bearingarms--2020-07-30--Everytown Pledges $1 Million To Flip Iowa House

Everytown and their associated groups are really little more than a vehicle for Michael Bloomberg to push his anti-gun agenda and make it look like a grassroots effort to combat gun violence .
While they do get donations from other people , the lion ’ s share of their funding comes from Bloomberg and we all know it .
Even the media knows it , though they rarely point that fact out .
Instead , they pretend like all is well .
That ’ s especially true when Everytown pledges to drop a lot of money to flip a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pledging to spend at least $ 1 million to flip the Iowa House of Representatives to Democratic control this fall , a signal that outside organizations are willing to spend heavily to compete for control of the Statehouse .
Controlling the Iowa House is a top priority for Democrats and Republicans this fall .
Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage , meaning Democrats could win the House if they flip four seats from Republican control .
That would mean Republicans would no longer simultaneously control the Iowa House , Senate and governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since after the 2016 election .
The gun group , Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund , is targeting 15 state House races in the suburbs of Iowa ’ s major cities .
The group is the political arm of Everytown for Gun Safety , a nationwide gun violence prevention organization co-founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who also campaigned to be president .
This looks like a variation on the effort used to flip Virginia by targeting similar areas where Everytown believes they can find undecideds to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , in Virginia , it worked .
The big suburb that likely carried the day in Virginia was the areas around Washington , D.C. That ’ s a political demographic that ’ s likely to be somewhat different than you ’ d find in the suburbs of DesMoines .
But hey , they ’ re welcome to throw their money away if they want to .
After all , money they blow on potentially lost causes is money they can ’ t use later for something else .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , what really bugs me about Everyone and their efforts is that it ’ s absolutely no different to what groups like the NRA do when it comes to elections .
And yet , the NRA is the one accused of buying politicians and other shady behavior simply because they engage in political spending…just like Everytown .
It ’ s a double standard that few in the media ever bother to even pretend exists .
They ’ d much rather act like Everytown ’ s motives are as pure as the driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sinister as hell without ever having to explain the difference between the two .
If they did , they ’ d have to acknowledge that Everytown does little except try to influence elections while the NRA does plenty else .
But that ’ s just too inconvenient for them .
Still , Everytown is going to blow a million in Iowa .
Is that enough to make a difference ?
Probably not , even if the spending actually works .
Yet another way to throw their money away .
So , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Everytown and their associated groups are really little more than a vehicle for Michael Bloomberg to push his anti-gun agenda and make it look like a grassroots effort to combat gun violence. While they do get donations from other people, the lion’s share of their funding comes from Bloomberg and we all know it. Even the media knows it, though they rarely point that fact out.
Instead, they pretend like all is well.
That’s especially true when Everytown pledges to drop a lot of money to flip a state legislature.
A gun violence prevention group is pledging to spend at least $1 million to flip the Iowa House of Representatives to Democratic control this fall, a signal that outside organizations are willing to spend heavily to compete for control of the Statehouse. Controlling the Iowa House is a top priority for Democrats and Republicans this fall. Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage, meaning Democrats could win the House if they flip four seats from Republican control. That would mean Republicans would no longer simultaneously control the Iowa House, Senate and governor’s office, which they have done since after the 2016 election. The gun group, Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, is targeting 15 state House races in the suburbs of Iowa’s major cities. The group is the political arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nationwide gun violence prevention organization co-founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also campaigned to be president.
This looks like a variation on the effort used to flip Virginia by targeting similar areas where Everytown believes they can find undecideds to back anti-gun candidates they might not otherwise.
And, in Virginia, it worked.
Of course, Virginia ain’t Iowa.
The big suburb that likely carried the day in Virginia was the areas around Washington, D.C. That’s a political demographic that’s likely to be somewhat different than you’d find in the suburbs of DesMoines.
But hey, they’re welcome to throw their money away if they want to. After all, money they blow on potentially lost causes is money they can’t use later for something else. That’s a win for us, after all.
However, what really bugs me about Everyone and their efforts is that it’s absolutely no different to what groups like the NRA do when it comes to elections. And yet, the NRA is the one accused of buying politicians and other shady behavior simply because they engage in political spending…just like Everytown.
It’s a double standard that few in the media ever bother to even pretend exists. They’d much rather act like Everytown’s motives are as pure as the driven snow and that everything the NRA does is sinister as hell without ever having to explain the difference between the two. If they did, they’d have to acknowledge that Everytown does little except try to influence elections while the NRA does plenty else.
But that’s just too inconvenient for them.
Still, Everytown is going to blow a million in Iowa. Is that enough to make a difference? Probably not, even if the spending actually works. Yet another way to throw their money away.
So, I guess it isn’t all bad.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--As Crime Spikes, Some Cities Turn To Gun "Buyback" Efforts

What do you do if you ’ re a Democrat mayor or city council member in a city with a soaring crime rate ?
You can ’ t vocally support stronger law enforcement without coming under fire from your fellow Democrats , but you have to do something or else risk being accused of not caring about the lives of those living in high-crime neighborhoods .
Nobody said that “ something ” has to be effective , though , which is why several Democrats are turning to the old idea of holding “ gun buybacks , ” even though research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ineffective at addressing violent crime .
Mayor Sheldon Neeley recently declared that Flint , Michigan will be holding a buyback in the near future , and announced this week that the city will also no longer auction off firearms that are seized by police , though the city will lose several hundred thousand dollars in revenue as a result .
“ Under this administration , we will never again line our pockets by selling guns , ” Neeley said in a statement issued by the city .
“ It is unconscionable that after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gamble by putting them back on the streets where they could again fall into the wrong hands.
” Wednesday ’ s announcement by Neeley and Police Chief Phil Hart comes as Flint officials are facing what they have called “ the intersection of a crisis ” with violent crime and homicides tracking above the same period last year .
As of July 12 , Flint ’ s homicides were up 12.5 percent and violent crime had increased 17 percent compared to the same time in 2019 .
Flint police statistics show property crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was down about 5 percent during that same time .
How many guns auctioned off by Flint officials have turned up at any of this year ’ s crime scenes ?
Mayor Neeley hasn ’ t said , which leads me to believe that they ’ re not being used ( again ) in the commission of any violent crimes .
This is simply an effort to blame crime on guns , rather than the individuals pulling the trigger .
New York City ’ s also looking at holding several “ buyback ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one on Staten Island , where District Attorney Michael McMann says the compensated confiscation effort is just one piece of the city ’ s response to the surge in shootings and homicides .
The group “ Mothers Against Senseless Killing ” ( MASK ) was out last weekend in some North Shore communities , engaging residents and dispensing food and supplies , he said .
They will head out again this weekend .
Another group , “ Occupy the Block , ” will be out in Stapleton and Mariners Harbor this Friday to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the D.A .
Law enforcement members are identifying hotspots for violence to evaluate the resources and infrastructure there , such as streetlights and cameras .
In addition , McMahon said a gun buyback event is anticipated for late August or sometime in September .
A buyback scheduled for May was canceled due to the coronavirus , he said .
While these “ buyback ” programs allow politicians to claim they ’ re doing something to reduce violent crime , research shows that these efforts are a waste of both time and money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. had conducted more than 100 buyback programs .
Seattle ’ s gun buyback program in fall 1992 was among the first to be evaluated via peer-reviewed research .
Gun owners turned over 1,172 firearms , almost all of which were working handguns , according to a 1994 evaluation published in Public Health Reports .
Participants received a bank voucher worth $ 50 , no matter how many firearms they turned over to the Seattle Police Department .
About three-fourths of participants were men .
The evaluation didn ’ t find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect on gun violence .
“ Gun buyback programs are a broadly supported means to decrease voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community , but their effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown , ” the authors write .
Gun buybacks are all about public relations , not public safety .
Instead of “ doing something , ” officials like the mayor of Flint and Bill de Blasio in New York City need to do something that works ; focus on violent offenders and ensure that there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts .
That will do far more than paying $ 100 for a broken-down revolver that will never be used in a crime in the first place .

