bearingarms--2020-07-02--Teen Shot At Minneapolis Version Of CHOP

Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone was finally cleared by police on Wednesday morning after several shootings and acts of violence over the past few weeks , but in Minneapolis , several encampments that have popped up in city parks over the past few weeks are still full of protesters and random acts of violence .
On Wednesday evening , a teenager was shot at an encampment in the city ’ s Peavey Park , even as police were warning park commissioners of the increased violence and lawlessness taking place around the city .
The shooting comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday evening , discussing safety issues connected to encampments at Minneapolis parks , including Peavey and Powderhorn .
A park police officers speaking at the meeting said Wednesday ’ s shooting is just one of a number of assaults , shootings , and other attacks that have happened in recent weeks at parks .
That officer said the victim in Wednesday ’ s shooting was at the encampment when he was shot .
Last week , park police said a minor was sexually assaulted at an encampment at Powderhorn Park .
Last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice at Jordan Park in Minneapolis ended up caught in the crossfire of a rolling gun battle between people in two cars , though amazingly no one was injured .
The violence has showed no signs of letting up since bullets flew over Jordan Park , at N. 30th and James avenues .
From June 23 to 29 , 18 people were hit by gunfire , with nine of them being hit over this past weekend , police said .
Halfway through 2020 , 207 people have been shot in Minneapolis , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the same time span , according to police data .
The six-month homicide total stands at 27 .
Police spokesman John Elder said that when officers responded to Jordan Park , the shooters were gone .
No arrests have been made in any of the shootings or stabbings that day .
Carrie Heinrich was at the park with her 12-year old son when the shooting started .
A couple of hours later , a visibly frustrated Heinrich took to Facebook and streamed a live video in which she pleaded for the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need the cops , ” said Heinrich , an emergency room nurse and former paramedic .
“ If you want to troll on [ social media ] and say dismantle the police , get off my page .
… I have no respect for anyone who has never gone through this and then wants to go spit in a cop ’ s face .
That ’ s who we needed tonight.
” Backing Heinrich ’ s point on reforming the role of police in the city , [ Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city , the police play an important role in responding to violent crime .
There is still a need for us to protect and serve our communities , and we will continue to do that in a manner that preserves the public ’ s trust.
” Police debate aside , Heinrich didn ’ t lose sight of who ultimately was responsible .
“ Never again should these kids have to duck and dodge bullets while playing football , ” Heinrich said in the video ’ s closing moments , her language punctuating rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong with you people ?
Zero regard for life.
” Well , that is what ’ s wrong with some people .
There ’ s no regard for human life ; not the life of the person they ’ re shooting at from their car , the lives of the people hanging out in the park with their kids at football practice , or even their own lives .
It ’ s a big reason why gun sales are soaring to record highs around the country at the moment .
You ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national news network to ignore the spike in violent crime in cities across the United States , and the attacks on policing have left many Americans scared and uncertain about how bad things might get .
So far , the city seems much more interested in disbanding the Minneapolis PD than the tent cities that have sprung up in parks in recent weeks , but I suspect that if the plan by the Minneapolis City Council to abolish the police force actually goes before the voters in the city , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In public conversation it might be easier to nod your head and go along with the idea that the city ’ s police force can be replaced by an army of social workers and violence interrupters , but in the privacy of the polling booth I think city residents will choose to keep the department intact .

Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone was finally cleared by police on Wednesday morning after several shootings and acts of violence over the past few weeks, but in Minneapolis, several encampments that have popped up in city parks over the past few weeks are still full of protesters and random acts of violence. On Wednesday evening, a teenager was shot at an encampment in the city’s Peavey Park, even as police were warning park commissioners of the increased violence and lawlessness taking place around the city.
The shooting comes as Minneapolis park board members held a meeting Wednesday evening, discussing safety issues connected to encampments at Minneapolis parks, including Peavey and Powderhorn. A park police officers speaking at the meeting said Wednesday’s shooting is just one of a number of assaults, shootings, and other attacks that have happened in recent weeks at parks. That officer said the victim in Wednesday’s shooting was at the encampment when he was shot. Last week, park police said a minor was sexually assaulted at an encampment at Powderhorn Park.
Last week, kids who had gathered for football practice at Jordan Park in Minneapolis ended up caught in the crossfire of a rolling gun battle between people in two cars, though amazingly no one was injured.
The violence has showed no signs of letting up since bullets flew over Jordan Park, at N. 30th and James avenues. From June 23 to 29, 18 people were hit by gunfire, with nine of them being hit over this past weekend, police said. Halfway through 2020, 207 people have been shot in Minneapolis, a significantly higher tally than the five-year average for the same time span, according to police data. The six-month homicide total stands at 27. Police spokesman John Elder said that when officers responded to Jordan Park, the shooters were gone. No arrests have been made in any of the shootings or stabbings that day.
Carrie Heinrich was at the park with her 12-year old son when the shooting started. A couple of hours later, a visibly frustrated Heinrich took to Facebook and streamed a live video in which she pleaded for the city to get its act together.
“We need the cops,” said Heinrich, an emergency room nurse and former paramedic. “If you want to troll on [social media] and say dismantle the police, get off my page. … I have no respect for anyone who has never gone through this and then wants to go spit in a cop’s face. That’s who we needed tonight.” Backing Heinrich’s point on reforming the role of police in the city, [Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria] Arradondo said, “In our city, the police play an important role in responding to violent crime. There is still a need for us to protect and serve our communities, and we will continue to do that in a manner that preserves the public’s trust.” Police debate aside, Heinrich didn’t lose sight of who ultimately was responsible. “Never again should these kids have to duck and dodge bullets while playing football,” Heinrich said in the video’s closing moments, her language punctuating rising anger. “What the hell is wrong with you people? Zero regard for life.”
Well, that is what’s wrong with some people. There’s no regard for human life; not the life of the person they’re shooting at from their car, the lives of the people hanging out in the park with their kids at football practice, or even their own lives. It’s a big reason why gun sales are soaring to record highs around the country at the moment. You’d have to be blind or work for a national news network to ignore the spike in violent crime in cities across the United States, and the attacks on policing have left many Americans scared and uncertain about how bad things might get.
So far, the city seems much more interested in disbanding the Minneapolis PD than the tent cities that have sprung up in parks in recent weeks, but I suspect that if the plan by the Minneapolis City Council to abolish the police force actually goes before the voters in the city, it’s going to be rejected handily. In public conversation it might be easier to nod your head and go along with the idea that the city’s police force can be replaced by an army of social workers and violence interrupters, but in the privacy of the polling booth I think city residents will choose to keep the department intact.


