bearingarms--2020-10-12--VA Gun Store Investigated For "Voter Intimidation"

Ever since the death of George Floyd during an arrest by Minneapolis police officers , there ’ s been an awful lot of unrest , to put it mildly .
Mostly protests , but more than an handful of riots have taken place .
In fact , enough riots have taken place that plenty of people are arming up .
To be sure , no one really expects the election to settle tensions .
After all , if Trump wins , we ’ ll see riots–something we saw in 2016–and if he loses , well , Biden has some positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all on their own .
For a Virginia gun store , though , some of the stupid has come early .
After all , the mere mention of an election was deemed “ voter intimidation ” by one shrieking Karen .
In Northern Virginia , the Loudoun County Sheriff ’ s Office was asked to investigate a claim of potential voter intimidation at the polls .
This has to do with a volunteer poll worker who came across Facebook ads they found to be a threat .
The Facebook posts referenced show a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale – a firearm some politicians and activists might describe as an “ assault-style weapon.
” The post was made on September 20th and no longer appears to be online .
It shows an image of the firearm – but it is the wording the complainant took issue with .
One post with the firearm price also reads “ …the election is just around the corner… ” Another post reads … “ I want to see you in a nice AR pistol for the election.
” The person who made the complaint believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m pretty sure the investigation consisted of a detective pulling up the store ’ s Facebook page–Minuteman Arms in Lovettsville , VA–and looking at the posts in question and saying , “ Are you f**king kidding me ?
” and calling it a day .
Honestly , this is the most inane and idiotic claim I ’ ve seen yet .
The mere mention of the election and firearm does not equate to voter intimidation unless you ’ re such a bedwetting , hide in the closet at thunder degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mention of anything that could be construed as unpleasant .
There ’ s literally nothing wrong with the posts in question .
But there are plenty of people out there who honestly think that gun automatically means a desire to mow down legions of people you don ’ t like .
In a nation of over 400 million firearms , though , if that were remotely true , there wouldn ’ t be an anti-gun movement left .
The fact that there is should be ample proof that their hysteria is overblown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities declined to press any charges against Minuteman Arms .
Then again , what would such charges have really been ?
Voter intimidation is beyond ridiculous , after all , so what ?
Making a Karen uncomfortable ?
Malicious taunting ?
This , ladies and gentlemen , is the world we live in .
Make no mistake , though , the election won ’ t change any of it .
If anything , a Biden win will make this kind of nonsense even worse .
Probably much like the violence we ’ ve @ @

Ever since the death of George Floyd during an arrest by Minneapolis police officers, there’s been an awful lot of unrest, to put it mildly. Mostly protests, but more than an handful of riots have taken place. In fact, enough riots have taken place that plenty of people are arming up.
To be sure, no one really expects the election to settle tensions. After all, if Trump wins, we’ll see riots–something we saw in 2016–and if he loses, well, Biden has some positions that are bound to spark some unrest all on their own.
For a Virginia gun store, though, some of the stupid has come early. After all, the mere mention of an election was deemed “voter intimidation” by one shrieking Karen.
In Northern Virginia, the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office was asked to investigate a claim of potential voter intimidation at the polls. This has to do with a volunteer poll worker who came across Facebook ads they found to be a threat. … The Facebook posts referenced show a Facebook ad for an AR pistol on sale – a firearm some politicians and activists might describe as an “assault-style weapon.” The post was made on September 20th and no longer appears to be online. It shows an image of the firearm – but it is the wording the complainant took issue with. One post with the firearm price also reads “…the election is just around the corner…” Another post reads … “I want to see you in a nice AR pistol for the election.” The person who made the complaint believes this is an example of voter intimidation.
Holy crap.
I’m pretty sure the investigation consisted of a detective pulling up the store’s Facebook page–Minuteman Arms in Lovettsville, VA–and looking at the posts in question and saying, “Are you f**king kidding me?” and calling it a day.
Honestly, this is the most inane and idiotic claim I’ve seen yet.
The mere mention of the election and firearm does not equate to voter intimidation unless you’re such a bedwetting, hide in the closet at thunder degree of coward that you simply faint at the mention of anything that could be construed as unpleasant. There’s literally nothing wrong with the posts in question.
But there are plenty of people out there who honestly think that gun automatically means a desire to mow down legions of people you don’t like. In a nation of over 400 million firearms, though, if that were remotely true, there wouldn’t be an anti-gun movement left. The fact that there is should be ample proof that their hysteria is overblown at a minimum.
Luckily, the authorities declined to press any charges against Minuteman Arms. Then again, what would such charges have really been? Voter intimidation is beyond ridiculous, after all, so what? Making a Karen uncomfortable? Malicious taunting?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the world we live in.
Make no mistake, though, the election won’t change any of it. If anything, a Biden win will make this kind of nonsense even worse.
Probably much like the violence we’ve seen.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Joe Manchin Claims 2A "Not In Jeopardy Whatsoever"

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin may have delivered one of the biggest whoppers of the 2020 election season on Sunday night , telling voters during a virtual town hall that their right to keep and bear arms isn ’ t under threat if Democrats gain the White House and a majority in Congress on Election Day .
Earlier this year there was speculation that Manchin might end up endorsing Donald Trump ’ s re-election , but instead the West Virginia Democrat has embraced the Biden/Harris campaign and is trying to provide cover for the Democratic ticket in West Virginia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top election issues for voters .
West Virginia is a stronghold for the right to keep and bear arms , with lawmakers adopting permitless carry in the state back in 2016 .
On Sunday evening , Manchin could have spoken honestly about what a Biden/Harris administration would mean for gun owners in the Mountaineer State , but instead he decided to claim that Democratic ticket poses no threat at all to the Second Amendment .
“ The second amendment right is not in jeopardy whatsoever .
People have a right to own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Manchin .
The Senator was answering a question about any risks that policymakers would take away firearms from rural West Virginians .
“ We just don ’ t need people who are , basically , taking it to the extreme , ” said Sen. Manchin .
Unfortunately , Machin is backing the candidates who are “ taking it to the extreme.
” The Biden/Harris campaign is definitely taking some extreme positions when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms , and Machin ’ s lies about the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve him or his constituents well .
Under the Biden/Harris gun control proposals , West Virginians who own semi-automatic firearms deemed to be “ assault weapons ” would be required to hand them over to the federal government or else pay $ 200 per firearm and magazine in order to maintain possession of their banned guns .
Biden also wants to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and allow junk lawsuits against firearm manufacturers , allowing gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords to bankrupt the industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginians ( and the rest of us ) to exercise our Second Amendment rights .
Rural West Virginians wouldn ’ t be allowed to purchase ammunition online under the Biden/Harris plan , which would leave many of them to drive hours in order to try to pick up a box of ammo , and Biden also wants to give federal grants to states like West Virginia in order for them to impose Massachusetts-style gun licensing laws on all current and would-be gun owners .
If Joe Manchin doesn ’ t believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Second Amendment rights of his constituents , he must not think the Second Amendment offers much protection for their right to keep and bear arms in the first place .
Personally , I suspect that Manchin knows all too well that the anti-gun policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners ; he just can ’ t bring himself to acknowledge it publicly because it would hurt the cause .
For Manchin , electing Joe Biden is the number one priority , not @ @ @ @ @ @

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin may have delivered one of the biggest whoppers of the 2020 election season on Sunday night, telling voters during a virtual town hall that their right to keep and bear arms isn’t under threat if Democrats gain the White House and a majority in Congress on Election Day.
Earlier this year there was speculation that Manchin might end up endorsing Donald Trump’s re-election, but instead the West Virginia Democrat has embraced the Biden/Harris campaign and is trying to provide cover for the Democratic ticket in West Virginia, where the Second Amendment is one of the top election issues for voters. West Virginia is a stronghold for the right to keep and bear arms, with lawmakers adopting permitless carry in the state back in 2016.
On Sunday evening, Manchin could have spoken honestly about what a Biden/Harris administration would mean for gun owners in the Mountaineer State, but instead he decided to claim that Democratic ticket poses no threat at all to the Second Amendment.
“The second amendment right is not in jeopardy whatsoever. People have a right to own – to own firearms,” said Sen. Manchin. The Senator was answering a question about any risks that policymakers would take away firearms from rural West Virginians. “We just don’t need people who are, basically, taking it to the extreme,” said Sen. Manchin.
Unfortunately, Machin is backing the candidates who are “taking it to the extreme.” The Biden/Harris campaign is definitely taking some extreme positions when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, and Machin’s lies about the Second Amendment stakes in the election don’t serve him or his constituents well.
Under the Biden/Harris gun control proposals, West Virginians who own semi-automatic firearms deemed to be “assault weapons” would be required to hand them over to the federal government or else pay $200 per firearm and magazine in order to maintain possession of their banned guns.
Biden also wants to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and allow junk lawsuits against firearm manufacturers, allowing gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords to bankrupt the industry and make it nearly impossible for West Virginians (and the rest of us) to exercise our Second Amendment rights.
Rural West Virginians wouldn’t be allowed to purchase ammunition online under the Biden/Harris plan, which would leave many of them to drive hours in order to try to pick up a box of ammo, and Biden also wants to give federal grants to states like West Virginia in order for them to impose Massachusetts-style gun licensing laws on all current and would-be gun owners.
If Joe Manchin doesn’t believe that the Biden/Harris gun control agenda poses a threat to the Second Amendment rights of his constituents, he must not think the Second Amendment offers much protection for their right to keep and bear arms in the first place. Personally, I suspect that Manchin knows all too well that the anti-gun policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners; he just can’t bring himself to acknowledge it publicly because it would hurt the cause. For Manchin, electing Joe Biden is the number one priority, not being honest with his constituents.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Kansas Senate Candidate Praises Australia's Gun Confiscation

