bearingarms--2020-08-13--DA In Rayshard Brooks Case Ousted In Primary

When Atlanta police officers had a deadly encounter with Rayshard Brooks , it wasn ’ t the best time for such a thing .
The nation was still in the midst of outrage over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and plenty of people were already primed for more outrage .
That night , before anyone could really know anything , the officer who fired the shot was dismissed .
The other officer present was reassigned .
That was bad .
What was worse , though , was that the district attorney decided to file charges before anyone could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , the officer isn ’ t the only one out of a job .
This is in Atlanta , a city that ’ s more than 50 percent black , and they bounced a long-time incumbent who jumped on the officers involved in the biggest controversy in the city in recent memory .
What went wrong for Howard ?
Honestly , I think he caught a fair amount of blowback .
You see , while the media has been presenting the African-American community as united behind groups like Black Lives Matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that the facade is slipping .
Black Lives Matter was kicked out of Englewood in Chicago , a majority-black neighborhood .
A seemingly pro-Black Lives Matter DA loses a primary in a majority-black city ( though Fulton County has a slight majority of white people with 46 percent of the population being white , over 44 percent being black ) .
Yet this anti-cop sentiment has hamstrung police .
They ’ re afraid to do much of anything for fear of being prosecuted or fired .
They simply can ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do their jobs , people suffer .
Generally , though , it ’ s not the people in elite gated communities that suffer .
It ’ s not the limousine liberals that suffer .
No , it ’ s the poor folks that make up so much of places like Englewood and Fulton County that suffer .
They ’ re the ones who live in terror of the criminals who may be running rampant in their neighborhoods .
They ’ re the ones who see their children gunned down in gangland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who pay .
It ’ s not the middle-class activists who pretend to care about the minorities and the poor who pay that price .
Oh no , they go back to their safe neighborhoods or dorm rooms and pretend they ’ re fighting for the little guy .
The problem is , the little guy is begging them to stop .
Now , though , those most impacted seem to be stepping up and telling folks to knock it the hell off .

When Atlanta police officers had a deadly encounter with Rayshard Brooks, it wasn’t the best time for such a thing. The nation was still in the midst of outrage over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and plenty of people were already primed for more outrage.
That night, before anyone could really know anything, the officer who fired the shot was dismissed. The other officer present was reassigned. That was bad.
What was worse, though, was that the district attorney decided to file charges before anyone could even start an investigation.
Now, though, the officer isn’t the only one out of a job.
Paul Howard, who handled the Ray Lewis murder case, Atlanta school cheating scandal and the police killing of Rayshard Brooks during his lengthy tenure, has been ousted as Fulton County’s top prosecutor. Opponent Fani Willis, who prosecuted cases for years in the county district attorney’s office, outpaced her old boss in June’s Democratic primary, but neither contestant received 50% of the vote, spurring Tuesday’s runoff. Willis trounced the incumbent Howard on Tuesday by a 3-to-1 margin, according to county election results . With almost 91% of precincts reporting, Willis had more than 43,000 votes, about 73% of the tally, to Howard’s 15,800.
This is in Atlanta, a city that’s more than 50 percent black, and they bounced a long-time incumbent who jumped on the officers involved in the biggest controversy in the city in recent memory.
What went wrong for Howard?
Honestly, I think he caught a fair amount of blowback.
You see, while the media has been presenting the African-American community as united behind groups like Black Lives Matter, we’re starting to see some evidence that the facade is slipping. Black Lives Matter was kicked out of Englewood in Chicago, a majority-black neighborhood. A seemingly pro-Black Lives Matter DA loses a primary in a majority-black city (though Fulton County has a slight majority of white people with 46 percent of the population being white, over 44 percent being black).
Yet this anti-cop sentiment has hamstrung police. They’re afraid to do much of anything for fear of being prosecuted or fired. They simply can’t do their jobs.
When the police can’t do their jobs, people suffer. Generally, though, it’s not the people in elite gated communities that suffer. It’s not the limousine liberals that suffer.
No, it’s the poor folks that make up so much of places like Englewood and Fulton County that suffer. They’re the ones who live in terror of the criminals who may be running rampant in their neighborhoods. They’re the ones who see their children gunned down in gangland crossfire. They’re the ones who pay.
It’s not the middle-class activists who pretend to care about the minorities and the poor who pay that price. Oh no, they go back to their safe neighborhoods or dorm rooms and pretend they’re fighting for the little guy. The problem is, the little guy is begging them to stop.
Now, though, those most impacted seem to be stepping up and telling folks to knock it the hell off.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--Yes, Gun Rights Actually ARE Human Rights

Gun rights are human rights .
This is something that we ’ ve said over and over again .
In particular , humans have a right to defend themselves from any manner of aggression .
Your right to live means you also have a right to have the best means to defend that life from all who threaten it .
Yet not everyone agrees with this , apparently .
Take this story that tries to claim that gun rights actually aren ’ t human rights .
In 1948 , the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( UDHR ) laid out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of rights guaranteed to every human being and explicitly called on member states to observe , promote , and protect these rights .
The principles enshrined in the UDHR include the “ right to life , liberty and security of person , ” with an important caveat : “ These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
” That is to say , these fundamental rights and freedoms are not unlimited but part of a social contract in which all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other people as well .
While the right to security of person is often misconstrued as a broad right to self-defense against any perceived threat , it actually enshrines the right for someone to have security and safety over their body , protecting them from attack .
In order to justly protect one ’ s personal right to security , a person is able to use force only insofar as the situation requires it and when there exists no other means of protecting themselves from attack .
The use of force falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the force is proportional to the impending attack .
International human rights law establishes boundaries on how broadly domestic laws on personal self-defense between private persons may be drawn .
States may not prohibit self-defense altogether , but in protecting the right to life they must also be sure that self-defense rights do not exceed reasonable boundaries .
Certain initiatives to broaden self-defense laws raise serious concerns from a human rights perspective , notably “ stand your ground ” laws that permit the use of lethal force despite the existence of safe retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asserted by some gun rights advocates , international law does not establish a right to firearms as a means of self-defense .
The linkage between the right to self-defense and the right to be armed is a fallacy perpetuated not by human rights scholars but by lobbyists for the firearms industry .
I mean , it ’ s almost cute how the author presents the United Nations ’ statement as if it ’ s somehow the definitive word on what is and isn ’ t a human right .
Nevermind that the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all different types , including more than a few dictatorships .
You know , the very kind of people who inherently despise the private ownership of firearms .
Why ?
Because they don ’ t want their subjects able to fight back .
They don ’ t actually believe the people have a right to defend themselves .
Not from the government , at least .
In truth , the United Nations is nothing but a failed noble experiment that now puts tyrants in a position of authority over the good and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are going to have the right to self-defense–a right that even the UN says exists–then the natural extension of that has to be that they have a right to access the means to defend themselves .
Just as a person can ’ t be barred from exercising their freedom of speech by denying them access to platforms from which to speak , a free person has a right to access the means of personal defense .
Simply saying that someone has a right to defend themselves while simultaneously barring them from accessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is akin to saying someone has freedom of religion while preventing them from going to a church , mosque , synagogue , or any other place of worship .
For many nations represented at the UN , though , that ’ s the point .
The author here is taking the fact that the UN ’ s consensus is that gun ownership isn ’ t a human right , and thus establishing that no , it simply can ’ t be .
However , human rights existed long before the UN existed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arbiters of what human rights are , especially with their track record .
And really , it ’ s quite a track record .
As such , it doesn ’ t really matter that the UN claims guns aren ’ t a human right .
What matters is that we aren ’ t beholden to the United Nations for anything .

