bearingarms--2020-10-03--September Another Record Setting Month ForGun Background Checks

For the first time since April , there were fewer than 3-million background checks performed by the FBI ’ s National Instant Check System in September , but the Great Gun Run of 2020 is definitely still underway .
Compared to September of 2019 , NICS checks increased from 2,207,312 to 2,892,115 , which makes last month the busiest September in the 22-year history of the instant check system .
Now , these are raw numbers , and don ’ t provide a perfect snapshot of the number of guns actually sold at retail last month , because some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like concealed carry licenses or gun permits in many states .
I ’ m waiting to see the adjusted NICS figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the private company Small Arms Analytics , which will likely come out on Monday , but the Bloomberg-funded press outlet The Trace is out with their own estimate of gun sales last month , and their best guess is that 1.92 million firearms were sold at retail in September .
If that ’ s anywhere close to accurate , September of 2020 would be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 20 years , and a 67 % percent increase in gun sales compared to September of last year .
According to The Trace ‘ s estimates , the 1.92-million firearm sales include 780,000 long guns ( rifles and shotguns ) and 1,210,000 handguns .
Based on The Trace ‘ s analysis , the state that saw the biggest increase in gun sales between August and September of this year was New Jersey , where NICS figures jumped by 30 % .
Several states saw a slight slowdown in sales from August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in Ohio and New York , which both saw a 7 % decline in September compared to the previous month .
Comparing the numbers from September of 2019 to September of 2020 , however , reveals that virtually every state saw an large increase in sales .
NICS checks increased by more than 400 % in the District of Columbia , and Delaware , Georgia , Maryland , Michigan , New Jersey , Rhode Island , and Utah all saw an increase of more than 100 % compared to September of 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at historically high levels across the country , and I would expect that to continue for the rest of the year .
Concern over unrest , riots , and the lootenannies we ’ ve seen in cities from Seattle to New York aren ’ t likely to dissipate any time soon , and with the president now fighting COVID and some Democrats demanding that the 25th Amendment be invoked , the political tension has only increased in recent days .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if that led to another flurry in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are traditionally strong to begin with .
Gun sales also tend to climb ahead of presidential elections , and it seems like the only force able to check the expected increase is the law of supply and demand .
You can ’ t buy what ’ s not available , and while most manufacturers are adding shifts and increasing production as much as they can , the industry simply hasn ’ t been able to keep up with the demand for firearms from consumers .
The NSSF has estimated that about 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to first-time gun buyers , which means between January and August of this year , more than 5,000,000 Americans have purchased firearms for the first time .
If that 40 % figure is close to accurate for September , the United States added another 768,000 new gun owners in September .
By the time Election Day gets here , it seems likely that there ’ ll be more than 6,000,000 new gun owners , and how they vote could play an outsized role in who ’ ll be occupying the White House next @ @

For the first time since April, there were fewer than 3-million background checks performed by the FBI’s National Instant Check System in September, but the Great Gun Run of 2020 is definitely still underway. Compared to September of 2019, NICS checks increased from 2,207,312 to 2,892,115, which makes last month the busiest September in the 22-year history of the instant check system.
Now, these are raw numbers, and don’t provide a perfect snapshot of the number of guns actually sold at retail last month, because some of the NICS total includes checks on things like concealed carry licenses or gun permits in many states. I’m waiting to see the adjusted NICS figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the private company Small Arms Analytics, which will likely come out on Monday, but the Bloomberg-funded press outlet The Trace is out with their own estimate of gun sales last month, and their best guess is that 1.92 million firearms were sold at retail in September.
If that’s anywhere close to accurate, September of 2020 would be the sixth highest month of firearm sales in the past 20 years, and a 67% percent increase in gun sales compared to September of last year. According to The Trace‘s estimates, the 1.92-million firearm sales include 780,000 long guns (rifles and shotguns) and 1,210,000 handguns.
Based on The Trace‘s analysis, the state that saw the biggest increase in gun sales between August and September of this year was New Jersey, where NICS figures jumped by 30%. Several states saw a slight slowdown in sales from August to September, with the biggest drop seen in Ohio and New York, which both saw a 7% decline in September compared to the previous month.
Comparing the numbers from September of 2019 to September of 2020, however, reveals that virtually every state saw an large increase in sales. NICS checks increased by more than 400% in the District of Columbia, and Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Utah all saw an increase of more than 100% compared to September of 2019.
Clearly the demand for firearms remains at historically high levels across the country, and I would expect that to continue for the rest of the year. Concern over unrest, riots, and the lootenannies we’ve seen in cities from Seattle to New York aren’t likely to dissipate any time soon, and with the president now fighting COVID and some Democrats demanding that the 25th Amendment be invoked, the political tension has only increased in recent days. I wouldn’t be surprised if that led to another flurry in gun sales in October, when sales are traditionally strong to begin with.
Gun sales also tend to climb ahead of presidential elections, and it seems like the only force able to check the expected increase is the law of supply and demand. You can’t buy what’s not available, and while most manufacturers are adding shifts and increasing production as much as they can, the industry simply hasn’t been able to keep up with the demand for firearms from consumers.
The NSSF has estimated that about 40% of firearm sales this year have been to first-time gun buyers, which means between January and August of this year, more than 5,000,000 Americans have purchased firearms for the first time. If that 40% figure is close to accurate for September, the United States added another 768,000 new gun owners in September. By the time Election Day gets here, it seems likely that there’ll be more than 6,000,000 new gun owners, and how they vote could play an outsized role in who’ll be occupying the White House next year.


bearingarms--2020-10-03--Police As Part Of Oath Keepers Is No Surprise

The Oath Keepers is a somewhat controversial group , to say the least .
Then again , in this day and age , anyone who doesn ’ t bow down before the left ’ s orthodoxy is controversial .
That ’ s just the world we live in .
However , the Oath Keepers started with the idea that those who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution would continue to do so , even if the government no longer would .
Most of those are former military , but it has always included a significant number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , unfortunately , that ’ s a big problem .
See , while this is being touted as something horrifying , it ’ s kinda not .
It ’ s honestly to be expected , too .
While the left has been spending all their time vilifying police and claiming that they ’ re brutal jackbooted thugs , a lot of police who are only trying to make their communities better are taking that kind of personally .
I don ’ t blame them .
While there have been instances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are millions of more examples of officers just trying to do their job to the best of their abilities .
When you vilify an entire group , you don ’ t get to be surprised that they end up standing with those who aren ’ t vilifying them .
Especially a group that clearly stands with the oath they all swore when they put on the badge to begin with .
Something that so many people forget is that if you demonize your opponents , you ’ re not going to convince them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re only going to push them further away , possibly right into the arms of those who also demonize .
In this case , the Oath Keepers , who they ’ re describing as a militia .
In fairness , I can see why they would .
But I also don ’ t see “ militia ” as a dirty word , either .
Regardless , though , my point stands .
The media and politicians and groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa have been pouring all their hatred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicated themselves to trying to keep our society safe .
As a result , one can ’ t be surprised when they get resentful over being the target of so much hate , especially in places there there isn ’ t a history of police brutality .
Frankly , it could have been worse .
Rather than siding with the Oath Keepers , you could have a lot of them siding with more nefarious groups that actually are driven by hate .
Thankfully , that ’ s not the case and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if this is a problem for some , then maybe you need to ask yourself just what you did that may have made police officers look for common cause with someone other than your group .

The Oath Keepers is a somewhat controversial group, to say the least. Then again, in this day and age, anyone who doesn’t bow down before the left’s orthodoxy is controversial. That’s just the world we live in.
However, the Oath Keepers started with the idea that those who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution would continue to do so, even if the government no longer would.
Most of those are former military, but it has always included a significant number of law enforcement from all levels of government. Now, unfortunately, that’s a big problem.
A militant pro-Trump group proclaiming “civil war” and “insurrection” is nigh has recruited thousands of people from the military and law enforcement, the Atlantic reports. Oath Keepers, founded in 2009 by Yale Law graduate Stewart Rhodes, has shifted from talking about revolution to proclaiming its support for President Trump in potential election-related unrest.
Oh, wow.
Really? I’m totally not shocked.
See, while this is being touted as something horrifying, it’s kinda not. It’s honestly to be expected, too.
While the left has been spending all their time vilifying police and claiming that they’re brutal jackbooted thugs, a lot of police who are only trying to make their communities better are taking that kind of personally. I don’t blame them. While there have been instances of police officers going too far, there are millions of more examples of officers just trying to do their job to the best of their abilities.
When you vilify an entire group, you don’t get to be surprised that they end up standing with those who aren’t vilifying them. Especially a group that clearly stands with the oath they all swore when they put on the badge to begin with.
Something that so many people forget is that if you demonize your opponents, you’re not going to convince them that you’re right. Instead, you’re only going to push them further away, possibly right into the arms of those who also demonize. In this case, the Oath Keepers, who they’re describing as a militia.
In fairness, I can see why they would.
But I also don’t see “militia” as a dirty word, either.
Regardless, though, my point stands. The media and politicians and groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa have been pouring all their hatred onto the men and women who have dedicated themselves to trying to keep our society safe. As a result, one can’t be surprised when they get resentful over being the target of so much hate, especially in places there there isn’t a history of police brutality.
Frankly, it could have been worse. Rather than siding with the Oath Keepers, you could have a lot of them siding with more nefarious groups that actually are driven by hate. Thankfully, that’s not the case and I’m very glad it’s not.
But if this is a problem for some, then maybe you need to ask yourself just what you did that may have made police officers look for common cause with someone other than your group.


