bearingarms--2020-08-12--Is NYC's Chaos Creating More Gun Owners?

With the number of New York City residents applying for permission to keep a gun in their home doubling compared to last year , there ’ s growing evidence that the Second Amendment is enjoying a surge in support in one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country .
Darren Leung , owner of the Westside Range in Manhattan , joins Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. today to talk about how the continued unrest on city streets and the surge in shootings and homicides in New York City are leading more residents to embrace their own right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city does all that it can to keep New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment rights .
Leung ’ s range still isn ’ t open for business as usual , though he was able to reopen back in June to serve law enforcement .
Civilians , on the other hand , are still forbidden to shoot at Westside , thanks to Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s coronavirus enforcement orders , which will likely keep places like Westside Range off-limits to most gun owners for months to come .
Even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Four ” of it ’ s re-open plan , Cuomo ’ s restrictions have kept restaurants closed to indoor dining , and museums , movie theaters , malls , and the city ’ s few gun ranges all remain closed .
Thanks to the help of a GoFundMe set up by one of the range patrons , Leung says he ’ s been able to keep the lights on , and he expects that when he ’ s officially allowed to reopen he ’ ll not only be greeting a steady stream of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners as well .
The range has been getting quite a few calls from non-gun owners who want to know more about how they can legally own a firearm in New York City , and Leung says he and his staff have been doing their best to educate those would-be gun owners while also tempering their expectations about how quickly they ’ ll be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
The process of securing government permission to keep a gun in a New York City home is a lengthy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fees and all kinds of personal information ( including tax returns ! )
required to be turned over to the NYPD Licensing Division for an investigation .
If someone were to apply today , it ’ s likely that it will be sometime in the summer of 2021 before they ’ re approved or denied by the NYPD , and that denial can come even if the applicant is legally allowed under state and federal law to possess a firearm .
Everything from unpaid child support to parking tickets can adversely affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureau determines that the applicant is not of “ good moral character ” or doesn ’ t have “ good cause ” to possess a handgun , they ’ ll likely be turned down .
In other words , while more New Yorkers may be interested in owning a gun than they were a year ago , New York officials are still as reluctant as ever to recognize the right to keep and bear arms in the city .
Unfortunately that ’ s not likely to change unless and until the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win in November , the odds are that New York City-style gun control laws will be imposed on all of us , instead of the Second Amendment ’ s eventual recognition in the Big Apple .

With the number of New York City residents applying for permission to keep a gun in their home doubling compared to last year, there’s growing evidence that the Second Amendment is enjoying a surge in support in one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country. Darren Leung, owner of the Westside Range in Manhattan, joins Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. today to talk about how the continued unrest on city streets and the surge in shootings and homicides in New York City are leading more residents to embrace their own right to keep and bear arms, even as the city does all that it can to keep New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Leung’s range still isn’t open for business as usual, though he was able to reopen back in June to serve law enforcement. Civilians, on the other hand, are still forbidden to shoot at Westside, thanks to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus enforcement orders, which will likely keep places like Westside Range off-limits to most gun owners for months to come. Even though the city is now in “Phase Four” of it’s re-open plan, Cuomo’s restrictions have kept restaurants closed to indoor dining, and museums, movie theaters, malls, and the city’s few gun ranges all remain closed.
Thanks to the help of a GoFundMe set up by one of the range patrons, Leung says he’s been able to keep the lights on, and he expects that when he’s officially allowed to reopen he’ll not only be greeting a steady stream of loyal range members, but some new gun owners as well. The range has been getting quite a few calls from non-gun owners who want to know more about how they can legally own a firearm in New York City, and Leung says he and his staff have been doing their best to educate those would-be gun owners while also tempering their expectations about how quickly they’ll be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The process of securing government permission to keep a gun in a New York City home is a lengthy and expensive one, with hundreds of dollars in fees and all kinds of personal information (including tax returns!) required to be turned over to the NYPD Licensing Division for an investigation. If someone were to apply today, it’s likely that it will be sometime in the summer of 2021 before they’re approved or denied by the NYPD, and that denial can come even if the applicant is legally allowed under state and federal law to possess a firearm. Everything from unpaid child support to parking tickets can adversely affect an applicant, and if the licensing bureau determines that the applicant is not of “good moral character” or doesn’t have “good cause” to possess a handgun, they’ll likely be turned down.
In other words, while more New Yorkers may be interested in owning a gun than they were a year ago, New York officials are still as reluctant as ever to recognize the right to keep and bear arms in the city. Unfortunately that’s not likely to change unless and until the Supreme Court takes an interest in the Second Amendment, and if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win in November, the odds are that New York City-style gun control laws will be imposed on all of us, instead of the Second Amendment’s eventual recognition in the Big Apple.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--NYTimes Blames American Guns For British Crime

Amidst a sharp increase in shootings and violent crime in England , the New York Times believes its found the culprit : American guns that are being smuggled in to the island nation where guns are banned .
In a new story entitled “ How American Guns Are Fueling U.K. Crime , ” the paper pins the blame for the United Kingdom ’ s increasing crime rate on our Second Amendment , though eventually the authors reluctantly acknowledge that most illicit firearms seized in the U.K. come from Europe , not American soil .
Most illegal firearms in Britain still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of smuggled American guns last year , a small figure by international standards , though experts say the number that the police do not discover is likely to be far higher .
The British police have traced some of the smuggled American guns back to loosely regulated gun fairs in states like Florida .
Investigators have also seized American weapons being smuggled on a container ship and hidden in car engines .
Now the authorities fear that after Brexit , when borders with the European Union will be more tightly regulated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerate , especially given the Trump administration ’ s broad support for the gun industry .
“ A major Trump administration goal is to globalize the firearms trade and facilitate exports , and if you ’ re facilitating legal exports it ’ s almost inevitable that there will be an illegal diversion of weapons into criminal markets in other countries , ” said Aaron Karp , a senior consultant for the Small Arms Survey in Geneva and a lecturer at Old Dominion University in Virginia .
According to Britain ’ s National Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled in the past year , and the Times reports that firearms offenses are up 38 % since 2015 .
That seems to be the result of more gang members choosing to use a firearm instead of a knife as their weapon of choice , though knife-related homicides still outpace gun-related homicides in the country .
Still , the New York Times tries desperately to spin England ’ s growing crime problem on the United States and our Second Amendment .
Matthew Prefect , who leads the National Crime Agency ’ s firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about smuggled guns that his unit had almost doubled its staffing in the last two years , as the agency tries to suppress the firearms market to try to prevent handguns becoming as common as knives .
“ If suddenly guns became the weapon of choice as opposed to a knife , ” Mr. Prefect said , “ we ’ d be in a really difficult situation.
” If the United Kingdom does find itself in that difficult situation , it won ’ t be because of American gun laws .
As Switzerland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , there are more guns on the black markets in Europe than firearms in the hands of legal gun owners , and the RAND Corporation has pointed out that firearms are often sold in Europe through the so-called Dark Web .
In other words , there ’ s already a sizable inventory of illicit firearms that are much closer to the United Kingdom than the United States .
Of course the New York Times doesn ’ t mention any of this in their reporting , choosing instead to craft a narrative that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Americans embrace strict gun control laws here .
In reality , while some Americans may find it profitable to try to smuggle in guns ( mostly antiques and deactivated firearms , according to British authorities ) , there ’ s already a steady supply of illicit firearms available for British gangs much closer to home .
Even Brexit isn ’ t likely to change that ; though borders may be tightened , it ’ s not like Europeans are suddenly going to stop traveling to the U.K .
Opportunities to smuggle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot spots aren ’ t going to disappear once Brexit ’ s in place , so if the United Kingdom is going to get serious about addressing its rising violent crime rate , they need to focus on consequences for violent criminals , no matter their weapon of choice or where they acquired it .

