bearingarms--2020-05-06--NC Paper Wants Armed Protestors Arrested

I bet if you polled the staff of the Triad City Beat newspaper in North Carolina about whether or not we should be putting people in jail for non-violent , minor offenses at the moment , you ’ d get an almost unanimous “ No ” in response .
They ’ d likely argue that it ’ s cruel to put people behind bars for low-level crimes at a time when the coronavirus is raging in many penal institutions , or at least a bad idea .
But if you polled the same staff members about arresting people for protesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d get resounding agreement with the idea .
The paper ’ s come out with an editorial bemoaning the fact that a small group of armed protestors didn ’ t get arrested by local police recently , despite a state law in North Carolina that prohibits protesting while armed .
the officers from the Raleigh police and the Capitol police — always on the lookout to prevent citizens from getting arrested , so it would seem — warned these men of this statute when they arrived on the scene , and further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs , then they would not consider this action a protest .
They ditched the signs , kept the guns and then , around noon , marched the few blocks to the General Assembly in what RPD still considers not-a-protest , despite what the protestors themselves said .
But , it seems , everyone except the Raleigh police knew exactly what this was : a “ call to arms , ” according to an organizers ’ Facebook page , a “ boogaloo ” — which is weird , fanboy slang for the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blue igloo ” or “ big luau.
” In a sly wink to their cute , little code word , some of the protestors were wearing Hawaiian shirts .
Ordinarily , the editors of the City Beat would be praising officers for their de-escalation tactics , but for some reason when it comes to dealing with a group that supposedly seeks conflict with law enforcement , the editors want police to ratchet up their use of force and crack some skulls .
Weird how that works , isn ’ t it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed protestors are in terms of persuading the public to their cause , but I do know that these particular protestors , even the ones wearing Hawaiian shirts , cooperated with police instead of trying to kick off a civil war .
The City Beat editors apparently would have preferred that cops just start banging away at the protestors instead of telling them how to comply with the law .
We don ’ t have to look too far back to find the last time Raleigh police shot a citizen brandishing a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His name is Javier Torres , a 26-year-old person of color , and a Raleigh officer shot him in the abdomen after seeing a gun in Torres ’ hand .
So , while we ’ re talking about the First Amendment , and the Second Amendment , we would do well to remember the Fourteenth Amendment , which deals with equal treatment under the law .
Javier Torres wasn ’ t shot for having a gun .
He was shot after he raised the gun at a police officer , in an incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camera .
Here ’ s what happened , according to Raleigh police chief Cassandra Deck-Brown .
Police responded to a 911 call after the caller reported a man “ flashing ” a gun in a group of eight men outside a restaurant at 1030 N. Rogers Lane near New Bern Avenue , at about 6:40 p.m. March 10 .
When Senior Officer J. Posthumus arrived and tried to speak with the man , who was leaving the group with a pizza box , the man ran , according to the report .
Posthumus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their patrol cars .
The man , later identified as 26-year-old Javier Torres , ran across Rogers Lane and down Rogers Farm Drive toward Kingsborough Estates , a mobile home community .
Posthumus repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun that he could see pinned under his left arm , the report states .
“ As Mr. Torres reached the dead end of Rogers Farm Drive , he dropped the pizza box and Officer Posthumus saw his right hand reach across the front of his body , ” the report states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Torres ’ right hand as he entered a foot path at the dead end of Rogers Farm Drive.
” By this time , Officer J.E .
Byrd had arrived and headed to Duckling Way , at the dead end in case Torres ran that way , according to the report .
When Torres emerged from the foot path , he was about 10 to 15 feet from Byrd .
“ By this time , Mr. Torres had the handgun in his right hand , ” the report states .
“ When Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Torres ’ right hand , it was down by his right side .
Officer Byrd then saw Mr. Torres raise the gun in his direction.
” “ Officer Byrd fired one shot , which struck Mr. ( Torres ) in the abdomen , causing him to drop the gun and fall to the ground , ” the report states .
Oh , by the way , the gun that Torres was carrying had an obliterated serial number ( which is a no-no ) and he ’ s now facing multiple charges in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the armed protest that the City Beat editors find so objectionable , starting with the fact that Torres took off running from the cops instead of talking to them as the protestors did .
The editors of the North Carolina may have taken aim at Raleigh police in their editorial , but they only ended up shooting themselves in the foot with their arguments .

I bet if you polled the staff of the Triad City Beat newspaper in North Carolina about whether or not we should be putting people in jail for non-violent, minor offenses at the moment, you’d get an almost unanimous “No” in response. They’d likely argue that it’s cruel to put people behind bars for low-level crimes at a time when the coronavirus is raging in many penal institutions, or at least a bad idea.
But if you polled the same staff members about arresting people for protesting while armed in North Carolina, you’d get resounding agreement with the idea. The paper’s come out with an editorial bemoaning the fact that a small group of armed protestors didn’t get arrested by local police recently, despite a state law in North Carolina that prohibits protesting while armed.
the officers from the Raleigh police and the Capitol police — always on the lookout to prevent citizens from getting arrested, so it would seem — warned these men of this statute when they arrived on the scene, and further explained that if they put away their signs, then they would not consider this action a protest. They ditched the signs, kept the guns and then, around noon, marched the few blocks to the General Assembly in what RPD still considers not-a-protest, despite what the protestors themselves said. But, it seems, everyone except the Raleigh police knew exactly what this was: a “call to arms,” according to an organizers’ Facebook page, a “boogaloo” — which is weird, fanboy slang for the next civil war, jargonized into bastardizations like “blue igloo” or “big luau.” In a sly wink to their cute, little code word, some of the protestors were wearing Hawaiian shirts.
Ordinarily, the editors of the City Beat would be praising officers for their de-escalation tactics, but for some reason when it comes to dealing with a group that supposedly seeks conflict with law enforcement, the editors want police to ratchet up their use of force and crack some skulls. Weird how that works, isn’t it?
I don’t know effective these armed protestors are in terms of persuading the public to their cause, but I do know that these particular protestors, even the ones wearing Hawaiian shirts, cooperated with police instead of trying to kick off a civil war. The City Beat editors apparently would have preferred that cops just start banging away at the protestors instead of telling them how to comply with the law.
We don’t have to look too far back to find the last time Raleigh police shot a citizen brandishing a gun: It was on March 11. His name is Javier Torres, a 26-year-old person of color, and a Raleigh officer shot him in the abdomen after seeing a gun in Torres’ hand. So, while we’re talking about the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment, we would do well to remember the Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with equal treatment under the law.
Javier Torres wasn’t shot for having a gun. He was shot after he raised the gun at a police officer, in an incident captured on the officer’s body camera. Here’s what happened, according to Raleigh police chief Cassandra Deck-Brown.
Police responded to a 911 call after the caller reported a man “flashing” a gun in a group of eight men outside a restaurant at 1030 N. Rogers Lane near New Bern Avenue, at about 6:40 p.m. March 10. When Senior Officer J. Posthumus arrived and tried to speak with the man, who was leaving the group with a pizza box, the man ran, according to the report. Posthumus ran after him and other officers followed in their patrol cars. The man, later identified as 26-year-old Javier Torres, ran across Rogers Lane and down Rogers Farm Drive toward Kingsborough Estates, a mobile home community. Posthumus repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun that he could see pinned under his left arm, the report states. “As Mr. Torres reached the dead end of Rogers Farm Drive, he dropped the pizza box and Officer Posthumus saw his right hand reach across the front of his body,” the report states. “He then saw the firearm in Mr. Torres’ right hand as he entered a foot path at the dead end of Rogers Farm Drive.” By this time, Officer J.E. Byrd had arrived and headed to Duckling Way, at the dead end in case Torres ran that way, according to the report. When Torres emerged from the foot path, he was about 10 to 15 feet from Byrd. “By this time, Mr. Torres had the handgun in his right hand,” the report states. “When Officer Byrd first saw the gun in Mr. Torres’ right hand, it was down by his right side. Officer Byrd then saw Mr. Torres raise the gun in his direction.” “Officer Byrd fired one shot, which struck Mr. (Torres) in the abdomen, causing him to drop the gun and fall to the ground,” the report states.
Oh, by the way, the gun that Torres was carrying had an obliterated serial number (which is a no-no) and he’s now facing multiple charges in the incident. Torres’ story sounds nothing like the armed protest that the City Beat editors find so objectionable, starting with the fact that Torres took off running from the cops instead of talking to them as the protestors did. The editors of the North Carolina may have taken aim at Raleigh police in their editorial, but they only ended up shooting themselves in the foot with their arguments.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Canadian Man Found With Grenade