bearingarms--2020-10-04--Outrage Over YouTuber Illustrates Unhinged Anti-Gun Narrative

YouTube can be an interesting place .
Even with the idiotic gun restrictions in place regarding their content , you can still learn a ton of stuff there .
Maybe not about gun stuff , but just about anything else you want to learn .
Want to learn about losing weight ?
There are genuine experts there ready to help .
Want to learn martial arts ?
There ’ s information there that can help you .
Fascinated about a period of history ?
Say no more because there are channels for you .
Yet there ’ s also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display on YouTube , particularly in the comments section .
It ’ s also a microcosm of the insanity that has gripped our nation .
Take the story of a YouTuber who disassembles old electronics and what happened with him .
David Murray , known as “ the 8-Bit Guy ” on his popular YouTube channel where he restores and explores retro technology , usually makes lighthearted , non-controversial videos about things like old-school chiptune music and MS-DOS games .
But Murray—in the view of vintage computer enthusiasts—rushed a recent repair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of this “ computer abuse , ” some of Murray ’ s viewers have delved deep into political beliefs he espoused in the early days of his YouTube career and essentially milkshake ducked him for it .
What horrid political beliefs did Murray espouse ?
Was he a white nationalist ?
Did he support the banning of kittens ?
The response to that video has started a conversation about his past videos touting open carry in Texas , antagonizing the anti-gun Moms Demand Action nonprofit , and statements about gun control that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can keep watching his computer content .
The relative messiness of these videos has led to more than just angry viewers .
Some of those viewers have delved into Murray ’ s archive to resurface old videos where Murray praises open carry gun laws in his home state of Texas—including one where he walks around in a store with a rifle on his back , addressing gun control Moms Demand Action , an anti-gun violence organization , which he said was running a “ smear campaign ” against a gun rights group he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s understand that Murray hasn ’ t hidden his beliefs , they just don ’ t have any place on his channel .
Meanwhile , people still have gone and dug up his history to try and vilify him as some kind of a monster , and for what ?
They didn ’ t like what he did with an old computer that , so far as I can tell , he bought with his own money ?
Do you want to know why we ’ re so divided as a nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change anytime soon ?
It ’ s because you can ’ t have a life separate from your politics .
Your political beliefs have to become your entire being , and as such , if someone finds out you hold the wrong opinions , that ’ s just too much and they can ’ t support you .
At the same time , they won ’ t allow people to keep their beliefs private .
They ’ ll hound celebrities or influencers until they can learn about their political beliefs , all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right beliefs , the mob will come .
Murray is just the latest example of what ’ s going on in our nation , that you can not escape your past or your beliefs and unless you agree with the mob , you will be destroyed .
What the mob doesn ’ t realize is that two can play that game and , more importantly , two will play that game .
They just won ’ t like being on the receiving end .

YouTube can be an interesting place. Even with the idiotic gun restrictions in place regarding their content, you can still learn a ton of stuff there. Maybe not about gun stuff, but just about anything else you want to learn.
Want to learn about losing weight? There are genuine experts there ready to help.
Want to learn martial arts? There’s information there that can help you.
Fascinated about a period of history? Say no more because there are channels for you.
Yet there’s also a serious amount of dysfunction that’s on display on YouTube, particularly in the comments section. It’s also a microcosm of the insanity that has gripped our nation.
Take the story of a YouTuber who disassembles old electronics and what happened with him.
David Murray, known as “the 8-Bit Guy” on his popular YouTube channel where he restores and explores retro technology, usually makes lighthearted, non-controversial videos about things like old-school chiptune music and MS-DOS games. But Murray—in the view of vintage computer enthusiasts—rushed a recent repair and damaged a rare computer. In part because of this “computer abuse,” some of Murray’s viewers have delved deep into political beliefs he espoused in the early days of his YouTube career and essentially milkshake ducked him for it.
What horrid political beliefs did Murray espouse? Was he a white nationalist? Did he support the banning of kittens?
Nope, worse. He apparently backed gun rights.
The response to that video has started a conversation about his past videos touting open carry in Texas, antagonizing the anti-gun Moms Demand Action nonprofit, and statements about gun control that have made many fans question whether they can keep watching his computer content. … The relative messiness of these videos has led to more than just angry viewers. Some of those viewers have delved into Murray’s archive to resurface old videos where Murray praises open carry gun laws in his home state of Texas—including one where he walks around in a store with a rifle on his back, addressing gun control Moms Demand Action, an anti-gun violence organization, which he said was running a “smear campaign” against a gun rights group he left years ago.
Now, let’s understand that Murray hasn’t hidden his beliefs, they just don’t have any place on his channel.
Meanwhile, people still have gone and dug up his history to try and vilify him as some kind of a monster, and for what? They didn’t like what he did with an old computer that, so far as I can tell, he bought with his own money?
Do you want to know why we’re so divided as a nation and that’s not going to change anytime soon? It’s because you can’t have a life separate from your politics. Your political beliefs have to become your entire being, and as such, if someone finds out you hold the wrong opinions, that’s just too much and they can’t support you.
At the same time, they won’t allow people to keep their beliefs private. They’ll hound celebrities or influencers until they can learn about their political beliefs, all the while knowing that unless they’re the right beliefs, the mob will come.
Murray is just the latest example of what’s going on in our nation, that you cannot escape your past or your beliefs and unless you agree with the mob, you will be destroyed.
What the mob doesn’t realize is that two can play that game and, more importantly, two will play that game. They just won’t like being on the receiving end.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--New SCOTUS Term, New Hope For A 2A Case?

Monday marked the start of a new term for the Supreme Court , and justices didn ’ t wait long to send a Second Amendment case packing , though justices did hold over another case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms for consideration in an upcoming conference .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a closer look at the latest actions by the Court , as well as a couple of other 2A cases worth keeping an eye on .
SCOTUS denied cert in a case called Zoie H. v @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sixth Amendment issues .
The plaintiff in this case was challenging a 2018 state law that disenfranchises anyone found by a juvenile court to have committed certain crimes from exercising their constitutional right to possess a firearm until age 25 .
As plaintiff ’ s attorney and former U.S .
Solicitor General Paul Clement pointed out in his petition to the court : While the legislature accompanied that new criminal prohibition with a requirement that the juvenile court inform a juvenile of the Second Amendment consequences of an adverse adjudication , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a right to trial by jury for offenses that can result in a loss of Second Amendment rights well past the age of majority .
The net result is that Nebraska deprives individuals of their Second Amendment rights as a collateral consequence of an adjudication in which it deprives the accused of a right to a jury trial .
In the decision below , the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that neither the Second nor Sixth Amendment precludes that result , reasoning that because the automatic loss of Second Amendment rights is imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not as a direct criminal punishment , it does not implicate the Sixth Amendment at all .
In so holding , the court undermined both constitutional rights and broke sharply with decisions from this Court and others .
Unfortunately , there weren ’ t the four votes on the Court to accept the case , so the decision by the Nebraska State Supreme Court will stand .
SCOTUS did hold over another Second Amendment-related case for another conference this Friday , however , giving Second Amendment advocates a glimmer of hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with the right to keep and bear arms this session .
The case of Rodriguez vs. San Jose involves a woman named Lori Rodriguez , who called police back in 2013 to report that her husband was behaving erratically .
Rodriguez ’ s husband was placed under a mental health hold and the responding officers told Rodriguez that she had to turn over possession of all of the legally-owned firearms in the home to authorities , even those registered in her name .
Rodriguez ’ s husband was released from the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past seven years the city of San Jose has refused to return her firearms to her , even though she ’ s complied with California law regarding the storage of her firearms .
The courts have even told her that she ’ s fine to purchase new firearms to replace the ones seized by San Jose police , but so far no court has compelled the city to return Rodriguez ’ s legally owned guns .
While the court considers Rodriguez ’ s petition , there are two other Second Amendment-related cases worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court or will likely arrive there in a few months .
The first is a case called Torres vs. United States , which involves a challenge to the lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership by those convicted of non-violent felonies .
Last week the Firearms Policy Coalition , along with the Second Amendment Foundation , Firearms Policy Foundation , California Gun Rights Foundation and Madison Society filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging them to take up the case , arguing that Israel Torres , who was convicted of aggravated driving under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not have permanently lost his right to keep and bear arms as a result .
Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Trump ’ s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , has also argued that the history and tradition surrounding the Second Amendment precludes the automatic revocation of the right to keep and bear arms of those convicted of non-violent felonies , and Barrett could conceivably be on the bench to hear the case if the Supreme Court accepts it .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Young vs. Hawaii case , which is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .
An en banc panel of 11 judges recently heard oral arguments in the case , and if the panel upholds the state of Hawaii ’ s ban on openly carrying a firearm without a license ( a license that no civilian has ever received ) , that case will be heading to the Supreme Court as well .
If , on the other hand , the Ninth Circuit rejects the arguments by the state and strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that gun control advocates will urge the state to take the loss and keep the case out of the Supreme Court , which has been their strategy for several years now .
The Supreme Court will have no shortage of Second Amendment cases to choose from in the near future , but whether or not they ’ ll accept any of them is still an open question .
The Court has already punted on nearly a dozen 2A-related cases this year , but if Barrett is confirmed to the high court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up being the crucial vote needed to get the court to begin hearing gun cases in earnest .

