bearingarms--2020-12-01--Oklahoma Man A Cautionary Tale For Holiday Season

The holiday season is one of the busiest travel times in the country .
While COVID-19 concerns will likely limit at least some of that travel , a lot of people will still be hopping onto planes to venture…well , wherever people go during the holiday seasons when they ’ re not at home .
For people who carry guns , it ’ s a good reminder of what not to do when you travel .
The Oklahoma man probably didn ’ t need that kind of a headache .
Unfortunately , here we are .
Look , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s fine .
Either drive or follow the TSA ’ s guidelines for flying with a firearm .
Well , I don ’ t particularly like them either .
However , you know what I like even less ?
Losing my gun and wearing handcuffs .
See , trying to board a flight with a handgun in your carry-on bag is a crime .
While criminal charges aren ’ t always filed in such a case , they can be .
And this isn ’ t the equivalent of an open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony .
That ’ s right , failure to follow the rules could land you in deep enough hot water that you ’ ll lose your gun rights .
Now , I don ’ t know about you , but I ’ d rather follow the guidelines than face losing my right to keep and bear arms .
While there are some who believe the time for non-violent felons being unable to own guns is coming to an end , this will likely not be covered by any changes .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a violent felony , so don ’ t get cocky about this .
If you ’ re taking to the skies this year , you have a few options .
Either leave the gun at home , borrow a firearm from a friend or relative when you get there , or transport it according to the TSA ’ s guidelines .
Or , conversely , you can drive .
This is generally my preferred method of transportation whenever practical because I don ’ t like congested airports and I ’ m kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sky in a fiery ball of death .
While most airplanes don ’ t do that , I don ’ t like pressing my luck .
But mostly it ’ s because I can transport my gun much more easily .
Anyway , please keep your heads this holiday season and don ’ t leave guns in bags that aren ’ t being checked .
Each one of these stories makes it that much more difficult when we talk about how the majority of gun owners are law-abiding , responsible citizens .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners , these are the stories that get the ink .
So do yourself and everyone else a favor and don ’ t be one of them this holiday season .

The holiday season is one of the busiest travel times in the country. While COVID-19 concerns will likely limit at least some of that travel, a lot of people will still be hopping onto planes to venture…well, wherever people go during the holiday seasons when they’re not at home.
For people who carry guns, it’s a good reminder of what not to do when you travel.
Television station KCCI reports the incident happened Nov. 24 at the Des Moines International Airport. Transportation Security Administration agents say a .380 caliber handgun loaded with six bullets, plus an additional 13 bullets, were found in the man’s carry-on bag at a security checkpoint. Des Moines police were called to the airport, and officers confiscated the gun and cited the man on suspicion of a weapons charge.
The Oklahoma man probably didn’t need that kind of a headache. Unfortunately, here we are.
Look, if you want to travel with your firearm, that’s fine. Either drive or follow the TSA’s guidelines for flying with a firearm.
“But I don’t like the TSA’s guidelines.”
Well, I don’t particularly like them either. However, you know what I like even less? Losing my gun and wearing handcuffs.
See, trying to board a flight with a handgun in your carry-on bag is a crime. While criminal charges aren’t always filed in such a case, they can be. And this isn’t the equivalent of an open container charge here. This is a felony.
That’s right, failure to follow the rules could land you in deep enough hot water that you’ll lose your gun rights.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather follow the guidelines than face losing my right to keep and bear arms. While there are some who believe the time for non-violent felons being unable to own guns is coming to an end, this will likely not be covered by any changes. This is a weapons charge, something very akin to a violent felony, so don’t get cocky about this.
If you’re taking to the skies this year, you have a few options. Either leave the gun at home, borrow a firearm from a friend or relative when you get there, or transport it according to the TSA’s guidelines.
Or, conversely, you can drive. This is generally my preferred method of transportation whenever practical because I don’t like congested airports and I’m kind of partial to not falling out of the sky in a fiery ball of death. While most airplanes don’t do that, I don’t like pressing my luck.
But mostly it’s because I can transport my gun much more easily.
Mostly.
Anyway, please keep your heads this holiday season and don’t leave guns in bags that aren’t being checked. Each one of these stories makes it that much more difficult when we talk about how the majority of gun owners are law-abiding, responsible citizens. While these represent an extremely small minority of gun owners, these are the stories that get the ink.
So do yourself and everyone else a favor and don’t be one of them this holiday season.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--Canadian Gun Grabbers Push Shows What's In Store For Us

Canada isn ’ t the United States .
While there are some strong similarities between the two nations , there are also some very profound cultural differences .
After all , if an American president somehow banned an entire category of firearms with the stroke of a pen , gun rights advocates here would likely have started watering the Tree of Liberty .
Canadians , not so much .
However , despite what has to count as a huge win for Canadian gun control advocates , it ’ s not nearly enough .
Advocates of stricter gun control are urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised reforms , saying they are months overdue .
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has pledged new measures , including a buyback of recently outlawed firearms , tougher storage provisions and steps to control handguns .
Heidi Rathjen , coordinator of the group PolySeSouvient , told an online news conference Monday that several months later there are no signs of progress on legislation .
“ We urge minister Blair to return to the gun file with force and to aim to meet his commitments without delay.
” The plea came days before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 women at Montreal ’ s École Polytechnique , which Rathjen witnessed as a student .
The federal government outlawed a wide range of firearms by cabinet order in May , including the one used at Polytechnique , saying the guns were designed for the battlefield , not hunting or sport shooting .
Yet despite that , gun control advocates in the nation are still demanding that Trudeau do more .
Canada has a fraction of the violent crime we do .
Despite that , anti-gun forces there continue to push and prod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For them , it ’ s never enough .
It won ’ t be enough so long as a single law-abiding citizen can own a firearm lawfully .
And the American gun-grabbers are no different .
How many of them watched Trudeau ’ s actions and desperately wished Americans could do the same ?
How many wished that a President Biden wouldn ’ t have to contend with Congress , but could just declare so-called assault weapons banned ?
More importantly , though , how many would be content with such a ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question many anti-gunners aren ’ t able to answer .
They can ’ t tell you where their line is .
They keep saying they don ’ t want to ban firearm ownership , but they usually can ’ t articulate what point is just far enough for them .
The truth is that they ’ ll continue to push for more and more gun control , never satisfied , not until we have a near-total gun ban .
I say near-total because I suspect they ’ ll make sure they can have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you sure as hell can ’ t .
That ’ s just how it goes , after all .
For the anti-gunners , it ’ s never enough .
They won ’ t be happy with anything , and the Canadian crowd is illustrating this perfectly .
So dig in and don ’ t delude yourself to believe that there will be a stopping point .
There won ’ t be .
Not for these folks .
Our own gun control advocates will keep pushing forever .
Which is yet another reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single inch .

Canada isn’t the United States. While there are some strong similarities between the two nations, there are also some very profound cultural differences.
After all, if an American president somehow banned an entire category of firearms with the stroke of a pen, gun rights advocates here would likely have started watering the Tree of Liberty. Canadians, not so much.
However, despite what has to count as a huge win for Canadian gun control advocates, it’s not nearly enough.
Advocates of stricter gun control are urging the Trudeau government to get on with promised reforms, saying they are months overdue. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has pledged new measures, including a buyback of recently outlawed firearms, tougher storage provisions and steps to control handguns. Heidi Rathjen, coordinator of the group PolySeSouvient, told an online news conference Monday that several months later there are no signs of progress on legislation. “We urge minister Blair to return to the gun file with force and to aim to meet his commitments without delay.” The plea came days before the Dec. 6 anniversary of the shootings of 14 women at Montreal’s École Polytechnique, which Rathjen witnessed as a student. The federal government outlawed a wide range of firearms by cabinet order in May, including the one used at Polytechnique, saying the guns were designed for the battlefield, not hunting or sport shooting.
Yet despite that, gun control advocates in the nation are still demanding that Trudeau do more.
There’s a lesson in that.
Canada has a fraction of the violent crime we do. Despite that, anti-gun forces there continue to push and prod for more and more gun control. For them, it’s never enough. It won’t be enough so long as a single law-abiding citizen can own a firearm lawfully.
And the American gun-grabbers are no different.
How many of them watched Trudeau’s actions and desperately wished Americans could do the same? How many wished that a President Biden wouldn’t have to contend with Congress, but could just declare so-called assault weapons banned?
More importantly, though, how many would be content with such a ban?
See, that’s the question many anti-gunners aren’t able to answer. They can’t tell you where their line is. They keep saying they don’t want to ban firearm ownership, but they usually can’t articulate what point is just far enough for them.
The truth is that they’ll continue to push for more and more gun control, never satisfied, not until we have a near-total gun ban. I say near-total because I suspect they’ll make sure they can have a gun if they want it, but you sure as hell can’t. That’s just how it goes, after all.
For the anti-gunners, it’s never enough. They won’t be happy with anything, and the Canadian crowd is illustrating this perfectly.
So dig in and don’t delude yourself to believe that there will be a stopping point. There won’t be. Not for these folks. Our own gun control advocates will keep pushing forever.
Which is yet another reason why none of us should budge a single inch.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--A 2A Game Of "Telephone"

A 2A Game Of "Telephone"