Canadian Man Found With Grenade

“ Oh , we should be so much more like Canada , ” some are saying right about now .
That ’ s not surprising since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau simply banned countless firearms with the stroke of a pen .
Of course , that includes a lot of guns I don ’ t even think Trudeau meant to ban , but still… However , those of us who oppose such measures routinely argue that those inclined to get forbidden weapons will still manage to get them .
They ’ re not going to be dissuaded by silly things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , “ Yeah , well , we have laws against people owning grenades and people don ’ t get those , now do they ?
” Of course , they ’ d feel more than a bit silly right now .
A 55-year-old man faces assault , explosives and firearms charges after RCMP arrested him and confiscated 17 guns , as well as explosives , at a home in Salmon River , N.S .
Police evacuated a four-unit building on Salmon River Road on Sunday evening after receiving a call about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Officers seized 17 firearms , a commercial detonator , a grenade , a smoke grenade , flares and gunpowder , the Mounties said in a news release .
So , he was found to have a grenade in a country that prides itself on its strict gun control policies .
It ’ s not the first time we ’ ve seen something like this , either .
Oddly , we don ’ t see many cases of grenades turning up here in the U.S. Not that it matters , though , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , technically , you can get a grenade .
Pay the $ 200 tax stamp and you can buy it .
Assuming you can get law enforcement to sign off on it , that is .
Regardless , for all practical purposes , they ’ re banned .
Meanwhile , though , anti-gunners are continuing to crow about how Trudeau just showed something they believe counts as leadership .
Nevermind that his anti-gun crusade started with a photo of him surfacing in brown-face .
The media doesn ’ t care about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they let him .
That ’ s what this is all about .
Trudeau is just paying a debt .
While I doubt he secretly harbors pro-gun sympathies or anything , I don ’ t think this would have been that pressing for him even with Nova Scotia happening .
But then those photos surfaced and , taking a page from Ralph Northam ’ s playbook , went to town declaring a personal jihad against guns .
Nova Scotia just gave him the political cover to get away with it .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands on these guns just like this guy got his hands on a grenade .
You ’ re not going to stop people like that .
All they ’ ve managed to do is put law-abiding Canadians at a disadvantage when it comes to defending their homes from these kinds of predators .
Then again , people like Trudeau probably think the polite thing to do is just open the doors and let them have what they want , including members of your family .
I ’ m more of the kind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in the face so your neighbors don ’ t have to deal with it .

“Oh, we should be so much more like Canada,” some are saying right about now. That’s not surprising since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau simply banned countless firearms with the stroke of a pen. Of course, that includes a lot of guns I don’t even think Trudeau meant to ban, but still…
However, those of us who oppose such measures routinely argue that those inclined to get forbidden weapons will still manage to get them. They’re not going to be dissuaded by silly things like laws.
Our opponents would likely say, “Yeah, well, we have laws against people owning grenades and people don’t get those, now do they?”
Of course, they’d feel more than a bit silly right now.
A 55-year-old man faces assault, explosives and firearms charges after RCMP arrested him and confiscated 17 guns, as well as explosives, at a home in Salmon River, N.S. Police evacuated a four-unit building on Salmon River Road on Sunday evening after receiving a call about a disturbance in which a victim was assaulted. Officers seized 17 firearms, a commercial detonator, a grenade, a smoke grenade, flares and gunpowder, the Mounties said in a news release.
So, he was found to have a grenade in a country that prides itself on its strict gun control policies. It’s not the first time we’ve seen something like this, either.
Oddly, we don’t see many cases of grenades turning up here in the U.S.
Not that it matters, though, because grenades are essentially banned pretty much everywhere. Yes, technically, you can get a grenade. Pay the $200 tax stamp and you can buy it. Assuming you can get law enforcement to sign off on it, that is.
Regardless, for all practical purposes, they’re banned.
Meanwhile, though, anti-gunners are continuing to crow about how Trudeau just showed something they believe counts as leadership. Nevermind that his anti-gun crusade started with a photo of him surfacing in brown-face. The media doesn’t care about that because Trudeau went after guns.
And they let him.
That’s what this is all about. Trudeau is just paying a debt. While I doubt he secretly harbors pro-gun sympathies or anything, I don’t think this would have been that pressing for him even with Nova Scotia happening. But then those photos surfaced and, taking a page from Ralph Northam’s playbook, went to town declaring a personal jihad against guns.
Nova Scotia just gave him the political cover to get away with it. Nothing more.
Criminals will still get their hands on these guns just like this guy got his hands on a grenade. You’re not going to stop people like that. All they’ve managed to do is put law-abiding Canadians at a disadvantage when it comes to defending their homes from these kinds of predators. Then again, people like Trudeau probably think the polite thing to do is just open the doors and let them have what they want, including members of your family.
I’m more of the kind that says the polite thing is to shoot them in the face so your neighbors don’t have to deal with it.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Why The U.S. Is Right To Not Do As Canada Has

Here we go .
Canada has a mass shooting and then bans assault weapons , thus prompting American anti-gunners to pontificate on how we totally should have done the same thing .
It ’ s as predictable as the sunrise .
We all knew it was coming .
The op-eds would certainly flow .
Take this one , for example .
It didn ’ t take long for this chief executive to respond to a nation ’ s anguish with decisive action .
Immediately following the slaughter of 22 Nova Scotians , 13 with firearms and nine by fire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something about assault weapons — the instrument of death used in this massacre as well as others on Canada ’ s short list of mass shootings .
Within two weeks , Trudeau made good on his promise .
Capitalizing on his added powers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic , Trudeau summarily banned the sale , transfer , and use of more than 1,500 assault weapons identified by make and model .
Existing owners of these firearms were given a two-year grace period after which Trudeau expects to launch a massive buyback .
What a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacillating response to repeated acts of carnage that occurred prior to the coronavirus pandemic , when the “ March for Our Lives ” movement — not physical movement — was the focus of debate and demonstrations .
The problem here is that the writer has accepted gun control as the only viable option .
Like I pointed out earlier today , this is the politician ’ s fallacy or politician ’ s syllogism .
Except , the argument we ’ re having isn ’ t over whether something should be done , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results people except without causing even more problems .
Proponents of gun control continually fall into this fallacy , arguing that we need new gun laws in the wake of such shootings without ever really considering if that ’ s what we really need .
After all , we ’ ve prevented numerous mass shootings with the laws we already had on the books .
Do we really need another law , or do we need to do a different something ?
Yes , Trudeau did something , but what ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run ?
Are Canadians any safer ?
Probably not , actually .
While Canada doesn ’ t have a lot of violent crime , what they do have is usually carried out with a handgun .
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare there as it is , much less a mass shooting with an AR-15 .
Meanwhile , many Canadians are being deprived of their ability to have an effective self-defense tool because their prime minister was desperate to make a political point .
Sure , they did something when the United States isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there are a lot of ways that “ doing something ” is worse than doing nothing at all .
I ’ m mighty much afraid Canada is going to get to experience all of them before all else is said and done .
They ’ re going to experience them and likely curse Trudeau ’ s name .
We , however , will remain secure in our persons as we have the means to resist almost anything that might come our way .
That ’ s freedom for you .

Here we go.
Canada has a mass shooting and then bans assault weapons, thus prompting American anti-gunners to pontificate on how we totally should have done the same thing. It’s as predictable as the sunrise. We all knew it was coming. The op-eds would certainly flow.
Take this one, for example.
It didn’t take long for this chief executive to respond to a nation’s anguish with decisive action. Immediately following the slaughter of 22 Nova Scotians, 13 with firearms and nine by fire, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to do something about assault weapons — the instrument of death used in this massacre as well as others on Canada’s short list of mass shootings. Within two weeks, Trudeau made good on his promise. Capitalizing on his added powers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Trudeau summarily banned the sale, transfer, and use of more than 1,500 assault weapons identified by make and model. Existing owners of these firearms were given a two-year grace period after which Trudeau expects to launch a massive buyback. What a contrast to President Donald Trump’s vacillating response to repeated acts of carnage that occurred prior to the coronavirus pandemic, when the “March for Our Lives” movement — not physical movement — was the focus of debate and demonstrations.
The problem here is that the writer has accepted gun control as the only viable option.
Like I pointed out earlier today, this is the politician’s fallacy or politician’s syllogism.
We must do something This is something As such, we must do this.
Except, the argument we’re having isn’t over whether something should be done, but whether this particular something will yield the results people except without causing even more problems.
Proponents of gun control continually fall into this fallacy, arguing that we need new gun laws in the wake of such shootings without ever really considering if that’s what we really need. After all, we’ve prevented numerous mass shootings with the laws we already had on the books. Do we really need another law, or do we need to do a different something?
Yes, Trudeau did something, but what’s the effect of that something in the long run? Are Canadians any safer?
Probably not, actually. While Canada doesn’t have a lot of violent crime, what they do have is usually carried out with a handgun. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare there as it is, much less a mass shooting with an AR-15.
Meanwhile, many Canadians are being deprived of their ability to have an effective self-defense tool because their prime minister was desperate to make a political point.
Sure, they did something when the United States isn’t so quick to act, but there are a lot of ways that “doing something” is worse than doing nothing at all. I’m mighty much afraid Canada is going to get to experience all of them before all else is said and done. They’re going to experience them and likely curse Trudeau’s name.
We, however, will remain secure in our persons as we have the means to resist almost anything that might come our way. That’s freedom for you.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Americans Turn to Hunting and Fishing As Meat Disappears from Stores