Gun rights are human rights. This is something that we’ve said over and over again.
In particular, humans have a right to defend themselves from any manner of aggression. Your right to live means you also have a right to have the best means to defend that life from all who threaten it.
Yet not everyone agrees with this, apparently.
Take this story that tries to claim that gun rights actually aren’t human rights.
Gun rights are not human rights In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) laid out, on a global scale, a set of rights guaranteed to every human being and explicitly called on member states to observe, promote, and protect these rights. The principles enshrined in the UDHR include the “right to life, liberty and security of person,” with an important caveat: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” That is to say, these fundamental rights and freedoms are not unlimited but part of a social contract in which all persons must respect the rights and dignity of other people as well. While the right to security of person is often misconstrued as a broad right to self-defense against any perceived threat, it actually enshrines the right for someone to have security and safety over their body, protecting them from attack. In order to justly protect one’s personal right to security, a person is able to use force only insofar as the situation requires it and when there exists no other means of protecting themselves from attack. The use of force falls under the right of security only when the force is proportional to the impending attack. As U.N. Human Rights Officer Jan Arno Hessbruegge noted: International human rights law establishes boundaries on how broadly domestic laws on personal self-defense between private persons may be drawn. States may not prohibit self-defense altogether, but in protecting the right to life they must also be sure that self-defense rights do not exceed reasonable boundaries. Certain initiatives to broaden self-defense laws raise serious concerns from a human rights perspective, notably “stand your ground” laws that permit the use of lethal force despite the existence of safe retreat options. Contrary to what has been asserted by some gun rights advocates, international law does not establish a right to firearms as a means of self-defense. The linkage between the right to self-defense and the right to be armed is a fallacy perpetuated not by human rights scholars but by lobbyists for the firearms industry.
Oh, isn’t that adorable.
I mean, it’s almost cute how the author presents the United Nations’ statement as if it’s somehow the definitive word on what is and isn’t a human right.
Nevermind that the UN is a coalition made up of nations of all different types, including more than a few dictatorships. You know, the very kind of people who inherently despise the private ownership of firearms. Why? Because they don’t want their subjects able to fight back. They don’t actually believe the people have a right to defend themselves. Not from the government, at least.
In truth, the United Nations is nothing but a failed noble experiment that now puts tyrants in a position of authority over the good and decent people of the world.
It’s a joke.
If people are going to have the right to self-defense–a right that even the UN says exists–then the natural extension of that has to be that they have a right to access the means to defend themselves. Just as a person can’t be barred from exercising their freedom of speech by denying them access to platforms from which to speak, a free person has a right to access the means of personal defense.
Simply saying that someone has a right to defend themselves while simultaneously barring them from accessing the most efficient means to do so is akin to saying someone has freedom of religion while preventing them from going to a church, mosque, synagogue, or any other place of worship.
For many nations represented at the UN, though, that’s the point.
The author here is taking the fact that the UN’s consensus is that gun ownership isn’t a human right, and thus establishing that no, it simply can’t be.
However, human rights existed long before the UN existed. They cannot and will not be the arbiters of what human rights are, especially with their track record. And really, it’s quite a track record.
As such, it doesn’t really matter that the UN claims guns aren’t a human right. What matters is that we aren’t beholden to the United Nations for anything.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--There's A Good Reason Why This FL Sheriff Doesn't Want Deputies Wearing Masks

The decision by Marion County , Florida Sheriff Billy Woods to ban deputies and visitors to the sheriff ’ s office from wearing masks has made national headlines , with outlets from NBC News to NPR portraying the sheriff ’ s order as some sort of anti-mask statement .
As the sheriff has made clear though , the new policy isn ’ t meant as a political statement .
Though it might sound hard to believe for some , Woods ’ order is meant to ensure the safety of both deputies and the public that they serve .
Most media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portraying the move as an act of defiance , not public safety .
From NPR : Marion County , with a population of about 370,000 , has had nearly 6,800 confirmed coronavirus cases since the start of the pandemic , with 104 deaths .
Marion reported a single-day record of 13 deaths on Tuesday , county officials said .
According to the Star-Banner , 43 sheriff ’ s office employees — including several patrol officers — and more than 200 inmates at the Marion County Jail have tested positive for coronavirus .
Woods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR seeking comment .
While NPR doesn ’ t bother to mention this fact , the truth is that the order from the sheriff provides an exemption for wearing masks in the county jail , where the sheriff acknowledges that “ social distancing is not possible.
” Sheriff Woods says the reason for the new mandate is simple ; he wants to ensure that masks don ’ t inhibit the ability of deputies and sheriff ’ s employees to communicate clearly with the public .
“ In light of the current events when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward law enforcement in our country today , this is being done to ensure there is clear communication and for identification purposes of any individual walking into a lobby , ” he said .
“ All of our lobbies have glass barriers between you and them that the virus can not magically go thru.
” Woods said anyone who enters those lobbies wearing a mask will be asked to remove it and if they refuse , they will be asked to leave .
“ If the individual is not comfortable with standing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , politely ask for their cell number and advise them to stand outside or sit in their vehicle and you will text or call them with their completed transaction , ” Woods instructed his staff .
Woods also pointed out in his email that he didn ’ t make the decision against face coverings lightly and weighed it out for the past two weeks .
Most media outlets are portraying Sheriff Woods as an outlier , but the Ocala News reported that several other local jurisdictions have similar policies in place .
Ocala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues masks to officers but while on duty , he doesn ’ t expect them to wear masks because he wants their orders to be clearly understood .
Belleview Police Chief Terry Holland also said officers on duty should not wear masks so the lines of communications are clear .
Chief Mike McQuaig of Dunnellon Police Department said he doesn ’ t require officers to wear a mask in their calls-for-service .
He too wants the officers commands to be heard clearly .
In other words , Sheriff Woods ’ order isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s certainly how most media outlets are framing his decision .
It ’ s another example of the press creating a controversy rather than simply reporting the news , but in the end this is really much ado about nothing .

The decision by Marion County, Florida Sheriff Billy Woods to ban deputies and visitors to the sheriff’s office from wearing masks has made national headlines, with outlets from NBC News to NPR portraying the sheriff’s order as some sort of anti-mask statement. As the sheriff has made clear though, the new policy isn’t meant as a political statement. Though it might sound hard to believe for some, Woods’ order is meant to ensure the safety of both deputies and the public that they serve.
Most media outlets, unfortunately, are intent on portraying the move as an act of defiance, not public safety. From NPR:
Marion County, with a population of about 370,000, has had nearly 6,800 confirmed coronavirus cases since the start of the pandemic, with 104 deaths. Marion reported a single-day record of 13 deaths on Tuesday, county officials said. According to the Star-Banner, 43 sheriff’s office employees — including several patrol officers — and more than 200 inmates at the Marion County Jail have tested positive for coronavirus. Woods’ office did not return calls from NPR seeking comment.
While NPR doesn’t bother to mention this fact, the truth is that the order from the sheriff provides an exemption for wearing masks in the county jail, where the sheriff acknowledges that “social distancing is not possible.” Sheriff Woods says the reason for the new mandate is simple; he wants to ensure that masks don’t inhibit the ability of deputies and sheriff’s employees to communicate clearly with the public.
“In light of the current events when it comes to the sentiment and/or hatred toward law enforcement in our country today, this is being done to ensure there is clear communication and for identification purposes of any individual walking into a lobby,” he said. “All of our lobbies have glass barriers between you and them that the virus cannot magically go thru.” Woods said anyone who enters those lobbies wearing a mask will be asked to remove it and if they refuse, they will be asked to leave. “If the individual is not comfortable with standing and waiting in the lobby with other individuals, politely ask for their cell number and advise them to stand outside or sit in their vehicle and you will text or call them with their completed transaction,” Woods instructed his staff. Woods also pointed out in his email that he didn’t make the decision against face coverings lightly and weighed it out for the past two weeks.
Most media outlets are portraying Sheriff Woods as an outlier, but the Ocala News reported that several other local jurisdictions have similar policies in place.
Ocala Police Chief Greg Graham said the department issues masks to officers but while on duty, he doesn’t expect them to wear masks because he wants their orders to be clearly understood. Belleview Police Chief Terry Holland also said officers on duty should not wear masks so the lines of communications are clear. Chief Mike McQuaig of Dunnellon Police Department said he doesn’t require officers to wear a mask in their calls-for-service. He too wants the officers commands to be heard clearly.
In other words, Sheriff Woods’ order isn’t unusual or outrageous, though that’s certainly how most media outlets are framing his decision. It’s another example of the press creating a controversy rather than simply reporting the news, but in the end this is really much ado about nothing.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--BLM Ejected From Chicago Neighborhood

BLM Ejected From Chicago Neighborhood

Black Lives Matter is supposed to be the new hotness when it comes to civil rights .
The group often claims to speak for African-Americans throughout the nation .
What ’ s more , the media seems ready to put a microphone in front of anyone who speaks for the organization .
Even if they say some stupid stuff .
However , it ’ s important to understand that Black Lives Matter represents only one portion of the black community .
They ’ re vocal , sure , and they ’ re the focus of a lot of attention .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some sectors of the black community , they might not be that popular .
Englewood may set the tone for dealing with rioters for the rest of the summer .
After the organized pillaging this weekend on the Magnificent Mile , the city of Chicago toughened up their security stance .
Black Lives Matter protesters and others set their sights on the Englewood neighborhood ’ s police precinct , but residents there pushed them out — literally .
“ Those people were opportunist [ s ] , ” one leader of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday started over a Chicago police-involved shooting and ended when Englewood residents pushed back .
Expletives were dropped , and there was pushing and shoving , which forced the protesters to retreat .
A caravan started on 64th and Cottage Grove , and the protesters eventually ended up in front of the 7th District police station , but it didn ’ t last long .
“ If you ain ’ t from Englewood , get the F*** out of here , ” longtime neighborhood resident Darryl Smith told protesters… .
“ A lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Englewood .
We are tired of Englewood getting a black eye , those people were opportunist , ” Smith said .
He says he ’ s not buying it and he and other Englewood residents had wanted the protesters from Black Lives Matter Chicago , Good Kids Mad City and other groups to leave .
As Ed Morrissey wrote over at Hot Air , this should probably make is feel a little conflicted .
After all , there was no violence to respond to , so the physical pushing is probably unwarranted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter group that tried to justify looting over the weekend by claiming it was reparations .
They justified smash and grab robbery by saying it was payback for something that happened more than a century and a half ago .
I can understand why people were a little ticked .
While much of the media will still treat Black Lives Matter as if they ’ re the holy word on the black community , it ’ s good to remember that not everyone within that community particularly cares for the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I blame them , to be sure .
The truth is , no one wants to be associated with what happened on the Magnificent Mile .
Behavior like that doesn ’ t improve the lot of African-Americans in Chicago who are struggling to get ahead .
It paints them all as thugs , which isn ’ t even close to an accurate assessment .
Black Lives Matter stepping in to defend those actions doesn ’ t benefit anyone .
If anything , it feeds into white supremacy as the actual racists will nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ those people ” can ’ t help themselves but to wreck things .
We all know better .
Too many of us have seen the truth , that all ethnicities are capable of great and terrible things .
What happened in Chicago was a human failing , not evidence of some idiotic racist theory being true .
What is true is that what happened in Chicago wasn ’ t inevitable .
It was opportunistic and nothing more .
It seems the residents of Englewood see that as well , and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with those who would not just perpetrate such an act but also those who would try to rationalize it .