What do you do if you’re a Democrat mayor or city council member in a city with a soaring crime rate? You can’t vocally support stronger law enforcement without coming under fire from your fellow Democrats, but you have to do something or else risk being accused of not caring about the lives of those living in high-crime neighborhoods. Nobody said that “something” has to be effective, though, which is why several Democrats are turning to the old idea of holding “gun buybacks,” even though research has proven that the programs are completely ineffective at addressing violent crime.
Mayor Sheldon Neeley recently declared that Flint, Michigan will be holding a buyback in the near future, and announced this week that the city will also no longer auction off firearms that are seized by police, though the city will lose several hundred thousand dollars in revenue as a result.
“Under this administration, we will never again line our pockets by selling guns,” Neeley said in a statement issued by the city. “It is unconscionable that after seizing these illegal weapons that anyone would gamble by putting them back on the streets where they could again fall into the wrong hands.” Wednesday’s announcement by Neeley and Police Chief Phil Hart comes as Flint officials are facing what they have called “the intersection of a crisis” with violent crime and homicides tracking above the same period last year. As of July 12, Flint’s homicides were up 12.5 percent and violent crime had increased 17 percent compared to the same time in 2019. Flint police statistics show property crime had decreased 21 percent and overall crime was down about 5 percent during that same time.
How many guns auctioned off by Flint officials have turned up at any of this year’s crime scenes? Mayor Neeley hasn’t said, which leads me to believe that they’re not being used (again) in the commission of any violent crimes. This is simply an effort to blame crime on guns, rather than the individuals pulling the trigger.
New York City’s also looking at holding several “buyback” events in the coming weeks, including one on Staten Island, where District Attorney Michael McMann says the compensated confiscation effort is just one piece of the city’s response to the surge in shootings and homicides.
The group “Mothers Against Senseless Killing” (MASK) was out last weekend in some North Shore communities, engaging residents and dispensing food and supplies, he said. They will head out again this weekend. Another group, “Occupy the Block,” will be out in Stapleton and Mariners Harbor this Friday to take a stand against the violence, said the D.A. Law enforcement members are identifying hotspots for violence to evaluate the resources and infrastructure there, such as streetlights and cameras. In addition, McMahon said a gun buyback event is anticipated for late August or sometime in September. A buyback scheduled for May was canceled due to the coronavirus, he said.
While these “buyback” programs allow politicians to claim they’re doing something to reduce violent crime, research shows that these efforts are a waste of both time and money.
By the late 1990s, municipalities in the U.S. had conducted more than 100 buyback programs. Seattle’s gun buyback program in fall 1992 was among the first to be evaluated via peer-reviewed research. Gun owners turned over 1,172 firearms, almost all of which were working handguns, according to a 1994 evaluation published in Public Health Reports. Participants received a bank voucher worth $50, no matter how many firearms they turned over to the Seattle Police Department. About three-fourths of participants were men. The evaluation didn’t find statistical evidence that the program had an effect on gun violence. “Gun buyback programs are a broadly supported means to decrease voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community, but their effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown,” the authors write.
Gun buybacks are all about public relations, not public safety. Instead of “doing something,” officials like the mayor of Flint and Bill de Blasio in New York City need to do something that works; focus on violent offenders and ensure that there are swift and certain consequences for their criminal acts. That will do far more than paying $100 for a broken-down revolver that will never be used in a crime in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--VA's 2A Sanctuary Movement Second Wave Continues

Immediately after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam got a complicit legislature in place , the vast majority of counties in the state passed some form of sanctuary resolution .
They wanted the folks in Richmond to know that the rest of the state didn ’ t really care what the D.C. suburbs thought , they weren ’ t giving up their guns for much of anything .
As Cam noted last week , though , that wasn ’ t the end of it .
A second wave seemed to be brewing .
Well , that second wave definitely seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are resisting the push from Virginia Democrats to adopt gun-free zones .
Lawmakers in Powhatan County—located just outside Richmond— unanimously passed a “ No Local Gun Control ” resolution that would prevent localities from creating gun-free zones .
The debate over gun restrictions that dominated Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ( D. ) agenda in the early months of 2020 has moved back to the local level after state Democrats passed a law allowing local governments to ban the presence of firearms at certain buildings and events .
Larry Nordvig , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county ’ s resolution , told the Washington Free Beacon he hopes the resolution sends a message to the statehouse .
“ The tension is growing and the blame is entirely theirs , ” he said .
“ Our natural-born rights are being eroded at lightning speed , and I intend to help citizens stand against government overreach .
This resolution contained a plan of action to defund any unconstitutional actions .
The time for talk is over .
It ’ s time for action.
” Powhatan is the fifth county to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went into effect in July .
Other cities have embraced the new regulatory power , with Alexandria , Newport News , and Richmond using the state law to establish gun bans in government buildings , parks , and at permitted events .
The gun-free zone debate sets the stage for a second showdown between liberal strongholds , Democratic leaders , and the rest of the state over more restrictive gun laws .
The previous effort was mostly symbolic .
State law is written in such a way that any measure that calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These measures , however , are different .
The legislature said local jurisdictions could adopt local gun laws , but that means counties can block them at that level , thus creating preemption at a slightly more local level .
Of course , anti-gunners aren ’ t likely to approve of this , which makes me like it based on that fact alone .
Especially since the people always attacking preemption on the grounds that local officials should decide gun laws for themselves really just want people to decide to pass gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big question is whether this will have any long-term ramifications .
While these are likely the right moves to make from a gun rights point of view , is it the right move to make politically ?
To that , I just have to figure that local officials are typically less removed from their constituents than state and federal lawmakers .
They ’ d know if they were overstepping .
As a result , I have a feeling a lot of freshman state legislators are going to know what it ’ s like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolls around again in the very near future .

Immediately after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam got a complicit legislature in place, the vast majority of counties in the state passed some form of sanctuary resolution. They wanted the folks in Richmond to know that the rest of the state didn’t really care what the D.C. suburbs thought, they weren’t giving up their guns for much of anything.
As Cam noted last week, though, that wasn’t the end of it. A second wave seemed to be brewing.
Well, that second wave definitely seems to be rolling along.
Local officials across Virginia are resisting the push from Virginia Democrats to adopt gun-free zones. Lawmakers in Powhatan County—located just outside Richmond— unanimously passed a “No Local Gun Control” resolution that would prevent localities from creating gun-free zones. The debate over gun restrictions that dominated Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D.) agenda in the early months of 2020 has moved back to the local level after state Democrats passed a law allowing local governments to ban the presence of firearms at certain buildings and events. Larry Nordvig, the independent Powhatan County supervisor who introduced the county’s resolution, told the Washington Free Beacon he hopes the resolution sends a message to the statehouse. “The tension is growing and the blame is entirely theirs,” he said. “Our natural-born rights are being eroded at lightning speed, and I intend to help citizens stand against government overreach. This resolution contained a plan of action to defund any unconstitutional actions. The time for talk is over. It’s time for action.” Powhatan is the fifth county to pass the resolution since the new gun-control measures went into effect in July. Other cities have embraced the new regulatory power, with Alexandria, Newport News, and Richmond using the state law to establish gun bans in government buildings, parks, and at permitted events. The gun-free zone debate sets the stage for a second showdown between liberal strongholds, Democratic leaders, and the rest of the state over more restrictive gun laws.
The previous effort was mostly symbolic. State law is written in such a way that any measure that calls for ignoring a state measure is illegal. These measures, however, are different. The legislature said local jurisdictions could adopt local gun laws, but that means counties can block them at that level, thus creating preemption at a slightly more local level.
Of course, anti-gunners aren’t likely to approve of this, which makes me like it based on that fact alone. Especially since the people always attacking preemption on the grounds that local officials should decide gun laws for themselves really just want people to decide to pass gun control and not legally bar it.
The big question is whether this will have any long-term ramifications. While these are likely the right moves to make from a gun rights point of view, is it the right move to make politically?
To that, I just have to figure that local officials are typically less removed from their constituents than state and federal lawmakers. They’d know if they were overstepping.
As a result, I have a feeling a lot of freshman state legislators are going to know what it’s like to be a one-termer when election time rolls around again in the very near future.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--New Poll Shows "Defund Police" Movement Unpopular In Virginia

Is this a potential problem for Democrats , or just a quirk of polling ?
A new survey of Virginia voters reveals a stark partisan divide over the “ defund police ” movement , with massive majorities of Republicans and independents opposed to the idea , while Democrats are split nearly 50/50 in the state over taking money from police departments .
The poll of 1,028 likely voters from WRS Research found that 54 % of those surveyed in the state “ strongly oppose ” the idea of defunding law enforcement , while just 13 % “ strongly support ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t try to define what it meant to defund police , stating that “ definitions vary quite a bit within left-and-right leaning groups , ” but even with respondents able to define the movement for themselves , there ’ s just not a lot backing for taking money away from law enforcement in the state .
The polling firm also broke down responses based on Virginia ’ s eleven congressional districts , and found majority support for defunding police in only one of them ; the 8th congressional district in the D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portions of Fairfax County , where 48 % of respondents support defunding the police compared to 39 % who object .
Even in Democrat strongholds like the 4th congressional district , where Rep. Don McEachin won election in 2018 with 63 % of the vote , the defund police movement doesn ’ t poll well .
According to WRS research , just 32 % of likely voters surveyed back the idea , with 57 % opposed .
More importantly , in a couple of battleground districts that Republicans view as some of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2018 midterms , support for defunding the police is almost non-existent .
In the 7th district , where Republican delegate Nick Freitas will face first-term incumbent Abigail Spanberger , support for defunding the police is at 27 % with 52 % opposed .
In the 2nd district , represented by first-term Democrat Elaine Luria , the defund police movement is even less popular , with just 17 % in favor and 77 % opposed .
I don ’ t think it ’ s a coincidence that , for now anyway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a federal police reform bill backed by six other Virginia Democrats in Congress .
Senator Mark Warner , on the other hand , has given his support for the bill , which could provide an opening for Republican challenger Daniel Gade to hammer Warner on the issue .
Gade still faces an uphill fight to defeat the incumbent , but demonstrating that Warner is clearly out of sync with voters when it comes to law enforcement will undoubtably help .
Defunding the police is popular among the mainstream media and far-left Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold by the idea , even in Democrat-majority districts .
I don ’ t think Virginia is an outlier either ; I suspect that similar polling in other states would yield nearly identical results .
Virginia Democrats have gained power in recent years by claiming to be moderates , but with the party veering hard to the Left this year , that fiction is going to be hard to maintain in swing districts across the state .