With several food processing plants shut down around the country due to the coronavirus , fresh meat and poultry is becoming a little harder to find on store shelves .
There ’ s evidence that more Americans are taking to the fields and streams to put food on the table , and Gabriella Hoffman , host of the District of Conservation podcast , joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co with tips on the best way to get started if you ’ ve never hunted or fished before .
According to the New York Post , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the number of Americans expressing an interest in hunting in recent weeks .
“ People are starting to consider self-reliance and where their food comes from , ” Hank Forester of Quality Deer Management Association said , adding that he believes there will be a hunting resurgence over empty grocery store shelves .
Outbreaks have recently caused at least three major meat producers — Tyson Foods , JBS USA and Smithfield Foods — to shutter more than a dozen plants across the nation .
Meanwhile , some states have seen a jump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there was a 28 % increase in turkey hunting license sales during the first week of the season .
Game and fish agencies from Minnesota to New Mexico have seen an increase in either hunting license sales or permit applications .
Reuters also recently profiled several Americans who are either new to hunting or have taken the opportunity to head back into the field for the first time in years over concerns that they won ’ t be able to easily get their hands on beef , pork , and chicken in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first thought of shooting an elk to help feed family and friends back in January when the United States reported its first novel coronavirus case .
Elliot , emergency manager at Holy Cross Hospital in Taos , New Mexico , had always wanted to go big-game hunting and , with the pandemic spreading , there seemed no better time to try to fill his freezer with free-range , super-lean meat .
So for the first time in his life , despite not owning a rifle or ever having hunted large animals , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s annual elk permit draw .
With some U.S. meat processors halting operations as workers fall ill , companies warning of shortages , and people having more time on their hands and possibly less money due to shutdowns and layoffs , he is among a growing number of Americans turning to hunting for food , according to state data and hunting groups .
“ I understand some people might be driven by like antlers or some sort of glory .
I don ’ t want to do that , ” said Elliot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit to shoot a female elk in an area of Taos County where herds of the animal graze in vast plains studded with extinct volcanoes .
On today ’ s show , Hoffman says if you ’ re new to hunting , starting out with big game like elk might be a little intimidating for some folks , but smaller game like upland birds , rabbits , and squirrels can be a fun way to start .
Hoffman also discusses how new hunters can find mentors , land , and hunter safety courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come fall we won ’ t be seeing headlines any longer about processing plants shutting down and store shelves that are largely empty of staple proteins like ground beef , bacon , and chicken breasts , but if supply problems linger , we could see millions more Americans to take to the tree stands and duck blinds in search of fresh meat for the table .

With several food processing plants shut down around the country due to the coronavirus, fresh meat and poultry is becoming a little harder to find on store shelves. There’s evidence that more Americans are taking to the fields and streams to put food on the table, and Gabriella Hoffman, host of the District of Conservation podcast, joins me on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co with tips on the best way to get started if you’ve never hunted or fished before.
According to the New York Post, several states have seen a sharp increase in the number of Americans expressing an interest in hunting in recent weeks.
“People are starting to consider self-reliance and where their food comes from,” Hank Forester of Quality Deer Management Association said, adding that he believes there will be a hunting resurgence over empty grocery store shelves. Outbreaks have recently caused at least three major meat producers — Tyson Foods, JBS USA and Smithfield Foods — to shutter more than a dozen plants across the nation. Meanwhile, some states have seen a jump in hunting licenses — including Indiana, where there was a 28% increase in turkey hunting license sales during the first week of the season. Game and fish agencies from Minnesota to New Mexico have seen an increase in either hunting license sales or permit applications.
Reuters also recently profiled several Americans who are either new to hunting or have taken the opportunity to head back into the field for the first time in years over concerns that they won’t be able to easily get their hands on beef, pork, and chicken in the months to come.
David Elliot first thought of shooting an elk to help feed family and friends back in January when the United States reported its first novel coronavirus case. Elliot, emergency manager at Holy Cross Hospital in Taos, New Mexico, had always wanted to go big-game hunting and, with the pandemic spreading, there seemed no better time to try to fill his freezer with free-range, super-lean meat. So for the first time in his life, despite not owning a rifle or ever having hunted large animals, he put his name in for New Mexico’s annual elk permit draw. With some U.S. meat processors halting operations as workers fall ill, companies warning of shortages, and people having more time on their hands and possibly less money due to shutdowns and layoffs, he is among a growing number of Americans turning to hunting for food, according to state data and hunting groups. “I understand some people might be driven by like antlers or some sort of glory. I don’t want to do that,” said Elliot, 37, who received a prized permit to shoot a female elk in an area of Taos County where herds of the animal graze in vast plains studded with extinct volcanoes.
On today’s show, Hoffman says if you’re new to hunting, starting out with big game like elk might be a little intimidating for some folks, but smaller game like upland birds, rabbits, and squirrels can be a fun way to start. Hoffman also discusses how new hunters can find mentors, land, and hunter safety courses before the take the plunge.
Hopefully come fall we won’t be seeing headlines any longer about processing plants shutting down and store shelves that are largely empty of staple proteins like ground beef, bacon, and chicken breasts, but if supply problems linger, we could see millions more Americans to take to the tree stands and duck blinds in search of fresh meat for the table.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--GOA, GOF Files Suit Over Alabama Carry Permits

A short time ago , the ATF announced that gun dealers in the state of Alabama could no longer accept concealed carry permits instead of conducting NICS background checks .
The reason was that it seemed some sheriffs in the state had taken it upon themselves to issue permits without conducting any background checks at all .
Now , the agency is now being sued for that act .
From a press release from the Gun Owners of America : Springfield , VA – Gun Owners of America ( GOA ) and Gun Owners Foundation ( GOF ) are suing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) for its reversal of a letter which had previously recognized that holders of Alabama concealed carry permits ( CCP ) are exempt from a National Instant Check System ( NICS ) background check when purchasing a firearm .
While Federal law allows Alabama CCP holders to avoid the NICS check , the ATF released a “ Public Safety Advisory ” which instructs Alabama federal firearm license ( FFLs ) holders to “ no longer accept CCP permits as an alternative to a NICS check.
” ATF claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed a few ineligible people to obtain CCPs , the exemption for the entire state is now revoked .
The GOA/GOF suit explains the legal problems with the ATF ’ s position : “ Federal law – not ATF — explicitly exempts those with Alabama concealed carry permits from the NICS requirement .
Alabama law clearly qualifies for the federal exemption , and the existence of one or two bad apples does not give ATF a blank check to start revoking states ’ CCP exemptions.
” Erich Pratt , Senior Vice President of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is an example of the dangers of requiring government preclearance to exercise God-given rights .
When the ability to purchase a firearm is left up to the whims of unelected bureaucrats , our rights are no longer rights — but mere privileges.
” To be fair , GOA has a point .
The law says what it says and the ATF doesn ’ t necessarily get to decide it really says something else .
If the sheriffs in question were breaking the law in issuing those permits , then the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punished for those actions .
The law says what it says .
The question is , will the judge see it that way or will the judge agree with the ATF ’ s position that because sheriffs weren ’ t following the law , all Alabama permits are suspect ?
A compromise might be for gun stores not to accept permits from specific counties where this kind of thing happened , though I don ’ t know that such a compromise is really even possible .
Frankly , it shouldn ’ t matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background check system actually keeps guns out of the hands of bad guys anyway , regardless of who issues permits where .
As such , people should be able to buy their guns without having to go through that whole rigamarole .
Unfortunately , what should be the norm and what is the norm aren ’ t exactly similar .
This should be an interesting case to watch going forward .
My initial reaction was that the GOA and GOF were tilting at windmills , but now I ’ m inclined to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturning the ATF ’ s ruling .
That ’ s what makes this so interesting .

A short time ago, the ATF announced that gun dealers in the state of Alabama could no longer accept concealed carry permits instead of conducting NICS background checks. The reason was that it seemed some sheriffs in the state had taken it upon themselves to issue permits without conducting any background checks at all.
Now, the agency is now being sued for that act.
From a press release from the Gun Owners of America:
GOA, GOF Sue ATF After Alabama NICS Exemption Reversal Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for its reversal of a letter which had previously recognized that holders of Alabama concealed carry permits (CCP) are exempt from a National Instant Check System (NICS) background check when purchasing a firearm. While Federal law allows Alabama CCP holders to avoid the NICS check, the ATF released a “Public Safety Advisory” which instructs Alabama federal firearm license (FFLs) holders to “no longer accept CCP permits as an alternative to a NICS check.” ATF claims that, because certain ATF sheriffs have allowed a few ineligible people to obtain CCPs, the exemption for the entire state is now revoked. The GOA/GOF suit explains the legal problems with the ATF’s position: “Federal law – not ATF — explicitly exempts those with Alabama concealed carry permits from the NICS requirement. Alabama law clearly qualifies for the federal exemption, and the existence of one or two bad apples does not give ATF a blank check to start revoking states’ CCP exemptions.” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA and GOF, stated, “This is an example of the dangers of requiring government preclearance to exercise God-given rights. When the ability to purchase a firearm is left up to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, our rights are no longer rights — but mere privileges.”
To be fair, GOA has a point. The law says what it says and the ATF doesn’t necessarily get to decide it really says something else.
If the sheriffs in question were breaking the law in issuing those permits, then the rest of the state shouldn’t really be punished for those actions. The law says what it says.
The question is, will the judge see it that way or will the judge agree with the ATF’s position that because sheriffs weren’t following the law, all Alabama permits are suspect?
A compromise might be for gun stores not to accept permits from specific counties where this kind of thing happened, though I don’t know that such a compromise is really even possible.
Frankly, it shouldn’t matter. It’s not like the background check system actually keeps guns out of the hands of bad guys anyway, regardless of who issues permits where. As such, people should be able to buy their guns without having to go through that whole rigamarole. Unfortunately, what should be the norm and what is the norm aren’t exactly similar.
This should be an interesting case to watch going forward. My initial reaction was that the GOA and GOF were tilting at windmills, but now I’m inclined to think they have a very good chance at overturning the ATF’s ruling. That’s what makes this so interesting.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Canada Bans Not Just "Assault Rifles," But Shotguns, Websites

