, typically bring in a crowd of experienced gun owners, newbies, and some folks who’ve never shot a gun before in their lives. People of all walks of life, political ideologies, religions, and races get together to shoot at targets and shoot the breeze, finding connections in the shared experience of exercising their individual right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to Time‘s assertion that fear of white supremacists is what’s driving gun ownership among black Americans, Simon believes that might be true for some new gun owners, but that the civil unrest and increased crime in many cities is also an important factor that Time completely ignores in favor of their desired narrative.
“It’s funny because Time and the mainstream media take no responsibility for the fact that they’ve pushed this fear. They’ve pushed this distrust between people the entirety of 2020. Ever since the ‘mostly peaceful’ protests started happening, and they couldn’t get enough of showing it and trying to show the divide,” Simon mused.
“Well, what black people along with everybody else saw was one, a lack of police response. The fact that elected officials allowed this violence to happen. And they see property destroyed,” Simon continued. “So they want to keep their families safe like everyone else, and they know that the best way to keep your family safe, especially when the government has let you down, is to arm yourself. So that’s what’s happening. It’s not ‘Oh my goodness, all of these white people are going to come burn my burn my home down.’ It’s all of these people are not being checked by law enforcement and I’m going to have to defend myself against whomever comes to cause my family harm.'”
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Tony Simon in the video window above, including our discussion about the future of Diversity Shoot, which is up in the air (in the short term, anyway) after Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf imposed new travel restrictions on visitors to the state. For the past several months the Diversity Shoots have been taking place at a range in Easton, PA because New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy has limited indoor range capacity to 25%, which makes it virtually impossible for Simon to hold the events in New Jersey, where he lives.
Simon will be holding a Diversity Shoot this evening, but that could be the last one before the travel restrictions are lifted. It’s truly a shame that the governor’s emergency orders may actually end up preventing the type of socially distanced gatherings that can help us find some common ground in these divided times.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Gun Bills Introduced In Ohio House

Gun Bills Introduced In Ohio House

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is proof that just because someone is a Republican , it doesn ’ t mean you can trust them with your gun rights .
DeWine has been pushing for gun control in his state for months , ever since he started facing increased pressure following the mass shooting in Dayton , Ohio .
Nevermind that none of his proposals would have done a thing to stop Dayton .
Oh no , that would make just too much sense .
So far , most lawmakers in the state have apparently opted to ignore DeWine ’ s pleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state needs should go in the other direction .
Obviously , this is probably not going to make DeWine happy , though I don ’ t know that he ’ ll veto the bills .
DeWine ’ s push for gun control has been a more watered-down version of what Democrats have wanted and looks like something someone trying to find consensus might float .
Of course , that ’ s likely what DeWine was trying to do .
However , that went nowhere as state lawmakers were thoroughly uninterested in following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that most have the good sense to recognize that much of the problems with gun violence stems not from too little gun control , but too much .
Of course , I ’ m not sure how giving 18-year-olds concealed carry cards and saying they can buy firearms–presumably , this means handguns since they already can buy long guns–will play when federal law says you have to be 21 to buy a handgun .
While a case can be made for state law trumping federal law on such matters , the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell one to an 18-year-old faces the possibility of losing their license regardless of state law .
Further , they ’ ll have to defend that position in federal court .
It ’ s not that I think this is wrong , mind you , simply that I don ’ t think it ’ ll actually accomplish anything .
Still , it does tickle me that DeWine has been practically begging for gun control and this is what seems to be popping up for consideration instead .
Why , it ’ s almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor on such matters .
Which , of course , they are .
They should , too , because while DeWine ’ s proposals are far from the worst we ’ ve seen , they ’ re all still bad ideas .
Each and every one of them .
Maybe these bills will remind DeWine that he doesn ’ t get to order lawmakers around .
They pass the laws their constituents want , not the ones that will make the governor popular with the other party .
That ’ s something DeWine @ @ @ @ @

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is proof that just because someone is a Republican, it doesn’t mean you can trust them with your gun rights. DeWine has been pushing for gun control in his state for months, ever since he started facing increased pressure following the mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. Nevermind that none of his proposals would have done a thing to stop Dayton. Oh no, that would make just too much sense.
So far, most lawmakers in the state have apparently opted to ignore DeWine’s pleading.
Apparently, though, someone thinks the state needs should go in the other direction.
One proposal would expand Ohioans’ ability to “stand their ground” from residences and cars to businesses, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer, which obtained an analysis of the proposed changes to a current pending weapons-related bill. Another provision would allow 18-year-olds to receive a concealed carry license and with that, to buy firearms. An additional measure would ban schools and universities from penalizing employees or students who carry a concealed weapon legally. Another change would allow Ohioans to have guns while drinking in bars.
Obviously, this is probably not going to make DeWine happy, though I don’t know that he’ll veto the bills.
DeWine’s push for gun control has been a more watered-down version of what Democrats have wanted and looks like something someone trying to find consensus might float. Of course, that’s likely what DeWine was trying to do.
However, that went nowhere as state lawmakers were thoroughly uninterested in following his suggestions.
Instead, it seems clear that most have the good sense to recognize that much of the problems with gun violence stems not from too little gun control, but too much.
Of course, I’m not sure how giving 18-year-olds concealed carry cards and saying they can buy firearms–presumably, this means handguns since they already can buy long guns–will play when federal law says you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. While a case can be made for state law trumping federal law on such matters, the truth is that any licensed dealer who does sell one to an 18-year-old faces the possibility of losing their license regardless of state law. Further, they’ll have to defend that position in federal court.
It’s not that I think this is wrong, mind you, simply that I don’t think it’ll actually accomplish anything.
Still, it does tickle me that DeWine has been practically begging for gun control and this is what seems to be popping up for consideration instead. Why, it’s almost like state lawmakers are outright ignoring the governor on such matters.
Which, of course, they are. They should, too, because while DeWine’s proposals are far from the worst we’ve seen, they’re all still bad ideas. Each and every one of them.
Maybe these bills will remind DeWine that he doesn’t get to order lawmakers around. They pass the laws their constituents want, not the ones that will make the governor popular with the other party. That’s something DeWine clearly needs to learn.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--NRA Agrees To Settlement With NY Over Insurance

The National Rifle Association may have put an end to their Carry Guard insurance program , but the state of New York isn ’ t letting them slide over what the state claims were illegal practices .
Of course , this is the same state that ’ s actively trying to shut down the entire organization now , but this was before that .
Now , the NRA and the state of New York have reached a settlement .
The National Rifle Association ( NRA ) has agreed to halt insurance business in New York for five years and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges related to that work .
New York ’ s Department of Financial Services announced the settlement Wednesday with the NRA , the nation ’ s top gun rights advocacy group after state Attorney General Letitia James ( D ) sued to break up the group over corruption claims this summer .
The fine will settle charges that the group allegedly offered insurance to its members despite not having a license to do so and often withheld information on how it kept some premiums for its own benefit .
The agreement resolved charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with insurance broker Lockton Cos , which sold over 28,000 NRA-endorsed policies .
Among the plans offered was the “ Carry Guard ” program , which state officials said illegally offered people coverage to assist with criminal defense expenses and the “ intentional ” use of firearms should they shoot their weapons .
So what does this really mean ?
Is this the NRA rolling over ?
More importantly , is it suggestive that they will capitulate to further demands by the state of New York ?
Look , right now , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
It can ’ t afford to be too distracted with numerous cases .
By settling this one , they can move forward .
With the NRA ’ s pockets , $ 2.5 million is little more than a slap on the wrist , so it ’ s not crippling enough to distract them from the effort by the New York Attorney General to shut down the entire organization .
Instead , attorneys and funds can be freed up to focus on that particular avenue of attack , one that poses a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further , there ’ s nothing in this that really suggests the NRA admitted to any wrongdoing , at least from what I can see .
Now that this is over , they can focus on the bigger picture .
We ’ re looking at Joe Biden in the White House , Democrats still ( barely ) controlling the House , and a potentially split Senate .
They ’ re going to need all their attention to battle for gun rights in Congress while also staying alive in the face of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York .
When this was hanging over their heads , it was just another distraction , something that diverted resources away from the coming fight .
Now , it ’ s over , as it should be .
Of course , I fail to see how anyone can look at the actions from New York and not see a malicious attack on a political opponent .
That ’ s all any of these were and we can all see it .