There ’ s some confusion and misinformation going around about a legal challenge to the prohibition on felons owning firearms and the U.S. Supreme Court , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co I do my best to bring some clarity to what ’ s really going on with the case and the potential for SCOTUS to weigh in .
The confusion seems to have stemmed from a story in the New York Times on Monday headlined “ Justice Barrett ’ s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights , ” which highlights a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving a woman named Lisa Folajtar , a felon who pleaded guilty to tax evasion and lost her right to keep and bear arms in the process .
The case is reminiscent of a case that Justice Amy Coney Barrett was involved in back when she was on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals called Kanter vs. Barr , in which a man named Rickey Kanter sued to regain his Second Amendment rights after being convicted of mail fraud .
Barrett was on the three judge panel that heard the case , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restored , because historically , the Founders were more concerned about whether someone was dangerous than if someone had merely been convicted of a non-violent felony offense when it came to depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms .
Barrett ’ s views didn ’ t sway the two other judges in the case , however , and Rickey Kanter ’ s appeal was denied in a 2-1 decision .
Last week , the Third Circuit also rejected Lisa Folajtar ’ s request to have her rights restored , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be appealed to the Supreme Court .
At the moment , however , the Court hasn ’ t received the case , much less considered it in conference or granted cert .
Still , after legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote about the Folajtar case last week , calling it a case that seems tailor-made for Justice Barrett , many media outlets have seized on the case as if it ’ s a foregone conclusion that this will be the next Second Amendment case heard by the high Court .
After the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case is ripe for Supreme Court review other media outlets followed suit , but many of them downplayed the fact that the Court has yet to receive petition to hear the case .
A headline at The Daily Caller proclaimed that “ Justice Barrett ’ s Vote Already Looking To Be Decisive In First Big Gun Rights Case In Years , ” while Vanity Fair declared that Barrett “ may soon rule in a case that could expand gun rights , ” referring to Folajtar .
What virtually every one of these media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ) is the fact that the Supreme Court is already scheduled to consider another case involving a question of whether or not non-violent felons should lose their Second Amendment rights in its conference on December 11th , long before Folajtar will come before the justices .
That case , called Torres vs. United States , was brought by Israel Torres , an Arizona man convicted of two DUI offenses in Arizona in 2003 and 2010 .
Those felony convictions resulted in Torres losing his right to keep and bear arms , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law enforcement officers who seized several firearms belong to Torres , who in turn was charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of firearms .
Why have all of the media outlets that breathlessly reported on Folajtar ignored the Torres case ?
My guess is that they ’ re simply unaware of the existence of Torres , to say nothing of the fact that the Supreme Court has already assigned it to the December 11th conference .
It appears to me like these media outlets have been engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ Telephone ” where a whispered phrase is repeated from one person to another , changing along the way .
Turley ’ s original post about Folajtar didn ’ t mention the similar Torres case , so none of the reporting that ’ s been based on Turley ’ s analysis mentions it either .
The Folajtar case , meanwhile , has gone from being a case that has strong potential to be picked up by the Supreme Court to a virtual certainty for SCOTUS review , at least if you only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminder of the fact that most media outlets don ’ t have reporters that are dedicated to covering the Second Amendment as an issue , so they lack the institutional knowledge that could bring additional details and context to their reporting .
It ’ s true that Folajtar seems like a case that would pique the interest of Justice Amy Coney Barrett , but the fact remains that she and the other eight justices will be taking a look at Torres first .
If there are four justices who are willing to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment rights for non-violent felons , Torres would seem to have the inside track , though you wouldn ’ t guess it by reading the New York Times or any of the media outlets that based their own reports on the Times ’ original story .

There’s some confusion and misinformation going around about a legal challenge to the prohibition on felons owning firearms and the U.S. Supreme Court, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co I do my best to bring some clarity to what’s really going on with the case and the potential for SCOTUS to weigh in.
The confusion seems to have stemmed from a story in the New York Times on Monday headlined “Justice Barrett’s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights,” which highlights a recent decision out of the Third Circuit involving a woman named Lisa Folajtar, a felon who pleaded guilty to tax evasion and lost her right to keep and bear arms in the process. The case is reminiscent of a case that Justice Amy Coney Barrett was involved in back when she was on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals called Kanter vs. Barr, in which a man named Rickey Kanter sued to regain his Second Amendment rights after being convicted of mail fraud.
Barrett was on the three judge panel that heard the case, and argued that Kanter should have his rights restored, because historically, the Founders were more concerned about whether someone was dangerous than if someone had merely been convicted of a non-violent felony offense when it came to depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. Barrett’s views didn’t sway the two other judges in the case, however, and Rickey Kanter’s appeal was denied in a 2-1 decision.
Last week, the Third Circuit also rejected Lisa Folajtar’s request to have her rights restored, and it’s likely that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. At the moment, however, the Court hasn’t received the case, much less considered it in conference or granted cert. Still, after legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote about the Folajtar case last week, calling it a case that seems tailor-made for Justice Barrett, many media outlets have seized on the case as if it’s a foregone conclusion that this will be the next Second Amendment case heard by the high Court.
After the Times amplified Turley’s argument that the case is ripe for Supreme Court review other media outlets followed suit, but many of them downplayed the fact that the Court has yet to receive petition to hear the case. A headline at The Daily Caller proclaimed that “Justice Barrett’s Vote Already Looking To Be Decisive In First Big Gun Rights Case In Years,” while Vanity Fair declared that Barrett “may soon rule in a case that could expand gun rights,” referring to Folajtar.
What virtually every one of these media outlets is ignoring (and likely unaware of) is the fact that the Supreme Court is already scheduled to consider another case involving a question of whether or not non-violent felons should lose their Second Amendment rights in its conference on December 11th, long before Folajtar will come before the justices.
That case, called Torres vs. United States, was brought by Israel Torres, an Arizona man convicted of two DUI offenses in Arizona in 2003 and 2010. Those felony convictions resulted in Torres losing his right to keep and bear arms, and his home was raided in 2017 by federal law enforcement officers who seized several firearms belong to Torres, who in turn was charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of firearms.
Why have all of the media outlets that breathlessly reported on Folajtar ignored the Torres case? My guess is that they’re simply unaware of the existence of Torres, to say nothing of the fact that the Supreme Court has already assigned it to the December 11th conference.
It appears to me like these media outlets have been engaged in a digital version of the old game of “Telephone” where a whispered phrase is repeated from one person to another, changing along the way. Turley’s original post about Folajtar didn’t mention the similar Torres case, so none of the reporting that’s been based on Turley’s analysis mentions it either. The Folajtar case, meanwhile, has gone from being a case that has strong potential to be picked up by the Supreme Court to a virtual certainty for SCOTUS review, at least if you only read the headlines.
This is another reminder of the fact that most media outlets don’t have reporters that are dedicated to covering the Second Amendment as an issue, so they lack the institutional knowledge that could bring additional details and context to their reporting. It’s true that Folajtar seems like a case that would pique the interest of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but the fact remains that she and the other eight justices will be taking a look at Torres first. If there are four justices who are willing to take another look at the lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights for non-violent felons, Torres would seem to have the inside track, though you wouldn’t guess it by reading the New York Times or any of the media outlets that based their own reports on the Times’ original story.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--PA Sheriff Sued Over Concealed Carry Delays

There ’ s already a four month wait in Allegheny County , Pennsylvania for those residents hoping to obtain a concealed carry license , but those delays are likely to grow even longer now that the sheriff has shut down the office to the public , preventing anyone from applying for their license to carry until further notice .
The new shutdown has prompted a new lawsuit from the Firearms Policy Coalition and several Allegheny County residents , who argue that the COVID-related closure is infringing on their Second Amendment rights .
“ The Commonwealth ’ s criminal laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheriff ’ s Firearms Division , among other laws , policies , and practices we challenge in this case , make it impossible for our clients to lawfully carry firearms in public , in violation of their fundamental right to bear arms , ” said FPC ’ s Adam Kraut .
“ Allegheny County residents who do not have a license to carry firearms are now being completely denied their rights on pain of severe criminal penalties .
We look forward to vindicating the rights of our clients and all who wish to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As the Supreme Court just days ago made clear , governments may not ignore the Constitution and prevent people from exercising their rights even during a pandemic , ” said FPC President Brandon Combs .
“ The defendants ’ unconstitutional laws and policies have made it impossible for law-abiding people to exercise their right to bear arms .
That is a policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table .
Through this case , other FPC lawsuits , and many more cases that will be filed very soon , FPC will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the People ’ s right to keep and bear arms across the United States.
” The lawsuit follows similar litigation filed by FPC against the city of Philadelphia over its own delays when it comes to processing concealed carry applications , which have resulted in a year-long wait before residents can even get an appointment to drop off their application .
The cases highlight one of the problems with concealed carry licensing laws ; while law-abiding citizens must comply with state statutes if they want to legally carry a firearm for self-defense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can seemingly delay the processing of those applications for an indefinite period of time .
The result is that many gun owners simply have no way to exercise their right to bear arms without violating state law .
As the Supreme Court ruled in a 1976 case called Elrod vs. Burns , “ The loss of First Amendment freedoms , for even minimal periods of time , unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.
” Why should the Second Amendment be treated as a lesser right ?
The Court referenced the Elrod decision in its recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo ’ s coronavirus restrictions aimed at limiting attendance during church services , opining that “ even in a pandemic , the Constitution can not be put away and forgotten , ” adding that “ he restrictions at issue here , by effectively barring many from attending religious services , strike at the very heart of the First Amendment ’ s guarantee of religious liberty.
” Well , the restrictions in place in Allegheny County , Philadelphia , and other localities across the country when it comes to the issuance of concealed carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many from lawfully keeping and bearing arms , which strikes at the very heart of the Second Amendment ’ s guarantee of the right to do so .
Just as our right to worship doesn ’ t disappear in a declared emergency , neither does our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones with a firearm .
Hopefully we ’ ll soon get some favorable decisions by federal judges that will compel these jurisdictions to either uphold their end of the law and process applications within a reasonable amount of time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laws requiring a license to carry altogether .
A right delayed is a right denied , and far too many Americans are currently stuck in a legal limbo ; unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights because of an unwillingness on the part of the government to do what is required under the law and the Constitution .

