bearingarms--2020-04-14--Criminal Released From NY Prison Commits Violent Assault

All over the country , prisons were emptied out .
Politicians worried about the political backlash of COVID-19 getting loose in a prison and killing a large number of prisoners .
So , they ordered a large number of prisoners released .
One of those who released a lot of prisoners was the state of New York under the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo .
Cuomo has also been set up by the media as something of a foil for President Donald Trump , someone who is supposedly doing a much better job than the president .
Meanwhile , part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the brutal beating and robbery of a man by one of the prisoners he released .
A Bronx man released from prison by Gov .
Andrew Cuomo last month amid the spread of the coronavirus has been charged with beating and robbing a 62-year-old man — who was so scared of getting the ailment he refused to take the money back when cops made an arrest .
Daniel Vargas , 29 , was being held on $ 50,000 bail on robbery , grand larceny and assault charges after allegedly approaching the elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortly after 8 a.m. Tuesday , according to a criminal complaint .
Vargas , who has more than a dozen prior arrests for assault , robbery , weapons possession and burglary , had been in state prison on a 2014 burglary conviction until he was released on parole in November 2017 , records show .
But police sources said that he was later rearrested for violation of the conditions of his parole and was held behind bars — until last month .
Vargas was released on March 28 as one of 1,100 parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the spread of the deadly pandemic in jails and prisons .
Now , I get the politicians ’ fears about COVID-19 in the confines of a prison .
If they didn ’ t take some kind of precautions , the media and the public would be all over them .
They had to do something .
Releasing inmates might actually make some degree of sense , especially as you ’ re looking at overcrowding in many of our prisons already .
Population density only helps the novel coronavirus spread as it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an overcrowded prison , after all .
The problem is that there was apparently zero effort to take a look at the background of these people before they were released .
Now , a man with a history of violent crime was set back out on the streets where he , true to form , committed a violent robbery .
This in a state that has done everything they could to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for their personal protection .
It ’ s just not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media is ignoring this while singing Cuomo ’ s praises .
The same Cuomo who let a dangerous thug out of prison to prey upon innocent New Yorkers all so he could cover his own butt with the media .
They ’ re letting him get away with this , too .
How many more attacks will it take before the media realizes just how badly this whole inmate release thing was handled , anyway ?

All over the country, prisons were emptied out. Politicians worried about the political backlash of COVID-19 getting loose in a prison and killing a large number of prisoners. So, they ordered a large number of prisoners released.
One of those who released a lot of prisoners was the state of New York under the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has also been set up by the media as something of a foil for President Donald Trump, someone who is supposedly doing a much better job than the president.
Meanwhile, part of his “better job” resulted in the brutal beating and robbery of a man by one of the prisoners he released.
A Bronx man released from prison by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last month amid the spread of the coronavirus has been charged with beating and robbing a 62-year-old man — who was so scared of getting the ailment he refused to take the money back when cops made an arrest. Daniel Vargas, 29, was being held on $50,000 bail on robbery, grand larceny and assault charges after allegedly approaching the elderly victim on Valentine Avenue in the Bronx shortly after 8 a.m. Tuesday, according to a criminal complaint. … Vargas, who has more than a dozen prior arrests for assault, robbery, weapons possession and burglary, had been in state prison on a 2014 burglary conviction until he was released on parole in November 2017, records show. But police sources said that he was later rearrested for violation of the conditions of his parole and was held behind bars — until last month. Vargas was released on March 28 as one of 1,100 parole violators ordered released by Cuomo over concerns over the spread of the deadly pandemic in jails and prisons.
Now, I get the politicians’ fears about COVID-19 in the confines of a prison. If they didn’t take some kind of precautions, the media and the public would be all over them. They had to do something.
Releasing inmates might actually make some degree of sense, especially as you’re looking at overcrowding in many of our prisons already. Population density only helps the novel coronavirus spread as it is and no one has the population density of an overcrowded prison, after all.
The problem is that there was apparently zero effort to take a look at the background of these people before they were released.
Now, a man with a history of violent crime was set back out on the streets where he, true to form, committed a violent robbery. This in a state that has done everything they could to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for their personal protection. It’s just not right.
Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media is ignoring this while singing Cuomo’s praises. The same Cuomo who let a dangerous thug out of prison to prey upon innocent New Yorkers all so he could cover his own butt with the media. They’re letting him get away with this, too.
How many more attacks will it take before the media realizes just how badly this whole inmate release thing was handled, anyway?
Hat tip: The New American


bearingarms--2020-04-14--San Diego City Attorney Using Red Flag Laws During State Of Emergency

While San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore has surprised a lot of Second Amendment supporters by not attempting to shut down gun stores during California ’ s shelter-in-place order , virtually no one is shocked that San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott is doing all she can to remove firearms from homes thanks to the state ’ s red flag law .
The city attorney ’ s office says nearly 50 Extreme Risk Protection Orders have been filed since early March .
Fox 5 in San Diego reports that Elliott ’ s office has been busy , with 20 of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other ERPO orders have been granted against people who are accused of domestic violence , according to Elliott ’ s office .
One man beat his pregnant girlfriend in front of their toddler and was arrested by police .
In another case , an 82-year-old man with dementia was arrested and served with a GVRO after attacking his wife when she refused to withdraw $ 100,000 from their bank account .
A pair of brothers came to blows and threats of gun violence while arguing over the care of their elderly parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Office .
Other cases involved threats to nearby residents , including one man who attacked his neighbors over a parking spot , while another fired a gun off in his apartment and later told police “ he became overwhelmed by his fear of COVID-19 while smoking methamphetamine , ” the City Attorney ’ s Office reported .
One commonality in the specific cases highlighted by Elliott ’ s office is that it sure sounds like the individuals subject to the red flag orders are accused of actual crimes , which begs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even needed to come into play .
Whether it ’ s a domestic violence charge or smoking meth , the judge in these cases could order that these individuals not possess firearms as a condition of their bail .
Instead of taking that step , however , the city attorney is choosing to pursue red flag orders , which will prevent these individuals from possessing a firearm even if their charges are dismissed or they ’ re acquitted .
The courts in San Diego are closed to the public at the moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a difference when it comes to red flag orders , since the subject of the orders aren ’ t allowed to defend themselves during the initial hearing .
In fact , they ’ re not even aware that the hearing is taking place .
Instead , the first time they ’ ll learn that they ’ re now the subject of an Extreme Risk Protection Order is when their firearms are seized .
A couple of weeks later they ’ ll get their day in court .
While the San Diego City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 ERPOs approved since early March , she doesn ’ t say if any requests were actually denied .
It seems amazing that Elliott would go 46-for-46 , but that may be the case .
If so , is it really because all 46 of these individuals pose a real danger to themselves or others , or is it because judges are simply rubber-stamping their approval of the applications because it ’ s better for them to err on the side of taking people ’ s guns away ?
And of course if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves or others , simply taking their firearms from them isn ’ t likely to address the real issue , which is the dangerous individual , not the inanimate object they might own .
Take the case of the man who allegedly beat his pregnant girlfriend in front of their toddler , for example .
If the facts as alleged are true , then this guy ’ s a danger to his girlfriend whether or not he has guns .
It ’ s him who really needs to be removed from the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same is true for those subject to red flag laws because of suicidal threats .
We already know that in states like Indiana and Connecticut , which have had red flag laws on the books for years , suicides are still increasing .
Guns may be taken , but lives are still being lost , because red flag laws go after guns instead of actually dealing with the individual who may pose a risk to themselves or others .