The National Rifle Association may have put an end to their Carry Guard insurance program, but the state of New York isn’t letting them slide over what the state claims were illegal practices.
Of course, this is the same state that’s actively trying to shut down the entire organization now, but this was before that.
Now, the NRA and the state of New York have reached a settlement.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has agreed to halt insurance business in New York for five years and will pay a $2.5 million fine over charges related to that work. New York’s Department of Financial Services announced the settlement Wednesday with the NRA, the nation’s top gun rights advocacy group after state Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued to break up the group over corruption claims this summer. The fine will settle charges that the group allegedly offered insurance to its members despite not having a license to do so and often withheld information on how it kept some premiums for its own benefit. The agreement resolved charges related to the NRA’s relationship with insurance broker Lockton Cos, which sold over 28,000 NRA-endorsed policies. Among the plans offered was the “Carry Guard” program, which state officials said illegally offered people coverage to assist with criminal defense expenses and the “intentional” use of firearms should they shoot their weapons.
So what does this really mean? Is this the NRA rolling over? More importantly, is it suggestive that they will capitulate to further demands by the state of New York?
Not really.
Look, right now, the NRA is in the fight of its life. It can’t afford to be too distracted with numerous cases. By settling this one, they can move forward. With the NRA’s pockets, $2.5 million is little more than a slap on the wrist, so it’s not crippling enough to distract them from the effort by the New York Attorney General to shut down the entire organization.
Instead, attorneys and funds can be freed up to focus on that particular avenue of attack, one that poses a far more deadly risk to the organization.
Further, there’s nothing in this that really suggests the NRA admitted to any wrongdoing, at least from what I can see.
Now that this is over, they can focus on the bigger picture. We’re looking at Joe Biden in the White House, Democrats still (barely) controlling the House, and a potentially split Senate. They’re going to need all their attention to battle for gun rights in Congress while also staying alive in the face of a clearly politically-motivated onslaught by the state of New York.
When this was hanging over their heads, it was just another distraction, something that diverted resources away from the coming fight. Now, it’s over, as it should be.
Of course, I fail to see how anyone can look at the actions from New York and not see a malicious attack on a political opponent. That’s all any of these were and we can all see it.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Ohio Senate Approves Armed School Staff Legislation

There are already dozens of school districts across the state of Ohio that have armed school staff in place , but a lawsuit filed with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety is putting the legality of thousands of vetted and trained school staff in jeopardy .
Parents in the Madison school district argue that under Ohio law , teachers and staff need to have the exact same training as police officers before they can legally carry , and the issue is currently before the state Supreme Court .
Lawmakers in the Buckeye State aren ’ t waiting for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow for districts to determine their own training policies for armed school staff .
On Wednesday , the state Senate approved legislation that specifically authorizes school staffers to carry without going through hundreds of hours of peace officer training .
State Sen. Bill Coley , a Butler County Republican sponsoring the bill , said the “ court went off the reservation ” with its ruling .
The legislation , he said , would ensure that “ school districts in my area of the state can have the same rights that all of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state have.
” Gun-rights groups , including the National Rifle Association , have expressed support for SB 317 , arguing local education officials should be allowed to determine the best policies for ensuring their schools are safe .
The Madison Local School District put its policy in place after a 14-year-old student opened fire at Madison Junior-Senior High School in 2016 , injuring four .
Several Democratic senators spoke against the legislation prior to the bill ’ s passage in the GOP-dominated Senate .
They argued that the bill is unwanted by most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ No child in Ohio should have to worry about if there is a gun at school , or if the person with the gun has had proper training , ” said state Sen. Hearcel Craig , a Columbus Democrat .
First off , no teacher or staff member in Ohio is carrying without first volunteering , being vetted , and then undergoing several days of training , typically through the Ohio FASTER program , which focuses specifically on stopping armed threats at school .
Educators not only learn how to respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they learn de-escalation techniques , first aid , and other strategies to deal with an active assailant and the aftermath .
Should teachers have to go through the peace officer training on defensive driving , or crime scene analysis , or laws governing arrests or use of force if they ’ re not actually peace officers ?
That would be absurd , but that ’ s the standard that anti-gun activists and politicians want to put in place .
FASTER is designed specifically for educators , and provides them with the tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of the unthinkable .
It ’ s already put several thousand school staffers through the training program , and there ’ ve been no issues whatsoever with the armed staffers in the dozens of districts that have adopted the security measures .
While I ’ d love to see Ohio ’ s high court smack down the Everytown-funded lawsuit , if legislators moot the issue by approving SB317 that would be an acceptable outcome as well .
As long as students aren ’ t left undefended and the teachers and staff who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line of defense don ’ t have to do so disarmed , I ’ ll consider that a win .

There are already dozens of school districts across the state of Ohio that have armed school staff in place, but a lawsuit filed with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety is putting the legality of thousands of vetted and trained school staff in jeopardy. Parents in the Madison school district argue that under Ohio law, teachers and staff need to have the exact same training as police officers before they can legally carry, and the issue is currently before the state Supreme Court.
Lawmakers in the Buckeye State aren’t waiting for the court to decide if the current statutes allow for districts to determine their own training policies for armed school staff. On Wednesday, the state Senate approved legislation that specifically authorizes school staffers to carry without going through hundreds of hours of peace officer training.
State Sen. Bill Coley, a Butler County Republican sponsoring the bill, said the “court went off the reservation” with its ruling. The legislation, he said, would ensure that “school districts in my area of the state can have the same rights that all of your school districts in your areas of the state have.” Gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association , have expressed support for SB 317, arguing local education officials should be allowed to determine the best policies for ensuring their schools are safe. The Madison Local School District put its policy in place after a 14-year-old student opened fire at Madison Junior-Senior High School in 2016, injuring four. Several Democratic senators spoke against the legislation prior to the bill’s passage in the GOP-dominated Senate. They argued that the bill is unwanted by most Ohioans and makes schools less safe. “No child in Ohio should have to worry about if there is a gun at school, or if the person with the gun has had proper training,” said state Sen. Hearcel Craig, a Columbus Democrat.
First off, no teacher or staff member in Ohio is carrying without first volunteering, being vetted, and then undergoing several days of training, typically through the Ohio FASTER program, which focuses specifically on stopping armed threats at school. Educators not only learn how to respond to an attack with their lawfully-carried firearm, but they learn de-escalation techniques, first aid, and other strategies to deal with an active assailant and the aftermath.
Should teachers have to go through the peace officer training on defensive driving, or crime scene analysis, or laws governing arrests or use of force if they’re not actually peace officers? That would be absurd, but that’s the standard that anti-gun activists and politicians want to put in place.
FASTER is designed specifically for educators, and provides them with the tools they would need to respond in the case of the unthinkable. It’s already put several thousand school staffers through the training program, and there’ve been no issues whatsoever with the armed staffers in the dozens of districts that have adopted the security measures.
While I’d love to see Ohio’s high court smack down the Everytown-funded lawsuit, if legislators moot the issue by approving SB317 that would be an acceptable outcome as well. As long as students aren’t left undefended and the teachers and staff who are willing to serve as a first line of defense don’t have to do so disarmed, I’ll consider that a win.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--CA AG Now Upset Over How Ninth Circuit Assigns Cases