bearingarms--2020-07-02--CHOP Finally Cleared, All It Took Was A Threat To Mayor

The CHOP , formerly the CHAZ ( which I liked better , anyway ) , was an embarrassment to the city and people of Seattle .
Some within the area felt they were unable to speak out about the CHOP for fear that Antifa militants would kill them .
As it is , two people did die in the CHOP .
It seems that having an area where the police aren ’ t present might have some implications on crime .
Anyway , the most important fact about the CHOP ?
It ’ s no more .
On Wednesday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and antifa rebels/protesters from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest ( CHOP ) , which Todd Herman cleverly dubbed “ antifastan.
” Yet as the police went about restoring order to the six-block area unlawfully seized in the wake of the George Floyd protests , the police department reported a rather unnerving sight .
It appears armed militants were patrolling the area in cars stripped of license plates .
“ Officers are investigating several vehicles circling the area of today ’ s operation .
Police have observed individuals in the vehicles with firearms/armor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without visible license plates , ” the Seattle Police Department tweeted .
All the same , the restoration of law and order in Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill district is worth celebrating .
In fact , Ngo had to suspend his disbelief to report the final return of police on Wednesday .
Last Monday , Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan ( D ) announced that she would break up CHOP after two shootings the previous weekend , one of which tragically claimed the life of a 19-year-old black man .
Yet she only sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break up the lawless occupation , and her efforts failed .
After another black person , this time a 16-year-old boy , tragically lost his life in a shooting this Monday , it appears she finally did what was necessary to get the job done .
Of course , it ’ s also important to note that Durkan only stepped up to the plate when it became personal .
It wasn ’ t until CHOP supporters marched on her home–an address that ’ s meant to be confidential but now isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send in the police .
It wasn ’ t the murder of a 14-year-old boy in the CHOP .
No , it took two more days before the police rolled in .
Durkan was outright supportive of the CHOP from the start , calling it a second “ Summer of Love , ” which aged poorly after two murders , to be sure .
I always pictured a second Summer of Love as being less murdery .
Go figure .
For many who own businesses inside the CHOP , they probably don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to come and restore order .
At least one person from inside the area , someone who seems sympathetic to the overall Black Lives Matter movement , said that he was concerned about speaking out due to fear that Antifa militants inside the CHOP would kill him .
Now , maybe that gentleman can rest a bit easier .
At the end of the day , this should spell the end of Durkan ’ s political career .
Of course , this is Seattle we ’ re talking about , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The CHOP, formerly the CHAZ (which I liked better, anyway), was an embarrassment to the city and people of Seattle. Some within the area felt they were unable to speak out about the CHOP for fear that Antifa militants would kill them. As it is, two people did die in the CHOP. It seems that having an area where the police aren’t present might have some implications on crime.
Who knew?
Anyway, the most important fact about the CHOP? It’s no more.
On Wednesday morning, Seattle police finally removed the anarchist and antifa rebels/protesters from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) Occupied Protest (CHOP), which Todd Herman cleverly dubbed “antifastan.” Yet as the police went about restoring order to the six-block area unlawfully seized in the wake of the George Floyd protests, the police department reported a rather unnerving sight. It appears armed militants were patrolling the area in cars stripped of license plates. “Officers are investigating several vehicles circling the area of today’s operation. Police have observed individuals in the vehicles with firearms/armor. The vehicles also appear to be operating without visible license plates,” the Seattle Police Department tweeted. … All the same, the restoration of law and order in Seattle’s Capitol Hill district is worth celebrating. In fact, Ngo had to suspend his disbelief to report the final return of police on Wednesday. Last Monday, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan (D) announced that she would break up CHOP after two shootings the previous weekend, one of which tragically claimed the life of a 19-year-old black man. Yet she only sent city workers, not police, in to break up the lawless occupation, and her efforts failed. After another black person, this time a 16-year-old boy, tragically lost his life in a shooting this Monday, it appears she finally did what was necessary to get the job done.
Of course, it’s also important to note that Durkan only stepped up to the plate when it became personal.
It wasn’t until CHOP supporters marched on her home–an address that’s meant to be confidential but now isn’t–that Durkan got riled up enough to send in the police. It wasn’t the murder of a 14-year-old boy in the CHOP. No, it took two more days before the police rolled in.
That didn’t happen until Durkan felt personally threatened.
Durkan was outright supportive of the CHOP from the start, calling it a second “Summer of Love,” which aged poorly after two murders, to be sure. I always pictured a second Summer of Love as being less murdery. Go figure.
For many who own businesses inside the CHOP, they probably don’t care why Durkan finally allowed the police to come and restore order. At least one person from inside the area, someone who seems sympathetic to the overall Black Lives Matter movement, said that he was concerned about speaking out due to fear that Antifa militants inside the CHOP would kill him.
Now, maybe that gentleman can rest a bit easier.
At the end of the day, this should spell the end of Durkan’s political career. Of course, this is Seattle we’re talking about, so I won’t hold my breath.


bearingarms--2020-07-02--Woman Ends Up In Cuffs After Pulling Gun On Mom & Daughter

A Michigan woman who pulled a firearm on a mom and daughter in a strip mall parking lot ended up in handcuffs on Wednesday evening in a incident that was caught ( mostly ) on camera .
According to the Detroit News , Takelia Hill was walking into a Chiptole with her 15-year old daughter Makayla when a woman bumped into the teen .
The 15-year old told the woman “ excuse you , ” and says she was subjected to a barrage of indignant expletives in return .
“ I walked up on the woman yelling at my daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t see me because her back was to me , but she was in my daughter ’ s face.
” The initial encounter was not caught on video .
The footage starts after the altercation moved to the Chipotle parking lot near the vehicle of the woman accused of bumping into the teen .
At one point , the woman who pulled the gun listens to the mom and teen , one of whom repeats that the woman is “ ignorant ” and “ racist.
” A man from the vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who the ( expletive ) do you think you guys are ?
” and helps the woman into the SUV .
He and Hill exchange angry words before he walks back to the driver ’ s side .
From the passenger seat , as Hill asks the woman why she bumped her daughter , the woman says through the rolled down passenger-side window : “ You can not just walk around calling white people racist … White people aren ’ t racist … I care about you and I ’ m sorry if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone make you feel like that .
No one is racist … ” The woman rolls up her window and Hill is seen stepping back as the SUV starts to drive away .
It wasn ’ t just that Hill and her daughter were calling the woman “ racist ” and “ ignorant.
” At one point , as the guy ’ s helping the woman into the SUV , Hill says she ’ ll “ beat his ass too.
” Both sides were jawing at each other , in other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation .
At that point , the SUV backs out of the parking space , but Hill is standing close by .
She says she thought the SUV was going to back into her , so she banged on the back window of the SUV and began yelling at the couple .
That ’ s when the woman hopped out , gun in hand .
Warning : there is some explicit language here .
You can see a longer version of the video here .
In my opinion , neither party involved were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still wasn ’ t a reason for the woman in the SUV to hop out with her gun after Hill had banged on the rear window .
At that point , the vehicle could have pulled forward and simply driven off , bringing the heated encounter to a close .
Instead , the woman exited the SUV , gun drawn , and begins pointing it at Hill while screaming for her to “ back the f*** off.
” Eventually , the woman gets back into the vehicle , but police arrived moments later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office was called after the gun was drawn , Hill said .
The Sheriff ’ s Office was not available for comment , but the video shows an officer , with some type of weapon drawn , approaching the woman , who is on her hands and knees on the ground near her SUV .
The officer continues to move toward the woman , eventually getting near enough to pick up the gun on the ground .
Moments later , as the woman kneeling on the ground puts her hands behind her back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if the woman , who ’ s name has not been released , ends up facing a brandishing charge .
At the time she drew her firearm , Hill hadn ’ t done anything to put the woman in fear of her life , and it appears that the woman escalated the situation when she took out her firearm and pointed it at Hill .
Neither side behaved well , but in my opinion the unidentified woman took a bad situation and unnecessarily made it worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect your life from imminent danger or great bodily harm .
Draw your gun before those conditions are met , and you ’ re likely going to be the one facing charges .
We ’ ll keep an eye on any updates with this story , and I ’ m sure there ’ ll be plenty because the media is going to seize on this story just like they did with the McCloskeys in St. Louis .
Meanwhile , the arrest of two BLM protesters in Provo , Utah in the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the national media , who seem to be completely uninterested in that local story for some reason .