While San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore has surprised a lot of Second Amendment supporters by not attempting to shut down gun stores during California’s shelter-in-place order, virtually no one is shocked that San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott is doing all she can to remove firearms from homes thanks to the state’s red flag law. The city attorney’s office says nearly 50 Extreme Risk Protection Orders have been filed since early March.
Fox 5 in San Diego reports that Elliott’s office has been busy, with 20 of the red flag orders filed since April 1st.
“Law enforcement is taking threats of violence during this pandemic very seriously and dangerous behavior will not be excused as an unavoidable result of intense anxiety or confinement to close quarters,” City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. “If you or a loved one are threatened by a person who has access to firearms, please contact the police immediately.”
Among the recent cases are two active-duty Marines, one of whom purchased firearms and told family members he was going to shoot child traffickers and another who said in a social media post that he wanted to go to his old high school and shoot people who were “mean” to him, according to the City Attorney’s Office.
Other ERPO orders have been granted against people who are accused of domestic violence, according to Elliott’s office.
One man beat his pregnant girlfriend in front of their toddler and was arrested by police. In another case, an 82-year-old man with dementia was arrested and served with a GVRO after attacking his wife when she refused to withdraw $100,000 from their bank account. A pair of brothers came to blows and threats of gun violence while arguing over the care of their elderly parents, according to the City Attorney’s Office. Other cases involved threats to nearby residents, including one man who attacked his neighbors over a parking spot, while another fired a gun off in his apartment and later told police “he became overwhelmed by his fear of COVID-19 while smoking methamphetamine,” the City Attorney’s Office reported.
One commonality in the specific cases highlighted by Elliott’s office is that it sure sounds like the individuals subject to the red flag orders are accused of actual crimes, which begs the question of why the red flag law even needed to come into play. Whether it’s a domestic violence charge or smoking meth, the judge in these cases could order that these individuals not possess firearms as a condition of their bail. Instead of taking that step, however, the city attorney is choosing to pursue red flag orders, which will prevent these individuals from possessing a firearm even if their charges are dismissed or they’re acquitted.
The courts in San Diego are closed to the public at the moment, but that doesn’t make much of a difference when it comes to red flag orders, since the subject of the orders aren’t allowed to defend themselves during the initial hearing. In fact, they’re not even aware that the hearing is taking place. Instead, the first time they’ll learn that they’re now the subject of an Extreme Risk Protection Order is when their firearms are seized. A couple of weeks later they’ll get their day in court.
While the San Diego City Attorney says she’s had nearly 50 ERPOs approved since early March, she doesn’t say if any requests were actually denied. It seems amazing that Elliott would go 46-for-46, but that may be the case. If so, is it really because all 46 of these individuals pose a real danger to themselves or others, or is it because judges are simply rubber-stamping their approval of the applications because it’s better for them to err on the side of taking people’s guns away?
And of course if these individuals really are a danger to themselves or others, simply taking their firearms from them isn’t likely to address the real issue, which is the dangerous individual, not the inanimate object they might own. Take the case of the man who allegedly beat his pregnant girlfriend in front of their toddler, for example. If the facts as alleged are true, then this guy’s a danger to his girlfriend whether or not he has guns. It’s him who really needs to be removed from the home and kept under lock and key.
The same is true for those subject to red flag laws because of suicidal threats. We already know that in states like Indiana and Connecticut, which have had red flag laws on the books for years, suicides are still increasing. Guns may be taken, but lives are still being lost, because red flag laws go after guns instead of actually dealing with the individual who may pose a risk to themselves or others.


bearingarms--2020-04-14--Amnesty International Continues Support Of Tyranny

Amnesty International is an organization that is supposed to oppose tyrannical dictatorships all over the world .
As a human rights organization , one would think they would stand for , you know , human rights .
That should include the right to self-defense .
After all , how many of the dictators they work against have made it impossible for anyone to oppose them ?
Banning guns is often one of the first moves a dictator makes .
They don ’ t like people being able to stand up to them and you don ’ t stand up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language .
You ’ d think Amnesty International would support the right to keep and bear arms .
But , alas , it doesn ’ t .
A group known for calling out abusive governments around the world is wading into the gun control debate in the United States .
In a conference call with journalists last week , Amnesty International called American gun violence a human rights crisis and condemned the federal government for deeming guns “ essential ” during the COVID-19 pandemic .
The international human rights group now has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the End Gun Violence Campaign , taking similar positions to groups that support gun restrictions like Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America , Giffords , and March For Our Lives .
The Amnesty International campaign includes efforts at the federal and state levels , including in Ohio , where the group lobbied legislators against a controversial “ stand your ground ” bill .
The session is on hold other than COVID-19–related issues , and the bill ’ s fate is uncertain .
Some of the legislation Amnesty International is pushing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag laws , which would allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed at risk to themselves or others .
In other words , Amnesty International is continuing its support for outright tyranny .
Make no mistake , that ’ s precisely what they ’ re doing here .
By pushing for red flag laws , they ’ re directly opposing due process of law .
By pushing for universal background checks , they ’ re also pushing for creating a system that can be used to track lawful gun ownership which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least ) as a de facto gun registry .
By opposing gun stores remaining open , they mimic the position of other anti-gun groups who have tipped their hands on guns .
It ’ s not about “ common-sense gun reform ” or whatever euphemisms they prefer .
It ’ s about restricting our God-given right as much as possible .
They wanted gun stores closed because they don ’ t want people to buy guns .
Period .
Amnesty International doesn ’ t oppose tyrants anymore .
It ’ s working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blossom .
There is no surer way to prevent tyranny and oppression than an armed populace , yet Amnesty International wants to work to prevent that populace from being armed .
It seems they ’ re not so much worried about human rights in general , just the rights they personally approve of .
Too bad for them that without guns , all the other rights are up for grabs .
Take a look at England , for example .
People are prosecuted for saying mean things .
So much for free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International on that one ?
That wouldn ’ t have happened if the people of England maintained some semblance of an armed population , but they don ’ t and it did .
We ’ re not going down that road because for us , actual human rights matter .

Amnesty International is an organization that is supposed to oppose tyrannical dictatorships all over the world. As a human rights organization, one would think they would stand for, you know, human rights. That should include the right to self-defense.
After all, how many of the dictators they work against have made it impossible for anyone to oppose them? Banning guns is often one of the first moves a dictator makes. They don’t like people being able to stand up to them and you don’t stand up to armies that will shoot you with harsh language.
You’d think Amnesty International would support the right to keep and bear arms. But, alas, it doesn’t.
A group known for calling out abusive governments around the world is wading into the gun control debate in the United States. In a conference call with journalists last week, Amnesty International called American gun violence a human rights crisis and condemned the federal government for deeming guns “essential” during the COVID-19 pandemic. The international human rights group now has a small staff devoted to an effort called the End Gun Violence Campaign, taking similar positions to groups that support gun restrictions like Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, Giffords, and March For Our Lives. The Amnesty International campaign includes efforts at the federal and state levels, including in Ohio, where the group lobbied legislators against a controversial “stand your ground” bill. The session is on hold other than COVID-19–related issues, and the bill’s fate is uncertain. Some of the legislation Amnesty International is pushing for are universal background checks and so-called red flag laws, which would allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed at risk to themselves or others.
In other words, Amnesty International is continuing its support for outright tyranny.
Make no mistake, that’s precisely what they’re doing here. By pushing for red flag laws, they’re directly opposing due process of law. By pushing for universal background checks, they’re also pushing for creating a system that can be used to track lawful gun ownership which can then be used (theoretically, at least) as a de facto gun registry.
By opposing gun stores remaining open, they mimic the position of other anti-gun groups who have tipped their hands on guns. It’s not about “common-sense gun reform” or whatever euphemisms they prefer. It’s about restricting our God-given right as much as possible. They wanted gun stores closed because they don’t want people to buy guns. Period.
Amnesty International doesn’t oppose tyrants anymore. It’s working to create a world where tyrants can blossom. There is no surer way to prevent tyranny and oppression than an armed populace, yet Amnesty International wants to work to prevent that populace from being armed. It seems they’re not so much worried about human rights in general, just the rights they personally approve of.
Too bad for them that without guns, all the other rights are up for grabs. Take a look at England, for example. People are prosecuted for saying mean things. So much for free speech, right? Where’s Amnesty International on that one?
That wouldn’t have happened if the people of England maintained some semblance of an armed population, but they don’t and it did.
We’re not going down that road because for us, actual human rights matter.


bearingarms--2020-04-13--Detroit Armed Citizen Fights Back Against Armed Robber

In the best of circumstances , it ’ s unlikely that a police officer will be by your side if you ’ re ever the victim of a violent crime , and these are clearly not the best of times that we ’ re living in at the moment .
Detroit , Michigan ’ s police department has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus , with 14-percent of officers currently under quarantine and a rise in violent crime on city streets .
From April 1 through Tuesday , there were eight homicides and 27 nonfatal shootings in Detroit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the city averaged about five homicides and 15 shootings per week .
Year-to-date , there have been 67 criminal homicides in Detroit — a 68 % increase over this time last year — and 173 nonfatal shootings , up 37 % .
“ We ’ ve been relatively quiet the last couple days , but we had a spike during the weekend that was troublesome , ” [ Chief James ] Craig said .
“ We ’ re going to address that.
” In the first weeks after Michigan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city actually saw a decline in violent crime , but Chief James says that as the weather has warmed up , “ young people started congregating , and there were some problems.
” The city ’ s top cop says he ’ s shifted about 80 officers from special units to street patrols , but violent criminals may still feel emboldened by decline in officers on the streets .
Now more than ever your safety is in your own hands , which is why I ’ m so grateful that the intended victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s west side was able to defend himself over the weekend .
From the Detroit News : A man who allegedly approached another man and pulled a gun on him late Sunday night on Detroit ’ s west side was arrested at a hospital after he recovered from gunshot wounds , police said .
At about 9:30 p.m. , police say the 28-year-old suspect approached a 23-year-old man and pulled a gun on him .
This took place in the 19200 block of West McNichols , west of the Southfield Freeway .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holder , police say , and he pulled a gun of his own and shot the suspect .
It ’ s a shame , but not a surprise , that violent criminals aren ’ t sheltering in place at the moment .
Thankfully , the 23-year old concealed carry holder who was the intended victim was able to get the drop on his assailant and wasn ’ t injured in the attempted robbery , and thanks to his poor choices , the suspect in this gets to spend some time in two places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment ; the hospital and a jail cell .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