There’s already a four month wait in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania for those residents hoping to obtain a concealed carry license, but those delays are likely to grow even longer now that the sheriff has shut down the office to the public, preventing anyone from applying for their license to carry until further notice.
The new shutdown has prompted a new lawsuit from the Firearms Policy Coalition and several Allegheny County residents, who argue that the COVID-related closure is infringing on their Second Amendment rights.
“The Commonwealth’s criminal laws, and the shutdown of the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Firearms Division, among other laws, policies, and practices we challenge in this case, make it impossible for our clients to lawfully carry firearms in public, in violation of their fundamental right to bear arms,” said FPC’s Adam Kraut. “Allegheny County residents who do not have a license to carry firearms are now being completely denied their rights on pain of severe criminal penalties. We look forward to vindicating the rights of our clients and all who wish to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” “As the Supreme Court just days ago made clear, governments may not ignore the Constitution and prevent people from exercising their rights even during a pandemic,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The defendants’ unconstitutional laws and policies have made it impossible for law-abiding people to exercise their right to bear arms. That is a policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table. Through this case, other FPC lawsuits, and many more cases that will be filed very soon, FPC will continue fighting forward and work to restore the People’s right to keep and bear arms across the United States.”
The lawsuit follows similar litigation filed by FPC against the city of Philadelphia over its own delays when it comes to processing concealed carry applications, which have resulted in a year-long wait before residents can even get an appointment to drop off their application.
The cases highlight one of the problems with concealed carry licensing laws; while law-abiding citizens must comply with state statutes if they want to legally carry a firearm for self-defense, the agencies responsible for issuing the licenses can seemingly delay the processing of those applications for an indefinite period of time. The result is that many gun owners simply have no way to exercise their right to bear arms without violating state law.
As the Supreme Court ruled in a 1976 case called Elrod vs. Burns, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Why should the Second Amendment be treated as a lesser right?
The Court referenced the Elrod decision in its recent ruling striking down New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus restrictions aimed at limiting attendance during church services, opining that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” adding that “he restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
Well, the restrictions in place in Allegheny County, Philadelphia, and other localities across the country when it comes to the issuance of concealed carry licenses or gun permits also effectively bar many from lawfully keeping and bearing arms, which strikes at the very heart of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to do so. Just as our right to worship doesn’t disappear in a declared emergency, neither does our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones with a firearm.
Hopefully we’ll soon get some favorable decisions by federal judges that will compel these jurisdictions to either uphold their end of the law and process applications within a reasonable amount of time, or (less likely) toss out the laws requiring a license to carry altogether. A right delayed is a right denied, and far too many Americans are currently stuck in a legal limbo; unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights because of an unwillingness on the part of the government to do what is required under the law and the Constitution.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--DeWine Wants Lame-Duck Session To Pass Gun Control

The lame-duck session of a legislature is often an opportunity for lawmakers on their way out to push through legislation that will cement their legacy .
It ’ s also a time when lawmakers can pass bills that might not be overly popular with the public .
After all , the election results are in and they ’ ve got a couple of years to overcome any ill will from the bill ’ s passage .
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine wants lawmakers to use the lame-duck session to pass his gun control agenda .
Gov .
Mike DeWine is calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Assembly to pass what he sees as “ common sense ” gun regulations .
But lawmakers , who have so far ignored DeWine ’ s proposals , have even less time to act as the clock winds down on the current legislative session .
DeWine ’ s “ STRONG Ohio ” gun regulations bill does several things .
During his frequent COVID-19 press conferences , DeWine has focused on the provisions that strengthen penalties against violent offenders caught with a firearm , which he says results in many of the gun deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my temper up .
And I talk about it at different press conferences .
But look , the entire bill I would like to see passed , ” DeWine said .
While tougher penalties for violent offenders found with guns are fairly non-controversial , the rest of DeWine ’ s proposals are .
They include a red flag law and creates a background check for individuals selling their own guns .
DeWine has been beating this drum for a while , yet there have been no takers .
No one in Ohio is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes the gun grabbers .
For them , the STRONG Ohio bill doesn ’ t go far enough .
While DeWine may believe he has the best of both worlds , the fact that no one has tried to pass the bill shows you just how little people are moved on this measure .
What DeWine created was an attempt to create gun control that was as inoffensive as possible while still counting as gun control .
In the process , he managed to piss everyone off .
So…good job on that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that over and over again throughout history , the gun crowd rolled with whatever the public wanted , trying desperately to appear as though they were willing to work with the other side .
And yet , what we see are bills like STRONG Ohio that aren ’ t giving us a damn thing , they just don ’ t try to take quite as much .
Unfortunately , that ’ s what counts as “ compromise ” in the gun debate , and it ’ s why those of us on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budge on anything anymore .
We ’ ve had so much taken in the past and nothing has been offered in exchange .
It ’ s not like someone is proposing red flag laws and are willing to offer up suppressors on the open market in exchange , for example .
At least then we can debate whether or not the needle of liberty is moving the right way or not if we accept the proposal .
Nope , that ’ s not even up for discussion .
We ’ re just supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our basic civil liberties .
I don ’ t think DeWine means ill .
I suspect he ’ s just trying to straddle the canyon on this .
However , he would do well to listen and understand that our rights aren ’ t up for negotiation .
And yeah , as much as I dislike this phrase in general , when it comes to guns , you ’ re either with us or against us .

The lame-duck session of a legislature is often an opportunity for lawmakers on their way out to push through legislation that will cement their legacy. It’s also a time when lawmakers can pass bills that might not be overly popular with the public. After all, the election results are in and they’ve got a couple of years to overcome any ill will from the bill’s passage.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine wants lawmakers to use the lame-duck session to pass his gun control agenda.
Gov. Mike DeWine is calling on his fellow Republicans in the Ohio General Assembly to pass what he sees as “common sense” gun regulations. But lawmakers, who have so far ignored DeWine’s proposals, have even less time to act as the clock winds down on the current legislative session. DeWine’s “STRONG Ohio” gun regulations bill does several things. During his frequent COVID-19 press conferences, DeWine has focused on the provisions that strengthen penalties against violent offenders caught with a firearm, which he says results in many of the gun deaths that make headlines. “That gets my temper up. And I talk about it at different press conferences. But look, the entire bill I would like to see passed,” DeWine said.
While tougher penalties for violent offenders found with guns are fairly non-controversial, the rest of DeWine’s proposals are. They include a red flag law and creates a background check for individuals selling their own guns.
DeWine has been beating this drum for a while, yet there have been no takers. No one in Ohio is up on this bill and that even includes the gun grabbers. For them, the STRONG Ohio bill doesn’t go far enough. While DeWine may believe he has the best of both worlds, the fact that no one has tried to pass the bill shows you just how little people are moved on this measure.
What DeWine created was an attempt to create gun control that was as inoffensive as possible while still counting as gun control. In the process, he managed to piss everyone off. So…good job on that one.
The truth of the matter is that over and over again throughout history, the gun crowd rolled with whatever the public wanted, trying desperately to appear as though they were willing to work with the other side. And yet, what we see are bills like STRONG Ohio that aren’t giving us a damn thing, they just don’t try to take quite as much.
Unfortunately, that’s what counts as “compromise” in the gun debate, and it’s why those of us on this side of the debate absolutely refuse to budge on anything anymore. We’ve had so much taken in the past and nothing has been offered in exchange. It’s not like someone is proposing red flag laws and are willing to offer up suppressors on the open market in exchange, for example. At least then we can debate whether or not the needle of liberty is moving the right way or not if we accept the proposal.
Nope, that’s not even up for discussion. We’re just supposed to take more and more encroachment into our basic civil liberties.
I don’t think DeWine means ill. I suspect he’s just trying to straddle the canyon on this. However, he would do well to listen and understand that our rights aren’t up for negotiation.
And yeah, as much as I dislike this phrase in general, when it comes to guns, you’re either with us or against us.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--Gun Rights Not Up For "Democracy"

Gun Rights Not Up For "Democracy"