Is this a potential problem for Democrats, or just a quirk of polling? A new survey of Virginia voters reveals a stark partisan divide over the “defund police” movement, with massive majorities of Republicans and independents opposed to the idea, while Democrats are split nearly 50/50 in the state over taking money from police departments.
The poll of 1,028 likely voters from WRS Research found that 54% of those surveyed in the state “strongly oppose” the idea of defunding law enforcement, while just 13% “strongly support” the move. WRS Research intentionally didn’t try to define what it meant to defund police, stating that “definitions vary quite a bit within left-and-right leaning groups,” but even with respondents able to define the movement for themselves, there’s just not a lot backing for taking money away from law enforcement in the state.
Republicans almost universally (93%) reject the notion of defunding the police while, in contrast, a slight majority of Democrats (51%) support defunding the police and one in five (20%) Democrats are unsure. Only 25% of independents support defunding the police while more than six in ten (63%) oppose the effort.
The polling firm also broke down responses based on Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, and found majority support for defunding police in only one of them; the 8th congressional district in the D.C. suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, and portions of Fairfax County, where 48% of respondents support defunding the police compared to 39% who object.
Even in Democrat strongholds like the 4th congressional district, where Rep. Don McEachin won election in 2018 with 63% of the vote, the defund police movement doesn’t poll well. According to WRS research, just 32% of likely voters surveyed back the idea, with 57% opposed.
More importantly, in a couple of battleground districts that Republicans view as some of their best chances to take back seats lost in the 2018 midterms, support for defunding the police is almost non-existent. In the 7th district, where Republican delegate Nick Freitas will face first-term incumbent Abigail Spanberger, support for defunding the police is at 27% with 52% opposed. In the 2nd district, represented by first-term Democrat Elaine Luria, the defund police movement is even less popular, with just 17% in favor and 77% opposed.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, for now anyway, neither Spanberger nor Luria have signed on to a federal police reform bill backed by six other Virginia Democrats in Congress. Senator Mark Warner, on the other hand, has given his support for the bill, which could provide an opening for Republican challenger Daniel Gade to hammer Warner on the issue. Gade still faces an uphill fight to defeat the incumbent, but demonstrating that Warner is clearly out of sync with voters when it comes to law enforcement will undoubtably help.
Defunding the police is popular among the mainstream media and far-left Democrats, but the average voter is left cold by the idea, even in Democrat-majority districts. I don’t think Virginia is an outlier either; I suspect that similar polling in other states would yield nearly identical results. Virginia Democrats have gained power in recent years by claiming to be moderates, but with the party veering hard to the Left this year, that fiction is going to be hard to maintain in swing districts across the state.


bearingarms--2020-07-30--Anti-Gunner Touts Study As "Proof" Good Guys With Guns Are Fiction

For people on the pro-gun side , we often cite the “ good guy with a gun ” as the ultimate deterrent to mass shootings .
If enough people were carrying firearms lawfully , we wouldn ’ t see so many mass shootings .
To say it ’ s a controversial point is putting it mildly .
In fairness , while I truly believe it , we ’ re also having to do a fair bit of speculation .
Yet it ’ s speculation born out of observations of times when a good guy with a gun did stop an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those times apparently didn ’ t happen .
At least , that ’ s the implication in his story about a study saying more guns cause more problems .
There ’ s compelling new data out to support my longstanding argument that guns make everything worse .
A recent study found that when you allow people to carry around guns in public like it ’ s the Wild West , you encourage more Wild West showdowns .
It ’ s potentially High Noon at every hour of the day .
< remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Lucy McBath ’ s campaign > The gun deaths I ’ ve linked to so far all took place in Florida , home of the despicable stand-your-ground law .
It ’ s fitting then that an assistant professor at Florida State University , Emma Fridel , would author the study debunking most of the NRA myths around gun ownership .
[ Fridel ] measured the effects of gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws in all 50 states from 1991 to 2016 .
She controlled for other factors that might influence mass shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , poverty levels and states ’ mental health expenditures .
What she found wasn ’ t shocking but still terrifying : Lax concealed-carry laws increased a state ’ s gun homicide rate by 11 percent , and higher rates of gun ownership in general was associated with a 53.5 percent increase in the likelihood of a mass shooting .
Now , I ’ m not delving into the study right now because , well , I haven ’ t had a chance to really look at that study and see much about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the researchers “ corrected ” for things they believe may contribute to violent crime like unemployment , etc .
While that makes a fair bit of sense , we don ’ t know definitively what all contributes to violent crime , so their adjustments may have no basis in fact .
Anyway , our intrepid author , Stephen Robinson , doesn ’ t really care about that .
He found a study that supports his beliefs to some extent .
As a result , he glomps onto it and continues : But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Gun rights groups mention them all the time , although most are fictional like Dirty Harry , who we know is a good guy because his nickname is “ Dirty.
” “ In popular culture , you hear people saying , ‘ Oh , if I had a gun and I was at that Wal-Mart , I could ’ ve stopped that shooting , ’ ” Fridel told Business Insider .
“ But that ’ s probably not true.
” It is definitely not true .
Really ?
It ’ s definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For a different twist on the story , try telling that to the man whose wife didn ’ t carry a gun to work one day and she didn ’ t come home because of a mass shooting .
Those are just three examples out of any number of examples out there , most of which have nothing to do with a mass shooting but all of which involve someone protecting human life with a firearm , such as this guy .
And this one .
And this one as well .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own list of examples , to be fair , including Philando Castile , who was shot by police and not an armed citizen , essentially negating at least part of his premise .
( He automatically chalks the shooting up to Castile ’ s race , not poor officer training or any other potential cause .
Shocking , I know . )
The difference is , I ’ m not the one talking in absolutes .
I ’ m not the one stating definitively that an armed citizen won ’ t stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he ’ s horribly , spectacularly wrong .
Demonstrably so , as I ’ ve already pointed out .
Yet for anti-gunners like Robinson , none of that matters .
As he ’ s shown , he can just ignore any inconvenient facts and pretend they simply don ’ t exist .

For people on the pro-gun side, we often cite the “good guy with a gun” as the ultimate deterrent to mass shootings. If enough people were carrying firearms lawfully, we wouldn’t see so many mass shootings.
To say it’s a controversial point is putting it mildly.
In fairness, while I truly believe it, we’re also having to do a fair bit of speculation. Yet it’s speculation born out of observations of times when a good guy with a gun did stop an attack.
Yet according to one writer, those times apparently didn’t happen. At least, that’s the implication in his story about a study saying more guns cause more problems.
There’s compelling new data out to support my longstanding argument that guns make everything worse. A recent study found that when you allow people to carry around guns in public like it’s the Wild West, you encourage more Wild West showdowns. It’s potentially High Noon at every hour of the day. The gun deaths I’ve linked to so far all took place in Florida, home of the despicable stand-your-ground law. It’s fitting then that an assistant professor at Florida State University, Emma Fridel, would author the study debunking most of the NRA myths around gun ownership. From Business Insider: [Fridel] measured the effects of gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws in all 50 states from 1991 to 2016. She controlled for other factors that might influence mass shooting and homicide rates, like unemployment rates, poverty levels and states’ mental health expenditures. What she found wasn’t shocking but still terrifying: Lax concealed-carry laws increased a state’s gun homicide rate by 11 percent, and higher rates of gun ownership in general was associated with a 53.5 percent increase in the likelihood of a mass shooting. Guns make everything worse.
Now, I’m not delving into the study right now because, well, I haven’t had a chance to really look at that study and see much about it. What I did see showed that the researchers “corrected” for things they believe may contribute to violent crime like unemployment, etc. While that makes a fair bit of sense, we don’t know definitively what all contributes to violent crime, so their adjustments may have no basis in fact.
Anyway, our intrepid author, Stephen Robinson, doesn’t really care about that. He found a study that supports his beliefs to some extent. As a result, he glomps onto it and continues:
But, what about the good guys with guns? Gun rights groups mention them all the time, although most are fictional like Dirty Harry, who we know is a good guy because his nickname is “Dirty.” “In popular culture, you hear people saying, ‘Oh, if I had a gun and I was at that Wal-Mart, I could’ve stopped that shooting,’” Fridel told Business Insider. “But that’s probably not true.” It is definitely not true.
Really? It’s definitely not true? Tell this guy.
Or this guy.
For a different twist on the story, try telling that to the man whose wife didn’t carry a gun to work one day and she didn’t come home because of a mass shooting.
Those are just three examples out of any number of examples out there, most of which have nothing to do with a mass shooting but all of which involve someone protecting human life with a firearm, such as this guy. And this one. And this one as well.
Or what about this kid?
Robinson has his own list of examples, to be fair, including Philando Castile, who was shot by police and not an armed citizen, essentially negating at least part of his premise. (He automatically chalks the shooting up to Castile’s race, not poor officer training or any other potential cause. Shocking, I know.)
The difference is, I’m not the one talking in absolutes. I’m not the one stating definitively that an armed citizen won’t stop a shooting from happening. He is.
And he’s horribly, spectacularly wrong. Demonstrably so, as I’ve already pointed out.
Yet for anti-gunners like Robinson, none of that matters. As he’s shown, he can just ignore any inconvenient facts and pretend they simply don’t exist.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--New Orleans Musician Swaps Kids' Guns For Trumpets