Black Lives Matter is supposed to be the new hotness when it comes to civil rights. The group often claims to speak for African-Americans throughout the nation. What’s more, the media seems ready to put a microphone in front of anyone who speaks for the organization.
Even if they say some stupid stuff.
However, it’s important to understand that Black Lives Matter represents only one portion of the black community. They’re vocal, sure, and they’re the focus of a lot of attention.
Despite that, it seems clear that in some sectors of the black community, they might not be that popular.
Englewood may set the tone for dealing with rioters for the rest of the summer. After the organized pillaging this weekend on the Magnificent Mile, the city of Chicago toughened up their security stance. Black Lives Matter protesters and others set their sights on the Englewood neighborhood’s police precinct, but residents there pushed them out — literally. “Those people were opportunist[s],” one leader of the neighborhood pushback told reporters: A protest Tuesday started over a Chicago police-involved shooting and ended when Englewood residents pushed back. Expletives were dropped, and there was pushing and shoving, which forced the protesters to retreat. A caravan started on 64th and Cottage Grove, and the protesters eventually ended up in front of the 7th District police station, but it didn’t last long. “If you ain’t from Englewood, get the F*** out of here,” longtime neighborhood resident Darryl Smith told protesters…. “A lot of people saying the looting started because of Englewood. We are tired of Englewood getting a black eye, those people were opportunist,” Smith said. He says he’s not buying it and he and other Englewood residents had wanted the protesters from Black Lives Matter Chicago, Good Kids Mad City and other groups to leave.
As Ed Morrissey wrote over at Hot Air, this should probably make is feel a little conflicted. After all, there was no violence to respond to, so the physical pushing is probably unwarranted.
However, this is the same Black Lives Matter group that tried to justify looting over the weekend by claiming it was reparations. They justified smash and grab robbery by saying it was payback for something that happened more than a century and a half ago.
I can understand why people were a little ticked.
While much of the media will still treat Black Lives Matter as if they’re the holy word on the black community, it’s good to remember that not everyone within that community particularly cares for the organization. I can’t say that I blame them, to be sure.
The truth is, no one wants to be associated with what happened on the Magnificent Mile. Behavior like that doesn’t improve the lot of African-Americans in Chicago who are struggling to get ahead. It paints them all as thugs, which isn’t even close to an accurate assessment. Black Lives Matter stepping in to defend those actions doesn’t benefit anyone.
If anything, it feeds into white supremacy as the actual racists will nod knowingly and make some statement about how “those people” can’t help themselves but to wreck things.
We all know better. Too many of us have seen the truth, that all ethnicities are capable of great and terrible things. What happened in Chicago was a human failing, not evidence of some idiotic racist theory being true.
What is true is that what happened in Chicago wasn’t inevitable. It was opportunistic and nothing more. It seems the residents of Englewood see that as well, and they’re making it clear they want nothing to do with those who would not just perpetrate such an act but also those who would try to rationalize it.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--Anti-Gun Activists Salivating Over Prospects of Biden/Harris Presidency

While Joe Biden ’ s campaign has been leading most polls , the former vice-president doesn ’ t seem to be generating much genuine excitement , even among supporters .
With the addition of Sen. Kamala Harris to the campaign , however , at least one group of voters is cheering : gun control activists .
Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety quickly shot out a fundraising email to supporters calling the Biden/Harris ticket an opportunity to elect “ the strongest president and vice president for gun safety in American history.
” Of course , Everytown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ don ’ t own a gun , ” and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have their way , that ’ s exactly what they ’ ll demand of Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
A puff piece by Marie Claire ‘ s Rachel Epstein highlights some of the extreme positions taken by Kamala Harris during her brief presidential campaign , though of course for Epstein the anti-gun agenda of the Democratic ticket is nothing more than “ common sense ” gun safety regulations .
Now that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time to get to work and focus on where the candidates stand on key issues , starting with gun control .
Luckily , Harris has made her position on the gun control debate clear .
During her presidential campaign last year , Harris declared that she would sign an executive order “ mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year , ” per the New York Times , if Congress didn ’ t take action within the first 100 days .
She also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loophole and ban assault weapons , and fugitives would not be allowed to purchase any handgun or weapon .
Since making those statements , she has remained consistent on her stance , and emphasized that it ’ s possible for citizens to keep their Second Amendment rights while also passing effective gun control legislation that could save millions of lives .
( For the record , she ’ s a gun owner . )
I love that last aside .
Yes , Kamala Harris has said that she owns a gun .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here at Bearing Arms , while Harris may have a firearm , she doesn ’ t think you have a right to own one .
For the Biden/Harris campaign , gun ownership is a privilege to be doled out to a select few , not a right of the people that shall not be infringed .
Under the Biden/Harris gun control agenda , Americans would be prohibited from possessing the most commonly sold rifle in the United States ( unless they paid a special tax and registered their firearm with the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights , and would be banned from buying ammunition online , to name just a few of the draconian proposals put forth by the Democrats .
These proposals wouldn ’ t save “ millions of lives ” as Marie Claire ‘ s Epstein claims .
Instead , they ’ d turn tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons for simply maintaining possession of the firearms that they currently own , and they ’ d throw up numerous roadblocks in front of anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the very first time .
A Biden/Harris administration wouldn ’ t just target gun owners .
It would also go after the firearms industry by encouraging junk lawsuits designed to bankrupt companies by trying to hold them accountable for the actions of criminals .
The results , if successful , would cripple the firearms industry , but would do absolutely nothing to go after criminals who use guns in the commission of violent crimes .
In fact , the entire Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda is aimed squarely at legal gun owners , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing laws .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are intent on banning their way to safety , but if they end up in the White House the American people and their Second Amendment rights will be far less secure and safe .
It will be the criminals who ’ ll be breathing a sigh of relief , not good people in bad neighborhoods or those who own a firearm to protect themselves and the people they love .

While Joe Biden’s campaign has been leading most polls, the former vice-president doesn’t seem to be generating much genuine excitement, even among supporters. With the addition of Sen. Kamala Harris to the campaign, however, at least one group of voters is cheering: gun control activists.
Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety quickly shot out a fundraising email to supporters calling the Biden/Harris ticket an opportunity to elect “the strongest president and vice president for gun safety in American history.” Of course, Everytown’s idea of gun safety is “don’t own a gun,” and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have their way, that’s exactly what they’ll demand of Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
A puff piece by Marie Claire‘s Rachel Epstein highlights some of the extreme positions taken by Kamala Harris during her brief presidential campaign, though of course for Epstein the anti-gun agenda of the Democratic ticket is nothing more than “common sense” gun safety regulations.
Now that we have an official selection, it’s time to get to work and focus on where the candidates stand on key issues, starting with gun control. Luckily, Harris has made her position on the gun control debate clear. During her presidential campaign last year, Harris declared that she would sign an executive order “mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year,” per the New York Times, if Congress didn’t take action within the first 100 days. She also stated that she would close the boyfriend loophole and ban assault weapons, and fugitives would not be allowed to purchase any handgun or weapon. Since making those statements, she has remained consistent on her stance, and emphasized that it’s possible for citizens to keep their Second Amendment rights while also passing effective gun control legislation that could save millions of lives. (For the record, she’s a gun owner.)
I love that last aside. Yes, Kamala Harris has said that she owns a gun. So what? As we’ve reported here at Bearing Arms, while Harris may have a firearm, she doesn’t think you have a right to own one. For the Biden/Harris campaign, gun ownership is a privilege to be doled out to a select few, not a right of the people that shall not be infringed. Under the Biden/Harris gun control agenda, Americans would be prohibited from possessing the most commonly sold rifle in the United States (unless they paid a special tax and registered their firearm with the federal government ), would be forced to apply for a permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and would be banned from buying ammunition online, to name just a few of the draconian proposals put forth by the Democrats.
These proposals wouldn’t save “millions of lives” as Marie Claire‘s Epstein claims. Instead, they’d turn tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons for simply maintaining possession of the firearms that they currently own, and they’d throw up numerous roadblocks in front of anyone who hoped to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the very first time.
A Biden/Harris administration wouldn’t just target gun owners. It would also go after the firearms industry by encouraging junk lawsuits designed to bankrupt companies by trying to hold them accountable for the actions of criminals. The results, if successful, would cripple the firearms industry, but would do absolutely nothing to go after criminals who use guns in the commission of violent crimes.
In fact, the entire Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda is aimed squarely at legal gun owners, while offering scant support for efforts to enforce existing laws. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are intent on banning their way to safety, but if they end up in the White House the American people and their Second Amendment rights will be far less secure and safe. It will be the criminals who’ll be breathing a sigh of relief, not good people in bad neighborhoods or those who own a firearm to protect themselves and the people they love.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--Air Force Helicopter Shot At, Forced To Land