Amidst a sharp increase in shootings and violent crime in England, the New York Times believes its found the culprit: American guns that are being smuggled in to the island nation where guns are banned. In a new story entitled “How American Guns Are Fueling U.K. Crime,” the paper pins the blame for the United Kingdom’s increasing crime rate on our Second Amendment, though eventually the authors reluctantly acknowledge that most illicit firearms seized in the U.K. come from Europe, not American soil.
Most illegal firearms in Britain still come from Europe. But investigators seized hundreds of smuggled American guns last year, a small figure by international standards, though experts say the number that the police do not discover is likely to be far higher. The British police have traced some of the smuggled American guns back to loosely regulated gun fairs in states like Florida. Investigators have also seized American weapons being smuggled on a container ship and hidden in car engines. Now the authorities fear that after Brexit, when borders with the European Union will be more tightly regulated, the illegal gun trade from America could accelerate, especially given the Trump administration’s broad support for the gun industry. “A major Trump administration goal is to globalize the firearms trade and facilitate exports, and if you’re facilitating legal exports it’s almost inevitable that there will be an illegal diversion of weapons into criminal markets in other countries,” said Aaron Karp, a senior consultant for the Small Arms Survey in Geneva and a lecturer at Old Dominion University in Virginia.
According to Britain’s National Crime Agency, seizures of illegal firearms have doubled in the past year, and the Times reports that firearms offenses are up 38% since 2015. That seems to be the result of more gang members choosing to use a firearm instead of a knife as their weapon of choice, though knife-related homicides still outpace gun-related homicides in the country.
Still, the New York Times tries desperately to spin England’s growing crime problem on the United States and our Second Amendment.
Matthew Prefect, who leads the National Crime Agency’s firearms unit, said officials were concerned enough about smuggled guns that his unit had almost doubled its staffing in the last two years, as the agency tries to suppress the firearms market to try to prevent handguns becoming as common as knives. “If suddenly guns became the weapon of choice as opposed to a knife,” Mr. Prefect said, “we’d be in a really difficult situation.”
If the United Kingdom does find itself in that difficult situation, it won’t be because of American gun laws. As Switzerland’s Small Arms Survey noted last year, there are more guns on the black markets in Europe than firearms in the hands of legal gun owners, and the RAND Corporation has pointed out that firearms are often sold in Europe through the so-called Dark Web. In other words, there’s already a sizable inventory of illicit firearms that are much closer to the United Kingdom than the United States.
Europe represents the largest market for arms trade on the dark web, generating revenues that are around five times higher than the US. Firearms listings (42 percent) were the most common listings on the dark web, followed by arms-related digital products (27 percent) and others, including ammunition (22 percent). Pistols were the most commonly listed firearm (84 percent), followed by rifles (10 percent) and sub-machine guns (6 percent).
Of course the New York Times doesn’t mention any of this in their reporting, choosing instead to craft a narrative that the United Kingdom can only be saved if Americans embrace strict gun control laws here. In reality, while some Americans may find it profitable to try to smuggle in guns (mostly antiques and deactivated firearms, according to British authorities), there’s already a steady supply of illicit firearms available for British gangs much closer to home. Even Brexit isn’t likely to change that; though borders may be tightened, it’s not like Europeans are suddenly going to stop traveling to the U.K. Opportunities to smuggle in firearms from Belgium and other black market hot spots aren’t going to disappear once Brexit’s in place, so if the United Kingdom is going to get serious about addressing its rising violent crime rate, they need to focus on consequences for violent criminals, no matter their weapon of choice or where they acquired it.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--Asked About Frisking By Female Cop. Officer's Response Hilarious

If you ’ ve ever been frisked yourself , or seen it done , you can imagine why some people are less than comfortable with the experience .
I mean , if someone is going to put their hand that close to certain body parts of mine , I sure hope someone bought the other party dinner first .
Frisking , however , isn ’ t so police can get their jollies while arresting people .
In fact , my understanding is that their personal feelings are quite the opposite .
The thing is , frisking also serves an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ protestor ” was arrested recently , she knew she was going to get frisked .
So did a journalist watching the incident .
Early Sunday morning before the sun rose , a freelance journalist noticed Portland ’ s finest had handcuffed a female protester .
Video was running as the obligatory pat-down commenced , and the journalist — also a woman — grew suspicious as it apparently looked as though only male officers were on hand .
“ Do you have a female officer present while you ’ re patting her down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that moment , a different officer chimed in with a comeback for the ages amid the rioting : “ How do you know that I don ’ t identify as a female ?
” Laughter quickly ensued among his colleagues , all of whom were shrouded in darkness .
Of course , that didn ’ t sit too well with some in the area .
They thought the officer was being a “ smart-ass , ” and others claimed they hated the police for the comment .
Then again , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the rioters had to say on the issue and those that said they hated them weren ’ t exactly fans of the police beforehand .
However , the comment may also offer something we should probably talk about .
You see , the comment is an indictment of Woke Culture .
In particular , the idea that no matter how someone presents themselves to the world , you simply can ’ t assume anything about them despite what you may see with your own two eyes , that to do so is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get me wrong , there are trans people in every walk of life , including the Second Amendment community and I ’ m not trying to disrespect them .
However , there ’ s a difference between asking me to treat someone wearing women ’ s clothes and trying to present themselves as a woman–regardless of how well they do it–and expecting me to assume the possibility that this person who is presenting every signal to the world that they ’ re female actually identifies as male .
Now , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about here at Bearing Arms .
What isn ’ t , though , is that the officers who will normally be respectful of ideas they don ’ t normally agree with–and this is Portland , where they ’ re more likely to agree with them than in some other cities–are now cracking wise at the dominant ideology prevalent with the protestors .
It suggests that they ’ re even more fed up with these nightly battles than some might realize .
It also tells me that if Portland officials don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , things could blow up in ways no one really wants to see .
If those officers are getting frustrated by the lack of support from the city and are constantly being treated like crap by the people those same officials deify , it ’ s going to blow up sooner or later and that won ’ t be pretty .
In the meantime , though , we do have what I find to be a hilarious comeback .

If you’ve ever been frisked yourself, or seen it done, you can imagine why some people are less than comfortable with the experience. I mean, if someone is going to put their hand that close to certain body parts of mine, I sure hope someone bought the other party dinner first.
Frisking, however, isn’t so police can get their jollies while arresting people. In fact, my understanding is that their personal feelings are quite the opposite. The thing is, frisking also serves an important purpose.
So, when a Portland “protestor” was arrested recently, she knew she was going to get frisked. So did a journalist watching the incident.
That’s when things got hysterical.
Early Sunday morning before the sun rose, a freelance journalist noticed Portland’s finest had handcuffed a female protester. Video was running as the obligatory pat-down commenced, and the journalist — also a woman — grew suspicious as it apparently looked as though only male officers were on hand. “Do you have a female officer present while you’re patting her down?” the journalist asked. “No, we don’t,” an officer replied. Then at that moment, a different officer chimed in with a comeback for the ages amid the rioting: “How do you know that I don’t identify as a female?” Laughter quickly ensued among his colleagues, all of whom were shrouded in darkness.
Of course, that didn’t sit too well with some in the area. They thought the officer was being a “smart-ass,” and others claimed they hated the police for the comment.
Then again, I’m pretty sure no one actually cared what the rioters had to say on the issue and those that said they hated them weren’t exactly fans of the police beforehand.
However, the comment may also offer something we should probably talk about.
You see, the comment is an indictment of Woke Culture. In particular, the idea that no matter how someone presents themselves to the world, you simply can’t assume anything about them despite what you may see with your own two eyes, that to do so is somehow bigoted and wrongheaded.
Don’t get me wrong, there are trans people in every walk of life, including the Second Amendment community and I’m not trying to disrespect them. However, there’s a difference between asking me to treat someone wearing women’s clothes and trying to present themselves as a woman–regardless of how well they do it–and expecting me to assume the possibility that this person who is presenting every signal to the world that they’re female actually identifies as male.
Now, that’s outside the scope of what we talk about here at Bearing Arms.
What isn’t, though, is that the officers who will normally be respectful of ideas they don’t normally agree with–and this is Portland, where they’re more likely to agree with them than in some other cities–are now cracking wise at the dominant ideology prevalent with the protestors. It suggests that they’re even more fed up with these nightly battles than some might realize.
It also tells me that if Portland officials don’t get a handle on their city soon, things could blow up in ways no one really wants to see. If those officers are getting frustrated by the lack of support from the city and are constantly being treated like crap by the people those same officials deify, it’s going to blow up sooner or later and that won’t be pretty.
In the meantime, though, we do have what I find to be a hilarious comeback.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--Albuquerque Officials Want New Vote To Overturn Preemption

The state of New Mexico has preemption on the books .
It was voted on by constitutional amendment back in the 1980s and it does what preemption is meant to do .
In Albuquerque , NM , officials are wanting to try and push for a new vote on the issue of preemption .
In fact , they ’ re set to vote next month on a measure to try and push the issue .
Which is odd to me .
After all , their mayor has basically hoisted a middle finger at preemption already .
What this is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like preemption .
That ’ s not surprising , after all .
They ’ re city council members in a fairly large urban center .
They almost have to be anti-gun , simply by definition .
Because of that , though , they ’ re still upset that the state voted to approve a constitutional amendment that bars them from trampling over people ’ s constitutional rights .
They hate it and now they believe there are enough Californicators who have moved to the state to change that .
They think they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know that they ’ re wrong , either .
However , that doesn ’ t change the fact that this is just a delayed form of sour grapes .
They ’ re not able to get their way , so they want to throw out the results of an election they didn ’ t like .
Yet the problems that they have in the state have nothing to do with gun laws or a lack thereof .
They ’ re simply looking for a scapegoat and gun rights have always been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to blame guns and gun owners for their own failures whenever they can .
To be sure , they typically also have other scapegoats for when they can ’ t blame guns , but guns are always a big evil in their minds .
Rather than deal with the issues , they want to change state law .
Of course , it may also be an effort to change the law before someone files a lawsuit against the city for their blatant power grab when the mayor decided to declare parks as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m shocked that no one has jumped on that lawsuit yet because it ’ s a clear violation of state law , especially when the park isn ’ t physically attached to school grounds .
It ’ s possible that the city council wants the law changed before a lawsuit is filed in hopes that they can legitimize the mayor ’ s order .
They ’ re trying to cover his rump .
The problem is , it ’ ll still take a significant amount of time to pass a new constitutional amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of the state are remotely interested .
Right now isn ’ t the best time to try and push for new gun control .
After all , a lot of people are seeing the lawlessness all over the nation and aren ’ t really comfortable giving up their gun rights just now .
In other words , we know what they ’ re up to , but not only is it a pile of male bovine excrement , it ’ s not even necessarily going to work .
Which would be absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest .

The state of New Mexico has preemption on the books. It was voted on by constitutional amendment back in the 1980s and it does what preemption is meant to do.
At least, officially.
In Albuquerque, NM, officials are wanting to try and push for a new vote on the issue of preemption. In fact, they’re set to vote next month on a measure to try and push the issue.
Which is odd to me. After all, their mayor has basically hoisted a middle finger at preemption already.
What this is really about is that these officials don’t like preemption. That’s not surprising, after all. They’re city council members in a fairly large urban center. They almost have to be anti-gun, simply by definition.
Because of that, though, they’re still upset that the state voted to approve a constitutional amendment that bars them from trampling over people’s constitutional rights. They hate it and now they believe there are enough Californicators who have moved to the state to change that. They think they can overturn preemption.
I don’t know that they’re wrong, either.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that this is just a delayed form of sour grapes. They’re not able to get their way, so they want to throw out the results of an election they didn’t like.
Yet the problems that they have in the state have nothing to do with gun laws or a lack thereof. They’re simply looking for a scapegoat and gun rights have always been a favorite target for the left. They like to blame guns and gun owners for their own failures whenever they can. To be sure, they typically also have other scapegoats for when they can’t blame guns, but guns are always a big evil in their minds.
Rather than deal with the issues, they want to change state law.
Of course, it may also be an effort to change the law before someone files a lawsuit against the city for their blatant power grab when the mayor decided to declare parks as school grounds. Honestly, I’m shocked that no one has jumped on that lawsuit yet because it’s a clear violation of state law, especially when the park isn’t physically attached to school grounds.
It’s possible that the city council wants the law changed before a lawsuit is filed in hopes that they can legitimize the mayor’s order. They’re trying to cover his rump.
The problem is, it’ll still take a significant amount of time to pass a new constitutional amendment, and that’s assuming the people of the state are remotely interested. Right now isn’t the best time to try and push for new gun control. After all, a lot of people are seeing the lawlessness all over the nation and aren’t really comfortable giving up their gun rights just now.
In other words, we know what they’re up to, but not only is it a pile of male bovine excrement, it’s not even necessarily going to work.
Which would be absolutely hilarious, if I’m perfectly honest.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--For D.C. Police, Enforcing The Law Is Increasingly "Problematic"

A shooting in southeast Washington , D.C. that left one person dead and more than 20 others injured last weekend hasn ’ t garnered much national attention , but it ’ s been a growing controversy in the city itself .
A crowd of several hundred had gathered on Saturday for a block party , violating the city ’ s coronavirus-related ban on gatherings of more than 50 people , when shots rang out .
Now many in the city are wondering why the party wasn ’ t broken up by police before the violence broke out , but Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference that enforcing the law has become problematic in the city .
From DCist : In response to a reporter ’ s question about whether this event would change the city ’ s policies regarding mass gatherings , Bowser irately responded that she was “ surprised that your coverage is about mass gatherings and not about people shooting guns because that ’ s what the issue is.
” Bowser also noted that the event brought up a conflict between those who wished police had taken a more aggressive enforcement stance and others who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with police .
“ We don ’ t think it ’ s OK for a block party to grow in that size , ” said Bowser .
“ And at the same time , I ’ m saying that there ’ s other people who are saying , ‘ Well you can ’ t send the police in , Bowser .
That ’ s just going to cause more trouble.
’ ” No offense to Mayor Bowser , but who gives a damn what “ others ” are saying ?
She ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says , and unfortunately it sounds like from Bowser on down , the attitude in Washington , D.C. at the moment is that more laws are good , but actual law enforcement is a bad thing .
The tension between mass gatherings and police enforcement has been discussed before by the police commander in charge of the Sixth District , where Saturday ’ s shooting occurred .
In a meeting of the Anacostia Coordinating Council last month , Commander Durriyyah Habeebullah said she was actively recruiting partners from other agencies to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which she said were “ everywhere ” and were “ contentious when the police come to try and disrupt them.
” Habeebullah said she was looking into asking the Department of Public Works to tow vehicles at gatherings , asking the city ’ s “ Night Mayor ” to help with possible solutions , and considering requesting that the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs fine individuals who may be vending at parties without a license .
“ It ’ s not just a police issue , it can ’ t just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ ll be contentious , and that ’ s not what we want with 2020 policing , ” said Habeebullah .
Yeah , towing people ’ s cars won ’ t be contentious at all .
It sounds like the mindset of those in charge of local goverment in DC is that it ’ s better to have angry residents go after tow truck drivers than law enforcement officers .
Bowser and city council members in Washington , D.C. have boxed themselves in here .
As Democrats , they believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they ’ ve also been vocally supportive of the idea of reforming the police department and de-policing as much as possible .
The mayor says that sending police in to break up a block party would “ cause more trouble , ” but would it really have been worse than having nearly two-dozen people shot ?
If the mayor isn ’ t going to enforce the prohibitions against large gatherings or wearing a mask , then why bother pretending that these orders actually mean anything at all ?
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be responding to these block parties , she ’ s ensuring that there will be more of them in the days and weeks ahead .
And rather than focus resources and efforts on going after violent criminals in Washington , D.C. , I suspect Bowser and her cohorts on the city council will soon be calling for more gun control laws to be put in place , though they ’ ll likely remain silent on just who they expect to enforce them .

A shooting in southeast Washington, D.C. that left one person dead and more than 20 others injured last weekend hasn’t garnered much national attention, but it’s been a growing controversy in the city itself. A crowd of several hundred had gathered on Saturday for a block party, violating the city’s coronavirus-related ban on gatherings of more than 50 people, when shots rang out. Now many in the city are wondering why the party wasn’t broken up by police before the violence broke out, but Mayor Muriel Bowser inadvertently admitted during a press conference that enforcing the law has become problematic in the city. From DCist:
In response to a reporter’s question about whether this event would change the city’s policies regarding mass gatherings, Bowser irately responded that she was “surprised that your coverage is about mass gatherings and not about people shooting guns because that’s what the issue is.” Bowser also noted that the event brought up a conflict between those who wished police had taken a more aggressive enforcement stance and others who may disagree with tackling public health concerns with police. “We don’t think it’s OK for a block party to grow in that size,” said Bowser. “And at the same time, I’m saying that there’s other people who are saying, ‘Well you can’t send the police in, Bowser. That’s just going to cause more trouble.’”
No offense to Mayor Bowser, but who gives a damn what “others” are saying? She’s the mayor. What matters is what she says, and unfortunately it sounds like from Bowser on down, the attitude in Washington, D.C. at the moment is that more laws are good, but actual law enforcement is a bad thing.
The tension between mass gatherings and police enforcement has been discussed before by the police commander in charge of the Sixth District, where Saturday’s shooting occurred. In a meeting of the Anacostia Coordinating Council last month, Commander Durriyyah Habeebullah said she was actively recruiting partners from other agencies to help the police department address large gatherings, which she said were “everywhere” and were “contentious when the police come to try and disrupt them.” Habeebullah said she was looking into asking the Department of Public Works to tow vehicles at gatherings, asking the city’s “Night Mayor” to help with possible solutions, and considering requesting that the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs fine individuals who may be vending at parties without a license. “It’s not just a police issue, it can’t just be addressed with policing, because … it’ll be contentious, and that’s not what we want with 2020 policing,” said Habeebullah.
Yeah, towing people’s cars won’t be contentious at all. It sounds like the mindset of those in charge of local goverment in DC is that it’s better to have angry residents go after tow truck drivers than law enforcement officers.
Bowser and city council members in Washington, D.C. have boxed themselves in here. As Democrats, they believe that the answer to every problem is more government, but they’ve also been vocally supportive of the idea of reforming the police department and de-policing as much as possible. The mayor says that sending police in to break up a block party would “cause more trouble,” but would it really have been worse than having nearly two-dozen people shot?
If the mayor isn’t going to enforce the prohibitions against large gatherings or wearing a mask, then why bother pretending that these orders actually mean anything at all? In fact, by insinuating that police won’t be responding to these block parties, she’s ensuring that there will be more of them in the days and weeks ahead. And rather than focus resources and efforts on going after violent criminals in Washington, D.C., I suspect Bowser and her cohorts on the city council will soon be calling for more gun control laws to be put in place, though they’ll likely remain silent on just who they expect to enforce them.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--Armed Gangs Likely To Replace Defunded Police

Anarcho-capitalists often argue that if the state didn ’ t exist , private entities would be formed to provide essential services .
They argue that ’ s even true of law enforcement .
The idea is complicated and not one I actually feel like delving into in great detail .
I ’ m just going to say that I don ’ t think that ’ s remotely how things will shakedown .
Instead , you ’ d end up with the powerful preying on the weak simply because they can .
We ’ re seeing some evidence of that right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , and the situation he outlined in his most recent column .
“ When the dawn patrol ’ s got to tell you twice , they ’ re gon na do it with a shotgun.
” That ’ s a lyric from Steely Dan , but it also reflects what seems to be a new trend in two of America ’ s bluest cities : The replacement of police with civilian militias .
( The press prefers to call them “ neighborhood patrols ” since they ’ re in Democratic cities ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor this as a step forward for civil rights and racial justice , but the facts to date don ’ t support such a reading .
In two cities where the police have pulled back from urban areas , they ’ ve been replaced by armed gangs demanding protection money , increased violence and , yes , prejudice against people who “ don ’ t belong.
” Anyone with a brain and a bit of historical knowledge could have seen this coming , which is no doubt why it eluded so much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out But now the lid is off .
The New York Times reported the ugly truth last week .
Its story opens with Faizel Khan , one of a number of business owners who are suing the city of Seattle for tolerating and even encouraging lawlessness in their neighborhoods : “ Faizel Khan was being told by the news media and his own mayor that the protests in his hometown were peaceful , with ‘ a block party atmosphere.
‘ “ But that was not what he saw through the windows of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encampments overtaking the sidewalks .
He saw roving bands of masked protesters smashing windows and looting .
Young white men wielding guns would harangue customers as well as Khan , a gay man of Middle Eastern descent who moved here from Texas so he could more comfortably be out .
To get into his coffee shop , he sometimes had to seek the permission of self-appointed armed guards to cross a border they had erected .
‘ They barricaded us all in here , ’ Khan said .
‘ And they were sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The truth of the matter is that when the individuals decide to form up like this , what ’ s described above is often the result .
While people have a right to defend themselves and they most definitely have a right to keep and bear arms , it ’ s when they appoint themselves “ protectors ” of the neighborhood that we start to see issues .
This is how street gangs form .
People didn ’ t feel safe , so they banded together to achieve that safety .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of us can sympathize with–and become something dangerous to the population as a whole .
One example of such a gang is MS-13 , one of the world ’ s most notorious gangs .
They formed for what appear to be noble intentions , but now they ’ re a scourge across the very neighborhoods they sought to protect .
While these “ neighborhood patrols ” may sound nice , they ’ re not .
They represent a real problem , and it ’ s the inevitable result of police being held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever reason .
Unless officials stop placating the mob by restraining police , you ’ re going to see more of this kind of thing .
Make no mistake .