I happen to believe that everyone should have a gun if they want one .
More guns tend to translate as fewer problems with criminals , by and large , but with a few exceptions .
Gangs , for example , have plenty of guns and lots of violence .
That ’ s a topic for a different day , though .
For the most part , more guns mean less crime .
However , we can all agree that armed children is a bad thing .
They can ’ t legally have guns , after all , yet far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real problem .
These are guns that are likely to be used in crime and we all know it .
One New Orleans musician has started his own variation of a buyback to try and get those guns off the streets .
‘ Bring me a gun and I ’ ll give you a trumpet ’ , promises trumpeter Shamarr Allen in a bid to combat violent gun crime in New Orleans .
In Louisiana , an estimated 49 percent of households currently own a gun and the state ranks fourth highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of which can be attributed to young offenders .
That ’ s why trumpeter Shamarr Allen has come up with a novel idea : exchanging firearms for trumpets .
Titled Trumpet Is My Weapon , his bright initiative hopes to combat gun crime in New Orleans and inspire young people to follow a safer path in life .
Earlier this month , Allen promised via Instagram : “ To all the youth in New Orleans , Bring me a gun and I ’ ll give you a trumpet no questions asked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ run out of trumpets.
” To help get his exchange program off the ground , Allen set up a Go Fund Me page on 17 July with a fundraising target of $ 6,500 – and already , he ’ s exceeded this amount with a current total of $ 32,728 .
At the end of the day , though , this is another buyback and we all know that buybacks don ’ t really work .
I don ’ t really expect this one to have much impact on the violent crime rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may do , though , is give some kids an out .
You see , music is big in New Orleans .
Maybe not as big as some of us who don ’ t live there think , but it ’ s still a big deal .
The trumpet may help some kids find a way out of the criminal life they were headed toward and do something that makes the world a bit better .
Allen ’ s efforts may not change the world , but they just might change someone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty good reason to proceed .
That doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t issues .
For one , I ’ d worry about where the kids get the guns .
Stealing Mom or Dad ’ s gun so they can get a trumpet is bad news , of course .
Assuming that risk is mitigated , I have to applaud the effort .
No tax dollars are funding it , after all , and it ’ s targeting a particular group that shouldn ’ t have guns in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone if you ask me .

I happen to believe that everyone should have a gun if they want one. More guns tend to translate as fewer problems with criminals, by and large, but with a few exceptions. Gangs, for example, have plenty of guns and lots of violence. That’s a topic for a different day, though.
For the most part, more guns mean less crime.
However, we can all agree that armed children is a bad thing. They can’t legally have guns, after all, yet far too many have them. They represent a real problem. These are guns that are likely to be used in crime and we all know it.
One New Orleans musician has started his own variation of a buyback to try and get those guns off the streets.
‘Bring me a gun and I’ll give you a trumpet’, promises trumpeter Shamarr Allen in a bid to combat violent gun crime in New Orleans. In Louisiana, an estimated 49 percent of households currently own a gun and the state ranks fourth highest in gun-related deaths across the nation – many of which can be attributed to young offenders. That’s why trumpeter Shamarr Allen has come up with a novel idea: exchanging firearms for trumpets. Titled Trumpet Is My Weapon, his bright initiative hopes to combat gun crime in New Orleans and inspire young people to follow a safer path in life. Earlier this month, Allen promised via Instagram: “To all the youth in New Orleans, Bring me a gun and I’ll give you a trumpet no questions asked. I’m doing this until I run out of trumpets.” To help get his exchange program off the ground, Allen set up a Go Fund Me page on 17 July with a fundraising target of $6,500 – and already, he’s exceeded this amount with a current total of $32,728.
At the end of the day, though, this is another buyback and we all know that buybacks don’t really work.
I don’t really expect this one to have much impact on the violent crime rate in New Orleans.
But what it may do, though, is give some kids an out. You see, music is big in New Orleans. Maybe not as big as some of us who don’t live there think, but it’s still a big deal. The trumpet may help some kids find a way out of the criminal life they were headed toward and do something that makes the world a bit better.
Allen’s efforts may not change the world, but they just might change someone’s world, and that’s a pretty good reason to proceed.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t issues. For one, I’d worry about where the kids get the guns. Stealing Mom or Dad’s gun so they can get a trumpet is bad news, of course. Assuming that risk is mitigated, I have to applaud the effort. No tax dollars are funding it, after all, and it’s targeting a particular group that shouldn’t have guns in the first place.
Sounds like a win for everyone if you ask me.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--Man Charged With Shooting Chicago Cops Should Have Been Behind Bars

There are new details emerging about the suspect in the shooting of three Chicago cops on Thursday , including the fact that he was released earlier this year after serving less than half of a five-year prison sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm .
25-year old Lovelle Jordan was arrested Thursday morning after police spotted him getting behind the wheel of a Porsche that had been reported stolen a few days ago .
Officers were able to cuff Jordan and take him to the Grand Central District police station , but somehow Jordan was able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , allowing him to grab a pistol that he ’ d concealed and officers had failed to spot .
When an officer opened the back door of the police car to take Jordan inside the station , Jordan opened fire , hitting the officer in the face .
The Chicago Tribune reports that Jordan is now paralyzed from the waist down after being hit by the return fire .
Thankfully , it looks like all three officers are going to recover from their injuries , but Jordan shouldn ’ t have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
He should have been behind bars serving a prison sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm .
In seven years of adulthood , Jordan ’ s been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five separate felony cases , yet it appears he ’ s managed to avoid any serious time behind bars .
Two years ago he caught a five-year sentence , but served less than half .
Where ’ s the outrage by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot about this ?
Will she say anything about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case , or will she find a way to blame Indiana gun laws for the stolen firearm that Jordan got his hands on ?
Why , given Jordan ’ s lengthy criminal history , was his case not referred to the U.S. attorney for prosecution ?
A federal case would have kept Jordan behind bars until he had served at least 85 % of his sentence , and he would have been eligible for a ten-year sentence as well .
Instead of getting angry at Indiana , Lightfoot should direct her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice system in her state .
She should quit blathering about the need for more federal gun laws , and start demanding greater enforcement of the existing laws on the books .
Unfortunately , I doubt she ’ ll do either of those things , and as a result the city is likely to see more violence from guys like Lovelle Jordan .

There are new details emerging about the suspect in the shooting of three Chicago cops on Thursday, including the fact that he was released earlier this year after serving less than half of a five-year prison sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
25-year old Lovelle Jordan was arrested Thursday morning after police spotted him getting behind the wheel of a Porsche that had been reported stolen a few days ago. Officers were able to cuff Jordan and take him to the Grand Central District police station, but somehow Jordan was able to get his cuffed hands in front of him, allowing him to grab a pistol that he’d concealed and officers had failed to spot. When an officer opened the back door of the police car to take Jordan inside the station, Jordan opened fire, hitting the officer in the face.
That officer, who is assigned to the district and has been a Chicago cop since 2003, was struck in the chin area and bullet fragments ended up in his neck, [Chicago police Chief of Detectives Brendan] Deenihan said. That officer was being treated at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where he is recovering from his wounds. Another officer was shot in the hip and a third was struck in their protective vest, but the gunfire did not penetrate it, authorities have said. They were taken to Loyola University Medical Center for treatment, but they’ve since been treated and released. Officers returned fire and shot Jordan, who was taken for treatment to Stroger Hospital, authorities said. The gun he used was also discovered to have been stolen, Deenihan said. Sources said as many as 60 shots were fired in the exchange of gunfire, which broke out in or near the station’s sally port, a pathway that is designated for police transports into lockup.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Jordan is now paralyzed from the waist down after being hit by the return fire. Thankfully, it looks like all three officers are going to recover from their injuries, but Jordan shouldn’t have been in a position to get arrested in the first place. He should have been behind bars serving a prison sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Between 2012 and 2015, Jordan was convicted in three different cases for felony drug possession and delivery. In 2016 he was convicted of aggravated assault after he drove away from police during a traffic stop and then, after getting stopped again, accelerated while an officer had reached her hand into the car — nearly driving over her foot. He was released from the Pinckneyville Correctional Center less than four months ago after serving time on a gun conviction, records show. He pleaded guilty in 2018 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to five years in prison; with credit for good time and a year in county jail awaiting trial, he was paroled in April.
In seven years of adulthood, Jordan’s been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five separate felony cases, yet it appears he’s managed to avoid any serious time behind bars. Two years ago he caught a five-year sentence, but served less than half.
Where’s the outrage by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot about this? Will she say anything about the failure of the criminal justice system in this case, or will she find a way to blame Indiana gun laws for the stolen firearm that Jordan got his hands on? Why, given Jordan’s lengthy criminal history, was his case not referred to the U.S. attorney for prosecution? A federal case would have kept Jordan behind bars until he had served at least 85% of his sentence, and he would have been eligible for a ten-year sentence as well.
Instead of getting angry at Indiana, Lightfoot should direct her ire at Cook County prosecutors and the criminal justice system in her state. She should quit blathering about the need for more federal gun laws, and start demanding greater enforcement of the existing laws on the books. Unfortunately, I doubt she’ll do either of those things, and as a result the city is likely to see more violence from guys like Lovelle Jordan.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--Albuquerque Police Trying To Ban Guns From Protests