“ Of course we don ’ t want to take your guns , ” the anti-gunner will tell you .
“ We just want to enact some ‘ common sense ’ gun reforms that will keep guns out of the wrong hands.
” How many times have you heard some variation on this ?
Oh , you and I both know that most of the time , it ’ s total BS , but you ’ ve heard it .
If a politicians says some variation on this kind of thing and you say they really want to take our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in and claim that the politician wants no such thing because they totally said they didn ’ t .
The thing is , those “ fact-checkers ” are probably going to have to engage in some interesting mental gymnastics on this one .
The Democratic Senate candidate in Kansas came out in support of Australian-style gun confiscation during a campaign event last weekend .
When asked about adding a training requirement to the state ’ s gun-carry permit application process , Democrat Barbara Bollier said U.S. gun-control measures do not go far enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter living in Australia , Bollier praised a controversial gun-confiscation program the country instituted in the 1990s .
“ They have no guns .
They don ’ t allow them .
They just took them all away , ” Bollier said with a chuckle in a video obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
“ And , you know what , it ’ s pretty darn safe .
It ’ s this amazing thing.
” Of course , that ’ s not entirely accurate , of course .
There are still guns in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major pain in the butt to get one .
They did , however , confiscate a proverbial butt-ton of firearms from law-abiding citizens while criminals didn ’ t give up jack squat .
Further , they still have plenty of violent crime , just on a different scale than us .
Then again , they were on that different scale even before their gun restrictions were enacted .
You ’ ll also find their violent crime rate using non-firearm weapons is much lower than ours as well .
Anyway , Bollier is trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a traditionally red state , but this isn ’ t likely to help her very much .
Kansans are fairly pragmatic when it comes to politics and aren ’ t afraid to vote for a Democrat if the Republican running is a tool , but they ’ re not likely to back anyone who tries to defend gun confiscation .
Bollier ’ s website has absolutely no mention of guns on her issues page , so it ’ s difficult to tell if she ’ s been pushing for lesser forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that in the state House , she voted against every pro-gun measure that ’ s rolled around , though , so it ’ s probably safe to say she ’ s been anti-gun from the get-go .
However , she also may have gotten away with her anti-gun beliefs because she didn ’ t delve into how far they went .
Now , the Democrats ’ bid to take over the state Senate hangs in the balance and Bollier–anti-gun as she is–may have just shot those chances in the foot .
Kansans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I suspect this may hurt not just her campaign , but the campaigns of any other Democrats she ’ s closely aligned with in the state .

“Of course we don’t want to take your guns,” the anti-gunner will tell you. “We just want to enact some ‘common sense’ gun reforms that will keep guns out of the wrong hands.”
How many times have you heard some variation on this? Oh, you and I both know that most of the time, it’s total BS, but you’ve heard it. If a politicians says some variation on this kind of thing and you say they really want to take our guns, the “fact-checkers” stepped in and claim that the politician wants no such thing because they totally said they didn’t.
The thing is, those “fact-checkers” are probably going to have to engage in some interesting mental gymnastics on this one.
The Democratic Senate candidate in Kansas came out in support of Australian-style gun confiscation during a campaign event last weekend. When asked about adding a training requirement to the state’s gun-carry permit application process, Democrat Barbara Bollier said U.S. gun-control measures do not go far enough. After noting that she has a daughter living in Australia, Bollier praised a controversial gun-confiscation program the country instituted in the 1990s. “They have no guns. They don’t allow them. They just took them all away,” Bollier said with a chuckle in a video obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “And, you know what, it’s pretty darn safe. It’s this amazing thing.”
Of course, that’s not entirely accurate, of course. There are still guns in Australia. It’s just a major pain in the butt to get one. They did, however, confiscate a proverbial butt-ton of firearms from law-abiding citizens while criminals didn’t give up jack squat.
Further, they still have plenty of violent crime, just on a different scale than us. Then again, they were on that different scale even before their gun restrictions were enacted. You’ll also find their violent crime rate using non-firearm weapons is much lower than ours as well.
Anyway, Bollier is trying to help wrest power from the Republicans in a traditionally red state, but this isn’t likely to help her very much. Kansans are fairly pragmatic when it comes to politics and aren’t afraid to vote for a Democrat if the Republican running is a tool, but they’re not likely to back anyone who tries to defend gun confiscation.
Bollier’s website has absolutely no mention of guns on her issues page, so it’s difficult to tell if she’s been pushing for lesser forms of gun control or not. We do know that in the state House, she voted against every pro-gun measure that’s rolled around, though, so it’s probably safe to say she’s been anti-gun from the get-go.
However, she also may have gotten away with her anti-gun beliefs because she didn’t delve into how far they went.
Now, the Democrats’ bid to take over the state Senate hangs in the balance and Bollier–anti-gun as she is–may have just shot those chances in the foot. Kansans love their guns and their gun rights. I suspect this may hurt not just her campaign, but the campaigns of any other Democrats she’s closely aligned with in the state.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--As Barrett Confirmation Hearings Begin, 2A Issues Loom Large

The Senate Judiciary Committee kicks off confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett today , and Barrett ’ s views on the Second Amendment could play an important role in the hearings when President Trump ’ s nominee for the Supreme Court faces questions from senators starting on Tuesday .
Today ’ s hearings will contain opening statements by the members of the committee and by Barrett herself , and it ’ s likely that those opening statements by Democrats on the committee will contain at least one concerned reference to Barrett ’ s dissent in a case called Kanter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man convicted of a non-violent felony attempting to regain his right to keep and bear arms .
The three judge panel on the Seventh Circuit that heard the case rejected Rickey Kanter ’ s legal argument , but in a dissenting opinion Barrett argued that a blanket prohibition on those convicted of felonies exercising their right to keep and bear arms likely violates the Second Amendment .
Instead , Barrett opined that the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights should be limited to those convicted of violent offenses , noting that the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms doesn ’ t comport with a blanket prohibition on non-dangerous people possessing firearms .
Gun control activists are desperate to portray Barrett as a judicial activist who could upend decades of gun control laws through her judicial philosophy .
Adam Winkler , a UCLA law professor who ’ s critical of an expansive reading of the Second Amendment , is among those gun control supporters sounding the alarm .
He said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others .
“ We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s , ” Winkler said .
“ Does that mean that there ’ s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there ’ s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons ?
” Actually , the Hughes Amendment doesn ’ t actually ban anyone from possessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1987 .
Pre-ban fully automatic firearms are still legal to own , as long as their registered under the auspices of the National Firearms Act .
Of course gun control advocates don ’ t actually want to explain the law to non-gun owners .
The goal is to scare those who don ’ t own firearms and aren ’ t familiar with the intricacies of existing federal law with claims that “ Amy Coney Barrett wants serious felons to walk around with machine guns !
” I suspect that Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Judiciary Committee to bring up Barrett ’ s views on the Second Amendment , but I ’ m also curious to see if Sen. Kamala Harris also includes an attack on Barrett ’ s 2A jurisprudence during the committee hearings , either in her opening statement or while questioning Barrett herself .
The Biden/Harris campaign has been reluctant to highlight their own anti-gun policies at a time when Americans are purchasing firearms in record numbers , but I wouldn ’ t be surprised if Harris pokes at Barrett ’ s views on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an attempt to portray the nominee as some sort of Second Amendment extremist , while holding herself up as a paragon of moderation and “ common sense gun safety regulations.
” If confirmed , Barrett would almost certainly swing the Court towards a more favorable position on the Second Amendment , and she could ultimately end up becoming a critical fifth vote in future challenges to gun control laws that SCOTUS will soon be considering .
That ’ s the real concern for anti-gun activists , as well as the hope of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s why Barrett ’ s 2A views will likely be one of the big topics of debate and discussion during the Judiciary Committee ’ s confirmation hearings this week .

