bearingarms--2020-09-29--This PA Court Decision Could Gut The 2A

This PA Court Decision Could Gut The 2A

A Pennsylvania appeals court issued a ruling on Monday that , if upheld , could upend the firearms manufacturing industry and allow for a flood of junk lawsuits designed to put gun companies out of business .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Larry Keane , the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation joins me to talk about the court ’ s decision and why its inherently flawed analysis should be overturned by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court .
The case revolves around the shooting death of 13-year old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14-year old friend back in 2016 .
According to the Gustafsons and their lead attorney , Jonathan Lowy of the gun control group Brady , the 14-year old had removed the magazine from the pistol before pointing it at Gustafson and pulling the trigger , not realizing that there was still a bullet in the chamber .
The 14-year old ultimately pleaded guilty in court to a charge of involuntary manslaughter , but the Gustafsons , with the backing of Brady , sued both Springfield Armory and the Pennsylvania department store that originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun should have been designed so that it wouldn ’ t fire without a magazine in place , and that the lack of that feature makes the gun defective .
Springfield Armory invoked the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in its defense , noting that the 2005 federal law is designed to prevent lawsuits that seek to hold firearms manufacturers and retailers responsible for the third party acts of criminals .
The trial court judge ruled in the gunmaker ’ s favor , but on Monday , Superior Court Judge Deborah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision and declared that the PLCAA violates both the Constitution ’ s Commerce Clause as well the 10th Amendment , writing in part that : As Keane points out in our interview , this is the first time in the 15-year history of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that a judge has reached this conclusion , despite multiple attempts by gun control activists to challenge the law in court .
As for Kunselman ’ s contention that the PLCAA violates the 10th Amendment , Keane observes that even anti-gun federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was constitutional in a case called New York City vs. Beretta even though he allowed the city ’ s lawsuit against the gun manufacturer to proceed .
Weinstein ’ s ruling was ultimately overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals , which ruled that the PLCAA didn ’ t violate the Commerce Clause or the 10th Amendment .
If you really want to dive deeply into the issues raised by Kunselman ’ s opinion , you can read the Second Circuit ’ s decision here , as well as this excellent article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R. Clay Larkin .
While both were written more than a decade ago , they both explain why Kunselman ’ s decision is so off-base .
Keane says it ’ s a near certainty that Springfield Armory will appeal the Superior Court decision to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court , and it ’ s possible that the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court .
In fact , Keane believes this case could be one of the first Second Amendment-related cases that Amy Coney Barrett could hear as a Supreme Court justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the issues of tort reform , the Commerce Clause , and the 10th Amendment than it does the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms .
What would happen if the PLCAA were ultimately determined to be unconstitutional by the nation ’ s highest court ?
According to Keane , gun control groups would begin filing dozens of lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry and making it impossible to do business .
Even guns that had been stolen and used in the commission of a violent crime would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original manufacture and retail seller , and even if gunmakers prevailed at trial , the mounting legal bills would undoubtably spell an end to most gunmakers .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Larry Keane in the video window above , and stick around for more news afterwards , including today ’ s armed citizen story , a recidivist report featuring a New York man recently accused of killing an 11-year old who was released from jail back in June after prosecutors failed to secure an indictment on robbery and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer in the right place at the right time to save the life of an autistic teen who was choking on a piece of food .

A Pennsylvania appeals court issued a ruling on Monday that, if upheld, could upend the firearms manufacturing industry and allow for a flood of junk lawsuits designed to put gun companies out of business. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Larry Keane, the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation joins me to talk about the court’s decision and why its inherently flawed analysis should be overturned by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court.
The case revolves around the shooting death of 13-year old J.R. Gustafson at the hands of his 14-year old friend back in 2016. According to the Gustafsons and their lead attorney, Jonathan Lowy of the gun control group Brady, the 14-year old had removed the magazine from the pistol before pointing it at Gustafson and pulling the trigger, not realizing that there was still a bullet in the chamber.
The 14-year old ultimately pleaded guilty in court to a charge of involuntary manslaughter, but the Gustafsons, with the backing of Brady, sued both Springfield Armory and the Pennsylvania department store that originally sold the firearm, claiming that the gun should have been designed so that it wouldn’t fire without a magazine in place, and that the lack of that feature makes the gun defective.
Springfield Armory invoked the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in its defense, noting that the 2005 federal law is designed to prevent lawsuits that seek to hold firearms manufacturers and retailers responsible for the third party acts of criminals. The trial court judge ruled in the gunmaker’s favor, but on Monday, Superior Court Judge Deborah Kunselman overturned the trial court’s decision and declared that the PLCAA violates both the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well the 10th Amendment, writing in part that:
“The constitutional safeguards that override the PLCAA are the structural pillars of American government. These principles ensure that local matters remain under the local authority of the states, and they prevent the federal government from becoming all powerful. Congressional tort-reform bills, like the PLCAA, have no place within that system; tort law and statutes reforming it are an exercise of police power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.”
As Keane points out in our interview, this is the first time in the 15-year history of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that a judge has reached this conclusion, despite multiple attempts by gun control activists to challenge the law in court.
As for Kunselman’s contention that the PLCAA violates the 10th Amendment, Keane observes that even anti-gun federal judge Jack Weinstein found that the law was constitutional in a case called New York City vs. Beretta even though he allowed the city’s lawsuit against the gun manufacturer to proceed. Weinstein’s ruling was ultimately overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the PLCAA didn’t violate the Commerce Clause or the 10th Amendment.
If you really want to dive deeply into the issues raised by Kunselman’s opinion, you can read the Second Circuit’s decision here, as well as this excellent article in the Kentucky Law Review by attorney R. Clay Larkin. While both were written more than a decade ago, they both explain why Kunselman’s decision is so off-base.
Keane says it’s a near certainty that Springfield Armory will appeal the Superior Court decision to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, and it’s possible that the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, Keane believes this case could be one of the first Second Amendment-related cases that Amy Coney Barrett could hear as a Supreme Court justice, though technically the case revolves more around the issues of tort reform, the Commerce Clause, and the 10th Amendment than it does the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
What would happen if the PLCAA were ultimately determined to be unconstitutional by the nation’s highest court? According to Keane, gun control groups would begin filing dozens of lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry and making it impossible to do business. Even guns that had been stolen and used in the commission of a violent crime would be the basis for litigation against the original manufacture and retail seller, and even if gunmakers prevailed at trial, the mounting legal bills would undoubtably spell an end to most gunmakers.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Larry Keane in the video window above, and stick around for more news afterwards, including today’s armed citizen story, a recidivist report featuring a New York man recently accused of killing an 11-year old who was released from jail back in June after prosecutors failed to secure an indictment on robbery and weapons charges, and a Maryland police officer in the right place at the right time to save the life of an autistic teen who was choking on a piece of food.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Bloomberg's CO Attack Ad Misleads On Crime

Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is spending $ 1-million on ads in Colorado attacking Republican Senator Cory Gardner for “ standing with the gun lobby ” and opposing “ common sense gun safety measures , ” but what the anti-gun group isn ’ t telling voters is that the very gun control laws that they ’ re demanding at the federal level have been in place in Colorado for years , yet violent crime has increased dramatically since the laws took effect .
Bloomberg ’ s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety is backing former governor John Hickenlooper in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve lavished praise on the Democrat for signing gun control laws like a magazine ban and universal background checks “ before it was politically expedient.
” Hickenlooper approved the gun control bills in 2013 , but several months after he signed the bills into law , the governor actually apologized to county sheriffs for not seeking their input before the bills came to his desk .
What ’ s more , Hickenlooper also claimed that he “ would have thought twice ” about signing the bills if he ’ d realized how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the magazine ban is largely unenforceable .
Of course , none of that history appears in the new Everytown ad , which claims that Cory Gardner is blocking “ common sense gun safety bills ” like the ones Hickenlooper signed as governor .
Unfortunately for Bloomberg , Hickenlooper , and gun control activists in Colorado , the fact is that these measures don ’ t involve much common sense and they certainly haven ’ t made the state a safer place .
While the violent crime rate was declining nationwide , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 and 2017 , and has grown even higher in recent years .
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged that violent crime in 2018 was nearly 8 % higher than 2017 , and after a small decrease in the statewide violent crime rate in 2019 , violence is once again on the rise .
In Denver , the numbers are even worse .
Violent crime has increased every year since Hickenlooper signed his gun control bills into law , and 2020 is on pace to be the deadliest year in at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 67 homicides in Denver .
So far in 2020 there ’ ve already been 65 , and we still have three more months to go .
If Everytown ’ s gun control bills were really based on common sense and actually made people safer , we ’ d see some evidence of that over the past seven years in the state of Colorado .
Instead , Coloradans are less safe and less free , and Americans can expect the same results if Bloomberg succeeds in turning the U.S. Senate blue on Election Day @ @ @

Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is spending $1-million on ads in Colorado attacking Republican Senator Cory Gardner for “standing with the gun lobby” and opposing “common sense gun safety measures,” but what the anti-gun group isn’t telling voters is that the very gun control laws that they’re demanding at the federal level have been in place in Colorado for years, yet violent crime has increased dramatically since the laws took effect.
Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety is backing former governor John Hickenlooper in his bid to unseat Gardner, and they’ve lavished praise on the Democrat for signing gun control laws like a magazine ban and universal background checks “before it was politically expedient.” Hickenlooper approved the gun control bills in 2013, but several months after he signed the bills into law, the governor actually apologized to county sheriffs for not seeking their input before the bills came to his desk.
What’s more, Hickenlooper also claimed that he “would have thought twice” about signing the bills if he’d realized how controversial they would be, and acknowledged that the magazine ban is largely unenforceable.
Of course, none of that history appears in the new Everytown ad, which claims that Cory Gardner is blocking “common sense gun safety bills” like the ones Hickenlooper signed as governor.
Unfortunately for Bloomberg, Hickenlooper, and gun control activists in Colorado, the fact is that these measures don’t involve much common sense and they certainly haven’t made the state a safer place. While the violent crime rate was declining nationwide, it increased by 25% in Colorado between 2013 and 2017, and has grown even higher in recent years. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged that violent crime in 2018 was nearly 8% higher than 2017, and after a small decrease in the statewide violent crime rate in 2019, violence is once again on the rise.
In Denver, the numbers are even worse. Violent crime has increased every year since Hickenlooper signed his gun control bills into law, and 2020 is on pace to be the deadliest year in at least a decade. In 2019 there were 67 homicides in Denver. So far in 2020 there’ve already been 65, and we still have three more months to go.
If Everytown’s gun control bills were really based on common sense and actually made people safer, we’d see some evidence of that over the past seven years in the state of Colorado. Instead, Coloradans are less safe and less free, and Americans can expect the same results if Bloomberg succeeds in turning the U.S. Senate blue on Election Day in November.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Charleston Arrest Represents Second Amendment Problem

The Second Amendment has been horribly misinterpreted by those who loathe what it stands for over the decades but the plain text is quite clear .
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
However , many people seem to reject that .
These days , when everyone seems to be losing their ever-loving minds , the Second Amendment is of vital importance .
However , a recent arrest made by Charleston , SC police seems a bit problematic .
Investigators are trying to determine why the two men were in downtown Charleston with their weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem here is that other than one having a handgun in his waistband without a permit , there doesn ’ t appear to be any laws broken .
While there are restrictions on carrying handguns in South Carolina , it ’ s kind of hard to lock an AR-15 up in the glove box .
I haven ’ t been able to find any regulation regarding these weapons in South Carolina .
Then again , I ’ m not an attorney .
Yes , yes , I know .
Some will invariably say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking guns to a protest and they may well have been .
This may have been an attempt to find an excuse to shoot someone .
But they didn ’ t .
They were surrounded by the protestors and they shot no one .
While I get the carrying without a permit charge , it actually looks like they aren ’ t guilty of anything else .
Yet they ’ re being treated like they are , and that ’ s the problem .
Further , I suspect that if we delve into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weapon was in the waistband while inside the vehicle , meaning the police response pulled the two men out of the truck and triggered a more extensive search .
There mere presence of a firearm is not probable cause .
We don ’ t know if the two men consented to the search or not , but we do know that unless they were doing something illegal , there was no reason to search in the first place .
Treating the possession of firearms as probable cause of a crime , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents a real problem .
The Second Amendment doesn ’ t provide for the right to keep and bear arms unless you ’ re X number of feet away from a protest .
That ’ s not how it works .
Had police simply detained the two men , then released them after the protest was over , that might have been one thing .
Instead , we see how little Charleston police seem to care about your gun rights .

The Second Amendment has been horribly misinterpreted by those who loathe what it stands for over the decades but the plain text is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
However, many people seem to reject that.
These days, when everyone seems to be losing their ever-loving minds, the Second Amendment is of vital importance. However, a recent arrest made by Charleston, SC police seems a bit problematic.
Charleston’s police chief said he’s very concerned after his officers found guns and ammo inside a pickup truck during a protest downtown Saturday night. … Police found the guns and ammo when some of the protesters surrounded the men’s truck. Officers found an AR-15 in plain view. They also found pepper spray, a wooden club, additional magazines, knives and a taser. The driver also admitted he had a loaded handgun in his waistband. Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds says the men did not have a concealed weapons permit. “There’s danger potentially involved but in particular when it’s a busy night right in the area of the peninsula in that area where the protests were being held at a time when there’s lots of people it’s always a concern,” Reynolds said.
Investigators are trying to determine why the two men were in downtown Charleston with their weapons that night.
However, the big problem here is that other than one having a handgun in his waistband without a permit, there doesn’t appear to be any laws broken. While there are restrictions on carrying handguns in South Carolina, it’s kind of hard to lock an AR-15 up in the glove box. I haven’t been able to find any regulation regarding these weapons in South Carolina. Then again, I’m not an attorney.
Yes, yes, I know. Some will invariably say they were looking to cause trouble by taking guns to a protest and they may well have been. This may have been an attempt to find an excuse to shoot someone.
But they didn’t. They were surrounded by the protestors and they shot no one.
While I get the carrying without a permit charge, it actually looks like they aren’t guilty of anything else. Yet they’re being treated like they are, and that’s the problem. Further, I suspect that if we delve into it, we’ll find that the weapon was in the waistband while inside the vehicle, meaning the police response pulled the two men out of the truck and triggered a more extensive search.
And that’s the problem.
There mere presence of a firearm is not probable cause. We don’t know if the two men consented to the search or not, but we do know that unless they were doing something illegal, there was no reason to search in the first place. Treating the possession of firearms as probable cause of a crime, regardless of where they’re at, represents a real problem. The Second Amendment doesn’t provide for the right to keep and bear arms unless you’re X number of feet away from a protest. That’s not how it works.
Had police simply detained the two men, then released them after the protest was over, that might have been one thing. Instead, we see how little Charleston police seem to care about your gun rights.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--N.C. County Has Backlog Of More Than 10k Gun Permit Applications

Let me state right up front that I hate the fact that North Carolina even has a pistol purchase permit requirement in the first place .
I think the law is a remnant of the Jim Crow-era and should have been repealed long ago , but for now all prospective handgun owners in the state are required to apply for permission from their county sheriff to purchase a pistol .
Over the past few months , several counties have struggled to keep up with the demand from residents , which has resulted in months-long delays for folks trying to exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their home for self-defense .
In Mecklenburg County ( which encompasses Charlotte and several of its suburbs ) , Sheriff Gary McFadden says he ’ s authorized overtime and brought in staff from other departments to help with the surge in applications , which are running almost 400 % above 2019 numbers .
To put that bolded sentence into perspective , the current backlog of pistol purchase permits in Mecklenburg County is almost as high as the total number of permits that the office processes over the course of an entire year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he can to try to speed up the pistol purchase permit process , the fact remains that the sheriff ’ s office is currently running three months behind .
State law in North Carolina requires that sheriffs process these applications within 14 days , and there is no exception for staffing issues or increased demand , as Grass Roots North Carolina ’ s director of legal affairs Edward Green noted several months ago when demand first began surging and many sheriff ’ s offices simply stopped taking applications during the early days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheriff of every county in NC shall issue a PPP to a law-abiding citizen of good moral character within 14 days .
This is state law , ” Green wrote .
“ The sheriff ’ s office has no discretion in accepting applications or processing them .
If an investigation uncovers a specific , statutorily enumerated reason an applicant should not receive a PPP , the sheriff must list such reason – and the statute – in writing – also within 14 days.
” Of course , North Carolina state law also doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fail to meet the deadline , which is another problem .
Several lawsuits have been filed against county sheriffs in recent months , but it ’ s clearly time for the state legislature to act and repeal the pistol purchase permit law entirely .
Not only is the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit law ripe for abuse by allowing a sheriff to determine if a prospective gun buyer is of “ good moral character , ” there are tens of thousands of North Carolinians who are currently twiddling their thumbs while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off on them exercising their constitutionally-protected rights .