Politicians like to pounce on tragedies as a prime opportunity to push through their agenda .
This is especially true of anti-gun politicians following mass shootings .
However , the problem is that many times these politicians don ’ t have a clue what they ’ re doing .
They ’ re trying to legislate things they don ’ t understand and what happens is…well , it ’ s really rather spectacular in its stupidity .
You see , Canada has managed to ban 12- and 10-gauge shotguns .
Two Canadian firearms groups are warning that up to 2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association ( CSAAA ) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association ( CSSA ) said their legal experts have concluded Public Safety Minister Bill Blair “ banned almost every modern 12-gauge and 10-gauge shotgun in Canada with removable chokes because they exceed the maximum bore diameter of 20 mm.
” Two Canadian firearms groups are warning that up to 2 million commonly-used hunting rifles are now illegal .
The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association ( CSAAA ) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association ( CSSA ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Bill Blair “ banned almost every modern 12-gauge and 10-gauge shotgun in Canada with removable chokes because they exceed the maximum bore diameter of 20 mm.
” “ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Bill Blair looked Canadian gun owners in the eye last Friday and said they would not take guns suitable for hunting away from us , ” the groups said in a statement .
“ Minister Blair is either too inept to comprehend the scope of his regulations…or he lied to the Government and Canadians.
” The groups estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these common hunting firearms in Canada .
“ As well , many large bore hunting rifles – some more than 100 years old and valued at more than $ 100,000 have become prohibited .
None of these firearms are semi-automatic or “ military style.
” Well , that ’ s just special as hell , ain ’ t it ?
I ’ d love to tell you that this is the extent of the Canadian government ’ s stupidity , but it ’ s not .
Not at all .
You see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My guess is that they saw that there had been some group buys for AR-15 receivers with the site ’ s name stamped on them and figured that meant they were a manufacturer or something , but I may be way too generous by giving them anything approaching the benefit of the doubt .
They just as easily–maybe even more likely–figured that it said AR-15 and that made the site evil .
Even if they did see the receivers , these aren ’ t exactly a brand name of a manufacturer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turdnuggets who managed to ban countless shotguns .
It ’ s important to remember that shotguns are still primarily a sporting firearm .
While they can be useful for self-defense , they ’ re predominantly used for hunting .
In fact , they ’ re pretty much the most versatile hunting weapon around if you know what you ’ re doing with them .
And yet , many of these may well be considered illegal because people who don ’ t know jack about guns decided to create laws about how to regulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would be downright hilarious if so many law-abiding Canadians weren ’ t being screwed over by their government right now .

**Updated**
Politicians like to pounce on tragedies as a prime opportunity to push through their agenda. This is especially true of anti-gun politicians following mass shootings.
However, the problem is that many times these politicians don’t have a clue what they’re doing. They’re trying to legislate things they don’t understand and what happens is…well, it’s really rather spectacular in its stupidity.
You see, Canada has managed to ban 12- and 10-gauge shotguns.
Two Canadian firearms groups are warning that up to 2 million commonly-used hunting rifles are now illegal. The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) said their legal experts have concluded Public Safety Minister Bill Blair “banned almost every modern 12-gauge and 10-gauge shotgun in Canada with removable chokes because they exceed the maximum bore diameter of 20 mm.” Two Canadian firearms groups are warning that up to 2 million commonly-used hunting rifles are now illegal. The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) said their legal experts have concluded Public Safety Minister Bill Blair “banned almost every modern 12-gauge and 10-gauge shotgun in Canada with removable chokes because they exceed the maximum bore diameter of 20 mm.” “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Bill Blair looked Canadian gun owners in the eye last Friday and said they would not take guns suitable for hunting away from us,” the groups said in a statement. “Minister Blair is either too inept to comprehend the scope of his regulations…or he lied to the Government and Canadians.” The groups estimated there are between 1.5 – 2 million of these common hunting firearms in Canada. “As well, many large bore hunting rifles – some more than 100 years old and valued at more than $100,000 have become prohibited. None of these firearms are semi-automatic or “military style.”
Well, that’s just special as hell, ain’t it?
I’d love to tell you that this is the extent of the Canadian government’s stupidity, but it’s not. Not at all.
You see, they also managed to ban AR15.Com.
Or at least AR15.com-branded receivers. [Editor’s Note]
**It appears the ban is actually on AR15.com-branded lower receivers, not on the website itself.**
But then again, these are the turdnuggets who managed to ban countless shotguns. It’s important to remember that shotguns are still primarily a sporting firearm. While they can be useful for self-defense, they’re predominantly used for hunting. In fact, they’re pretty much the most versatile hunting weapon around if you know what you’re doing with them.
And yet, many of these may well be considered illegal because people who don’t know jack about guns decided to create laws about how to regulate a thing they don’t understand.
It would be downright hilarious if so many law-abiding Canadians weren’t being screwed over by their government right now.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--West TX Sheriff Stands By Arrest Of Armed Re-Open Protestors

Ector County , Texas Sheriff Mike Griffis says the arrest of eight individuals outside of a west Texas bar that had re-opened in violation of Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s emergency orders was legal , lawful , and not a violation of the Second Amendment rights of the gun owners who had gathered outside of Big Daddy Zane ’ s in Odessa to support the bar ’ s owner in re-opening .
At a press conference on Tuesday , Griffis elaborated on the arrests and even had an exchange with the unofficial spokesman for Open Texas , the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back the re-opening .
The arrested protestors , he said , were violating the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission code .
“ The premises is any property controlled by that person .
All that property out there belongs to that lady , ” he said .
Along with media during the press conference was Open Texas member Philip Archibald , 29 , who was not arrested during Monday ’ s protest , because he was not armed .
Archibald questioned Griffis about the TABC code saying , “ What about Penal Code 46.035 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not the surrounding property , parking lots or anything else ?
” In response Griffis read the TABC code saying that the , “ Premises are the grounds and all buildings , vehicles and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under control of the same person.
” Speaking with members of the press after the sheriff ’ s press conference , Archibald said members of Open Texas have peacefully protested while armed elsewhere around the state without any issue .
“ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that we are 100 percent within the laws .
That ’ s why we did not get arrested in Dallas , didn ’ t get arrested in Houston or anywhere else…but we are going to continue helping businesses open up regardless of whether or not that ’ s against the Governor ’ s Executive Order because that order is unconstitutional.
” Under the TABC code , the carrying of firearms on the premises of establishments licensed to serve alcohol is prohibited .
If the Open Texas group had been protesting on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the sheriff wouldn ’ t have had grounds to make arrests .
In fact , the sheriff says that if the bar owner had simply quietly re-opened , officers likely wouldn ’ t have responded at all .
Gabrielle Ellison , the bar ’ s owner , had also taken to social media to promote her re-opening .
That probably wasn ’ t the wisest course of action on the part of the bar owner , but then , this story is full of bad decisions on both sides .
It sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better researched the TABC code , and the bar owner shouldn ’ t have bragged about re-opening on social media , but I ’ m still wondering why the sheriff felt it necessary to bring out the SWAT team and armored personnel carriers to Big Daddy Zane ’ s in response .
Archibald asked the sheriff about that at Tuesday ’ s press conference as well , and the sheriff ’ s answer left a lot to be desired .
Why , though ?
Sheriff Griffis talked about how the bar owner should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I think that same logic applies to the response by the sheriff ’ s office .
A couple of deputies coming out to explain to the protestors that they were in violation of TABC code might have defused the situation without the need for any arrests , especially given the fact that Archibald says Open Texas is committed to fighting what he considers to be unconstitutional orders by the governor in court .
The courts are absolutely where these battles need to be fought and won right now , but both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement officers like Sheriff Griffis need to pick their battles , and their tactics , wisely .