The Ninth Circuit has a tendency to assign similar cases to the same judge .
Many other circuits don ’ t do things quite the same way the Ninth does , however .
It actually makes sense , though , because that judge is already up to speed on the issue , which is infinitely more efficient than bouncing around between judges and them having to start from scratch each and every time .
This isn ’ t a new thing in the court .
Lawyers for Attorney General Xavier Becerra , facing another lawsuit from gun rights groups in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are formally objecting to the case being heard by the same judge who twice before struck down state gun regulations .
In a document filed on Thursday , state lawyers opposed assigning the lawsuit to U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez .
The suit was filed by more than a dozen individuals and groups including the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC , Firearms Policy Coalition , and the Second Amendment Foundation .
Benitez has issued rulings striking down the laws banning high capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is also now hearing two other cases from Second Amendment advocates , one dealing with the state ’ s assault weapons regulatory scheme and another on the ban on billy clubs and blackjacks .
While cases are randomly assigned to federal court judges , under a local court rule so-called “ related cases ” can be heard by the same judge .
After ruling on the large capacity magazine case initially , the three other lawsuits were sent to Benitez under the local court rule .
Gun control groups have chafed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that San Diego ’ s rule is faulty because , unlike some other federal courts , it does not specifically allow for the other side in a lawsuit to object when a case is deemed related .
Except , that ’ s not really the problem .
No , the problem is that Judge Benitez has gone against them in the past and will likely go against them in the future .
If he sided with Becerra ’ s position , this would be a non-issue as far as the attorney general was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Becerra is really doing is throwing a temper tantrum because Benitez isn ’ t letting him have his way .
Becerra wants gun control so badly that he can taste it , but Benitez continues to have the annoying habit of siding with the Second Amendment , and that ’ s where the real issue is .
Frankly , anyone with half a brain can see it .
Keep in mind , this isn ’ t some brand new rule .
It ’ s been in place for a while and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never been an issue .
It wasn ’ t an issue when the Ninth Circuit kept killing lawsuits seeking to repeal unconstitutional gun control laws .
It was all good back then .
It ’ s only now that they ’ re in the hands of someone who actually believes the Second Amendment means what it says that we ’ re seeing an issue from people like Becerra .
Funny how that works out , isn ’ t it ?

The Ninth Circuit has a tendency to assign similar cases to the same judge. Many other circuits don’t do things quite the same way the Ninth does, however. It actually makes sense, though, because that judge is already up to speed on the issue, which is infinitely more efficient than bouncing around between judges and them having to start from scratch each and every time.
This isn’t a new thing in the court.
However, it’s now a problem.
Lawyers for Attorney General Xavier Becerra, facing another lawsuit from gun rights groups in San Diego federal court over firearms laws, are formally objecting to the case being heard by the same judge who twice before struck down state gun regulations. In a document filed on Thursday, state lawyers opposed assigning the lawsuit to U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez. The suit was filed by more than a dozen individuals and groups including the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Benitez has issued rulings striking down the laws banning high capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks for people buying ammunition in the past two years. He is also now hearing two other cases from Second Amendment advocates, one dealing with the state’s assault weapons regulatory scheme and another on the ban on billy clubs and blackjacks. … While cases are randomly assigned to federal court judges, under a local court rule so-called “related cases” can be heard by the same judge. After ruling on the large capacity magazine case initially, the three other lawsuits were sent to Benitez under the local court rule. Gun control groups have chafed under that, however, and noted that San Diego’s rule is faulty because, unlike some other federal courts, it does not specifically allow for the other side in a lawsuit to object when a case is deemed related.
Except, that’s not really the problem.
No, the problem is that Judge Benitez has gone against them in the past and will likely go against them in the future. If he sided with Becerra’s position, this would be a non-issue as far as the attorney general was concerned and we all know it.
What Becerra is really doing is throwing a temper tantrum because Benitez isn’t letting him have his way. Becerra wants gun control so badly that he can taste it, but Benitez continues to have the annoying habit of siding with the Second Amendment, and that’s where the real issue is.
Frankly, anyone with half a brain can see it.
Keep in mind, this isn’t some brand new rule. It’s been in place for a while and on a plethora of other subjects, it’s never been an issue. It wasn’t an issue when the Ninth Circuit kept killing lawsuits seeking to repeal unconstitutional gun control laws. It was all good back then.
It’s only now that they’re in the hands of someone who actually believes the Second Amendment means what it says that we’re seeing an issue from people like Becerra.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it?


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Biden's New Deputy Chief Of Staff On Board With Gun Confiscation

Jennifer O ’ Malley Dillon , tapped by the Biden transition team to be deputy chief of staff in a new administration , has expressed her full support for not only banning commonly-owned firearms , but confiscating them from legal gun owners as well .
Fox News reports that Dillon , who served as Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke ’ s campaign manager before switching to the Biden campaign after O ’ Rourke ’ s departure from the Democratic primary , embraced O ’ Rourke ’ s plan to confiscate millions of legally-purchased rifles and guns defined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas congressman declared during a Sept. 2019 primary debate : “ Hell yes , we ’ re going to take your AR-15 , your AK-47.
” “ We are actually the only campaign with a plan…that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war , ” she says in the video .
“ An assault weapon ban is very , very important , and we need to have it .
But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future .
It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyback would affect “ 15 or 16 million ” guns .
According to the latest estimates by the National Shooting Sports Foundation , it ’ s actually closer to 20-million , neither Dillon , O ’ Rourke , or Biden himself have said how they plan to implement and enforce their desired gun ban .
Biden ’ s plan , as detailed on his campaign website , would require the owners of so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines to either hand them over to the government in exchange for an undefined amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Firearms Act , or risk a ten-year prison sentence for possession of an unregistered NFA item .
As we pointed out the other day , besides the glaringly obvious constitutional issues with Biden ’ s gun ban , there are also some big logistical problems with his not-so-bright idea .
Obviously , a lot of Americans aren ’ t going to hand over their guns and magazines .
Let ’ s say half of the current owners of these items decide instead that they ’ re going to register their rifles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Firearms Act .
How exactly is the ATF going to deal with the flood of applications ?
In 2016 , the agency processed about 2.5-million NFA forms .
If just half of the guns and magazines that fall under Biden ’ s proposed ban were to be registered with the ATF , they ’ d be faced with an avalanche of 86-million forms to process .
It would take years to clear out the backlog , and in the meantime , what happens to those gun owners who haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their guns and magazines when the ban would take effect ?
There ’ s another logistical nightmare looming for gun-banners if they try to put Biden ’ s ban into effect .
According to Biden himself , owners of “ high capacity ” magazines would be able to register them under the NFA , but he never explains how that would be possible .
Magazines aren ’ t serialized , and there ’ s no real way to identify a particular magazine that would make it possible to register one .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the devil isn ’ t just in the details .
The very idea of trying to strip Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear some of the most commonly-owned arms in America is hellaciously bad , but Biden ’ s surrounding himself with lackeys who truly believe they ’ re on the side of the angels with their confiscation plans .
I still believe that if Biden takes office , he ’ s not going to have the votes to get his gun ban through Congress , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive branch to target as many firearms as they can , as well as the Americans who own them .

Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, tapped by the Biden transition team to be deputy chief of staff in a new administration, has expressed her full support for not only banning commonly-owned firearms, but confiscating them from legal gun owners as well.
Fox News reports that Dillon, who served as Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s campaign manager before switching to the Biden campaign after O’Rourke’s departure from the Democratic primary, embraced O’Rourke’s plan to confiscate millions of legally-purchased rifles and guns defined as “assault weapons.”
The former Texas congressman declared during a Sept. 2019 primary debate: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” “We are actually the only campaign with a plan…that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war,” she says in the video. “An assault weapon ban is very, very important, and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there.” She estimated the mandatory buyback would affect “15 or 16 million” guns.
According to the latest estimates by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, it’s actually closer to 20-million, neither Dillon, O’Rourke, or Biden himself have said how they plan to implement and enforce their desired gun ban. Biden’s plan, as detailed on his campaign website, would require the owners of so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines to either hand them over to the government in exchange for an undefined amount of cash, register those items under the National Firearms Act, or risk a ten-year prison sentence for possession of an unregistered NFA item.
As we pointed out the other day, besides the glaringly obvious constitutional issues with Biden’s gun ban, there are also some big logistical problems with his not-so-bright idea.
Obviously, a lot of Americans aren’t going to hand over their guns and magazines. Let’s say half of the current owners of these items decide instead that they’re going to register their rifles and various magazines with the government under the National Firearms Act. How exactly is the ATF going to deal with the flood of applications? In 2016, the agency processed about 2.5-million NFA forms. If just half of the guns and magazines that fall under Biden’s proposed ban were to be registered with the ATF, they’d be faced with an avalanche of 86-million forms to process. It would take years to clear out the backlog, and in the meantime, what happens to those gun owners who haven’t been yet been approved to maintain possession of their guns and magazines when the ban would take effect? There’s another logistical nightmare looming for gun-banners if they try to put Biden’s ban into effect. According to Biden himself, owners of “high capacity” magazines would be able to register them under the NFA, but he never explains how that would be possible. Magazines aren’t serialized, and there’s no real way to identify a particular magazine that would make it possible to register one.
With Biden’s proposed gun ban, the devil isn’t just in the details. The very idea of trying to strip Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear some of the most commonly-owned arms in America is hellaciously bad, but Biden’s surrounding himself with lackeys who truly believe they’re on the side of the angels with their confiscation plans. I still believe that if Biden takes office, he’s not going to have the votes to get his gun ban through Congress, but it’s become clear that Democrats plan to weaponize the executive branch to target as many firearms as they can, as well as the Americans who own them.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Warnock Thinks You Can't Be Christian And Serve In Military

I may not be the best Christian–far from it , to be honest–but I am a Christian .
I ’ m also a military veteran .
I ’ ve never looked at these two things really being at odds with one another .
After all , it ’ s not like the Bible doesn ’ t contain plenty of wars being fought by some of God ’ s favorite people .
But it seems there are those who think you can ’ t do both .
There always have been , of course , and I respect people who say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military .
I don ’ t agree with it , but they ’ re making a stand regarding themselves and I can respect that .
What I don ’ t like is when people try to judge the men and women who serve .
Especially when those people end up running for Senate .
Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock said in a 2011 sermon that Americans can not serve God while also serving in the U.S. military .
The newly unearthed comments threaten to complicate Warnock ’ s candidacy in a tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fifth largest active duty military population in the country , according to a 2018 Department of Defense report .
“ America , nobody can serve God and the military , ” Warnock said in the sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta , where he serves as senior pastor .
“ You can ’ t serve God and money .
You can not serve God and mammon at the same time.
” “ America choose ye this day who you will serve .
Choose ye this day !
” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Warnock is facing criticism for other controversial statements , including his claim that “ America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness.
” He has also come under scrutiny for his support for his religious mentor James Hal Cone , who said that white Christians practice the “ theology of the Antichrist ” and described white people as “ satanic.
” This , of course , runs rather counter to the Rev .
Raphael Warnock I keep seeing on my television .
That one accuses his opponent , Sen. Kelly Loeffler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s distorting the truth .
The only distortions I ’ m seeing , though , are from Warnock who is a Deep South version of Rev .
Jeremiah Wright , the controversial pastor with ties to Obama .
In fact , it now makes perfect sense why Obama did a commercial for this guy .
He probably felt right at home in Warnock ’ s church .
Seriously , this is the guy Georgia Democrats came up with to run for the Senate ?
The men and women who serve in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great nation and , if they so choose , also serving God .
I ’ ve seen plenty of them do it , both during my own service and since .
That ’ s because much of what our nation stands for is also what Christians stand for .
The two aren ’ t mutually exclusive .
Yet by making this statement , Warnock is claiming that they can ’ t do any such thing .
Which is funny , because if their service to this country is so antithetical to Warnock ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hell should we make of his desire to sit in the United States Senate ?
If serving anyone but God is incompatible with serving God , then who the hell will he be serving as a senator ?
I ’ m going to take a stab in the dark and say it won ’ t be the Georgians he represents , that ’ s for sure .

I may not be the best Christian–far from it, to be honest–but I am a Christian. I’m also a military veteran. I’ve never looked at these two things really being at odds with one another. After all, it’s not like the Bible doesn’t contain plenty of wars being fought by some of God’s favorite people.
But it seems there are those who think you can’t do both. There always have been, of course, and I respect people who say their beliefs are contrary to serving in the military. I don’t agree with it, but they’re making a stand regarding themselves and I can respect that.
What I don’t like is when people try to judge the men and women who serve.
Especially when those people end up running for Senate.
Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock said in a 2011 sermon that Americans cannot serve God while also serving in the U.S. military. The newly unearthed comments threaten to complicate Warnock’s candidacy in a tight Georgia Senate race: Georgia is home to the fifth largest active duty military population in the country, according to a 2018 Department of Defense report. “America, nobody can serve God and the military,” Warnock said in the sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where he serves as senior pastor. “You can’t serve God and money. You cannot serve God and mammon at the same time.” “America choose ye this day who you will serve. Choose ye this day!” he added. Video of the remarks surfaced as Warnock is facing criticism for other controversial statements, including his claim that “America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness.” He has also come under scrutiny for his support for his religious mentor James Hal Cone, who said that white Christians practice the “theology of the Antichrist” and described white people as “satanic.”
This, of course, runs rather counter to the Rev. Raphael Warnock I keep seeing on my television. That one accuses his opponent, Sen. Kelly Loeffler, of name-calling and implying that she’s distorting the truth.
The only distortions I’m seeing, though, are from Warnock who is a Deep South version of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial pastor with ties to Obama. In fact, it now makes perfect sense why Obama did a commercial for this guy. He probably felt right at home in Warnock’s church.
Seriously, this is the guy Georgia Democrats came up with to run for the Senate?
The men and women who serve in our military are perfectly capable of defending this great nation and, if they so choose, also serving God. I’ve seen plenty of them do it, both during my own service and since. That’s because much of what our nation stands for is also what Christians stand for. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Yet by making this statement, Wright Warnock is claiming that they can’t do any such thing.
Which is funny, because if their service to this country is so antithetical to Warnock’s theology, then just what in the hell should we make of his desire to sit in the United States Senate? If serving anyone but God is incompatible with serving God, then who the hell will he be serving as a senator?
I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say it won’t be the Georgians he represents, that’s for sure.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Virginia Gun Show Promoter Sues Over COVID Closure