Let me state right up front that I hate the fact that North Carolina even has a pistol purchase permit requirement in the first place. I think the law is a remnant of the Jim Crow-era and should have been repealed long ago, but for now all prospective handgun owners in the state are required to apply for permission from their county sheriff to purchase a pistol. Over the past few months, several counties have struggled to keep up with the demand from residents, which has resulted in months-long delays for folks trying to exercise their right to keep a handgun in their home for self-defense.
In Mecklenburg County (which encompasses Charlotte and several of its suburbs), Sheriff Gary McFadden says he’s authorized overtime and brought in staff from other departments to help with the surge in applications, which are running almost 400% above 2019 numbers.
According to the Sheriff’s Office, prior to March 2020 purchase permit applications averaged 1,506 per month for the Fiscal year 2020 and 1,130 for the Fiscal Year 2019. Since March, the average climbed to an average of 4,698. Last Friday, the Sheriff’s Office said it registered the highest number of outstanding applications ever with 11,038 applications. Additionally, staff are working to process applications and are processing applications as of June 29, 2020.
To put that bolded sentence into perspective, the current backlog of pistol purchase permits in Mecklenburg County is almost as high as the total number of permits that the office processes over the course of an entire year.
While I appreciate that McFadden is doing what he can to try to speed up the pistol purchase permit process, the fact remains that the sheriff’s office is currently running three months behind. State law in North Carolina requires that sheriffs process these applications within 14 days, and there is no exception for staffing issues or increased demand, as Grass Roots North Carolina’s director of legal affairs Edward Green noted several months ago when demand first began surging and many sheriff’s offices simply stopped taking applications during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The sheriff of every county in NC shall issue a PPP to a law-abiding citizen of good moral character within 14 days. This is state law,” Green wrote. “The sheriff’s office has no discretion in accepting applications or processing them. If an investigation uncovers a specific, statutorily enumerated reason an applicant should not receive a PPP, the sheriff must list such reason – and the statute – in writing – also within 14 days.”
Of course, North Carolina state law also doesn’t provide any sanctions for agencies that fail to meet the deadline, which is another problem. Several lawsuits have been filed against county sheriffs in recent months, but it’s clearly time for the state legislature to act and repeal the pistol purchase permit law entirely.
Not only is the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit law ripe for abuse by allowing a sheriff to determine if a prospective gun buyer is of “good moral character,” there are tens of thousands of North Carolinians who are currently twiddling their thumbs while they wait for their local government to sign off on them exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--16 Indicted On Weapons Charges As Cincinnati Violence Continues

Right now , for whatever reason , violence is still spreading throughout our cities .
Whether it ’ s because of COVID or the riots , or whatever , it ’ s an ugly situation .
What ’ s more , it ain ’ t shaping up to be any better in the near future so far as anyone can tell .
While some may claim that legal firearm purchases are driving the surge in violence , the truth is that the firearms being used are coming off the black market .
In Cincinnati , the feds seem to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Seven years .
If you ’ re a felon caught with a gun in Ohio , that ’ s how much longer your prison sentence could be if the charges against you are federal versus local .
Local law enforcement has partnered with the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office , the ATF and the FBI to leverage this fact .
On Monday , 16 indictments were announced , many in connection with recent shooting incidents .
This all comes in response to escalating gun violence .
Cincinnati is on pace to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than any other year on record .
Total shootings are up about 50 % over last year as well .
For folks in Ohio , this is probably good news .
After all , the maximum sentence under Ohio law would have been three years .
Instead , those arrested are facing 10 years in the slammer for their role .
Of course , the announcement didn ’ t come with a description of just how these guns were obtained .
What we do know , though , is that none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm .
I know , I know , you ’ re as shocked as I am , aren ’ t you ?
I mean , criminals tend to be so law-abiding , yet here we have criminals breaking yet another law .
Why , it ’ s almost like criminals break the law as a matter of definition or something .
Crazy , I know , but here we are .
Seriously , this shouldn ’ t surprise anyone .
This is what criminals do .
Meanwhile , it seems the feds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be the last set of arrests , either .
One would assume this doesn ’ t just apply to Cincinnati , but pretty much anywhere that ’ s seeing a surge in violent crime .
Frankly , if you ’ re getting violent criminals off the streets , that ’ s a good thing for everyone .
What we don ’ t want to see is people jammed up over BS weapons charges , people who actually don ’ t represent a threat to anyone .
Yet that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s mostly people trading or using stolen firearms because they ’ re violent felons and can ’ t lawfully buy a gun .
Then they go out and act like violent felons , then wonder why the system is working against them .
Let ’ s hope there are a lot more of them taken off the streets .
Maybe then the stupid that ’ s sweeping the nation with regard to violence will come to an abrupt end .

Right now, for whatever reason, violence is still spreading throughout our cities. Whether it’s because of COVID or the riots, or whatever, it’s an ugly situation. What’s more, it ain’t shaping up to be any better in the near future so far as anyone can tell.
While some may claim that legal firearm purchases are driving the surge in violence, the truth is that the firearms being used are coming off the black market.
In Cincinnati, the feds seem to be trying to address some of the problem.
Seven years. If you’re a felon caught with a gun in Ohio, that’s how much longer your prison sentence could be if the charges against you are federal versus local. Local law enforcement has partnered with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the ATF and the FBI to leverage this fact. On Monday, 16 indictments were announced, many in connection with recent shooting incidents. This all comes in response to escalating gun violence. Cincinnati is on pace to see more than 100 homicides this year, more than any other year on record. Total shootings are up about 50% over last year as well.
For folks in Ohio, this is probably good news. After all, the maximum sentence under Ohio law would have been three years. Instead, those arrested are facing 10 years in the slammer for their role.
Of course, the announcement didn’t come with a description of just how these guns were obtained.
What we do know, though, is that none of these individuals were lawfully allowed to have a firearm.
The suspects, who all have felony convictions, are under grand jury indictment for crimes related to gun violence in the city, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio.
So, black market guns.
I know, I know, you’re as shocked as I am, aren’t you? I mean, criminals tend to be so law-abiding, yet here we have criminals breaking yet another law. Why, it’s almost like criminals break the law as a matter of definition or something.
Crazy, I know, but here we are.
Seriously, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. This is what criminals do.
Meanwhile, it seems the feds are making it clear that this won’t be the last set of arrests, either.
“This is just the first surge that we’ve done,” U.S. Attorney David DeVillers said at a joint news conference Monday. “We’re going to keep doing this until the violent crime goes down.”
One would assume this doesn’t just apply to Cincinnati, but pretty much anywhere that’s seeing a surge in violent crime. Frankly, if you’re getting violent criminals off the streets, that’s a good thing for everyone.
What we don’t want to see is people jammed up over BS weapons charges, people who actually don’t represent a threat to anyone. Yet that doesn’t seem to be the focus. Instead, it’s mostly people trading or using stolen firearms because they’re violent felons and can’t lawfully buy a gun. Then they go out and act like violent felons, then wonder why the system is working against them.
Let’s hope there are a lot more of them taken off the streets. Maybe then the stupid that’s sweeping the nation with regard to violence will come to an abrupt end.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Montana Democrat Dinged Over Poor Gun Handling In Campaign Ad