Ector County, Texas Sheriff Mike Griffis says the arrest of eight individuals outside of a west Texas bar that had re-opened in violation of Gov. Greg Abbott’s emergency orders was legal, lawful, and not a violation of the Second Amendment rights of the gun owners who had gathered outside of Big Daddy Zane’s in Odessa to support the bar’s owner in re-opening.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Griffis elaborated on the arrests and even had an exchange with the unofficial spokesman for Open Texas, the group that showed up at the bar to back the re-opening.
The arrested protestors, he said, were violating the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission code. “The premises is any property controlled by that person. All that property out there belongs to that lady,” he said. Along with media during the press conference was Open Texas member Philip Archibald, 29, who was not arrested during Monday’s protest, because he was not armed. Archibald questioned Griffis about the TABC code saying, “What about Penal Code 46.035, that states that premises is the building and not the surrounding property, parking lots or anything else?” In response Griffis read the TABC code saying that the, “Premises are the grounds and all buildings, vehicles and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under control of the same person.”
Speaking with members of the press after the sheriff’s press conference, Archibald said members of Open Texas have peacefully protested while armed elsewhere around the state without any issue.
“We are not breaking laws. We are making sure that we are 100 percent within the laws. That’s why we did not get arrested in Dallas, didn’t get arrested in Houston or anywhere else…but we are going to continue helping businesses open up regardless of whether or not that’s against the Governor’s Executive Order because that order is unconstitutional.”
Under the TABC code, the carrying of firearms on the premises of establishments licensed to serve alcohol is prohibited. If the Open Texas group had been protesting on the public right of way, it sounds like the sheriff wouldn’t have had grounds to make arrests. In fact, the sheriff says that if the bar owner had simply quietly re-opened, officers likely wouldn’t have responded at all.
“Why draw attention to yourselves? I mean she could have opened up and we might not have known about it until the next day but when you cause this kind of commotion we’re going to take action,” said Sheriff Griffis.
Gabrielle Ellison, the bar’s owner, had also taken to social media to promote her re-opening.
The bar posted a Facebook event scheduled for May 4 called “Bars and bartenders standing united,” which had a photo of armed men in body armor posing in an undisclosed location. “They will be here to help protect our rights as a small business owner to open and be able to feed our families,” according to the post.
That probably wasn’t the wisest course of action on the part of the bar owner, but then, this story is full of bad decisions on both sides. It sounds like the Open Texas crew should have better researched the TABC code, and the bar owner shouldn’t have bragged about re-opening on social media, but I’m still wondering why the sheriff felt it necessary to bring out the SWAT team and armored personnel carriers to Big Daddy Zane’s in response. Archibald asked the sheriff about that at Tuesday’s press conference as well, and the sheriff’s answer left a lot to be desired.
“We do it all the time, that was loaned to us by the federal government and we use it each time,” Sheriff Griffis responded.
Why, though? Sheriff Griffis talked about how the bar owner should have been more low-key in her re-opening, but I think that same logic applies to the response by the sheriff’s office. A couple of deputies coming out to explain to the protestors that they were in violation of TABC code might have defused the situation without the need for any arrests, especially given the fact that Archibald says Open Texas is committed to fighting what he considers to be unconstitutional orders by the governor in court.
Archibald said that, “I am working with some constitutional lawyers. We got some big names behind us and we’re gonna fight this. We’re gonna fight it the way regular people fight it, in the court cuz that’s where political battles are won.”
The courts are absolutely where these battles need to be fought and won right now, but both backers of the re-open movement and law enforcement officers like Sheriff Griffis need to pick their battles, and their tactics, wisely.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Woman Shoots, Kills Domestic Abuser After Attack In Home

An Alabama woman was forced to defend herself when her abusive ex showed up at her home and attacked her , according to authorities in Madison County .
Police say 31-year old Jonathan Marquis Burrell was well known to local law enforcement in the area , with a history of domestic violence and violations of protective orders .
In fact , he had pled guilty to violating a protective order earlier this year , but was sentenced to two years of probation .
Clearly that brush with the law didn ’ t change Burrell , because shortly before midnight on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former fiancee ’ s home .
Police were called out to the home after the woman called 911 and told police that she had been assaulted by Burrell .
Given the fact that charges aren ’ t being filed against the victim here , I ’ d be shocked if the local prosecutor even presented the case to a grand jury , and I ’ d say the chances of an indictment being filed are slim to none .
The real question here isn ’ t whether or not this woman acted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusive ex was sentenced to probation for violating the protective order against him ?
According to authorities , the victim in this case had taken out the protective order back in 2018 , alleging that Burrell had threatened , injured , and stalked her , and according to authorities this wasn ’ t the first time he ’ d ignored the order to stay away from his ex .
In fact , I found an undated release from Shelby County , Alabama calling Burrell one of the county ’ s “ most wanted.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to simply walk away on probation given his criminal history ?
Thankfully , despite the apparent unwillingness of the criminal justice system to take Burrell ’ s threats seriously , his intended victim did .
She was prepared to protect herself in case Burrell came back to her home , and his decision to once again ignore a protective order proved to be a fatal mistake .
An order of protection is a piece of paper , not a suit of armor , and it won ’ t do much to actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the order says .
That ’ s one reason why some lawmakers around the country have proposed legislation to allow individuals who ’ ve had to take out an order of protection to carry while they ’ re in the process of obtaining a concealed carry license , which can take more than a month to approve in some jurisdictions .
The idea was voted down during Virginia ’ s last legislative session , but I hope that cases like this will help legislators take a second look at the measure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some real protection for those who need it .

An Alabama woman was forced to defend herself when her abusive ex showed up at her home and attacked her, according to authorities in Madison County. Police say 31-year old Jonathan Marquis Burrell was well known to local law enforcement in the area, with a history of domestic violence and violations of protective orders. In fact, he had pled guilty to violating a protective order earlier this year, but was sentenced to two years of probation.
Clearly that brush with the law didn’t change Burrell, because shortly before midnight on Sunday night he showed up at his former fiancee’s home. Police were called out to the home after the woman called 911 and told police that she had been assaulted by Burrell.
Criminal charges aren’t being filed against the woman, who was questioned at the sheriff’s investigative headquarters, Patterson said. However, once the investigation is finished, the file will be handed over to the Madison County District Attorney’s Office, which could choose to present the case to a grand jury for possible indictment.
Given the fact that charges aren’t being filed against the victim here, I’d be shocked if the local prosecutor even presented the case to a grand jury, and I’d say the chances of an indictment being filed are slim to none.
The real question here isn’t whether or not this woman acted in self-defense, but why on earth her abusive ex was sentenced to probation for violating the protective order against him? According to authorities, the victim in this case had taken out the protective order back in 2018, alleging that Burrell had threatened, injured, and stalked her, and according to authorities this wasn’t the first time he’d ignored the order to stay away from his ex.
In fact, I found an undated release from Shelby County, Alabama calling Burrell one of the county’s “most wanted.” Why was such a dangerous offender allowed to simply walk away on probation given his criminal history?
Thankfully, despite the apparent unwillingness of the criminal justice system to take Burrell’s threats seriously, his intended victim did. She was prepared to protect herself in case Burrell came back to her home, and his decision to once again ignore a protective order proved to be a fatal mistake.
An order of protection is a piece of paper, not a suit of armor, and it won’t do much to actually protect you if someone chooses to ignore what the order says. That’s one reason why some lawmakers around the country have proposed legislation to allow individuals who’ve had to take out an order of protection to carry while they’re in the process of obtaining a concealed carry license, which can take more than a month to approve in some jurisdictions. The idea was voted down during Virginia’s last legislative session, but I hope that cases like this will help legislators take a second look at the measure, which could undoubtably save lives and allow some real protection for those who need it.


bearingarms--2020-05-06--Do We "Shrug Off" Gun Deaths As NYT Writer Suggests?

One of the real problems in writing about politics , even gun politics , right now is that COVID-19 has kind of sucked the air out of the room .
In order to get many stories written and shared in most places , there needs to be a COVID-19 angle .
Otherwise , people tend to not read them .
We even see it here at Bearing Arms , to some extent .
But sometimes , the link between COVID-19 and their topic is tenuous at best and is little more than an excuse to get their story read .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t tenuous , it ’ s just pulled out of their fifth point of contact .
That ’ s exactly the case when someone tries to claim we shrug off COVID-19 deaths like we do gun fatalities .
The problem is , no one is necessarily shrugging off anything .
Each one of those deaths represents someone with a family who now mourns , who now suffers as they deal with the loss of someone they care about to a disease they didn ’ t even know existed a year ago .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment their loved one went into the hospital , they never got to see their family member again , they never got to say goodbye .
On the same token , no one shrugs off gun fatalities , either , and for many of the same reasons .
Yet no , we don ’ t internalize each and every one .
Like the commie said , one death is a tragedy , a million deaths is a statistic .
It ’ s impossible to internalize each one because , well , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , we can ’ t .
There are just too many .
That ’ s probably a good thing , though , because emotionally-driven legislation tends to be bad legislation .
Of course , part of the problem is that far too many in the media think that failing to enact certain policies or to oppose certain policies means you simply don ’ t care about those who have died at all , which isn ’ t true .
It ’ s a variation on the politician ’ s fallacy or politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things as such : The problem is , this something–whether it ’ s prolonged lockdowns or gun control–may or may not be the correct something .
That ’ s the discussion many of us want to have on guns , whether gun control is the right way to proceed .
Folks on this side say no and that we should try alternatives to combat gun violence .
The other side , however , has their minds made up and assumes that if you oppose their “ something ” then you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re “ shrugging off ” the deaths .
Well , we ’ re not .
We ’ re just not ready to forfeit our rights simply so folks in the media can feel good about themselves for having done “ something .
”