The Nation ’ s Gun Show is held a few times each year at the Dulles Expo Center in northern Virginia , and it always draws a big crowd .
That ’ s the problem , according to the state of Virginia , where anti-gun Attorney General Mark Herring has declared the gun show , scheduled to take place this coming weekend , has the potential to be a “ superspreader ” and if held , would be in violation of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s new COVID-related restrictions barring “ entertainment and amusement businesses ” of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s promoter , along with vendor Sonny ’ s Guns and gun owner John Crump ( also the Virginia state director for GOA ) are due in court on Thursday morning , where they ’ ll be asking a judge for an emergency injunction against Northam ’ s latest executive order that would allow the gun show to kick off on Friday as originally planned .
The show ’ s organizers say they stand to lose between $ 600-700,000 in gross sales if they must cancel the event .
They also argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event held at the Dulles Expo Center and was handled successfully under less restrictive Phase 3 COVID-19 restrictions this August with more than 12,500 attending .
In his reply brief , Attorney General Mark Herring said the gun show has the potential to become a “ super spreader ” event and argues that the “ plaintiff ’ s filingsbetray a callous disregard for the public-health consequences.
” Because the event is scheduled for this weekend , a hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday in front of Judge Brett A. Kassabian .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down The Nation ’ s Gun Show under the Virginia “ Emergency Services and Disaster Law.
” But even more importantly , his closure order infringes on rights recognized and protected by Article I , §§ 12 and 13 of the Virginia Constitution .
It does not matter that the Governor has issued an emergency declaration or declared a state of emergency , or that the Commissioner declared a public health emergency , as no elected official has the discretionary authority to suspend the protections the People wrote into their Constitution which also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves , and under which the Commissioner serves .
As the plaintiffs ’ attorneys point out , Virginia law is clear : governors don ’ t have the power to limit the right to keep and bear arms , even in a declared emergency .
In fact , back in 2012 Mark Herring and Ralph Northam ( then in the state legislature ) , voted to change state law to block the very actions that Northam now wants to impose on gun owners .
Here ’ s what the statute says : Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to : ( 3 ) Empower the Governor , any political subdivision , or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I , Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States , including the otherwise lawful possession , carrying , transportation , sale , or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Commonwealth , or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons ; That ’ s pretty explicit .
The governor does not have the authority to limit in any way the lawful sale or transfer of firearms , except in emergency shelters .
That designation doesn ’ t apply to the Dulles Expo Center , which should make this a slam dunk decision for the courts in favor of the Nation ’ s Gun Show .
We could see a decision from the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I expect the losing side will quickly appeal .
Can the courts resolve this before the doors are set to open on Friday ?
It ’ s going to be close , but my hope is that the show will be able to take place as scheduled this weekend .
I haven ’ t seen the written opinion from the judge in today ’ s hearing for an emergency injunction , but I expect this decision to be quickly appealed .
Time is tight , and it ’ s unclear whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court will be able to hear the appeal before the gun show ’ s planned opening on Friday .
Looks like the appellate courts won ’ t be getting involved after all .
The promoters of the Nation ’ s Gun Show say the event has been cancelled .
The organizers said , “ much later [ Wednesday ] the Governor and the Virginia Attorney General stepped in to close all the similar venues in the state of Virginia as well as ours inflicting incredible hardships in the entire state .
We fought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expense and lost .
We respectfully disagree with the judge ’ s opinion.
” They added , “ We will follow up with more later .
We are very sorry for the incredible financial burden and terrible inconvenience this is inflicting on all involved .
As I said on Twitter , this decision by the judge isn ’ t just disappointing , it ’ s troubling given the clear letter of the law that prohibits governmental authorities from blocking the lawful sale and transfer of firearms during a state of emergency .

The Nation’s Gun Show is held a few times each year at the Dulles Expo Center in northern Virginia, and it always draws a big crowd. That’s the problem, according to the state of Virginia, where anti-gun Attorney General Mark Herring has declared the gun show, scheduled to take place this coming weekend, has the potential to be a “superspreader” and if held, would be in violation of Gov. Ralph Northam’s new COVID-related restrictions barring “entertainment and amusement businesses” of more than 250 people.
Attorneys for the show’s promoter, along with vendor Sonny’s Guns and gun owner John Crump (also the Virginia state director for GOA) are due in court on Thursday morning, where they’ll be asking a judge for an emergency injunction against Northam’s latest executive order that would allow the gun show to kick off on Friday as originally planned.
The show’s organizers say they stand to lose between $600-700,000 in gross sales if they must cancel the event. They also argue that the gun show is the largest event held at the Dulles Expo Center and was handled successfully under less restrictive Phase 3 COVID-19 restrictions this August with more than 12,500 attending. In his reply brief, Attorney General Mark Herring said the gun show has the potential to become a “super spreader” event and argues that the “plaintiff’s filingsbetray a callous disregard for the public-health consequences.” Because the event is scheduled for this weekend, a hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday in front of Judge Brett A. Kassabian.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys are set to argue that the gun show should be seen as a “Brick and Mortar Retail Business” not subject to the 250-person limit. If the judge doesn’t agree, attorneys have a backup argument : Northam doesn’t have the authority to shut down the gun show.
The Governor is expressly barred from closing down The Nation’s Gun Show under the Virginia “Emergency Services and Disaster Law.” But even more importantly, his closure order infringes on rights recognized and protected by Article I, §§ 12 and 13 of the Virginia Constitution. It does not matter that the Governor has issued an emergency declaration or declared a state of emergency, or that the Commissioner declared a public health emergency, as no elected official has the discretionary authority to suspend the protections the People wrote into their Constitution which also created the office in which the Governor serves, and under which the Commissioner serves.
As the plaintiffs’ attorneys point out, Virginia law is clear: governors don’t have the power to limit the right to keep and bear arms, even in a declared emergency. In fact, back in 2012 Mark Herring and Ralph Northam (then in the state legislature), voted to change state law to block the very actions that Northam now wants to impose on gun owners. Here’s what the statute says:
Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to: (3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;
That’s pretty explicit. The governor does not have the authority to limit in any way the lawful sale or transfer of firearms, except in emergency shelters. That designation doesn’t apply to the Dulles Expo Center, which should make this a slam dunk decision for the courts in favor of the Nation’s Gun Show. We could see a decision from the judge as early as this afternoon, but I expect the losing side will quickly appeal. Can the courts resolve this before the doors are set to open on Friday? It’s going to be close, but my hope is that the show will be able to take place as scheduled this weekend.
**UPDATE**
Virginia Attorney Mark Herring is crowing on Twitter about convincing the judge during this morning’s emergency hearing to block the Nation’s Gun Show from operating at full capacity this weekend.
Putting hundreds or even thousands of Virginians at risk for the sole purpose of selling guns is just not worth it and I’m pleased that the Judge agreed with me.
I haven’t seen the written opinion from the judge in today’s hearing for an emergency injunction, but I expect this decision to be quickly appealed. Time is tight, and it’s unclear whether or not the appellate court and the state Supreme Court will be able to hear the appeal before the gun show’s planned opening on Friday.
**UPDATE 2**
Looks like the appellate courts won’t be getting involved after all. The promoters of the Nation’s Gun Show say the event has been cancelled.
The organizers said, “much later [Wednesday] the Governor and the Virginia Attorney General stepped in to close all the similar venues in the state of Virginia as well as ours inflicting incredible hardships in the entire state. We fought back and went to court at great expense and lost. We respectfully disagree with the judge’s opinion.” They added, “We will follow up with more later. We are very sorry for the incredible financial burden and terrible inconvenience this is inflicting on all involved.
As I said on Twitter, this decision by the judge isn’t just disappointing, it’s troubling given the clear letter of the law that prohibits governmental authorities from blocking the lawful sale and transfer of firearms during a state of emergency.