In the best of circumstances, it’s unlikely that a police officer will be by your side if you’re ever the victim of a violent crime, and these are clearly not the best of times that we’re living in at the moment. Detroit, Michigan’s police department has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus, with 14-percent of officers currently under quarantine and a rise in violent crime on city streets.
From April 1 through Tuesday, there were eight homicides and 27 nonfatal shootings in Detroit, according to police department data. Last year, the city averaged about five homicides and 15 shootings per week. Year-to-date, there have been 67 criminal homicides in Detroit — a 68% increase over this time last year — and 173 nonfatal shootings, up 37%. “We’ve been relatively quiet the last couple days, but we had a spike during the weekend that was troublesome,” [Chief James] Craig said. “We’re going to address that.”
In the first weeks after Michigan’s shelter-in-place order was handed down, the city actually saw a decline in violent crime, but Chief James says that as the weather has warmed up, “young people started congregating, and there were some problems.” The city’s top cop says he’s shifted about 80 officers from special units to street patrols, but violent criminals may still feel emboldened by decline in officers on the streets.
Now more than ever your safety is in your own hands, which is why I’m so grateful that the intended victim of an armed robbery on Detroit’s west side was able to defend himself over the weekend. From the Detroit News:
A man who allegedly approached another man and pulled a gun on him late Sunday night on Detroit’s west side was arrested at a hospital after he recovered from gunshot wounds, police said. At about 9:30 p.m., police say the 28-year-old suspect approached a 23-year-old man and pulled a gun on him. This took place in the 19200 block of West McNichols, west of the Southfield Freeway. But the victim has a concealed weapons permit holder, police say, and he pulled a gun of his own and shot the suspect.
It’s a shame, but not a surprise, that violent criminals aren’t sheltering in place at the moment. Thankfully, the 23-year old concealed carry holder who was the intended victim was able to get the drop on his assailant and wasn’t injured in the attempted robbery, and thanks to his poor choices, the suspect in this gets to spend some time in two places you really want to avoid at the moment; the hospital and a jail cell.


bearingarms--2020-04-13--South San Franciscan Carjacker Gets Exactly What He Deserves

While much of the country is under some variation of lockdown thanks to COVID-19 , there are still people out and about .
There ’ s honestly no way around that since people need groceries , medicine , and other essential items .
Because of that , some species of criminals are still going to be out and about themselves .
However , a carjacker in San Francisco ended up having a very bad day .
A bizarre failed carjacking in South San Francisco ended early Sunday with the suspect dead after an off-duty police officer was stabbed then shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police car and led police on a chase and before being shot again after ramming a police car and wielding a knife at officers , police said .
The suspect died in the hospital parking lot , according to Sgt .
Ken Chetcuti of the South San Francisco Police Department .
The off-duty San Francisco officer and the carjacking victim were hospitalized and are expected to recover .
South San Francisco and Daly City police and the San Mateo County district attorney ’ s office are investigating the incident , including the officer-involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to a call at 5:35 AM of a fight outside a gas station .
It seems the carjacker tried to jack the car as carjackers tend to do , only the intended victim wasn ’ t particularly compliant .
The police then tried to subdue the suspect , including tasing his butt twice but to no avail .
The suspect then got into a police car and took off , which led to a chase .
The suspect then rammed another police car , then tried to fend off police with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wound , this one fatal .
The thing is , though , how many people did this guy hurt before ?
How man cars had he jacked from law-abiding citizens ?
How many people did he attack who simply couldn ’ t stop him because they couldn ’ t get a firearm permit ?
California has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation , but particularly egregious is how difficult it is to get a carry permit in the state .
That means law-abiding citizens are routinely at the mercy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill someone over a car .
That ’ s not how this is supposed to work .
Unfortunately , Californians have long supported oppressive gun control laws and permitted legislators to continue to infringe on their constitutionally-protected rights .
As a result , they ’ re not able to respond to threats such as this jackwagon .
The primary reason he was was stopped seems to be because he messed around in front of an off-duty police officer , someone who could carry a firearm .
Yet I can ’ t help but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been put down if more people weren ’ t prohibited from carrying in the state for no good reason .

While much of the country is under some variation of lockdown thanks to COVID-19, there are still people out and about. There’s honestly no way around that since people need groceries, medicine, and other essential items. Because of that, some species of criminals are still going to be out and about themselves.
Carjackers, for one.
However, a carjacker in San Francisco ended up having a very bad day.
A bizarre failed carjacking in South San Francisco ended early Sunday with the suspect dead after an off-duty police officer was stabbed then shot the suspect, who then stole a police car and led police on a chase and before being shot again after ramming a police car and wielding a knife at officers, police said. The suspect died in the hospital parking lot, according to Sgt. Ken Chetcuti of the South San Francisco Police Department. The off-duty San Francisco officer and the carjacking victim were hospitalized and are expected to recover. South San Francisco and Daly City police and the San Mateo County district attorney’s office are investigating the incident, including the officer-involved shootings.
The incident started when police responded to a call at 5:35 AM of a fight outside a gas station. It seems the carjacker tried to jack the car as carjackers tend to do, only the intended victim wasn’t particularly compliant.
Good for them.
Anyway, moving on…
The suspect allegedly stabbed one of his intended victims then used the knife to stab an off-duty San Francisco police officer who witnessed the incident and tried to intervene. The off-duty officer shot the suspect in self-defense, according to police.
The police then tried to subdue the suspect, including tasing his butt twice but to no avail. The suspect then got into a police car and took off, which led to a chase. The suspect then rammed another police car, then tried to fend off police with his knife, which earned him another gunshot wound, this one fatal.
Honestly, it’s bizarre.
The thing is, though, how many people did this guy hurt before? How man cars had he jacked from law-abiding citizens? How many people did he attack who simply couldn’t stop him because they couldn’t get a firearm permit?
California has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, but particularly egregious is how difficult it is to get a carry permit in the state. That means law-abiding citizens are routinely at the mercy of deranged criminals who are willing to kill someone over a car. That’s not how this is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, Californians have long supported oppressive gun control laws and permitted legislators to continue to infringe on their constitutionally-protected rights. As a result, they’re not able to respond to threats such as this jackwagon. The primary reason he was was stopped seems to be because he messed around in front of an off-duty police officer, someone who could carry a firearm.
Yet I can’t help but wonder how much sooner he might have been put down if more people weren’t prohibited from carrying in the state for no good reason.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--NYU Prof Slams SAFE Act As Example Of "Symbolic Politics"

New York ’ s SAFE Act has been on the books for almost seven years now , which is long enough for folks to form an opinion about how well the package of gun control laws is working in the state .
New York University law professor James Jacobs has been studying the law and its effects for years , and he ’ s come to the conclusion that the law is a failure ; an “ exercise in symbolic politics ” rather than a real public safety measure .
Jacobs and co-author Zoe Fuhr have a new book on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called The Toughest Gun Control Law in the Nation : The Unfulfilled Promise of New York ’ s SAFE Act , and he ’ s laid out the premise for the book in an op/ed at the website CityLand .
The SAFE Act immediately ran into implementation and enforcement difficulties .
The provision limiting ammunition loading magazines to seven rounds had to be abandoned because there are no such magazines to fit most popular firearms models .
The SAFE Act ’ s drafters either didn ’ t know that or didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to demonstrate the governor ’ s values .
In any event , a federal court struck down as irrational the provision that set maximum magazine capacity limitation .
The seven round capacity limitation was withdrawn and replaced by a ten round maximum capacity rule , with the proviso that no magazine could be loaded with more than seven rounds .
A federal court struck down that proviso as irrational and in violation of substantive due process .
The provisions regulating ammunition sales and purchases were abandoned .
The technical ( software ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least not at a reasonable cost .
Jacobs goes on to note the lack of compliance with the SAFE Act ’ s registration requirement for so-called “ assault weapons , ” estimating about 10 % of New York ’ s gun owners complied with that aspect of the law .
In fact , Jacobs says only one provision of the SAFE Act has ever really been enforced .
The only provision that was successfully implemented was the one requiring mental health professionals to report to county officials the names of patients perceived to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county official agrees ( and , not having seen the patient , they have no basis for disagreeing ) , the patient is then reported to the New York State Department of Mental Health and added to database of persons disqualified from gun purchasing or possessing a gun .
The patient whose name is reported , however , does not have to be notified .
The extent to which the reported patients have been or are separated from their guns or prevented from acquiring new guns is unknown .
I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one other provision that has been used by prosecutors , particularly those in Brooklyn and the Bronx .
Part of the SAFE Act upped the penalty for possessing a firearm without a license from a misdemeanor to a felony , and that ’ s been the portion of the law that ’ s actually seen the most use .
Unfortunately , that aspect of the law has also fallen hardest on young black men without serious criminal histories .
That much is true .
What is also true is that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAFE Act don ’ t really care how poorly it was written or how impossible it was to implement .
The job of lawmakers is to make laws .
It ’ s up to law enforcement to enforce them , and if the law is almost impossible to enforce , why that just means lawmakers need to make more laws !
I look forward to checking out Jacobs and Furh ’ s new book .
Maybe I ’ ll even send a copy to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam , who ’ s getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbolic politics with his package of gun control bills .