One of the real problems in writing about politics, even gun politics, right now is that COVID-19 has kind of sucked the air out of the room. In order to get many stories written and shared in most places, there needs to be a COVID-19 angle. Otherwise, people tend to not read them. We even see it here at Bearing Arms, to some extent.
But sometimes, the link between COVID-19 and their topic is tenuous at best and is little more than an excuse to get their story read.
Other times, the link isn’t tenuous, it’s just pulled out of their fifth point of contact. That’s exactly the case when someone tries to claim we shrug off COVID-19 deaths like we do gun fatalities.
The coronavirus scenario I can’t stop thinking about is the one where we simply get used to all the dying. I first saw it on Twitter. “Someone poke holes in this scenario,” a tweet from Eric Nelson, the editorial director of Broadside Books, read. “We keep losing 1,000 to 2,000 a day to coronavirus. People get used to it. We get less vigilant as it very slowly spreads. By December we’re close to normal, but still losing 1,500 a day, and as we tick past 300,000 dead, most people aren’t concerned.” This hit me like a ton of bricks because of just how plausible it seemed. The day I read Mr. Nelson’s tweet, 1,723 Americans were reported to have died from the virus. And yet their collective passing was hardly mourned. After all, how to distinguish those souls from the 2,097 who perished the day before or the 1,558 who died the day after? Such loss of life is hard to comprehend when it’s not happening in front of your own two eyes. Add to it that humans are adaptable creatures, no matter how nightmarish the scenario, and it seems understandable that our outrage would dull over time. Unsure how — or perhaps unable — to process tragedy at scale, we get used to it. There’s also a national precedent for Mr. Nelson’s hypothetical: America’s response to gun violence and school shootings. As a country, we seem resigned to preventable firearm deaths. Each year, 36,000 Americans are killed by guns — roughly 100 per day, most from suicide, according to data from the Giffords Law Center. Similarly, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund calculates that there have been 583 “incidents of gunfire” on school grounds since 2013. In the first eight months of 2019, there were at least 38 mass shootings, The Times reported. Last August, 53 Americans died in mass shootings — at work, at bars, while shopping with their children.
The problem is, no one is necessarily shrugging off anything.
Each one of those deaths represents someone with a family who now mourns, who now suffers as they deal with the loss of someone they care about to a disease they didn’t even know existed a year ago. They’re faced with the fact that the moment their loved one went into the hospital, they never got to see their family member again, they never got to say goodbye.
On the same token, no one shrugs off gun fatalities, either, and for many of the same reasons.
Yet no, we don’t internalize each and every one. Like the commie said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. It’s impossible to internalize each one because, well, we don’t know them. More importantly, we can’t. There are just too many. That’s probably a good thing, though, because emotionally-driven legislation tends to be bad legislation.
Of course, part of the problem is that far too many in the media think that failing to enact certain policies or to oppose certain policies means you simply don’t care about those who have died at all, which isn’t true.
It’s a variation on the politician’s fallacy or politician’s syllogism. They look at things as such:
We must do something This is something As such, we must do this.
The problem is, this something–whether it’s prolonged lockdowns or gun control–may or may not be the correct something. That’s the discussion many of us want to have on guns, whether gun control is the right way to proceed. Folks on this side say no and that we should try alternatives to combat gun violence. The other side, however, has their minds made up and assumes that if you oppose their “something” then you don’t care about human life, that you’re “shrugging off” the deaths.
Well, we’re not. We’re just not ready to forfeit our rights simply so folks in the media can feel good about themselves for having done “something.”


bearingarms--2020-05-07--SHOCKING: Feds Say Felon Ran Guns Used In Jersey City Crimes

New Jersey is one of the most gun-controlled states in the nation .
It ’ s not the kind of place you want to live if you ’ re a gun person , that ’ s for sure .
Not only does the state heavily restrict guns , but it also makes it virtually impossible to get a carry permit and restricts the most common forms of self-defense ammunition on the market .
Despite all this , New Jersey has more than its fair share of crime in places like Jersey City .
It seems that despite all the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a living by bringing guns into the state for black market sales .
ATF agents busted a convicted felon who they said trafficked guns to Jersey City that were used in crimes , including at least one shooting .
A federal judge in Georgia ordered Jonathan Brown , 26 , held Wednesday pending a detention hearing this Friday after special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives arrested him on gun trafficking charges , U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Craig Carpenito said .
As an ex-con with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covington , GA , couldn ’ t buy the firearms himself , so he used straw purchasers in and around Georgia , then trafficked the weapons to Jersey City to be resold , Carpenito said .
Several people arrested in Jersey City within months of Brown ’ s visits were caught with guns bought by the straw purchasers , the U.S. attorney said .
All told , authorities have so far recovered seven guns trafficked by Brown to Jersey City , he said .
I ’ m shocked and appalled by this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , criminals are known to be such law-abiding people , you know ?
If you can ’ t trust an ex-con to follow the law , then just who the hell can you trust , am I right ?
OK , seriously now , let ’ s face facts here .
The only reason Brown was able to do this was because of New Jersey ’ s ultra-strict gun control laws .
The state made it profitable for him to run guns into the state .
It ’ s why gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best .
So long as there is a demand for guns , someone will supply them .
Now , most of these guns were going to criminals , so it ’ s not like these are people who would have been able to buy guns in a gun store in any other state , most likely , but that ’ s also beside the point .
Brown ran guns because it was profitable to do so .
Frankly , guns are always going to be profitable .
There will always be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there will be , you ’ re not paying attention .
Criminals want guns and they ’ ll pay to get them .
However , Brown himself proves the futility of gun control laws .
This is a gun runner who was , himself , prohibited from buying guns .
So , he got a proxy to do it for him , thus allowing firearms to flow between Georgia and New Jersey .
The laws didn ’ t stop him in the least .
As I already mentioned , they may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t hear anyone on the other side acknowledge that little fact , will you ?
No , they ’ ll blame Georgia for not having tougher gun laws despite the fact that Brown couldn ’ t buy one anyway .

New Jersey is one of the most gun-controlled states in the nation. It’s not the kind of place you want to live if you’re a gun person, that’s for sure. Not only does the state heavily restrict guns, but it also makes it virtually impossible to get a carry permit and restricts the most common forms of self-defense ammunition on the market.
Despite all this, New Jersey has more than its fair share of crime in places like Jersey City.
It seems that despite all the state’s gun laws, criminals have made a living by bringing guns into the state for black market sales.
ATF agents busted a convicted felon who they said trafficked guns to Jersey City that were used in crimes, including at least one shooting. A federal judge in Georgia ordered Jonathan Brown, 26, held Wednesday pending a detention hearing this Friday after special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested him on gun trafficking charges, U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Craig Carpenito said. As an ex-con with several previous convictions, Brown, of Covington, GA, couldn’t buy the firearms himself, so he used straw purchasers in and around Georgia, then trafficked the weapons to Jersey City to be resold, Carpenito said. Several people arrested in Jersey City within months of Brown’s visits were caught with guns bought by the straw purchasers, the U.S. attorney said. … All told, authorities have so far recovered seven guns trafficked by Brown to Jersey City, he said.
I’m shocked and appalled by this. Totally stunned, to be sure.
I mean, criminals are known to be such law-abiding people, you know? If you can’t trust an ex-con to follow the law, then just who the hell can you trust, am I right?
OK, seriously now, let’s face facts here. The only reason Brown was able to do this was because of New Jersey’s ultra-strict gun control laws. The state made it profitable for him to run guns into the state. It’s why gun control will always be a vain hope at best. So long as there is a demand for guns, someone will supply them.
Now, most of these guns were going to criminals, so it’s not like these are people who would have been able to buy guns in a gun store in any other state, most likely, but that’s also beside the point. Brown ran guns because it was profitable to do so.
Frankly, guns are always going to be profitable. There will always be a demand and if you don’t think there will be, you’re not paying attention. Criminals want guns and they’ll pay to get them.
However, Brown himself proves the futility of gun control laws. This is a gun runner who was, himself, prohibited from buying guns. So, he got a proxy to do it for him, thus allowing firearms to flow between Georgia and New Jersey. The laws didn’t stop him in the least. As I already mentioned, they may well have encouraged him.
Yet you won’t hear anyone on the other side acknowledge that little fact, will you?
No, they’ll blame Georgia for not having tougher gun laws despite the fact that Brown couldn’t buy one anyway.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Reservist Faces Manslaughter Charges Over Stupidity In 'Debate'

This is one of the longest-running debates I can think of in the gun community , other than the obligatory caliber wars .
How close does a knife-wielding attacker need to be in order to be too close for you to draw your weapon and fire ?
The general rule of thumb is something like 21 feet , but that depends on too many variables to be a hard and fast rule , really .
Still , it ’ s treated like one .
And , because it is , but also because of those variables I mentioned , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ rule.
” Well , it seems one such debate turned deadly , not because of heated words , but apparently due to stupidity .
It was all fun and games at a Temple Terrace home until Neil Gallagher accidentally shot and killed his roommate .
The 24-year-old made his first appearance in a Tampa courtroom on Wednesday .
He is now facing manslaughter charges in the death of his roommate , Eric Hansen .
Prosecutor Anthony Falcone says , in February , Gallagher and his roommate were simulating a combat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight .
During the role-playing , Hansen pulled out the knife and Gallagher , they say , pulled the trigger .
“ Defendant pulled the firearm from his pocket he pointed it at the victim to prove to the victim that he could draw his gun before being reached by the knife and then did fire the gun , shooting the victim in the face , killing him , ” explained Falcone .
Gallagher ’ s attorneys claim that at no point did he pull the trigger .
He also claims that Gallegher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed it to be unloaded .
The attorney , Anthony Rickman , argues that the weapon had a malfunction that left the round in the chamber .
Of course , I ’ m going to call that a load of male bovine excrement .
First , if the weapon wouldn ’ t eject the round in the chamber , that ’ s something you ’ d notice .
Further , you should always check the chamber directly , not trusting on simply racking the slide to do the trick .
Gallagher failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such , is responsible for what happened .
Further , even if a gun is unloaded , it ’ s never unloaded .
What I mean by that is that you should always treat a firearm as loaded , even if you know for a fact that it ’ s unloaded .
You don ’ t just accept that a weapon is unloaded .
If you want to test this stuff , get an airsoft gun .
People shoot at other people all the time .
Throw some safety goggles on the guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give you enough information to determine who is right and who isn ’ t without accidentally shooting your roommate in the face .
And that ’ s assuming everything was as Gallagher claims .
That ’ s with me giving him the benefit of the doubt here and accepting everything he said is the actual , gospel truth .
He could also have been lying and shot his roommate in cold blood .
I honestly don ’ t know .
But the best-case scenario here appears to be that Gallagher is an idiot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another human being .
This is not what being a responsible gun owner looks like .