bearingarms--2020-11-19--Biden Wants To Tax You To Tune Of $34 Billion

Joe Biden doesn ’ t really care what America ’ s gun owners think of him .
After all , he knows that damn near none of us were going to vote for him in the first place .
The man ran on gun control as a key issue , though he and his allies in the media did a good job of hiding that during the general election .
The man has never met a gun control proposal he didn ’ t like .
Let ’ s face it , the guy wants to screw us over .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t vote for him and not seeing the connection , but even if he did , I ’ m not sure he has the mental faculties to know what he was looking at .
How badly does he want to bone us ?
Oh , for about $ 34 billion .
American gun owners could face tens of billions of dollars in new taxes to keep the guns they already own under Democrat Joe Biden ’ s gun ban and tax plan .
At least 20 million rifles and 150 million ammunition magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban and registration scheme Biden touted on the campaign trail , according to a National Shooting Sports Foundation ( NSSF ) report .
The new taxes would cost Americans more than $ 34 billion , according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis .
NSSF told the Washington Free Beacon the sheer number of affected guns and magazines could pose a significant problem for Biden ’ s gun-control plans .
“ I think if [ Biden and his team ] were smart , they would look at those numbers and get an idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights , ” NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva said .
But , well , Biden and his team aren ’ t particularly smart .
Biden wants to ban new sales of AR-15 rifles and similar firearms as well as any ammunition magazine holding more than 10 rounds—sizes that come standard on most modern rifles and handguns .
He would pay some owners to surrender the affected guns they legally own and force everyone else to register the guns under the National Firearms Act .
The proposal would require owners to pay a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s assuming that anyone actually admits to having the weapons in the first place .
With no registration already , it ’ ll be on gun owners to admit they have not just the weapons , but the unserialized magazines as well .
Let ’ s be honest , $ 34 billion is a lot of money , but that ’ s a total for the entire nation .
What each individual would be required to pay , though , would be different .
Even someone with a modest collection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handguns could be on the hook for thousands of dollars simply because they have a relatively good-sized supply of magazines .
And understand , this is Biden feeling magnanimous .
He ’ s going to allow us to keep our guns , but we have to pay for the privilege .
Yet people have the gall to say that Biden isn ’ t coming for our guns ?
Seriously ?
I can ’ t afford to drop $ 200 for each item I ’ ve got and I don ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For some of you , we ’ re talking tens of thousands of dollars just for your guns .
Again , good luck with trying to get Americans to bother complying .
This , of course , is why the Georgia senate races are so important .
If Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Sen. David Perdue when their reelection bids , they ’ ll give the Republicans control of the Senate and there will be no chance of making something like this law .
For a lot of us , it ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to foot the bill for Biden ’ s gun plan .

Joe Biden doesn’t really care what America’s gun owners think of him. After all, he knows that damn near none of us were going to vote for him in the first place. The man ran on gun control as a key issue, though he and his allies in the media did a good job of hiding that during the general election. The man has never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like.
Let’s face it, the guy wants to screw us over. He also probably wonders why we didn’t vote for him and not seeing the connection, but even if he did, I’m not sure he has the mental faculties to know what he was looking at.
How badly does he want to bone us? Oh, for about $34 billion.
American gun owners could face tens of billions of dollars in new taxes to keep the guns they already own under Democrat Joe Biden’s gun ban and tax plan. At least 20 million rifles and 150 million ammunition magazines would be caught up in the sales ban and registration scheme Biden touted on the campaign trail, according to a National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) report. The new taxes would cost Americans more than $34 billion, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. NSSF told the Washington Free Beacon the sheer number of affected guns and magazines could pose a significant problem for Biden’s gun-control plans. “I think if [Biden and his team] were smart, they would look at those numbers and get an idea of where America stands on gun ownership and gun rights,” NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva said.
But, well, Biden and his team aren’t particularly smart.
Biden wants to ban new sales of AR-15 rifles and similar firearms as well as any ammunition magazine holding more than 10 rounds—sizes that come standard on most modern rifles and handguns. He would pay some owners to surrender the affected guns they legally own and force everyone else to register the guns under the National Firearms Act. The proposal would require owners to pay a $200 tax stamp for each item.
That’s assuming that anyone actually admits to having the weapons in the first place. With no registration already, it’ll be on gun owners to admit they have not just the weapons, but the unserialized magazines as well.
Good luck with that.
Let’s be honest, $34 billion is a lot of money, but that’s a total for the entire nation. What each individual would be required to pay, though, would be different. Even someone with a modest collection of a single AR-15 and a couple of handguns could be on the hook for thousands of dollars simply because they have a relatively good-sized supply of magazines.
And understand, this is Biden feeling magnanimous. He’s going to allow us to keep our guns, but we have to pay for the privilege.
Yet people have the gall to say that Biden isn’t coming for our guns? Seriously? I can’t afford to drop $200 for each item I’ve got and I don’t have a massive collection with dozens of guns. For some of you, we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars just for your guns.
Again, good luck with trying to get Americans to bother complying.
This, of course, is why the Georgia senate races are so important. If Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Sen. David Perdue when their reelection bids, they’ll give the Republicans control of the Senate and there will be no chance of making something like this law. For a lot of us, it’ll be cheaper to contribute to those campaigns than to foot the bill for Biden’s gun plan.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--The Conflict Between Qualified Immunity And The Second Amendment

When police use lethal force against law-abiding gun owners , the court system often sides with law enforcement over those exercising their 2nd Amendment rights .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a closer look at a new Reuters report that explores the troubling issue by focusing on the case of Andrew Scott , who was killed by police in 2012 in his own apartment .
Police had been pursuing an assault suspect who was believed to be armed , and they spotted his motorcycle parked in front of the apartment that Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was 1:30 in the morning when police began banging on the front door , and Andrew Scott had no idea who might be outside .
He grabbed his 9mm before he cracked open the door , which had no peephole , and moments later one the deputies on the other side opened fire , striking Scott three times and fatally injuring the 26-year old .
Deputy Richard Sylvester was never charged criminally , and a civil lawsuit filed by Mauck and Scott ’ s family was dismissed by a judge who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death .
Judge Anne Conway let Sylvester off the hook , too .
Her main reason : Scott ’ s gun .
“ Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night : he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand .
That changed everything .
That is the one thing that — more than anything else — led to this tragedy , ” Conway wrote in her Sept. 18 , 2014 , decision to toss out the lawsuit .
Conway ’ s ruling lays bare a sometimes tragic conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This conflict , fostered by the Supreme Court in recent years , pits Americans ’ cherished gun rights against formidable legal protections for police accused of excessive force in the country with the most heavily armed citizenry in the world .
When that conflict plays out in court , as it did in the Scott case , cops often win .
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Scott ’ s right to have a gun .
Under a landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling , District of Columbia v. Heller , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use a gun for self-defense at home .
None of that mattered , in the end .
It was trumped by Sylvester ’ s claim that he was protected by qualified immunity , a controversial legal doctrine the Supreme Court created 50 years ago to shield police and other government officials from civil liability for actions undertaken on the job .
In her decision , Conway determined that Sylvester was legally justified to use deadly force because Scott was holding a gun , and that the officer was thus entitled to immunity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The courts ’ rulings meant , in effect , that Scott gave up his Fourth Amendment rights when he exercised his Second Amendment rights .
Reuters looked at several hundred cases involving use of force by police , and found that when there was a gun involved , courts granted immunity to officers 55 % of the time , compared to 45 % of cases that did not involve a gun .
Of course , as even Reuters acknowledges , not all of these cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights , but they lay out several instances that bear similarities to the death of Andrew Scott .
Cases like these are why some gun rights advocates want qualified immunity to be reined in .
“ These cases are rare , but they shouldn ’ t happen at all .
When they do happen , law enforcement should be held liable , ” said Alan Gottlieb , founder of the Second Amendment Foundation , a Bellevue , Washington-based group that filed a brief in support of Mauck and the Scott family ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court .
Gottlieb said police officers should not be able to cite the mere presence of a gun as a threat that justifies the use of deadly force .
Another gun rights group , the Firearms Policy Coalition , based in Sacramento , California , also favors reform of qualified immunity , Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut told Reuters .
The National Rifle Association , the most influential U.S. gun rights group , did not respond to requests for comment on the issue .
Even gun control groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with limiting qualified immunity , though for very different reasons than gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition .
Everytown for Gun Safety , a group financed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that pushes for stricter gun controls , says that making it easier to hold cops accountable for excessive force could help reduce gun violence .
If cops knew they might be held financially liable for their actions , the thinking goes , they might be less inclined to escalate in encounters with armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make it less likely that cops encounter armed citizens by going after legal gun ownership itself , reducing the number of legal gun owners under the premise of “ less guns , less crime.
” A far saner ( not to mention constitutional ) approach would be to recognize that there are more than 100-million American gun owners and to adjust law enforcement tactics accordingly .
Police didn ’ t announce themselves when they banged on Andrew Scott ’ s door , for instance , and there are still questions about whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they broke down the door of Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment and were met with a single gunshot fired by Taylor ’ s boyfriend , who believed they were being targeted by home invaders .
In a saner world , this would be one of those issues where Left and Right could collaborate on reforms that would benefit both law enforcement and the general population , but I ’ m not optimistic that it will happen anytime soon .
Still , the issue is real ; we don ’ t give up your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment rights , yet that ’ s the legal rationale used by far too many courts at the moment .