A Michigan woman who pulled a firearm on a mom and daughter in a strip mall parking lot ended up in handcuffs on Wednesday evening in a incident that was caught (mostly) on camera. According to the Detroit News, Takelia Hill was walking into a Chiptole with her 15-year old daughter Makayla when a woman bumped into the teen. The 15-year old told the woman “excuse you,” and says she was subjected to a barrage of indignant expletives in return.
“I walked up on the woman yelling at my daughter,” Hill said. “She couldn’t see me because her back was to me, but she was in my daughter’s face.” The initial encounter was not caught on video. The footage starts after the altercation moved to the Chipotle parking lot near the vehicle of the woman accused of bumping into the teen. At one point, the woman who pulled the gun listens to the mom and teen, one of whom repeats that the woman is “ignorant” and “racist.” A man from the vehicle exits and asks the pair, “Who the (expletive) do you think you guys are?” and helps the woman into the SUV. He and Hill exchange angry words before he walks back to the driver’s side. From the passenger seat, as Hill asks the woman why she bumped her daughter, the woman says through the rolled down passenger-side window: “You cannot just walk around calling white people racist … White people aren’t racist … I care about you and I’m sorry if you had an incident that has made someone make you feel like that. No one is racist …” The woman rolls up her window and Hill is seen stepping back as the SUV starts to drive away.
It wasn’t just that Hill and her daughter were calling the woman “racist” and “ignorant.” At one point, as the guy’s helping the woman into the SUV, Hill says she’ll “beat his ass too.” Both sides were jawing at each other, in other words, but it was still just a heated conversation.
At that point, the SUV backs out of the parking space, but Hill is standing close by. She says she thought the SUV was going to back into her, so she banged on the back window of the SUV and began yelling at the couple. That’s when the woman hopped out, gun in hand. Warning: there is some explicit language here.
This happened today in Auburn Hills,MI
Another Karen .. pic.twitter.com/lWksZwXITD — 🦋Makay (@makaysmith10) July 2, 2020
You can see a longer version of the video here. In my opinion, neither party involved were on their best behavior, but there still wasn’t a reason for the woman in the SUV to hop out with her gun after Hill had banged on the rear window. At that point, the vehicle could have pulled forward and simply driven off, bringing the heated encounter to a close.
Instead, the woman exited the SUV, gun drawn, and begins pointing it at Hill while screaming for her to “back the f*** off.” Eventually, the woman gets back into the vehicle, but police arrived moments later.
The Oakland County Sheriff’s Office was called after the gun was drawn, Hill said. The Sheriff’s Office was not available for comment, but the video shows an officer, with some type of weapon drawn, approaching the woman, who is on her hands and knees on the ground near her SUV. The officer continues to move toward the woman, eventually getting near enough to pick up the gun on the ground. Moments later, as the woman kneeling on the ground puts her hands behind her back, another officer places handcuffs on her.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the woman, who’s name has not been released, ends up facing a brandishing charge. At the time she drew her firearm, Hill hadn’t done anything to put the woman in fear of her life, and it appears that the woman escalated the situation when she took out her firearm and pointed it at Hill. Neither side behaved well, but in my opinion the unidentified woman took a bad situation and unnecessarily made it worse. Remember; your firearm is there to protect your life from imminent danger or great bodily harm. Draw your gun before those conditions are met, and you’re likely going to be the one facing charges.
We’ll keep an eye on any updates with this story, and I’m sure there’ll be plenty because the media is going to seize on this story just like they did with the McCloskeys in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the arrest of two BLM protesters in Provo, Utah in the actual shooting of a motorist has been ignored by the national media, who seem to be completely uninterested in that local story for some reason.


bearingarms--2020-07-02--California Tried To Ban Yet Another Firearm Type

By now , anyone who follows gun rights news knows that California isn ’ t a great place to be a gun person .
Your choices on handguns are severely limited to just what ’ s on a particular list , a list that is shrinking as models are discontinued and no longer sold , and your choices of tactical rifles are even more so .
Sure , most hunting weapons are untouched , but the Second Amendment doesn ’ t say a damn thing about hunting .
However , there ’ s a kind of firearm that made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not quite a pistol , not quite a rifle .
It ’ s made life in California just a bit easier for some .
So , of course , California lawmakers are looking to ban it .
California lawmakers this week are poised to use a budget maneuver to ban a new type of gun in a move that drew bipartisan criticism in a legislative committee hearing Wednesday evening .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s administration describes the firearm as an assault-style weapon that ’ s a cross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It doesn ’ t neatly fit into either category , however , because it lacks a shoulder stock needed to be a rifle and has a barrel too long to be a pistol .
Representatives for Newsom argued at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the gun was designed to circumvent California gun control laws and that the policy change would close the loophole .
Jay Jacobson , president of the company that manufactures the firearm , disputed the administration ’ s characterization of the gun .
He said the gun his company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 , is in a separate category from rifles and pistols and that the company has worked for years to ensure the weapon would be legal to sell in California .
Several lawmakers raised concerns about the move at the Wednesday hearing , arguing the ban should have been considered in a standalone bill , not as part of the sprawling budget deal that encompasses 19 pieces of complicated legislation .
“ It should be a policy bill — banning of a new class of firearm , ” said Republican Sen. Melissa Melendez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t a budget matter.
” So why wasn ’ t it ?
Well , regular laws passed in California go into effect on January 1 the following year unless there ’ s an urgency clause , which requires a 2/3 majority , something even California would have trouble getting .
Budget bills , however , kick in on July 1 .
And , of course , it ’ s July 2 .
So it ’ s too late , right ?
It ’ s a done deal and these weapons are banned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over how the measure was being pushed–these kinds of things aren ’ t uncommon , but they ’ re rarely noticed until it ’ s too late–that it didn ’ t go through .
However , it ’ s California .
Expect to see a bill coming up on this one soon enough .
Yet through all of this , there ’ s one thing that seems to be missing .
There ’ s no mention of these guns being used for criminal activity .
Isn ’ t that the reason we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not .
At this point , they ’ re ready to ban guns simply for existing without their permission .
It doesn ’ t matter that these particular weapons aren ’ t useful for anything except personal amusement .
They ’ re too long to be concealable and aren ’ t made to be shouldered .
They ’ re just fun for people who like to shoot semi-automatic firearms .
That ’ s it .
But at the end of the day , it ’ s California , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .

By now, anyone who follows gun rights news knows that California isn’t a great place to be a gun person. Your choices on handguns are severely limited to just what’s on a particular list, a list that is shrinking as models are discontinued and no longer sold, and your choices of tactical rifles are even more so. Sure, most hunting weapons are untouched, but the Second Amendment doesn’t say a damn thing about hunting.
However, there’s a kind of firearm that made it through the cracks of California state law. It’s not quite a pistol, not quite a rifle. It’s made life in California just a bit easier for some.
So, of course, California lawmakers are looking to ban it.
California lawmakers this week are poised to use a budget maneuver to ban a new type of gun in a move that drew bipartisan criticism in a legislative committee hearing Wednesday evening. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes the firearm as an assault-style weapon that’s a cross between a rifle and a pistol. It doesn’t neatly fit into either category, however, because it lacks a shoulder stock needed to be a rifle and has a barrel too long to be a pistol. Representatives for Newsom argued at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the gun was designed to circumvent California gun control laws and that the policy change would close the loophole. Jay Jacobson, president of the company that manufactures the firearm, disputed the administration’s characterization of the gun. He said the gun his company Franklin Armory manufactures, called a Title 1, is in a separate category from rifles and pistols and that the company has worked for years to ensure the weapon would be legal to sell in California. Several lawmakers raised concerns about the move at the Wednesday hearing, arguing the ban should have been considered in a standalone bill, not as part of the sprawling budget deal that encompasses 19 pieces of complicated legislation. “It should be a policy bill — banning of a new class of firearm,” said Republican Sen. Melissa Melendez from Lake Elsinore. “This isn’t a budget matter.”
So why wasn’t it?
Well, regular laws passed in California go into effect on January 1 the following year unless there’s an urgency clause, which requires a 2/3 majority, something even California would have trouble getting. Budget bills, however, kick in on July 1.
And, of course, it’s July 2. So it’s too late, right? It’s a done deal and these weapons are banned?
Nope.
It seems there was enough backlash over how the measure was being pushed–these kinds of things aren’t uncommon, but they’re rarely noticed until it’s too late–that it didn’t go through.
However, it’s California. Expect to see a bill coming up on this one soon enough.
Yet through all of this, there’s one thing that seems to be missing. There’s no mention of these guns being used for criminal activity. Isn’t that the reason we need gun control?
In California, it’s not. At this point, they’re ready to ban guns simply for existing without their permission. It doesn’t matter that these particular weapons aren’t useful for anything except personal amusement. They’re too long to be concealable and aren’t made to be shouldered. They’re just fun for people who like to shoot semi-automatic firearms. That’s it.
But at the end of the day, it’s California, and that’s pretty much all the reason they need.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--Felony Charges After Gun Drawn In Chipotle Parking Lot Argument