This is one of the longest-running debates I can think of in the gun community, other than the obligatory caliber wars. How close does a knife-wielding attacker need to be in order to be too close for you to draw your weapon and fire? The general rule of thumb is something like 21 feet, but that depends on too many variables to be a hard and fast rule, really.
Still, it’s treated like one.
And, because it is, but also because of those variables I mentioned, there’s a lot of debate about this “rule.”
Well, it seems one such debate turned deadly, not because of heated words, but apparently due to stupidity.
It was all fun and games at a Temple Terrace home until Neil Gallagher accidentally shot and killed his roommate. The 24-year-old made his first appearance in a Tampa courtroom on Wednesday. He is now facing manslaughter charges in the death of his roommate, Eric Hansen. Prosecutor Anthony Falcone says, in February, Gallagher and his roommate were simulating a combat to see who would win in a knife-versus-gun fight. During the role-playing, Hansen pulled out the knife and Gallagher, they say, pulled the trigger. “Defendant pulled the firearm from his pocket he pointed it at the victim to prove to the victim that he could draw his gun before being reached by the knife and then did fire the gun, shooting the victim in the face, killing him,” explained Falcone.
Gallagher’s attorneys claim that at no point did he pull the trigger. He also claims that Gallegher removed the magazine from his weapon and believed it to be unloaded. The attorney, Anthony Rickman, argues that the weapon had a malfunction that left the round in the chamber.
Of course, I’m going to call that a load of male bovine excrement.
First, if the weapon wouldn’t eject the round in the chamber, that’s something you’d notice. Further, you should always check the chamber directly, not trusting on simply racking the slide to do the trick. Gallagher failed to do that, clearly, and as such, is responsible for what happened.
Further, even if a gun is unloaded, it’s never unloaded.
What I mean by that is that you should always treat a firearm as loaded, even if you know for a fact that it’s unloaded. You don’t just accept that a weapon is unloaded.
If you want to test this stuff, get an airsoft gun. People shoot at other people all the time. Throw some safety goggles on the guy and test away. It’ll give you enough information to determine who is right and who isn’t without accidentally shooting your roommate in the face.
And that’s assuming everything was as Gallagher claims. That’s with me giving him the benefit of the doubt here and accepting everything he said is the actual, gospel truth.
He could also have been lying and shot his roommate in cold blood. I honestly don’t know.
But the best-case scenario here appears to be that Gallagher is an idiot whose stupidity led to the death of another human being. This is not what being a responsible gun owner looks like.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Crackdowns on Protests Will Only Backfire On Officials

Officials in the Columbus , Ohio suburb of Bexley held an emergency meeting Wednesday night to try to come up with ways to stop protests from taking place outside the home of the state ’ s Department of Health director .
So far there ’ ve been two relatively small protests on the sidewalk at the residence of Dr. Amy Acton over her public health orders restricting business and imposing social distancing measures as efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the state , and city council members debated an ordinance that would have limited or blocked protests from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the first impulse of city council members was to attack the First Amendment and Second Amendment rights of Ohioans .
The good news is that the politicians received pushback from the city ’ s police chief , a constitutional law professor , and even one of Acton ’ s neighbors .
Tim Madison , who lives on Acton ’ s street , described himself as a “ proud supporter ” of Acton .
“ Personally , I believe that protesting in front of anyone ’ s home is abhorrent , unacceptable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But as an attorney and a proud American that believes in the First Amendment , I recognize and respect the right to protest , provided protest is consistent with all applicable laws.
” He applauded Mayor Ben Kessler ’ s presence during the protests and his decision to place signs on the street that read , “ Please exercise your First Amendment rights without disturbing the peace.
” Bexley , Ohio may not have an ordinance prohibiting protesting in residential areas , but it does have a noise ordinance , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
So , loudspeakers are out , but signs are okay .
Bexley Police Chief Larry Rinehart told council members that if they did try to target protestors with an ordinance , it would only backfire .
“ We know , if we try to heavy hand them into leaving , ” Chief Rinehart said .
“ That just increases your crowd .
It becomes their Alamo .
It becomes their battle cry.
” The chief ’ s right .
As I explain on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video window above ) , disobedience is in our cultural DNA .
Tell an American they ’ re not allowed to do something , and that only makes us more inclined to do it anyway .
The Bexley city council members were also reminded of this fact by Capitol University law professor Dan Kobil .
“ It ’ s a high bar , ” Kobil said .
“ They have to have an intent to harm .
They also have a second amendment right and an Ohio right to carry a weapon.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinance such as requiring the protesters to keep moving or making them social distance .
However , Kobil explained how difficult it is to put legislation in place regarding constitutional rights .
Chief Rinehart also said a new city law may escalate things more .
“ They would see this for what it is , ” he said .
“ They would know this is a new law restricting what they consider to be their constitutional rights.
” Instead of calling out the SWAT team and rolling up on protestors in the Bexley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says his officers are engaging with the protestors .
Rinehart said if police push back and violate the rights of protesters , more people will turn out .
“ We try to have the officers we need in the area monitoring , but we don ’ t go toe to toe with protesters unless we have to , ” he said .
“ And we ’ ve had to have some contact , but it ’ s not heavy handed .
We don ’ t roll in and make mass arrests and start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to work with them to not violate their rights , but to also maintain peace in the community .
The hard part about this is just their presence is so offensive to a community like ours.
” As I ’ ve written about here before , I ’ m not sure how effective re-open protests are in general , but I ’ m positive that these protestors aren ’ t attracting many people to their cause by protesting outside of Acton ’ s home .
This isn ’ t the governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Columbus suburb , and if anything , it ’ s likely to generate sympathy for Acton ’ s neighbors if not the doctor herself .
The protests have been small so far , with 10-15 people protesting , and Rinehart is right when he says government pushback would only increase the turnout , as the protests would become more of a response to the city ’ s ordinance than a protest against the Department of Health director .
I ’ m also positive that however ineffective their protest might be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain that way .
People have a right to protest in this country , even if you think their cause is idiotic .
It doesn ’ t matter why they ’ re protesting , or who they ’ re protesting , and while the Supreme Court has upheld some restrictions on the time and place of protests , I have a hard time believing that the ordinance considered by the city council would get the green light from SCOTUS .
However reluctantly , the city council in Bexley did the right thing by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protestors .
It would be a wise public relations move for the protestors to acknowledge that people who aren ’ t their target are also being impacted by their protest of Acton , and maybe hold a silent protest next time around .
It would also be a good move for law enforcement agencies across the country to take the advice of Chief Rinehart and work to de-escalate conflict when protests over the current shutdown orders break out , instead of potentially adding fuel to the fire with a heavy-handed response .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hairstylist Shelley Luther to jail after she re-opened for business in violation of Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s stay-at-home order will never be anyone ’ s folk hero .
His jailing of Luther won ’ t spark a movement of judges across the country to jail more business owners .
We are a free people , and if politicians want the respect , trust , and yes , cooperation of their constituents during a time of an emergency , then they must treat those constituents like the adults that they are ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t disappear simply because an emergency has been declared .