Monday marked the start of a new term for the Supreme Court, and justices didn’t wait long to send a Second Amendment case packing, though justices did hold over another case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms for consideration in an upcoming conference. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a closer look at the latest actions by the Court, as well as a couple of other 2A cases worth keeping an eye on.
SCOTUS denied cert in a case called Zoie H. v Nebraska, which dealt with both Second and Sixth Amendment issues. The plaintiff in this case was challenging a 2018 state law that disenfranchises anyone found by a juvenile court to have committed certain crimes from exercising their constitutional right to possess a firearm until age 25. As plaintiff’s attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement pointed out in his petition to the court:
While the legislature accompanied that new criminal prohibition with a requirement that the juvenile court inform a juvenile of the Second Amendment consequences of an adverse adjudication, it did not amend its laws to require a right to trial by jury for offenses that can result in a loss of Second Amendment rights well past the age of majority. The net result is that Nebraska deprives individuals of their Second Amendment rights as a collateral consequence of an adjudication in which it deprives the accused of a right to a jury trial. In the decision below, the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that neither the Second nor Sixth Amendment precludes that result, reasoning that because the automatic loss of Second Amendment rights is imposed as a collateral consequence of the adjudication, and not as a direct criminal punishment, it does not implicate the Sixth Amendment at all. In so holding, the court undermined both constitutional rights and broke sharply with decisions from this Court and others.
Unfortunately, there weren’t the four votes on the Court to accept the case, so the decision by the Nebraska State Supreme Court will stand. SCOTUS did hold over another Second Amendment-related case for another conference this Friday, however, giving Second Amendment advocates a glimmer of hope that the Court could hear a case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms this session.
The case of Rodriguez vs. San Jose involves a woman named Lori Rodriguez, who called police back in 2013 to report that her husband was behaving erratically. Rodriguez’s husband was placed under a mental health hold and the responding officers told Rodriguez that she had to turn over possession of all of the legally-owned firearms in the home to authorities, even those registered in her name.
Rodriguez’s husband was released from the hospital a week later, but for the past seven years the city of San Jose has refused to return her firearms to her, even though she’s complied with California law regarding the storage of her firearms. The courts have even told her that she’s fine to purchase new firearms to replace the ones seized by San Jose police, but so far no court has compelled the city to return Rodriguez’s legally owned guns.
While the court considers Rodriguez’s petition, there are two other Second Amendment-related cases worth highlighting that are either pending before the Court or will likely arrive there in a few months.
The first is a case called Torres vs. United States, which involves a challenge to the lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership by those convicted of non-violent felonies. Last week the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation and Madison Society filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging them to take up the case, arguing that Israel Torres, who was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence in 2004 and 2010, should not have permanently lost his right to keep and bear arms as a result.
“There is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Nor is there any tradition of limiting the Second Amendment to ‘virtuous’ citizens. Historically, nonviolent criminals who demonstrated no violent propensity were not prohibited from keeping arms. Indeed, some laws expressly allowed them to keep arms. “Thus, using history and tradition to interpret the Second Amendment’s text, as Heller did, “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms include peaceable persons like Torres.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has also argued that the history and tradition surrounding the Second Amendment precludes the automatic revocation of the right to keep and bear arms of those convicted of non-violent felonies, and Barrett could conceivably be on the bench to hear the case if the Supreme Court accepts it.
It’s also worth keeping an eye on the Young vs. Hawaii case, which is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An en banc panel of 11 judges recently heard oral arguments in the case, and if the panel upholds the state of Hawaii’s ban on openly carrying a firearm without a license (a license that no civilian has ever received), that case will be heading to the Supreme Court as well. If, on the other hand, the Ninth Circuit rejects the arguments by the state and strikes down the law, it’s possible that gun control advocates will urge the state to take the loss and keep the case out of the Supreme Court, which has been their strategy for several years now.
The Supreme Court will have no shortage of Second Amendment cases to choose from in the near future, but whether or not they’ll accept any of them is still an open question. The Court has already punted on nearly a dozen 2A-related cases this year, but if Barrett is confirmed to the high court in a few weeks she could likely end up being the crucial vote needed to get the court to begin hearing gun cases in earnest.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--3 Former Astronauts Back Non-Astronaut In AZ Senate Race

The race between Sen. Martha McSally and former astronaut turned gun control activist Mark Kelly has been one to watch all campaign season .
So far , Kelly appears to be holding an edge it he polls , though after 2016 , we should all know not to take polls too seriously .
The battle between the two , though , is one of the key fights over the Senate , one parties on all sides are paying special attention to .
Now , there ’ s been some interesting endorsements in that race .
Three former astronauts have endorsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the special election against Democratic nominee and astronaut Mark Kelly on Nov. 3 .
“ As former fighter pilots and test pilots , we know what it takes to get in the cockpit of a fighter jet for a test flight or combat : incredible determination , strength and grit , ” former astronauts Tom Stafford , Charlie Duke and Jack Lousma wrote in an op-ed published Thursday in The Arizona Republic .
“ That ’ s why we support Sen. Martha McSally .
As the first woman in U.S. history to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ command a fighter squadron , she broke barriers in the Air Force and the military.
” The three men noted that despite the Air Force previously not allowing women to fly in combat , McSally “ stood up , fought for change and made strides for generations of women to follow her ” rather than following the status quo .
The senator was the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat .
However , they didn ’ t limit their comments to praise for McSally , either .
Oh no , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As astronauts and veterans , we honor the service of every single American who has served their country alongside us .
But having ‘ astronaut ’ on your resume does not mean you ’ d be a good U.S. senator , ” the former astronauts argued .
“ Mark Kelly is hoping Arizonans are so impressed with his background that they ignore the fact that he ’ s supported radical gun control activists , that his plan for the eventual government takeover of health care would end Medicare as we know it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise our taxes.
” They also blasted Kelly for not being forthcoming on his stances regarding what they describe as the Democratic Party ’ s “ more extreme ” policy stances , including defunding the police , ICE abolishment , the Green New Deal and government-controlled health care .
“ On some of the more extreme policies of the Democrat Party , Mark has tried to stay quiet , ” the group added .
“ We can only think of one reason : He doesn ’ t want to answer for his liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his party.
” The part about having “ astronaut ” on the resume not meaning someone would be a good senator is directly on point .
However , that and a gun control activist is about all that Kelly is bringing to the table .
After all , what has he actually done otherwise ?
Kelly has never held a public office before .
He ’ s got a bit of name recognition , sure , but other than that , he has no relevant experience for the job .
And those astronauts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly won ’ t comment on those other policy standpoints .
Either he shares those opinions and he knows it won ’ t win votes , or he doesn ’ t but is afraid to lose party backing if he speaks out .
Neither warms my heart in the least , to be sure .
Let ’ s just hope Arizona voters feel the same way .

The race between Sen. Martha McSally and former astronaut turned gun control activist Mark Kelly has been one to watch all campaign season. So far, Kelly appears to be holding an edge it he polls, though after 2016, we should all know not to take polls too seriously.
The battle between the two, though, is one of the key fights over the Senate, one parties on all sides are paying special attention to.
Now, there’s been some interesting endorsements in that race.
Three former astronauts have endorsed Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., ahead of the special election against Democratic nominee and astronaut Mark Kelly on Nov. 3. “As former fighter pilots and test pilots, we know what it takes to get in the cockpit of a fighter jet for a test flight or combat: incredible determination, strength and grit,” former astronauts Tom Stafford, Charlie Duke and Jack Lousma wrote in an op-ed published Thursday in The Arizona Republic. “That’s why we support Sen. Martha McSally. As the first woman in U.S. history to fly a fighter jet in combat and command a fighter squadron, she broke barriers in the Air Force and the military.” The three men noted that despite the Air Force previously not allowing women to fly in combat, McSally “stood up, fought for change and made strides for generations of women to follow her” rather than following the status quo. The senator was the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat.
However, they didn’t limit their comments to praise for McSally, either.
Oh no, they also took aim at Kelly.
“As astronauts and veterans, we honor the service of every single American who has served their country alongside us. But having ‘astronaut’ on your resume does not mean you’d be a good U.S. senator,” the former astronauts argued. “Mark Kelly is hoping Arizonans are so impressed with his background that they ignore the fact that he’s supported radical gun control activists, that his plan for the eventual government takeover of health care would end Medicare as we know it, and that he’d vote to raise our taxes.” They also blasted Kelly for not being forthcoming on his stances regarding what they describe as the Democratic Party’s “more extreme” policy stances, including defunding the police, ICE abolishment, the Green New Deal and government-controlled health care. “On some of the more extreme policies of the Democrat Party, Mark has tried to stay quiet,” the group added. “We can only think of one reason: He doesn’t want to answer for his liberal political views and policies and those of his party.”
The part about having “astronaut” on the resume not meaning someone would be a good senator is directly on point. However, that and a gun control activist is about all that Kelly is bringing to the table. After all, what has he actually done otherwise?
Kelly has never held a public office before. He’s got a bit of name recognition, sure, but other than that, he has no relevant experience for the job.
And those astronauts are right about the most likely reason Kelly won’t comment on those other policy standpoints. Either he shares those opinions and he knows it won’t win votes, or he doesn’t but is afraid to lose party backing if he speaks out. Neither warms my heart in the least, to be sure.
Let’s just hope Arizona voters feel the same way.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--The Do or Die, Join or Die Election