A couple in Michigan are facing felonious assault charges and the possibility of four years in prison after one of them drew a gun during a heated argument in the parking lot of a Chipotle in a Detroit suburb .
Jillian Wuestenberg and her husband Eric Wuestenberg are out on $ 50,000 bond in the incident , though Eric Wuestenberg is also out of a job .
Oakland University , which employed him in a veterans-related department , gave Wuestenberg the heave-ho shortly after charges were filed .
“ We have seen the video and we deem his behavior unacceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his employment has been terminated by the university , ” OU said in a statement late Thursday .
The Black family and the Wuestenbergs argued outside the restaurant after a member of the Black family demanded an apology from Jillian Wuestenberg for bumping a teenage girl in the group .
Both the Wuestenbergs and the Black family accused each other of racism .
Jillian Wuestenberg told police she exited the couple ’ s vehicle and pointed a handgun at the Black family after the mother stood behind the van , blocking the Wuestenbergs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother slapped her hand on the back of the vehicle and made threatening statements .
The Black family told police the mother stepped behind the vehicle and the Wuestenbergs backed into her , Bouchard said .
As I said in my first story on this incident , I think both sides behaved badly from the get-go , but Wuestenberg didn ’ t need to pull her gun or even get out of her van .
When the woman slapped her hand on the rear window of the Wuestenberg ’ s van , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward and drive away .
In fact , after Jillian Wuestenberg got back in the van , that ’ s exactly what they did .
It was a needless prolonging of the confrontation , and I think Wuestenberg is going to have a difficult time convincing a jury that her escalation of the situation was legal and appropriate because she was in fear for her life .
I ’ ll admit , though , that I ’ m having a harder time with the felonious assault charge filed against her husband , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything with his firearm .
I think Second Amendment advocate Marcus Weldon , who has some experience with being an armed citizen in the criminal justice system , and I are on the same page .
“ Both parties were both wrong in this situation , ” Weldon said .
“ I think the gun owner should not have drawn her firearm in that moment .
I think that was not a great bodily harm or threat to her life .
“ It ’ s also people ’ s responsibility to not escalate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bump my child , I understand as a father I would have been upset and checked the person .
I think the ownership also falls on the family to say , walk away .
The person in the car was leaving the scene , trying to leave the scene at least .
At that point , let them walk away .
It ’ s a point echoed by Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard as he addressed the media about the charges on Thursday .
Bouchard also objected to comments from a local lawmaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for more “ gun reform laws.
” “ There is nothing acceptable about what happened in Orion Township last night at the Chipotle .
It is abhorrent to think that some in this country have such a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement that the idea of pulling a gun out on an unarmed child and her mother is OK , ” Bayer said in a statement .
“ It is not , and I condemn anyone who thinks otherwise .
My heart goes out to Ms. Hill and her daughters , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience.
” “ Michigan needs commonsense gun reform , and we need it now .
People should feel safe going about their day and not have to worry about having a gun pulled on them during a conflict , ” she said .
“ This incident clearly shows we have much work to do because this is not how we should be treating each other.
” Bouchard said the incident had nothing to do with gun reform and those involved legally possessed their weapons .
“ Remember , each one of us is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bouchard said .
“ From my personal point of view , this is a blessing from God .
So let ’ s treat each other like that .
It ’ s very sad for me to see what ’ s going on across communities across this country.
” This isn ’ t about gun control , it ’ s about self-control .
It ’ s about being willing to walk away ( or drive away ) and let some jerk get the last word , even if the last word is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this conflict could have chosen to de-escalate the situation , but neither did .
Now , instead of spending Independence Day celebrating freedom , the Wuestenbergs are wondering how much longer they ’ ll be able to enjoy it .

A couple in Michigan are facing felonious assault charges and the possibility of four years in prison after one of them drew a gun during a heated argument in the parking lot of a Chipotle in a Detroit suburb. Jillian Wuestenberg and her husband Eric Wuestenberg are out on $50,000 bond in the incident, though Eric Wuestenberg is also out of a job. Oakland University, which employed him in a veterans-related department, gave Wuestenberg the heave-ho shortly after charges were filed.
“We have seen the video and we deem his behavior unacceptable. The employee has been notified that his employment has been terminated by the university,” OU said in a statement late Thursday. The Black family and the Wuestenbergs argued outside the restaurant after a member of the Black family demanded an apology from Jillian Wuestenberg for bumping a teenage girl in the group. Both the Wuestenbergs and the Black family accused each other of racism. Jillian Wuestenberg told police she exited the couple’s vehicle and pointed a handgun at the Black family after the mother stood behind the van, blocking the Wuestenbergs from leaving. They also said the mother slapped her hand on the back of the vehicle and made threatening statements. The Black family told police the mother stepped behind the vehicle and the Wuestenbergs backed into her, Bouchard said.
As I said in my first story on this incident, I think both sides behaved badly from the get-go, but Wuestenberg didn’t need to pull her gun or even get out of her van. When the woman slapped her hand on the rear window of the Wuestenberg’s van, the couple had a clear shot to pull forward and drive away. In fact, after Jillian Wuestenberg got back in the van, that’s exactly what they did.
It was a needless prolonging of the confrontation, and I think Wuestenberg is going to have a difficult time convincing a jury that her escalation of the situation was legal and appropriate because she was in fear for her life. I’ll admit, though, that I’m having a harder time with the felonious assault charge filed against her husband, who isn’t caught on camera doing anything with his firearm.
I think Second Amendment advocate Marcus Weldon, who has some experience with being an armed citizen in the criminal justice system, and I are on the same page.
“Both parties were both wrong in this situation,” Weldon said. “I think the gun owner should not have drawn her firearm in that moment. I think that was not a great bodily harm or threat to her life. “It’s also people’s responsibility to not escalate a situation. If someone were to bump my child, I understand as a father I would have been upset and checked the person. I think the ownership also falls on the family to say, walk away. The person in the car was leaving the scene, trying to leave the scene at least. At that point, let them walk away.
It’s a point echoed by Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard as he addressed the media about the charges on Thursday. Bouchard also objected to comments from a local lawmaker, who said the incident proved the need for more “gun reform laws.”
On Thursday, state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, called the incident unacceptable. “There is nothing acceptable about what happened in Orion Township last night at the Chipotle. It is abhorrent to think that some in this country have such a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement that the idea of pulling a gun out on an unarmed child and her mother is OK,” Bayer said in a statement. “It is not, and I condemn anyone who thinks otherwise. My heart goes out to Ms. Hill and her daughters, who may now forever be traumatized by this experience.” Bayer also called for gun reform. “Michigan needs commonsense gun reform, and we need it now. People should feel safe going about their day and not have to worry about having a gun pulled on them during a conflict,” she said. “This incident clearly shows we have much work to do because this is not how we should be treating each other.” Bouchard said the incident had nothing to do with gun reform and those involved legally possessed their weapons. “Remember, each one of us is a human being that deserves respect,” Bouchard said. “From my personal point of view, this is a blessing from God. So let’s treat each other like that. It’s very sad for me to see what’s going on across communities across this country.”
This isn’t about gun control, it’s about self-control. It’s about being willing to walk away (or drive away) and let some jerk get the last word, even if the last word is “racist.” At several points both sides in this conflict could have chosen to de-escalate the situation, but neither did. Now, instead of spending Independence Day celebrating freedom, the Wuestenbergs are wondering how much longer they’ll be able to enjoy it.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--Hearing Held In Challenge To Virginia's New Background Check Law