Montana Governor Steve Bullock has embraced an anti-gun agenda over the past couple of years , but in his current run for the U.S. Senate he ’ s trying to portray himself as a friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment .
In a recent campaign ad , Bullock claims that he believes “ in our individual right to bear arms , ” but he never actually explains what he think that right actually protects .
On Twitter , however , Bullock has clearly stated his belief that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t protect some of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Second Amendment support seems relegated to hunting , but even there the Democrat has run into some trouble .
A recent campaign mailer featured Bullock posing with a beautiful buck , but as Gary Marbut , head of the Montana Shooting Sports Association has pointed out , the photo also shows Bullock violating one of the basic rules of gun safety .
In the photo , Bullock is posing with a trophy animal with the rifle , barrel up , pointing directly at his own chest .
“ Steve Bullock is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the road and maybe uninformed people , and he himself is pretty uninformed about guns , which is why he posed for a photograph with a rifle pointed his chest for Pete ’ s sake , ” said Marbut , himself a firearms instructor .
“ It ’ s one of the most egregious firearm safety errors I ’ ve ever seen .
And it ’ s typical of somebody who ’ s clueless about firearms.
” Marbut took the opportunity to remind voters about the many times that Governor Bullock has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislature .
“ Well , this guy who wants people to vote for him , maybe has forgotten so quickly that he vetoed 16 pro-gun bills during the time he was governor , ” he said .
“ And I think the fact that he would pose for such an egregious gun safety violation photo just demonstrates that he is pandering for votes and is clueless about firearms.
” Clueless about firearms and a fan of gun control wouldn ’ t ordinarily sell well in Montana , but Bullock ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few months has shown a tight race between Bullock and the incumbent senator , Republican Steve Daines .
Bullock ’ s done a fairly decent job of disguising his support for gun control during his current campaign , but with Marbut and other gun owners reminding voters of Bullock ’ s true views , voters in the state will hopefully head to the polls well aware of what Bullock ’ s true views on the right to keep and bear arms really are .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

Montana Governor Steve Bullock has embraced an anti-gun agenda over the past couple of years, but in his current run for the U.S. Senate he’s trying to portray himself as a friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment. In a recent campaign ad, Bullock claims that he believes “in our individual right to bear arms,” but he never actually explains what he think that right actually protects. On Twitter, however, Bullock has clearly stated his belief that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect some of the most commonly owned arms in America.
I am a hunter and a gun owner. No hunter needs a 30-round magazine, a bump stock, or an assault weapon. A large majority of Americans – Republican and Democrat – agree. https://t.co/kL48omojv6 — Steve Bullock (@GovernorBullock) October 21, 2019
Bullock’s Second Amendment support seems relegated to hunting, but even there the Democrat has run into some trouble. A recent campaign mailer featured Bullock posing with a beautiful buck, but as Gary Marbut, head of the Montana Shooting Sports Association has pointed out, the photo also shows Bullock violating one of the basic rules of gun safety.
In the photo, Bullock is posing with a trophy animal with the rifle, barrel up, pointing directly at his own chest. “Steve Bullock is trying really hard to appeal to middle of the road and maybe uninformed people, and he himself is pretty uninformed about guns, which is why he posed for a photograph with a rifle pointed his chest for Pete’s sake,” said Marbut, himself a firearms instructor. “It’s one of the most egregious firearm safety errors I’ve ever seen. And it’s typical of somebody who’s clueless about firearms.” Marbut took the opportunity to remind voters about the many times that Governor Bullock has kept gun laws from advancing in the state legislature. “Well, this guy who wants people to vote for him, maybe has forgotten so quickly that he vetoed 16 pro-gun bills during the time he was governor,” he said. “And I think the fact that he would pose for such an egregious gun safety violation photo just demonstrates that he is pandering for votes and is clueless about firearms.”
Clueless about firearms and a fan of gun control wouldn’t ordinarily sell well in Montana, but Bullock’s been a fairly popular governor and polling over the past few months has shown a tight race between Bullock and the incumbent senator, Republican Steve Daines. Bullock’s done a fairly decent job of disguising his support for gun control during his current campaign, but with Marbut and other gun owners reminding voters of Bullock’s true views, voters in the state will hopefully head to the polls well aware of what Bullock’s true views on the right to keep and bear arms really are.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Anti-Gun Meltdown Over Barrett Continues

Amy Coney Barrett had to know what kind of a firestorm she was walking into when she accepted President Donald Trump ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court .
After all , Brett Kavanaugh could have given her the heads up if nothing else .
Right now , the Supreme Court appointment is triggering for a lot of groups .
Barrett has opinions that some groups are less than thrilled with .
In particular , anti-gunners .
In fact , she ’ s viewed as downright hostile to the anti-gun agenda .
Barrett sided with officers in finding a traffic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year later didn ’ t remember stopping the suspects .
In another case , she wrote that a detective who lied to get arrest warrant isn ’ t entitled to qualified immunity .
In U.S. v. Terry , she found that police didn ’ t have the authority to search a suspect ’ s apartment because they failed to verify that the woman who let them in lived there .
In U.S. v. Watson , she agreed with a suspect that the police didn ’ t have a reasonable suspicion to block his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett is “ open minded ” and willing to rule against the government , said Georgia State law Prof. Eric Segall .
Barrett ’ s dissent in a gun rights case indicates she has a “ very expansive view of the right to bear arms and would very likely be hostile to gun control efforts , ” said law Prof. Adam Winkler of the University of California Los Angeles .
The majority upheld a ban on felons possessing firearms .
Barrett ’ s dissent argued that such laws run afoul of the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who commit nonviolent felonies are dangerous .
Cam touched on this one yesterday , of course .
Barrett found that a non-violent felon shouldn ’ t be barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights .
Frankly , she ’ s right .
They shouldn ’ t .
But the anti-gunners will continue to melt down because they ’ ll no longer have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to stand against the right to keep and bear arms .
Now , a full two-thirds of the Court will likely vote in a pro-Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hell out of them right now .
However , that will only matter if the Court actually agrees to take on a Second Amendment case .
It remains to be seen if that will happen , of course , but it ’ s also possible that Barrett being on the Court may be enough to swing things so that they will .
We can certainly hope so , anyway .
In the meantime , we can at least point and laugh as anti-gunners go completely ballistic ( pun fully intended ) over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to move to confirm as quickly as possible .
It ’ s a beautiful thing , to be perfectly honest , but partially because so many anti-gunners are betraying their own hypocrisy .
They were fine with Obama nominating a justice when we all knew good and well his presidency was slated to last mere days , but now that Trump is facing an election–one he ’ s not guaranteed to lose by any stretch–they want everything to halt .
Not only did it fail to cater to them , the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes the anti-gunner soil themselves .
It ’ s hard not to be amused .

Amy Coney Barrett had to know what kind of a firestorm she was walking into when she accepted President Donald Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court. After all, Brett Kavanaugh could have given her the heads up if nothing else.
Right now, the Supreme Court appointment is triggering for a lot of groups. Barrett has opinions that some groups are less than thrilled with. In particular, anti-gunners.
In fact, she’s viewed as downright hostile to the anti-gun agenda.
Barrett sided with officers in finding a traffic stop reasonable even though the officers a year later didn’t remember stopping the suspects. In another case, she wrote that a detective who lied to get arrest warrant isn’t entitled to qualified immunity. In U.S. v. Terry, she found that police didn’t have the authority to search a suspect’s apartment because they failed to verify that the woman who let them in lived there. In U.S. v. Watson, she agreed with a suspect that the police didn’t have a reasonable suspicion to block his car based on an unreliable tip. Barrett is “open minded” and willing to rule against the government, said Georgia State law Prof. Eric Segall. Barrett’s dissent in a gun rights case indicates she has a “very expansive view of the right to bear arms and would very likely be hostile to gun control efforts,” said law Prof. Adam Winkler of the University of California Los Angeles. The majority upheld a ban on felons possessing firearms. Barrett’s dissent argued that such laws run afoul of the Second Amendment because there’s no evidence those who commit nonviolent felonies are dangerous.
Cam touched on this one yesterday, of course. Barrett found that a non-violent felon shouldn’t be barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Frankly, she’s right. They shouldn’t.
But the anti-gunners will continue to melt down because they’ll no longer have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to stand against the right to keep and bear arms. Now, a full two-thirds of the Court will likely vote in a pro-Second Amendment manner, and that’s scaring the hell out of them right now.
Frankly, it should.
However, that will only matter if the Court actually agrees to take on a Second Amendment case. It remains to be seen if that will happen, of course, but it’s also possible that Barrett being on the Court may be enough to swing things so that they will. We can certainly hope so, anyway.
In the meantime, we can at least point and laugh as anti-gunners go completely ballistic (pun fully intended) over her nomination and the Senate’s decision to move to confirm as quickly as possible. It’s a beautiful thing, to be perfectly honest, but partially because so many anti-gunners are betraying their own hypocrisy.
They were fine with Obama nominating a justice when we all knew good and well his presidency was slated to last mere days, but now that Trump is facing an election–one he’s not guaranteed to lose by any stretch–they want everything to halt. Not only did it fail to cater to them, the Senate is looking to confirm a woman that makes the anti-gunner soil themselves.
It’s hard not to be amused.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Anti-Gun Dem Goes Low In NY Congressional Race