The Do or Die, Join or Die Election

Note : The following commentary is a guest post by Ranjit Singh , a co-author of “ Each One , Teach One : Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.
” You can follow him on Twitter @ AuthorSingh .
Politically engaged and active gun owners are well-aware of the serious risks posed by gun controllers to our natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms .
We know their long-term goals and have witnessed how they weaponize the ignorance of non-gun owners to achieve their nefarious ends in an incremental manner .
Although 2020 has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of first-time gun owners into our welcoming , open and diverse community , this November poses a highly understated Defcon Level 1 threat to our Second Amendment rights and by extension , the entire Bill of Rights .
Election Betting Markets , which are generally accurate ( with 2016 being a notable exception ) , are pointing to a clean sweep of the federal government by Democrats .
After seeing what Virginia Democrats did to their fellow Virginians earlier this year , we must be alarmed at what is likely coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level if betting market predictions do come to pass .
Despite being in the Senate minority , far-Left activists and some Democrat leaders have had the chutzpah to call for packing the Supreme Court with leftist judges for the better part of a year , advocating a very dangerous means to achieve this end : eliminating the legislative filibuster .
Joe Biden , projecting his goofy grandpa persona through his basement webcam , has consciously chosen to not reveal his positions on the filibuster or court-packing , although his 25th Amendment heir-apparent Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will meekly stand .
Our dominant , irredeemably biased mainstream media has played along without asking the hard questions that is the duty of a free press in a free country .
In a closely-divided country with increasing polarization and partisanship , where Obama ’ s 2008 landslide victory was only underpinned by 52.9 % of the popular vote , such a drastic move will further worsen polarization and erode the deliberative nature of the United States Senate , reducing it into another raucous , populist House of Representatives with longer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for deliberation and compromise gone , the federal government , under the control of Democrats , will be free to unleash the far-Left ’ s agenda .
This agenda includes a variety of kooky items , but history shows us that the likeliest to pass is gun control , because law-abiding gun owners are the easiest to vilify .
Democrats ’ path of least resistance to show that they ’ re “ doing something ” is paved over law-abiding gun owners , especially so if there is serious political violence between Nov. 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already passed dangerous gun control bills ; the writing is on the wall on what ’ s coming .
Registration , licensing , bans of arbitrarily defined “ assault weapons , ” magazine bans , vindictive taxation , everything is on the table .
It is not hyperbole to say that this is a Do-or-Die election .
In light of this clear and present danger , various political factions that still value freedom – moderates , old-school liberals , libertarians , classical liberals , constitutional conservatives , among others – need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their liberties at the ballot box .
Ironic and tragic as it may seem , uniting behind a flawed Donald J. Trump is the only practical recourse .
Despite his flaws and distasteful Twitter habits , Trump ’ s behavior belies his mainstream governance and policies .
The contrast between Trump ’ s rhetoric and governance is clearest in foreign policy , where Trump ’ s uncouth , bellicose talk is disconnected from peaceable results on the ground , such as Arab-Israeli treaties , winding down of two-decade-old wars and no new wars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s talk of a “ humble foreign policy ” or Barack Obama ’ s undeserved Nobel Peace Prize and their actual results : more wars , new wars , failed wars , drone wars .
It is important to note that Trump himself has repeatedly urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to do what the Democrats have been talking about while in the Senate minority – nuke the legislative filibuster – but McConnell has steadfastly refrained from doing so , and Trump has backed off and stopped making that demand .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions on the filibuster , court-packing and assaults on our gun rights , the wisest course of action available to gun owners is to expect the absolute worst from him , his 25th Amendment heir-apparent , and his fellow Senate Democrats , especially given the expected victory of a historically dangerous Senate candidate who is literally in bed with a deep-pocketed anti-Second Amendment organization .
Don ’ t get demoralized .
Don ’ t pay attention to the polls .
Go out and vote .
Get your liberty-loving friends to vote .
Register @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote and inform them of the unfathomable downside risks .
And if your social circumstances prevent you from voicing your opinions publicly , or if you have a public persona that will get trashed for doing so , express those opinions in the privacy of the ballot box with your vote .
It is time to Do or Die , Join or Die .

Note: The following commentary is a guest post by Ranjit Singh, a co-author of “Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.” You can follow him on Twitter @AuthorSingh.
Politically engaged and active gun owners are well-aware of the serious risks posed by gun controllers to our natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We know their long-term goals and have witnessed how they weaponize the ignorance of non-gun owners to achieve their nefarious ends in an incremental manner.
Although 2020 has seen record-breaking firearms sales and the induction of millions of first-time gun owners into our welcoming, open and diverse community, this November poses a highly understated Defcon Level 1 threat to our Second Amendment rights and by extension, the entire Bill of Rights. Election Betting Markets, which are generally accurate (with 2016 being a notable exception), are pointing to a clean sweep of the federal government by Democrats. After seeing what Virginia Democrats did to their fellow Virginians earlier this year, we must be alarmed at what is likely coming for all of us at the national level if betting market predictions do come to pass.
Despite being in the Senate minority, far-Left activists and some Democrat leaders have had the chutzpah to call for packing the Supreme Court with leftist judges for the better part of a year, advocating a very dangerous means to achieve this end: eliminating the legislative filibuster. Joe Biden, projecting his goofy grandpa persona through his basement webcam, has consciously chosen to not reveal his positions on the filibuster or court-packing, although his 25th Amendment heir-apparent Kamala Harris’ public statements strongly indicate where he will meekly stand. Our dominant, irredeemably biased mainstream media has played along without asking the hard questions that is the duty of a free press in a free country.
In a closely-divided country with increasing polarization and partisanship, where Obama’s 2008 landslide victory was only underpinned by 52.9% of the popular vote, such a drastic move will further worsen polarization and erode the deliberative nature of the United States Senate, reducing it into another raucous, populist House of Representatives with longer, staggered terms. With the last incentive for deliberation and compromise gone, the federal government, under the control of Democrats, will be free to unleash the far-Left’s agenda.
This agenda includes a variety of kooky items, but history shows us that the likeliest to pass is gun control, because law-abiding gun owners are the easiest to vilify. Democrats’ path of least resistance to show that they’re “doing something” is paved over law-abiding gun owners, especially so if there is serious political violence between Nov. 3 and Inauguration Day. The Democrat-controlled House has already passed dangerous gun control bills; the writing is on the wall on what’s coming. Registration, licensing, bans of arbitrarily defined “assault weapons,” magazine bans, vindictive taxation, everything is on the table.
It is not hyperbole to say that this is a Do-or-Die election. In light of this clear and present danger, various political factions that still value freedom – moderates, old-school liberals, libertarians, classical liberals, constitutional conservatives, among others – need to band together for the common defense of their liberties at the ballot box. Ironic and tragic as it may seem, uniting behind a flawed Donald J. Trump is the only practical recourse.
Despite his flaws and distasteful Twitter habits, Trump’s behavior belies his mainstream governance and policies. The contrast between Trump’s rhetoric and governance is clearest in foreign policy, where Trump’s uncouth, bellicose talk is disconnected from peaceable results on the ground, such as Arab-Israeli treaties, winding down of two-decade-old wars and no new wars. Compare that to George W. Bush’s talk of a “humble foreign policy” or Barack Obama’s undeserved Nobel Peace Prize and their actual results: more wars, new wars, failed wars, drone wars.
It is important to note that Trump himself has repeatedly urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to do what the Democrats have been talking about while in the Senate minority – nuke the legislative filibuster – but McConnell has steadfastly refrained from doing so, and Trump has backed off and stopped making that demand.
As long as Joe Biden hides his true positions on the filibuster, court-packing and assaults on our gun rights, the wisest course of action available to gun owners is to expect the absolute worst from him, his 25th Amendment heir-apparent, and his fellow Senate Democrats, especially given the expected victory of a historically dangerous Senate candidate who is literally in bed with a deep-pocketed anti-Second Amendment organization.
Don’t get demoralized. Don’t pay attention to the polls. Go out and vote. Get your liberty-loving friends to vote. Register gun owners who aren’t registered to vote and inform them of the unfathomable downside risks. And if your social circumstances prevent you from voicing your opinions publicly, or if you have a public persona that will get trashed for doing so, express those opinions in the privacy of the ballot box with your vote. It is time to Do or Die, Join or Die.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--University That Punished Gun-Owning Chinese Immigrant Has Alleged Ties To China