When police use lethal force against law-abiding gun owners, the court system often sides with law enforcement over those exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a closer look at a new Reuters report that explores the troubling issue by focusing on the case of Andrew Scott, who was killed by police in 2012 in his own apartment.
Police had been pursuing an assault suspect who was believed to be armed, and they spotted his motorcycle parked in front of the apartment that Scott shared with his girlfriend, Miranda Mauck. It was 1:30 in the morning when police began banging on the front door, and Andrew Scott had no idea who might be outside. He grabbed his 9mm before he cracked open the door, which had no peephole, and moments later one the deputies on the other side opened fire, striking Scott three times and fatally injuring the 26-year old.
Deputy Richard Sylvester was never charged criminally, and a civil lawsuit filed by Mauck and Scott’s family was dismissed by a judge who callously blamed Andrew Scott for his own death.
Judge Anne Conway let Sylvester off the hook, too. Her main reason: Scott’s gun. “Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that — more than anything else — led to this tragedy,” Conway wrote in her Sept. 18, 2014, decision to toss out the lawsuit. Conway’s ruling lays bare a sometimes tragic conflict inherent in the U.S. legal system. This conflict, fostered by the Supreme Court in recent years, pits Americans’ cherished gun rights against formidable legal protections for police accused of excessive force in the country with the most heavily armed citizenry in the world. When that conflict plays out in court, as it did in the Scott case, cops often win. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Scott’s right to have a gun. Under a landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, he had an explicit right to keep and use a gun for self-defense at home. None of that mattered, in the end. It was trumped by Sylvester’s claim that he was protected by qualified immunity, a controversial legal doctrine the Supreme Court created 50 years ago to shield police and other government officials from civil liability for actions undertaken on the job. In her decision, Conway determined that Sylvester was legally justified to use deadly force because Scott was holding a gun, and that the officer was thus entitled to immunity. Conway’s decision was later upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts’ rulings meant, in effect, that Scott gave up his Fourth Amendment rights when he exercised his Second Amendment rights.
Reuters looked at several hundred cases involving use of force by police, and found that when there was a gun involved, courts granted immunity to officers 55% of the time, compared to 45% of cases that did not involve a gun. Of course, as even Reuters acknowledges, not all of these cases involve innocent law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, but they lay out several instances that bear similarities to the death of Andrew Scott.
Cases like these are why some gun rights advocates want qualified immunity to be reined in. “These cases are rare, but they shouldn’t happen at all. When they do happen, law enforcement should be held liable,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Washington-based group that filed a brief in support of Mauck and the Scott family’s failed attempt to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. Gottlieb said police officers should not be able to cite the mere presence of a gun as a threat that justifies the use of deadly force. Another gun rights group, the Firearms Policy Coalition, based in Sacramento, California, also favors reform of qualified immunity, Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut told Reuters. The National Rifle Association, the most influential U.S. gun rights group, did not respond to requests for comment on the issue.
Even gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are on board with limiting qualified immunity, though for very different reasons than gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.
Everytown for Gun Safety, a group financed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that pushes for stricter gun controls, says that making it easier to hold cops accountable for excessive force could help reduce gun violence. If cops knew they might be held financially liable for their actions, the thinking goes, they might be less inclined to escalate in encounters with armed civilians.
Of course Everytown also wants to make it less likely that cops encounter armed citizens by going after legal gun ownership itself, reducing the number of legal gun owners under the premise of “less guns, less crime.”
A far saner (not to mention constitutional) approach would be to recognize that there are more than 100-million American gun owners and to adjust law enforcement tactics accordingly. Police didn’t announce themselves when they banged on Andrew Scott’s door, for instance, and there are still questions about whether or not Louisville police announced themselves before they broke down the door of Breonna Taylor’s apartment and were met with a single gunshot fired by Taylor’s boyfriend, who believed they were being targeted by home invaders.
In a saner world, this would be one of those issues where Left and Right could collaborate on reforms that would benefit both law enforcement and the general population, but I’m not optimistic that it will happen anytime soon. Still, the issue is real; we don’t give up your Fourth Amendment rights simply by exercising our Second Amendment rights, yet that’s the legal rationale used by far too many courts at the moment.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--New Pandemic Rules Kill Virginia Gun Show

When you attend a gun show , you ’ re not just going to something some guy threw together after calling a few buddies over .
A well-run gun show is a capitalistic enterprise put forth by professionals who focus on this kind of thing .
It ’ s what they do .
During the lockdown , though , there wasn ’ t much for them to do .
While gun stores were open in many places , gun shows fill a different niche .
They weren ’ t exempted from lockdown orders , so many simply didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undoubtedly felt some serious financial hardships .
Then the lockdown ended , and life could move forward .
Now , unfortunately , some places are going for round two of the lockdown , and at least one gun show is feeling the pain .
However , it doesn ’ t appear that they have as of this writing .
Of course , while the judge is right that this is the worst pandemic in 100 years , it ’ s important to remember that the bar for that isn ’ t very high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and while this one does , it ’ s not a particularly lethal virus for most Americans .
Not a Sunday walk in the park , mind you , but still not an automatic death sentence , either .
The thing that gets me is that there were zero problems with thousands of people roaming unchecked when they were burning neighborhoods and calling anyone who disagreed with their jackbooted tactics racist in what was described as “ mostly peaceful protests.
” When that happened , there was no word from those panic-driven souls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confined spaces roaming unchecked was just fine .
They were practicing their First Amendment rights .
Yet , when it ’ s people who want to practice their Second Amendment rights , well , we can ’ t have that .
No , we simply have to cause the organizers to lose millions because reasons .
For me , the galling point is the inconsistency .
A riot is somehow sacred and can ’ t be criticized , as if the virus somehow makes a distinction as to the gathering in question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great a risk .
Then again , it ’ s not like Northam cares about people ’ s rights , now is it ?