New York’s SAFE Act has been on the books for almost seven years now, which is long enough for folks to form an opinion about how well the package of gun control laws is working in the state. New York University law professor James Jacobs has been studying the law and its effects for years, and he’s come to the conclusion that the law is a failure; an “exercise in symbolic politics” rather than a real public safety measure.
Jacobs and co-author Zoe Fuhr have a new book on Governor Cuomo’s gun control plans called The Toughest Gun Control Law in the Nation: The Unfulfilled Promise of New York’s SAFE Act, and he’s laid out the premise for the book in an op/ed at the website CityLand.
The SAFE Act immediately ran into implementation and enforcement difficulties. The provision limiting ammunition loading magazines to seven rounds had to be abandoned because there are no such magazines to fit most popular firearms models. The SAFE Act’s drafters either didn’t know that or didn’t care since the point of the law was to demonstrate the governor’s values. In any event, a federal court struck down as irrational the provision that set maximum magazine capacity limitation. The seven round capacity limitation was withdrawn and replaced by a ten round maximum capacity rule, with the proviso that no magazine could be loaded with more than seven rounds. A federal court struck down that proviso as irrational and in violation of substantive due process. The provisions regulating ammunition sales and purchases were abandoned. The technical (software) obstacles could not be overcome, at least not at a reasonable cost.
Jacobs goes on to note the lack of compliance with the SAFE Act’s registration requirement for so-called “assault weapons,” estimating about 10% of New York’s gun owners complied with that aspect of the law.
In fact, Jacobs says only one provision of the SAFE Act has ever really been enforced.
The only provision that was successfully implemented was the one requiring mental health professionals to report to county officials the names of patients perceived to be mentally ill and dangerous. If the county official agrees (and, not having seen the patient, they have no basis for disagreeing), the patient is then reported to the New York State Department of Mental Health and added to database of persons disqualified from gun purchasing or possessing a gun. The patient whose name is reported, however, does not have to be notified. The extent to which the reported patients have been or are separated from their guns or prevented from acquiring new guns is unknown.
I’ll disagree with Jacobs here, because there’s one other provision that has been used by prosecutors, particularly those in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Part of the SAFE Act upped the penalty for possessing a firearm without a license from a misdemeanor to a felony, and that’s been the portion of the law that’s actually seen the most use. Unfortunately, that aspect of the law has also fallen hardest on young black men without serious criminal histories.
In retrospect, the SAFE Act looks like an exercise in symbolic politics. The Act was stillborn due to poor design, a failure to provide funds for implementation and enforcement, and the absence of a state-level agency capable of implementation, enforcement and evaluation. In the final analysis, law in action is far different from law on the books.
That much is true. What is also true is that many of the politicians who voted for the SAFE Act don’t really care how poorly it was written or how impossible it was to implement. The job of lawmakers is to make laws. It’s up to law enforcement to enforce them, and if the law is almost impossible to enforce, why that just means lawmakers need to make more laws!
I look forward to checking out Jacobs and Furh’s new book. Maybe I’ll even send a copy to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who’s getting ready to implement his own exercise in symbolic politics with his package of gun control bills.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Only One Carry Request At NAS Pensacola, But There's A Reason Why

Following the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola , as well as the one in Pearl Harbor , many of us on this side of the gun debate pointed out how military basis are basically just gun-free zones .
We argued that such restrictive rules only made it easier for a potential mass shooter to kill a lot of people before anyone could stop him .
After all , we ’ ve seen this before with Fort Hood .
Now , the media is reporting that only one person requested to carry a firearm under slightly relaxed carry rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if they could have carried , no one would have or something .
Well , that settles it , right ?
I mean , if only one person asked for permission , then just how would allowing more carry on based stop such an attack ?
That ’ s easy .
You see , there ’ s a reason no one else asked .
Of course , it ’ s possible the journalist was actually trying to show this because much of the rest of the report shows just how difficult it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s why no one asked .
Look , no one likes being told “ no.
” Most people will look at the hoops one has to jump through and recognize that they ’ re not going to get the permission anyway , so they just don ’ t ask .
Our military bases are prime hunting grounds for maniacs .
The only reason we don ’ t see these happening even more often is that they restrict access to the bases .
You can ’ t just walk onto a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all , which keeps potential mass shooters having to look at places like churches and schools .
Yet when one has access to the base for whatever reason , then they ’ ve got a virtual playground .
The Fort Hood shooter , a terrorist engaging in warfare against American service members , was able to kill 13 people plus an unborn baby .
The rules in place aren ’ t the reason Pearl Harbor or Pensacola didn ’ t result in more death .
That was simply an artifact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some people , even today , look at these military base shootings as somehow proof that more guns don ’ t result in fewer deaths , particularly in mass shootings .
They ignore White Settlement because , in their mind , military bases being the site of mass shootings is all the proof they need .
However , our military bases are vulnerable for the exact reason so many churches and schools are .
This is especially egregious since these same men and women are trusted with the government ’ s firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust with more advanced weapon systems .
It ’ s past time they be allowed to carry personal firearms for their own personal defense .

Following the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola, as well as the one in Pearl Harbor, many of us on this side of the gun debate pointed out how military basis are basically just gun-free zones. We argued that such restrictive rules only made it easier for a potential mass shooter to kill a lot of people before anyone could stop him.
After all, we’ve seen this before with Fort Hood.
Now, the media is reporting that only one person requested to carry a firearm under slightly relaxed carry rules. Apparently, this is to show that even if they could have carried, no one would have or something.
Just one person assigned to Naval Air Station Pensacola has sought permission to carry a private gun for safety reasons since the Department of Defense loosened restrictions in late 2016, according to officials at the base.
Well, that settles it, right? I mean, if only one person asked for permission, then just how would allowing more carry on based stop such an attack?
That’s easy. You see, there’s a reason no one else asked.
“In the past couple years, we’ve only had one request, and that was not granted,” said Jason Bortz, a spokesman for the base.
Shocking.
Of course, it’s possible the journalist was actually trying to show this because much of the rest of the report shows just how difficult it is to get permission to carry, and that’s why no one asked.
Look, no one likes being told “no.” Most people will look at the hoops one has to jump through and recognize that they’re not going to get the permission anyway, so they just don’t ask.
Our military bases are prime hunting grounds for maniacs. The only reason we don’t see these happening even more often is that they restrict access to the bases. You can’t just walk onto a military base for the fun of it, after all, which keeps potential mass shooters having to look at places like churches and schools.
Yet when one has access to the base for whatever reason, then they’ve got a virtual playground.
The Fort Hood shooter, a terrorist engaging in warfare against American service members, was able to kill 13 people plus an unborn baby. The rules in place aren’t the reason Pearl Harbor or Pensacola didn’t result in more death. That was simply an artifact of where the shooter decided to open fire.
Some people, even today, look at these military base shootings as somehow proof that more guns don’t result in fewer deaths, particularly in mass shootings. They ignore White Settlement because, in their mind, military bases being the site of mass shootings is all the proof they need. However, our military bases are vulnerable for the exact reason so many churches and schools are.
This is especially egregious since these same men and women are trusted with the government’s firearms on a regular basis, if not trust with more advanced weapon systems.
It’s past time they be allowed to carry personal firearms for their own personal defense.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--What's Going To Happen On Virginia's Upcoming Lobby Day?