Academia is full of people who think the United States is a totalitarian dictatorship and will tell you so any chance they get .
Of course , the fact that they can say it so loudly and not end up in a gulag is a pretty good indicator that they ’ re wrong , but they persist .
However , while saying such about the United States , they typically like to turn their universities into microcosms of the very thing they claim they ’ re fighting against .
For example , they like to punish students for gun-related free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fordham University did to a Chinese immigrant who posed with a firearm in a photograph .
Now , the student ’ s attorneys allege the university has ties to the very epitome of totalitarianism .
The attorney for Austin Tong , a Chinese immigrant student punished by Fordham University , recently alleged that the university has ties to the Chinese Communist Party that the institution wants to hide .
He argued that it is why the school wants to avoid discovery in the lawsuit it faces for its punishment of Tong .
Tong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June for posting a photo of himself holding an AR-15 with the caption “ Don ’ t Tread on Me ” and referencing the Tiananmen Square Massacre .
Now , Edward Paltzik , his attorney , alleged that the Catholic college has a relationship with the People ’ s Republic of China that it wants to hide .
The Department of Education sent a letter in August to Fordham seeking information on a possible discrepancy in foreign funding disclosure .
The DOE separately opened an investigation into the school ’ s treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues that the punishment had nothing to do with the speech .
Paltzik said the school ’ s court filing misrepresented the threat posed by Tong .
He noted that the dean of students , Keith Eldredge , conceded that public safety officers for Fordham did not consider Tong a threat after interviewing him and “ Eldredge himself conceded that Tong did not violate the Weapons Policy.
” The university responded on September 21 reiterating a request for dismissal of the case .
The school ’ s attorneys said “ the personal insults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The university ’ s media relations office did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment in the past week .
Fordham ’ s attorneys reiterated their prior claim that Tong posed a threat to students and said Tong and his attorneys “ raise a host of factually barren assertions to obfuscate Fordham ’ s absolute right to discipline a student for a violation of University policy.
” He posted a photo of him posing with an AR-15 , the barrel pointed down , and a caption that read “ Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that ’ s a threat is if you are , indeed , planning on treading on Tong .
There was no threat issued and , as noted , public safety officers didn ’ t view Tong as a threat after talking to him .
Meanwhile , it appears that Fordham may well be in bed with a country that has even less respect for people ’ s rights than Fordham does .
Awfully convenient .
At some point , universities need to be held to account for their repeated violations of students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they believe their sacred halls should be so sacrosanct that gun rights don ’ t apply there , but now they ’ re lashing out at students for what they do away from those halls as well .
My hope is that Tong and his attorneys hammer Fordham so hard that they don ’ t even think of doing anything like this again .

Academia is full of people who think the United States is a totalitarian dictatorship and will tell you so any chance they get. Of course, the fact that they can say it so loudly and not end up in a gulag is a pretty good indicator that they’re wrong, but they persist.
However, while saying such about the United States, they typically like to turn their universities into microcosms of the very thing they claim they’re fighting against.
For example, they like to punish students for gun-related free speech issues. That’s what Fordham University did to a Chinese immigrant who posed with a firearm in a photograph. Now, the student’s attorneys allege the university has ties to the very epitome of totalitarianism.
The attorney for Austin Tong, a Chinese immigrant student punished by Fordham University, recently alleged that the university has ties to the Chinese Communist Party that the institution wants to hide. He argued that it is why the school wants to avoid discovery in the lawsuit it faces for its punishment of Tong. Tong, a Chinese immigrant, was punished in June for posting a photo of himself holding an AR-15 with the caption “Don’t Tread on Me” and referencing the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Now, Edward Paltzik, his attorney, alleged that the Catholic college has a relationship with the People’s Republic of China that it wants to hide. The Department of Education sent a letter in August to Fordham seeking information on a possible discrepancy in foreign funding disclosure. The DOE separately opened an investigation into the school’s treatment of Tong.
Fordham, however, argues that the punishment had nothing to do with the speech.
No, they claim Tong posed a threat.
Paltzik said the school’s court filing misrepresented the threat posed by Tong. He noted that the dean of students, Keith Eldredge, conceded that public safety officers for Fordham did not consider Tong a threat after interviewing him and “Eldredge himself conceded that Tong did not violate the Weapons Policy.” The university responded on September 21 reiterating a request for dismissal of the case. The school’s attorneys said “the personal insults leveled against Dean Eldredge are entirely baseless.” The university’s media relations office did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment in the past week. Fordham’s attorneys reiterated their prior claim that Tong posed a threat to students and said Tong and his attorneys “raise a host of factually barren assertions to obfuscate Fordham’s absolute right to discipline a student for a violation of University policy.”
Except, Tong didn’t.
He posted a photo of him posing with an AR-15, the barrel pointed down, and a caption that read “Don’t Tread On Me.” The only way that’s a threat is if you are, indeed, planning on treading on Tong.
There was no threat issued and, as noted, public safety officers didn’t view Tong as a threat after talking to him.
Meanwhile, it appears that Fordham may well be in bed with a country that has even less respect for people’s rights than Fordham does. Awfully convenient.
At some point, universities need to be held to account for their repeated violations of students rights. It’s bad enough that they believe their sacred halls should be so sacrosanct that gun rights don’t apply there, but now they’re lashing out at students for what they do away from those halls as well.
My hope is that Tong and his attorneys hammer Fordham so hard that they don’t even think of doing anything like this again.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--From Walter Reed, Trump Issues Blunt Reminder To 2A Voters

The president must be feeling better , or at least good enough for a old-fashioned tweet storm .
Monday morning , Donald Trump issued a series of election-related tweets including one aimed at gun owners in Virginia .
Trump is right that Gov .
Ralph Northam wants to obliterate the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia .
After the legislature rejected Northam ’ s sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban earlier this year , the governor vowed to bring the bill back for another vote next year .
Northam was also successful in getting a half-dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , though many of them were watered-down in the process .
The Cook Political Report currently lists Virginia as “ leaning Democrat ” in the November elections , and there ’ ve been long lines of early voters reported in Democratic strongholds like Fairfax County and the city of Richmond .
Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters could play an outsized role in this year ’ s vote , however .
We ’ ve already seen the impact that the 2A community has had on local elections across the state since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there ’ s every reason to believe that gun owners are just as fired up to vote as they were to protest the Democratic gun control agenda when they showed up by the tens of thousands at county supervisors meetings across the state and at the Gun Lobby Day rally in Richmond back in January .
Of course , the threat to the Second Amendment isn ’ t just relegated to Virginia .
The Biden/Harris campaign wants to impose a host of new federal gun control laws aimed at legal gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most commonly sold rifles and ammunition magazines in the country .
The Biden/Harris plan also includes jacking up taxes on the sales of both firearms and ammunition , giving grant money to states that implement subjective gun licensing laws , and mandating “ smart gun ” technology for new firearms .
Not only would the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda turn the Second Amendment from a right into a privilege to be exercised by a chosen few , the anti-gun justices that Biden and Harris would place on the Supreme Court would undoubtably give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control law that comes before the Court .
There ’ s a lot at stake in this year ’ s elections , but the Second Amendment is absolutely at risk if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris occupy the White House with Democrats in charge of Congress .
While there might be a few Democrats who would object to the heavy-handed enforcement of the proposed gun laws by armed police officers , the financial largesse of gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg , who ’ s spending hundreds of millions of dollars backing anti-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal elections almost guarantees that , if in power , Democrats will move swiftly to approve sweeping gun control legislation that would have an impact on tens of millions of legal gun owners around the country .
I ’ m glad to see the president is feeling good enough to get back on social media , but frankly , the thought of a Biden/Harris administration should be enough to make every Second Amendment supporter feel sick to their stomach .

The president must be feeling better, or at least good enough for a old-fashioned tweet storm. Monday morning, Donald Trump issued a series of election-related tweets including one aimed at gun owners in Virginia.
Virginia Voters! Your Governor wants to obliterate your Second Amendment. I have stopped him. I am the only thing between you and your Second Amendment. Working hard in Virginia. It’s IN PLAY. Better Vote for your favorite President, or wave goodbye to low taxes and gun rights! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020
Trump is right that Gov. Ralph Northam wants to obliterate the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia. After the legislature rejected Northam’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban earlier this year, the governor vowed to bring the bill back for another vote next year. Northam was also successful in getting a half-dozen gun control laws approved by legislators this year, though many of them were watered-down in the process.
The Cook Political Report currently lists Virginia as “leaning Democrat” in the November elections, and there’ve been long lines of early voters reported in Democratic strongholds like Fairfax County and the city of Richmond. Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters could play an outsized role in this year’s vote, however. We’ve already seen the impact that the 2A community has had on local elections across the state since the passage of Northam’s gun laws, and there’s every reason to believe that gun owners are just as fired up to vote as they were to protest the Democratic gun control agenda when they showed up by the tens of thousands at county supervisors meetings across the state and at the Gun Lobby Day rally in Richmond back in January.
Of course, the threat to the Second Amendment isn’t just relegated to Virginia. The Biden/Harris campaign wants to impose a host of new federal gun control laws aimed at legal gun owners, starting with a ban on the most commonly sold rifles and ammunition magazines in the country. The Biden/Harris plan also includes jacking up taxes on the sales of both firearms and ammunition, giving grant money to states that implement subjective gun licensing laws, and mandating “smart gun” technology for new firearms. Not only would the Biden/Harris anti-gun agenda turn the Second Amendment from a right into a privilege to be exercised by a chosen few, the anti-gun justices that Biden and Harris would place on the Supreme Court would undoubtably give the thumbs up to virtually every gun control law that comes before the Court.
SAVE OUR SECOND AMENDMENT. VOTE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020
There’s a lot at stake in this year’s elections, but the Second Amendment is absolutely at risk if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris occupy the White House with Democrats in charge of Congress. While there might be a few Democrats who would object to the heavy-handed enforcement of the proposed gun laws by armed police officers, the financial largesse of gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg, who’s spending hundreds of millions of dollars backing anti-gun lawmakers in local, state, and federal elections almost guarantees that, if in power, Democrats will move swiftly to approve sweeping gun control legislation that would have an impact on tens of millions of legal gun owners around the country.
I’m glad to see the president is feeling good enough to get back on social media, but frankly, the thought of a Biden/Harris administration should be enough to make every Second Amendment supporter feel sick to their stomach.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--Video Shows Why Police Don't Screw Around With Knives