In the wake of a shooting at a protest in Old Town Albuquerque last month , Mayor Tim Keller announced an adminstrative order banning firearms from city parks and recreation areas .
Now the Albuquerque police are posting signs at the downtown Civic Plaza alerting gun owners to the ban , and say they ’ ll be making arrests if armed citizens fail to heed their warning .
Along with the signs , officers who encounter an armed individual will first give a warning and ask the individual to leave or allow police to disarm them .
If they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police say they will make arrests .
The following steps will be taken if officers encounter an individual who is armed : • Inform the individual that there is a gun ban at Civic Plaza • Initial contact will serve as a public safety order to remove the firearm from Civic Plaza or to leave the premises with the firearm • Explain that if the individual continues to possess a deadly weapon at the location , they may be cited or arrested and then the weapon may be seized • Identify available exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no less than 10 minutes to comply with the order • Following 2 warnings , the officer will take police action to include arrest It sure looks to me like police are going out of their way to avoid making any arrests .
Two warnings ?
Ten minutes to walk away ?
Why not simply arrest someone after one warning , or no warning at all ?
It may be because Mayor Keller ’ s order banning firearms from the downtown plaza is legally dubious , and any arrest made under the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to survive a court challenge .
New Mexico ’ s firearm preemption statute precludes cities like Albuquerque from passing their own local gun laws , but Keller is trying to get around that by declaring that parks , recreation centers , and the Civic Plaza are all “ educational facilities.
” As we reported when Keller ’ s order was first announced : The mayor claims that , because parks and recreation centers are used for some public school activities , that means that they ’ re considered school grounds for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s problem is biggest problem is that the state statutes actually proscribe specific limits on when those places may be off limits to legal firearms carrying .
The statute says that the ban on carrying firearms can take place at “ any other public buildings or grounds , including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property , in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed ” ( emphasis mine ) .
“ Are ” being performed , not “ can be performed.
” Keller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks and recreation centers , the city ’ s Convention Center ( because graduations are performed there ) , Civic Plaza ( because there ’ s playground equipment there and sometimes a nearby school uses the playground for P.E . )
, and “ any other City of Albuquerque property public school-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
” Notice the difference ?
In this case , one word makes a big difference .
State law does not allow Albuquerque to ban guns from the Civic Center just because it hosts graduations a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t ban guns from local parks or recreation areas unless they are actually in use by a local school .
As soon as the soccer practice ends , so does the prohibition on carrying .
I ’ m still surprised that Keller could get the city attorney to sign off on his bizarre interpretation of state law , much less get the police to go along with it , but I suspect that ’ s why the APD is going out of its way to try to avoid making any arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows that it ’ s going to be a stretch to claim that a public square is really an educational facility , particularly when the city ’ s public schools aren ’ t even open for students .
While kids are on summer break for the moment , classes will resume online-only beginning August 12th , and there won ’ t be any school-sanctioned activity on the plaza anytime soon .
A violation of the state law banning guns from school campuses could result in a 4th degree felony charge , and clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prison sentence will be enough to keep anyone from carrying in the public square .
It seems to me like the issue is ripe for litigation , and an Albuquerque resident hoping to challenge the law in court shouldn ’ t have to wait to be arrested in order to claim standing .
After all , every legal gun owner in the city ’ s been told via a mayoral edict that they can no longer carry in city parks and plazas , despite the fact that the state constitution clearly states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulate , in any way , an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
” Keller ’ s order is clearly outside the bounds of his authority , and I hope that a judge gets the chance to declare the mayor ’ s gun ban unconstitutional in the very near future .

In the wake of a shooting at a protest in Old Town Albuquerque last month, Mayor Tim Keller announced an adminstrative order banning firearms from city parks and recreation areas. Now the Albuquerque police are posting signs at the downtown Civic Plaza alerting gun owners to the ban, and say they’ll be making arrests if armed citizens fail to heed their warning.
Along with the signs, officers who encounter an armed individual will first give a warning and ask the individual to leave or allow police to disarm them. If they don’t comply within 10 minutes, police say they will make arrests. The following steps will be taken if officers encounter an individual who is armed: Inform the individual that there is a gun ban at Civic Plaza
Initial contact will serve as a public safety order to remove the firearm from Civic Plaza or to leave the premises with the firearm
Explain that if the individual continues to possess a deadly weapon at the location, they may be cited or arrested and then the weapon may be seized
Identify available exit routes and explain that the individual has no less than 10 minutes to comply with the order
Following 2 warnings, the officer will take police action to include arrest
It sure looks to me like police are going out of their way to avoid making any arrests. Two warnings? Ten minutes to walk away? Why not simply arrest someone after one warning, or no warning at all? It may be because Mayor Keller’s order banning firearms from the downtown plaza is legally dubious, and any arrest made under the mayor’s administrative order isn’t likely to survive a court challenge.
New Mexico’s firearm preemption statute precludes cities like Albuquerque from passing their own local gun laws, but Keller is trying to get around that by declaring that parks, recreation centers, and the Civic Plaza are all “educational facilities.” As we reported when Keller’s order was first announced:
The mayor claims that, because parks and recreation centers are used for some public school activities, that means that they’re considered school grounds for the purposes of banning firearms. The mayor’s problem is biggest problem is that the state statutes actually proscribe specific limits on when those places may be off limits to legal firearms carrying. The statute says that the ban on carrying firearms can take place at “any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property, in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed” (emphasis mine). “Are” being performed, not “can be performed.” Keller’s order bars firearm possession at parks and recreation centers, the city’s Convention Center (because graduations are performed there), Civic Plaza (because there’s playground equipment there and sometimes a nearby school uses the playground for P.E.), and “any other City of Albuquerque property public school-related and sanctioned activities are performed.” Notice the difference? In this case, one word makes a big difference. State law does not allow Albuquerque to ban guns from the Civic Center just because it hosts graduations a few days a year. Similarly, they can’t ban guns from local parks or recreation areas unless they are actually in use by a local school. As soon as the soccer practice ends, so does the prohibition on carrying.
I’m still surprised that Keller could get the city attorney to sign off on his bizarre interpretation of state law, much less get the police to go along with it, but I suspect that’s why the APD is going out of its way to try to avoid making any arrests. Everyone from the mayor on down knows that it’s going to be a stretch to claim that a public square is really an educational facility, particularly when the city’s public schools aren’t even open for students. While kids are on summer break for the moment, classes will resume online-only beginning August 12th, and there won’t be any school-sanctioned activity on the plaza anytime soon.
A violation of the state law banning guns from school campuses could result in a 4th degree felony charge, and clearly Keller is hoping that the possibility of a prison sentence will be enough to keep anyone from carrying in the public square. It seems to me like the issue is ripe for litigation, and an Albuquerque resident hoping to challenge the law in court shouldn’t have to wait to be arrested in order to claim standing.
After all, every legal gun owner in the city’s been told via a mayoral edict that they can no longer carry in city parks and plazas, despite the fact that the state constitution clearly states that “No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.” Keller’s order is clearly outside the bounds of his authority, and I hope that a judge gets the chance to declare the mayor’s gun ban unconstitutional in the very near future.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--Democrat Campaign Platform Turns 2A Rights Into A Privilege