The Senate Judiciary Committee kicks off confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett today, and Barrett’s views on the Second Amendment could play an important role in the hearings when President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court faces questions from senators starting on Tuesday.
Today’s hearings will contain opening statements by the members of the committee and by Barrett herself, and it’s likely that those opening statements by Democrats on the committee will contain at least one concerned reference to Barrett’s dissent in a case called Kanter v. Barr, which dealt with a man convicted of a non-violent felony attempting to regain his right to keep and bear arms. The three judge panel on the Seventh Circuit that heard the case rejected Rickey Kanter’s legal argument, but in a dissenting opinion Barrett argued that a blanket prohibition on those convicted of felonies exercising their right to keep and bear arms likely violates the Second Amendment.
Instead, Barrett opined that the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights should be limited to those convicted of violent offenses, noting that the history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t comport with a blanket prohibition on non-dangerous people possessing firearms.
Gun control activists are desperate to portray Barrett as a judicial activist who could upend decades of gun control laws through her judicial philosophy. Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who’s critical of an expansive reading of the Second Amendment, is among those gun control supporters sounding the alarm.
He said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books, from prohibitions on machine guns to so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others. “We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s,” Winkler said. “Does that mean that there’s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there’s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?”
Actually, the Hughes Amendment doesn’t actually ban anyone from possessing machine guns, just those manufactured after 1987. Pre-ban fully automatic firearms are still legal to own, as long as their registered under the auspices of the National Firearms Act.
Of course gun control advocates don’t actually want to explain the law to non-gun owners. The goal is to scare those who don’t own firearms and aren’t familiar with the intricacies of existing federal law with claims that “Amy Coney Barrett wants serious felons to walk around with machine guns!”
I suspect that Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) will be the first on the Judiciary Committee to bring up Barrett’s views on the Second Amendment, but I’m also curious to see if Sen. Kamala Harris also includes an attack on Barrett’s 2A jurisprudence during the committee hearings, either in her opening statement or while questioning Barrett herself.
The Biden/Harris campaign has been reluctant to highlight their own anti-gun policies at a time when Americans are purchasing firearms in record numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris pokes at Barrett’s views on the right to keep and bear arms in an attempt to portray the nominee as some sort of Second Amendment extremist, while holding herself up as a paragon of moderation and “common sense gun safety regulations.”
If confirmed, Barrett would almost certainly swing the Court towards a more favorable position on the Second Amendment, and she could ultimately end up becoming a critical fifth vote in future challenges to gun control laws that SCOTUS will soon be considering. That’s the real concern for anti-gun activists, as well as the hope of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, and it’s why Barrett’s 2A views will likely be one of the big topics of debate and discussion during the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings this week.


bearingarms--2020-10-12--Protestor Killed At "Patriot Rally" In Denver By Unlicensed Guard

Protesting–honest to God protesting–is not supposed to be a fatal activity by any stretch of the imagination .
However , this is 2020 and it looks like this is the time to break out the body armor if you ’ re going to a protest , or so it seems .
The latest incident took place in Denver , Colorado .
A private security guard working for a TV station was in custody Saturday after a person died from a shooting that took place during dueling protests in downtown Denver .
The shooting took place shortly before 3:50 p.m. in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what was billed a “ Patriot Rally ” sprayed Mace at another man , the Denver Post reported .
That man then shot the other individual with a handgun near the courtyard outside the Denver Art Museum , according to a Denver Post journalist who witnessed the incident .
The man who was shot was taken to a nearby hospital , where he died an hour later , the KUSA TV station said .
The station says they have contract armed security while working protests for a while now .
Initial reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which doesn ’ t appear to be the case .
However , some in the Denver area state the news station has a pro-Antifa slant and at least one reporter has openly expressed their support for the violent extremist group .
That said , there doesn ’ t appear to be any evidence at this time that the shooter was an Antifa supporter .
It appears the guard and a protestor got into a verbal altercation , which lead to a physical altercation–the protestor apparently struck the guard .
Then , things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use mace and the guard opened fire .
Photographs show the two events happening almost simultaneously , so it ’ s difficult for us to tell based on those which happened first .
No one seems to have covered themselves in glory , here .
However , the shooter is now facing first degree murder charges and he is not in a good position to shrug them off , either .
For one thing , he wasn ’ t licensed to be armed security .
The suspected gunman who allegedly shot and killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside the Denver Art Museum on Saturday was not licensed to work as a security guard , officials have revealed .
Matthew Dolloff , 30 , a Pinkerton contractor who was hired to serve as security for Denver station 9News , was arrested on suspicion of murder after he opened fire on Lee Keltner , 49 , who deployed mace at him during dueling rallies on Saturday afternoon .
The Denver Department of Excise and Licenses on Sunday confirmed there was ‘ no record for an active licensed security guard now or ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect staff during the demonstrations , CBS 4 reported .
‘ If he was operating as a security guard , he was in violation of the law , ’ department spokesman Eric Escudero told the news station .
In other words , Dolloff had no business being there in that role .
Then there ’ s the use of lethal force against a less-lethal attack .
Now , for many , someone trying to mace them is grounds to shoot .
However , the law has specific requirements .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say on the topic a while back when he was in a similar situation .
I obviously didn ’ t shoot .
Neither my partner nor I even drew our handguns .
When I asked my friends why they would have shot , they universally stated : “ If she pepper sprayed you , you could have been incapacitated .
If you are incapacitated , you might not be able to defend yourself against a gun grab attempt .
While you are fighting the effects of the spray , she could take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” While that is certainly a POSSIBLE outcome in the encounter , it is not a LIKELY outcome .
There is a difference .
While it ’ s POSSIBLE that 20 ninjas could repel down from my ceiling and kill me with a barrage of throwing stars , it isn ’ t LIKELY .
Self defense claims require a REASONABLE expectation of suffering serious injury or death , not a POSSIBILITY of that happening .
In my opinion , if a criminal was using pepper spray and attempting to disarm his victim , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is that the criminal actually has to be trying to take the gun for the victim to reasonably fear for his life .
We need reasonable , articulable facts that would lead a person in a similar situation to believe that a disarming attempt was immanent .
Mere possibility of an event happening isn ’ t enough evidence to keep us out of jail .
And , honestly , I think Ellifritz has a valid point here .
Using a firearm without a clear indication that your life is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder charge .
Spraying pepper spray or mace isn ’ t that in and of itself .
So yeah , I think this charge is going to stick .
I ’ m not sure about first degree murder–it looks like a heat of the moment kind of thing–but murder charges in and of themselves seem appropriate .
Unfortunately , I fear this won ’ t be the last murder we see take place at a protest .

Protesting–honest to God protesting–is not supposed to be a fatal activity by any stretch of the imagination. However, this is 2020 and it looks like this is the time to break out the body armor if you’re going to a protest, or so it seems.
The latest incident took place in Denver, Colorado.
A private security guard working for a TV station was in custody Saturday after a person died from a shooting that took place during dueling protests in downtown Denver. The shooting took place shortly before 3:50 p.m. in Civic Center Park after a man participating in what was billed a “Patriot Rally” sprayed Mace at another man, the Denver Post reported. That man then shot the other individual with a handgun near the courtyard outside the Denver Art Museum, according to a Denver Post journalist who witnessed the incident. The man who was shot was taken to a nearby hospital, where he died an hour later, the KUSA TV station said.
The station says they have contract armed security while working protests for a while now.
Initial reports said the victim was shot by Antifa, which doesn’t appear to be the case. However, some in the Denver area state the news station has a pro-Antifa slant and at least one reporter has openly expressed their support for the violent extremist group.
That said, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence at this time that the shooter was an Antifa supporter.
So, what happened?
It appears the guard and a protestor got into a verbal altercation, which lead to a physical altercation–the protestor apparently struck the guard. Then, things get muddled. The protestor began to use mace and the guard opened fire. Photographs show the two events happening almost simultaneously, so it’s difficult for us to tell based on those which happened first.
No one seems to have covered themselves in glory, here.
However, the shooter is now facing first degree murder charges and he is not in a good position to shrug them off, either.
For one thing, he wasn’t licensed to be armed security.
The suspected gunman who allegedly shot and killed a right-wing ‘Patriot Muster’ protester outside the Denver Art Museum on Saturday was not licensed to work as a security guard, officials have revealed. Matthew Dolloff, 30, a Pinkerton contractor who was hired to serve as security for Denver station 9News, was arrested on suspicion of murder after he opened fire on Lee Keltner, 49, who deployed mace at him during dueling rallies on Saturday afternoon. The Denver Department of Excise and Licenses on Sunday confirmed there was ‘no record for an active licensed security guard now or ever’ for Dolloff, who was hired to protect staff during the demonstrations, CBS 4 reported. ‘If he was operating as a security guard, he was in violation of the law,’ department spokesman Eric Escudero told the news station.
In other words, Dolloff had no business being there in that role.
Then there’s the use of lethal force against a less-lethal attack. Now, for many, someone trying to mace them is grounds to shoot. However, the law has specific requirements.
Here’s what noted firearms trainer Greg Ellifritz had to say on the topic a while back when he was in a similar situation.
I obviously didn’t shoot. Neither my partner nor I even drew our handguns. When I asked my friends why they would have shot, they universally stated: “If she pepper sprayed you, you could have been incapacitated. If you are incapacitated, you might not be able to defend yourself against a gun grab attempt. While you are fighting the effects of the spray, she could take your gun and kill you with it.” While that is certainly a POSSIBLE outcome in the encounter, it is not a LIKELY outcome. There is a difference. While it’s POSSIBLE that 20 ninjas could repel down from my ceiling and kill me with a barrage of throwing stars, it isn’t LIKELY. Self defense claims require a REASONABLE expectation of suffering serious injury or death, not a POSSIBILITY of that happening. In my opinion, if a criminal was using pepper spray and attempting to disarm his victim, it likely WOULD justify a lethal response. The problem is that the criminal actually has to be trying to take the gun for the victim to reasonably fear for his life. We need reasonable, articulable facts that would lead a person in a similar situation to believe that a disarming attempt was immanent. Mere possibility of an event happening isn’t enough evidence to keep us out of jail.
And, honestly, I think Ellifritz has a valid point here. Using a firearm without a clear indication that your life is in danger tends to slap you with a murder charge. Spraying pepper spray or mace isn’t that in and of itself.
So yeah, I think this charge is going to stick. I’m not sure about first degree murder–it looks like a heat of the moment kind of thing–but murder charges in and of themselves seem appropriate.
Unfortunately, I fear this won’t be the last murder we see take place at a protest.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--The Dishonest Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's 2A Views