Contrary to what many want to claim , the police aren ’ t out there looking for people to shoot .
While there may be some officers who are more likely to pull the trigger than others , there aren ’ t legions of men and women with badges looking to gun people down for sport .
Yet , on the same token , there are times when officers don ’ t screw around , nor should they , especially when there ’ s someone with a knife .
For example , I saw this video over the weekend ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The suspect had a knife .
That is considered a deadly weapon .
The female officer in that video is fortunate to be alive .
Note how the taser did not stop the attack .
It dropped the suspect to his knees , but it didn ’ t disable him enough to be apprehended .
He then got up and closed the distance to the female officer .
Now , let ’ s compare that to Jacob Blake in Kenosha for a moment .
While the Kenosha police have been less than forthcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , in my opinion–video does appear to show Blake brandishing a knife .
Yet Kenosha police didn ’ t shoot .
They , too , tried to use the taser only for it not to end the confrontation .
It wasn ’ t until Blake reached into the vehicle , an inherently threatening act under the circumstances , that officers fired .
There are those out there who look at knives as “ lesser ” weapons , that they ’ re not really a threat and that people with firearms , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t use those guns in such a circumstance .
They ’ ll argue that the individual isn ’ t really “ armed.
” In fact , Jacob Blake ’ s camp continues to argue that Blake wasn ’ t armed despite knowing damn good and well he had a knife in his hands during the confrontation with police .
Yet let ’ s look at that video again .
Just how quickly did the suspect close the distance with the female officer ?
Her life was clearly in danger , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger because she went to the taser first .
I get that was probably protocol , especially in this day and age , but using the taser delayed her ability to react with a firearm when it was needed .
Luckily , she was unharmed , but still… Look , I get that we don ’ t want police playing judge , jury , and executioner .
Judge Dredd is fun on the comics page or on the screen , but that ’ s not exactly the world any of us want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , we ’ re seeing a lot of people telling police officers what they should and shouldn ’ t be doing in given circumstances when they know absolutely nothing about those situations .
These are the same people telling officers to shoot people in the arms or legs rather than shooting to stop the threat , not understanding that if the suspect in this video had been shot in the arm , he still could have killed the officer .
The world in their heads is much more peaceful than the @ @ @ @ @

Contrary to what many want to claim, the police aren’t out there looking for people to shoot. While there may be some officers who are more likely to pull the trigger than others, there aren’t legions of men and women with badges looking to gun people down for sport.
Yet, on the same token, there are times when officers don’t screw around, nor should they, especially when there’s someone with a knife.
For example, I saw this video over the weekend (start at the 14:13 mark):
Warning: Graphic and Disturbing Footage
The suspect had a knife. That is considered a deadly weapon. The female officer in that video is fortunate to be alive.
Note how the taser did not stop the attack. It dropped the suspect to his knees, but it didn’t disable him enough to be apprehended. He then got up and closed the distance to the female officer.
Now, let’s compare that to Jacob Blake in Kenosha for a moment. While the Kenosha police have been less than forthcoming with information–which is almost never a good thing, in my opinion–video does appear to show Blake brandishing a knife. Yet Kenosha police didn’t shoot. They, too, tried to use the taser only for it not to end the confrontation.
It wasn’t until Blake reached into the vehicle, an inherently threatening act under the circumstances, that officers fired.
There are those out there who look at knives as “lesser” weapons, that they’re not really a threat and that people with firearms, whether law enforcement or private citizen, shouldn’t use those guns in such a circumstance. They’ll argue that the individual isn’t really “armed.” In fact, Jacob Blake’s camp continues to argue that Blake wasn’t armed despite knowing damn good and well he had a knife in his hands during the confrontation with police.
Yet let’s look at that video again. Just how quickly did the suspect close the distance with the female officer? Her life was clearly in danger, and I’d argue she was more in danger because she went to the taser first. I get that was probably protocol, especially in this day and age, but using the taser delayed her ability to react with a firearm when it was needed.
Luckily, she was unharmed, but still…
Look, I get that we don’t want police playing judge, jury, and executioner. Judge Dredd is fun on the comics page or on the screen, but that’s not exactly the world any of us want to live in.
On the same token, though, we’re seeing a lot of people telling police officers what they should and shouldn’t be doing in given circumstances when they know absolutely nothing about those situations. These are the same people telling officers to shoot people in the arms or legs rather than shooting to stop the threat, not understanding that if the suspect in this video had been shot in the arm, he still could have killed the officer.
The world in their heads is much more peaceful than the world that actually exists.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--New Details In Rittenhouse Shootings May Bolster Self-Defense Claims

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse , the 17-year old from Illinois who ’ s facing murder and assault charges in the shootings of three people during riots and unrest in Kenosha , Wisconsin in late August , are scheduled to appear in court this week to fight the extradition of Rittenhouse back to Wisconsin to stand trial .
The lawyers for the teenager have consistently argued that their client was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum , and continued to act in self-defense when he was attacked by Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz as they pursued him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn himself in .
The Washington Post ran a lengthy story over the weekend focusing on the lives of Rosenbaum , Huber , and Grosskreutz , but the largely sympathetic portrayal of the three men shot by Rittenhouse also provides more evidence that the teenager was acting in self-defense when he was attacked and pursued by a crowd on the streets of Kenosha .
The Post reports that Rosenbaum had been released from a Milwaukee hospital earlier that day after attempting suicide , and his already troubled life had been spiraling downwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city broke out after the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police .
Rosenbaum and his fiancee had been homeless for much of the winter and spring before being placed in a motel by social services .
Rosenbaum did odd jobs for the owner , who complained in an interview about his shoddy work .
Aside from one supervised visit , he never saw the child for whom he had moved to Kenosha .
In June , he attempted suicide by overdosing on pills .
A month later , his fiancee confronted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rosenbaum body-slammed her , according to police , who took him to jail and then released him .
One week later , Rosenbaum called a suicide crisis line .
Police found him vomiting and having convulsions outside a McDonald ’ s .
He spent a few days in the hospital followed by a few more days in jail for violating the no-contact order with his former girlfriend .
Then he was sent for more treatment to the mental hospital in Milwaukee .
Two hours before he was killed , Rosenbaum left his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bus for downtown , where a second night of protests had erupted .
“ He wasn ’ t down there as a rioter or a looter , ” his fiancee said .
“ Why was he there ?
I have no answer .
I ask myself that question every day.
” We might not know why Rosenbaum decided to head downtown , but according to the Post ‘ s reporting , it sounds like he was agitated and aggressive throughout the evening .
In videos from that night , Rosenbaum often appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenosha Guard , a self-proclaimed militia , pointed his gun at him , Rosenbaum became enraged and dared the man , who was White , to kill him .
“ Shoot me , n—– !
” he shouted .
Several protesters rushed to calm Rosenbaum .
“ You ’ re going to get us all shot , ” one of them recalled telling him .
At 11:45 p.m. , Richie McGinniss , a reporter with the conservative Daily Caller , spotted Rosenbaum , his T-shirt wrapped around his head , chasing Rittenhouse down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what provoked the confrontation , though Rittenhouse ’ s attorneys speculated in a video released last week that Rosenbaum may have mistaken the teenager for a similarly attired member of the Kenosha Guard he confronted earlier at the gas station .
Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse down Sheridan Road and into the parking lot of a car dealership that would soon go up in flames .
He threw his hospital bag at Rittenhouse , missing him , and charged at the teenager .
Someone nearby fired a shot .
“ F— you !
” someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rittenhouse ’ s rifle , and the teenager — who was just feet from Rosenbaum — began shooting , striking Rosenbaum in the back and groin .
Another bullet grazed Rosenbaum ’ s head .
In the seconds after the gunfire , Rittenhouse is caught on video trying to call a friend for help .
Much of what the Post reported about Rosenbaum ’ s shooting matches up with the charging documents originally filed by prosecutors , which also describe the man yelling at Rittenhouse before he begins chasing him down the street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escape Rosenbaum , others joined in the chase .
Video from the scene shows one of the pursuers firing a shot into the air just seconds before Rosenbaum cornered Rittenhouse and tried to grab his rifle , which is when Rittenhouse fired the fatal shots .
After shooting Rosenbaum , Rittenhouse then left the area and headed towards police , but was quickly pursued by the mob once again .
The Post ‘ s story provides a lot of background on the three men shot by Rittenhouse , but it does nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists and politicians like Joe Biden that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist militia member who was looking for trouble when he headed to Kenosha .
Instead , it sounds like trouble found Rittenhouse in the form of Joseph Rosenbaum ; a troubled man with a recent history of violence who was off his medication for bi-polar disorder and was acting aggressively throughout the night of August 25th , even before he began chasing Rittenhouse down a dark street with others joining in the pursuit of the teenager .