If it seems like the elections are uglier than usual this cycle , you ’ re not alone .
The problems range from fact-checkers offering up a one-sided view of Joe Biden ’ s thoughts on the Second Amendment , baseless accusations designed to smear Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , to a New York congressional candidate alleging that the Republican incumbent took part in a mock lynching of New York governor Andrew Cuomo this past weekend .
The so-called lynching of an effigy of Cuomo was actually a mock trial of that featured a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Jacobs ( NY-27 ) wasn ’ t there when the puppet was wheeled out , but none of that seems to matter to Jacobs ’ challenger Nate McMurray , who shared this bizarre attack ad complete with ( overly loud ) ominous music and heavily edited video from the rally , which was put on by a pro-Second Amendment group called the 1791 Society .
The funniest part of McMurray ’ s tweet above is his “ scary stuff ” comment , especially given the fact that the ad criticizes Jacobs for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The ad ’ s evidence ?
Two seconds of the Republican congressman saying “ We are at times like we haven ’ t seen in a long , long time.
” Uh , that ’ s not doom-saying .
If anything , it ’ s underselling the point .
We ’ ve got the Left comparing Donald Trump to you-know-who on a daily basis , but McMurray would never accuse someone like Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank of doom-casting .
No , McMurray ’ s outrage is a one-way street .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ mostly maskless , ” “ QAnon , ” and “ elitist ” as it alternately tries to terrify and outrage the viewer over Jacobs ’ supposed radicalism and make them angry over the fact that his family has a lot of money .
Jacobs , however , isn ’ t actually a part of the family business .
In a bizarre twist , it ’ s actually McMurray who works for the Jacobs family , serving as vice president of business development for the company called Delaware North .
Founded by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports annual revenues of $ 3 billion , employs more than 55,000 people and serves half a billion customers annually on four continents .
Chris Jacobs never joined the family business , according to casino.org , opting instead for a career in politics .
In a number of twitter posts , McMurray blasted the Jacobs family with tweets like this one Feb. 15 : “ My opponent was coddled since birth.The heir to a casino fortune/medical fortune , but kept out of the business .
I had a woman tell me she tutored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what did our prince grow up to be ?
A sell out politician who suddenly loves Trump .
The current fight over the NY-27 congressional seat is a rematch of the special election held back in June , when Jacobs beat McMurray 52-47 .
Clearly what Democrats did in the special election didn ’ t work for them , so now they ’ re attacking Jacobs wherever they can , including his recent appearance at the 1791 Society ’ s rally .
As the Buffalo News points out , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial is nothing new for Melbourne Sann , the owner of the puppet who ’ s been putting on similar displays for several years .
Zellner said there was a noose around the neck of the Cuomo effigy , but video of the event does not show that , and the organizer of the event , Frank J. Panasuk , said Sann did not use a noose during his performance at the rally .
“ He could have used a fancy hangman ’ s noose or something like that , and we wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Panasuk , who heads the 1791 Society , a gun rights group .
“ And you know , he didn ’ t .
It was a puppet , that ’ s all.
” News accounts show that Sann , of Rome , N.Y. , has been traveling with his Cuomo effigy since at least 2014 .
And a New York Daily News account of a gun rights rally in Albany that year describes him spanking the Cuomo “ puppet ” with a piece of wood shaped like an assault rifle – until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wood .
It ’ s a goofy bit of political theater , but McMurray and Buffalo-area Democrats are desperate to try to turn into a symbolic lynching of the governor for their own political purposes , even if Chris Jacobs wasn ’ t a part of it .
As for McMurray ’ s own position on the Second Amendment , the Democrat has made it abundantly clear that he considers himself to be the “ Beto of Buffalo , New York ” with tweets like this .
If you live in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bitter , anti-gun guy as your next congresscritter , I ’ d say Nate McMurray ’ s your guy .
If , on the other hand , you ’ re looking for a Second Amendment supporter who It looks to me like as we get closer to the election , McMurray ’ s growing more desperate in his attacks on Jacobs .
I can ’ t help but wonder how low McMurray will go between now and Election Day .

If it seems like the elections are uglier than usual this cycle, you’re not alone. The problems range from fact-checkers offering up a one-sided view of Joe Biden’s thoughts on the Second Amendment, baseless accusations designed to smear Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, to a New York congressional candidate alleging that the Republican incumbent took part in a mock lynching of New York governor Andrew Cuomo this past weekend.
The so-called lynching of an effigy of Cuomo was actually a mock trial of that featured a life-size Cuomo marionette, and Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs (NY-27) wasn’t there when the puppet was wheeled out, but none of that seems to matter to Jacobs’ challenger Nate McMurray, who shared this bizarre attack ad complete with (overly loud) ominous music and heavily edited video from the rally, which was put on by a pro-Second Amendment group called the 1791 Society.
This is footage of the mock trial and lynching of Governor Andrew Cuomo that my opponent joined today. It’s horrific. They put scary music over it, but its fitting. This is scary stuff, like watching Mad Max. They did this at a Town Hall! Don’t write him; write the News! pic.twitter.com/85Pr5xSTH0 — Nate McMurray for Congress 2020 (@Nate_McMurray) September 27, 2020
The funniest part of McMurray’s tweet above is his “scary stuff” comment, especially given the fact that the ad criticizes Jacobs for preaching “doom” at the rally. The ad’s evidence? Two seconds of the Republican congressman saying “We are at times like we haven’t seen in a long, long time.”
Uh, that’s not doom-saying. If anything, it’s underselling the point. We’ve got the Left comparing Donald Trump to you-know-who on a daily basis, but McMurray would never accuse someone like Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank of doom-casting. No, McMurray’s outrage is a one-way street.
The ad is replete with scary phrases like “mostly maskless,” “QAnon,” and “elitist” as it alternately tries to terrify and outrage the viewer over Jacobs’ supposed radicalism and make them angry over the fact that his family has a lot of money. Jacobs, however, isn’t actually a part of the family business. In a bizarre twist, it’s actually McMurray who works for the Jacobs family, serving as vice president of business development for the company called Delaware North.
Founded by the Jacobs family in 1915, Delaware North reports annual revenues of $3 billion, employs more than 55,000 people and serves half a billion customers annually on four continents. Chris Jacobs never joined the family business, according to casino.org, opting instead for a career in politics. In a number of twitter posts, McMurray blasted the Jacobs family with tweets like this one Feb. 15: “My opponent was coddled since birth.The heir to a casino fortune/medical fortune, but kept out of the business. I had a woman tell me she tutored him as a child and felt honored. But what did our prince grow up to be? A sell out politician who suddenly loves Trump. “Dismal.”
The current fight over the NY-27 congressional seat is a rematch of the special election held back in June, when Jacobs beat McMurray 52-47. Clearly what Democrats did in the special election didn’t work for them, so now they’re attacking Jacobs wherever they can, including his recent appearance at the 1791 Society’s rally.
Pressed for a comment on the mock trial and the subsequent beating of the Cuomo effigy, Jacobs’ political consultant, Cam Savage, said that while Jacobs didn’t see it, “it seems like an unnecessary attempt at political satire that went too far.”
That’s certainly what Democrats think.
“As we have learned through history, disgusting displays, like the one that took place outside the Hamburg Town Hall near Buffalo this past weekend, are often just precursors of potentially even more and real violence coming in the future,” said New York State Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs. “We can engage in legitimate debate on even the most contentious of issues. But when that debate devolves into the display of violent, hateful symbols, like the hanging in effigy of our governor, decent people everywhere need to speak out.”
Erie County Democratic Chairman Jeremy Zellner spoke out, too, calling for Jacobs and Joshua Mertzlufft, a Republican State Senate candidate who spoke at the event, “to denounce this action.”
As the Buffalo News points out, however, the Cuomo puppet and even the mock trial is nothing new for Melbourne Sann, the owner of the puppet who’s been putting on similar displays for several years.
Zellner said there was a noose around the neck of the Cuomo effigy, but video of the event does not show that, and the organizer of the event, Frank J. Panasuk, said Sann did not use a noose during his performance at the rally. “He could have used a fancy hangman’s noose or something like that, and we wouldn’t have allowed that,” said Panasuk, who heads the 1791 Society, a gun rights group. “And you know, he didn’t. It was a puppet, that’s all.” News accounts show that Sann, of Rome, N.Y., has been traveling with his Cuomo effigy since at least 2014. And a New York Daily News account of a gun rights rally in Albany that year describes him spanking the Cuomo “puppet” with a piece of wood shaped like an assault rifle – until a State Police officer confiscated the piece of wood.
It’s a goofy bit of political theater, but McMurray and Buffalo-area Democrats are desperate to try to turn into a symbolic lynching of the governor for their own political purposes, even if Chris Jacobs wasn’t a part of it.
As for McMurray’s own position on the Second Amendment, the Democrat has made it abundantly clear that he considers himself to be the “Beto of Buffalo, New York” with tweets like this.
YEP. I’M COMING FOR YOUR AR15 You heard me. No apologies. The same reason you don’t need a lion to protect your home, is why you don’t need a rifle that shoots at 3X the speed of sound and splits concrete like ice. It’s an unreasonable risk. End the mass shooter era in America — Nate McMurray for Congress 2020 (@Nate_McMurray) June 25, 2019
If you live in the Buffalo area and you want an angry, bitter, anti-gun guy as your next congresscritter, I’d say Nate McMurray’s your guy. If, on the other hand, you’re looking for a Second Amendment supporter who It looks to me like as we get closer to the election, McMurray’s growing more desperate in his attacks on Jacobs. I can’t help but wonder how low McMurray will go between now and Election Day.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Gun Control Groups All But Acknowledge Their Cause Is Losing