Our Founding Fathers envisioned our great nation as a republic , a government where a handful of people decide on the laws for the totality of the nation .
The idea was to give everyone a voice but to avoid the pitfalls of a true democracy .
After all , “ democracy ” is really just a lofty name for mob rule , and our Founding Fathers knew that .
By allowing people to vote on their representation , they gave people an opportunity to have a voice but prevented everything from being up for the whims of the mob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of democracy and tempered it .
For some , though , that ’ s a problem .
Despite the headlines , democracy has not been saved .
Yes , the anti-democratic candidate lost ; yes , the election result in this case was aligned with the popular vote ; yes , the courts have been upholding that result .
But the same undemocratic conditions that allowed the election of an unpopular liar —voter suppression , the Electoral College , unchecked disinformation—are still in place , and a roadmap in how to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich person who wants to try .
At best , democracy in the United States has been given a reprieve .
Let ’ s use it .
Now is the time to make the United States more democratic .
The challenges in instituting the changes aren ’ t the only obstacle .
Many direct policy areas will be clamoring for attention , and tasks from pandemic response to restoring climate change research are undeniably urgent .
It might seem difficult , dry , or counterproductive to focus instead on the parameters of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic process is the right thing to do if the United States wants to call itself a democracy .
It also might be the easiest way to accomplish some of the policy goals of the incoming administration .
Public opinion on most issues is significantly closer to Democratic positions .
On gun control , health care , taxes , the role of government , the so-called representatives in Congress are not representing what most people want .
Allowing elections to reflect public opinion more accurately—surely the goal of any supporter of democracy—would instantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more aligned with what people actually want out of their government .
And that ’ s why the difference between a republic and a democracy matters .
Our rights are not up for grabs .
They ’ re not up for debate or discussion .
Our rights exist because we exist .
As free men and women , our rights are natural to our very nature .
Those rights are carefully preserved and protected by the Bill of Rights .
They ’ re not matters for the mob to decide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done an admirable job of trying to make sure those voices are heard .
It ’ s stumbled along the way , sometimes very badly , but the people have kept it in check .
Again , the best aspects of democracy tempered by republicanism .
Yet public opinion only matters so far .
Let ’ s not forget that it didn ’ t matter to the left when public opinion went against them .
It wasn ’ t all that long ago when the majority of the population opposed all manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gunners still persisted in trying to push for more legislation .
In other words , public opinion is beneficial as a club when it ’ s on their side , but irrelevant when it ’ s not .
At least my perspective is consistent .
It ’ s nice when the public agrees that our rights should be protected , but their opinion doesn ’ t change the reality that our Second Amendment rights are sacred and that we ’ re not giving them up .
Our rights aren ’ t subject to @ @ @ @ @ @

Our Founding Fathers envisioned our great nation as a republic, a government where a handful of people decide on the laws for the totality of the nation. The idea was to give everyone a voice but to avoid the pitfalls of a true democracy. After all, “democracy” is really just a lofty name for mob rule, and our Founding Fathers knew that.
By allowing people to vote on their representation, they gave people an opportunity to have a voice but prevented everything from being up for the whims of the mob to determine. They took the best part of democracy and tempered it.
For some, though, that’s a problem.
Despite the headlines, democracy has not been saved. Yes, the anti-democratic candidate lost; yes, the election result in this case was aligned with the popular vote; yes, the courts have been upholding that result. But the same undemocratic conditions that allowed the election of an unpopular liar —voter suppression, the Electoral College, unchecked disinformation—are still in place, and a roadmap in how to use them is available for the next unscrupulous rich person who wants to try. At best, democracy in the United States has been given a reprieve. Let’s use it. Now is the time to make the United States more democratic. … The challenges in instituting the changes aren’t the only obstacle. Many direct policy areas will be clamoring for attention, and tasks from pandemic response to restoring climate change research are undeniably urgent. It might seem difficult, dry, or counterproductive to focus instead on the parameters of the U.S. election system. But reforming the democratic process is the right thing to do if the United States wants to call itself a democracy. It also might be the easiest way to accomplish some of the policy goals of the incoming administration. Public opinion on most issues is significantly closer to Democratic positions. On gun control, health care, taxes, the role of government, the so-called representatives in Congress are not representing what most people want. Allowing elections to reflect public opinion more accurately—surely the goal of any supporter of democracy—would instantly shift the Overton window of political discourse to be more aligned with what people actually want out of their government.
And that’s why the difference between a republic and a democracy matters.
Our rights are not up for grabs. They’re not up for debate or discussion. Our rights exist because we exist. As free men and women, our rights are natural to our very nature. Those rights are carefully preserved and protected by the Bill of Rights. They’re not matters for the mob to decide.
Everyone has a voice and our nation has done an admirable job of trying to make sure those voices are heard. It’s stumbled along the way, sometimes very badly, but the people have kept it in check. Again, the best aspects of democracy tempered by republicanism.
Yet public opinion only matters so far. Let’s not forget that it didn’t matter to the left when public opinion went against them. It wasn’t all that long ago when the majority of the population opposed all manner of new gun control measures, yet anti-gunners still persisted in trying to push for more legislation.
In other words, public opinion is beneficial as a club when it’s on their side, but irrelevant when it’s not.
At least my perspective is consistent. It’s nice when the public agrees that our rights should be protected, but their opinion doesn’t change the reality that our Second Amendment rights are sacred and that we’re not giving them up.
Our rights aren’t subject to the whims of the mob.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--Campus Carry Bill Introduced In Florida

Campus Carry Bill Introduced In Florida

Just a few years ago , it seemed Florida was starting to swing away from being a pro-gun state .
In the wake of Parkland , the state legislature passed a couple of anti-gun bills and some wondered if the state was going down the anti-gun rabbit hole .
Luckily , those seemed to be knee-jerk reactions that the voters spoke out against , thus thwarting any attempt at flipping the state .
However , there ’ s still work to be done .
Now , a bill has been introduced yet again to try to pass campus carry within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bill Monday that would allow people with a concealed firearm license to carry a weapon onto Florida colleges and universities .
The measure , HB 6001 , seeks to delete a provision that restricts permit holders from carrying a firearm on campus grounds .
Florida ’ s current statute limits registered students and faculty to carrying stun guns and non-lethal electric weapons on campus .
“ The current prohibition of the concealed carry of a firearm makes campuses LESS safe and violates the spirit of the Second Amendment , ” the Howey-in-the-Hills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn stiff opposition from activists and university leaders nationwide .
On the other hand , gun rights activists and interest groups such as the NRA have galvanized sizable support around the issue .
Campus carry proponents argue that students should maintain the right to self-defense while on campus .
Some also contend that licensed weapon holders could play a role in stopping a mass shooting .
This is Sabatini ’ s third try , yet neither of his previous attempts even got a hearing .
It ’ s time for Florida to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to campus carry .
I know what they ’ re saying and where they ’ re coming from .
They ’ re wrong , but I get their concerns .
However , campus carry is the law in a number of states .
Armed citizens attend classes and school functions each and every day and guess what ’ s happened ?
That ’ s right .
For all the hysteria and scare pieces in the media , there have been no incidents related to someone with a license on any campus where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry .
None .
Remember that gun rights are rights .
That means if you ’ re going to take them away , you need to present a compelling reason to do so .
I find no reason compelling , of course , but some people do .
So what if there ’ s no compelling reason ?
What if the mountains of experience show that there are zero issues with allowing people with concealed carry permits to carry on a school campus ?
That very fact undermines all the arguments , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media hacks trying to sell you on fictitious dangers .
Campus carry doesn ’ t result in violence on our campuses .
There ’ s no blood filling the floor of our classrooms .
There ’ s no threat to our professors or fellow students posed by law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying firearms .
There never has been .
Those that represent a threat have never been deterred by laws banning guns on campuses .
It ’ s time we stop treating law-abiding citizens as an existential threat because they take their personal safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them seriously .

Just a few years ago, it seemed Florida was starting to swing away from being a pro-gun state. In the wake of Parkland, the state legislature passed a couple of anti-gun bills and some wondered if the state was going down the anti-gun rabbit hole.
Luckily, those seemed to be knee-jerk reactions that the voters spoke out against, thus thwarting any attempt at flipping the state.
However, there’s still work to be done. Now, a bill has been introduced yet again to try to pass campus carry within the state.
Rep. Anthony Sabatini filed a bill Monday that would allow people with a concealed firearm license to carry a weapon onto Florida colleges and universities. The measure, HB 6001, seeks to delete a provision that restricts permit holders from carrying a firearm on campus grounds. Florida’s current statute limits registered students and faculty to carrying stun guns and non-lethal electric weapons on campus. “The current prohibition of the concealed carry of a firearm makes campuses LESS safe and violates the spirit of the Second Amendment,” the Howey-in-the-Hills Republican tweeted. … Campus carry proposals have drawn stiff opposition from activists and university leaders nationwide. On the other hand, gun rights activists and interest groups such as the NRA have galvanized sizable support around the issue. Campus carry proponents argue that students should maintain the right to self-defense while on campus. Some also contend that licensed weapon holders could play a role in stopping a mass shooting.
This is Sabatini’s third try, yet neither of his previous attempts even got a hearing. It’s time for Florida to change that.
Now, I get the opposition to campus carry. I know what they’re saying and where they’re coming from. They’re wrong, but I get their concerns.
However, campus carry is the law in a number of states. Armed citizens attend classes and school functions each and every day and guess what’s happened?
Nothing.
That’s right. For all the hysteria and scare pieces in the media, there have been no incidents related to someone with a license on any campus where it’s legal for them to carry. None.
Remember that gun rights are rights. That means if you’re going to take them away, you need to present a compelling reason to do so. I find no reason compelling, of course, but some people do.
So what if there’s no compelling reason? What if the mountains of experience show that there are zero issues with allowing people with concealed carry permits to carry on a school campus? That very fact undermines all the arguments, all the horror stories spun by activists and media hacks trying to sell you on fictitious dangers.
Campus carry doesn’t result in violence on our campuses. There’s no blood filling the floor of our classrooms. There’s no threat to our professors or fellow students posed by law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying firearms. There never has been.
Those that represent a threat have never been deterred by laws banning guns on campuses. It’s time we stop treating law-abiding citizens as an existential threat because they take their personal safety and the safety of all those around them seriously.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--What's Driving The Increase In Violent Crime In Many Cities?