One of my big concerns over recent years is the idea that we ’ re heading toward a civil war in this country .
I ’ m far from alone in this fear , to be sure .
Recent months have done little to quell those concerns in the least .
Arguably , we ’ re in one right now .
The Antifa goons may not be particularly effective in their tactics , but that doesn ’ t mean they ’ re going to stay that clueless .
Oh no , they ’ re likely to learn , then things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve also seen an escalation in violence where many on the left are using firearms .
In particular , there ’ s a viral image of “ protestors ” holding guns in front of a pickup truck .
That ’ s what ran through my head when I saw this story this morning .
A U.S. Air Force helicopter was shot at while flying over Virginia and was forced to make an emergency landing , McClatchy is reporting .
While the event is being initially revealed on Wednesday , the event occurred on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A crew member , who was not identified , was injured and was treated at a hospital and later released .
The FBI “ dispatched Special Agents and its Evidence Response Team to the Manassas Airport after receiving reports that a helicopter was shot at from the ground nearby , ” the FBI ’ s Washington Field Office said in a statement to McClatchy .
“ The FBI Washington Field Office is working jointly with our law enforcement partners , including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations , to determine the circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the helicopter sustained a non-threatening injury , for which he was treated and subsequently released from the hospital , ” the FBI said in additional statements to McClatchy .
Officials at Manassas Regional Airport told McClatchy they received a call around 12:20 p.m. alerting them of the emergency landing .
Joint Base Andrews said in a statement , “ The Office of Special Investigations is fully engaged with our FBI colleagues on this incident .
OSI takes threats to our Airmen and our resources very seriously .
As this is an ongoing investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released at this time.
” To be fair , this may have been a simple case of negligence .
Maybe someone hit the helicopter because they were shooting up a hill and didn ’ t have an appropriate backstop .
Maybe someone was just shooting in the air and didn ’ t realize the aircraft was even there .
However , we also have widespread civil unrest all over the nation , particularly near our nation ’ s capital .
Further , the helicopter in question was a UH-1N Huey ( not represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear ) , one similar in appearance to many police helicopters .
That means someone might have thought it was a police chopper and took a shot .
That doesn ’ t make it any better , of course .
It just means their target identification skills suck .
Regardless , this is an incident we should all be paying very close attention to .
Our best-case scenario is that this was some sort of negligence or accident .
Unfortunately , I don ’ t think anyone can assume such a thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , stock up on ammo as best you can and prepare to hunker down .

One of my big concerns over recent years is the idea that we’re heading toward a civil war in this country. I’m far from alone in this fear, to be sure.
Recent months have done little to quell those concerns in the least. Arguably, we’re in one right now. The Antifa goons may not be particularly effective in their tactics, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to stay that clueless. Oh no, they’re likely to learn, then things get stupid.
However, we’ve also seen an escalation in violence where many on the left are using firearms. In particular, there’s a viral image of “protestors” holding guns in front of a pickup truck.
That’s what ran through my head when I saw this story this morning.
A U.S. Air Force helicopter was shot at while flying over Virginia and was forced to make an emergency landing, McClatchy is reporting. While the event is being initially revealed on Wednesday, the event occurred on Monday, according to military officials. A crew member, who was not identified, was injured and was treated at a hospital and later released. The FBI “dispatched Special Agents and its Evidence Response Team to the Manassas Airport after receiving reports that a helicopter was shot at from the ground nearby,” the FBI’s Washington Field Office said in a statement to McClatchy. … “The FBI Washington Field Office is working jointly with our law enforcement partners, including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident. One individual in the helicopter sustained a non-threatening injury, for which he was treated and subsequently released from the hospital,” the FBI said in additional statements to McClatchy. Officials at Manassas Regional Airport told McClatchy they received a call around 12:20 p.m. alerting them of the emergency landing.
Not good.
Joint Base Andrews said in a statement, “The Office of Special Investigations is fully engaged with our FBI colleagues on this incident. OSI takes threats to our Airmen and our resources very seriously. As this is an ongoing investigation, no further investigative details can be released at this time.”
To be fair, this may have been a simple case of negligence. Maybe someone hit the helicopter because they were shooting up a hill and didn’t have an appropriate backstop. Maybe someone was just shooting in the air and didn’t realize the aircraft was even there.
It’s possible.
However, we also have widespread civil unrest all over the nation, particularly near our nation’s capital. Further, the helicopter in question was a UH-1N Huey (not represented in the image above, to be clear), one similar in appearance to many police helicopters. That means someone might have thought it was a police chopper and took a shot.
That doesn’t make it any better, of course. It just means their target identification skills suck.
Regardless, this is an incident we should all be paying very close attention to. Our best-case scenario is that this was some sort of negligence or accident. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone can assume such a thing. Not with things as they currently are.
Instead, stock up on ammo as best you can and prepare to hunker down.


bearingarms--2020-08-14--Where Has All The Ammo Gone?

Where Has All The Ammo Gone?

The record-setting run on guns has left many store shelves bare , and while firearms and ammunition manufacturers are producing as much as they can , gun owners are getting increasingly concerned about how long the shortage might last .
Media outlets across the country are now starting to pay attention to the ammunition shortage , from Texas : At Past & Blast in Whitesboro firearms sales have been surging since the Coronavirus pandemic began .
Owner Matt Whitmire says it ’ s the best numbers he ’ s seen in the last eight years .
Whitmire said he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ammunition that he , and other gun store owners across the country , are hurting for .
“ In March , we started to see some of the ammo SKUs that we purchase frequently be less available , ” said Safeside Tactical Co-Owner Mitchell Tyler , adding other gun shops and ranges are seeing the same thing .
“ It ’ s just kind of become progressively worse .
At this point , we are really expecting this to go well into next summer.
” Hunters Headquarters Manager Jacob Harris attributes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyers , which made up an estimated 60 percent of sales over the past six months .
“ Sometimes during election years and other sorts of crisis , it seems to drive new buyers because they feel unsafe and the best way for them to feel safe is to protect themselves with a firearm , ” Harris said .
“ A lot of people flock to firearms when they start to be less comfortable in their homes.
” Although his store still has ammunition and most models of firearms , staff is limiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day per customer .
Clearly the demand for both guns and ammunition has been off the charts for months , but the situation has been compounded by rising prices for common materials like copper and lead , which may have limited ammunition manufacturers ’ ability to quickly ramp up production .
There ’ s been some good news on that end in recent weeks , with copper miners in Chile ending a strike a couple of weeks ago , and some employees at several copper mining and processing facilities in Arizona and Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike that began last October .
Some ammunition manufacturers are also beginning to take the plunge and invest millions of dollars in expanding their operations to produce more ammunition .
In late July Fiocchi of America announced that it ’ s expanding operations at its Little Rock , Arkansas plant , where 85 workers will soon be producing centerfire ammunition .
The jobs are great , especially at a time when our nation ’ s unemployment rate is still in the double digits .
Still , I ’ m guessing most gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased production for some common self-defense calibers .
The ammunition industry is currently caught in the middle of unprecedented demand and more supply problems than they ’ re used to , but of the two , I ’ d say it ’ s the demand that ’ s really keeping store shelves bare at the moment .
Unfortunately , I don ’ t think anyone in the industry expects that demand to subside anytime soon , so while the ammunition shortage isn ’ t permanent , it ’ s also not likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demand is likely to actually increase as we get closer to Election Day , and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually win in November , Americans will be buying up every round that they can find in advance of the most anti-gun ticket in history taking office .