The Washington Post , which has already run several op-eds critical of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in Virginia , is now out with a news story designed , in my opinion anyway , to stoke fear about the upcoming Lobby Day at Virginia ’ s state capital on January 20th .
According to the Post , That conjures up images of armed protesters storming the capital building to prevent votes from being cast , which is not going to happen .
And in fact , despite the breathless lede , Post reporters Full disclosure : I ’ m scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I ’ m not going to Richmond so I can storm the statehouse .
I ’ m going to lobby my legislators , as well as other lawmakers who I hope can be persuaded to change course away from the disastrous decisions they ’ re planning on making .
The gathering on the 20th is one that is in support of our civil rights , as hopefully tens of thousands of Virginians descend upon the state capital to make their voices heard .
To me , its spirit is much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington in 1963 than Lexington & Concord in 1775 .
After all , there were only a few hundred Massachusetts men at Concord Bridge .
We have no idea how many men and women will be at the state capital on January 20th , but the VCDL is telling the state police to prepare for anywhere from 50k-100k people , while I ’ m hearing the state police are estimating a crowd closer to 30k .
Even on the low end , that would be an absolutely staggering number of attendees , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the American Revolution , much less the minutemen at Concord .
In fact , if we ’ re going to use the American Revolution as our historical comparison ( and I think there are better historical analogies we can and should use , frankly ) , then we ’ re not anywhere near April of 1775 .
We ’ re probably closer to the early months of 1765 , when the British Parliament was debating the passage of the Stamp Act .
In 2020 , we haven ’ t even had committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final votes .
No bill has been signed into law .
No law has been challenged in court .
No Second Amendment Sanctuary counties have had the chance to respond to any unconstitutional gun laws that will be passed .
No juries have had a chance to acquit someone charged with violating one of Ralph Northam ’ s proposed gun laws .
Let ’ s not forget as well that what ’ s happening in Virginia is just one piece of a much bigger plan by gun control activists to impose these same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even as gun owners in Virginia are mobilizing to oppose Ralph Northam ’ s gun control bills , we need to be doing everything we can to ensure the election of pro-Second Amendment candidates in November .
• we are in the early chapters of this story • there is plenty we need to do instead of the boogaloo • anybody that is advocating violence on January 20th or as a response to the passage of any of Northam ’ s gun laws is no friend of the Second Amendment or individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , having said all that , I have to tell you that I ’ m not really concerned about unrest on the 20th , at least from those who would claim to be supporters of the Second Amendment .
I ’ m more concerned about finding a place to park , to be honest .
Despite what the Washington Post wants people to believe , and as crazy as it might sound , I and many others will be attending Lobby Day out of love ; love for the families we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we call home , love for our country and the rights afforded to us as American citizens , and love for our fellow Virginians , who deserve so much better than the gun control bills that Ralph Northam is pushing .
As angry as I am about what ’ s happening in my state , I will not be there with hate in my heart , not even for the politicians who would be happy to turn hundreds of thousands of Virginians into felons with the stroke of a pen .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breath , but I won ’ t hate them .
Even when lawmakers like Del .
Dan Helmer introduce a bill that would change the law to require the NRA ’ s range in Fairfax , Virginia , and only that range ( to the best of my knowledge ) to shut down , I won ’ t hate them .
I won ’ t claim to understand them , and I ’ ll certainly believe that vindictive and petty pieces of legislation like HB 567 are simply designed to harass the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners in northern Virginia to have a place to train with their firearms .
I won ’ t hate them , no matter how much they might demonstrate their contempt for gun owners like me .
I hope and believe that is the same spirit that others will bring to Lobby Day on the 20th .
Obviously we are all driven by concern over the gun control laws that Governor Northam is demanding , and we are determined to be seen and heard , but why exactly is that ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” it ’ s because we love our families .
We love the rights we possess , including our right to bear arms and our right to peaceably assemble , and to petition the government for a redress of our grievances .
We love our fellow Virginians , and don ’ t want to see them end up felons or in prison for possessing a suppressor , or brought up on criminal charges for allowing their 17-year old daughter access to a gun in case she needed it to defend herself while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to see Virginians in crisis have their guns taken from them , but left alone with their knives and no help for their mental health .
We don ’ t want to see politicians pull one over on voters by “ doing something ” about guns , when we can and should be addressing mental health , domestic violence , drug and gang-related violence instead .
We don ’ t want to see a war on drugs replaced by a war on guns , with young black men continuing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians pat themselves on the back for their “ criminal justice reform.
” And no , we don ’ t want to see the most commonly sold rifle in the United States today to be suddenly declared exempt from the protections of the Second Amendment .
Troy Carter , a resident of Amelia County who I ’ ve come to know a little bit over the past month , told one of the Washington Post reporters , “ I am worried people will come here to Virginia and look for that opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be the sanctuary guys , because we just want peace and to be left alone.
” Troy is typical of a lot of the people I ’ ve had the chance to meet at Second Amendment Sanctuary meetings across central Virginia over the past two months .
He ’ s not really political , though he votes .
Outside of that though , he ’ s not really interested in politics .
He ’ d rather work on his car , hang out with his family , maybe go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be doing this .
He doesn ’ t want to be calling his county supervisor or his state Senator , or trying to keep track of what new gun control bills have been introduced .
He doesn ’ t want to do any of it , but he will .
Troy Carter is “ woke ” now , and so are tens of thousands of Virginians just like him .
Those Virginians , of all backgrounds , ages , ideologies , creeds , and colors will be standing together and speaking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The list of speakers includes Dick Heller , Stephen Willeford , Virginia sheriffs Scott Jenkins and Danny Diggs , state Senator Amanda Chase , and delegates Nick Freitas and John McGuire among other Second Amendment stalwarts ( the complete list can be found at VCDL.org ) .
Additionally , many of us are also offering or supporting other ways to address these issues that a ) are effective and b ) are constitutional .
We ’ re not just saying “ no ” to gun control , we ’ re bringing something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether we like it or not , the fight we face right now is political , and while most of us find politics distasteful , that doesn ’ t mean we can afford to be ineffective .
We are primarily trying to persuade lawmakers to not support these measures , but an important secondary consideration is trying to persuade the public that there are better ways to address their concerns .
Without a doubt , both of these are uphill battles in Virginia at the moment , and among the Left more generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us an excuse to be ineffective , especially in a presidential election year .
As the Washington Post article shows , the media is intent on portraying Second Amendment supporters in the most ominous terms possible , and anti-gun politicians are happy to do the same .
It ’ s up to us to prove them as wrong about gun owners as they are about gun control .
I ’ ll be doing my part , first by attending the committee hearings on the January 13th and attending and speaking at the Lobby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capital .
I encourage every one of my fellow Virginians to join me and thousands of others as we peacefully , positively , and powerfully make our voices heard .

The Washington Post, which has already run several op-eds critical of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in Virginia, is now out with a news story designed, in my opinion anyway, to stoke fear about the upcoming Lobby Day at Virginia’s state capital on January 20th. According to the Post,
“Gun rights advocates and militia members from across the country are urging thousands of armed protesters to descend on Virginia’s capital later this month to stop newly empowered Democrats from passing gun-control bills.”
That conjures up images of armed protesters storming the capital building to prevent votes from being cast, which is not going to happen. And in fact, despite the breathless lede, Post reporters
Full disclosure: I’m scheduled to speak at the Lobby Day rally, and I’m not going to Richmond so I can storm the statehouse. I’m going to lobby my legislators, as well as other lawmakers who I hope can be persuaded to change course away from the disastrous decisions they’re planning on making.
The gathering on the 20th is one that is in support of our civil rights, as hopefully tens of thousands of Virginians descend upon the state capital to make their voices heard. To me, its spirit is much more akin to the civil rights March on Washington in 1963 than Lexington & Concord in 1775.
After all, there were only a few hundred Massachusetts men at Concord Bridge. We have no idea how many men and women will be at the state capital on January 20th, but the VCDL is telling the state police to prepare for anywhere from 50k-100k people, while I’m hearing the state police are estimating a crowd closer to 30k. Even on the low end, that would be an absolutely staggering number of attendees, and would dwarf the largest army ever assembled during the American Revolution, much less the minutemen at Concord.
In fact, if we’re going to use the American Revolution as our historical comparison (and I think there are better historical analogies we can and should use, frankly), then we’re not anywhere near April of 1775. We’re probably closer to the early months of 1765, when the British Parliament was debating the passage of the Stamp Act.
In 2020, we haven’t even had committee hearings for these bills, much less final votes. No bill has been signed into law. No law has been challenged in court. No Second Amendment Sanctuary counties have had the chance to respond to any unconstitutional gun laws that will be passed. No juries have had a chance to acquit someone charged with violating one of Ralph Northam’s proposed gun laws.
Let’s not forget as well that what’s happening in Virginia is just one piece of a much bigger plan by gun control activists to impose these same restrictions and more at the federal level. Even as gun owners in Virginia are mobilizing to oppose Ralph Northam’s gun control bills, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure the election of pro-Second Amendment candidates in November.
Simply put:
we are in the early chapters of this story
there is plenty we need to do instead of the boogaloo
anybody that is advocating violence on January 20th or as a response to the passage of any of Northam’s gun laws is no friend of the Second Amendment or individual liberty, in Virginia or elsewhere.
Now, having said all that, I have to tell you that I’m not really concerned about unrest on the 20th, at least from those who would claim to be supporters of the Second Amendment. I’m more concerned about finding a place to park, to be honest.
Despite what the Washington Post wants people to believe, and as crazy as it might sound, I and many others will be attending Lobby Day out of love; love for the families we want to protect, love for the state that we call home, love for our country and the rights afforded to us as American citizens, and love for our fellow Virginians, who deserve so much better than the gun control bills that Ralph Northam is pushing.
As angry as I am about what’s happening in my state, I will not be there with hate in my heart, not even for the politicians who would be happy to turn hundreds of thousands of Virginians into felons with the stroke of a pen. I will oppose their efforts until my dying breath, but I won’t hate them.
Even when lawmakers like Del. Dan Helmer introduce a bill that would change the law to require the NRA’s range in Fairfax, Virginia, and only that range (to the best of my knowledge) to shut down, I won’t hate them. I won’t claim to understand them, and I’ll certainly believe that vindictive and petty pieces of legislation like HB 567 are simply designed to harass the NRA while making it more difficult for gun owners in northern Virginia to have a place to train with their firearms. I won’t hate them, no matter how much they might demonstrate their contempt for gun owners like me.
Proud to be on the forefront of this issue and leading the change our campaign fought so hard for. #NeverAgain starts now. pic.twitter.com/50QmjC2K3d — Dan Helmer (@HelmerVA) January 6, 2020
I hope and believe that is the same spirit that others will bring to Lobby Day on the 20th. Obviously we are all driven by concern over the gun control laws that Governor Northam is demanding, and we are determined to be seen and heard, but why exactly is that? It’s not because we “love our guns,” it’s because we love our families. We love the rights we possess, including our right to bear arms and our right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of our grievances.
We love our fellow Virginians, and don’t want to see them end up felons or in prison for possessing a suppressor, or brought up on criminal charges for allowing their 17-year old daughter access to a gun in case she needed it to defend herself while she was home alone. We don’t want to see Virginians in crisis have their guns taken from them, but left alone with their knives and no help for their mental health. We don’t want to see politicians pull one over on voters by “doing something” about guns, when we can and should be addressing mental health, domestic violence, drug and gang-related violence instead. We don’t want to see a war on drugs replaced by a war on guns, with young black men continuing to suffer disproportionately for non-violent possessory offenses while politicians pat themselves on the back for their “criminal justice reform.” And no, we don’t want to see the most commonly sold rifle in the United States today to be suddenly declared exempt from the protections of the Second Amendment.
Troy Carter, a resident of Amelia County who I’ve come to know a little bit over the past month, told one of the Washington Post reporters, “I am worried people will come here to Virginia and look for that opportunity to cause trouble. It’s not going to be the sanctuary guys, because we just want peace and to be left alone.”
Troy is typical of a lot of the people I’ve had the chance to meet at Second Amendment Sanctuary meetings across central Virginia over the past two months. He’s not really political, though he votes. Outside of that though, he’s not really interested in politics. He’d rather work on his car, hang out with his family, maybe go to the lake. He doesn’t want to be doing this. He doesn’t want to be calling his county supervisor or his state Senator, or trying to keep track of what new gun control bills have been introduced. He doesn’t want to do any of it, but he will. Troy Carter is “woke” now, and so are tens of thousands of Virginians just like him.
Those Virginians, of all backgrounds, ages, ideologies, creeds, and colors will be standing together and speaking up for our civil rights on January 20th. The list of speakers includes Dick Heller, Stephen Willeford, Virginia sheriffs Scott Jenkins and Danny Diggs, state Senator Amanda Chase, and delegates Nick Freitas and John McGuire among other Second Amendment stalwarts (the complete list can be found at VCDL.org).
Additionally, many of us are also offering or supporting other ways to address these issues that a) are effective and b) are constitutional. We’re not just saying “no” to gun control, we’re bringing something to the table that actually works.
Whether we like it or not, the fight we face right now is political, and while most of us find politics distasteful, that doesn’t mean we can afford to be ineffective. We are primarily trying to persuade lawmakers to not support these measures, but an important secondary consideration is trying to persuade the public that there are better ways to address their concerns. Without a doubt, both of these are uphill battles in Virginia at the moment, and among the Left more generally. That still doesn’t give us an excuse to be ineffective, especially in a presidential election year.
As the Washington Post article shows, the media is intent on portraying Second Amendment supporters in the most ominous terms possible, and anti-gun politicians are happy to do the same. It’s up to us to prove them as wrong about gun owners as they are about gun control. I’ll be doing my part, first by attending the committee hearings on the January 13th and attending and speaking at the Lobby Day rally on January 20th at the state capital. I encourage every one of my fellow Virginians to join me and thousands of others as we peacefully, positively, and powerfully make our voices heard.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--State And National Groups Gear Up For Florida Preemption Fight