Officials in the Columbus, Ohio suburb of Bexley held an emergency meeting Wednesday night to try to come up with ways to stop protests from taking place outside the home of the state’s Department of Health director. So far there’ve been two relatively small protests on the sidewalk at the residence of Dr. Amy Acton over her public health orders restricting business and imposing social distancing measures as efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the state, and city council members debated an ordinance that would have limited or blocked protests from taking place.
The bad news is that the first impulse of city council members was to attack the First Amendment and Second Amendment rights of Ohioans. The good news is that the politicians received pushback from the city’s police chief, a constitutional law professor, and even one of Acton’s neighbors.
Tim Madison, who lives on Acton’s street, described himself as a “proud supporter” of Acton. “Personally, I believe that protesting in front of anyone’s home is abhorrent, unacceptable in any manner whatsoever,” he said. “But as an attorney and a proud American that believes in the First Amendment, I recognize and respect the right to protest, provided protest is consistent with all applicable laws.” He applauded Mayor Ben Kessler’s presence during the protests and his decision to place signs on the street that read, “Please exercise your First Amendment rights without disturbing the peace.”
Bexley, Ohio may not have an ordinance prohibiting protesting in residential areas, but it does have a noise ordinance, and even protestors have to abide by that law. So, loudspeakers are out, but signs are okay. Bexley Police Chief Larry Rinehart told council members that if they did try to target protestors with an ordinance, it would only backfire.
“We know, if we try to heavy hand them into leaving,” Chief Rinehart said. “That just increases your crowd. It becomes their Alamo. It becomes their battle cry.”
The chief’s right. As I explain on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co (which you can watch in the video window above), disobedience is in our cultural DNA. Tell an American they’re not allowed to do something, and that only makes us more inclined to do it anyway. The Bexley city council members were also reminded of this fact by Capitol University law professor Dan Kobil.
“It’s a high bar,” Kobil said. “They have to have an intent to harm. They also have a second amendment right and an Ohio right to carry a weapon.” Council members discussed possibilities for an ordinance such as requiring the protesters to keep moving or making them social distance. However, Kobil explained how difficult it is to put legislation in place regarding constitutional rights. Chief Rinehart also said a new city law may escalate things more. “They would see this for what it is,” he said. “They would know this is a new law restricting what they consider to be their constitutional rights.”
Instead of calling out the SWAT team and rolling up on protestors in the Bexley Police Department’s APC, Rinehart says his officers are engaging with the protestors.
Rinehart said if police push back and violate the rights of protesters, more people will turn out. “We try to have the officers we need in the area monitoring, but we don’t go toe to toe with protesters unless we have to,” he said. “And we’ve had to have some contact, but it’s not heavy handed. We don’t roll in and make mass arrests and start writing a lot of citations. We try to work with them to not violate their rights, but to also maintain peace in the community. The hard part about this is just their presence is so offensive to a community like ours.”
As I’ve written about here before, I’m not sure how effective re-open protests are in general, but I’m positive that these protestors aren’t attracting many people to their cause by protesting outside of Acton’s home. This isn’t the governor’s mansion, but a private residence in a Columbus suburb, and if anything, it’s likely to generate sympathy for Acton’s neighbors if not the doctor herself. The protests have been small so far, with 10-15 people protesting, and Rinehart is right when he says government pushback would only increase the turnout, as the protests would become more of a response to the city’s ordinance than a protest against the Department of Health director.
I’m also positive that however ineffective their protest might be, it’s perfectly legal and should remain that way. People have a right to protest in this country, even if you think their cause is idiotic. It doesn’t matter why they’re protesting, or who they’re protesting, and while the Supreme Court has upheld some restrictions on the time and place of protests, I have a hard time believing that the ordinance considered by the city council would get the green light from SCOTUS.
However reluctantly, the city council in Bexley did the right thing by not taking any action to target the protestors. It would be a wise public relations move for the protestors to acknowledge that people who aren’t their target are also being impacted by their protest of Acton, and maybe hold a silent protest next time around. It would also be a good move for law enforcement agencies across the country to take the advice of Chief Rinehart and work to de-escalate conflict when protests over the current shutdown orders break out, instead of potentially adding fuel to the fire with a heavy-handed response. The judge in Dallas, Texas who ordered hairstylist Shelley Luther to jail after she re-opened for business in violation of Gov. Greg Abbott’s stay-at-home order will never be anyone’s folk hero. His jailing of Luther won’t spark a movement of judges across the country to jail more business owners. We are a free people, and if politicians want the respect, trust, and yes, cooperation of their constituents during a time of an emergency, then they must treat those constituents like the adults that they are; individuals whose natural and constitutional rights don’t disappear simply because an emergency has been declared.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Breaking: Federal Judge Says MA Gun Stores Can Re-Open

A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of Gov .
Charlie Baker ’ s order declaring gun stores non-essential businesses that must remain closed while his stay-at-home order is in effect .
U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued the ruling on Thursday , stating that there was “ no justification ” for keeping gun shops across the state shuttered and locked , and ordering that stores be allowed to re-open on Saturday , May 9 .
The Second Amendment Foundation , Firearms Policy Coalition , and Commonwealth 2nd Amendment , Inc. brought the challenge along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and the SAF ’ s Alan Gottlieb says he is delighted by the judge ’ s decision .
“ Constitutional rights are never put on hold because of an emergency , including the outbreak of a virus .
Too many elected officials think otherwise , and we ’ re having to deal with them one lawsuit a time , same as we ’ re taking on Governor Baker.
” “ When Governor Baker lumped gun shops in with thousands of other businesses deemed ‘ non-essential , ’ he obviously didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to be essential , ” Gottlieb observed .
“ We can think of nothing that is more essential than exercising a right protected by the Constitution , especially during a declared state of emergency .
In his ruling , Woodlock said that while the governor has certain powers in a state of emergency , individuals still have their rights as well .
From Law360.com : “ We don ’ t surrender our constitutional rights .
These plaintiffs have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication , and it becomes necessary for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive when the executive declines , ” the judge said .
He added : “ I don ’ t have anything like a substantial fit between the goals of the emergency declared by the commonwealth and the burdening of the constitutional rights.
” Under the restrictions outlined in the state ’ s plan , gun store employees and customers must wear masks , hand-washing and alcohol wipes must be available , and sales must be made only by appointment .
Social distancing requirements must also be followed .
Judge Woodlock indicated his order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record of evidence in the case was insufficient to rule on those business ’ s claims .
The state can appeal Woodlock ’ s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals , but for now , at least Baker ’ s ban on the opening of gun stores is on hold while the case continues to be litigated in U.S. District Court .
For Second Amendment legal geeks like me , it ’ s worth noting that Woodlock didn ’ t rely on strict scrutiny , or the highest level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , the judge determined that even under intermediate scrutiny , the state hadn ’ t proved that the goals of the public health emergency justified the closing of gun stores and keeping Massachusetts residents from exercising their right to obtain a firearm .
It ’ s also worth noting that while Woodlock , who was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1986 , didn ’ t include gun ranges in his injunction , they could very well be included in his final decision if more evidence is presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringe on the rights of gun owners in the state .
In Virginia , a state judge recently ruled in favor of a Lynchburg range ordered to close by Gov .
Ralph Northam , declaring that the right to keep and bear also includes a right to train and be proficient with arms .
Today ’ s court victory is a tremendous win for gun owners and firearms retailers in Massachusetts , and congratulations and thanks are in order for the Second Amendment organizations and advocates who brought the case .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge ’ s decision , this may not be the last word on Baker ’ s emergency order , but it ’ s a huge step toward restoring the right to keep and bear arms in the state .

A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of Gov. Charlie Baker’s order declaring gun stores non-essential businesses that must remain closed while his stay-at-home order is in effect. U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued the ruling on Thursday, stating that there was “no justification” for keeping gun shops across the state shuttered and locked, and ordering that stores be allowed to re-open on Saturday, May 9.
The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Commonwealth 2nd Amendment, Inc. brought the challenge along with several gun store owners in the state, and the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb says he is delighted by the judge’s decision.
“Constitutional rights are never put on hold because of an emergency, including the outbreak of a virus. Too many elected officials think otherwise, and we’re having to deal with them one lawsuit a time, same as we’re taking on Governor Baker.” “When Governor Baker lumped gun shops in with thousands of other businesses deemed ‘non-essential,’ he obviously didn’t consider the exercise of a fundamental right to be essential,” Gottlieb observed. “We can think of nothing that is more essential than exercising a right protected by the Constitution, especially during a declared state of emergency.
In his ruling, Woodlock said that while the governor has certain powers in a state of emergency, individuals still have their rights as well. From Law360.com:
“We don’t surrender our constitutional rights. These plaintiffs have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication, and it becomes necessary for a court to do that rather than the executive when the executive declines,” the judge said. He added: “I don’t have anything like a substantial fit between the goals of the emergency declared by the commonwealth and the burdening of the constitutional rights.” Under the restrictions outlined in the state’s plan, gun store employees and customers must wear masks, hand-washing and alcohol wipes must be available, and sales must be made only by appointment. Social distancing requirements must also be followed. Judge Woodlock indicated his order would not apply to shooting ranges because the record of evidence in the case was insufficient to rule on those business’s claims.
The state can appeal Woodlock’s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but for now, at least Baker’s ban on the opening of gun stores is on hold while the case continues to be litigated in U.S. District Court.
For Second Amendment legal geeks like me, it’s worth noting that Woodlock didn’t rely on strict scrutiny, or the highest level of judicial review, in reaching his decision. Instead, the judge determined that even under intermediate scrutiny, the state hadn’t proved that the goals of the public health emergency justified the closing of gun stores and keeping Massachusetts residents from exercising their right to obtain a firearm.
It’s also worth noting that while Woodlock, who was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1986, didn’t include gun ranges in his injunction, they could very well be included in his final decision if more evidence is presented that the range closures also abridge and infringe on the rights of gun owners in the state. In Virginia, a state judge recently ruled in favor of a Lynchburg range ordered to close by Gov. Ralph Northam, declaring that the right to keep and bear also includes a right to train and be proficient with arms.
Today’s court victory is a tremendous win for gun owners and firearms retailers in Massachusetts, and congratulations and thanks are in order for the Second Amendment organizations and advocates who brought the case. With the state having the opportunity to appeal the judge’s decision, this may not be the last word on Baker’s emergency order, but it’s a huge step toward restoring the right to keep and bear arms in the state.