The record-setting run on guns has left many store shelves bare, and while firearms and ammunition manufacturers are producing as much as they can, gun owners are getting increasingly concerned about how long the shortage might last. Media outlets across the country are now starting to pay attention to the ammunition shortage, from Texas:
At Past & Blast in Whitesboro firearms sales have been surging since the Coronavirus pandemic began. Owner Matt Whitmire says it’s the best numbers he’s seen in the last eight years. Whitmire said he has “plenty of firearms” but it’s ammunition that he, and other gun store owners across the country, are hurting for.
to Virginia:
“In March, we started to see some of the ammo SKUs that we purchase frequently be less available,” said Safeside Tactical Co-Owner Mitchell Tyler, adding other gun shops and ranges are seeing the same thing. “It’s just kind of become progressively worse. At this point, we are really expecting this to go well into next summer.”
to South Carolina:
Hunters Headquarters Manager Jacob Harris attributes the surge in sales to first-time gun buyers, which made up an estimated 60 percent of sales over the past six months. “Sometimes during election years and other sorts of crisis, it seems to drive new buyers because they feel unsafe and the best way for them to feel safe is to protect themselves with a firearm,” Harris said. “A lot of people flock to firearms when they start to be less comfortable in their homes.” Although his store still has ammunition and most models of firearms, staff is limiting the number of boxes of ammo per day per customer.
Clearly the demand for both guns and ammunition has been off the charts for months, but the situation has been compounded by rising prices for common materials like copper and lead, which may have limited ammunition manufacturers’ ability to quickly ramp up production. There’s been some good news on that end in recent weeks, with copper miners in Chile ending a strike a couple of weeks ago, and some employees at several copper mining and processing facilities in Arizona and Texas are heading back to work after a strike that began last October.
Some ammunition manufacturers are also beginning to take the plunge and invest millions of dollars in expanding their operations to produce more ammunition. In late July Fiocchi of America announced that it’s expanding operations at its Little Rock, Arkansas plant, where 85 workers will soon be producing centerfire ammunition.
“These are good-paying jobs that will make a difference in our community, and most importantly, I hope that this is a partnership that will lead to future growth down the road,” Gov. Asa Hutchinson said at a news conference announcing the plant.
The jobs are great, especially at a time when our nation’s unemployment rate is still in the double digits. Still, I’m guessing most gun owners are more excited to hear about the increased production for some common self-defense calibers.
The ammunition industry is currently caught in the middle of unprecedented demand and more supply problems than they’re used to, but of the two, I’d say it’s the demand that’s really keeping store shelves bare at the moment. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone in the industry expects that demand to subside anytime soon, so while the ammunition shortage isn’t permanent, it’s also not likely to disappear over the next few months. Demand is likely to actually increase as we get closer to Election Day, and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually win in November, Americans will be buying up every round that they can find in advance of the most anti-gun ticket in history taking office.


bearingarms--2020-08-14--9th Circuit Declares CA Magazine Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

In a move that could ultimately have legal ramifications nationwide , a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a California law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition , ruling that the state law violates the Second Amendment rights of residents .
Judge Kenneth Lee , writing for the majority , declared that “ even well intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster , ” arguing that California ’ s ban on so-called large capacity magazines should be invalidated because it “ strikes at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to armed self defense.
” California ’ s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense .
The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks , Berettas , and other handguns that are staples of self-defense .
Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California .
Even law-abiding citizens , regardless of their training and track record , must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to a year in jail .
The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence , and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations .
But the Second Amendment limits the state ’ s ability to second guess a citizen ’ s choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense .
Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM : those who live in rural areas where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding citizens trapped in high crime areas , communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement , and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families .
California ’ s almost blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people ’ s right to self-defense .
California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel calls today ’ s decision a huge victory for gun owners , and he ’ s absolutely right , even though California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The AG could ask an en banc panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case , or he could appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court .
Of course , SCOTUS has been reluctant to hear any Second Amendment cases in recent years , and there ’ s a great deal of speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts wants to avoid taking up any hot-button cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms .
An en banc review of the case by a broader panel of judges on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Becerra , given the shift in the balance of the court .
Long considered to be the most left-leaning of all the circuits , thanks to President Donald Trump ’ s judicial appointments over the past four years the Ninth Circuit has become much more balanced , and there ’ s a strong possibility than an en banc review would have a majority of Republican-appointed judges on the panel .
That doesn ’ t guarantee that the panel would uphold today ’ s decision , but generally speaking , the odds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are far lower than what they would have been just a couple of years ago .
As for the national implications for today ’ s decision , the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction not only over California law , but a number of other western states ; Hawaii , Alaska , Arizona , Oregon , Washington , Nevada , Idaho , and Montana .
Today ’ s ruling will immediately impact the ban on handgun magazines over ten rounds that ’ s currently law in Hawaii , but it also creates a split among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which have previously upheld magazine capacity restrictions .
That increases the odds that the Supreme Court would agree to hear this case , because the Court tends to wait until there ’ s conflict between lower courts before weighing in .
Second Amendment groups are already sounding off on today ’ s court victory , with the NRA noting the potential national implications for the decision .
The Second Amendment Foundation ’ s Alan Gottlieb is also praising the decision , noting that while the organization didn ’ t bring the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all gun owners , and the majority opinion reflects our arguments in an amicus brief we submitted along with several other organizations .
Most importantly , the panel majority used strict scrutiny to make its determination , and that is a huge milestone.
” That ’ s actually a hugely important point .
Since the Heller and McDonald decisions a decade ago , too many federal courts have upheld gun control laws by relying on intermediate scrutiny in determining whether or not various gun laws are constitutional .
That vague and fuzzy standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Ninth Circuit in today ’ s decision in Duncan v. Becerra .
Judge Lee writes in his opinion that the reason the panel adopted a strict scrutiny standard of review is simple ; the law in question strikes at the core of the Second Amendment and poses a substantial burden on law-abiding gun owners who may want more a ten round magazine for self-defense .
The nub of the state ’ s position is that even though it bars Californians from owning one of every two magazines in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Californians can still possess other magazines .
But no court would hold that the First Amendment allows the government to ban “ extreme ” artwork from Mapplethorpe just because the people can still enjoy Monet or Matisse .
Nor would a court ever allow the government to outlaw so-called “ dangerous ” music by , say , Dr. Dre , merely because the state has chosen not to outlaw Debussy .
And we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly “ inflammatory ” views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal… Law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas where the law enforcement is overtaxed may defend themselves in their homes with a handgun outfitted with LCMs .
And in incidents of mass chaos and unrest , law enforcement simply may be unable to protect the people , leaving them solely responsible for their own safety in a seemingly Hobbesian world .
Finally , many citizens will not take any chances or compromise their ability to defend themselves and their families , and they may place their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a last resort .
Simply put , the guardrails found in our precedent that limit the government ’ s intrusion on the Second Amendment right do not exist in California ’ s near-categorical ban of LCMs .
It imposes a substantial burden on the people ’ s Second Amendment rights .
Strict scrutiny applies .
So when can California residents go out and purchase a 20-round magazine ?
It may be soon , but we ’ re not quite there yet .
Today ’ s decision affirms the original decision by District Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own decision a week or so after he originally released his opinion .
It will be up to Benitez to lift that stay , which would allow for the sale of magazines over ten rounds .
I think it ’ s likely that Benitez will keep the stay in place , at least for now , while he waits for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to decide if he ’ ll appeal en banc to the Ninth Circuit or try to take the case directly to SCOTUS .
Even though Californians may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new 20-round magazine this weekend , this is still a hugely important decision and a reminder of the importance of the Second Amendment in this year ’ s elections .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to take California ’ s magazine ban nationwide , and if they win in November they ’ re likely to do just that as quickly as they possibly can .
Today ’ s ruling cuts against their argument that a ban on so-called large capacity magazines is just common sense , because the Ninth Circuit says it @ @ @ @ @