Anarcho-capitalists often argue that if the state didn’t exist, private entities would be formed to provide essential services. They argue that’s even true of law enforcement. The idea is complicated and not one I actually feel like delving into in great detail. I’m just going to say that I don’t think that’s remotely how things will shakedown.
Instead, you’d end up with the powerful preying on the weak simply because they can.
We’re seeing some evidence of that right now.
Take Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit himself, and the situation he outlined in his most recent column.
“When the dawn patrol’s got to tell you twice, they’re gonna do it with a shotgun.” That’s a lyric from Steely Dan, but it also reflects what seems to be a new trend in two of America’s bluest cities: The replacement of police with civilian militias. (The press prefers to call them “neighborhood patrols” since they’re in Democratic cities). There are some people who might favor this as a step forward for civil rights and racial justice, but the facts to date don’t support such a reading. In two cities where the police have pulled back from urban areas, they’ve been replaced by armed gangs demanding protection money, increased violence and, yes, prejudice against people who “don’t belong.”Anyone with a brain and a bit of historical knowledge could have seen this coming, which is no doubt why it eluded so much of our political class. The ugly truth is out But now the lid is off. The New York Times reported the ugly truth last week. Its story opens with Faizel Khan, one of a number of business owners who are suing the city of Seattle for tolerating and even encouraging lawlessness in their neighborhoods: “Faizel Khan was being told by the news media and his own mayor that the protests in his hometown were peaceful, with ‘a block party atmosphere.‘ “ But that was not what he saw through the windows of his Seattle coffee shop. He saw encampments overtaking the sidewalks. He saw roving bands of masked protesters smashing windows and looting. Young white men wielding guns would harangue customers as well as Khan, a gay man of Middle Eastern descent who moved here from Texas so he could more comfortably be out. To get into his coffee shop, he sometimes had to seek the permission of self-appointed armed guards to cross a border they had erected. ‘They barricaded us all in here,’ Khan said. ‘And they were sitting in lawn chairs with guns.’”
The truth of the matter is that when the individuals decide to form up like this, what’s described above is often the result. While people have a right to defend themselves and they most definitely have a right to keep and bear arms, it’s when they appoint themselves “protectors” of the neighborhood that we start to see issues.
This is how street gangs form. People didn’t feel safe, so they banded together to achieve that safety. However, they often go beyond that initial cause–one many of us can sympathize with–and become something dangerous to the population as a whole.
One example of such a gang is MS-13, one of the world’s most notorious gangs. They formed for what appear to be noble intentions, but now they’re a scourge across the very neighborhoods they sought to protect.
While these “neighborhood patrols” may sound nice, they’re not. They represent a real problem, and it’s the inevitable result of police being held back from doing their actual jobs for whatever reason.
Unless officials stop placating the mob by restraining police, you’re going to see more of this kind of thing. Make no mistake.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--Bad News For Universal Background Check Supporters

Universal background checks for firearm transfers is one of the most popular gun control agenda items , at least as far as public polling goes .
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support requiring background checks for private transfers of firearms ( commercial firearms transactions are already subject to background checks ) , and UBC laws are a top priority for gun control activists around the country ; not because they ’ re effective , but precisely because they tend to garner a lot of support in polls .
The problem is that enforcing background checks on private sales is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times Shannon Watts or Michael Bloomberg declare them to be “ common sense.
” The latest evidence of the ineffectiveness and unenforceable nature of the gun control law comes from New Mexico , where the state ’ s universal background check law was put in place one year ago .
How many arrests or charges have been made for violating the law in the past twelve months ?
In the first year since that law went into effect on July 1 , 2019 , court records show that no one was charged with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of time , a lot of resources and a lot of money trying to enact this law that ’ s done absolutely nothing , ” said Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace .
As the president of the New Mexico Sheriffs ’ Association , Sheriff Mace has been an outspoken opponent of the legislation since lawmakers proposed it in the Roundhouse .
Still , when she signed it into law , Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham seemed confident that even sheriffs who opposed it would get on board .
“ They will enforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They will do their job and duty.
” However , one year later , Sheriff Mace still told KRQE News 13 , “ We ’ re not enforcing it.
” According to the Albuquerque TV station , the only police department they could find that ’ s attempting to proactively enforce the law is the Albuquerque Police Department .
APD said it has done two sting operations , acting as potential buyers and reaching out to private gun sellers to see if they will require a background check or not .
Out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they warned roughly ten about the law during the first operation .
Then , just two or three during the second operation .
Conducting stings for a misdemeanor offense seems like a waste of time to me , and even with the sting operations the Alburquerque police haven ’ t made any arrests for violating the law .
According to the press secretary for Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham , however , you can ’ t judge the effectiveness of the law based on how many prosecutions have taken place .
Nora Meyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tony Mace are the real issue .
I ’ ll add , to your saying that ‘ no one has been charged under the law ’ – I don ’ t see how that ’ s a metric as the intent of the law is to require additional background checks , closing those loopholes .
Perhaps if some sheriff ’ s offices spent a little less time blatantly flouting critical public health policies , they would be more able to invest their time in protecting their communities from gun violence .
Although perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in thinking that they would want to take action to protect their communities , given that so many of them apparently have no interest in protecting the public from a deadly pandemic .
The fact is that almost every sheriff in the state , along with the rank-and-file members of the Albuquerque PD , opposed the universal background check measure from the get-go , warning that criminals weren ’ t going to pay any attention to the law in the first place .
Shaun Willoughby , president of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March of 2019 about the background check bill as it was making its way through the state legislature , and made a bold prediction .
Willoughby said the proposals look good on paper , but he doesn ’ t believe they will help reduce crime .
“ It is a feel-good piece of legislation that is going to be unenforceable , ” Willoughby said .
“ I would be willing to bet you in the next 12 months there will be nobody prosecuted under this particular piece of legislation.
” Here we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Willoughby ’ s been proven right .
No arrests , no prosecutions , and no effect on criminals whatsoever .
New Mexico ’ s universal background check law is exactly what critics said it would be ; a completely ineffectual law that ’ s far more about public relations for anti-gun Democrats than public safety for New Mexico residents .

Universal background checks for firearm transfers is one of the most popular gun control agenda items, at least as far as public polling goes. Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support requiring background checks for private transfers of firearms (commercial firearms transactions are already subject to background checks), and UBC laws are a top priority for gun control activists around the country; not because they’re effective, but precisely because they tend to garner a lot of support in polls.
The problem is that enforcing background checks on private sales is nearly impossible, no matter how many times Shannon Watts or Michael Bloomberg declare them to be “common sense.” The latest evidence of the ineffectiveness and unenforceable nature of the gun control law comes from New Mexico, where the state’s universal background check law was put in place one year ago. How many arrests or charges have been made for violating the law in the past twelve months?
Zero.
In the first year since that law went into effect on July 1, 2019, court records show that no one was charged with violating the law. “We spent a lot of time, a lot of resources and a lot of money trying to enact this law that’s done absolutely nothing,” said Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace. As the president of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Mace has been an outspoken opponent of the legislation since lawmakers proposed it in the Roundhouse. Still, when she signed it into law, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham seemed confident that even sheriffs who opposed it would get on board. “They will enforce this law,” she said. “They will do their job and duty.” However, one year later, Sheriff Mace still told KRQE News 13, “We’re not enforcing it.”
According to the Albuquerque TV station, the only police department they could find that’s attempting to proactively enforce the law is the Albuquerque Police Department.
APD said it has done two sting operations, acting as potential buyers and reaching out to private gun sellers to see if they will require a background check or not. Out of 50 people, they say, they warned roughly ten about the law during the first operation. Then, just two or three during the second operation.
Conducting stings for a misdemeanor offense seems like a waste of time to me, and even with the sting operations the Alburquerque police haven’t made any arrests for violating the law. According to the press secretary for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, however, you can’t judge the effectiveness of the law based on how many prosecutions have taken place. Nora Meyers Sackett told KRQE that recalcitrant sheriffs like Tony Mace are the real issue.
I’ll add, to your saying that ‘no one has been charged under the law’ – I don’t see how that’s a metric as the intent of the law is to require additional background checks, closing those loopholes. Perhaps if some sheriff’s offices spent a little less time blatantly flouting critical public health policies, they would be more able to invest their time in protecting their communities from gun violence. Although perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath in thinking that they would want to take action to protect their communities, given that so many of them apparently have no interest in protecting the public from a deadly pandemic.
Sackett sounds a little defensive, doesn’t she?
The fact is that almost every sheriff in the state, along with the rank-and-file members of the Albuquerque PD, opposed the universal background check measure from the get-go, warning that criminals weren’t going to pay any attention to the law in the first place. Shaun Willoughby, president of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association, spoke to KOB-TV in Albuquerque in March of 2019 about the background check bill as it was making its way through the state legislature, and made a bold prediction.
Willoughby said the proposals look good on paper, but he doesn’t believe they will help reduce crime. “It is a feel-good piece of legislation that is going to be unenforceable,” Willoughby said. “I would be willing to bet you in the next 12 months there will be nobody prosecuted under this particular piece of legislation.”
Here we are twelve months after the law took effect and Willoughby’s been proven right. No arrests, no prosecutions, and no effect on criminals whatsoever. New Mexico’s universal background check law is exactly what critics said it would be; a completely ineffectual law that’s far more about public relations for anti-gun Democrats than public safety for New Mexico residents.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--Portland Worried About DHS, But They Have Bigger Problems