Following the antics of Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto , Florida lawmakers sought to give a little teeth to their preemption law .
They passed a measure that imposed penalties on lawmakers who willful ignore the state ’ s law banning local governments from passing gun control bills .
Preemption laws make it so there ’ s just one set of rules across the state , making it easier for law-abiding citizens to keep track of the laws in question .
However , some have apparently figured local officials who break the law willfully shouldn ’ t face penalties .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
That just ramped everything up , though , and now state and national groups on both sides of the gun debate are preparing for battle .
The legal battle over a 2011 Florida gun law continues to ratchet up .
State and national groups — including two prominent gun-control organizations — filed briefs Thursday urging the 1st District Court of Appeal to reject the law , which threatens tough penalties if city and county officials approve gun regulations .
One of the briefs described the National Rifle Association-backed law as having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to similar measures in other states .
The brief , filed by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence , the Brady gun-control group , the League of Women Voters of Florida and Equality Florida Institute , Inc. , said the law has “ chilling effects ” on city and county officials .
“ Most importantly , ( the law ’ s ) harsh penalty provisions will deter local legislators from experimenting with any solutions directed to the problem of gun violence , depriving Floridians of ordinances promoting their safety and security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the brief failed to mention that that was the freaking point .
Preemption laws bar municipalities from passing their own gun control laws in the first place .
The penalties themselves don ’ t actually bar local governments from such experimentation , existing state law already does this .
The penalties simply provide teeth to a law that is constantly ignored .
Those efforts cost the taxpayers millions of dollars every time some local government tries to “ experiment ” in defiance of the law .
Then again , groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that just betrays their own hypocrisy .
You see , they argue that preemption prevents local communities from experimenting with gun control , yet their own proposals would bar local governments from experimenting with gun rights .
They ’ re vocally opposed to the Second Amendment sanctuary movement as well , which is little more than an attempt to exert local control over gun rights .
Why , it ’ s almost like the problem for them isn ’ t experimentation but the fact that they can ’ t push gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , we already knew that , now didn ’ t we ?
Groups on both sides of the debate are gearing up for the fight , but I expect this to end up before the Supreme Court at some point .
How that will go , though , could be anyone ’ s guess .
The truth is that while it ’ s easy to view this as a gun rights issue , it could easily be framed as something else and I ’ m not going to just pretend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of grounds .
Then again , they might smack Giffords and company down , which would be a vital and important win for everyone .

Following the antics of Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, Florida lawmakers sought to give a little teeth to their preemption law. They passed a measure that imposed penalties on lawmakers who willful ignore the state’s law banning local governments from passing gun control bills. Preemption laws make it so there’s just one set of rules across the state, making it easier for law-abiding citizens to keep track of the laws in question.
However, some have apparently figured local officials who break the law willfully shouldn’t face penalties. They even got a court to agree with them.
That just ramped everything up, though, and now state and national groups on both sides of the gun debate are preparing for battle.
The legal battle over a 2011 Florida gun law continues to ratchet up. State and national groups — including two prominent gun-control organizations — filed briefs Thursday urging the 1st District Court of Appeal to reject the law, which threatens tough penalties if city and county officials approve gun regulations. One of the briefs described the National Rifle Association-backed law as having “unprecedented penalty provisions” that led to similar measures in other states. The brief, filed by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Brady gun-control group, the League of Women Voters of Florida and Equality Florida Institute, Inc., said the law has “chilling effects” on city and county officials. “Most importantly, (the law’s) harsh penalty provisions will deter local legislators from experimenting with any solutions directed to the problem of gun violence, depriving Floridians of ordinances promoting their safety and security,” the brief said.
Of course, the brief failed to mention that that was the freaking point.
Preemption laws bar municipalities from passing their own gun control laws in the first place. The penalties themselves don’t actually bar local governments from such experimentation, existing state law already does this. The penalties simply provide teeth to a law that is constantly ignored. Those efforts cost the taxpayers millions of dollars every time some local government tries to “experiment” in defiance of the law.
Then again, groups like Giffords aren’t fans of preemption, but that just betrays their own hypocrisy.
You see, they argue that preemption prevents local communities from experimenting with gun control, yet their own proposals would bar local governments from experimenting with gun rights. They’re vocally opposed to the Second Amendment sanctuary movement as well, which is little more than an attempt to exert local control over gun rights.
Why, it’s almost like the problem for them isn’t experimentation but the fact that they can’t push gun control at every level of government.
Of course, we already knew that, now didn’t we?
Groups on both sides of the debate are gearing up for the fight, but I expect this to end up before the Supreme Court at some point. How that will go, though, could be anyone’s guess. The truth is that while it’s easy to view this as a gun rights issue, it could easily be framed as something else and I’m not going to just pretend the Court might not go against it on some kind of grounds.
Then again, they might smack Giffords and company down, which would be a vital and important win for everyone.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--Florida Police Chief Wants Open Carry Restrictions

Palm Beach Police Chief Nicholas Caristo really wants to see some changes to the state ’ s open carry law .
Many gun owners want changes as well , but the two sides are moving in the opposite direction .
While groups like Florida Carry want to see the state ’ s law amended to simply allow for the open carry of legally owned firearms , Chief Caristo wants the state legislature to amend the current open carry law to restrict the practice even more than the current restrictions .
Over the weekend , members of Florida Carry engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights .
The group marched from downtown West Palm Beach to the Royal Park Bridge to Palm Beach to demonstrate the statute which allows people to open carry while fishing , hunting , or camping or heading to or from those activities .
It ’ s in response to a letter written by Chief Caristo to Senator Bobby Powell asking the state legislature to amendment that would prohibit anyone from openly carrying their gun while on the way to or from or while hunting , fishing , or camping , if it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , church , government building , or guarded beach .
Michael Taylor , a member of Florida Carry and Port St. Lucie resident , says he is vulnerable when fishing before dawn and after dusk .
He added that the state law is vital for his safety .
“ I was robbed underneath a bridge and I was unable to defend myself with anything other than my fishing pole .
Ever since that day I ’ ve open carried to protect myself , ” said Taylor .
According to WPTV-TV , Chief Caristo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that individuals open carrying will scare others .
“ Our intention is not to infringe on the lawful rights of gun owners .
We are solely asking gun owners to be responsible and not openly carry in the area of Schools , Houses of Worship , Government Buildings and crowded beaches .
With recent events… we are asking gun owners to not intentionally place people in fear .
Despite a retaliatory e-mail from Florida Carry , Chief Caristo stands firm on his commitment to protect the community.
” I ’ m not sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exactly , but if Chief Caristo feels like he needs to “ protect the community ” from legal gun owners , he should spend less time attacking them and more time getting to know them .
If Caristo ’ s only concern is that some folks might be freaked out by the sight of someone open carrying within a half-mile of a school or a beach , that ’ s not good enough , in my opinion , to try to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also scared of the fact that there are more than one million Floridians who are lawfully carrying a concealed firearm .
Is that an argument against scrapping the state ’ s concealed carry law ?
Of course not .
It ’ s a silly argument on the part of the police chief , and I hope that his proposed amendments are rejected by lawmakers in Tallahassee this year .