A Lynchburg , Virginia judge heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state ’ s new “ universal background check ” law on Thursday , one day after the new law took effect along with a half-dozen other gun control bills approved by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly earlier this year .
The challenge to the new background check law was brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League , Gun Owners of America , and three individuals who say their right to keep and bear arms under the state constitution is being infringed by the new law , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Commonwealth .
Attorney General Mark Herring , meanwhile , argues that the background check law “ closes loopholes ” that allow felons and other prohibited persons to acquire guns .
As WSLS reported : The lawsuit is different from the last one with Gov .
Ralph Northam in April because he ’ s not mentioned in it .
The complaint is against the superintendent of the Virginia Department of State Police , who will be responsible for enforcing this new background check law .
10 News was not allowed to record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same attorney who represented Safeside Tactical in the lawsuit against the Northam ’ s executive order , is now representing three Lynchburg men who want to privately sell guns to one another .
The new law requires anyone who wants to buy a firearm from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show to go through a background check and pay the fees to do it .
Gun rights advocates say this infringes on their rights .
The Virginia Defense League and Gun Owners of America are also named on the complaint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to purchase a firearm , they have to go to a gun store submit to a background check , which put people ’ s name in the FBI database .
That can result in delays , ” said Erich Pratt , Senior VP of Gun Owners of America .
Thursday ’ s hearing was on a request for an injunction preventing the law from being enforced while it ’ s challenged .
Even if the judge in the case refuses to grant the injunction , the case itself will likely continue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge F. Patrick Yeatts , who presided over Thursday ’ s hearing , did rule in favor of GOA and VCDL in an earlier challenge to the closure of an indoor range in Lynchburg under Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s coronavirus executive orders .
Yeatts ruled that the governor overstepped his authority in ordering ranges to close , violating Virginia state statute in doing so .
Northam didn ’ t appeal the judge ’ s decision , and shortly afterwards indoor ranges across the state were allowed to reopen with certain COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon learn if Yates believes that Northam and Virginia Democrats have similarly overstepped the bounds of the state constitution with their background check law , but regardless of its constitutionality , Attorney General Mark Herring can ’ t and won ’ t defend its enforceability .
I ’ ll be shocked if there are even a half-dozen charges for violating the background check law in the next year , because the law is simply nearly impossible to enforce .
As I mentioned , background checks are required on all private sales of firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to give your brother a shotgun for Christmas , no background check is needed .
If you want to sell him a shotgun , on the other hand , you ’ re required to go through the background check process .
I suspect that anybody who might be facing charges of selling or buying a gun without using a gun store and the NICS system will simply argue that it wasn ’ t a sale but a transfer .
Unless prosecutors can prove that money changed hands , they simply won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if transfers were included , there ’ s no centralized registry of who owns what guns in Virginia , so there ’ s no way to know how many times a firearm might have changed hands once its been sold at retail .
At some point , Democrats in the state will introduce a gun registration bill making that very argument , but even if it too passes , good luck trying to enforce compliance .
The biggest problem with the background check bill is that it approaches the issue of gun possession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his anti-gun buddies are trying to restrict the supply of guns to criminals , when they should be trying to restrict demand .
Keep in mind as well that Virginia already has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country , and Northam ’ s new gun control laws have nothing to do with that .
We ’ ve got a pretty small population of criminal offenders , and a pretty large body of armed citizens .
It makes far more sense to target the relatively few number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hundreds of thousands of legal Virginia gun owners in the hopes of ensnaring a few .
Under current law , possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is punishable by up to five years in prison .
In reality , however , most people charged under the law are going to end up serving far less time , either through plea bargains or a judge handing down a sentence less than the maximum time allowed .
The first thing the state should do is double the potential sentence to ten years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That would bring state law more in line with federal law .
The next step is harder , but it ’ s even more important .
For decades , criminal justice experts have generally agreed that the most effective way to reduce violent crime is to ensure that there are swift and certain consequences .
If people think they can get away with something , they ’ ll do more of it , whether it ’ s jaywalking , dealing drugs , illegally possessing a gun , or shooting someone .
Increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a greater focus on high-risk offenders , including unscheduled checks at home and at work .
Make it clear to every inmate entering probation that illegal gun possession is the worst mistake they can make , and if they ’ re caught they will have their probation revoked and will serve the entirety of their sentence .
Make the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person a top priority for commonwealth ’ s attorneys .
Stop pleading the charge away , especially if the previous felony or felonies included violent crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words .
Virginia ’ s new background check law is completely unserious as a crime prevention tool .
Its only use is to restrict the rights of Virginia ’ s legal gun owners , and its only benefit is to the campaign coffers of Virginia Democrats , who ’ ll be richly rewarded by the likes of Big Daddy Bloomberg for their efforts .

A Lynchburg, Virginia judge heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state’s new “universal background check” law on Thursday, one day after the new law took effect along with a half-dozen other gun control bills approved by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly earlier this year.
The challenge to the new background check law was brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, and three individuals who say their right to keep and bear arms under the state constitution is being infringed by the new law, which requires background checks on all firearm sales in the Commonwealth. Attorney General Mark Herring, meanwhile, argues that the background check law “closes loopholes” that allow felons and other prohibited persons to acquire guns. As WSLS reported:
The lawsuit is different from the last one with Gov. Ralph Northam in April because he’s not mentioned in it. The complaint is against the superintendent of the Virginia Department of State Police, who will be responsible for enforcing this new background check law. 10 News was not allowed to record the video hearing. David Browne, the same attorney who represented Safeside Tactical in the lawsuit against the Northam’s executive order, is now representing three Lynchburg men who want to privately sell guns to one another. The new law requires anyone who wants to buy a firearm from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show to go through a background check and pay the fees to do it. Gun rights advocates say this infringes on their rights. The Virginia Defense League and Gun Owners of America are also named on the complaint. “It forces everybody, if they want to purchase a firearm, they have to go to a gun store submit to a background check, which put people’s name in the FBI database. That can result in delays,” said Erich Pratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America.
Thursday’s hearing was on a request for an injunction preventing the law from being enforced while it’s challenged. Even if the judge in the case refuses to grant the injunction, the case itself will likely continue. It’s worth pointing out that Judge F. Patrick Yeatts, who presided over Thursday’s hearing, did rule in favor of GOA and VCDL in an earlier challenge to the closure of an indoor range in Lynchburg under Gov. Ralph Northam’s coronavirus executive orders. Yeatts ruled that the governor overstepped his authority in ordering ranges to close, violating Virginia state statute in doing so. Northam didn’t appeal the judge’s decision, and shortly afterwards indoor ranges across the state were allowed to reopen with certain COVID-19 safeguards in place.
We’ll soon learn if Yates believes that Northam and Virginia Democrats have similarly overstepped the bounds of the state constitution with their background check law, but regardless of its constitutionality, Attorney General Mark Herring can’t and won’t defend its enforceability. I’ll be shocked if there are even a half-dozen charges for violating the background check law in the next year, because the law is simply nearly impossible to enforce.
As I mentioned, background checks are required on all private sales of firearms, but not private transfers. If you want to give your brother a shotgun for Christmas, no background check is needed. If you want to sell him a shotgun, on the other hand, you’re required to go through the background check process. I suspect that anybody who might be facing charges of selling or buying a gun without using a gun store and the NICS system will simply argue that it wasn’t a sale but a transfer. Unless prosecutors can prove that money changed hands, they simply won’t have a case.
Even if transfers were included, there’s no centralized registry of who owns what guns in Virginia, so there’s no way to know how many times a firearm might have changed hands once its been sold at retail. At some point, Democrats in the state will introduce a gun registration bill making that very argument, but even if it too passes, good luck trying to enforce compliance.
The biggest problem with the background check bill is that it approaches the issue of gun possession by prohibited persons completely backwards. Northam and his anti-gun buddies are trying to restrict the supply of guns to criminals, when they should be trying to restrict demand.
Keep in mind as well that Virginia already has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, and Northam’s new gun control laws have nothing to do with that. We’ve got a pretty small population of criminal offenders, and a pretty large body of armed citizens. It makes far more sense to target the relatively few number of people trying to illegally possess a firearm than the hundreds of thousands of legal Virginia gun owners in the hopes of ensnaring a few.
Under current law, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is punishable by up to five years in prison. In reality, however, most people charged under the law are going to end up serving far less time, either through plea bargains or a judge handing down a sentence less than the maximum time allowed. The first thing the state should do is double the potential sentence to ten years, with a five year minimum term. That would bring state law more in line with federal law.
The next step is harder, but it’s even more important. For decades, criminal justice experts have generally agreed that the most effective way to reduce violent crime is to ensure that there are swift and certain consequences. If people think they can get away with something, they’ll do more of it, whether it’s jaywalking, dealing drugs, illegally possessing a gun, or shooting someone.
Increase the number of probation officers to allow for a greater focus on high-risk offenders, including unscheduled checks at home and at work. Make it clear to every inmate entering probation that illegal gun possession is the worst mistake they can make, and if they’re caught they will have their probation revoked and will serve the entirety of their sentence.
Make the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person a top priority for commonwealth’s attorneys. Stop pleading the charge away, especially if the previous felony or felonies included violent crimes.
Take the issue seriously, in other words. Virginia’s new background check law is completely unserious as a crime prevention tool. Its only use is to restrict the rights of Virginia’s legal gun owners, and its only benefit is to the campaign coffers of Virginia Democrats, who’ll be richly rewarded by the likes of Big Daddy Bloomberg for their efforts.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--No, Armed Citizens At Protests Aren't Opposing "Anti-Racism"