For months now we ’ ve been reporting on a sharp increase in the number of shootings and homicides in places like New York City , Chicago , and Minneapolis since the COVID-related lockdowns took effect back in March , but the problem isn ’ t limited to just a few metropolitan areas .
According to a recent report by the Police Executive Research Forum , 58 % of 223 law enforcement jurisdictions are reporting an increase of homicides this year , with the total number of murders 28 % higher in the first nine months of 2020 compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s the reason for the crime spike ?
It varies from city to city , but in interviews with senior law enforcement officials , PERF found several common denominators , starting with an increase in gang and drug-related crimes .
Houston Assistant Police Chief Heather Morris says that the number of gang members who ’ ve been the victim of homicides has jumped from 25 in 2019 to 57 so far this year , and adds that many of those shooting suspects are already involved in the criminal justice system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now is the number of people on bond or parole committing homicide .
We had 28 suspects last year who were on bond or parole when they committed a murder , and this year we ’ ve had 44 .
The person who killed one of our officers a week ago was out on $ 100 bond for unlawfully possessing a weapon .
We always have people out on bond or parole who commit crimes , but the number is higher this year .
Bond reform in some cases is needed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent crimes getting out on bond when they haven ’ t in the past .
In Louisville , homicides are up almost 80 % compared to 2019 , and Assistant Chief Andy McClinton also pins the blame on an increase in gang-related shootings as well as the protests that have continued to rock the city since the death of Breonna Taylor back in March .
McClinton says that the protests divert officers away from high-crime neighborhoods , while COVID has limited contacts with the public .
Our self-initiated activity , traffic stops , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that ’ s another reason we ’ re seeing the high number of rounds fired .
If our self-initiated activity is low and people know that there ’ s a fairly good chance they ’ re not going to get stopped , they ride around in vehicles armed .
They are very aware of what is going on in our city with both the pandemic and the protests .
Knowing that we are tied up and busy and they probably won ’ t be stopped , there are many more guns being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their cars .
In the past , if you didn ’ t have your gun with you and you saw someone you had a disagreement with , you ’ d have to go get that gun and then go back and look for them .
Now we ’ re seeing that these guns are on them , and when they see someone they don ’ t have to wait .
They pull the gun out and start shooting .
LAPD Captain Paul Vernon , meanwhile , says that COVID actually caused violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decline in Los Angeles in the spring , but that changed as protests over the death of George Floyd rocked the city .
When the protests hit at the end of May , that ’ s when the violent crime went out of control .
I see three reasons for that .
Police were distracted by all the protests .
There was also the political rhetoric about the police that emboldened the criminals .
And the defunding of the police takes resources away , particularly from the specialized units that go after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests are down 32 % in Los Angeles since May , though he adds that weapons-related arrests are down by just 9 % , which he attributes to “ a lot of guns out there.
” Apparently California ’ s restrictive gun control laws aren ’ t the only laws being ignored by the city ’ s criminal element .
Most of the law enforcement officials interviewed by PERF highlight both a rise in gang-related shootings and a pullback on proactive policing efforts , which has helped to create an atmosphere where criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gang members are literally getting away with murder , and when crimes are committed without consequence , it leads to the vicious cycle of violence that ’ s playing out in far too many of our cities .

For months now we’ve been reporting on a sharp increase in the number of shootings and homicides in places like New York City, Chicago, and Minneapolis since the COVID-related lockdowns took effect back in March, but the problem isn’t limited to just a few metropolitan areas.
According to a recent report by the Police Executive Research Forum, 58% of 223 law enforcement jurisdictions are reporting an increase of homicides this year, with the total number of murders 28% higher in the first nine months of 2020 compared to the same time period in 2019.
What’s the reason for the crime spike? It varies from city to city, but in interviews with senior law enforcement officials, PERF found several common denominators, starting with an increase in gang and drug-related crimes.
Houston Assistant Police Chief Heather Morris says that the number of gang members who’ve been the victim of homicides has jumped from 25 in 2019 to 57 so far this year, and adds that many of those shooting suspects are already involved in the criminal justice system.
A big thing we’re seeing right now is the number of people on bond or parole committing homicide. We had 28 suspects last year who were on bond or parole when they committed a murder, and this year we’ve had 44. The person who killed one of our officers a week ago was out on $100 bond for unlawfully possessing a weapon. We always have people out on bond or parole who commit crimes, but the number is higher this year. Bond reform in some cases is needed, but you have people who allegedly committed violent crimes getting out on bond when they haven’t in the past.
In Louisville, homicides are up almost 80% compared to 2019, and Assistant Chief Andy McClinton also pins the blame on an increase in gang-related shootings as well as the protests that have continued to rock the city since the death of Breonna Taylor back in March. McClinton says that the protests divert officers away from high-crime neighborhoods, while COVID has limited contacts with the public.
Our self-initiated activity, traffic stops, and field interrogations have plummeted. I think that’s another reason we’re seeing the high number of rounds fired. If our self-initiated activity is low and people know that there’s a fairly good chance they’re not going to get stopped, they ride around in vehicles armed. They are very aware of what is going on in our city with both the pandemic and the protests. Knowing that we are tied up and busy and they probably won’t be stopped, there are many more guns being carried and people riding around with rifles in their cars. In the past, if you didn’t have your gun with you and you saw someone you had a disagreement with, you’d have to go get that gun and then go back and look for them. Now we’re seeing that these guns are on them, and when they see someone they don’t have to wait. They pull the gun out and start shooting.
LAPD Captain Paul Vernon, meanwhile, says that COVID actually caused violent crime, including shootings and homicides, to decline in Los Angeles in the spring, but that changed as protests over the death of George Floyd rocked the city.
When the protests hit at the end of May, that’s when the violent crime went out of control. I see three reasons for that. Police were distracted by all the protests. There was also the political rhetoric about the police that emboldened the criminals. And the defunding of the police takes resources away, particularly from the specialized units that go after the violent criminals.
Vernon notes that arrests are down 32% in Los Angeles since May, though he adds that weapons-related arrests are down by just 9%, which he attributes to “a lot of guns out there.” Apparently California’s restrictive gun control laws aren’t the only laws being ignored by the city’s criminal element.
Most of the law enforcement officials interviewed by PERF highlight both a rise in gang-related shootings and a pullback on proactive policing efforts, which has helped to create an atmosphere where criminals feel emboldened. In many cases these gang members are literally getting away with murder, and when crimes are committed without consequence, it leads to the vicious cycle of violence that’s playing out in far too many of our cities.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--Warnock Mocks Armed Parishioners, Ignores History

The runoff elections for the two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia are shaping up to be another close race , but gun owners in the state have a lot of reasons to get out and vote on January 5th ( or before , if you ’ re planning on voting absentee ) .
Democrats Jon Ossoff , who ’ s running against incumbent Republican David Perdue , and Rev .
Raphael Warnock , who ’ s facing incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler , have embraced an extreme anti-gun ideology that leaves little room for the lawful exercise of our right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the National Rifle Association highlighted a video from Warnock on its social media this week in which Warnock mocks the idea that anyone would want to carry a gun in church to protect themselves or others from an attack .
In the video the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta is speaking from the pulpit about a law passed in Georgia back in 2014 that allowed for churches to permit concealed carry on the premises .
“ And so somebody decided that they had a bright idea to pass a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and concealed weapons to be carried in churches .
Have you ever been to a church meeting ?
That ’ s the last place… ” Warnock trails off as the crowd guffaws .
The NRA video then cuts to interviews with Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford , two men who used their guns to stop attacks at churches in Texas .
Wilson had his gun with him as part of the church security team at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas in December of 2019 when a man walked into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open fire .
Within seconds , Wilson was able to stop the attack , saving countless lives in the process .
Willeford , as you remember , was asleep in his home in Sutherland Springs , Texas on November 5th , 2017 when a man walked into the First Baptist Church across the street and opened fire on parishioners .
Willeford grabbed his AR-15 and engaged the attacker as he exited the church , preventing any more loss of life .
Of course , when Warnock mocked the idea of carrying guns in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephen Willeford and Jack Wilson were just ordinary gun owners who had no idea that they would one day use their Second Amendment rights to save others .
Even in 2014 , though , Raphael Warnock ignored the significant role that armed self-defense played in the civil rights movement , including the “ arsenal ” and armed guards who protected an earlier pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church ; Martin Luther King .
Back in 2014 , as Warnock was laughing at the idea of armed self-defense , Charles Cobb , a former field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was busy promoting his book This Nonviolent Stuff Will Get You Killed : How Guns Made The Civil Rights Movement Possible .
In an interview with historian Danielle McGuire , Cobb spoke of the ubiquitous presence of firearms in the civil rights movement .
McGuire agreed with Cobb , noting her own conversation with a Birmingham , Alabama man who helped protect Martin Luther King when he would visit the city .
When McGuire asked the man how he would protect the civil rights icon , he replied “ With a nonviolent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view the right of self-defense as a punchline , but the truth is that good guys with guns have defended innocent lives in church sanctuaries and pastoral homes for decades .
Warnock isn ’ t just ignoring our constitutional right to keep and bear arms by embracing an anti-gun agenda .
He ’ s ignoring the history that armed self-defense played in the fight for equality as well .