Gun control and the support for it hit something of a zenith in the immediate aftermath of Parkland .
However , unlike many times in the past , the furor didn ’ t die down after a few weeks or months .
It looked like gun control was set to become a major battle during the presidential campaigns .
In fact , during the early days of the Democratic primary , it was a significant issue that was heavily debated .
It didn ’ t seem to help some of its biggest proponents such as Beto O ’ Rourke and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant issue and candidates were tripping over themselves to describe themselves as anti-gun .
Things , however , have changed .
Now , not even gun control groups are pushing gun control in swing states .
Documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund , supported in large part by donations from billionaire Michael Bloomberg , is funding ads that assail Republicans on health care rather than gun control .
The ads target state-level politicians in Pennsylvania , Iowa , North Carolina , Arizona and Minnesota .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are posted to the back end of the group ’ s website , have nearly identical wording .
Everytown has largely avoided Second Amendment issues when trying to woo voters in swing states .
The group minimized gun control in attack ads aimed at Republican senators running for reelection in Iowa and North Carolina earlier this month .
The decision indicates Everytown has determined issues like health care and energy production are more persuasive to swing-state voters – many of whom may have recently become gun owners – according to J .
Miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia ’ s Center for Politics .
Now , this is a big move , but only if it ’ s capitalized upon by pro-gun forces .
If even Everytown and their fellow travelers recognize that gun control is a non-starter in 2020 , anti-gun candidates need to be lit up lit the Vegas Strip .
Every light needs to be shown on their anti-gun agenda .
While Everytown is trying to shine the light elsewhere , it sure as hell sounds like a damn good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually is and why they ’ re trying to help and hurt certain candidates .
This is especially true in this day and age with millions of new gun owners , many of whom found out the hard way that a lot of the rhetoric spewed by people like Everytown is so much male bovine excrement .
They found out that you can ’ t buy a gun on the internet , that there actually are background checks , and a host of other things .
Everytown doesn ’ t want people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to focus their attention elsewhere .
We shouldn ’ t let them .
Call out anti-gun candidates for precisely what they are .
Point out how anti-gun groups are backing them , but are trying to shift the topic so you won ’ t realize how anti-gun they are .
Call them on it and don ’ t let them get away with these kinds of shenanigans .
At the end of the day , we can see just how partisan the Second Amendment has become , and it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing non-gun issues , but their harshest critics .

Gun control and the support for it hit something of a zenith in the immediate aftermath of Parkland. However, unlike many times in the past, the furor didn’t die down after a few weeks or months. It looked like gun control was set to become a major battle during the presidential campaigns.
In fact, during the early days of the Democratic primary, it was a significant issue that was heavily debated. It didn’t seem to help some of its biggest proponents such as Beto O’Rourke and Erik Swalwell, but it was a significant issue and candidates were tripping over themselves to describe themselves as anti-gun.
Things, however, have changed. Now, not even gun control groups are pushing gun control in swing states.
Documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, supported in large part by donations from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, is funding ads that assail Republicans on health care rather than gun control. The ads target state-level politicians in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and Minnesota. The postcard-style ads, copies of which are posted to the back end of the group’s website, have nearly identical wording. … Everytown has largely avoided Second Amendment issues when trying to woo voters in swing states. The group minimized gun control in attack ads aimed at Republican senators running for reelection in Iowa and North Carolina earlier this month. The decision indicates Everytown has determined issues like health care and energy production are more persuasive to swing-state voters – many of whom may have recently become gun owners – according to J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
Now, this is a big move, but only if it’s capitalized upon by pro-gun forces. If even Everytown and their fellow travelers recognize that gun control is a non-starter in 2020, anti-gun candidates need to be lit up lit the Vegas Strip. Every light needs to be shown on their anti-gun agenda.
While Everytown is trying to shine the light elsewhere, it sure as hell sounds like a damn good time to remind everyone what their agenda actually is and why they’re trying to help and hurt certain candidates.
This is especially true in this day and age with millions of new gun owners, many of whom found out the hard way that a lot of the rhetoric spewed by people like Everytown is so much male bovine excrement. They found out that you can’t buy a gun on the internet, that there actually are background checks, and a host of other things.
Everytown doesn’t want people to focus on that, so they’re trying to focus their attention elsewhere.
We shouldn’t let them. Call out anti-gun candidates for precisely what they are. Point out how anti-gun groups are backing them, but are trying to shift the topic so you won’t realize how anti-gun they are. Call them on it and don’t let them get away with these kinds of shenanigans.
At the end of the day, we can see just how partisan the Second Amendment has become, and it wasn’t the NRA shoveling money places and pushing non-gun issues, but their harshest critics.