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and gun control activists are engaged in a full-throated effort to portray Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an extremist with some crazy ideas on the Second Amendment , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we take apart some of their more outrageous claims with some stone cold facts .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the first to bring up the Second Amendment as questioning of Barrett got underway Tuesday morning , and the California Democrat was quick to vocalize her objection to gun ownership by mournfully describing the record-high gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past six months .
Feinstein went on to blame those legal gun sales for the rise in homicides and shootings that have taken place in cities from Seattle to New York City .
The problem with Feinstein ’ s claim is that there ’ s no evidence that the two are connected , and no one in law enforcement is seriously claiming otherwise .
In August , a report by the Council on Criminal Justice suggested four factors at work ; changing in policing strategies , communities pulling back from police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Increased gun sales and the embrace of the Second Amendment by more than 5-million law-abiding Americans didn ’ t come up .
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was the next to grill Barrett on her view of the right to keep and bear arms .
I wrote a separate story about Durbin ’ s bizarre accusation that ACB would be fine with a felon buying an AK-47 but not with that same felon voting , which I would encourage you to read in its entirety , but Barrett ably responded to the asinine question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that the Constitution contemplates that states have the freedom to deprive felons of the right to vote ; it ’ s expressed in the constitutional text .
But I expressed no view on whether or not that was a good idea or whether states should do that .
And I didn ’ t explore in that opinion , because it was completely irrelevant to it , what limits , if any , there might be on a state ’ s ability to curtail felon voting rights.
” Durbin then asked why Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , while classifying the right to vote as a civic right .
Honestly , while most Americans probably don ’ t understand the difference , Durbin as a U.S .
Senator should know the answer .
I don ’ t think he had a clue , but Barrett capably explained why the Second Amendment is treated as an individual right .
“ That ’ s consistent with the language and the historical context , the way the briefs described it , and it was part of the dispute in Heller ; of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right or a civic one that was possessed collectively for the sake of the common good .
And everybody was treating voting as one of the civic rights.
” Amazingly , Durbin then somehow tried to compare restoring a non-violent felon ’ s right to own a firearm with denying a felon ’ s right to vote .
I ’ m honestly still not sure what he was trying to say , but you can watch the entire exchange below .
So far , Barrett ’ s done a very good job of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as providing some quick lessons on the Constitution for those senators like Dick Durbin who clearly are in need of a refresher course .
The hearings will continue tomorrow , and I expect there ’ ll be more attempted attacks on Barrett and the right to keep and bear arms .
On tomorrow ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation will join me as we talk about the Barrett hearing and the future of the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court .

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and gun control activists are engaged in a full-throated effort to portray Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an extremist with some crazy ideas on the Second Amendment, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we take apart some of their more outrageous claims with some stone cold facts.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the first to bring up the Second Amendment as questioning of Barrett got underway Tuesday morning, and the California Democrat was quick to vocalize her objection to gun ownership by mournfully describing the record-high gun sales that we’ve seen over the past six months.
Here's Feinstein admitting that uncertainty and chaos in the streets has led to 2 million guns purchased in March. "The second-highest month ever for gun sales." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/uiHHtQAkb4 — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) October 13, 2020
Feinstein went on to blame those legal gun sales for the rise in homicides and shootings that have taken place in cities from Seattle to New York City. The problem with Feinstein’s claim is that there’s no evidence that the two are connected, and no one in law enforcement is seriously claiming otherwise. In August, a report by the Council on Criminal Justice suggested four factors at work; changing in policing strategies, communities pulling back from police, loosening lockdowns, and seasonal effects. Increased gun sales and the embrace of the Second Amendment by more than 5-million law-abiding Americans didn’t come up.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was the next to grill Barrett on her view of the right to keep and bear arms. I wrote a separate story about Durbin’s bizarre accusation that ACB would be fine with a felon buying an AK-47 but not with that same felon voting, which I would encourage you to read in its entirety, but Barrett ably responded to the asinine question.
“Senator, what I said was that the Constitution contemplates that states have the freedom to deprive felons of the right to vote; it’s expressed in the constitutional text. But I expressed no view on whether or not that was a good idea or whether states should do that. And I didn’t explore in that opinion, because it was completely irrelevant to it, what limits, if any, there might be on a state’s ability to curtail felon voting rights.”
Durbin then asked why Barrett identified the Second Amendment as an individual right, while classifying the right to vote as a civic right. Honestly, while most Americans probably don’t understand the difference, Durbin as a U.S. Senator should know the answer. I don’t think he had a clue, but Barrett capably explained why the Second Amendment is treated as an individual right.
“That’s consistent with the language and the historical context, the way the briefs described it, and it was part of the dispute in Heller; of whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a civic one that was possessed collectively for the sake of the common good. And everybody was treating voting as one of the civic rights.”
Amazingly, Durbin then somehow tried to compare restoring a non-violent felon’s right to own a firearm with denying a felon’s right to vote. I’m honestly still not sure what he was trying to say, but you can watch the entire exchange below.
So far, Barrett’s done a very good job of explaining her decision in Kanter, as well as providing some quick lessons on the Constitution for those senators like Dick Durbin who clearly are in need of a refresher course.
The hearings will continue tomorrow, and I expect there’ll be more attempted attacks on Barrett and the right to keep and bear arms. On tomorrow’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation will join me as we talk about the Barrett hearing and the future of the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--AL's Doug Jones Doesn't Get Second Amendment

Sen. Doug Jones won in Alabama six years ago because , well , he was running against a joke of a candidate , really .
Oh , his opponent had a lot going for him , but he was scandal-ridden and there just wasn ’ t much reason for many in the state to get excited about him .
Jones , however , was inoffensive , all things considered .
Oh , he was a Democrat and had some progressive politics , but he didn ’ t have anything close to the same baggage .
As a result , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country that the Deep South was really in play .
Now , he ’ s running for reelection , and one thing is very clear about Jones .
He doesn ’ t understand the Second Amendment and its supporters at all .
Do Americans have a right to own a gun ?
Jones : Yes , the right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution in the Second Amendment .
But just as Justice Scalia observed in the Heller decision , which recognized the right to bear arms under the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has limitations based on public safety .
Many of those limitations have been law for about 50 years .
I am a proud gun owner , hunter , and sportsman .
While there are certain , common-sense steps we can take to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who would inflict violence in our communities , I fully support the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans .
I wouldn ’ t want someone to vote against my right to bear arms or take my guns away .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep our hunting traditions alive , especially as it relates to stopping the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease , which threatens our country ’ s deer population .
I ’ ve passed bipartisan legislation to help get more resources to hunters and wildlife management agencies , and to expand research needed to stop the spread of this disease .
Pro tip : If someone asks if you support gun rights and you bring up hunting , what that means is that they don ’ t understand the Second Amendment at all .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for crying out loud .
There ’ s zero mention of hunting anywhere .
Especially if they say there are “ common-sense steps we can take to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
” What restrictions , if any , do you support on gun ownership ?
Are you satisfied with the current federal background check system , and if not , what steps do you think should be taken to change it ?
Jones : I am on-record opposing gun confiscation , mandatory buybacks or other such programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are those in Congress who oppose even the most common-sense gun safety measures simply because they ’ re more interested in the campaign contributions from the NRA than they are in preserving our hunting traditions or the safety of Alabamians .
I am certainly in favor of maintaining the current law that prohibits convicted felons , those convicted of a domestic violence crime , and other restrictions that have been on the books for a long time .
I think background checks for gun sales serve an important purpose and should be expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many gun shows where I walk past a table full of new guns in their boxes but the vendor has a little sign that says “ private collection ” and can sell to anyone who walks up without any check at all on the purchaser .
This is not only dangerous , but is also unfair to the licensed firearms seller at the next table that is required to run background checks on all purchasers .
I believe there should be exemptions for law enforcement officers , individuals with a current state-issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ periodically renewed , and transfers between family members .
I ’ m calling BS on that one .
First , just because they ’ re in boxes doesn ’ t mean they ’ re brand new guns .
In fact , I ’ d argue they ’ re not .
Many collectors simply hold onto the boxes their guns came in .
I ’ ve done that with my new firearm purchases .
Second , a table full of new guns ?
That would likely surpass the limit of gun sales the ATF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I haven ’ t seen those tables when I ’ ve been to gun shows .
While they certainly happen , I ’ m simply going to argue that they ’ re nowhere near as prevalent as Jones tries to claim they are .
While it ’ s not formatted as such , this appears to have been a question directed to Jones and not a response by Jones .
Except semi-automatic pistols–all pistols , really–are already barred for sale to those under 21 .
Instead , Jones wants to make it virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 21 to have an effective means of self-defense .
That ’ s not a loophole , it ’ s a preventative measure designed to keep anti-gun zealots from making it impossible to get a passed background check and thus effectively blocking anyone from buying a firearm .
If the NICS can ’ t conduct a check in three days like they ’ re supposed to , the answer isn ’ t to feed into anti-gun hysteria but to give NICS the resources to make sure the checks are done in a timely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t fall through the cracks .
Again , not a loophole .
The currently law draws the line at people who cohabitate because at least then we can verify a relationship actually exists .
Closing this so-called loophole means people can claim they were assaulted by a boyfriend when no such relationship ever took place .
This can be done to try and punish someone for whatever reason .
Further , if you want to stop stalkers from getting guns , raise stalking to the level of a felony and call it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s worth that kind of penalty ?
Then you don ’ t think they ’ re that big of a threat in the first place .
As we can see , Jones can claim to be pro-gun all he wants , but his positions are very much anti-gun .
That tends to happen when people link the Second Amendment to hunting in their minds .
By doing that , they can justify any infringements on our freedoms so long as you ’ re still able to go out and shoot a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hunting the Second Amendment was meant to protect is tyrant hunting .
Jones clearly doesn ’ t understand that .