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year old from Illinois who’s facing murder and assault charges in the shootings of three people during riots and unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in late August, are scheduled to appear in court this week to fight the extradition of Rittenhouse back to Wisconsin to stand trial. The lawyers for the teenager have consistently argued that their client was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, and continued to act in self-defense when he was attacked by Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz as they pursued him as he was heading towards Kenosha police to turn himself in.
The Washington Post ran a lengthy story over the weekend focusing on the lives of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz, but the largely sympathetic portrayal of the three men shot by Rittenhouse also provides more evidence that the teenager was acting in self-defense when he was attacked and pursued by a crowd on the streets of Kenosha.
The Post reports that Rosenbaum had been released from a Milwaukee hospital earlier that day after attempting suicide, and his already troubled life had been spiraling downwards in the months before the rioting in the city broke out after the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police. Rosenbaum and his fiancee had been homeless for much of the winter and spring before being placed in a motel by social services.
Rosenbaum did odd jobs for the owner, who complained in an interview about his shoddy work. Aside from one supervised visit, he never saw the child for whom he had moved to Kenosha. In June, he attempted suicide by overdosing on pills. A month later, his fiancee confronted him after finding pornography on his phone. Rosenbaum body-slammed her, according to police, who took him to jail and then released him. One week later, Rosenbaum called a suicide crisis line. Police found him vomiting and having convulsions outside a McDonald’s. He spent a few days in the hospital followed by a few more days in jail for violating the no-contact order with his former girlfriend. Then he was sent for more treatment to the mental hospital in Milwaukee. Two hours before he was killed, Rosenbaum left his fiancee’s motel room and caught a bus for downtown, where a second night of protests had erupted. “He wasn’t down there as a rioter or a looter,” his fiancee said. “Why was he there? I have no answer. I ask myself that question every day.”
We might not know why Rosenbaum decided to head downtown, but according to the Post‘s reporting, it sounds like he was agitated and aggressive throughout the evening.
In videos from that night, Rosenbaum often appeared agitated. When a member of the Kenosha Guard, a self-proclaimed militia, pointed his gun at him, Rosenbaum became enraged and dared the man, who was White, to kill him. “Shoot me, n—–!” he shouted. Several protesters rushed to calm Rosenbaum. “You’re going to get us all shot,” one of them recalled telling him. At 11:45 p.m., Richie McGinniss, a reporter with the conservative Daily Caller, spotted Rosenbaum, his T-shirt wrapped around his head, chasing Rittenhouse down the street. It’s unclear what provoked the confrontation, though Rittenhouse’s attorneys speculated in a video released last week that Rosenbaum may have mistaken the teenager for a similarly attired member of the Kenosha Guard he confronted earlier at the gas station. Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse down Sheridan Road and into the parking lot of a car dealership that would soon go up in flames. He threw his hospital bag at Rittenhouse, missing him, and charged at the teenager. Someone nearby fired a shot. “F— you!” someone else screamed. Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle, and the teenager — who was just feet from Rosenbaum — began shooting, striking Rosenbaum in the back and groin. Another bullet grazed Rosenbaum’s head. In the seconds after the gunfire, Rittenhouse is caught on video trying to call a friend for help.
Much of what the Post reported about Rosenbaum’s shooting matches up with the charging documents originally filed by prosecutors, which also describe the man yelling at Rittenhouse before he begins chasing him down the street. As Rittenhouse ran to try to escape Rosenbaum, others joined in the chase. Video from the scene shows one of the pursuers firing a shot into the air just seconds before Rosenbaum cornered Rittenhouse and tried to grab his rifle, which is when Rittenhouse fired the fatal shots.
After shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse then left the area and headed towards police, but was quickly pursued by the mob once again.
After a few yards, Rittenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground. An unidentified man ran toward him and delivered a flying kick. Rittenhouse fired at him but missed. Then came Huber, who swung a skateboard at Rittenhouse’s shoulder and reached for his rifle. Rittenhouse fired again, hitting Huber in the chest. Last came Grosskreutz, who ran toward Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn. Rittenhouse raised his rifle and shot. A bullet tore through Grosskreutz’s right biceps. “Medic!” Grosskreutz screamed as he stumbled away. “I need a f—ing medic!”
The Post‘s story provides a lot of background on the three men shot by Rittenhouse, but it does nothing to advance the narrative put forth by anti-gun activists and politicians like Joe Biden that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist militia member who was looking for trouble when he headed to Kenosha. Instead, it sounds like trouble found Rittenhouse in the form of Joseph Rosenbaum; a troubled man with a recent history of violence who was off his medication for bi-polar disorder and was acting aggressively throughout the night of August 25th, even before he began chasing Rittenhouse down a dark street with others joining in the pursuit of the teenager.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--Another NFAC March, Another Negligent Discharge

With a name like the Not F***ing Around Coalition , you ’ d kind of expect the NFAC to , you know , not f-around .
However , that doesn ’ t seem to be the case , at least not when it comes to firearms .
See , I don ’ t have a problem with a group of people who claim the world is out to get them having guns .
In fact , if you believe that you ’ re in danger , regardless of who you think is the threat , you should probably purchase a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you make a think about how you ’ re not screwing around , you should probably make sure your members and those who are marching with you know how to not screw around with a firearm .
Now , I get the NFAC would argue that it ’ s not one of their members .
However , it ’ s not the first time the NFAC has had a negligent discharge at one of their events .
A while back , three of their number was shot after a negligent discharge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pattern with these guys .
And before someone tries to make it a racial thing–either attacking the NFAC ’ s race or claiming I ’ m a racist for pointing out their issues–it should be noted that there were other events over the weekend that didn ’ t have any problems .
For example , a march in Davenport , Iowa went off without a hitch or a negligent discharge .
That event was , at least in part , to protest against police judging armed black men and women as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way .
A group in Harford , Connecticut marched for black gun ownership over the weekend as well .
That march , also , went off without any kind of an issue .
These are two other majority black groups of armed citizens who took to American streets over the same weekend without any issue .
No , it ’ s not a problem with black gun owners by any stretch of the imagination .
Frankly , I believe that if African-American citizens feel the police are a threat , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepare to defend their own life if need be .
I also pray they never have to , much as I pray that I never have to .
But the NFAC seems to have a problem with proper firearms handling at their events .
I get that they claim the individual in question wasn ’ t part of their group , let ’ s also admit that after the second such incident at one of their events , they ’ d be foolish to claim otherwise .
Maybe they ’ re right or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It doesn ’ t matter , though , because it ’ s still on the NFAC .
For a group that says they ’ re not f-ing around , they sure do have a problem with people at their events f-ing around , don ’ t they ?

With a name like the Not F***ing Around Coalition, you’d kind of expect the NFAC to, you know, not f-around. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least not when it comes to firearms.
See, I don’t have a problem with a group of people who claim the world is out to get them having guns. In fact, if you believe that you’re in danger, regardless of who you think is the threat, you should probably purchase a firearm.
Yet the problem is that when you make a think about how you’re not screwing around, you should probably make sure your members and those who are marching with you know how to not screw around with a firearm.
A protest organized by a Black paramilitary group and attended by several community groups ended peacefully Saturday in Lafayette, Louisiana, despite the arrest of one person who police say accidentally fired a weapon at the event. A leader of the NFAC — the Not F—ing Around Coalition — said the person who accidentally discharged the firearm was not part of their group.
Now, I get the NFAC would argue that it’s not one of their members. However, it’s not the first time the NFAC has had a negligent discharge at one of their events. A while back, three of their number was shot after a negligent discharge.
It’s starting to look like a pattern with these guys.
And before someone tries to make it a racial thing–either attacking the NFAC’s race or claiming I’m a racist for pointing out their issues–it should be noted that there were other events over the weekend that didn’t have any problems.
For example, a march in Davenport, Iowa went off without a hitch or a negligent discharge. That event was, at least in part, to protest against police judging armed black men and women as a threat while not treating armed white people the same way.
A group in Harford, Connecticut marched for black gun ownership over the weekend as well. That march, also, went off without any kind of an issue.
These are two other majority black groups of armed citizens who took to American streets over the same weekend without any issue. No, it’s not a problem with black gun owners by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I believe that if African-American citizens feel the police are a threat, they would do well to arm themselves and prepare to defend their own life if need be. I also pray they never have to, much as I pray that I never have to.
But the NFAC seems to have a problem with proper firearms handling at their events. I get that they claim the individual in question wasn’t part of their group, let’s also admit that after the second such incident at one of their events, they’d be foolish to claim otherwise. Maybe they’re right or maybe they’re covering their butts. It doesn’t matter, though, because it’s still on the NFAC.
For a group that says they’re not f-ing around, they sure do have a problem with people at their events f-ing around, don’t they?


bearingarms--2020-10-05--Parents Sue Louisiana School District Over BB Gun Suspension