bearingarms--2020-09-30--Media Delusional Over Mob Violence Claims

In case you didn ’ t know it , the mainstream media wants you to think that President Donald Trump is bad .
I ’ m pretty sure you already knew that , though .
I mean , I know you understood what the media wanted you to believe .
While Trump isn ’ t perfect by any stretch , I find that I regularly have to defend them against ridiculous charges with no basis on reality .
For example , did you know that “ white mob violence ” has returned thanks to Trump ?
That ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have once again moved out of the shadows and into the limelight during this Trump moment .
Militia movements and right-wing extremists are starting to turn out in force to intimidate racial justice and anti-Trump demonstrators .
Predominantly white and often explicitly racist , these groups now regularly use social media to threaten their adversaries .
This election season , they ’ re gearing up to defend their president with an astonishing degree of support from Republican Party regulars .
According to a January 2020 survey by political scientist Larry Bartels , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.
” More than 40 percent agree that “ a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.
” In a recent essay on his survey ’ s findings , Bartels concludes that ethnic antagonism “ has a substantial negative effect on Republicans ’ commitment to democracy.
” As the 2020 election nears , that party is also desperately trying to flip the script by using fear of “ their mobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive its base to the polls .
“ We have a Marxist mob perpetrate historic levels of violence & disorder in major American cities , ” tweeted Florida Senator Marco Rubio in response to the Democratic National Convention in August .
Not to be outdone , the president promptly said , “ I ’ m the only thing standing between the American dream and total anarchy , madness , and chaos.
” Of course , this country has no such Marxist mobs .
The only real groups of vigilantes with a demonstrated history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up their threats congregate on the far right .
The white supremacist Atomwaffen Division , for instance , has been linked to at least five killings since 2017 .
In late May and early June , members of the far-right Boogaloo Bois conducted two ambushes of police officers and security personnel , killing two of them and injuring three more .
Over the summer , as far-right organizations spread the meme “ All Lives Splatter ” around the internet , dozens of right-wingers drove vehicles of every sort into crowds of Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , is downright hilarious .
Especially in light of riots taking place literally all over the country .
Millions of dollars worth of damage done , businesses and livelihoods–and by extension , lives–destroyed , all pushing a Marxist agenda , but nope , no Marxist mobs .
Atomwaffen Division dipsticks often get lumped into the right despite sharing pretty much zero mainstream right views , but the media ignores anything from the left as being remotely political .
Take two LA Sheriff ’ s deputies being gunned down earlier this month amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one cares to name .
Nor does Newsweek remember Dallas police officers being ambushed in 2016 or NYPD officers being ambushed and killed in 2014 , also amid vehement anti-police sentiment .
Yeah , he defending Rittenhouse .
But the writer failed to note that the “ protestors ” had attacked him already , thus he was acting in self-defense and numerous videos of the event support that .
And yet , that ’ s not the only bit the writer missed .
After all , the whole paragraph starts with a lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The day of that incident Trump said , “ We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred , bigotry and violence , on many sides .
On many sides.
” Trump said he had spoken to Virginia Gov .
Terry McAuliffe , and “ we agreed that the hate and the division must stop , and must stop right now .
We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection — really — and I say this so strongly — true affection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on Aug. 14 , 2017 , Trump issued a statement from the White House , and referred to “ KKK , neo-Nazis , white supremacists , and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
” Trump , Aug. 14 , 2017 : As I said on Saturday , we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred , bigotry , and violence .
It has no place in America .
And as I have said many times before : No matter the color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the same laws , we all salute the same great flag , and we are all made by the same almighty God .
We must love each other , show affection for each other , and unite together in condemnation of hatred , bigotry , and violence .
We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans .
Racism is evil .
And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs , including the KKK , neo-Nazis , white supremacists , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we hold dear as Americans .
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal .
We are equal in the eyes of our Creator .
We are equal under the law .
And we are equal under our Constitution .
Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America .
During a press conference the following day , Aug. 15 , 2017 , Trump explained his initial “ many sides ” comment .
“ You had a group on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said .
“ And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.
” He added , “ I ’ ve condemned neo-Nazis .
I ’ ve condemned many different groups , but not all of those people were neo-Nazis , believe me .
Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.
” So yeah , he did .
Then again , when people ignore the rampaging mobs that have terrorized American cities for stuff that happened in a completely different part of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to pay attention to pesky little thing like facts , now can you ?

In case you didn’t know it, the mainstream media wants you to think that President Donald Trump is bad. I’m pretty sure you already knew that, though. I mean, I know you understood what the media wanted you to believe.
While Trump isn’t perfect by any stretch, I find that I regularly have to defend them against ridiculous charges with no basis on reality.
For example, did you know that “white mob violence” has returned thanks to Trump? That’s what Newsweek seems to argue.
White mobs have once again moved out of the shadows and into the limelight during this Trump moment. Militia movements and right-wing extremists are starting to turn out in force to intimidate racial justice and anti-Trump demonstrators. Predominantly white and often explicitly racist, these groups now regularly use social media to threaten their adversaries. This election season, they’re gearing up to defend their president with an astonishing degree of support from Republican Party regulars. According to a January 2020 survey by political scientist Larry Bartels, most Republicans believe “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” More than 40 percent agree that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.” In a recent essay on his survey’s findings, Bartels concludes that ethnic antagonism “has a substantial negative effect on Republicans’ commitment to democracy.” As the 2020 election nears, that party is also desperately trying to flip the script by using fear of “their mobs” and “Antifa terrorists” to drive its base to the polls. “We have a Marxist mob perpetrate historic levels of violence & disorder in major American cities,”tweeted Florida Senator Marco Rubio in response to the Democratic National Convention in August. Not to be outdone, the president promptly said, “I’m the only thing standing between the American dream and total anarchy, madness, and chaos.” Of course, this country has no such Marxist mobs. The only real groups of vigilantes with a demonstrated history of violence and the guns to back up their threats congregate on the far right. The white supremacist Atomwaffen Division, for instance, has been linked to at least five killings since 2017. In late May and early June, members of the far-right Boogaloo Bois conducted two ambushes of police officers and security personnel, killing two of them and injuring three more. Over the summer, as far-right organizations spread the meme “All Lives Splatter” around the internet, dozens of right-wingers drove vehicles of every sort into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters.
That last paragraph, however, is downright hilarious. Especially in light of riots taking place literally all over the country. Millions of dollars worth of damage done, businesses and livelihoods–and by extension, lives–destroyed, all pushing a Marxist agenda, but nope, no Marxist mobs.
Atomwaffen Division dipsticks often get lumped into the right despite sharing pretty much zero mainstream right views, but the media ignores anything from the left as being remotely political. Take two LA Sheriff’s deputies being gunned down earlier this month amid vehement anti-police rhetoric from every leftist luminary one cares to name.
Nor does Newsweek remember Dallas police officers being ambushed in 2016 or NYPD officers being ambushed and killed in 2014, also amid vehement anti-police sentiment.
Those, however don’t count.
Unsurprisingly, Newsweek continued.
As president, he’s continued to side with the mob. He infamously refused to denounce neo-Nazis gathering in Charlottesville in August 2017, applauded the armed demonstrators who demanded the reopening of the economy in the pandemic spring of 2020, and defended 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse after he killed two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wis., in August.
Yeah, he defending Rittenhouse. But the writer failed to note that the “protestors” had attacked him already, thus he was acting in self-defense and numerous videos of the event support that.
And yet, that’s not the only bit the writer missed. After all, the whole paragraph starts with a lie, that Trump failed to denounce neo-Nazis.
From FactCheck.Org:
The day of that incident Trump said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.” Trump said he had spoken to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, and “we agreed that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection — really — and I say this so strongly — true affection for each other.” Two days later, on Aug. 14, 2017, Trump issued a statement from the White House, and referred to “KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans. Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America. During a press conference the following day, Aug. 15, 2017, Trump explained his initial “many sides” comment. “You had a group on one side that was bad,” Trump said. “And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” He added, “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”
So yeah, he did.
Then again, when people ignore the rampaging mobs that have terrorized American cities for stuff that happened in a completely different part of the country, you can’t actually expect them to pay attention to pesky little thing like facts, now can you?


bearingarms--2020-09-30--Missed 2A Opportunities In First Trump/Biden Debate

During the 90+ minutes of back and forth between Joe Biden and Donald Trump on Tuesday evening , one issue was oddly absent during the debate : the right to keep and bear arms .
Neither candidate chose to incorporate either their gun control plans or support for the right to keep and bear arms in their responses to questions from moderator Chris Wallace , even though there were multiple chances to do so .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we delve into the debate itself and highlight several areas where Donald Trump could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plans for American gun owners , particularly the millions of new gun owners across the country who have purchased a gun in recent months out of concern over unrest and increasing violent crime .
The first missed opportunity for Donald Trump came early on , when Biden was asked about whether or not he would support nuking the filibuster in the Senate in order to pack the Supreme Court with justices .
Biden refused to answer , but Trump was unable to tie in Biden ’ s deflection on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court would have on the Second Amendment , though he did bring it up in a tweet on Wednesday morning .
Trump also could have gone after Biden ’ s gun control plans when the issue of violent protests were brought up by Wallace .
After talking about about restoring law and order to American cities , the president could easily have pivoted to the fact that millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for self-defense these days .
Even in places like New York City , applications for gun licenses are soaring , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people into criminals overnight if they failed to either hand their so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines over to the government or paid a hefty tax for the privilege of maintaining possession of the guns they already own .
Trump did flummox Biden by asking him to name a single law enforcement organization that is supporting his campaign , but he could have gone farther by asking Biden what he plans to do with the millions of Americans who aren ’ t likely to comply with his gun ban demands .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the schedule , and next week Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will square off in their own debate , which will offer more opportunities for the Republicans to hit the Democratic ticket on the issue .
Pence can and should press Harris about her support for a federal ban on “ high capacity ” magazines , which is virtually identical to the California law recently declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .
Pence can also demand that Harris explain how she ’ ll reimagine policing while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our Second Amendment rights .