Sen. Doug Jones won in Alabama six years ago because, well, he was running against a joke of a candidate, really. Oh, his opponent had a lot going for him, but he was scandal-ridden and there just wasn’t much reason for many in the state to get excited about him.
Jones, however, was inoffensive, all things considered. Oh, he was a Democrat and had some progressive politics, but he didn’t have anything close to the same baggage. As a result, he won, thus convincing every Democrat in the country that the Deep South was really in play.
Now, he’s running for reelection, and one thing is very clear about Jones. He doesn’t understand the Second Amendment and its supporters at all.
Do Americans have a right to own a gun? Jones: Yes, the right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution in the Second Amendment. But just as Justice Scalia observed in the Heller decision, which recognized the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, like all other constitutional rights it has limitations based on public safety. Many of those limitations have been law for about 50 years. I am a proud gun owner, hunter, and sportsman. While there are certain, common-sense steps we can take to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who would inflict violence in our communities, I fully support the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. I wouldn’t want someone to vote against my right to bear arms or take my guns away. I have also worked hard in the Senate to keep our hunting traditions alive, especially as it relates to stopping the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease, which threatens our country’s deer population. I’ve passed bipartisan legislation to help get more resources to hunters and wildlife management agencies, and to expand research needed to stop the spread of this disease.
Pro tip: If someone asks if you support gun rights and you bring up hunting, what that means is that they don’t understand the Second Amendment at all. I mean, just look at the text, for crying out loud. There’s zero mention of hunting anywhere.
Especially if they say there are “common-sense steps we can take to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”
What restrictions, if any, do you support on gun ownership? Are you satisfied with the current federal background check system, and if not, what steps do you think should be taken to change it? Jones: I am on-record opposing gun confiscation, mandatory buybacks or other such programs. On the other extreme, there are those in Congress who oppose even the most common-sense gun safety measures simply because they’re more interested in the campaign contributions from the NRA than they are in preserving our hunting traditions or the safety of Alabamians. I am certainly in favor of maintaining the current law that prohibits convicted felons, those convicted of a domestic violence crime, and other restrictions that have been on the books for a long time. I think background checks for gun sales serve an important purpose and should be expanded. For instance I have been to too many gun shows where I walk past a table full of new guns in their boxes but the vendor has a little sign that says “private collection” and can sell to anyone who walks up without any check at all on the purchaser. This is not only dangerous, but is also unfair to the licensed firearms seller at the next table that is required to run background checks on all purchasers. I believe there should be exemptions for law enforcement officers, individuals with a current state-issued concealed carry permit that has to be periodically renewed, and transfers between family members.
I’m calling BS on that one.
First, just because they’re in boxes doesn’t mean they’re brand new guns. In fact, I’d argue they’re not. Many collectors simply hold onto the boxes their guns came in. I’ve done that with my new firearm purchases.
Second, a table full of new guns? That would likely surpass the limit of gun sales the ATF is willing to accept.
Frankly, I haven’t seen those tables when I’ve been to gun shows. While they certainly happen, I’m simply going to argue that they’re nowhere near as prevalent as Jones tries to claim they are.
There have been proposals in Congress to extend the three-day waiting period to a seven-day waiting period; raising the minimum age on all gun purchases to 21, and strengthening gun storage laws. Do you support any of these measures, and why or why not?
While it’s not formatted as such, this appears to have been a question directed to Jones and not a response by Jones.
I do not support raising the minimum age on all gun purchases, but would support raising the age for purchasing certain semi-automatic weapons to 21. I say certain semi-automatic weapons because I would not include semi-automatic rifles or shotguns that have limited magazine capability or pistols that are semi-automatic. I support at least a three-day waiting period for the purchase of pistols and certain semi-automatic long guns as I do not believe that places an undue burden on law abiding citizens, but has the potential for saving lives, especially of those who are contemplating suicide.
Except semi-automatic pistols–all pistols, really–are already barred for sale to those under 21.
Instead, Jones wants to make it virtually impossible for a person under the age of 21 to have an effective means of self-defense.
I’d like for Congress to consider closing the so-called “Charleston loophole,” which currently allows gun purchasers to take possession of their firearm after a maximum of three days, regardless of whether their background check was completed or not. This loophole came to light after the senseless killing of nine people at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Nine people attended a bible study when a young man, who we later learned had notions of inciting a ‘race war,’ walked inside the church and opened fire.
That’s not a loophole, it’s a preventative measure designed to keep anti-gun zealots from making it impossible to get a passed background check and thus effectively blocking anyone from buying a firearm.
If the NICS can’t conduct a check in three days like they’re supposed to, the answer isn’t to feed into anti-gun hysteria but to give NICS the resources to make sure the checks are done in a timely manner so people like that turdnugget don’t fall through the cracks.
I also believe Congress should close the so-called “Boyfriend loophole” which is a gap in current gun safety legislation that can give physically abusive ex-boyfriends and convicted stalkers access to firearms. Closing this loophole would help prevent domestic violence deaths.
Again, not a loophole. The currently law draws the line at people who cohabitate because at least then we can verify a relationship actually exists. Closing this so-called loophole means people can claim they were assaulted by a boyfriend when no such relationship ever took place. This can be done to try and punish someone for whatever reason.
Further, if you want to stop stalkers from getting guns, raise stalking to the level of a felony and call it a day. Don’t think it’s worth that kind of penalty? Then you don’t think they’re that big of a threat in the first place.
As we can see, Jones can claim to be pro-gun all he wants, but his positions are very much anti-gun. That tends to happen when people link the Second Amendment to hunting in their minds. By doing that, they can justify any infringements on our freedoms so long as you’re still able to go out and shoot a deer.
The problem was, the only hunting the Second Amendment was meant to protect is tyrant hunting. Jones clearly doesn’t understand that.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--ACB, The Right To Vote, & The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Anti-gun senators like Dick Durbin of Illinois and California ’ s Dianne Feinstein spent Tuesday morning doing all they could to portray Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a judicial extremist and activist judge when it comes to the Second Amendment as Barrett ’ s Supreme Court confirmation hearings entered the question and answer phase .
Durbin in particular tried to hammer Barrett on her dissent in a case called Kanter vs. Barr , in which Barrett argued that a felony conviction for a non-violent crime shouldn ’ t automatically result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a double standard when it comes to the restoration of rights ; okay with Rickey Kanter “ buying an AK-47 , ” but opposed to Kanter regaining his right to vote .
It ’ s a gross misreading of both Barrett ’ s opinion in the Kanter case , as well as the Constitution itself .
First , as Barrett herself explained to Durbin , the Kanter case didn ’ t involve his right to vote , so she never actually offered her opinion on restoring felons ’ voting rights .
Additionally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Fox News shortly after the exchange between Durbin and Barrett , we ’ re talking about two different parts of the Constitution .
Guidelines on voter eligibility and who can exercise the right to vote are left up to the various states , and there are many different rules depending on what state you ’ re looking at .
The Fourteenth Amendment does note that the right to vote can not be abridged “ except for participation in rebellion , or other crime “ , but still makes it clear that states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast a ballot on Election Day .
The right to keep and bear arms , on the other hand , is an individual right that is protected , but not established by the Constitution , and there ’ s nothing in the Second Amendment that talks about prohibiting the right to vote for those convicted of crimes .
As Barrett wrote in her dissent in Kanter : While scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth century laws depriving felons of the right to bear arms , history does show that felons could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote and serve on juries—because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens .
Some maintain that the right to bear arms is similarly limited by a virtue requirement .
On this view , the legislature can disarm felons because of their poor character , without regard to whether they are dangerous .
The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “ require [ ] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.
” For example , the right to vote is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exercise it solely for their own sake ; rather , they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance .
Similarly , individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake , but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice .
Some scholars have characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a civic right , because it was “ one exercised by citizens , not individuals … , who act together in a collective manner , for a distinctly public purpose : participation in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right .
It squarely holds that “ the Second Amendment confer [ s ] an individual right to keep and bear arms , ” and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual ’ s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia .
The “ civic rights ” approach runs headlong into both propositions .
Barrett defended herself capably from Durbin ’ s attack on her judicial reasoning during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself who ended up looking foolish .
The Illinois senator and supposed champion of criminal justice reform actually argued that that non-violent felons should suffer a permanent loss of their Second Amendment rights because they have a “ propensity ” to commit a violent crime in the future .
Amy Coney Barrett would allow non-violent felons to regain their Second Amendment rights , while Dick Durbin would consider them guilty of pre-crime .
Barrett ’ s views can be found within the text of the Constitution itself , but if you want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll have to read Phillip K. Dick ’ s “ The Minority Report ” instead .