Palm Beach Police Chief Nicholas Caristo really wants to see some changes to the state’s open carry law. Many gun owners want changes as well, but the two sides are moving in the opposite direction. While groups like Florida Carry want to see the state’s law amended to simply allow for the open carry of legally owned firearms, Chief Caristo wants the state legislature to amend the current open carry law to restrict the practice even more than the current restrictions.
Over the weekend, members of Florida Carry engaged in a public rally in support of their rights.
The group marched from downtown West Palm Beach to the Royal Park Bridge to Palm Beach to demonstrate the statute which allows people to open carry while fishing, hunting, or camping or heading to or from those activities. It’s in response to a letter written by Chief Caristo to Senator Bobby Powell asking the state legislature to amendment that would prohibit anyone from openly carrying their gun while on the way to or from or while hunting, fishing, or camping, if it’s within 1500 feet of a school, church, government building, or guarded beach.
Michael Taylor, a member of Florida Carry and Port St. Lucie resident, says he is vulnerable when fishing before dawn and after dusk. He added that the state law is vital for his safety. “I was robbed underneath a bridge and I was unable to defend myself with anything other than my fishing pole. Ever since that day I’ve open carried to protect myself,” said Taylor.
According to WPTV-TV, Chief Caristo’s objections stem from his concern that individuals open carrying will scare others.
“Our intention is not to infringe on the lawful rights of gun owners. We are solely asking gun owners to be responsible and not openly carry in the area of Schools, Houses of Worship, Government Buildings and crowded beaches. With recent events… we are asking gun owners to not intentionally place people in fear. Despite a retaliatory e-mail from Florida Carry, Chief Caristo stands firm on his commitment to protect the community.”
I’m not sure what a “retaliatory e-mail” is, exactly, but if Chief Caristo feels like he needs to “protect the community” from legal gun owners, he should spend less time attacking them and more time getting to know them.
If Caristo’s only concern is that some folks might be freaked out by the sight of someone open carrying within a half-mile of a school or a beach, that’s not good enough, in my opinion, to try to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms. After all, many of those individuals are also scared of the fact that there are more than one million Floridians who are lawfully carrying a concealed firearm. Is that an argument against scrapping the state’s concealed carry law?
Of course not. It’s a silly argument on the part of the police chief, and I hope that his proposed amendments are rejected by lawmakers in Tallahassee this year.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--Georgia State Rep Files Assault Weapon Ban Bill

Democrats in Georgia have felt somewhat emboldened after Stacey Abrams and her near-miss at the governor ’ s mansion .
They seem to have it in their head that her close race was enough to suggest that Georgia is somehow turning blue .
I suppose that might be why at least one state representative felt emboldened enough to try and push an assault weapon ban in one of the most pro-gun states in the country .
The bill has an interesting definition of an assault weapon , though .
That first definition is more appropriately termed a “ machine gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to simply change the term used .
The bill , SB 281 , strikes out the machine gun definition as well .
It also includes all the usual bells and whistles about magazine capacity and so on .
Frankly , it ’ s nothing particularly new .
In fact , it ’ s what we ’ ve come to expect from anti-gun lawmakers throughout the country .
What ’ s interesting , however , is the response we ’ re seeing .
You see , the bill was pre-filed on December 4th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s had time to gather a few co-sponsors .
It hasn ’ t .
In fact , it has absolutely no co-sponsors .
While I don ’ t expect that trend to continue indefinitely–we have too many anti-gun lawmakers from Atlanta , for example–it does suggest that the bill isn ’ t one anyone puts much stock in succeeding .
Not at this point , anyway .
Honestly , though , why would it ?
The legislature is still overwhelmingly Republican .
Further , much of that power derives from their historically pro-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t having a lot of luck pushing for expansion of gun rights in recent years , that doesn ’ t mean state GOP officials are going to anger them by restricting gun rights either .
In other words , this bill makes the proverbial “ tilting at windmills ” look like a good and valuable use of one ’ s time by comparison .
The truth is , Georgia isn ’ t likely to get an assault weapon ban .
Yet why do lawmakers continue trying to push for bills like this ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re virtue signaling .
They ’ re making sure all their fellow Democrats know they hold the right opinions .
This is especially important for those who harbor ambitions of higher office .
They need the party to believe in them , so they introduce bills that aren ’ t going to go anywhere .
Oh , it ’ s possible that their reasons aren ’ t anything of the sort and I ’ m just cynical .
It ’ s also possible that lawmakers like this are just complete and total idiots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clamoring for gun control .
Of course , I ’ ll also note that the two possibilities aren ’ t mutually exclusive .
It ’ s quite possible it ’ s virtue signaling and a sincere effort to curtail the rights of law-abiding Georgians because they think we actually want this nonsense .

Democrats in Georgia have felt somewhat emboldened after Stacey Abrams and her near-miss at the governor’s mansion. They seem to have it in their head that her close race was enough to suggest that Georgia is somehow turning blue.
I suppose that might be why at least one state representative felt emboldened enough to try and push an assault weapon ban in one of the most pro-gun states in the country.
The bill has an interesting definition of an assault weapon, though.
As used in this part, the term:
25 (1) ‘Automatic or semi-automatic gun’ means any weapon which shoots or is designed
26 to shoot:
27 (A) Automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function
28 of the trigger; or
29 (B) Without any action needed to fire consecutive shots, other than having ammunition
30 loaded in such weapon’s feeding device.
That first definition is more appropriately termed a “machine gun” under Georgia law, though this seeks to simply change the term used. The bill, SB 281, strikes out the machine gun definition as well.
It also includes all the usual bells and whistles about magazine capacity and so on.
Frankly, it’s nothing particularly new. In fact, it’s what we’ve come to expect from anti-gun lawmakers throughout the country. What’s interesting, however, is the response we’re seeing.
You see, the bill was pre-filed on December 4th. After a month, it’s had time to gather a few co-sponsors. It hasn’t. In fact, it has absolutely no co-sponsors.
While I don’t expect that trend to continue indefinitely–we have too many anti-gun lawmakers from Atlanta, for example–it does suggest that the bill isn’t one anyone puts much stock in succeeding. Not at this point, anyway.
Honestly, though, why would it? The legislature is still overwhelmingly Republican. Further, much of that power derives from their historically pro-gun stance. While state activists aren’t having a lot of luck pushing for expansion of gun rights in recent years, that doesn’t mean state GOP officials are going to anger them by restricting gun rights either.
In other words, this bill makes the proverbial “tilting at windmills” look like a good and valuable use of one’s time by comparison.
The truth is, Georgia isn’t likely to get an assault weapon ban. Yet why do lawmakers continue trying to push for bills like this?
That’s easy. They’re virtue signaling. They’re making sure all their fellow Democrats know they hold the right opinions. This is especially important for those who harbor ambitions of higher office. They need the party to believe in them, so they introduce bills that aren’t going to go anywhere.
Oh, it’s possible that their reasons aren’t anything of the sort and I’m just cynical. It’s also possible that lawmakers like this are just complete and total idiots who really think the state is just clamoring for gun control.
Of course, I’ll also note that the two possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s quite possible it’s virtue signaling and a sincere effort to curtail the rights of law-abiding Georgians because they think we actually want this nonsense.
They’re wrong.
Hat tip: The Truth About Guns


bearingarms--2020-01-06--VA Gun Owners On Red Alert As Legislative Session Begins