The runoff elections for the two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia are shaping up to be another close race, but gun owners in the state have a lot of reasons to get out and vote on January 5th (or before, if you’re planning on voting absentee). Democrats Jon Ossoff, who’s running against incumbent Republican David Perdue, and Rev. Raphael Warnock, who’s facing incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler, have embraced an extreme anti-gun ideology that leaves little room for the lawful exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.
In fact, the National Rifle Association highlighted a video from Warnock on its social media this week in which Warnock mocks the idea that anyone would want to carry a gun in church to protect themselves or others from an attack.
BOMBSHELL: Newly found video shows Georgia Senate candidate @ReverendWarnock LAUGHING at church-goers who defend themselves with guns. First Warnock goes after our veterans, now our Second Amendment. Georgians have a clear choice Jan. 5! #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/YFtGdiqkOi — NRA (@NRA) November 30, 2020
In the video the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta is speaking from the pulpit about a law passed in Georgia back in 2014 that allowed for churches to permit concealed carry on the premises.
“And so somebody decided that they had a bright idea to pass a piece of legislation that would allow for guns and concealed weapons to be carried in churches. Have you ever been to a church meeting? That’s the last place…” Warnock trails off as the crowd guffaws.
The NRA video then cuts to interviews with Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford, two men who used their guns to stop attacks at churches in Texas. Wilson had his gun with him as part of the church security team at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas in December of 2019 when a man walked into the sanctuary with a shotgun and began to open fire. Within seconds, Wilson was able to stop the attack, saving countless lives in the process.
Willeford, as you remember, was asleep in his home in Sutherland Springs, Texas on November 5th, 2017 when a man walked into the First Baptist Church across the street and opened fire on parishioners. Willeford grabbed his AR-15 and engaged the attacker as he exited the church, preventing any more loss of life.
Of course, when Warnock mocked the idea of carrying guns in churches for self-defense back in 2014, Stephen Willeford and Jack Wilson were just ordinary gun owners who had no idea that they would one day use their Second Amendment rights to save others. Even in 2014, though, Raphael Warnock ignored the significant role that armed self-defense played in the civil rights movement, including the “arsenal” and armed guards who protected an earlier pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church; Martin Luther King.
Back in 2014, as Warnock was laughing at the idea of armed self-defense, Charles Cobb, a former field secretary with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, was busy promoting his book This Nonviolent Stuff Will Get You Killed: How Guns Made The Civil Rights Movement Possible. In an interview with historian Danielle McGuire, Cobb spoke of the ubiquitous presence of firearms in the civil rights movement.
Protection was common, even if it wasn’t publicly acknowledged. You couldn’t live in any household in a rural Southern community without guns, and people weren’t afraid to use them. During the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott, Reverend King had guns all over his house. Glenn Smiley, one of King’s advisers, called King’s home an “arsenal.” That’s a Southern thing. I’ve been in houses where guns have been in the nightstand, under the pillow, in the chair.
McGuire agreed with Cobb, noting her own conversation with a Birmingham, Alabama man who helped protect Martin Luther King when he would visit the city. When McGuire asked the man how he would protect the civil rights icon, he replied “With a nonviolent .38 police special.”
Raphael Warnock may view the right of self-defense as a punchline, but the truth is that good guys with guns have defended innocent lives in church sanctuaries and pastoral homes for decades. Warnock isn’t just ignoring our constitutional right to keep and bear arms by embracing an anti-gun agenda. He’s ignoring the history that armed self-defense played in the fight for equality as well.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--Half Of America's Safest Cities Are In Constitutional Carry States

A fundamental adage of the gun control movement is that more gun laws equals less gun crime .
The only problem with that belief is that it ’ s patently untrue .
The website WalletHub recently compared more than 180 cities across the country to determine which cities are the safest for residents and visitors , and it turns out that fully half of the ten safest cities are in states that have very strong Second Amendment protections , including Constitutional or permitless carry .
The website didn ’ t only look at violent crime rates when determining which cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big part of the criteria along with the number of reported COVID cases , law enforcement per capita , and some 40 other factors in three specific areas of concern ; Home and Community Safety , Natural Disaster Risk , and Financial Safety .
Once those risk factors were tabulated , the site ranked all 180 cities , and with one notable exception , the vast majority of the safest cities are in states that do a decent job in recognizing our right to keep and bear arms .
Vermont , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Constitutional carry states , while the gun laws in Texas , Virginia , and North Carolina are all fairly robust in terms of Second Amendment protections .
Columbia , Maryland is the one city in the Top Ten Safest Cities that ’ s located in a state with restrictive gun control laws , and those laws don ’ t seem to be doing much to keep residents in Maryland ’ s largest city safe .
Baltimore , Maryland is way down towards the bottom of WalletHub ’ s list of safest cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas .
If gun control alone were enough to reduce violent crime , then cities like San Bernardino ( ranked 180th out of 182 ) , Los Angeles , ( 172 ) , Oakland ( 165 ) , and Washington , D.C. ( 160 ) would be among the safest places in the country instead of coming in towards the bottom of the rankings .
In fact , it ’ s worth noting that California has the “ best ” gun control laws in the country according to groups like Giffords and Brady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some of the most dangerous cities in the United States .
California ’ s ten day waiting periods , bans on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines , prohibitions on online and out-of-state sales of ammunition , background checks on in-person ammo sales , microstamping requirements , and the other onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms may make gun control activists happy , but they don ’ t do much to keep people safe .
Conversely , some of the safest cities in the country don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
That should be enough evidence to put to rest forever the absurd assertion that more gun laws equals less crime , but you and I both know that the gun control movement is going to keep repeating the lie that we can ban our way to safety .
It ’ s going to be up to Second Amendment activists to keep making the case that not only are these gun control laws unconstitutional , but they ’ re ineffective as well ; promising security at the expense of our rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less free .

A fundamental adage of the gun control movement is that more gun laws equals less gun crime. The only problem with that belief is that it’s patently untrue. The website WalletHub recently compared more than 180 cities across the country to determine which cities are the safest for residents and visitors, and it turns out that fully half of the ten safest cities are in states that have very strong Second Amendment protections, including Constitutional or permitless carry.
The website didn’t only look at violent crime rates when determining which cities are the safest, but that was a big part of the criteria along with the number of reported COVID cases, law enforcement per capita, and some 40 other factors in three specific areas of concern; Home and Community Safety, Natural Disaster Risk, and Financial Safety. Once those risk factors were tabulated, the site ranked all 180 cities, and with one notable exception, the vast majority of the safest cities are in states that do a decent job in recognizing our right to keep and bear arms.
Columbia, Maryland South Burlington, Vermont Plano, Texas Nashua, New Hampshire Lewiston, Maine Burlington, Vermont Salem, Oregon Virginia Beach, Virginia Raleigh, North Carolina Gilbert, Arizona
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Arizona are all Constitutional carry states, while the gun laws in Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina are all fairly robust in terms of Second Amendment protections. Columbia, Maryland is the one city in the Top Ten Safest Cities that’s located in a state with restrictive gun control laws, and those laws don’t seem to be doing much to keep residents in Maryland’s largest city safe. Baltimore, Maryland is way down towards the bottom of WalletHub’s list of safest cities, coming in 155th out 182 metropolitan areas.
If gun control alone were enough to reduce violent crime, then cities like San Bernardino (ranked 180th out of 182), Los Angeles, (172), Oakland (165), and Washington, D.C. (160) would be among the safest places in the country instead of coming in towards the bottom of the rankings. In fact, it’s worth noting that California has the “best” gun control laws in the country according to groups like Giffords and Brady, but it’s also home to some of the most dangerous cities in the United States.
California’s ten day waiting periods, bans on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines, prohibitions on online and out-of-state sales of ammunition, background checks on in-person ammo sales, microstamping requirements, and the other onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms may make gun control activists happy, but they don’t do much to keep people safe.
Conversely, some of the safest cities in the country don’t have any California-style gun laws in place. That should be enough evidence to put to rest forever the absurd assertion that more gun laws equals less crime, but you and I both know that the gun control movement is going to keep repeating the lie that we can ban our way to safety. It’s going to be up to Second Amendment activists to keep making the case that not only are these gun control laws unconstitutional, but they’re ineffective as well; promising security at the expense of our rights, but instead making us both less safe and less free.


bearingarms--2020-12-01--While Mexico Demand More From U.S., They Have Only Themselves To Blame