The 2020 Democratic National Convention is scheduled to take place August 17-20th in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , but we ’ re already getting a sneak peek at the party ’ s platform , including its plank on gun control .
The document as written clearly demonstrates a hostility not only towards the Second Amendment itself , but all those Americans who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms .
Those law-abiding gun owners are the primary target of the Democrats ’ anti-gun agenda , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if enacted , would turn the right of the people to keep and bear arms into a privilege of the few .
You can take a look at the draft document for yourself here .
It ’ s only two paragraphs long , but the DNC manages to pack an awful lot of restrictions in just a few sentences .
The proposal begins with a few lines paying lip service to the idea that violent crime should be addressed through “ supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care more accessible , funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods , and strengthening protections against domestic violence , ” but glosses over any details of what those evidence-based programs actually look like , how they ’ d make mental health care more accessible , and what “ interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence ” they ’ re talking about .
Instead , the draft platform quickly shifts gears and demands “ universal background checks , ” bans on “ assault weapons ” and “ large capacity ” magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own gun licensing and “ red flag ” laws , an end to online purchases of ammunition , and a federal gun storage law .
As Larry Keane , senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation writes , the platform also aims to destroy the firearms industry by allowing politically-motivated litigation designed to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers by holding them responsible for the actions of criminals .
The DNC is listening to their radical base and not the rest of America .
That ’ s why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commerce in Arms Act , which denies activist politicians and lawyers from bringing frivolous lawsuits against the industry for the consequences of criminal activity by individuals .
They would destroy an industry through litigation that would be akin to taking Ford to court for the crimes of drunk driving .
The platform wasn ’ t the product of Biden ’ s thinking , but those propping him up .
They ’ re ramming through a radical agenda to disarm law-abiding Americans when they ’ re buying firearms in record numbers over concerns of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is far beyond being out of step with America .
It ’ s tripping over itself .
Check out today ’ s show in the video window above for details on exactly why these policies would be ineffective , unenforceable , and/or unconstitutional infringements on our Second Amendment rights , and stick around afterward for more news , including a Kentucky man released from jail on Monday who was arrested on Wednesday for his second shooting in less than a year .
It ’ s repeat offenders like this that Democrats should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re far more concerned with cracking down on legal gun owners instead .

The 2020 Democratic National Convention is scheduled to take place August 17-20th in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but we’re already getting a sneak peek at the party’s platform, including its plank on gun control. The document as written clearly demonstrates a hostility not only towards the Second Amendment itself, but all those Americans who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Those law-abiding gun owners are the primary target of the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we take closer look at the policies that, if enacted, would turn the right of the people to keep and bear arms into a privilege of the few.
You can take a look at the draft document for yourself here. It’s only two paragraphs long, but the DNC manages to pack an awful lot of restrictions in just a few sentences. The proposal begins with a few lines paying lip service to the idea that violent crime should be addressed through “supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence,” but glosses over any details of what those evidence-based programs actually look like, how they’d make mental health care more accessible, and what “interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence” they’re talking about.
Instead, the draft platform quickly shifts gears and demands “universal background checks,” bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines, incentives for states to pass their own gun licensing and “red flag” laws, an end to online purchases of ammunition, and a federal gun storage law.
As Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation writes, the platform also aims to destroy the firearms industry by allowing politically-motivated litigation designed to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers by holding them responsible for the actions of criminals.
The DNC is listening to their radical base and not the rest of America. That’s why they continue to demonize the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which denies activist politicians and lawyers from bringing frivolous lawsuits against the industry for the consequences of criminal activity by individuals. They would destroy an industry through litigation that would be akin to taking Ford to court for the crimes of drunk driving. The platform wasn’t the product of Biden’s thinking, but those propping him up. They’re ramming through a radical agenda to disarm law-abiding Americans when they’re buying firearms in record numbers over concerns of personal safety. This is a platform that is far beyond being out of step with America. It’s tripping over itself.
Check out today’s show in the video window above for details on exactly why these policies would be ineffective, unenforceable, and/or unconstitutional infringements on our Second Amendment rights, and stick around afterward for more news, including a Kentucky man released from jail on Monday who was arrested on Wednesday for his second shooting in less than a year. It’s repeat offenders like this that Democrats should be focused on, but sadly they’re far more concerned with cracking down on legal gun owners instead.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--CNN Blames Parties For COVID Upswing, Ignores Riots

COVID-19 is resurging throughout the nation .
While deaths don ’ t seem to be going up at nearly the same pace , the illness infection rates themselves have increased significantly .
Unsurprisingly , people are asking why and the media , always eager to answer questions even if they don ’ t really know anything , are more than happy to step in .
Sometimes , they ’ re stepping in means they ’ re stepping in it , though .
Kind of like how CNN did .
CNN published a report this week alleging that mass gatherings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an anti-lockdown demonstration , are fueling the coronavirus pandemic in the United States .
Notably absent from the article are mentions of the massive anti-police protests , including the Black Lives Matters demonstrations that daily and nightly fill the streets of major cities .
Not even a word .
How does one write an entire article about the dangers of mass gatherings without mentioning the largest mass gatherings in the country right now ?
“ Large gatherings are fueling rising Covid-19 cases , but they keep happening , ” reads the article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus running rampant within American communities , health officials have made clear it ’ s not yet time to ease up on precautions , ” its opening line states .
“ Instead , governors and experts from coast to coast have urged Americans to keep face masks in indoor public spaces , maintain their distance from others and avoid crowded spaces.
” It continues , noting that infections nationwide have surpassed 4.3 million and that the virus has killed roughly 150,000 .
But “ despite the grim numbers and stern warnings , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have chosen to return to pre-pandemic habits , ditching guidelines and attending parties.
” Meanwhile , there are large-scale protests/riots in places like Seattle and Portland–to say nothing of the massive numbers of protests/riots in other cities in recent months–where a large number of people aren ’ t wearing any kind of mask and social distancing is most definitely not happening .
Further , the exertion of rioting increased expirations–the reason so many gyms remain closed even now–and yet there ’ s no mention of it .
Look , you can support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to stay locked in their homes indefinitely .
You don ’ t get to do both here .
You simply don ’ t .
Yes , people are ignoring the “ grim numbers and stern warnings.
” They ’ re ignoring them in part because it seems to only matter when convenient .
Where were the condemnations over rioters standing just inches apart ?
Where were the stern warnings about any of that ?
There weren ’ t any such warnings .
In fact , we ’ ve had BS claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
This despite the lack of any attempt to contact tracers specifically not asking about the protests .
I ’ m sorry , but it all sounds awfully convenient .
The truth is , protestors spread the disease just as much , if not more , than the parties being vilified .
Especially since social distancing can and does happen at many of these parties .
CNN is really just trying to advance a narrative , yet again .
If they ’ re going to ignore protests/riots as a potential vector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , why should we take anything else they say seriously ?

COVID-19 is resurging throughout the nation. While deaths don’t seem to be going up at nearly the same pace, the illness infection rates themselves have increased significantly.
Unsurprisingly, people are asking why and the media, always eager to answer questions even if they don’t really know anything, are more than happy to step in. Sometimes, they’re stepping in means they’re stepping in it, though.
Kind of like how CNN did.
CNN published a report this week alleging that mass gatherings, including two parties, a concert, and an anti-lockdown demonstration, are fueling the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Notably absent from the article are mentions of the massive anti-police protests, including the Black Lives Matters demonstrations that daily and nightly fill the streets of major cities. Not even a word. How does one write an entire article about the dangers of mass gatherings without mentioning the largest mass gatherings in the country right now? It is not an oversight. “Large gatherings are fueling rising Covid-19 cases, but they keep happening,” reads the article’s headline. “With the coronavirus running rampant within American communities, health officials have made clear it’s not yet time to ease up on precautions,” its opening line states. “Instead, governors and experts from coast to coast have urged Americans to keep face masks in indoor public spaces, maintain their distance from others and avoid crowded spaces.” It continues, noting that infections nationwide have surpassed 4.3 million and that the virus has killed roughly 150,000. But “despite the grim numbers and stern warnings,” the article adds, “some Americans have chosen to return to pre-pandemic habits, ditching guidelines and attending parties.”
Meanwhile, there are large-scale protests/riots in places like Seattle and Portland–to say nothing of the massive numbers of protests/riots in other cities in recent months–where a large number of people aren’t wearing any kind of mask and social distancing is most definitely not happening. Further, the exertion of rioting increased expirations–the reason so many gyms remain closed even now–and yet there’s no mention of it.
Look, you can support the riots or you can act like everyone needs to stay locked in their homes indefinitely. You don’t get to do both here. You simply don’t.
Yes, people are ignoring the “grim numbers and stern warnings.” They’re ignoring them in part because it seems to only matter when convenient. Where were the condemnations over rioters standing just inches apart? Where were the stern warnings about any of that? There weren’t any such warnings.
In fact, we’ve had BS claims that the protests didn’t spread COVID at all. This despite the lack of any attempt to contact tracers specifically not asking about the protests.
I’m sorry, but it all sounds awfully convenient.
The truth is, protestors spread the disease just as much, if not more, than the parties being vilified. Especially since social distancing can and does happen at many of these parties.
CNN is really just trying to advance a narrative, yet again. If they’re going to ignore protests/riots as a potential vector for the spread of the disease even now, why should we take anything else they say seriously?