For a while now , almost every supposed “ anti-racism ” protest that has been held has also had a contingent of non-protestors openly displaying firearms .
This comes after armed protests in places like Michigan over the lockdown , in which the media made a point of vilifying with every fiber of their being .
Now , some are working to continue the vilification .
You see , those people with guns at the protests ?
They ’ re counter-protesting a protest against racism .
Armed counterprotesters have confronted anti-racism rallies in at least 33 states , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Guns & America analyzed media reports and social media that tracked these armed counterprotesters .
The picture that emerges is one of largely peaceful protests erupting all over the country after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd and being met by the intimidating presence of armed civilians , from California to Idaho to Ohio to North Carolina .
Some of the encounters have turned violent , including shootings in Albuquerque , New Mexico , and Seattle that left protesters wounded .
[ Vanderbilt professor Amy ] Cooter says armed counterprotesters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-federal militia movement , have a range of motivations .
Some are explicitly racist , others feel threatened by change , and some genuinely fear looting and chaos .
“ I think that the real commonality is this idea that they all have some mythologized version of an ideal past , ” she said .
I ’ m pretty sure that Cooter hasn ’ t actually talked to many of these folks , but I have .
Now , I won ’ t say definitively that no racists have come out to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t talked to everyone .
Yet the people I ’ ve spoken with have told me the reason they attend these protests while armed is that they ’ ve seen what happened in Minneapolis , New York , Dallas , Atlanta , and many other cities and they don ’ t want that happening to their communities .
Still others are outraged over mobs tearing down statues of historical figures .
They show up in an effort to defend those statues from mob justice .
That ’ s what happened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I spoke with has a problem with “ anti-racism ” as far as the idea goes .
They oppose some of the individual tenets of it , such as the idea that all white people are racist by default and can never really hope not to be ; but the idea of opposing racism ?
Not an issue .
Nore is there any fear of change , either .
The order attributed to the motivations , whether that was Cooter or the author , is intentional and deliberate , though .
By putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be interpreted by many to be the primary motivation .
It ’ s not .
Neither is feeling “ threatened by change , ” which is nothing more than a veiled attempt to also label the motivations as racism .
After all , if these are anti-racism protests and people are threatened by that potential change , wouldn ’ t that make them racists ?
Of course , calling them “ counter-protestors ” of an anti-racism protest does that all on its own , even without Cooter ’ s contribution .
Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists .
The problem is that when everything is ascribed to being racist , it ’ s virtually impossible to suss out the actual racists .
Especially when you ’ re attributing racist motivations to people who almost universally have no such thing .

For a while now, almost every supposed “anti-racism” protest that has been held has also had a contingent of non-protestors openly displaying firearms. This comes after armed protests in places like Michigan over the lockdown, in which the media made a point of vilifying with every fiber of their being.
Now, some are working to continue the vilification. You see, those people with guns at the protests? They’re counter-protesting a protest against racism.
Armed counterprotesters have confronted anti-racism rallies in at least 33 states, according to a new analysis by Guns & America. Guns & America analyzed media reports and social media that tracked these armed counterprotesters. The picture that emerges is one of largely peaceful protests erupting all over the country after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd and being met by the intimidating presence of armed civilians, from California to Idaho to Ohio to North Carolina. Some of the encounters have turned violent, including shootings in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Seattle that left protesters wounded. … [Vanderbilt professor Amy] Cooter says armed counterprotesters, mostly white and some members of the anti-federal militia movement, have a range of motivations. Some are explicitly racist, others feel threatened by change, and some genuinely fear looting and chaos. “I think that the real commonality is this idea that they all have some mythologized version of an ideal past,” she said.
I’m pretty sure that Cooter hasn’t actually talked to many of these folks, but I have.
Now, I won’t say definitively that no racists have come out to these things armed because, well, I haven’t talked to everyone. Yet the people I’ve spoken with have told me the reason they attend these protests while armed is that they’ve seen what happened in Minneapolis, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, and many other cities and they don’t want that happening to their communities.
Still others are outraged over mobs tearing down statues of historical figures. They show up in an effort to defend those statues from mob justice. That’s what happened in Albuquerque, after all.
No one I spoke with has a problem with “anti-racism” as far as the idea goes. They oppose some of the individual tenets of it, such as the idea that all white people are racist by default and can never really hope not to be; but the idea of opposing racism? Not an issue. Nore is there any fear of change, either.
The order attributed to the motivations, whether that was Cooter or the author, is intentional and deliberate, though. By putting racism first and foremost, that will be interpreted by many to be the primary motivation. It’s not. Neither is feeling “threatened by change,” which is nothing more than a veiled attempt to also label the motivations as racism. After all, if these are anti-racism protests and people are threatened by that potential change, wouldn’t that make them racists?
Of course, calling them “counter-protestors” of an anti-racism protest does that all on its own, even without Cooter’s contribution.
And, honestly, it’s infuriating.
Look, I have no doubt that racism still exists. The problem is that when everything is ascribed to being racist, it’s virtually impossible to suss out the actual racists. Especially when you’re attributing racist motivations to people who almost universally have no such thing.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--It Seems ATF Behind Ghost Gun Hysteria