When you attend a gun show, you’re not just going to something some guy threw together after calling a few buddies over. A well-run gun show is a capitalistic enterprise put forth by professionals who focus on this kind of thing. It’s what they do.
During the lockdown, though, there wasn’t much for them to do. While gun stores were open in many places, gun shows fill a different niche. They weren’t exempted from lockdown orders, so many simply didn’t operate.
As a result, organizers undoubtedly felt some serious financial hardships.
Then the lockdown ended, and life could move forward. Now, unfortunately, some places are going for round two of the lockdown, and at least one gun show is feeling the pain.
A judge on Thursday rejected a legal challenge from one of the nation’s largest gun shows to newly imposed pandemic restrictions in Virginia that will force cancellation of an upcoming exposition. The Nation’s Gun Show is held several times a year at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, about 25 miles outside Washington. A three-day show expected to draw thousands had been scheduled to start Friday. The show filed for an emergency injunction this week in Fairfax County Circuit Court after it was told that tightened restrictions imposed last week by Gov. Ralph Northam would limit the event to 250 people. The lawsuit offered theories as to why the order exceeded the governor’s authority, but Judge Brett Kassabian rejected them all at a hearing Thursday morning. While he said he was sympathetic to the fact that show organizers and vendors stand to lose millions of dollars, Kassabian said, “To allow thousands of people to roam unchecked in the throes of of the worst pandemic in 100 years is not in the public interest.” The gun show can appeal the ruling.
However, it doesn’t appear that they have as of this writing.
Of course, while the judge is right that this is the worst pandemic in 100 years, it’s important to remember that the bar for that isn’t very high. Most other pandemics barely qualify, and while this one does, it’s not a particularly lethal virus for most Americans. Not a Sunday walk in the park, mind you, but still not an automatic death sentence, either.
The thing that gets me is that there were zero problems with thousands of people roaming unchecked when they were burning neighborhoods and calling anyone who disagreed with their jackbooted tactics racist in what was described as “mostly peaceful protests.”
When that happened, there was no word from those panic-driven souls about how that many people in such confined spaces roaming unchecked was just fine. They were practicing their First Amendment rights.
Yet, when it’s people who want to practice their Second Amendment rights, well, we can’t have that. No, we simply have to cause the organizers to lose millions because reasons.
For me, the galling point is the inconsistency. A riot is somehow sacred and can’t be criticized, as if the virus somehow makes a distinction as to the gathering in question, but a gun show is simply too great a risk.
Then again, it’s not like Northam cares about people’s rights, now is it?


bearingarms--2020-11-20--TN Dems Demand 'Compromise' On Gun Control Measures

Democrats in the Tennessee statehouse aren ’ t really in a position to demand anything from their Republican counterparts at the moment .
In the elections a couple of weeks ago , Republicans maintained their supermajority in the state House while losing only a single seat in the state Senate , leaving the GOP with a 27-6 majority .
That keeps pro-2A lawmakers in complete control of both the legislature and the executive branch in the state , which means any gun control measures introduced by Democrats will likely remain bottled up or defeated in committee .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from demanding some changes to the state ’ s gun laws , however , saying it ’ s time for Republicans to start compromising .
Tennessee senator Raumesh Akbari says she ’ s advocated for gun safety for years , even putting forth legislation that would make it an offense to leave an unsecured firearm in an unattended vehicle .
However , she says she ’ s received push back from fellow legislators .
“ I really don ’ t think that the benefit that folks claim being able to have the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the castle doctrine is outweighing the significant increase in the weapons that are being stolen , ” Akbari said .
Akbari says a lot of the state ’ s budget goes towards funding law enforcement but the need to put more resources towards fighting crime could put stress on what is already going to be lean budget year .
“ If we can do some things preemptively to decrease crime than we decrease the cost of law enforcement , ” Akbari said .
Akbari says she is working with fellow lawmakers on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take compromise to find middle ground on the issue .
“ I think that should really be a bipartisan issue , ” Akbari said .
“ At the end of the day , we all want to be safe .
We all want to be sure that those who have weapons can have them legally and they ’ re not being stolen , and we can make some smart decisions.
” Akbari ’ s aiming her legislative fire in the wrong direction .
If she wants to crack down on firearm thefts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the penalty for possessing a stolen firearm , rather than making it a criminal offense to leave your firearm in an unlocked vehicle .
Last year , the state legislature approved a bill that guarantees 30 days in jail for those convicted of possessing a stolen firearm , but that ’ s still far too lenient for a minimum sentence .
Those knowingly in possession of a stolen gun should be facing far more serious consequences , and enforcement of those laws should be a bigger priority for police and prosecutors across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners who are leaving their guns in their cars , I think it ’ s unwise , but it shouldn ’ t be a criminal offense .
Even at my rural home in a low-crime county in Virginia , I make sure that my car doors are locked at night and that any firearms and ammunition that may be stored inside aren ’ t visible to anyone peering in .
About 850 guns have been stolen from vehicles in the Memphis area this year , and lawmakers are right to look for ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” by only infringing a little on our right to keep and bear arms is a non-starter , however .
Instead of compromise , Akbari and other Democrats should be looking at collaboration instead , working with their Republican colleagues on ways to address violent crime and its causes that don ’ t involve criminalizing aspects of the right to keep and bear arms .
If they ’ re willing to do that , they can be a part of the solution .
If they insist on stripping rights away in the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are just going to be another part of the problem .

Democrats in the Tennessee statehouse aren’t really in a position to demand anything from their Republican counterparts at the moment. In the elections a couple of weeks ago, Republicans maintained their supermajority in the state House while losing only a single seat in the state Senate, leaving the GOP with a 27-6 majority. That keeps pro-2A lawmakers in complete control of both the legislature and the executive branch in the state, which means any gun control measures introduced by Democrats will likely remain bottled up or defeated in committee.
That’s not stopping the state’s Democrats from demanding some changes to the state’s gun laws, however, saying it’s time for Republicans to start compromising.
Tennessee senator Raumesh Akbari says she’s advocated for gun safety for years, even putting forth legislation that would make it an offense to leave an unsecured firearm in an unattended vehicle. However, she says she’s received push back from fellow legislators. “I really don’t think that the benefit that folks claim being able to have the gun in your car being an extension of the castle doctrine is outweighing the significant increase in the weapons that are being stolen,” Akbari said. Akbari says a lot of the state’s budget goes towards funding law enforcement but the need to put more resources towards fighting crime could put stress on what is already going to be lean budget year. “If we can do some things preemptively to decrease crime than we decrease the cost of law enforcement,” Akbari said. Akbari says she is working with fellow lawmakers on a solution, but it’s going to take compromise to find middle ground on the issue. “I think that should really be a bipartisan issue,” Akbari said. “At the end of the day, we all want to be safe. We all want to be sure that those who have weapons can have them legally and they’re not being stolen, and we can make some smart decisions.”
Akbari’s aiming her legislative fire in the wrong direction. If she wants to crack down on firearm thefts, the best thing to do is increase the penalty for possessing a stolen firearm, rather than making it a criminal offense to leave your firearm in an unlocked vehicle.
Last year, the state legislature approved a bill that guarantees 30 days in jail for those convicted of possessing a stolen firearm, but that’s still far too lenient for a minimum sentence. Those knowingly in possession of a stolen gun should be facing far more serious consequences, and enforcement of those laws should be a bigger priority for police and prosecutors across the state.
As for those gun owners who are leaving their guns in their cars, I think it’s unwise, but it shouldn’t be a criminal offense. Even at my rural home in a low-crime county in Virginia, I make sure that my car doors are locked at night and that any firearms and ammunition that may be stored inside aren’t visible to anyone peering in.
About 850 guns have been stolen from vehicles in the Memphis area this year, and lawmakers are right to look for ways to reduce those numbers. “Compromising” by only infringing a little on our right to keep and bear arms is a non-starter, however.
Instead of compromise, Akbari and other Democrats should be looking at collaboration instead, working with their Republican colleagues on ways to address violent crime and its causes that don’t involve criminalizing aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. If they’re willing to do that, they can be a part of the solution. If they insist on stripping rights away in the name of public safety, however, Tennessee Democrats are just going to be another part of the problem.