The parents of 9-year old Ka ’ Mauri Harrison have filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson Parish , Louisiana school district that suspended the child after he accidentally and briefly displayed a BB gun during an online class session last month .
Harrison was attending the virtual class while in his bedroom , and when his little brother tripped over the unloaded BB gun that was laying on the bedroom floor , Harrison picked it up and set it aside , propping it up against the side of his desk .
Harrison ’ s teacher briefly caught sight of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the school district , which responded by suspending Harrison for six days and threatening him with expulsion .
Since news of the child ’ s suspension broke , Harrison has seen a number of high profile supporters , including Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry , who spoke about the case on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co last week .
At the time Landry said his office would support the Harrison family if they pursued civil litigation , and now the family has done exactly that .
The lawsuit filed Friday against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf of the family of Ka ’ Mauri Harrison seeks damages of at least $ 50,000 for “ mental pain , suffering , anguish and embarrassment , humiliation and loss of self-esteem , future counseling and tutoring and lost income , ” the lawsuit said… Family attorney Chelsea Cusimano said earlier that school officials went too far — applying its on-campus weapons policy without considering the privacy of the child and his family .
During Ka ’ Mauri ’ s school district hearing on the matter , his father Nyron Harrison said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family that this be dismissed , that it does not follow him in his educational career … the school did not follow his due process rights , ” according to the lawsuit .
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry announced last month his office was looking into the handling of the incident in connection with the investigation , they have become aware that “ several other students are experiencing the same treatment by this and other school systems , ” and believes that the student ’ s constitutional rights allow for an appeal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the school system on September 29 .
Landry also told Bearing Arms that several lawmakers have taken an interest in Harrison ’ s case , and he expects legislation to be filed during the current special session underway in Baton Rouge that would address the issue .
Landry didn ’ t provide specifics of the legislation , but hinted that the bills would be aimed at stopping school districts across the state from punishing students for similar inadvertent displays of toy guns , as well political signs , religious imagery , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply a school district ’ s weapons policy to students who are attending class in their homes is a ridiculous idea to begin with , but in Harrison ’ s case it ’ s particularly egregious since virtually everyone acknowledges that there was no ill intent on the part of the 9-year old .
Rather than apologize for the suspension , however , the school district has so far refused to back down , repeatedly issuing a boilerplate statement in response to press inquiries that maintains the district ’ s response was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the online class because of Ka ’ Mauri Harrison ’ s brief handling of the BB gun , but the decision to suspend the 4th grader has caused plenty of disorder in the school district since the disciplinary action became a national news story .
It looks like a simple apology to the Harrison family will no longer suffice , but we ’ ll see if the Jefferson Parish schools try to settle with the family rather than letting the civil suit proceed to a trial .

The parents of 9-year old Ka’Mauri Harrison have filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana school district that suspended the child after he accidentally and briefly displayed a BB gun during an online class session last month. Harrison was attending the virtual class while in his bedroom, and when his little brother tripped over the unloaded BB gun that was laying on the bedroom floor, Harrison picked it up and set it aside, propping it up against the side of his desk.
Harrison’s teacher briefly caught sight of the BB gun and alerted higher ups in the school district, which responded by suspending Harrison for six days and threatening him with expulsion. Since news of the child’s suspension broke, Harrison has seen a number of high profile supporters, including Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who spoke about the case on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co last week. At the time Landry said his office would support the Harrison family if they pursued civil litigation, and now the family has done exactly that.
The lawsuit filed Friday against the Jefferson Parish School Board and officials on behalf of the family of Ka’Mauri Harrison seeks damages of at least $50,000 for “mental pain, suffering, anguish and embarrassment, humiliation and loss of self-esteem, future counseling and tutoring and lost income,” the lawsuit said… Family attorney Chelsea Cusimano said earlier that school officials went too far — applying its on-campus weapons policy without considering the privacy of the child and his family. During Ka’Mauri’s school district hearing on the matter, his father Nyron Harrison said, “it is very important to the family that this be dismissed, that it does not follow him in his educational career … the school did not follow his due process rights,” according to the lawsuit. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry announced last month his office was looking into the handling of the incident in connection with the investigation, they have become aware that “several other students are experiencing the same treatment by this and other school systems,” and believes that the student’s constitutional rights allow for an appeal, according to a letter his office sent to the school system on September 29.
Landry also told Bearing Arms that several lawmakers have taken an interest in Harrison’s case, and he expects legislation to be filed during the current special session underway in Baton Rouge that would address the issue. Landry didn’t provide specifics of the legislation, but hinted that the bills would be aimed at stopping school districts across the state from punishing students for similar inadvertent displays of toy guns, as well political signs, religious imagery, or other forms of protected speech.
Attempting to apply a school district’s weapons policy to students who are attending class in their homes is a ridiculous idea to begin with, but in Harrison’s case it’s particularly egregious since virtually everyone acknowledges that there was no ill intent on the part of the 9-year old. Rather than apologize for the suspension, however, the school district has so far refused to back down, repeatedly issuing a boilerplate statement in response to press inquiries that maintains the district’s response was “reasonable.”
Jefferson Parish Schools told CNN, “We do not comment on individual student records. Regarding discipline, it is our policy that teachers and administrators may employ reasonable disciplinary and corrective measures to maintain order,” the same statement provided last month.
There was no disorder in the online class because of Ka’Mauri Harrison’s brief handling of the BB gun, but the decision to suspend the 4th grader has caused plenty of disorder in the school district since the disciplinary action became a national news story. It looks like a simple apology to the Harrison family will no longer suffice, but we’ll see if the Jefferson Parish schools try to settle with the family rather than letting the civil suit proceed to a trial.


bearingarms--2020-10-05--Judge Orders Los Angeles To Pay NRA In First Amendment Case

The National Rifle Association isn ’ t having the best 2020 ever .
After all , among everything else , they have a state attorney general trying to literally shut them down for political reasons .
Yet the NRA is kind of used to being attacked .
It ’ s par for the course , really .
At least it is these days .
However , one city might be just a smidge more hesitant to attack the nation ’ s oldest civil rights group after a judge handed them a bit of a smackdown .
A federal court ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 100,000 to the National Rifle Association after ruling that the city had violated the gun-rights group ’ s First Amendment rights .
Federal district court judge Stephen Wilson struck down a city ordinance aimed at punishing prospective contractors with ties to the NRA as an infringement on the right to free speech and association .
On Tuesday , he ordered city officials to pay for the Second Amendment group ’ s attorney fees , which totaled nearly $ 150,000 .
“ In this case , the text of the Ordinance , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the concurrent public statements made by the Ordinance ’ s primary legislative sponsor evince a strong intent to suppress the speech of the NRA , ” Wilson ruled in December .
“ Even though the Ordinance only forces disclosure of activity that may not be expressive , the clear purpose of the disclosure is to undermine the NRA ’ s explicitly political speech.
” The NRA filed suit back in April 2019 , which was to be expected .
The same can be said about the eventual outcome , really .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city was trying to hurt people who sided with a political group they didn ’ t approve of , a clear violation of their First Amendment rights .
Now , in the grand scheme of things , did this make a whole lot of difference ?
Probably not , unfortunately .
For you or me , $ 150,000 is a lot of money , but for the city of Los Angeles ?
I mean , this is a city that spends almost $ 1.2 billion just on police , not counting any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m pretty sure they won ’ t miss $ 150,000 enough that it ’ ll really teach them a lesson .
No , I suspect that they ’ ll consult with some attorneys and try to figure out just how they can rework this in a way that may pass just enough of a legal sniff test they can get away with it .
The truth of the matter , though , is that we ’ re living in a world where your politics can and will be held against you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights .
The city of Los Angeles made if very clear who they want to do business with and they were attempting to codify that into law .
They just couldn ’ t .
Make no mistake , though .
They still know who they want to do business with , and it ’ s up to people in Los Angeles to fight this kind of thing .
After all , they might be trying to start with the NRA , but do you really believe that ’ s where it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group most in LA don ’ t care for , but who would it be next ?
Luckily , they did get slapped down .
It ’ s possible the threat of another , more expensive slap down keeps them in check .
I just wouldn ’ t hold my breath on that one .

The National Rifle Association isn’t having the best 2020 ever. After all, among everything else, they have a state attorney general trying to literally shut them down for political reasons.
Yet the NRA is kind of used to being attacked. It’s par for the course, really. At least it is these days.
However, one city might be just a smidge more hesitant to attack the nation’s oldest civil rights group after a judge handed them a bit of a smackdown.
A federal court ordered Los Angeles to hand over more than $100,000 to the National Rifle Association after ruling that the city had violated the gun-rights group’s First Amendment rights. Federal district court judge Stephen Wilson struck down a city ordinance aimed at punishing prospective contractors with ties to the NRA as an infringement on the right to free speech and association. On Tuesday, he ordered city officials to pay for the Second Amendment group’s attorney fees, which totaled nearly $150,000. “In this case, the text of the Ordinance, the Ordinance’s legislative history, and the concurrent public statements made by the Ordinance’s primary legislative sponsor evince a strong intent to suppress the speech of the NRA,” Wilson ruled in December. “Even though the Ordinance only forces disclosure of activity that may not be expressive, the clear purpose of the disclosure is to undermine the NRA’s explicitly political speech.”
The NRA filed suit back in April 2019, which was to be expected. The same can be said about the eventual outcome, really. After all, it’s clear that the city was trying to hurt people who sided with a political group they didn’t approve of, a clear violation of their First Amendment rights.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, did this make a whole lot of difference? Probably not, unfortunately.
For you or me, $150,000 is a lot of money, but for the city of Los Angeles? I mean, this is a city that spends almost $1.2 billion just on police, not counting any of the other things the city does. I’m pretty sure they won’t miss $150,000 enough that it’ll really teach them a lesson.
No, I suspect that they’ll consult with some attorneys and try to figure out just how they can rework this in a way that may pass just enough of a legal sniff test they can get away with it.
The truth of the matter, though, is that we’re living in a world where your politics can and will be held against you, particularly if you support things like gun rights. The city of Los Angeles made if very clear who they want to do business with and they were attempting to codify that into law. They just couldn’t.
For now.
Make no mistake, though. They still know who they want to do business with, and it’s up to people in Los Angeles to fight this kind of thing. After all, they might be trying to start with the NRA, but do you really believe that’s where it will end? Today, it’s a group most in LA don’t care for, but who would it be next?
Luckily, they did get slapped down. It’s possible the threat of another, more expensive slap down keeps them in check. I just wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.