The U.S.-Mexico border is a rough place , to be sure , and it has been for quite some time .
This is especially true because , generally speaking , only one side actually cared about securing the border .
After all , it wasn ’ t the United States that published a pamphlet teaching people how to illegally cross the border .
For years , Mexico didn ’ t worry much about the border at all .
That allowed all sorts of people to band together to cross the border illegally , whether it was simply moving people across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s big business .
Also now , it ’ s a problem for Mexico .
“ What we focused on in our story was the increase in the trafficking of very large , powerful weapons , including 50-caliber sniper rifles , ” said Kevin Seiff , Latin America correspondent for The Washington Post .
“ And the reason these are important is because over the last few years , it ’ s become pretty clear that some of the large Mexican drug cartels have more powerful arsenals than the security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are responsible , theoretically , for targeting them and for making sure they don ’ t grow , for making sure that they don ’ t target Mexican civilians.
” “ Mexico is demanding a lot more of the U.S. on this issue , ” Seiff said .
“ They started a working group , and in one of these working group meetings , just to give you a sense of how tense this is , that the Mexican defense secretary stood up and said , ‘ You know , what if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs as you ’ re doing to stop guns ?
’ which I think really gets at the heart of the problem.
” See , drugs are illegal in Mexico too .
Despite that , Mexico has become the drug capital of the world .
The Mexican government may be trying to stop the flow of drugs into the United States , but they ’ re powerless to do so .
Meanwhile , guns are actually legal in the United States .
Law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico , they have a warped understanding of how rights actually work .
Unlike the Mexican people , we ’ re not willing to roll over and allow the government to restrict sales to only one store in the entire country where we have to beg permission just to enter the store .
So that means it ’ s always going to be harder to stop guns from flowing south than it should be to stop drugs from flowing north .
However , there ’ s also the decades of inaction on illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Mexican government didn ’ t just turn a blind eye to illegal immigration , they actively aided it .
That created a two-way path where both people and goods could flow .
That includes firearms going south of the border .
By now , with the Mexican government ’ s help , many of the smugglers know precisely how to avoid being caught .
Look , I ’ m sympathetic to the problems Mexico is having .
No one wants to see their country torn apart like this .
However , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law of Unintended Consequences yields for no nation , after all .
Of course , I ’ m also trying to figure out just how the cartels have “ more powerful arsenals ” than the security forces if they ’ re just buying what we can buy over the counter here in the United States , but that ’ s a topic for another day .

The U.S.-Mexico border is a rough place, to be sure, and it has been for quite some time. This is especially true because, generally speaking, only one side actually cared about securing the border. After all, it wasn’t the United States that published a pamphlet teaching people how to illegally cross the border.
For years, Mexico didn’t worry much about the border at all. That allowed all sorts of people to band together to cross the border illegally, whether it was simply moving people across the border or moving contraband. Now, it’s big business.
Also now, it’s a problem for Mexico.
“What we focused on in our story was the increase in the trafficking of very large, powerful weapons, including 50-caliber sniper rifles,” said Kevin Seiff, Latin America correspondent for The Washington Post. “And the reason these are important is because over the last few years, it’s become pretty clear that some of the large Mexican drug cartels have more powerful arsenals than the security forces, especially the Mexican police, who are responsible, theoretically, for targeting them and for making sure they don’t grow, for making sure that they don’t target Mexican civilians.” … “Mexico is demanding a lot more of the U.S. on this issue,” Seiff said. “They started a working group, and in one of these working group meetings, just to give you a sense of how tense this is, that the Mexican defense secretary stood up and said, ‘You know, what if we did as as little to stop drugs as you’re doing to stop guns?’ which I think really gets at the heart of the problem.”
Yet there’s a key difference.
See, drugs are illegal in Mexico too. Despite that, Mexico has become the drug capital of the world. The Mexican government may be trying to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, but they’re powerless to do so.
Meanwhile, guns are actually legal in the United States. Law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. While that right technically also exists in Mexico, they have a warped understanding of how rights actually work. Unlike the Mexican people, we’re not willing to roll over and allow the government to restrict sales to only one store in the entire country where we have to beg permission just to enter the store.
So that means it’s always going to be harder to stop guns from flowing south than it should be to stop drugs from flowing north.
However, there’s also the decades of inaction on illegal immigration at work here as well. The Mexican government didn’t just turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, they actively aided it. That created a two-way path where both people and goods could flow. That includes firearms going south of the border.
By now, with the Mexican government’s help, many of the smugglers know precisely how to avoid being caught.
Look, I’m sympathetic to the problems Mexico is having. No one wants to see their country torn apart like this. However, they have only themselves to blame. The Law of Unintended Consequences yields for no nation, after all.
Of course, I’m also trying to figure out just how the cartels have “more powerful arsenals” than the security forces if they’re just buying what we can buy over the counter here in the United States, but that’s a topic for another day.


bearingarms--2020-11-30--PA Governor Vetos Bill To Allow Gun Carry During Emergencies

Pennsylvania is something of a battleground state , with a large urban population that votes Democrat and a large rural population that votes Republican .
They ’ re generally just as divided on the issue of guns in general , with Governor Tom Wolf clearly on the side of the anti-gunners .
Wolf has made his opinions on guns and gun rights well known .
After all , you don ’ t stand with a mayor who announces his decision to ignore state law unless you agree with him .
Since then , though , Wolf has made his feelings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were any doubts , his latest effort should tell you all you need to know .
To be fair , the vetos shouldn ’ t come as a shock to anyone in the state .
After all , Wolf has made it clear he ’ s not a fan of people ’ s Second Amendment rights , no matter what he claims in official statements .
Wolf would rather the citizens of Pennsylvania face arrest if carrying a firearm in public during an emergency .
While the pandemic was not the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all times for , necessarily–at least , not any more than you would on any regular day in the state–the truth of the matter is that there ’ s more than one kind of emergency .
The bill sought to fix a law that could actually make people more vulnerable to aggressive acts .
The fact that Wolf vetoed the bill illustrates that he either doesn ’ t understand gun rights in the first place or he doesn ’ t care about them , if not both .
Meanwhile , the blood will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up barred from carrying a gun during an emergency and they lose their life because of it .
That ’ s on him .
“ They said the law is largely unenforced , ” someone might cry , and that may be right .
Yet a law on the books is a law that can be enforced .
Further , if it ’ s unenforced , then why leave it on the books in the first place ?
Wolf not signing the bills isn ’ t surprising .
Nor will him refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life that may result from this veto .

Pennsylvania is something of a battleground state, with a large urban population that votes Democrat and a large rural population that votes Republican. They’re generally just as divided on the issue of guns in general, with Governor Tom Wolf clearly on the side of the anti-gunners.
Wolf has made his opinions on guns and gun rights well known. After all, you don’t stand with a mayor who announces his decision to ignore state law unless you agree with him.
Since then, though, Wolf has made his feelings well known. Yet, if there were any doubts, his latest effort should tell you all you need to know.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D-Pa.) vetoed two gun bills that would repeal laws intended to control the carrying of guns and prevent public officials from shutting down firearms sales during emergency proclamations. The bills, which recently passed the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania State Senate, intended to limit Wolf’s powers during the COVID-19 pandemic and moving forward, AP News reported. Wolf, a Democrat who supports broader gun control measures, has previously vetoed more than six such bills. “The current disaster declarations in place are meant to help the administration fight the public health crises at hand and have no impact on citizens and their firearm rights,” Wolf’s office said in a statement on Nov. 19. … While the first bill would repeal a provision that states “no person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property,” those who have a concealed-carry license would be exempt. Lawmakers say the law has gone largely unenforced, AP News reported. Rep. Matthew Dowling (R.-Fayette), the bill’s sponsor, however, believes the law could limit people from openly carrying a firearm which is not generally banned in the state, AP News reported.
To be fair, the vetos shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone in the state. After all, Wolf has made it clear he’s not a fan of people’s Second Amendment rights, no matter what he claims in official statements.
Wolf would rather the citizens of Pennsylvania face arrest if carrying a firearm in public during an emergency.
While the pandemic was not the kind of emergency you needed to be armed at all times for, necessarily–at least, not any more than you would on any regular day in the state–the truth of the matter is that there’s more than one kind of emergency. The bill sought to fix a law that could actually make people more vulnerable to aggressive acts.
The fact that Wolf vetoed the bill illustrates that he either doesn’t understand gun rights in the first place or he doesn’t care about them, if not both.
Meanwhile, the blood will be on his hands if someone ends up barred from carrying a gun during an emergency and they lose their life because of it. That’s on him.
“They said the law is largely unenforced,” someone might cry, and that may be right. Yet a law on the books is a law that can be enforced. Further, if it’s unenforced, then why leave it on the books in the first place?
Wolf not signing the bills isn’t surprising. Nor will him refusing to accept any responsibility for the loss of life that may result from this veto.


bearingarms--2020-12-02--Baltimore's Bright Idea To Reduce Crime: Focus On The Criminals