bearingarms--2020-07-31--Facebook Says It's Not Removing NRA Supporters From Platform

Social media and tech companies have been under a great deal of scrutiny this week , with CEOs like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress about alleged anti-trust activities and anti-conservative bias .
During his testimoney Zuckerberg denied that Facebook has targeted conservatives for their social media postings , but according to the Greenville News , several Facebook users have recently claimed that the company is going after users for their support for the NRA .
Several Facebook users posted the claim , and it was widely shared in late June and earlier this month : “ Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will get kicked off , ” the post reads .
“ Well let ’ s experiment .
I Support the NRA how about you ?
” “ ( The post ) is not true and does not violate our community standards , ” Brittany Uter , a Facebook spokesperson , said .
There are some legitimate complaints to be made when it comes to Facebook ’ s policies regarding firearms , but this isn ’ t one of them .
In fact , I ’ m not sure how this even became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ experiment ” conducted by Facebook users didn ’ t result in any of them being banned from the platform .
Additionally , if Facebook were going to ban users for supporting the NRA , you ’ d think that Facebook would have started by banning the NRA itself , but the organization ’ s Facebook page is still up and running , with nearly 5-million followers .
Having said that , there are a couple of things that Facebook could do to become more Second Amendment friendly .
For starters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow gun stores and firearm manufacturers to actually advertise on the platform , instead of banning the practice .
There ’ s no reason why a legitimate company selling a legal product should be blocked from advertising on the biggest social media outlet in the world , particularly when companies promoting things like scopes , sights , gun safes , and firearms training classes are all allowed to buy ads for their products ( though they must limit their advertising reach to those over the age of 18 ) .
Not being allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as not being allowed to post , however , and Second Amendment supporters , both individuals and companies , are still free to sound off on the right to keep and bear arms on Facebook .
You can show your support for the NRA with every post if you like and Mark Zuckerberg ’ s not going to try to shut down your account , though your anti-gun friends and relatives might give you a hard time .

Social media and tech companies have been under a great deal of scrutiny this week, with CEOs like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress about alleged anti-trust activities and anti-conservative bias. During his testimoney Zuckerberg denied that Facebook has targeted conservatives for their social media postings, but according to the Greenville News, several Facebook users have recently claimed that the company is going after users for their support for the NRA.
Several Facebook users posted the claim, and it was widely shared in late June and earlier this month: “Facebook said that if you support the NRA you will get kicked off,” the post reads. “Well let’s experiment. I Support the NRA how about you?” A Facebook spokesperson this week denied it. “(The post) is not true and does not violate our community standards,” Brittany Uter, a Facebook spokesperson, said.
There are some legitimate complaints to be made when it comes to Facebook’s policies regarding firearms, but this isn’t one of them. In fact, I’m not sure how this even became a thing, given the fact that the “experiment” conducted by Facebook users didn’t result in any of them being banned from the platform. Additionally, if Facebook were going to ban users for supporting the NRA, you’d think that Facebook would have started by banning the NRA itself, but the organization’s Facebook page is still up and running, with nearly 5-million followers.
Having said that, there are a couple of things that Facebook could do to become more Second Amendment friendly. For starters, the company could change its policy and allow gun stores and firearm manufacturers to actually advertise on the platform, instead of banning the practice. There’s no reason why a legitimate company selling a legal product should be blocked from advertising on the biggest social media outlet in the world, particularly when companies promoting things like scopes, sights, gun safes, and firearms training classes are all allowed to buy ads for their products (though they must limit their advertising reach to those over the age of 18).
Not being allowed to advertise isn’t the same as not being allowed to post, however, and Second Amendment supporters, both individuals and companies, are still free to sound off on the right to keep and bear arms on Facebook. You can show your support for the NRA with every post if you like and Mark Zuckerberg’s not going to try to shut down your account, though your anti-gun friends and relatives might give you a hard time.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--CA Man's Gun Siezed Over WrongThought

CA Man's Gun Siezed Over WrongThought

In George Orwell ’ s 1984 , the world first heard of the concept of “ thought crime.
” No , Orwell didn ’ t invent the concept , but he named it .
The idea that even thinking incorrect things could , potentially , become a criminal act .
When the book was first published , I ’ m quite sure a lot of people laughed at the idea of people ’ s thoughts being criminalized .
After all , how can you criminalize what ’ s in people ’ s heads ?
But , thoughts give rise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s thoughts can become public , and that ’ s where we see thought crime become a real issue .
Now , a man in California has seen his firearms be seized .
The justification ?
He thinks bad things .
A heinous act of violence at a church in South Carolina was carried out in 2015 by Dylann Roof .
The then 21-year-old murdered nine people at Emanuel AME Church .
His crime would go on to inspire others to do the same .
Both Robert Bowers , who killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Synagogue in Pittsburgh , and Dylann Roof have been canonized as “ bowl saints ” by the “ Bowl Patrol.
” The Southern Poverty Law Center told CBS13 the name “ Bowl Patrol ” was inspired by Dylann Roof ’ s distinctive “ bowl-cut ” hairstyle .
For years the self-proclaimed leader hid behind the pseudonym Vic Mackey , hosting the Bowl Cast , a podcast spewing hateful rhetoric and language .
But his true identity was not known until now .
The Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Office , along with participating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Orangevale resident Andrew Casarez .
The sheriff ’ s office served a search warrant just weeks ago at this house .
“ We ’ re able to obtain a gun violence restraining order against him and a search warrant , and a firearm was seized , ” Nelson said .
Detectives used Casarez ’ s online activity to get them in the door “ This search warrant it ’ s the first of its kind at least in the country .
As far as how we obtained it and were able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He was posting enough racist rhetoric and propaganda on Facebook that it was concerning that his behaviors could become violent in retaliation.
” Now , don ’ t get me wrong .
There ’ s nothing about Casarez ’ s opinions–including the glorification of mass shooters–that isn ’ t repugnant .
By every measure we can see , he ’ s a disgusting excuse for a human being .
However , that ’ s not illegal .
If it were , half of Congress would probably be behind bars as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient to warrant a gun violence restraining order ?
I don ’ t think so .
Of course , I ’ m not an attorney .
Yet attorney Eugene Volokh over at The Volokh Conspiracy seems to agree with me .
If Casarez was actually involved in specific acts of violence , or conspired to commit violence , or solicited specific acts of violence against particular people , he could certainly be arrested for those crimes ( again , whether the completed crimes , or conspiracy or solicitation , which are themselves crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seized , either if they were evidence or perhaps as a condition of pretrial release ; and some courts have upheld restrictions on gun possession by people who are under indictment , especially if there is some specific reason to be concerned that the person will use the guns illegally .
And the TV segment in the story above suggests that Casarez had mentioned that some particular ( bleeped-out ) person “ still deserves to be raped and murdered , ” which might in context justify at least a search and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though it all depends on exactly what Casarez was said , which isn ’ t clear ) .
But nothing in the quoted statements from Sheriff ’ s Office officials suggests that the “ gun violence restraining order ” and gun seizure stemmed from any crime he had committed ( including conspiracy or solicitation ) ; it sounds like the basis for the “ gun violence restraining order ” is his political rhetoric .
He added that he has what looks like the relevant court documents , but he hasn ’ t been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Volokh and I can see , though , it looks like Casarez was targeted because he was “ the wrong sort ” and not because there was any actionable intelligence that he was a threat to anyone .
So far , it looks like he ’ s a big talker and that ’ s about it .
Of course , it ’ s easy to overreach with a person like Casarez .
Authorities can do all kinds of stuff that would get them eviscerated in the media with someone like him because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
His opinions are that vile .
The problem is , if we don ’ t stand up for someone whose opinions we find vile , we ’ re hypocrites .
Personally , I ’ ll defend the rights of anyone , even those I ’ d spend a lifetime opposing in every other way .
At the end of the day , it sure looks like Casarez had his guns taken away because of what he said and thinks , not because of what he may or may not do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it should .
After all , the next person whose guns might get yanked because they voiced some unapproved thoughts might well be yours .