Folks in Portland have had their knickers in a twist for a while about the Department of Homeland Security rolling up and arresting people who tried to vandalize a federal building .
Nevermind that this is well within DHS ’ s jurisdiction or anything .
It was all a problem because Orange Man Bad and all that jazz .
That ’ s been a lot of what we ’ ve heard from Portland officials .
They ’ ve made it clear they didn ’ t want any help from the federal government to quell the unrest .
Yet they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while we hear a lot about the protests , they have bigger problems .
Garmon ’ s business is one of the casualties in an intense new round of protests this month .
Federal law enforcement officers have stayed off the streets , but Portland police have been out in force every night , often deep into the early morning hours — to respond to protesters , some of whom have sought to break in or set fire to buildings used by police .
Portland police ’ s renewed focus on protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides , which took the lives of 15 people in July , the highest monthly tally in 30 years .
The Portland Police Bureau chief says the renewed diversion of officers to protest duty this month makes it more difficult to follow up on shootings and maintain a street presence to try to head off gun violence .
Among some in the city ’ s Black community , there also is concern about a move made by Portland politicians to respond to protest demands for police reform .
Earlier in the summer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence reduction team because of concerns that it disproportionately targeted people of color .
Critics of that vote say that the unit should not have been disbanded without first developing an alternative way to accomplish outreach efforts .
The unit worked with parole and probation officers .
They had relationships forged with schools and community-based organizations , as well as gang members and their families as they strove to take guns off the street .
“ The city decided to cut … with no real plan , and that left the community with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , ” said Joe McFerrin II , president and chief executive officer of Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center , which assists at-risk youth .
In other words , while they ’ ve been lashing out at President Trump for DHS going after rioters who attack federal buildings , they ’ ve seen a surge in violent crime and should probably be begging for any help they can get .
I can ’ t help but see their refusal to address the violence as evidence that they don ’ t really care about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , trying to deal with it–even if I ’ m quite sure every effort they ’ d make to deal with the violence would fall flat on its face–but instead , they ’ ve taken whatever steps they could to fire shots at President Trump .
They ’ ve got bigger problems , problems that they need to be more focused on while they also deal with ongoing protests .

Folks in Portland have had their knickers in a twist for a while about the Department of Homeland Security rolling up and arresting people who tried to vandalize a federal building. Nevermind that this is well within DHS’s jurisdiction or anything. It was all a problem because Orange Man Bad and all that jazz.
That’s been a lot of what we’ve heard from Portland officials. They’ve made it clear they didn’t want any help from the federal government to quell the unrest.
Yet they might want to rethink that. After all, while we hear a lot about the protests, they have bigger problems.
Garmon’s business is one of the casualties in an intense new round of protests this month. Federal law enforcement officers have stayed off the streets, but Portland police have been out in force every night, often deep into the early morning hours — to respond to protesters, some of whom have sought to break in or set fire to buildings used by police. Portland police’s renewed focus on protests comes amid a surge in shootings and homicides, which took the lives of 15 people in July, the highest monthly tally in 30 years. The Portland Police Bureau chief says the renewed diversion of officers to protest duty this month makes it more difficult to follow up on shootings and maintain a street presence to try to head off gun violence. … Among some in the city’s Black community, there also is concern about a move made by Portland politicians to respond to protest demands for police reform. Earlier in the summer, the City Council disbanded a 35-person gun violence reduction team because of concerns that it disproportionately targeted people of color. Critics of that vote say that the unit should not have been disbanded without first developing an alternative way to accomplish outreach efforts. The unit worked with parole and probation officers. They had relationships forged with schools and community-based organizations, as well as gang members and their families as they strove to take guns off the street. “The city decided to cut … with no real plan, and that left the community with no sense of who to reach out to,” said Joe McFerrin II, president and chief executive officer of Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center, which assists at-risk youth.
In other words, while they’ve been lashing out at President Trump for DHS going after rioters who attack federal buildings, they’ve seen a surge in violent crime and should probably be begging for any help they can get.
But, Portland won’t.
I can’t help but see their refusal to address the violence as evidence that they don’t really care about it. They could have been addressing it, trying to deal with it–even if I’m quite sure every effort they’d make to deal with the violence would fall flat on its face–but instead, they’ve taken whatever steps they could to fire shots at President Trump.
They’ve got bigger problems, problems that they need to be more focused on while they also deal with ongoing protests.


bearingarms--2020-08-12--NRA Lawsuit Undermines "Democratic Norms"

Neither Cam nor I are attorneys .
We ’ re a couple of guys who are better versed on certain laws than most other people , but we ’ re not legal experts .
While we offer opinions , we can ’ t really offer legal advice , nor do we generally try to do so .
With the NRA lawsuit , our opinions have been enough .
While many don ’ t like the NRA , it hasn ’ t been difficult to see the problems with New York Attorney General Letitia James ’ s effort to destroy an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist organization.
” Even a blind man can see that this is politically motivated .
Over at the Lawfare blog , where they have actual legal experts , they have opinions on this lawsuit as well .
The NRA is one of the most controversial and polarizing organizations in U.S. politics and is particularly reviled by the left .
I personally can ’ t stand it , and I don ’ t agree with either its policies or its legal interpretation of the Second Amendment .
But that said , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even given the cartoonish level of corruption alleged in the complaint .
While there ’ s a strong case for removing the NRA ’ s leadership and fundamentally reforming the organization itself , James ’ s attempt to dissolve the NRA in its entirety is a violation of key democratic and rule-of-law norms and should be troubling to people who value these norms no matter one ’ s place on the political spectrum .
There are two distinct norms that the lawsuit threatens .
The first is that the state should preserve , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange of ideas and an open political arena .
That doesn ’ t , of course , mean that the NRA , or any other political group , isabove the law simply because it ’ s engaged in politics .
But it does mean that a lawsuit threatening to destroy any major political group should be held to a high standard .
In particular , the government should bend over backwards , even while it enforces the law , to preserve the institution if at all possible .
If the allegations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been supported by years of investigative reporting ) , James is absolutely right to hold the NRA and its leadership accountable .
But the priority should bereform , not dissolution .
To seek dissolution , especially out of the gate , is to ignore the millions of Americans for whom the NRA is a vital avenue for political participation .
Of course , reform should be the goal if it ’ s really about protecting members and donors .
James doesn ’ t actually care about them .
She sees this as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , someone who has served as a roadblock for her party ’ s agenda .
I don ’ t know if the alleged corruption is true or not .
Yeah , I ’ ve seen the media reports , but since the media despises the NRA as much as James , I remain skeptical .
If those reports are accurate , then appropriate steps need to be taken to deal with the individuals responsible .
Yet the NRA itself would be the victim of such corruption , should it actually exist .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy the village in order to save the village ” approach…and it ’ s troubling .
How James thought this approach was a good idea is beyond me .
Even people who aren ’ t fans of the NRA are calling this precisely what it is : a political hit job .
James is serving as hatchet-woman in a new phase in New York ’ s jihad against the organization .
It ’ s going to come back and bite her at some point .
I just can ’ t wait to see @ @