In a move that could ultimately have legal ramifications nationwide, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a California law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, ruling that the state law violates the Second Amendment rights of residents.
Judge Kenneth Lee, writing for the majority, declared that “even well intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” arguing that California’s ban on so-called large capacity magazines should be invalidated because it “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment – the right to armed self defense.”
California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail. The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state’s ability to second guess a citizen’s choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense. Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California’s almost blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people’s right to self-defense.
California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel calls today’s decision a huge victory for gun owners, and he’s absolutely right, even though California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has a couple of options available to him on appeal. The AG could ask an en banc panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, or he could appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, SCOTUS has been reluctant to hear any Second Amendment cases in recent years, and there’s a great deal of speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts wants to avoid taking up any hot-button cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms.
An en banc review of the case by a broader panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit also carries some risk for Becerra, given the shift in the balance of the court. Long considered to be the most left-leaning of all the circuits, thanks to President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments over the past four years the Ninth Circuit has become much more balanced, and there’s a strong possibility than an en banc review would have a majority of Republican-appointed judges on the panel. That doesn’t guarantee that the panel would uphold today’s decision, but generally speaking, the odds of California prevailing in an en banc review are far lower than what they would have been just a couple of years ago.
As for the national implications for today’s decision, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction not only over California law, but a number of other western states; Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. Today’s ruling will immediately impact the ban on handgun magazines over ten rounds that’s currently law in Hawaii, but it also creates a split among the federal courts of appeals, some of which have previously upheld magazine capacity restrictions. That increases the odds that the Supreme Court would agree to hear this case, because the Court tends to wait until there’s conflict between lower courts before weighing in.
Second Amendment groups are already sounding off on today’s court victory, with the NRA noting the potential national implications for the decision.
BREAKING NEWS: @NRA scores a HUGE win in California today. The 9th Circuit, led by a Trump-appointed judge, rules that ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This case will have repercussions nationwide. — NRA (@NRA) August 14, 2020
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb is also praising the decision, noting that while the organization didn’t bring the case, it is “a victory for all gun owners, and the majority opinion reflects our arguments in an amicus brief we submitted along with several other organizations. Most importantly, the panel majority used strict scrutiny to make its determination, and that is a huge milestone.”
That’s actually a hugely important point. Since the Heller and McDonald decisions a decade ago, too many federal courts have upheld gun control laws by relying on intermediate scrutiny in determining whether or not various gun laws are constitutional. That vague and fuzzy standard is lower than the strict scrutiny used by the Ninth Circuit in today’s decision in Duncan v. Becerra. Judge Lee writes in his opinion that the reason the panel adopted a strict scrutiny standard of review is simple; the law in question strikes at the core of the Second Amendment and poses a substantial burden on law-abiding gun owners who may want more a ten round magazine for self-defense.
The nub of the state’s position is that even though it bars Californians from owning one of every two magazines in the United States, that restriction is not substantially burdensome because Californians can still possess other magazines. But no court would hold that the First Amendment allows the government to ban “extreme” artwork from Mapplethorpe just because the people can still enjoy Monet or Matisse. Nor would a court ever allow the government to outlaw so-called “dangerous” music by, say, Dr. Dre, merely because the state has chosen not to outlaw Debussy. And we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly “inflammatory” views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the grounds that the people can still read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal… Law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas where the law enforcement is overtaxed may defend themselves in their homes with a handgun outfitted with LCMs. And in incidents of mass chaos and unrest, law enforcement simply may be unable to protect the people, leaving them solely responsible for their own safety in a seemingly Hobbesian world. Finally, many citizens will not take any chances or compromise their ability to defend themselves and their families, and they may place their trust in guns equipped with LCMs as a last resort. Simply put, the guardrails found in our precedent that limit the government’s intrusion on the Second Amendment right do not exist in California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs. It imposes a substantial burden on the people’s Second Amendment rights. Strict scrutiny applies.
So when can California residents go out and purchase a 20-round magazine? It may be soon, but we’re not quite there yet. Today’s decision affirms the original decision by District Judge Robert Benitez, but Benitez stayed his own decision a week or so after he originally released his opinion. It will be up to Benitez to lift that stay, which would allow for the sale of magazines over ten rounds. I think it’s likely that Benitez will keep the stay in place, at least for now, while he waits for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to decide if he’ll appeal en banc to the Ninth Circuit or try to take the case directly to SCOTUS.
Even though Californians may not yet be able to legally purchase a new 20-round magazine this weekend, this is still a hugely important decision and a reminder of the importance of the Second Amendment in this year’s elections. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to take California’s magazine ban nationwide, and if they win in November they’re likely to do just that as quickly as they possibly can. Today’s ruling cuts against their argument that a ban on so-called large capacity magazines is just common sense, because the Ninth Circuit says it’s actually unconstitutional.


bearingarms--2020-08-14--Portland State Disarms Police Force After Student Protests

Anti-police activists and students at Portland State University have succeeded in their attempt to force the university ’ s police department to disarm , with the school ’ s president calling the move part of its “ growing commitment to anti-racism.
” As the Portland Mercury reports , PSU president Stephen Percy said the university had been planning to re-evaluate the campus police department in a couple of years , but thanks to the large number of protests he realized that many students and faculty “ feel the presence of weapons on campus make us less safe.
” Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety officers will still be sworn police officers , meaning they will have the same authority of any other cop in Oregon , including arrest powers .
They won ’ t carry guns , but they will use other “ less-lethal ” weapons , such as tasers .
While PSU police officers will patrol the campus and respond to the majority of PSU calls , armed officers from the Portland Police Bureau ( PPB ) will respond to calls that involve people with weapons .
“ The only time [ PPB ] will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is more than we can handle being unarmed , ” said Campus Public Safety Chief Willie Halliburton , adding that in his experience such calls are “ rare ” for PSU .
Even in situations where PPB is called to campus , PSU ’ s force will handle all follow-up work on the cases .
Much of the controversy over the armed campus police department has centered around the death of Jason Washington , a Navy veteran and postal worker who was shot and killed by two Portland State officers as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near campus in 2018 .
Washington , who had earlier taken a friend ’ s gun after the friend had too much to drink , was holding the firearm when officers ordered him to drop it before firing .
Late last year , Portland State agreed to a $ 1,000,000 settlement with Washington ’ s family , though students and activists have continued to protest the fact that the officers involved in the shooting were cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury .
Jason Washington ’ s death was a tragedy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campus police department is the right answer .
Instead , it looks to me like it ’ s an attempt to appease the mob both on and off campus .
The move to strip campus police of their firearms comes on the heels of local prosecutor Mike Schmidt ’ s announcement earlier this week that hundreds of protesters who ’ ve been arrested over the past two months will have their charges dropped , as well as the decision by the Oregon State Police to pull approximately 100 troopers from downtown Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Portland Police Bureau in riot control .
State police committed to two weeks “ and that two weeks ended today , ” said spokesman Capt .
Timothy R. Fox .
“ We ’ re in a county that ’ s not going to prosecute this criminal behavior , ” Fox added .
It was a pointed reference to Tuesday ’ s announcement by new Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt that his office won ’ t pursue many of the charges against demonstrators , including disorderly conduct , interfering with a police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The troopers will return to their regular assignments elsewhere in the Willamette Valley , along the coast , and in southern and eastern Oregon , where police staffing already is limited , Fox said .
“ The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority , ” he said .
If you want to see what crime and policing would look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further than Portland .
Police are being disarmed and defunded , even while violent crime and murders skyrocket to levels not seen in 30 years and riots are declared in the streets on a nightly basis .
It ’ s no wonder that gun sales are also soaring across the state of Oregon , but if anti-gun Democrats like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler , Gov .
Kate Brown , Joe Biden , and Kamala Harris get their way , the disarming of the Portland State police will be just the beginning .

Anti-police activists and students at Portland State University have succeeded in their attempt to force the university’s police department to disarm, with the school’s president calling the move part of its “growing commitment to anti-racism.” As the Portland Mercury reports, PSU president Stephen Percy said the university had been planning to re-evaluate the campus police department in a couple of years, but thanks to the large number of protests he realized that many students and faculty “feel the presence of weapons on campus make us less safe.”
Under the new plan, PSU’s campus safety officers will still be sworn police officers, meaning they will have the same authority of any other cop in Oregon, including arrest powers. They won’t carry guns, but they will use other “less-lethal” weapons, such as tasers. While PSU police officers will patrol the campus and respond to the majority of PSU calls, armed officers from the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) will respond to calls that involve people with weapons. “The only time [PPB] will intercede is if there is a call that is more than we can handle being unarmed,” said Campus Public Safety Chief Willie Halliburton, adding that in his experience such calls are “rare” for PSU. Even in situations where PPB is called to campus, PSU’s force will handle all follow-up work on the cases.
Much of the controversy over the armed campus police department has centered around the death of Jason Washington, a Navy veteran and postal worker who was shot and killed by two Portland State officers as they tried to break up a bar fight near campus in 2018. Washington, who had earlier taken a friend’s gun after the friend had too much to drink, was holding the firearm when officers ordered him to drop it before firing. Late last year, Portland State agreed to a $1,000,000 settlement with Washington’s family, though students and activists have continued to protest the fact that the officers involved in the shooting were cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury.
Jason Washington’s death was a tragedy, but I don’t think disarming the campus police department is the right answer. Instead, it looks to me like it’s an attempt to appease the mob both on and off campus. The move to strip campus police of their firearms comes on the heels of local prosecutor Mike Schmidt’s announcement earlier this week that hundreds of protesters who’ve been arrested over the past two months will have their charges dropped, as well as the decision by the Oregon State Police to pull approximately 100 troopers from downtown Portland, where they’ve been assisting the Portland Police Bureau in riot control.
State police committed to two weeks “and that two weeks ended today,” said spokesman Capt. Timothy R. Fox. “We’re in a county that’s not going to prosecute this criminal behavior,” Fox added. It was a pointed reference to Tuesday’s announcement by new Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt that his office won’t pursue many of the charges against demonstrators, including disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer and even riot in some circumstances. The troopers will return to their regular assignments elsewhere in the Willamette Valley, along the coast, and in southern and eastern Oregon, where police staffing already is limited, Fox said. “The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority,” he said.
If you want to see what crime and policing would look like under a Biden/Harris administration, look no further than Portland. Police are being disarmed and defunded, even while violent crime and murders skyrocket to levels not seen in 30 years and riots are declared in the streets on a nightly basis. It’s no wonder that gun sales are also soaring across the state of Oregon, but if anti-gun Democrats like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, Gov. Kate Brown, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris get their way, the disarming of the Portland State police will be just the beginning.