Virginia lawmakers kick off the 2020 session on Wednesday of this week , and gun control is expected to be front and center as the new Democrat-controlled legislature gets to work .
Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to discuss some of the possibilities as the legislative session gets underway .
While SB 16 , a proposed “ assault weapons ban ” offered by state Senator Dick Saslaw , has drawn a lot of attention due to the sweeping nature of the ban and the fact that existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be allowed to continue to legally possess them , Governor Ralph Northam has said he expects that bill will change .
The expected revisions , which are likely to include a grandfather clause allowing existing owners to keep their firearms if they register them with the state , aren ’ t going to make the bill any more palatable for gun owners , but they be enough to get the support of some suburban Republicans .
So far , the line in the sand that we ’ ve seen drawn by suburban senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t go along with any gun confiscation plans .
While that ’ s great , it ’ s also not nearly enough .
Every bill that is aimed at restricting the right to keep and bear arms will violate the rights of Virginians , and needs to be treated as such .
So what if existing gun owners are “ allowed ” to keep their guns if they register them with the state .
We ’ ve already seen the language of SB16 .
We know the intention of these lawmakers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns ( and even some pistols ) .
Why would gun owners get the warm fuzzies over an amendment that requires them to register those very guns with the state ?
As Picket notes in our conversation , it ’ s likely that we ’ ll see some horse-trading and political bargaining during the session .
She lays out a scenario where the so-called “ assault weapons ban ” is watered-down in exchange for GOP support for a “ red flag ” law , for instance .
Picket ’ s idea is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right that many Republicans see their job this session as two-fold : to try and prevent gun control bills from passing if they can , and if they can ’ t , then try to make the bills that will pass a little less bad ( they won ’ t be good ) .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and stick around after the conversation to hear more Second Amendment news and information , including an armed citizen story out of Indianapolis , a horrific crime committed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the streets , and a police officer in Fort Smith , Arkansas in the right place , at the right time , and willing to do what he could to help a family in need .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and Townhall.com ’ s podcast page .
Or , you can subscribe to Townhall Media at YouTube and never miss a show .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Virginia lawmakers kick off the 2020 session on Wednesday of this week, and gun control is expected to be front and center as the new Democrat-controlled legislature gets to work.
Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss some of the possibilities as the legislative session gets underway.
While SB 16, a proposed “assault weapons ban” offered by state Senator Dick Saslaw, has drawn a lot of attention due to the sweeping nature of the ban and the fact that existing owners of the banned firearms would not be allowed to continue to legally possess them, Governor Ralph Northam has said he expects that bill will change. The expected revisions, which are likely to include a grandfather clause allowing existing owners to keep their firearms if they register them with the state, aren’t going to make the bill any more palatable for gun owners, but they be enough to get the support of some suburban Republicans.
So far, the line in the sand that we’ve seen drawn by suburban senators like Tommy Norment is that they won’t go along with any gun confiscation plans. While that’s great, it’s also not nearly enough. Every bill that is aimed at restricting the right to keep and bear arms will violate the rights of Virginians, and needs to be treated as such. So what if existing gun owners are “allowed” to keep their guns if they register them with the state. We’ve already seen the language of SB16. We know the intention of these lawmakers is to ban the possession of semi-automatic long guns (and even some pistols). Why would gun owners get the warm fuzzies over an amendment that requires them to register those very guns with the state?
As Picket notes in our conversation, it’s likely that we’ll see some horse-trading and political bargaining during the session. She lays out a scenario where the so-called “assault weapons ban” is watered-down in exchange for GOP support for a “red flag” law, for instance. Picket’s idea is just a hypothetical, but she’s right that many Republicans see their job this session as two-fold: to try and prevent gun control bills from passing if they can, and if they can’t, then try to make the bills that will pass a little less bad (they won’t be good).
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stick around after the conversation to hear more Second Amendment news and information, including an armed citizen story out of Indianapolis, a horrific crime committed by a Kentucky man who should not have on the streets, and a police officer in Fort Smith, Arkansas in the right place, at the right time, and willing to do what he could to help a family in need.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Townhall.com’s podcast page. Or, you can subscribe to Townhall Media at YouTube and never miss a show. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-01-06--Florida County Leads State In Red Flag Orders, Illustrates Issues

One of the problems I have with red flag laws is how their use gets turned around and used to justify their existence .
There ’ s almost never any real way to study whether guns are taken from people who represent actual threats and whether they ’ re taken from people for a multitude of other reasons that have nothing to do with actual danger to others .
Down in Florida , Volusia County has seized more guns than anywhere else , and it illustrates the problems with the red flag laws .
The Volusia County Sheriff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the red flag law took effect in March 2018 allowing police to temporarily seize and hold firearms from people who are considered a threat to themselves or others .
That ’ s nearly 2 ½ times the number risk protection orders filed by sheriff ’ s offices in the neighboring counties of Flagler , Orange , Seminole , Brevard and Lake .
The other agencies combined had filed 66 risk protection orders based on the most recent figures available .
The Volusia County Sheriff ’ s Office ’ s risk protection orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the often-chaotic situations that lead authorities to take the firearms : A man upset about a divorce shoots himself with a shotgun and survives ; a husband threatening to shoot a wife during an argument ; two neighbors getting into a gunfight in Deltona after one neighbor ’ s child uses the other ’ s backyard fence as a backboard for pitching practice .
Advocates of the law say risk protection orders save lives .
Opponents say many of the cases are simply government overreach .
Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was filing significantly more such orders than others in the region .
“ I don ’ t care about what any other county does , ” Chitwood said .
“ Our deputies are well trained .
We have a model policy .
The Sheriff ’ s Office does not randomly seize firearms .
We follow the law .
It ’ s reviewed by our legal counsel and then it goes to a judge.
” At the end of the day , all we have to go on is the sheriff ’ s word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing it right .
Of course , Sheriff Chitwood is going to defend his deputies .
What else would he say ?
That his deputies are quick to trample on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans ?
Yet also take their examples .
They ’ re quick to point out a handful of examples that look very clearcut , but let ’ s be honest .
Any county is going to have those .
The individual instances might be unique , but the severity isn ’ t .
Those are only a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and those aren ’ t the truly alarming ones .
While they ’ re all problematic–after all , if two guys had a gun battle , why weren ’ t they locked up rather than having their guns taken away ?
–they also represent many cases where it ’ s understandable someone would seek a red flag order .
Yet what about the others ?
Volusia County may not be doing anything particularly sneaky or underhanded regarding their use of red flag laws , but the fact that Chitwood doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than everyone else ’ s illustrates how the complete lack of real oversight only helps these orders be used whenever a department wants .
Chitwood doesn ’ t know why his county is so much higher than everywhere else ’ s because he doesn ’ t have any reason to care .
How many of those 160 people were an actual threat ?
How few of them broke any law only to see their guns taken away ?
In fact , how many of them were on the receiving end of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as a threat because of a political opinion that had nothing to do with violence ?
I ’ m sorry , but this stupidity needs to end .
Red flag orders need to die .

One of the problems I have with red flag laws is how their use gets turned around and used to justify their existence. There’s almost never any real way to study whether guns are taken from people who represent actual threats and whether they’re taken from people for a multitude of other reasons that have nothing to do with actual danger to others.
Down in Florida, Volusia County has seized more guns than anywhere else, and it illustrates the problems with the red flag laws.
The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office has filed 160 risk protection orders since the red flag law took effect in March 2018 allowing police to temporarily seize and hold firearms from people who are considered a threat to themselves or others. That’s nearly 2 ½ times the number risk protection orders filed by sheriff’s offices in the neighboring counties of Flagler, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Lake. The other agencies combined had filed 66 risk protection orders based on the most recent figures available. The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office’s risk protection orders, called RPOs for short, describe the often-chaotic situations that lead authorities to take the firearms: A man upset about a divorce shoots himself with a shotgun and survives; a husband threatening to shoot a wife during an argument; two neighbors getting into a gunfight in Deltona after one neighbor’s child uses the other’s backyard fence as a backboard for pitching practice. Advocates of the law say risk protection orders save lives. Opponents say many of the cases are simply government overreach. Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said there was no particular reason why his agency was filing significantly more such orders than others in the region. “I don’t care about what any other county does,” Chitwood said. “Our deputies are well trained. We have a model policy. The Sheriff’s Office does not randomly seize firearms. We follow the law. It’s reviewed by our legal counsel and then it goes to a judge.”
At the end of the day, all we have to go on is the sheriff’s word that his department and his county is doing it right.
Of course, Sheriff Chitwood is going to defend his deputies. What else would he say? That his deputies are quick to trample on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans?
Yet also take their examples. They’re quick to point out a handful of examples that look very clearcut, but let’s be honest. Any county is going to have those. The individual instances might be unique, but the severity isn’t.
Those are only a handful of the 160 red flag orders filed, and those aren’t the truly alarming ones. While they’re all problematic–after all, if two guys had a gun battle, why weren’t they locked up rather than having their guns taken away?–they also represent many cases where it’s understandable someone would seek a red flag order. Yet what about the others?
Volusia County may not be doing anything particularly sneaky or underhanded regarding their use of red flag laws, but the fact that Chitwood doesn’t understand why his county is so much higher than everyone else’s illustrates how the complete lack of real oversight only helps these orders be used whenever a department wants.
Chitwood doesn’t know why his county is so much higher than everywhere else’s because he doesn’t have any reason to care.
How many of those 160 people were an actual threat? How few of them broke any law only to see their guns taken away? In fact, how many of them were on the receiving end of such an order because a family member viewed them as a threat because of a political opinion that had nothing to do with violence?
I’m sorry, but this stupidity needs to end. Red flag orders need to die.