Neither Cam nor I are attorneys. We’re a couple of guys who are better versed on certain laws than most other people, but we’re not legal experts. While we offer opinions, we can’t really offer legal advice, nor do we generally try to do so.
With the NRA lawsuit, our opinions have been enough. While many don’t like the NRA, it hasn’t been difficult to see the problems with New York Attorney General Letitia James’s effort to destroy an entity she once described as a “terrorist organization.” Even a blind man can see that this is politically motivated.
Over at the Lawfare blog, where they have actual legal experts, they have opinions on this lawsuit as well.
The NRA is one of the most controversial and polarizing organizations in U.S. politics and is particularly reviled by the left. I personally can’t stand it, and I don’t agree with either its policies or its legal interpretation of the Second Amendment. But that said, it’s a mistake to celebrate the lawsuit, even given the cartoonish level of corruption alleged in the complaint. While there’s a strong case for removing the NRA’s leadership and fundamentally reforming the organization itself, James’s attempt to dissolve the NRA in its entirety is a violation of key democratic and rule-of-law norms and should be troubling to people who value these norms no matter one’s place on the political spectrum. There are two distinct norms that the lawsuit threatens. The first is that the state should preserve, to the extent possible, the free exchange of ideas and an open political arena. That doesn’t, of course, mean that the NRA, or any other political group, isabove the law simply because it’s engaged in politics. But it does mean that a lawsuit threatening to destroy any major political group should be held to a high standard. In particular, the government should bend over backwards, even while it enforces the law, to preserve the institution if at all possible. If the allegations in the complaint are true (and they have been supported by years of investigative reporting), James is absolutely right to hold the NRA and its leadership accountable. But the priority should bereform, not dissolution. To seek dissolution, especially out of the gate, is to ignore the millions of Americans for whom the NRA is a vital avenue for political participation.
Of course, reform should be the goal if it’s really about protecting members and donors. James doesn’t actually care about them. She sees this as an opportunity to strike at a political enemy, someone who has served as a roadblock for her party’s agenda.
I don’t know if the alleged corruption is true or not. Yeah, I’ve seen the media reports, but since the media despises the NRA as much as James, I remain skeptical. If those reports are accurate, then appropriate steps need to be taken to deal with the individuals responsible. Yet the NRA itself would be the victim of such corruption, should it actually exist.
It’s the “we had to destroy the village in order to save the village” approach…and it’s troubling.
How James thought this approach was a good idea is beyond me. Even people who aren’t fans of the NRA are calling this precisely what it is: a political hit job. James is serving as hatchet-woman in a new phase in New York’s jihad against the organization.
It’s going to come back and bite her at some point. I just can’t wait to see it.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--With Violence And Unrest Soaring, Support For Gun Control Plummets

Actually , this is only shocking to gun control advocates , who I ’ m sure are stunned that Americans aren ’ t responding to looting , riots , and skyrocketing violent crime by demanding a ban on scary black guns and waiting periods for gun purchases .
For the rest of us , it probably doesn ’ t come as much of a surprise that as violent crime ( including both politically-motivated violence and street crime ) is on the upswing , Americans don ’ t find the idea of more gun control laws nearly as compelling as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rasmussen ’ s survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Aug. 5 had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and showed 52 % still support stricter gun regulations , but that was down from 64 % in 2019 .
Forty-two percent oppose stricter gun regulations .
The poll also showed that 47 % of those questioned own a gun or had someone in their household that did .
Among those households , 27 % said they or someone in the home has purchased a firearm in the past six months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ We know for a fact that a record number of firearms have been sold every month since March of this year , and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that two million Americans have purchased a gun for the first time between January and June of this year .
The Rasmussen poll didn ’ t ask specifically how many of those who had purchased a firearm in the past six months were new gun owners , but with support for gun control dropping by 12-points in the past year , it stands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are relatively new to exercising their Second Amendment rights .
Given the poll ’ s margin of error , support for gun control could actually be well below 50 % , and with violence continuing to escalate , I suspect that gun control ’ s popularity will continue to crater .
In Democrat-controlled cities across the country , the Left is showing us their vision for the future : fewer police and more violence .
Is it any wonder that more Americans are responding by choosing to protect themselves and their loved ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the really shocking thing about this poll is that gun control still managed to get the approval of 52 % of likely voters .
I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be that high come Election Day , and that will pose increasing problems for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , who are running as the most anti-gun ticket in American history .
They ’ re campaigning on a platform that would turn the right of the people to keep and bear arms into a privilege for a chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so at a time of record-setting gun sales and plummeting support for more gun laws .
Their anti-gun agenda may be bringing in big bucks from the likes of Michael Bloomberg , but as we get closer to November it ’ s likely to turn off more and more voters , and not just on the Right .
Gun control laws create gun crimes out of thin air , and at a time when the Left is demanding defunding law enforcement and “ re-imagining ” policing , the Biden/Harris campaign is going old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategy that amounts to arresting our way to safety through enforcement of those new laws .
That ’ s antithetical to the ideology of Black Lives Matter , but it ’ s a fundamental part of the Democrats ’ platform .
The more Joe Biden and Kamala Harris talk up their “ common sense gun safety ” agenda , gun owners need to be reminding voters of the real world consequences of those laws .
Even if you despise guns with every fiber of your being , you should know that enactment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more young black men in big cities will arrested for violating an “ assault weapons ban ” or possessing a “ large capacity magazine ” than 40-something rural white guys like me .
Old school gun control is in direct conflict with the ideas of de-policing , and conservative gun owners aren ’ t the only ones who should be opposed to the regressive and repressive agenda of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .

Actually, this is only shocking to gun control advocates, who I’m sure are stunned that Americans aren’t responding to looting, riots, and skyrocketing violent crime by demanding a ban on scary black guns and waiting periods for gun purchases. For the rest of us, it probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise that as violent crime (including both politically-motivated violence and street crime) is on the upswing, Americans don’t find the idea of more gun control laws nearly as compelling as they did just a few months ago.
Rasmussen’s survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Aug. 5 had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and showed 52% still support stricter gun regulations, but that was down from 64% in 2019. Forty-two percent oppose stricter gun regulations. The poll also showed that 47% of those questioned own a gun or had someone in their household that did. Among those households, 27% said they or someone in the home has purchased a firearm in the past six months.
That last bit is worth noting. We know for a fact that a record number of firearms have been sold every month since March of this year, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that two million Americans have purchased a gun for the first time between January and June of this year. The Rasmussen poll didn’t ask specifically how many of those who had purchased a firearm in the past six months were new gun owners, but with support for gun control dropping by 12-points in the past year, it stands to reason that a healthy number of respondents are relatively new to exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Given the poll’s margin of error, support for gun control could actually be well below 50%, and with violence continuing to escalate, I suspect that gun control’s popularity will continue to crater. In Democrat-controlled cities across the country, the Left is showing us their vision for the future: fewer police and more violence. Is it any wonder that more Americans are responding by choosing to protect themselves and their loved ones with a firearm? Absolutely not. Maybe the really shocking thing about this poll is that gun control still managed to get the approval of 52% of likely voters.
I don’t think it’s going to be that high come Election Day, and that will pose increasing problems for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who are running as the most anti-gun ticket in American history. They’re campaigning on a platform that would turn the right of the people to keep and bear arms into a privilege for a chosen few, and they’re doing so at a time of record-setting gun sales and plummeting support for more gun laws. Their anti-gun agenda may be bringing in big bucks from the likes of Michael Bloomberg, but as we get closer to November it’s likely to turn off more and more voters, and not just on the Right.
Gun control laws create gun crimes out of thin air, and at a time when the Left is demanding defunding law enforcement and “re-imagining” policing, the Biden/Harris campaign is going old school; more gun control laws and a strategy that amounts to arresting our way to safety through enforcement of those new laws. That’s antithetical to the ideology of Black Lives Matter, but it’s a fundamental part of the Democrats’ platform. The more Joe Biden and Kamala Harris talk up their “common sense gun safety” agenda, gun owners need to be reminding voters of the real world consequences of those laws.
Even if you despise guns with every fiber of your being, you should know that enactment of the Biden/Harris gun control agenda means far more young black men in big cities will arrested for violating an “assault weapons ban” or possessing a “large capacity magazine” than 40-something rural white guys like me. Old school gun control is in direct conflict with the ideas of de-policing, and conservative gun owners aren’t the only ones who should be opposed to the regressive and repressive agenda of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--With Philly Violence "Lack Of Urgency" A Good Thing

Philadelphia is one of a plethora of American cities that have seen an influx of violence in recent months .
That ’ s not really surprising .
While it may be called “ The City of Brotherly Love , ” that love tends to be more of the abusive kind than anything else .
Yet it ’ s gotten much , much worse .
In Philly , a recent effort to address it resulted in a six-hour hearing .
Wednesday marked Day 2 of an emergency hearing to address Philadelphia ’ s gun violence crisis .
City Council ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nearly six hours .
Day 2 of an emergency hearing on gun violence prevention in Philadelphia began with several testy exchanges .
“ We ’ re studying this thing and studying it , but people are still dying , ” Councilmember Curtis Jones Jr. said .
“ The lack of urgency that I ’ m feeling right now is just stunning , ” Councilmember Cindy Bass said .
The thing is , that “ lack of urgency ” is actually a smart move right about now .
Ever the riots swept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant increase in violent crime pretty much everywhere .
Whether it ’ s directly related to the protests or the lockdowns that preceded them or something else is impossible for us to say right now , and that ’ s the problem .
Right now , we don ’ t even really understand the violence .
Sure , everyone has an idea , but that doesn ’ t mean any of them are necessarily right .
Yet what some want to see is action now .
They want someone to do something .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thing leads to faulty logic .
In particular , the syllogism of : • We have to do something • This is something • Therefore , we have to do this However , that something may not help .
It may make the problem worse if you ’ re not careful .
For example , I know what some of these people really want .
They want gun control .
They want to curtail the civil liberties of people by restricting law-abiding citizens ’ access to firearms .
Gun control is their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done .
The problem is , we ’ ve seen plenty of evidence telling us that gun control doesn ’ t stop the violence .
Violent criminals aren ’ t buying their guns from the local gun store , after all .
What actually happens is that now the criminals know that the average citizen is unlikely to be armed , so they ’ re free to run rampant over entire neighborhoods .
The tyranny of the thug rises and creates an environment that is unacceptable for any free man or woman .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduces .
After all , there are worse things than violent crime .
There ’ s the illusion of peace that exists simply because everyone is too afraid to oppose the malicious thugs that rule their streets .
So yeah , a lack of urgency is hardly the worst thing in the world , especially when you ’ re addressing such a complex issue as violent crime .
It ’ s a good idea to take your time and try to determine how best to use a city ’ s limited resources in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad guys without creating an undue burden on the law-abiding .
Lack of urgency , as it was called , isn ’ t a lack of caring .
It ’ s wisdom .