bearingarms--2020-08-14--Reminder: Pointing A Gun At Your Junk May Not End Well

There are four main rules of gun safety : treat every gun as if it ’ s loaded , don ’ t point the gun at anything you ’ re not willing to shoot , keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target , and identify the target as well as what ’ s behind it before firing .
It may be time to add a fifth rule : don ’ t point a gun at your balls .
Earlier this summer my colleague Tom Knighton pointed out a bizarre trend among some gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loaded guns at their crotch .
Sooner or later someone was going to have an accidental discharge that was going to end badly , and according to Vice ‘ s Matthew Gault , that day has now arrived .
A member of a Facebook group dedicated to taking pictures of loaded weapons pointed at dicks finally shot himself in the balls , according to bloody pictures and video he posted on social media and the Imperial County Sheriff ’ s Office , which confirmed the incident to Motherboard .
Rather than step back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wise , the group made him an administrator and are now celebrating him as their king .
Of course they are .
What ’ s a little surgery and blood loss compared to the adulation of your fellow gun owners who like to point their pistols at their nutsack , after all ?
As Gault points out , the members of the Facebook group seem to take pride in breaking the four rules of gun safety simply to annoy responsible gun owners .
Now , Loaded Guns Pointed at [ B ] enis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the group is making memes of him as their king .
In one meme , Barack Obama is giving him a Presidential Medal of Freedom .
The group changed its cover photo to a screenshot of the shooter pointing his loaded 1911 at his dick .
“ [ We ] are sick and tired of being demonized as gun owners , and looped together with the alt-right just for owning guns , ” an admin of Loaded Guns Pointed at [ B ] enis told Motherboard in a Facebook message .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA ) telling us what to do with our property , and we are sick of being told that just because we like guns It means we have to be anti woman , pro life and pro trump.
” I ’ m not convinced that jamming the barrel of a pistol against your crotch and posting a picture is a great symbolic act of political protest .
Then again , I ’ d say the odds are greater than 50 % that the admin ’ s comments to Vice were just another act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement of principles .
Regardless of the rationale behind the statement , the four rules of gun safety aren ’ t a Republican plot or part of a Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun agenda .
They are rules for a reason : they work .
Follow those rules and you won ’ t blow a hole in your scrotum .
Of course , you might have to find a new group of Facebook friends to hang out with , but really.. friends don ’ t let friends shoot themselves in the balls for Internet @ @

There are four main rules of gun safety: treat every gun as if it’s loaded, don’t point the gun at anything you’re not willing to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target, and identify the target as well as what’s behind it before firing. It may be time to add a fifth rule: don’t point a gun at your balls.
Earlier this summer my colleague Tom Knighton pointed out a bizarre trend among some gun owners; posting pictures of themselves pointing their loaded guns at their crotch. Sooner or later someone was going to have an accidental discharge that was going to end badly, and according to Vice‘s Matthew Gault, that day has now arrived.
A member of a Facebook group dedicated to taking pictures of loaded weapons pointed at dicks finally shot himself in the balls, according to bloody pictures and video he posted on social media and the Imperial County Sheriff’s Office, which confirmed the incident to Motherboard. Rather than step back and start questioning whether the practice is wise, the group made him an administrator and are now celebrating him as their king.
Of course they are. What’s a little surgery and blood loss compared to the adulation of your fellow gun owners who like to point their pistols at their nutsack, after all? As Gault points out, the members of the Facebook group seem to take pride in breaking the four rules of gun safety simply to annoy responsible gun owners.
Now, Loaded Guns Pointed at [B]enis has made the shooter an admin, and the group is making memes of him as their king. In one meme, Barack Obama is giving him a Presidential Medal of Freedom. The group changed its cover photo to a screenshot of the shooter pointing his loaded 1911 at his dick. “[We] are sick and tired of being demonized as gun owners, and looped together with the alt-right just for owning guns,” an admin of Loaded Guns Pointed at [B]enis told Motherboard in a Facebook message. “We are sick of republicans (think NRA) telling us what to do with our property, and we are sick of being told that just because we like guns It means we have to be anti woman, pro life and pro trump.”
I’m not convinced that jamming the barrel of a pistol against your crotch and posting a picture is a great symbolic act of political protest. Then again, I’d say the odds are greater than 50% that the admin’s comments to Vice were just another act of sh*tposting as opposed to a serious statement of principles.
Regardless of the rationale behind the statement, the four rules of gun safety aren’t a Republican plot or part of a Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda. They are rules for a reason: they work. Follow those rules and you won’t blow a hole in your scrotum. Of course, you might have to find a new group of Facebook friends to hang out with, but really.. friends don’t let friends shoot themselves in the balls for Internet points.


bearingarms--2020-08-14--Philly Police Ask Residents To Turn In "Unwanted Guns"

I can ’ t imagine that there are too many unwanted firearms these days , what with gun shop inventories picked clean and records being set every month for new gun sales .
Still , the Philadelphia Police Department is hoping there might be a few residents ready to hand over their gun in the name of fighting crime .
This message seems largely aimed at parents , who might discover that Junior ’ s smuggled a pistol into the home and want to get rid of it .
I suppose under those circumstances the Philly PD might be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but if city officials are serious about bringing down the increasing crime rate , they ’ re going to need a different strategy altogether .
City Council held a two-day emergency gun violence hearing this week as the number of shootings recorded this year has spiked to more than 1,100 and homicides are up to 260 — both about 30 % increases over this time last year , according to police department statistics .
During that hearing , Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw , who took over the department at the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic officers are still confiscating an average of about 77 guns per week .
That ’ s slightly lower than the 80 guns per week taken last year .
Outlaw said the city is second only to Chicago , as of August , in the increasing number of homicides .
So , dozens of illegally possessed guns are being confiscated each week in Philadelphia , but what ’ s happening to the individuals found in possession of those guns ?
District Attorney Larry Krasner , who ’ s been blasted by critics for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says his office is focusing on violent offenders .
Krasner was the first to address the City Council ’ s Special Committee on Gun Violence and even got emotional during the hearing when talking about 7-year-old Zamar Jones , who was killed during gun crossfire in West Philadelphia .
Krasner says his office is pushing for higher bail on those linked to gun crimes .
“ What my office is seeing is that bails are too low and often too low on cases that involve shootings , on cases involving felons in possession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Krasner also pointed out that many arrests for non-violent offenses are being deferred by order of the police chief .
That mandate , which Chief Danielle Outlaw put in place back in March , was designed to prevent overcrowding at the city jail during the coronavirus pandemic .
While the jail ’ s population has declined to the lowest level in years , according to the Philadelphia Inquirer , shootings and homicides are up by 30 % compared to last year .
Inmates may be at less risk of catching the coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being shot .
I ’ m not sure how many residents think that ’ s a good trade off , frankly .
Now the Philadelphia police are left to plead with folks to turn in any guns they discover in their home , knowing full well that ’ s not likely to lead to a large number of firearms being turned in or a reduction in violent crime .
It ’ s a sign that city leaders know they have to “ do something , ” but they ’ re either unsure or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually useful .

I can’t imagine that there are too many unwanted firearms these days, what with gun shop inventories picked clean and records being set every month for new gun sales. Still, the Philadelphia Police Department is hoping there might be a few residents ready to hand over their gun in the name of fighting crime.
Amidst a rising tide of gun violence, city officials are hoping residents will search their houses and anonymously turn in any guns they find or don’t want at two church locations Saturday. The guns will then be collected by police.
This message seems largely aimed at parents, who might discover that Junior’s smuggled a pistol into the home and want to get rid of it. I suppose under those circumstances the Philly PD might be able to take possession of a few firearms, but if city officials are serious about bringing down the increasing crime rate, they’re going to need a different strategy altogether.
City Council held a two-day emergency gun violence hearing this week as the number of shootings recorded this year has spiked to more than 1,100 and homicides are up to 260 — both about 30% increases over this time last year, according to police department statistics. During that hearing, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, who took over the department at the beginning of this year, said despite the pandemic officers are still confiscating an average of about 77 guns per week. That’s slightly lower than the 80 guns per week taken last year. Outlaw said the city is second only to Chicago, as of August, in the increasing number of homicides.
So, dozens of illegally possessed guns are being confiscated each week in Philadelphia, but what’s happening to the individuals found in possession of those guns? District Attorney Larry Krasner, who’s been blasted by critics for his soft-on-crime approach in the past, says his office is focusing on violent offenders.
Krasner was the first to address the City Council’s Special Committee on Gun Violence and even got emotional during the hearing when talking about 7-year-old Zamar Jones, who was killed during gun crossfire in West Philadelphia. Krasner says his office is pushing for higher bail on those linked to gun crimes. “What my office is seeing is that bails are too low and often too low on cases that involve shootings, on cases involving felons in possession of firearms,” he said.
Krasner also pointed out that many arrests for non-violent offenses are being deferred by order of the police chief. That mandate, which Chief Danielle Outlaw put in place back in March, was designed to prevent overcrowding at the city jail during the coronavirus pandemic. While the jail’s population has declined to the lowest level in years, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, shootings and homicides are up by 30% compared to last year. Inmates may be at less risk of catching the coronavirus, but Philadelphians are more at risk of being shot. I’m not sure how many residents think that’s a good trade off, frankly.
Now the Philadelphia police are left to plead with folks to turn in any guns they discover in their home, knowing full well that’s not likely to lead to a large number of firearms being turned in or a reduction in violent crime. It’s a sign that city leaders know they have to “do something,” but they’re either unsure or unwilling to do something that’s actually useful.