Anti-gun senators like Dick Durbin of Illinois and California’s Dianne Feinstein spent Tuesday morning doing all they could to portray Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a judicial extremist and activist judge when it comes to the Second Amendment as Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings entered the question and answer phase. Durbin in particular tried to hammer Barrett on her dissent in a case called Kanter vs. Barr, in which Barrett argued that a felony conviction for a non-violent crime shouldn’t automatically result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms.
Durbin accused Barrett of a double standard when it comes to the restoration of rights; okay with Rickey Kanter “buying an AK-47,” but opposed to Kanter regaining his right to vote. It’s a gross misreading of both Barrett’s opinion in the Kanter case, as well as the Constitution itself.
First, as Barrett herself explained to Durbin, the Kanter case didn’t involve his right to vote, so she never actually offered her opinion on restoring felons’ voting rights. Additionally, as law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out on Fox News shortly after the exchange between Durbin and Barrett, we’re talking about two different parts of the Constitution. Guidelines on voter eligibility and who can exercise the right to vote are left up to the various states, and there are many different rules depending on what state you’re looking at. The Fourteenth Amendment does note that the right to vote cannot be abridged “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime“, but still makes it clear that states are the ultimate arbiters of who can cast a ballot on Election Day.
George Washington University law professor @JonathanTurley highlights and explains a key point, one that “probably escaped many,” made by Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her exchange with Sen. Dick Durbin over her dissenting opinion in Kantor v. Barr. pic.twitter.com/SwOuVcrxli — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 13, 2020
The right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is an individual right that is protected, but not established by the Constitution, and there’s nothing in the Second Amendment that talks about prohibiting the right to vote for those convicted of crimes. As Barrett wrote in her dissent in Kanter:
While scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth century laws depriving felons of the right to bear arms, history does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights—like the rights to vote and serve on juries—because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. Some maintain that the right to bear arms is similarly limited by a virtue requirement. On this view, the legislature can disarm felons because of their poor character, without regard to whether they are dangerous. The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice. Some scholars have characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a civic right, because it was “one exercised by citizens, not individuals …, who act together in a collective manner, for a distinctly public purpose: participation in a well regulated militia.”… Heller, however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia. The “civic rights” approach runs headlong into both propositions.
Barrett defended herself capably from Durbin’s attack on her judicial reasoning during the confirmation hearing, and it was Durbin himself who ended up looking foolish. The Illinois senator and supposed champion of criminal justice reform actually argued that that non-violent felons should suffer a permanent loss of their Second Amendment rights because they have a “propensity” to commit a violent crime in the future.
Amy Coney Barrett would allow non-violent felons to regain their Second Amendment rights, while Dick Durbin would consider them guilty of pre-crime. Barrett’s views can be found within the text of the Constitution itself, but if you want to find Durbin’s point of view, you’ll have to read Phillip K. Dick’s “The Minority Report” instead.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--5-Year-Old Badass Stops Home Invasion

5-Year-Old Badass Stops Home Invasion

As a parent , I tend to look at my children as needing my protection .
This is a normal response by parents , after all .
Our job is to nurture them and provide for them until they ’ re old enough to take care of themselves .
It ’ s our job to make it so they can grow into functioning adults .
The last thing any of us think about is our kids protecting us .
That ’ s especially true if your child is kindergarten aged , yet that ’ s precisely what happened during an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackled an armed gunman after a group of men forced their way into his Indiana home .
South Bend police released footage of the home invasion , which happened around 10:30 a.m. on Sept. 30 .
Four men , at least three of whom were armed with handguns , barged into the house after another child answered the door , police said .
The video shows the men pointing their guns at an adult woman in the home before the 5-year-old boy jumped into action hitting one of the armed suspects .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone in the home was unharmed .
The suspects are still at large .
We tend to spend a lot of time talking about the need for firearms , and they ’ re certainly important .
This situation could have gone very differently because the residents didn ’ t seem to have the tools to fight back most effectively .
However , there ’ s another tool we need to talk about , one this kid has in spaces , and that ’ s the will to fight back .
Time and time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and thwart their attackers and come out on the other side unharmed .
That actually makes sense , too .
See , criminals don ’ t like to work .
That ’ s generally why they become criminals , after all .
They see a way to make an easy score and jump on it .
Yet when their victims fight back , it means the bad guys suddenly have to put forward some effort .
What else do you call dealing with a rampaging five-year-old who just tackled one of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys caught , and not just because they ’ re scumbags who try to pray on innocent , hard-working folks .
I want them caught and sent to prison just so I can see how much crap they get for being stopped by a five-year-old kid .
You know they ’ re going to catch crap for that , which might be the best deterrent out there .
Regardless , this little hero deserves all the credit he can get .
Enroll the kid into some martial arts , start teaching him how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s old enough , and harness that fighting spirit so that he can direct it for good .
Do not be surprised if this little man ends up doing something amazing with his life .
A spirit like that isn ’ t likely to settle for being mediocre .
And you should learn from his example .
It ’ s often better to fight and the a docile victim .
If a five-year-old can do it , then so can you .

As a parent, I tend to look at my children as needing my protection. This is a normal response by parents, after all. Our job is to nurture them and provide for them until they’re old enough to take care of themselves. It’s our job to make it so they can grow into functioning adults.
The last thing any of us think about is our kids protecting us.
That’s especially true if your child is kindergarten aged, yet that’s precisely what happened during an Indiana home invasion.
A five-year-old boy tackled an armed gunman after a group of men forced their way into his Indiana home. South Bend police released footage of the home invasion, which happened around 10:30 a.m. on Sept. 30. Four men, at least three of whom were armed with handguns, barged into the house after another child answered the door, police said. The video shows the men pointing their guns at an adult woman in the home before the 5-year-old boy jumped into action hitting one of the armed suspects.
Police say that shots were fired, but everyone in the home was unharmed.
The suspects are still at large.
We tend to spend a lot of time talking about the need for firearms, and they’re certainly important. This situation could have gone very differently because the residents didn’t seem to have the tools to fight back most effectively.
However, there’s another tool we need to talk about, one this kid has in spaces, and that’s the will to fight back.
Time and time again, I see potential victims fight back and thwart their attackers and come out on the other side unharmed. That actually makes sense, too.
See, criminals don’t like to work. That’s generally why they become criminals, after all. They see a way to make an easy score and jump on it.
Yet when their victims fight back, it means the bad guys suddenly have to put forward some effort. What else do you call dealing with a rampaging five-year-old who just tackled one of your crew?
Honestly, I want these guys caught, and not just because they’re scumbags who try to pray on innocent, hard-working folks. I want them caught and sent to prison just so I can see how much crap they get for being stopped by a five-year-old kid. You know they’re going to catch crap for that, which might be the best deterrent out there.
Or not.
Regardless, this little hero deserves all the credit he can get. Enroll the kid into some martial arts, start teaching him how to use firearms as soon as he’s old enough, and harness that fighting spirit so that he can direct it for good. Do not be surprised if this little man ends up doing something amazing with his life. A spirit like that isn’t likely to settle for being mediocre.
And you should learn from his example. It’s often better to fight than be a docile victim. If a five-year-old can do it, then so can you.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--How McSally Should Frame The Gun Debate In AZ Senate Race