It Seems ATF Behind Ghost Gun Hysteria

The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , also known as the ATF , is not exactly a favorite agency to gun owners .
Of course , there ’ s a lot of reasons why , and not just because they ’ re in charge of enforcing gun control laws .
It ’ s because they ’ ve been caught doing some pretty hinky stuff through the years and none of us appreciate it .
Their latest escapade may well be in trying to gin up hysteria regarding so-called “ ghost guns , ” or homemade firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners to build and use .
However , these guns ultimately exist outside the ATF ’ s control , which makes them a problem .
Yet for months , we ’ ve heard over and over that these weapons were a major problem .
Over those same months , I ’ ve been questioning just how big the threat actually was .
After all , without numbers from which we can judge things for ourselves , it ’ s hard to tell what they mean when they say “ growing threat ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these guns showing up at a crime scene last year but finding two and scenes this year is a 100 percent increase , but it doesn ’ t really constitute a crisis .
On Thursday , though , we got a glimpse at this “ crisis ” .
From what we saw , it ’ s not .
Even the ATF ’ s numbers aren ’ t that alarming when you consider the areas involved .
And yet , there ’ s reason to believe the ATF is behind the rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to COVID-19 , demand is also increasing for a new type of gun you build at home .
It is untraceable with no serial number , no background check and no waiting period .
They are called ghost guns .
Please note that a gun is no longer a ghost gun when a serial number is engraved in the gun .
The number makes the gun traceable .
A ghost gun can not legally be sold without the seller serializing the gun .
As part of WAVY ’ s investigation , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see a growing trend with ghost guns , but the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives ( ATF ) is seeing them pop up at crime scenes .
Here in Virginia , local police contacted by WAVY have no knowledge of any ghost gun trends .
In other words , while local law enforcement is seeing no such trends , the ATF is still screaming until they ’ re blue in the face about this supposedly growing threat .
Yet , as we saw in the above-linked Bearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at most .
In the entire midwest , which includes Chicago and St. Lous–two of the more violent cities in our nation–the bureau reports finding just such 50 weapons throughout the entire region .
In other words , they ’ re spinning this idea that ghost guns represent a threat simply because they can ’ t control them .
They have no oversight , no power over such weapons and the ATF doesn ’ t like it when they can ’ t control firearms to any degree .
Of course , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So is the speculation that the ATF may actually be reaching out to media outlets in hopes of getting them to run these stories .
After all , if enough people get terrified of “ ghost guns ” from every direction , they ’ ll start demanding federal legislation ending the practice .
After all , why else would a TV station in a community that doesn ’ t seem to have any kind of ghost gun problem suddenly decide to do a report on the topic ?
Even if they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not admit that there ’ s not an issue in their neck of the woods but provide hard numbers as to why it ’ s a problem elsewhere ?
Then again , maybe I need to tighten the tinfoil hat a bit .
Regardless , the ATF once again failed to provide any real numbers of this supposed threat as it applies to the area in question .
Then again , based on what we saw in the Omaha story from Thursday , it ’ s probably not in their best interests to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t want to be laughed at .

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also known as the ATF, is not exactly a favorite agency to gun owners. Of course, there’s a lot of reasons why, and not just because they’re in charge of enforcing gun control laws. It’s because they’ve been caught doing some pretty hinky stuff through the years and none of us appreciate it.
Their latest escapade may well be in trying to gin up hysteria regarding so-called “ghost guns,” or homemade firearms that are perfectly legal for law-abiding gun owners to build and use. However, these guns ultimately exist outside the ATF’s control, which makes them a problem.
Yet for months, we’ve heard over and over that these weapons were a major problem.
Over those same months, I’ve been questioning just how big the threat actually was. After all, without numbers from which we can judge things for ourselves, it’s hard to tell what they mean when they say “growing threat” or something similar. I mean, just one of these guns showing up at a crime scene last year but finding two and scenes this year is a 100 percent increase, but it doesn’t really constitute a crisis.
On Thursday, though, we got a glimpse at this “crisis”.
From what we saw, it’s not. Even the ATF’s numbers aren’t that alarming when you consider the areas involved. And yet, there’s reason to believe the ATF is behind the rhetoric.
From WAVY in Portsmouth, VA:
As gun demand hits record levels due to COVID-19, demand is also increasing for a new type of gun you build at home. It is untraceable with no serial number, no background check and no waiting period. They are called ghost guns. Please note that a gun is no longer a ghost gun when a serial number is engraved in the gun. The number makes the gun traceable. A ghost gun cannot legally be sold without the seller serializing the gun. As part of WAVY’s investigation, we called local police. They don’t see a growing trend with ghost guns, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeing them pop up at crime scenes. … Here in Virginia, local police contacted by WAVY have no knowledge of any ghost gun trends.
In other words, while local law enforcement is seeing no such trends, the ATF is still screaming until they’re blue in the face about this supposedly growing threat.
Yet, as we saw in the above-linked Bearing Arms story, that threat is minuscule at most. In the entire midwest, which includes Chicago and St. Lous–two of the more violent cities in our nation–the bureau reports finding just such 50 weapons throughout the entire region.
In other words, they’re spinning this idea that ghost guns represent a threat simply because they can’t control them. They have no oversight, no power over such weapons and the ATF doesn’t like it when they can’t control firearms to any degree.
Of course, that’s just speculation on my part. So is the speculation that the ATF may actually be reaching out to media outlets in hopes of getting them to run these stories. After all, if enough people get terrified of “ghost guns” from every direction, they’ll start demanding federal legislation ending the practice.
After all, why else would a TV station in a community that doesn’t seem to have any kind of ghost gun problem suddenly decide to do a report on the topic? Even if they’re not reaching out, though, why not admit that there’s not an issue in their neck of the woods but provide hard numbers as to why it’s a problem elsewhere?
Then again, maybe I need to tighten the tinfoil hat a bit.
Regardless, the ATF once again failed to provide any real numbers of this supposed threat as it applies to the area in question. Then again, based on what we saw in the Omaha story from Thursday, it’s probably not in their best interests to share those numbers. After all, they don’t want to be laughed at.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--McCloskey Mob Still Hounding, Digging Up History Now

Mark and Patricia McCloskey aren ’ t likely readers of Bearing Arms .
I ’ m quite sure I disagree with them on a great many topics .
In fact , I doubt I could relate to them much at all .
I mean , I look at their house , then look at my home , and I ’ m pretty sure there are some significant divides between us .
However , I don ’ t think that matters .
Not when it ’ s clear that a mob is still hounding their every step .
The McCloskeys say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on private property threatened them and their home .
So , they grabbed their guns and confronted a mob .
While the crowd eventually dispersed , the mob itself hasn ’ t really left .
Now , they ’ re digging into the McCloskeys ’ history .
An attorney for the McCloskeys ’ seems to suggest that the incident really did take place .
However , it also seems that the resident in question was and still is a friend of the couple ’ s .
It seems that if the incident was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t remain friends with them .
I mean , you pull a gun on me without a damn good reason , that ’ ll ruin my feelings of warmth toward you .
Nor , it should be noted , were any charges filed .
Again , it suggests that the incident wasn ’ t as bad as it ’ s being portrayed in the court documents .
Yet that incident is being used to portray the McCloskeys as unhinged , ready to pull a gun at the slightest provocation .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is from over 20 years ago , they ’ ll just see the headlines , read the first few paragraphs , and then file it away as “ they like to pull guns on innocent people ” when that ’ s simply not necessarily true .
Of course , this isn ’ t the only issue the McCloskeys ’ have , either .
It seems their neighbors have turned on them .
Since the incident , around three dozen neighbors who live on Westermoreland Place , where the McCloskey ’ s also dwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions of the couple .
The letter explains that Westermore Place and the adjoining street Portland Place are historic neighborhoods with the City of St. Louis representing many walks of life .
“ As the undersigned , we condemn the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence , especially through the brandishing of firearms , to disrupt peaceful protest , whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States , ” the letter reads .
The residents wrote that they seek positive action and constructive dialogue to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that positive action and constructive dialog is to not even ask their neighbor what happened , but to take the word of a trespassing mob ?
I can ’ t help but wonder how much of this was motivated by a sincere belief and how much is motivated out of fear that if they don ’ t do something , the mob will return and burn the whole neighborhood to the ground ?
Well , all the neighborhood except for the McCloskeys , anyway .
Regardless of the neighbors ’ letter , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ did anything wrong .
Based on what they claim , I don ’ t think they did .
They received threats from the early parts of a mob that was already trespassing .
It ’ s not like we haven ’ t seen riots take place in numerous cities or anything .
There was reason to be concerned for their safety .
Yet no one seems interested in waiting for an investigation .
Then again , no one is really likely to trust an investigation , anyway .
We all know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll likely be about appeasing the mob , not in serving justice , and that ’ s something that would warrant serious protest as well .
What is it that so many of the protestors keep saying ?
No justice , no peace ?
Well , Skippy , that can be a two-way street , so be careful of what all you ask for .
Leave the McCloskeys alone .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey aren’t likely readers of Bearing Arms. I’m quite sure I disagree with them on a great many topics. In fact, I doubt I could relate to them much at all. I mean, I look at their house, then look at my home, and I’m pretty sure there are some significant divides between us.
However, I don’t think that matters. Not when it’s clear that a mob is still hounding their every step.
The McCloskeys say the first few protestors who began trespassing on private property threatened them and their home. So, they grabbed their guns and confronted a mob.
While the crowd eventually dispersed, the mob itself hasn’t really left. Now, they’re digging into the McCloskeys’ history.
The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place are involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of property. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood. A judge on Monday ruled against motions from both sides to end the case without a trial. Details about the legal case were first reported Thursday by St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Mark McCloskey said in the affidavit that he and his wife purchased the home in 1988 and have taken several measures to improve the disputed piece of land. The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”
An attorney for the McCloskeys’ seems to suggest that the incident really did take place. However, it also seems that the resident in question was and still is a friend of the couple’s. It seems that if the incident was that egregious, he or she probably wouldn’t remain friends with them. I mean, you pull a gun on me without a damn good reason, that’ll ruin my feelings of warmth toward you.
But that didn’t happen.
Nor, it should be noted, were any charges filed. Again, it suggests that the incident wasn’t as bad as it’s being portrayed in the court documents.
Yet that incident is being used to portray the McCloskeys as unhinged, ready to pull a gun at the slightest provocation. People won’t register that this incident is from over 20 years ago, they’ll just see the headlines, read the first few paragraphs, and then file it away as “they like to pull guns on innocent people” when that’s simply not necessarily true.
Of course, this isn’t the only issue the McCloskeys’ have, either. It seems their neighbors have turned on them.
Since the incident, around three dozen neighbors who live on Westermoreland Place, where the McCloskey’s also dwell, have signed a letter condemning the actions of the couple. The letter explains that Westermore Place and the adjoining street Portland Place are historic neighborhoods with the City of St. Louis representing many walks of life. “As the undersigned, we condemn the behavior of anyone who uses threats of violence, especially through the brandishing of firearms, to disrupt peaceful protest, whether it be in this neighborhood or anywhere in the United States,” the letter reads. The residents wrote that they seek positive action and constructive dialogue to build a civil society.
So, apparently, that positive action and constructive dialog is to not even ask their neighbor what happened, but to take the word of a trespassing mob?
I can’t help but wonder how much of this was motivated by a sincere belief and how much is motivated out of fear that if they don’t do something, the mob will return and burn the whole neighborhood to the ground?
Well, all the neighborhood except for the McCloskeys, anyway.
Regardless of the neighbors’ letter, it remains to be seen if the McCloskeys’ did anything wrong. Based on what they claim, I don’t think they did. They received threats from the early parts of a mob that was already trespassing. It’s not like we haven’t seen riots take place in numerous cities or anything. There was reason to be concerned for their safety.
Yet no one seems interested in waiting for an investigation. Then again, no one is really likely to trust an investigation, anyway. We all know that if the McCloskeys are charged, it’ll likely be about appeasing the mob, not in serving justice, and that’s something that would warrant serious protest as well.
What is it that so many of the protestors keep saying? No justice, no peace? Well, Skippy, that can be a two-way street, so be careful of what all you ask for. Leave the McCloskeys alone.