Philadelphia is one of a plethora of American cities that have seen an influx of violence in recent months. That’s not really surprising. While it may be called “The City of Brotherly Love,” that love tends to be more of the abusive kind than anything else.
Yet it’s gotten much, much worse.
In Philly, a recent effort to address it resulted in a six-hour hearing.
Wednesday marked Day 2 of an emergency hearing to address Philadelphia’s gun violence crisis. City Council’s Special Committee on Gun Violence Prevention met for nearly six hours. Day 2 of an emergency hearing on gun violence prevention in Philadelphia began with several testy exchanges. “We’re studying this thing and studying it, but people are still dying,” Councilmember Curtis Jones Jr. said. “The lack of urgency that I’m feeling right now is just stunning,” Councilmember Cindy Bass said.
The thing is, that “lack of urgency” is actually a smart move right about now.
Ever the riots swept the nation, we’ve seen a significant increase in violent crime pretty much everywhere. Whether it’s directly related to the protests or the lockdowns that preceded them or something else is impossible for us to say right now, and that’s the problem.
Right now, we don’t even really understand the violence. Sure, everyone has an idea, but that doesn’t mean any of them are necessarily right.
Yet what some want to see is action now. They want someone to do something. Anything.
The problem is that such a thing leads to faulty logic. In particular, the syllogism of:
We have to do something
This is something
Therefore, we have to do this
However, that something may not help. It may make the problem worse if you’re not careful.
For example, I know what some of these people really want. They want gun control. They want to curtail the civil liberties of people by restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms.
Gun control is their “something” that has to be done.
The problem is, we’ve seen plenty of evidence telling us that gun control doesn’t stop the violence. Violent criminals aren’t buying their guns from the local gun store, after all.
What actually happens is that now the criminals know that the average citizen is unlikely to be armed, so they’re free to run rampant over entire neighborhoods. The tyranny of the thug rises and creates an environment that is unacceptable for any free man or woman. Yes, even if violent crime actually reduces.
After all, there are worse things than violent crime. There’s the illusion of peace that exists simply because everyone is too afraid to oppose the malicious thugs that rule their streets.
So yeah, a lack of urgency is hardly the worst thing in the world, especially when you’re addressing such a complex issue as violent crime. It’s a good idea to take your time and try to determine how best to use a city’s limited resources in a way that will best impact the bad guys without creating an undue burden on the law-abiding.
Lack of urgency, as it was called, isn’t a lack of caring. It’s wisdom.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--A Closer Look At The Anti-Gun Activism of Kamala Harris

Long before she was Joe Biden ’ s running mate or a Senator from California , Kamala Harris was doing everything in her power to limit the Second Amendment rights of the state ’ s residents .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I sit down with Rick Tyler , the director of development for the California Rifle & Pistol Association , for a closer look at the longtime anti-gun activism of the new face of the Democratic Party .
Tyler describes Harris as “ to the core , to the very bone , anti-Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CRPA has been battling Harris and her anti-gun agenda since she was District Attorney in San Francisco more than a decade ago .
As Tyler explains , Kamala Harris hasn ’ t just been a reliable vote for gun control legislation as a U.S .
Senator , she wants to be a leader in the attack on the right to keep and bear arms .
During her time as Attorney General , for example , Tyler says that Kamala Harris attempted to broaden the definition of an “ assault weapon ” under California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles and have them banned .
These were the very same rifles being used by Boy Scouts in the state , but Harris apparently believed that they were too dangerous for civilian use .
Tyler goes on to list some of Harris ’ s other “ achievements ” like attacking Stand Your Ground Laws , attempting to shut down gun shows , and adding more bureaucratic red tape and regulatory requirements for gun stores in an attempt to put them out of business .
It ’ s clear that Harris was far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment rights of Californians than in dealing with violent criminals , and the Biden/Harris gun control agenda is similarly focused on ensuring that law-abiding Americans are deprived of their constitutional rights while paying almost no attention at all to violent criminals .
“ We have a program here in California to track felons , ” Tyler explains , “ and when she was in charge of the California Department of Justice they had over 30,000 felons that they knew most likely were in illegal possession of firearms .
They went after six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no problem drumming up laws to go after people like you and I who are law-abiding gun owners .
And if you ’ re really about firearms safety , if you ’ re really about protecting the people , if you ’ re really that great of an Attorney General , why didn ’ t to the homes where you knew the people who were already felons actually were and take those guns off the street ?
” It ’ s a great question , but sadly , I doubt we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about why her firearms focus has always been on restricting the right to keep and bear arms instead of prosecuting violent felons and ensuring that there are consequences for their criminal behavior .
The media is intent on portraying the Biden/Harris ticket as the picture of moderation , instead of correctly identifying them as the most anti-gun ticket in American history .

Long before she was Joe Biden’s running mate or a Senator from California, Kamala Harris was doing everything in her power to limit the Second Amendment rights of the state’s residents. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I sit down with Rick Travis, the director of development for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, for a closer look at the longtime anti-gun activism of the new face of the Democratic Party.
Travis describes Harris as “to the core, to the very bone, anti-Second Amendment,” and says that the CRPA has been battling Harris and her anti-gun agenda since she was District Attorney in San Francisco more than a decade ago. As Travis explains, Kamala Harris hasn’t just been a reliable vote for gun control legislation as a U.S. Senator, she wants to be a leader in the attack on the right to keep and bear arms.
During her time as Attorney General, for example, Travis says that Kamala Harris attempted to broaden the definition of an “assault weapon” under California law to go after semi-automatic .22LR rimfire rifles and have them banned. These were the very same rifles being used by Boy Scouts in the state, but Harris apparently believed that they were too dangerous for civilian use.
Travis goes on to list some of Harris’s other “achievements” like attacking Stand Your Ground Laws, attempting to shut down gun shows, and adding more bureaucratic red tape and regulatory requirements for gun stores in an attempt to put them out of business. It’s clear that Harris was far more interested as Attorney General in limiting the Second Amendment rights of Californians than in dealing with violent criminals, and the Biden/Harris gun control agenda is similarly focused on ensuring that law-abiding Americans are deprived of their constitutional rights while paying almost no attention at all to violent criminals.
“We have a program here in California to track felons,” Travis explains, “and when she was in charge of the California Department of Justice they had over 30,000 felons that they knew most likely were in illegal possession of firearms. They went after six people. Six people! Yet she had no problem drumming up laws to go after people like you and I who are law-abiding gun owners. And if you’re really about firearms safety, if you’re really about protecting the people, if you’re really that great of an Attorney General, why didn’t to the homes where you knew the people who were already felons actually were and take those guns off the street?”
It’s a great question, but sadly, I doubt we’ll ever hear a reporter quiz Harris about why her firearms focus has always been on restricting the right to keep and bear arms instead of prosecuting violent felons and ensuring that there are consequences for their criminal behavior. The media is intent on portraying the Biden/Harris ticket as the picture of moderation, instead of correctly identifying them as the most anti-gun ticket in American history.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--WI Cop Claims "Protestor" Pointed Rifle At Him, Assaulted Him

Honestly , I ’ m tired of talking about protests and protestors .
Especially “ protestors , ” which is really just a euphemism for a violent scumbag who the media tries to protect by using said euphemism .
Unfortunately for me , that ’ s what ’ s going on right now .
Especially troubling , though , is just how vehement the anti-police sentiment actually is with some people .
I mean , I ’ m not surprised to see it in larger cities like Portland–though I ’ m a little surprised at just how widespread it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just not that usual .
And yet , a community of about 6,000 has an officer with a harrowing tale of a “ protestor.
” A Wisconsin police officer said a 23-year-old protester pointed a loaded rifle at him — and bit and kicked him — during a Waupaca protest earlier this month , WBAY-TV reported .
The station said Matthew Lee Banta was charged with : • 2nd degree recklessly endangering , use of a dangerous weapon ( point a loaded firearm at an officer ) • battery to a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon ( biting an officer ) • resisting an officer , use of a dangerous weapon A criminal complaint also said a bullet was in the rifle ’ s chamber , WBAY noted , adding that police found 117 rounds of ammunition on Banta , as well as an eight-inch straight blade knife in a sheath on his belt .
It started with a group of protestors forming up at a local library parking lot , some of which were openly carrying firearms .
An officer approached them and determined they planned on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they could do that , but to stay out of the road .
Unsurprisingly , they didn ’ t listen .
The officer said he asked them to get off the street , WBAY reported .
The protesters moved over for a moment and then moved back into the street , the station said , citing the complaint .
After several warnings , police started asking protesters for their identification , WBAY reported , adding that they didn ’ t comply .
Matthew Banta was carrying a rifle and asking , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving ?
” the station said , adding that Banta got in front of an officer and said , “ You can do what you want , but we are going to continue to march.
” The officer said he told Banta that if he didn ’ t get out of the street , he would be arrested , the station said .
The officer reached for Banta ’ s left arm to attempt to arrest him .
Banta stepped back and started down a ditch .
The officer reached for Banta ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banta “ began raising his rifle.
” Banta fell back and kicked at the officer , making contact with the officer ’ s legs .
Banta tried standing and “ he again began raising his rifle toward [ VICTIM OFFICER ] , ” reads the complaint .
The officer said he feared for his life and those around him .
The officer grabbed Banta by the shoulders and “ threw him onto the ground and held him to the ground.
” “ Banta was laying on his hands and the rifle was now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the station .
“ Banta was then moving his hands around … as though he was trying to manipulate the gun.
” Some of Banta ’ s buddies are arguing the protest was out of line , but considering what we ’ ve seen out of that bunch ?
I ’ m not buying it .
Now , Banta ’ s going to get some quality time at the gray-bar motel , as he should .
Maybe if more “ protestors ” did , we ’ d see less of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear on one thing .
Banta appears to have had every right to openly carry a firearm while marching .
I don ’ t think anyone ’ s disputing that .
However , they were marching down the middle of the road and causing a nuisance .
They were asked to move to the side–a reasonable request that would allow them to continue exercising their rights without being a nuisance to the public–and they didn ’ t .
When the officer wanted to see IDs , Banta allegedly tried to resist the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun at the officer .
That ’ s not within your Second Amendment rights , that ’ s a threat .
Banta ’ s just lucky that police aren ’ t as trigger happy as some people think , otherwise , he ’ d be dead rather than arrested .
If BLM or Antifa supporters want to carry guns , that ’ s their right .
However , they need to learn that there are things you simply don ’ t do with a firearm except in self-defense from an unlawful attack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that education .