For Second Amendment supporters , the choice in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona is an easy one .
Republican Martha McSally has an “ A ” rating from the National Rifle Association , while Democrat Mark Kelly helped create one of the nation ’ s biggest and well-funded gun control groups .
Still , McSally is far from a perfect candidate , and her awkward attacks on Kelly ’ s support for gun control haven ’ t been nearly as effective as they could be .
Gun control wasn ’ t one of the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly met on a debate stage last week .
That ’ s when McSally first brought up Giffords , the gun control organization founded by Kelly and his wife , former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords , who suffered severe injuries in an active assailant attack in Tuscon , Arizona back in 2011 .
Rather than go after Kelly for supporting all kinds of draconian gun control laws , however , McSally tried to use the gun control group to tie Kelly to far-Left Democrats like Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar .
A show-stopping moment during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Sen. Martha McSally and her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly came when the senator accused Kelly of having a part in a “ radical political organization ” tied to the “ extreme left ” fringe of the Democratic Party .
Without explaining the nature of the group or naming it , McSally charged that Kelly , a retired NASA astronaut who is running as a moderate Democrat , had been “ a political operative for a decade … Some of the most extreme , left-wing candidates in our country running for office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explain her attack , McSally punted to her rival .
“ I think he knows , ” she said , adding the group “ has raised $ 57 million.
” Kelly responded that McSally was talking about Giffords , the national organization that is named after his wife , former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , and was formed to end gun violence .
“ Gabby was injured , shot in the head , in 2011 , ” Kelly said .
“ The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she went through for that year and a half .
In the hospital for six months , a year of significant rehab … So we formed an organization to try to make communities , and help communities become safer from gun violence.
” Obviously Gabrielle Giffords is a sympathetic figure in Arizona , and the way McSally framed her attack allowed Mark Kelly to define the gun control group he and his wife founded on their own terms .
Since then the local press , including the Arizona Republic , have done several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the McSally campaign has stuck with their line of attack ; going after the gun control group for the candidates that it supports , while not talking much at all about the actual gun control laws that the Giffords gun control group is pushing across the country .
“ This is about who Mark Kelly has spent the last decade supporting and sending to Washington : the most liberal Democrats who have been champions for infringing on our Constitutional rights , open borders , socialized medicine , defunding the police and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now mainstream in the Democrat Party , ” said Caroline Anderegg , McSally ’ s campaign spokesperson .
“ Mark has been on an unabashed crusade to open the door for these ideas and roll back our Second Amendment rights , and that he tries to claim otherwise further proves he ’ ll say anything to get elected.
” If McSally is going to hit Mark Kelly for his support for gun control , then she needs to be specific and target her message to Arizona voters .
The easiest and most effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that Mark Kelly ’ s gun control group gave California an “ A ” for its gun laws , while giving Arizona an “ F ” .
The message that McSally needs to deliver is simple : “ Arizonans , don ’ t let Mark Kelly Californicate Your Second Amendment Rights.
” That is the issue .
According to the New York Times , for the past decade about 250,000 people have moved to Arizona every year , and the number one state folks are fleeing is California .
It costs $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , California to Phoenix , but only $ 100 for a U-Haul from Phoenix to Orange County .
Many Arizonans are already worried about what the influx of Californians is doing to the state ’ s politics , and by focusing on the California gun laws embraced by Mark Kelly ’ s gun control group McSally can drive home the point that Kelly ’ s anti-gun agenda would upend the Second Amendment rights of Arizonans .
California residents are moving to Arizona for a variety of reasons , including the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are poised to send Kelly to the U.S. Senate where he ’ ll work on imposing California-style gun control laws in all 50 states .
Yes , his gun control group has backed far-Left politicians like Ilhan Omar in Minnesota , but that matters far less to most Arizona gun owners than the actual gun control laws that Omar , Kelly , and his allies on Capitol Hill are sure to put in place if they take control of Congress and the White House .
My free and unsolicited advice to the McSally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign is to make it clear to voters what ’ s at stake in this election : the Californication of the right to keep and bear arms .
Gun and magazine bans , waiting periods for firearms purchases , an end to online sales of ammunition and firearms parts , legal attacks designed to bankrupt the firearms industry , and discriminatory gun licensing laws ; all are on the table if Mark Kelly helps Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate .
McSally needs to drop the references to Ilhan Omar and focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Kelly claims to support the Second Amendment , he ’ s actually embraced an anti-gun agenda that would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege .

For Second Amendment supporters, the choice in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona is an easy one. Republican Martha McSally has an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, while Democrat Mark Kelly helped create one of the nation’s biggest and well-funded gun control groups. Still, McSally is far from a perfect candidate, and her awkward attacks on Kelly’s support for gun control haven’t been nearly as effective as they could be.
Gun control wasn’t one of the top issues in the campaign until McSally and Kelly met on a debate stage last week. That’s when McSally first brought up Giffords, the gun control organization founded by Kelly and his wife, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who suffered severe injuries in an active assailant attack in Tuscon, Arizona back in 2011. Rather than go after Kelly for supporting all kinds of draconian gun control laws, however, McSally tried to use the gun control group to tie Kelly to far-Left Democrats like Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
A show-stopping moment during last week’s Senate debate between Republican Sen. Martha McSally and her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly came when the senator accused Kelly of having a part in a “radical political organization” tied to the “extreme left” fringe of the Democratic Party. Without explaining the nature of the group or naming it, McSally charged that Kelly, a retired NASA astronaut who is running as a moderate Democrat, had been “a political operative for a decade … Some of the most extreme, left-wing candidates in our country running for office, bankrolling them, endorsing them.” Pressed to explain her attack, McSally punted to her rival. “I think he knows,” she said, adding the group “has raised $57 million.” Kelly responded that McSally was talking about Giffords, the national organization that is named after his wife, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and was formed to end gun violence. “Gabby was injured, shot in the head, in 2011,” Kelly said. “The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me, and I’ll never forget what she went through for that year and a half. In the hospital for six months, a year of significant rehab … So we formed an organization to try to make communities, and help communities become safer from gun violence.”
Obviously Gabrielle Giffords is a sympathetic figure in Arizona, and the way McSally framed her attack allowed Mark Kelly to define the gun control group he and his wife founded on their own terms. Since then the local press, including the Arizona Republic, have done several puff pieces on the efforts of Giffords, while the McSally campaign has stuck with their line of attack; going after the gun control group for the candidates that it supports, while not talking much at all about the actual gun control laws that the Giffords gun control group is pushing across the country.
“This is about who Mark Kelly has spent the last decade supporting and sending to Washington: the most liberal Democrats who have been champions for infringing on our Constitutional rights, open borders, socialized medicine, defunding the police and the many other radical ideas that are now mainstream in the Democrat Party,” said Caroline Anderegg, McSally’s campaign spokesperson. “Mark has been on an unabashed crusade to open the door for these ideas and roll back our Second Amendment rights, and that he tries to claim otherwise further proves he’ll say anything to get elected.”
If McSally is going to hit Mark Kelly for his support for gun control, then she needs to be specific and target her message to Arizona voters. The easiest and most effective way to do that is to point out that Mark Kelly’s gun control group gave California an “A” for its gun laws, while giving Arizona an “F”.
The message that McSally needs to deliver is simple: “Arizonans, don’t let Mark Kelly Californicate Your Second Amendment Rights.” That is the issue.
According to the New York Times, for the past decade about 250,000 people have moved to Arizona every year, and the number one state folks are fleeing is California. It costs $1000 to rent a U-Haul from Orange County, California to Phoenix, but only $100 for a U-Haul from Phoenix to Orange County. Many Arizonans are already worried about what the influx of Californians is doing to the state’s politics, and by focusing on the California gun laws embraced by Mark Kelly’s gun control group McSally can drive home the point that Kelly’s anti-gun agenda would upend the Second Amendment rights of Arizonans.
California residents are moving to Arizona for a variety of reasons, including the state’s restrictive gun policies, yet Arizonans are poised to send Kelly to the U.S. Senate where he’ll work on imposing California-style gun control laws in all 50 states. Yes, his gun control group has backed far-Left politicians like Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, but that matters far less to most Arizona gun owners than the actual gun control laws that Omar, Kelly, and his allies on Capitol Hill are sure to put in place if they take control of Congress and the White House.
My free and unsolicited advice to the McSally campaign in the waning weeks of the campaign is to make it clear to voters what’s at stake in this election: the Californication of the right to keep and bear arms. Gun and magazine bans, waiting periods for firearms purchases, an end to online sales of ammunition and firearms parts, legal attacks designed to bankrupt the firearms industry, and discriminatory gun licensing laws; all are on the table if Mark Kelly helps Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate. McSally needs to drop the references to Ilhan Omar and focus on the fact that as much as Mark Kelly claims to support the Second Amendment, he’s actually embraced an anti-gun agenda that would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--Will Gun Buying Surge End Anti-Gun Lawmaker's Career?