bearingarms--2020-08-15--How Kamala Harris Accidentally Helped To Bring Down CA's Mag Ban

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate Joe Biden want to make “ large capacity magazines ” illegal to own from coast-to-coast , so there ’ s a delicious irony in the fact that Harris makes a cameo appearance in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion declaring the state of California ’ s ban on “ large capacity magazines ” a violation of the constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment .
Deep within his opinion , Judge Kenneth Lee refers to a statement by Harris as part of his argument that the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than ten rounds of ammunition “ substantially burdens ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms .
While Hollywood and the Bay Area symbolize California to the world , the Golden State is in fact a much more diverse and vibrant place , with people living in sparsely populated rural counties , seemingly deserted desert towns , and majestic mountain villages .
In such places , the closest law enforcement may be far , far away — and it may take substantial time for the county sheriff to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the things that go bump in the night come alone ; indeed , burglars often ply their trade in groups recognizing strength in numbers .
Law abiding citizens in these places may find security in a gun that comes standard with an LCM .
Further , some people , especially in communities of color , do not trust law enforcement and are less likely — over 40 % less likely , according to one study — to call 911 even during emergencies .
See 163 Cong .
Rec .
S1257-58 ( daily ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement of Sen. Kamala Harris ) ( discussing a study showing that certain ethnic groups are over 40 % less likely to call 911 in an emergency ) … These citizens may rely more on self-defense than the “ average ” person in a home invasion or some other emergency .
The statement from Harris that Judge Lee refers to was part of her first speech on the Senate floor after becoming the junior senator from California in 2016 .
As you might have guessed , she wasn ’ t trying to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but was instead excoriating the Trump administration for its executive orders dealing with illegal immigration .
As Politifact reported at the time : In her first official speech on the U.S. Senate floor , Sen. Kamala Harris said President Trump ’ s executive actions “ have hit our immigrant and religious communities like a cold front , striking a chilling fear in the hearts of millions of good hardworking people.
” The California Democrat went on to say that rather than making communities safe , Trump ’ s immigration raids and policies will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fear they ’ ll be deported .
“ For this reason , ” Harris said in her Feb. 16 , 2017 speech , “ studies have shown Latinos are more than 40 percent less likely to call 911 when they have been a victim of a crime.
” Politifact reached out to Harris ’ s press secretary , who cited a 2013 study from a University of Chicago professor that used a poll of 2,000 Hispanic legal and illegal residents of Chicago , Phoenix , Los Angeles , and Houston .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree or disagree with the following statement : “ I am less likely to contact police officers if I have been the victim of a crime for fear that they will ask me or people I know about our immigration status.
” Overall , 44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement .
That ’ s just about what Harris said in her claim .
Politifact rated Harris ’ claim as “ Mostly True , ” but only because she said that “ studies ” when she could cite a single study .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Judge Kenneth Lee made with his citation of the senator ’ s comments , which was that if residents are less likely to call police when they ’ re the victims of violent crime , their right of self-defense may be put to use more frequently than those who are willing to dial 9-1-1 at the first sign of an intruder .
It ’ s not the main thrust of Lee ’ s argument , and he could have taken out the quote by Kamala Harris without doing any real harm to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really glad he included it , because Kamala Harris and Joe Biden want to impose a California-style magazine ban on every American gun owner .
In fact , under the Biden/Harris gun control plan anyone who failed to register their “ large capacity magazine ” under the National Firearms Act would be subject to federal felony charges , and the future sale of magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds would be banned completely .
At some point , perhaps a reporter will ask either of the candidates how a gun owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the fact that they don ’ t have serial numbers .
Biden ’ s plan is completely unworkable as is , and it ’ s likely that the Democrats will simply revise the language to mandate the destruction of those magazines , or demand that they be turned over to authorities .
Given the determination of the Democratic ticket to turn our Second Amendment rights into a privilege to be exercised by a chosen few , it ’ s nice to be able to cite the Democratic vice-presidential nominee ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these owning these commonly-possessed magazines should be a criminal offense .

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate Joe Biden want to make “large capacity magazines” illegal to own from coast-to-coast, so there’s a delicious irony in the fact that Harris makes a cameo appearance in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion declaring the state of California’s ban on “large capacity magazines” a violation of the constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment.
Deep within his opinion, Judge Kenneth Lee refers to a statement by Harris as part of his argument that the state’s ban on ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition “substantially burdens” the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
While Hollywood and the Bay Area symbolize California to the world, the Golden State is in fact a much more diverse and vibrant place, with people living in sparsely populated rural counties, seemingly deserted desert towns, and majestic mountain villages. In such places, the closest law enforcement may be far, far away — and it may take substantial time for the county sheriff to respond. And it is no guarantee that the things that go bump in the night come alone; indeed, burglars often ply their trade in groups recognizing strength in numbers. Law abiding citizens in these places may find security in a gun that comes standard with an LCM. Further, some people, especially in communities of color, do not trust law enforcement and are less likely — over 40% less likely, according to one study — to call 911 even during emergencies. See 163 Cong. Rec. S1257-58 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 2017) (statement of Sen. Kamala Harris) (discussing a study showing that certain ethnic groups are over 40% less likely to call 911 in an emergency)… These citizens may rely more on self-defense than the “average” person in a home invasion or some other emergency.
The statement from Harris that Judge Lee refers to was part of her first speech on the Senate floor after becoming the junior senator from California in 2016. As you might have guessed, she wasn’t trying to make some sort of pro-Second Amendment argument, but was instead excoriating the Trump administration for its executive orders dealing with illegal immigration. As Politifact reported at the time:
In her first official speech on the U.S. Senate floor, Sen. Kamala Harris said President Trump’s executive actions “have hit our immigrant and religious communities like a cold front, striking a chilling fear in the hearts of millions of good hardworking people.” The California Democrat went on to say that rather than making communities safe, Trump’s immigration raids and policies will make immigrants less likely to report crimes for fear they’ll be deported. “For this reason,” Harris said in her Feb. 16, 2017 speech, “studies have shown Latinos are more than 40 percent less likely to call 911 when they have been a victim of a crime.”
Politifact reached out to Harris’s press secretary, who cited a 2013 study from a University of Chicago professor that used a poll of 2,000 Hispanic legal and illegal residents of Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Houston.
One of the survey questions asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement: “I am less likely to contact police officers if I have been the victim of a crime for fear that they will ask me or people I know about our immigration status.” Overall, 44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement. That’s just about what Harris said in her claim.
Politifact rated Harris’ claim as “Mostly True,” but only because she said that “studies” when she could cite a single study. That’s irrelevant to the point that Judge Kenneth Lee made with his citation of the senator’s comments, which was that if residents are less likely to call police when they’re the victims of violent crime, their right of self-defense may be put to use more frequently than those who are willing to dial 9-1-1 at the first sign of an intruder.
It’s not the main thrust of Lee’s argument, and he could have taken out the quote by Kamala Harris without doing any real harm to his opinion, but I’m really glad he included it, because Kamala Harris and Joe Biden want to impose a California-style magazine ban on every American gun owner. In fact, under the Biden/Harris gun control plan anyone who failed to register their “large capacity magazine” under the National Firearms Act would be subject to federal felony charges, and the future sale of magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds would be banned completely.
At some point, perhaps a reporter will ask either of the candidates how a gun owner would go about registering a magazine, given the fact that they don’t have serial numbers. Biden’s plan is completely unworkable as is, and it’s likely that the Democrats will simply revise the language to mandate the destruction of those magazines, or demand that they be turned over to authorities. Given the determination of the Democratic ticket to turn our Second Amendment rights into a privilege to be exercised by a chosen few, it’s nice to be able to cite the Democratic vice-presidential nominee’s own words as a rebuttal to her argument that these owning these commonly-possessed magazines should be a criminal offense.