Honestly, I’m tired of talking about protests and protestors. Especially “protestors,” which is really just a euphemism for a violent scumbag who the media tries to protect by using said euphemism.
Unfortunately for me, that’s what’s going on right now.
Especially troubling, though, is just how vehement the anti-police sentiment actually is with some people.
I mean, I’m not surprised to see it in larger cities like Portland–though I’m a little surprised at just how widespread it might be–but for smaller communities? It’s just not that usual.
And yet, a community of about 6,000 has an officer with a harrowing tale of a “protestor.”
A Wisconsin police officer said a 23-year-old protester pointed a loaded rifle at him — and bit and kicked him — during a Waupaca protest earlier this month, WBAY-TV reported. The station said Matthew Lee Banta was charged with: 2nd degree recklessly endangering, use of a dangerous weapon (point a loaded firearm at an officer)
battery to a law enforcement officer, use of a dangerous weapon (biting an officer)
battery to a law enforcement officer (kicking an officer)
resisting an officer, use of a dangerous weapon
disorderly conduct, use of a dangerous weapon A criminal complaint also said a bullet was in the rifle’s chamber, WBAY noted, adding that police found 117 rounds of ammunition on Banta, as well as an eight-inch straight blade knife in a sheath on his belt.
It started with a group of protestors forming up at a local library parking lot, some of which were openly carrying firearms.
An officer approached them and determined they planned on marching. The officer told them sure, they could do that, but to stay out of the road. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t listen.
That’s when things got interesting.
The officer said he asked them to get off the street, WBAY reported. The protesters moved over for a moment and then moved back into the street, the station said, citing the complaint. After several warnings, police started asking protesters for their identification, WBAY reported, adding that they didn’t comply. Matthew Banta was carrying a rifle and asking, “Is that what you call protecting and serving?” the station said, adding that Banta got in front of an officer and said, “You can do what you want, but we are going to continue to march.” The officer said he told Banta that if he didn’t get out of the street, he would be arrested, the station said. More from WBAY: The officer reached for Banta’s left arm to attempt to arrest him. Banta stepped back and started down a ditch. The officer reached for Banta’s backpack. That’s when Banta “began raising his rifle.” Banta fell back and kicked at the officer, making contact with the officer’s legs. Banta tried standing and “he again began raising his rifle toward [VICTIM OFFICER],” reads the complaint. The officer said he feared for his life and those around him. The officer grabbed Banta by the shoulders and “threw him onto the ground and held him to the ground.” “Banta was laying on his hands and the rifle was now underneath him,” the complaint said, according to the station. “Banta was then moving his hands around … as though he was trying to manipulate the gun.”
Some of Banta’s buddies are arguing the protest was out of line, but considering what we’ve seen out of that bunch? I’m not buying it.
Now, Banta’s going to get some quality time at the gray-bar motel, as he should. Maybe if more “protestors” did, we’d see less of this kind of thing.
Let me be clear on one thing. Banta appears to have had every right to openly carry a firearm while marching. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. However, they were marching down the middle of the road and causing a nuisance. They were asked to move to the side–a reasonable request that would allow them to continue exercising their rights without being a nuisance to the public–and they didn’t.
When the officer wanted to see IDs, Banta allegedly tried to resist the lawful request and then apparently pointed a gun at the officer. That’s not within your Second Amendment rights, that’s a threat. Banta’s just lucky that police aren’t as trigger happy as some people think, otherwise, he’d be dead rather than arrested.
If BLM or Antifa supporters want to carry guns, that’s their right. However, they need to learn that there are things you simply don’t do with a firearm except in self-defense from an unlawful attack.
It looks like Banta’s getting that education.


bearingarms--2020-08-13--DA Won't Prosecute Those Who Injure Cops

Right now , there ’ s no place in the country I ’ m happier not being than Portland .
Considering this is the same nation that houses Chicago , Detroit , Baltimore and Saint Louis , that ’ s saying something .
However , in most of those cities , if someone tries to hurt the police , they will be arrested , prosecuted , and possibly convicted in a court of law .
Due process will be carried out , but an effort will be made to right the wrong of someone trying to injure a law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t seem to be the case .
Scores of the 500 people who were arrested during the nearly 75 days of violent Portland riots will have their charges dropped by the new Black Lives Matter-approved district attorney .
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced that his default position is not to prosecute and that most crimes by rioters will be forgiven and forgotten .
That list of crimes includes interfering with a police officer , disorderly conduct , and rioting .
-interfering with a police officer -disorderly conduct -criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -riot ( somtimes in some circumstances ) Attacks on police officers and resisting arrest will be scrutinized based on whether – and we ’ re not making this up – police caused rioters to react because they used tear gas or other crowd-control measures causing rioters to “ instinctively lash out.
” Schmidt is actually taking the “ look what you made me do ” defense seriously ?
After all , this is precisely what he ’ s arguing .
He ’ s claiming that police using well-proven crowd-control techniques on rioters somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt them .
I ’ d ask if he was kidding me with this crap , but this is Portland .
No , people there actually mean this kind of nonsense .
They actually seem to believe that anything they do to the police is justified .
And what ’ s worse is that the people of Portland seem to want this kind of thing .
While I don ’ t think police should have carte blanche to do whatever they want free from repercussions , the use of tear gas and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established policy for trying to break up things like riots .
Now , they ’ re basically being told that if a “ protestor ” physically assaults them and causes injury , the DA ’ s office won ’ t do a damn thing .
So what are they suppose to use , harsh language ?
Schmidt is also not prosecuting people for curfew violations , either .
In other words , Portland is pretty much lawless right now because the DA is more concerned with appealing to the mob than doing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathetic .
It ’ s also a case of all but begging for Portland to burn .
The rioters will likely feel more emboldened and continue their antics until things get even more out of control .
Don ’ t be surprised to see Portland do a reenactment of the city of Atlanta following General Sherman ’ s visit there .
After all , if no one is going to stop them now , why should they believe anyone will try and stop them later ?
If and when that happens , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for blame is the Portland Police Department .

Right now, there’s no place in the country I’m happier not being than Portland.
Considering this is the same nation that houses Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and Saint Louis, that’s saying something.
However, in most of those cities, if someone tries to hurt the police, they will be arrested, prosecuted, and possibly convicted in a court of law. Due process will be carried out, but an effort will be made to right the wrong of someone trying to injure a law enforcement officer.
In Portland, though, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Scores of the 500 people who were arrested during the nearly 75 days of violent Portland riots will have their charges dropped by the new Black Lives Matter-approved district attorney. Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced that his default position is not to prosecute and that most crimes by rioters will be forgiven and forgotten. That list of crimes includes interfering with a police officer, disorderly conduct, and rioting. -interfering with a police officer
-disorderly conduct
-criminal trespass
-harassment
-escape in the 3rd degree
-riot (somtimes in some circumstances) Attacks on police officers and resisting arrest will be scrutinized based on whether – and we’re not making this up – police caused rioters to react because they used tear gas or other crowd-control measures causing rioters to “instinctively lash out.”
Sweet dancing baby Elvis on a cold-fusion-powered surfboard, really?
Schmidt is actually taking the “look what you made me do” defense seriously?
After all, this is precisely what he’s arguing. He’s claiming that police using well-proven crowd-control techniques on rioters somehow makes it their fault if those rioters hurt them.
I’d ask if he was kidding me with this crap, but this is Portland. No, people there actually mean this kind of nonsense. They actually seem to believe that anything they do to the police is justified.
And what’s worse is that the people of Portland seem to want this kind of thing.
While I don’t think police should have carte blanche to do whatever they want free from repercussions, the use of tear gas and these other crowd control measures have long been established policy for trying to break up things like riots. Now, they’re basically being told that if a “protestor” physically assaults them and causes injury, the DA’s office won’t do a damn thing.
So what are they suppose to use, harsh language?
Schmidt is also not prosecuting people for curfew violations, either.
In other words, Portland is pretty much lawless right now because the DA is more concerned with appealing to the mob than doing his damn job. It’s absolutely pathetic.
It’s also a case of all but begging for Portland to burn.
The rioters will likely feel more emboldened and continue their antics until things get even more out of control. Don’t be surprised to see Portland do a reenactment of the city of Atlanta following General Sherman’s visit there. After all, if no one is going to stop them now, why should they believe anyone will try and stop them later?
If and when that happens, the last people Schmidt needs to look to for blame is the Portland Police Department.