bearingarms--2020-07-03--New Battle Lines Drawn On CHOP, More Arrests

The CHOP is supposed to be over and done .
Police swept in and cleared the area .
Protestors left and that was the end of it , right ?
I mean , that ’ s what we were all told , anyway .
I know , I know , I wrote about this already and I took them at their word that it was cleared out .
However , now things are getting heated .
There are nights of police lines and protester standoffs , explosions and pepper spray again in the core of Capitol Hill .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweeping back in to retake the East Precinct and clear the Capitol Hill protest zone from Pike/Pine and Cal Anderson Park brought a new version of the ongoing tensions over demonstrations in the city .
The scale for now is much smaller .
A crowd of dozens of protesters that began to form at Broadway and Pine ’ s rainbow crosswalk from the first moments after Wednesday ’ s early morning raid clashed with police as the overnight brought another dispersal order and then pepper spray and arrests .
SPD reports another 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disperse , assault , and obstructing.
” The city ’ s ban on crowd control weapons isn ’ t set to take effect until later this month .
Smaller crowds also formed during the night at different points along the large perimeter police are maintaining around the precinct and park .
Other aspects of the night were familiar .
The smaller crowd of dozens of protesters split at one point for the group to continue its nightly march to the West Precinct and I-5 between 520 and I-90 was also closed at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrators entering the freeway .
UPDATE : Protesters are also said to be planning to continue nightly — and controversial — demonstrations outside Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s Northeast Seattle home .
Those protesters arrested overnight join 44 taken into custody during the SPD sweep and subsequent clashes with small groups as the area from the north end of Cal Anderson and E Pine between Broadway and 12th Ave was cordoned off and lined with police Wednesday morning .
City officials have said that misdemeanor arrests during the protests should not be charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was actually taking place on Wednesday , but is getting little media coverage despite all the attention the CHOP got .
Of course , these are just spontaneous “ protests , ” mostly just disorganized gaggles apparently .
The problem is that they lack any kind of permits , which is why they ’ re being arrested .
Well , that and for any other reasons law enforcement finds .
The big question is whether the CHOP will be resurrected in this new locale to such a degree , or will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a garden-variety protest ?
Honestly , as long as they don ’ t try to interfere with what law enforcement might need to do , I don ’ t actually care .
However , as we saw with the CHOP , that ’ s not bloody well likely .
Hopefully , this won ’ t amount to nearly the embarrassment the CHOP was , but with Mayor Jenny Durkan still getting protests outside her home , don ’ t be surprised if there ’ s a swift response .

The CHOP is supposed to be over and done. Police swept in and cleared the area. Protestors left and that was the end of it, right? I mean, that’s what we were all told, anyway.
Well, it’s not.
I know, I know, I wrote about this already and I took them at their word that it was cleared out.
However, now things are getting heated.
There are nights of police lines and protester standoffs, explosions and pepper spray again in the core of Capitol Hill. The first night after Seattle Police and the city sweeping back in to retake the East Precinct and clear the Capitol Hill protest zone from Pike/Pine and Cal Anderson Park brought a new version of the ongoing tensions over demonstrations in the city. The scale for now is much smaller. A crowd of dozens of protesters that began to form at Broadway and Pine’s rainbow crosswalk from the first moments after Wednesday’s early morning raid clashed with police as the overnight brought another dispersal order and then pepper spray and arrests. SPD reports another 25 people were arrested “for failure to disperse, assault, and obstructing.” The city’s ban on crowd control weapons isn’t set to take effect until later this month. Smaller crowds also formed during the night at different points along the large perimeter police are maintaining around the precinct and park. Other aspects of the night were familiar. The smaller crowd of dozens of protesters split at one point for the group to continue its nightly march to the West Precinct and I-5 between 520 and I-90 was also closed at one point overnight due to concerns over the demonstrators entering the freeway. UPDATE: Protesters are also said to be planning to continue nightly — and controversial — demonstrations outside Mayor Jenny Durkan’s Northeast Seattle home. … Those protesters arrested overnight join 44 taken into custody during the SPD sweep and subsequent clashes with small groups as the area from the north end of Cal Anderson and E Pine between Broadway and 12th Ave was cordoned off and lined with police Wednesday morning. City officials have said that misdemeanor arrests during the protests should not be charged by the City Attorney’s office.
This was actually taking place on Wednesday, but is getting little media coverage despite all the attention the CHOP got.
Of course, these are just spontaneous “protests,” mostly just disorganized gaggles apparently. The problem is that they lack any kind of permits, which is why they’re being arrested.
Well, that and for any other reasons law enforcement finds.
The big question is whether the CHOP will be resurrected in this new locale to such a degree, or will it just be a bit more of a garden-variety protest? Honestly, as long as they don’t try to interfere with what law enforcement might need to do, I don’t actually care. However, as we saw with the CHOP, that’s not bloody well likely.
Hopefully, this won’t amount to nearly the embarrassment the CHOP was, but with Mayor Jenny Durkan still getting protests outside her home, don’t be surprised if there’s a swift response.