As far as strategies go , it ’ s much better than passing more gun control laws aimed at legal gun owners , but as we explain on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , the city ’ s new “ focused deterrence ” effort targeting the most violent offenders seems to be long on carrots and short on sticks .
First , let ’ s focus on the good news .
For once , Democrats in Baltimore are actually basing their crime fighting strategy on actual criminals rather than demanding more laws restricting our right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a notable change from recent years , though it ’ s also worth noting that Maryland already put a lot of draconian gun laws on the books back in 2013 with the passage of the Maryland Firearms Safety Act , which was signed into law by then-Governor Martin O ’ Malley , a former mayor of Baltimore .
Still , any crime fighting effort that ’ s aimed at criminals is sure to be more successful than one aimed at restricting the rights of legal gun owners , so I applaud the Baltimore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on deterring the most violent and prolific offenders from further acts of violence .
Having said that , focused deterrence works best when there are both opportunities to criminals to change , and consequences if they don ’ t .
Baltimore ’ s new effort seems like it ’ s going to have far more of the former , and not much of the latter .
The plan has three initiatives : offering necessary support services to those who are vulnerable to committing crimes , revamping the intelligence hubs so that law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals and hiring a team of directors and coordinators to see the program succeed .
Anthony Braga , a nationally known expert on gun issues from Northeastern University has been nominated to oversee the program .
The plan is expected to cost an estimated $ 1.8 million dollars over the span of three years , which the department has already received most of through grants and donations .
The grant money will go towards hiring social workers that are skilled in working with these people .
In order for the plan to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and resources to see it through to fruition .
City officials know this to be true as it ’ s not the first time they ’ ve tried to implement it .
The city attempted focused deterrence measures twice in the past , once in the late 1990s and again in 2014 .
According to the Baltimore Sun , neither saw much success .
There ’ s no mention of working with the U.S. Attorney ’ s office and federal law enforcement to refer cases to the federal court system when criminals decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change their ways .
Moving those prolific and unrepentant offenders into federal court is a key strategy in order to see the best results of focused deterrence , but the city seems almost entirely focused on more social programs rather than a balanced approach .
By the way , David Kennedy , a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York actually writes about Baltimore ’ s attempt at focused deterrence in the 1990s in his book Don ’ t Shoot : One Man , A Street Fellowship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , and he places the blame for the failure on agencies at odds with each other in rolling out the program , as well as a lack of interest by newly elected mayor Martin O ’ Malley , who went with an “ arrest everyone ” approach instead .
Arrests soared in Baltimore , but so did violent crime .
It wasn ’ t until after O ’ Malley signed the Firearms Safety Act that things became truly horrific in Baltimore .
The city ’ s long been plagued with a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city has seen more than 300 homicides every year , and in 2019 set a record for the highest per capita homicide rate in the city ’ s history .
Clearly Maryland ’ s gun control laws have failed to keep Baltimore residents safe .
I just wish that Baltimore ’ s new strategy paid more attention to criminal prosecution in addition to providing opportunities for redemption .

As far as strategies go, it’s much better than passing more gun control laws aimed at legal gun owners, but as we explain on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the city’s new “focused deterrence” effort targeting the most violent offenders seems to be long on carrots and short on sticks.
First, let’s focus on the good news. For once, Democrats in Baltimore are actually basing their crime fighting strategy on actual criminals rather than demanding more laws restricting our right to keep and bear arms. This is a notable change from recent years, though it’s also worth noting that Maryland already put a lot of draconian gun laws on the books back in 2013 with the passage of the Maryland Firearms Safety Act, which was signed into law by then-Governor Martin O’Malley, a former mayor of Baltimore.
Still, any crime fighting effort that’s aimed at criminals is sure to be more successful than one aimed at restricting the rights of legal gun owners, so I applaud the Baltimore officials who want to focus their efforts on deterring the most violent and prolific offenders from further acts of violence.
Having said that, focused deterrence works best when there are both opportunities to criminals to change, and consequences if they don’t. Baltimore’s new effort seems like it’s going to have far more of the former, and not much of the latter.
The plan has three initiatives: offering necessary support services to those who are vulnerable to committing crimes, revamping the intelligence hubs so that law enforcement can accurately and better gather information about individuals and hiring a team of directors and coordinators to see the program succeed. Anthony Braga, a nationally known expert on gun issues from Northeastern University has been nominated to oversee the program. The plan is expected to cost an estimated $1.8 million dollars over the span of three years, which the department has already received most of through grants and donations. The grant money will go towards hiring social workers that are skilled in working with these people. In order for the plan to work, the city needs to devote time and resources to see it through to fruition. City officials know this to be true as it’s not the first time they’ve tried to implement it. The city attempted focused deterrence measures twice in the past, once in the late 1990s and again in 2014. According to the Baltimore Sun, neither saw much success.
There’s no mention of working with the U.S. Attorney’s office and federal law enforcement to refer cases to the federal court system when criminals decide not to take advantage of the opportunity to change their ways. Moving those prolific and unrepentant offenders into federal court is a key strategy in order to see the best results of focused deterrence, but the city seems almost entirely focused on more social programs rather than a balanced approach.
By the way, David Kennedy, a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York actually writes about Baltimore’s attempt at focused deterrence in the 1990s in his book Don’t Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America, and he places the blame for the failure on agencies at odds with each other in rolling out the program, as well as a lack of interest by newly elected mayor Martin O’Malley, who went with an “arrest everyone” approach instead. Arrests soared in Baltimore, but so did violent crime.
It wasn’t until after O’Malley signed the Firearms Safety Act that things became truly horrific in Baltimore. The city’s long been plagued with a high crime rate, but since 2015 the city has seen more than 300 homicides every year, and in 2019 set a record for the highest per capita homicide rate in the city’s history.
Clearly Maryland’s gun control laws have failed to keep Baltimore residents safe. I just wish that Baltimore’s new strategy paid more attention to criminal prosecution in addition to providing opportunities for redemption.


bearingarms--2020-12-02--Kayakers Find Guns, Leads Police To Alleged Burglar

In the gun community , the running joke of losing one ’ s guns in a boating accident is pretty much standard .
Not everyone agrees with going there , but it ’ s funny enough .
However , we do know that a lot of bad guys like to dump their guns by dropping them in the nearest body of water .
Lakes , rivers , pretty much anywhere there ’ s water on a permanent basis .
It ’ s a good way to dispose of a firearm in a way where it ’ ll likely never be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is .
A report from kayakers about firearms found at the bottom of Kayaderosseras Creek in Saratoga Springs has led to the arrest of two Ballston Spa men , one on burglary and theft charges , police said .
The kayakers reported spotting the weapons Nov. 11 off Nelson Avenue Extension , police said .
Saratoga Springs Police and the Saratoga County Sheriff ’ s Office Dive Team then found and recovered a total of three firearms from the creek .
Police soon connected the recovered firearms to a report Oct. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about three firearms stolen from a South Street residence , a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semi-automatic , a Blackhawk .22 caliber revolver and a Blackhawk .357 caliber revolver , police said .
A release did not indicate what police believe led the guns end up in the creek .
It looks like we might have to update the joke here .
More seriously , this is a rare occurrence .
While guns are sometimes found in the water , it ’ s usually because the police have some reason to look for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without that , it ’ s virtually impossible to find a firearm that ’ s been dumped like that .
The police got downright lucky in this case .
That ’ s good because gun thieves are particularly annoying for a variety of reasons .
However , I ’ m surprised that the crooks didn ’ t opt to sell the weapons and decided to toss them in the creek instead .
Usually , that ’ s what happens with stolen guns .
I ’ m sure investigators are asking that very same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn the answer , but my guess is that with these particular burglars , the one in charge wanted nothing to do with the gun trade , but the other boosted the firearms anyway .
Once it was found out , the one in charge dumped the guns rather than risk being caught with them .
If that is the case , it probably wasn ’ t the brightest of moves .
There are , of course , a dozen different reasons I can think of why they ’ d dump the guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m more interested in how the guns being found led to the arrest .
The news report neglects to mention that .
If there were fingerprints on the guns still , that ’ s one thing , but if not , there ’ s bound to be a fascinating tale on how investigators went from guns found on the bottom of a creek to making two arrests for burglary .
Either way , it ’ s unlikely we ’ ll see more details .
This isn ’ t the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of publicity , so the details are going to be left to the imagination .
Still , it ’ s interesting that boaters found guns when usually we joke about boaters losing them .

In the gun community, the running joke of losing one’s guns in a boating accident is pretty much standard. Not everyone agrees with going there, but it’s funny enough.
However, we do know that a lot of bad guys like to dump their guns by dropping them in the nearest body of water. Lakes, rivers, pretty much anywhere there’s water on a permanent basis. It’s a good way to dispose of a firearm in a way where it’ll likely never be seen again.
Unless, of course, it is.
A report from kayakers about firearms found at the bottom of Kayaderosseras Creek in Saratoga Springs has led to the arrest of two Ballston Spa men, one on burglary and theft charges, police said. The kayakers reported spotting the weapons Nov. 11 off Nelson Avenue Extension, police said. Saratoga Springs Police and the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Office Dive Team then found and recovered a total of three firearms from the creek. Police soon connected the recovered firearms to a report Oct. 1 to the Ballston Spa Police Department about three firearms stolen from a South Street residence, a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semi-automatic, a Blackhawk .22 caliber revolver and a Blackhawk .357 caliber revolver, police said. A release did not indicate what police believe led the guns end up in the creek.
Whoops.
It looks like we might have to update the joke here.
More seriously, this is a rare occurrence. While guns are sometimes found in the water, it’s usually because the police have some reason to look for a firearm in that particular place. Without that, it’s virtually impossible to find a firearm that’s been dumped like that.
The police got downright lucky in this case. That’s good because gun thieves are particularly annoying for a variety of reasons. However, I’m surprised that the crooks didn’t opt to sell the weapons and decided to toss them in the creek instead. Usually, that’s what happens with stolen guns.
I’m sure investigators are asking that very same question. I doubt we’ll learn the answer, but my guess is that with these particular burglars, the one in charge wanted nothing to do with the gun trade, but the other boosted the firearms anyway. Once it was found out, the one in charge dumped the guns rather than risk being caught with them.
If that is the case, it probably wasn’t the brightest of moves.
There are, of course, a dozen different reasons I can think of why they’d dump the guns instead of selling them.
Still, I’m more interested in how the guns being found led to the arrest. The news report neglects to mention that. If there were fingerprints on the guns still, that’s one thing, but if not, there’s bound to be a fascinating tale on how investigators went from guns found on the bottom of a creek to making two arrests for burglary.
Either way, it’s unlikely we’ll see more details. This isn’t the kind of case where the trial will get a lot of publicity, so the details are going to be left to the imagination.
Still, it’s interesting that boaters found guns when usually we joke about boaters losing them.