In George Orwell’s 1984, the world first heard of the concept of “thought crime.” No, Orwell didn’t invent the concept, but he named it. The idea that even thinking incorrect things could, potentially, become a criminal act.
When the book was first published, I’m quite sure a lot of people laughed at the idea of people’s thoughts being criminalized. After all, how can you criminalize what’s in people’s heads?
But, thoughts give rise to words. Once words are spoken, people’s thoughts can become public, and that’s where we see thought crime become a real issue.
Now, a man in California has seen his firearms be seized. The justification? He thinks bad things.
A heinous act of violence at a church in South Carolina was carried out in 2015 by Dylann Roof. The then 21-year-old murdered nine people at Emanuel AME Church. His crime would go on to inspire others to do the same. Both Robert Bowers, who killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, and Dylann Roof have been canonized as “bowl saints” by the “Bowl Patrol.” The Southern Poverty Law Center told CBS13 the name “Bowl Patrol” was inspired by Dylann Roof’s distinctive “bowl-cut” hairstyle. … For years the self-proclaimed leader hid behind the pseudonym Vic Mackey, hosting the Bowl Cast, a podcast spewing hateful rhetoric and language. But his true identity was not known until now. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, along with participating federal agencies, has identified Vic Mackey as Orangevale resident Andrew Casarez. … The sheriff’s office served a search warrant just weeks ago at this house. “We’re able to obtain a gun violence restraining order against him and a search warrant, and a firearm was seized,” Nelson said. Detectives used Casarez’s online activity to get them in the door “This search warrant it’s the first of its kind at least in the country. As far as how we obtained it and were able to serve it,” Nelson said. “He was posting enough racist rhetoric and propaganda on Facebook that it was concerning that his behaviors could become violent in retaliation.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing about Casarez’s opinions–including the glorification of mass shooters–that isn’t repugnant. By every measure we can see, he’s a disgusting excuse for a human being.
However, that’s not illegal. If it were, half of Congress would probably be behind bars as well.
Yet has Casarez’s actions been sufficient to warrant a gun violence restraining order? I don’t think so. Of course, I’m not an attorney. Yet attorney Eugene Volokh over at The Volokh Conspiracy seems to agree with me.
If Casarez was actually involved in specific acts of violence, or conspired to commit violence, or solicited specific acts of violence against particular people, he could certainly be arrested for those crimes (again, whether the completed crimes, or conspiracy or solicitation, which are themselves crimes). His gun could then potentially be seized, either if they were evidence or perhaps as a condition of pretrial release; and some courts have upheld restrictions on gun possession by people who are under indictment, especially if there is some specific reason to be concerned that the person will use the guns illegally. And the TV segment in the story above suggests that Casarez had mentioned that some particular (bleeped-out) person “still deserves to be raped and murdered,” which might in context justify at least a search and perhaps a charge for solicitation of crime (though it all depends on exactly what Casarez was said, which isn’t clear). But nothing in the quoted statements from Sheriff’s Office officials suggests that the “gun violence restraining order” and gun seizure stemmed from any crime he had committed (including conspiracy or solicitation); it sounds like the basis for the “gun violence restraining order” is his political rhetoric.
He added that he has what looks like the relevant court documents, but he hasn’t been able to verify that.
Based on what Volokh and I can see, though, it looks like Casarez was targeted because he was “the wrong sort” and not because there was any actionable intelligence that he was a threat to anyone. So far, it looks like he’s a big talker and that’s about it.
Of course, it’s easy to overreach with a person like Casarez. Authorities can do all kinds of stuff that would get them eviscerated in the media with someone like him because so few people would want to defend him. His opinions are that vile.
The problem is, if we don’t stand up for someone whose opinions we find vile, we’re hypocrites. Personally, I’ll defend the rights of anyone, even those I’d spend a lifetime opposing in every other way.
At the end of the day, it sure looks like Casarez had his guns taken away because of what he said and thinks, not because of what he may or may not do. If that doesn’t bother you, it should.
After all, the next person whose guns might get yanked because they voiced some unapproved thoughts might well be yours.


bearingarms--2020-07-31--Driver Who Shot Protester In Austin Speaks Through Attorney

The man who shot and killed a protester carrying an AK-47 during a demonstration in downtown Austin last weekend is now telling his side of the story .
Austin television station KXAN received an email from attorney Clint Broden on Thursday evening , who says he ’ s representing Daniel Perry , an Army sergeant on active duty who claims to be the driver of the vehicle that was surrounded by demonstrators .
According to Broden ’ s email , Perry was working for a rideshare company when he dropped off a customer near the site of the demonstrations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fare , Perry took a turn onto Congress Avenue , not realizing that demonstrators had blocked the street .
“ When Sgt .
Perry turned on the Congress Avenue , several people started beating on his vehicle .
An individual carrying an assault rifle , now known to be Garrett Foster , quickly approached the car and then motioned with the assault rifle for Mr. Perry to lower his window , ” which the attorney says Perry did , thinking the gunman was a police officer .
The attorney says Foster then began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot and fired .
Perry drove a short distance away to safety while another protester shot at him .
He then called police .
The attorney ’ s statement says Perry “ deeply sympathizes ” with the Foster family but then concluded with a plea to the public : “ We simply ask that anybody who might want to criticize Sgt .
Perry ’ s actions , picture themselves trapped in a car as a masked stranger raises an assault rifle in their direction and reflect upon what they might have done if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sgt .
Perry that evening.
” Broden goes on to say that his client welcomes a full investigation into the shooting , and points out that Perry himself called 911 after he drove away from the scene of the shooting for his own safety .
Police haven ’ t charged Perry with any crime , and say they ’ re investigating the actions of Foster , Perry , and a third man who fired several shots at Perry as he sped away after the shooting .
KXAN spends quite a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lyft require drivers to be unarmed while they ’ re on the job , even if they ’ re in their own vehicle .
Lyft ’ s website says it has a strict “ no weapons ” policy , which includes times that drivers are working and representing the company .
“ This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon , we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property , ” the website said .
Uber ’ s website says it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry firearms while using the app .
“ Uber prohibits riders and their guests , as well as driver and delivery partners , from carrying firearms of any kind while using the app , to the extent permitted by applicable law.
” If Perry violated the policies of the ride share company he was working for at the time of the shooting , he may not be able to continue on as a driver , but it ’ s not a criminal offense .
In fact , as we ’ ve pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are plenty of drivers that have had to use their firearms in self-defense , even though they were supposed to be disarmed on the job .
It ’ s a dumb policy , frankly , and it seems like a good number of contractors choose to ignore it in favor of being able to protect themselves if necessary .
The big question at the moment is whether police and prosecutors will agree with Sgt .
Perry that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger when Garrett Foster approached his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car and beating on it with their hands .
Authorities say they ’ re still looking for eyewitnesses to the incident , so it could be some time before we learn whether any charges will be filed .

The man who shot and killed a protester carrying an AK-47 during a demonstration in downtown Austin last weekend is now telling his side of the story. Austin television station KXAN received an email from attorney Clint Broden on Thursday evening, who says he’s representing Daniel Perry, an Army sergeant on active duty who claims to be the driver of the vehicle that was surrounded by demonstrators.
According to Broden’s email, Perry was working for a rideshare company when he dropped off a customer near the site of the demonstrations. As he was waiting for a new fare, Perry took a turn onto Congress Avenue, not realizing that demonstrators had blocked the street.
“When Sgt. Perry turned on the Congress Avenue, several people started beating on his
vehicle. An individual carrying an assault rifle, now known to be Garrett Foster, quickly approached the car and then motioned with the assault rifle for Mr. Perry to lower his window,” which the attorney says Perry did, thinking the gunman was a police officer. The attorney says Foster then began to raise his weapon, and Perry shot and fired. Perry drove a short distance away to safety while another protester shot at him. He then called police. The attorney’s statement says Perry “deeply sympathizes” with the Foster family but then concluded with a plea to the public: “We simply ask that anybody who might want to criticize Sgt. Perry’s actions,
picture themselves trapped in a car as a masked stranger raises an assault rifle in their direction and reflect upon what they might have done if faced with the split second decision faced by Sgt. Perry that evening.”
Broden goes on to say that his client welcomes a full investigation into the shooting, and points out that Perry himself called 911 after he drove away from the scene of the shooting for his own safety. Police haven’t charged Perry with any crime, and say they’re investigating the actions of Foster, Perry, and a third man who fired several shots at Perry as he sped away after the shooting.
KXAN spends quite a bit of time pointing out that both Uber and Lyft require drivers to be unarmed while they’re on the job, even if they’re in their own vehicle.
Lyft’s website says it has a strict “no weapons” policy, which includes times that drivers are working and representing the company. “This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property,” the website said. Uber’s website says it does not allow drivers or their guests to carry firearms while using the app. “Uber prohibits riders and their guests, as well as driver and delivery partners, from carrying firearms of any kind while using the app, to the extent permitted by applicable law.”
If Perry violated the policies of the ride share company he was working for at the time of the shooting, he may not be able to continue on as a driver, but it’s not a criminal offense. In fact, as we’ve pointed out here at Bearing Arms in the past, there are plenty of drivers that have had to use their firearms in self-defense, even though they were supposed to be disarmed on the job. It’s a dumb policy, frankly, and it seems like a good number of contractors choose to ignore it in favor of being able to protect themselves if necessary.
The big question at the moment is whether police and prosecutors will agree with Sgt. Perry that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger when Garrett Foster approached his vehicle as other demonstrators were surrounding the car and beating on it with their hands. Authorities say they’re still looking for eyewitnesses to the incident, so it could be some time before we learn whether any charges will be filed.