Rep. Lucy McBath had never held political office before .
She was an activist and a grieving mother , but she ’ d never been a politician .
However , as an anti-gunner with a personal story of loss to her credit , she defeated Karen Handel two years ago .
It was something of an upset , one I personally didn ’ t see coming .
After all , that district had been solidly red for some time .
Handel had fended of John Ossoff , a Democrat with all the major backing one can care to think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat for a long time .
However , Handel is challenging for the seat again .
That makes sense .
After all , Handel only lost by around 1,900 votes .
And despite the results two years ago , it ’ s one of the more hard-fought races in suburban Atlanta .
McBath became a prominent gun control activist after her son was killed at a Florida gas station by a man who complained he and his friends were playing their music too loudly in their car .
She decided to run for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Fla. McBath became the first Black House member to represent the district , where the majority of residents are white but Black , Hispanic and Asian residents all make up more than a tenth of the population .
In knocking off Handel , McBath gave Democrats the victory in the district that they had hoped for in a 2017 special election that drew national attention .
The 2017 race pitted Handel against Democrat Jon Ossoff ( now running for a U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most expensive House race in the country .
Handel is a well-known Republican official , who has served as Georgia secretary of state and ran unsuccessfully for governor and U.S. senator as well .
However , there ’ s something different this time .
See , as noted above , McBath ran for office in the wake of Parkland .
At that point , anti-gun sentiment was extremely high and the anti-gun activist rode that wave .
To be fair , the district had been trending more purple as well , thus making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , though , the landscape has changed a good bit .
Millions of Americans have joined the ranks of gun owners .
That includes a lot in suburban Atlanta .
Many of those learned the constant lies of the anti-gun movement , how you can ’ t order a gun off the internet and have it shipped to you , how you can ’ t just walk in and buy a gun without a background check , all of it .
As a result , McBath ’ s history as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor this time around .
In fact , quite the opposite .
Suburbs are full of people who tend to lean left until they feel threatened somehow , then they shift right , particularly on pertinent issues .
COVID-19 and the riots have a lot of people making that shift .
I ’ m not saying definitively that McBath is going down in November , but I am saying this could be an interesting race to watch .

Rep. Lucy McBath had never held political office before. She was an activist and a grieving mother, but she’d never been a politician. However, as an anti-gunner with a personal story of loss to her credit, she defeated Karen Handel two years ago. It was something of an upset, one I personally didn’t see coming. After all, that district had been solidly red for some time. Handel had fended of John Ossoff, a Democrat with all the major backing one can care to think of, and appeared poised to hold that seat for a long time.
Spoiler: She didn’t.
However, Handel is challenging for the seat again. That makes sense. After all, Handel only lost by around 1,900 votes.
And despite the results two years ago, it’s one of the more hard-fought races in suburban Atlanta.
McBath became a prominent gun control activist after her son was killed at a Florida gas station by a man who complained he and his friends were playing their music too loudly in their car. She decided to run for Congress in 2018, after a shooter killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. McBath became the first Black House member to represent the district, where the majority of residents are white but Black, Hispanic and Asian residents all make up more than a tenth of the population. In knocking off Handel, McBath gave Democrats the victory in the district that they had hoped for in a 2017 special election that drew national attention. The 2017 race pitted Handel against Democrat Jon Ossoff (now running for a U.S. Senate seat) in what became the most expensive House race in the country. Handel is a well-known Republican official, who has served as Georgia secretary of state and ran unsuccessfully for governor and U.S. senator as well.
However, there’s something different this time.
See, as noted above, McBath ran for office in the wake of Parkland. At that point, anti-gun sentiment was extremely high and the anti-gun activist rode that wave.
To be fair, the district had been trending more purple as well, thus making it that much easier to unseat Handle.
Now, though, the landscape has changed a good bit. Millions of Americans have joined the ranks of gun owners. That includes a lot in suburban Atlanta. Many of those learned the constant lies of the anti-gun movement, how you can’t order a gun off the internet and have it shipped to you, how you can’t just walk in and buy a gun without a background check, all of it.
As a result, McBath’s history as an anti-gun zealot may not work in her favor this time around. In fact, quite the opposite.
Suburbs are full of people who tend to lean left until they feel threatened somehow, then they shift right, particularly on pertinent issues. COVID-19 and the riots have a lot of people making that shift.
I’m not saying definitively that McBath is going down in November, but I am saying this could be an interesting race to watch.


bearingarms--2020-10-13--Interstate Road Rage Ends With Self-Defense Shooting

A northern Kentucky man will not face any charges after officials ruled he was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed a man during an altercation on a busy interstate last Friday .
Joshua Taylor was on his way home from work when he crossed paths with John Patrick Abell , who was driving home after a day of fishing .
Witnesses describe Abell driving aggressively , and eventually Taylor ’ s car and Abell ’ s SUV collided , sending Abell ’ s vehicle spinning until it came to a stop near an on ramp .
Taylor quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report that he ’ d been involved in a wreck with another driver , and as he was on the phone with dispatchers , he described the driver approaching his own vehicle with a rifle in his hand .
Dispatchers heard a brief argument between the two men before shots rang out .
Taylor told dispatch that he had fired shots from his own gun and struck Abell .
The call ’ s recording shows Taylor administering first aid .
Abell , 41 , was transported to University of Cincinnati Medical Center where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wounds .
Some news reports indicated that Abell was from Bellevue , but his most recent address was in Cincinnati , [ Kenton County Commonwealth ’ s Attorney Rob ] Sanders said .
Taylor , 43 , of Cincinnati , was questioned by police and released Friday evening .
After reviewing the evidence , the commonwealth ’ s attorney quickly announced that Taylor was justified in shooting Abell , noting that under Kentucky law “ an individual is justified in the use of physical force upon another when the individual believes such force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unlawful force by another person .
The investigation by Ft. Wright and Kenton County Police Departments conclusively found the shooter was reasonably in fear for his own life and responded lawfully , ” A Taurus 9mm handgun was recovered from Taylor ’ s person .
Taylor is believed to have fired his handgun four times .
Abell did not fire his rifle .
The gun was determined to be unloaded with a trigger lock in place .
“ There was no way for Mr. Taylor to know the rifle being stuck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , “ so that does not make his reaction unreasonable or unlawful .
“ In fact , anyone who has a gun pointed at him should always assume the gun is loaded , ” Sanders said .
Neither party involved has a criminal record .
Both were lawfully in possession of their respective firearms .
Kentucky no longer requires a permit to carry concealed weapons and does not require guns to be registered .
You can see in the picture above that Abell clearly had his rifle pointed at Taylor through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Taylor was clearly in fear for his life , and prosecutors made the right call in determining that Taylor was justified in shooting in self-defense .
Abell , who leaves behind two daughters , never should have left his vehicle with his rifle in hand to confront Taylor , but he willingly chose to do so .
Sadly , it was a mistake that cost him his life and left his loved ones mourning his death .

A northern Kentucky man will not face any charges after officials ruled he was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed a man during an altercation on a busy interstate last Friday.
Joshua Taylor was on his way home from work when he crossed paths with John Patrick Abell, who was driving home after a day of fishing. Witnesses describe Abell driving aggressively, and eventually Taylor’s car and Abell’s SUV collided, sending Abell’s vehicle spinning until it came to a stop near an on ramp.
Taylor quickly got on the phone with 911 to report that he’d been involved in a wreck with another driver, and as he was on the phone with dispatchers, he described the driver approaching his own vehicle with a rifle in his hand. Dispatchers heard a brief argument between the two men before shots rang out.
Taylor told dispatch that he had fired shots from his own gun and struck Abell. The call’s recording shows Taylor administering first aid. Abell, 41, was transported to University of Cincinnati Medical Center where he was pronounced dead from multiple gunshot wounds. Some news reports indicated that Abell was from Bellevue, but his most recent address was in Cincinnati, [Kenton County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob] Sanders said. Taylor, 43, of Cincinnati, was questioned by police and released Friday evening.
After reviewing the evidence, the commonwealth’s attorney quickly announced that Taylor was justified in shooting Abell, noting that under Kentucky law “an individual is justified in the use of physical force upon another when the individual believes such force is necessary to protect against the use of unlawful force by another person. The investigation by Ft. Wright and Kenton County Police Departments conclusively found the shooter was reasonably in fear for his own life and responded lawfully,”
A Taurus 9mm handgun was recovered from Taylor’s person. Taylor is believed to have fired his handgun four times. Abell did not fire his rifle. The gun was determined to be unloaded with a trigger lock in place. “There was no way for Mr. Taylor to know the rifle being stuck in his face was inoperable,” said Sanders, “so that does not make his reaction unreasonable or unlawful. “In fact, anyone who has a gun pointed at him should always assume the gun is loaded,” Sanders said. Neither party involved has a criminal record. Both were lawfully in possession of their respective firearms. Kentucky no longer requires a permit to carry concealed weapons and does not require guns to be registered.
You can see in the picture above that Abell clearly had his rifle pointed at Taylor through the open passenger-side window. At that point, Taylor was clearly in fear for his life, and prosecutors made the right call in determining that Taylor was justified in shooting in self-defense.
Abell, who leaves behind two daughters, never should have left his vehicle with his rifle in hand to confront Taylor, but he willingly chose to do so. Sadly, it was a mistake that cost him his life and left his loved ones mourning his death.