During the 90+ minutes of back and forth between Joe Biden and Donald Trump on Tuesday evening, one issue was oddly absent during the debate: the right to keep and bear arms. Neither candidate chose to incorporate either their gun control plans or support for the right to keep and bear arms in their responses to questions from moderator Chris Wallace, even though there were multiple chances to do so.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we delve into the debate itself and highlight several areas where Donald Trump could have aimed his rhetorical fire at Joe Biden’s plans for American gun owners, particularly the millions of new gun owners across the country who have purchased a gun in recent months out of concern over unrest and increasing violent crime.
The first missed opportunity for Donald Trump came early on, when Biden was asked about whether or not he would support nuking the filibuster in the Senate in order to pack the Supreme Court with justices. Biden refused to answer, but Trump was unable to tie in Biden’s deflection on the issue to the impact that a Biden/Harris Supreme Court would have on the Second Amendment, though he did bring it up in a tweet on Wednesday morning.
Biden wants to Pack the Supreme Court, thereby ruining it. Also, he wants no fracking, killing our Energy business, and JOBS. Second Amendment is DEAD if Biden gets in! Is that what you want from a leader? He will destroy our Country! VOTE NOW USA. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2020
Trump also could have gone after Biden’s gun control plans when the issue of violent protests were brought up by Wallace. After talking about about restoring law and order to American cities, the president could easily have pivoted to the fact that millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for self-defense these days. Even in places like New York City, applications for gun licenses are soaring, and Joe Biden would turn many of these people into criminals overnight if they failed to either hand their so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines over to the government or paid a hefty tax for the privilege of maintaining possession of the guns they already own.
Trump did flummox Biden by asking him to name a single law enforcement organization that is supporting his campaign, but he could have gone farther by asking Biden what he plans to do with the millions of Americans who aren’t likely to comply with his gun ban demands.
There are still two more presidential debates on the schedule, and next week Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will square off in their own debate, which will offer more opportunities for the Republicans to hit the Democratic ticket on the issue. Pence can and should press Harris about her support for a federal ban on “high capacity” magazines, which is virtually identical to the California law recently declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pence can also demand that Harris explain how she’ll reimagine policing while at the same time criminalizing the exercise of our Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-09-30--Arizona Ammunition Maker Facing $80-Million In Back Orders

Just how bad is the ammo crunch right now ?
This bad .
Ouch .
The good news , if there is any to be found here , is that ammunition companies like Ammo Incorporated are now investing millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades to increase their output .
If manufacturers felt like this was only a short-term run on ammunition , they might keep their cash in reserve rather than spending it on new equipment , but at least for Ammo Inc , that ’ s not the case .
“ We just bought 2.8 million dollars worth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our production and increase our volume , ” Wagenhals said .
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , the year has already seen a boom in gun purchases , up 95 % in the first half of 2020 compared to the same time period of 2019 .
But ammo sales skyrocketed even higher , up 139 % compared to 2019 during that same time period .
“ The start was the pandemic that was going on .
But there was always that fear of the election .
Of who ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , ” Wagenhals said .
“ But thirdly , I think the unrest in this country right now .
And as you ’ ve seen in a lot of cities , the looting and the burning , and I think people are just scared.
” Wagenhals is right about what ’ s driving the increase in sales for both firearms and ammunition , and unfortunately no matter who wins in November I think there ’ s a growing expectation among many Americans that the unrest , looting , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep sales strong well into 2021 , and hopefully other manufacturing companies will be making similar investments in their own operations in order to increase the availability of ammunition .
It ’ s also worth noting that Wagenhals says production lines are operating 24/7 right now .
That ’ s an indication that supply chain problems with ammunition components may be easing , allowing the manufacturing facilities to work at full capacity instead of being limited by the amount of raw materials that they can get their hands on .
The problem right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supply not being able to keep up with demand , and it ’ s good to see manufacturers being proactive in addressing the problem by increasing supply rather than waiting for demand to subside .
With just one company looking at $ 80-million in back-ordered sales , however , it could still be some time before the crunch for consumers lessens and a decent supply of ammunition can be found on store shelves .

Just how bad is the ammo crunch right now? This bad.
Scottsdale-based ammunition company Ammo Incorporated is facing an $80.1 million order backlog amid record demand for ammunition. “We’re working right now seven days a week, 24 hours a day in all the manufacturing plants,” said CEO Fred Wagenhals.
Ouch. The good news, if there is any to be found here, is that ammunition companies like Ammo Incorporated are now investing millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades to increase their output. If manufacturers felt like this was only a short-term run on ammunition, they might keep their cash in reserve rather than spending it on new equipment, but at least for Ammo Inc, that’s not the case.
“We just bought 2.8 million dollars worth of machinery and equipment last week to increase our production and increase our volume,” Wagenhals said. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the year has already seen a boom in gun purchases, up 95% in the first half of 2020 compared to the same time period of 2019. But ammo sales skyrocketed even higher, up 139% compared to 2019 during that same time period. “The start was the pandemic that was going on. But there was always that fear of the election. Of who’s going to be elected of the next President of the United States,” Wagenhals said. “But thirdly, I think the unrest in this country right now. And as you’ve seen in a lot of cities, the looting and the burning, and I think people are just scared.”
Wagenhals is right about what’s driving the increase in sales for both firearms and ammunition, and unfortunately no matter who wins in November I think there’s a growing expectation among many Americans that the unrest, looting, and burning will continue. That will likely keep sales strong well into 2021, and hopefully other manufacturing companies will be making similar investments in their own operations in order to increase the availability of ammunition.
It’s also worth noting that Wagenhals says production lines are operating 24/7 right now. That’s an indication that supply chain problems with ammunition components may be easing, allowing the manufacturing facilities to work at full capacity instead of being limited by the amount of raw materials that they can get their hands on.
The problem right now seems to be a simple matter of supply not being able to keep up with demand, and it’s good to see manufacturers being proactive in addressing the problem by increasing supply rather than waiting for demand to subside. With just one company looking at $80-million in back-ordered sales, however, it could still be some time before the crunch for consumers lessens and a decent supply of ammunition can be found on store shelves.


bearingarms--2020-09-30--Bill Calls For Banning Guns In Michigan Capitol

While I don ’ t think open carry is always the best policy , I will vehemently defend people ’ s right to do it .
However , I do believe there are times when it ’ s less than ideal .
Just because you have a right to do something , it doesn ’ t mean it ’ s smart to do it .
That includes taking guns into a state capitol to protest something that has nothing to do with firearms .
However , nothing in that justifies a bill before the state senate seeking to ban the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capitol .
A pair of state Senate bills introduced Tuesday call for banning guns from Michigan ’ s Capitol .
The bills , introduced during a months-long fight over the building ’ s weapons policy , would prohibit open and concealed carry of firearms inside the building .
Michigan State Police officers and Capitol security would be exempt .
Firearms still would be allowed on the Capitol lawn .
“ The only reason most people bring firearms into the Capitol is to intimidate and that is not how the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is designed to work , nor should it continue to be permissible , ” Sen. Rosemary Bayer , D-Beverly Hills , said in a release .
This follows a bill from earlier this month that would dissolve the appointed commission that ’ s in charge of establishing firearm policy for the capitol .
In other words , the commission didn ’ t do what they were told to do and now someone wants to not just take it out of their hands , but remove the commission entirely .
Honestly , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ most people bring firearms into the Capitol ” in order to intimidate is a claim that has no evidence to back it up .
Bayer is projecting her own fears as somehow the goal of those who brought guns into the building .
But now it ’ s not about openly carrying guns .
Concealed carry doesn ’ t intimidate anyone .
Concealed means concealed .
It means no one knows it ’ s there , which makes it kind of difficult for that gun to intimidate anyone .
By trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polehanki have betrayed their true motivations .
See , it ’ s not about the lockdown protests at all .
That ’ s just the pretext .
No , this is about restricting guns because they simply don ’ t like them .
They ’ re anti-gun and this is the kind of gun control they figure they can get passed right now , but also expect this to be expanded down the road as well .
For now , it ’ s just about the building , but next it ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , it ’ ll keep encompassing more and more .
It ’ s an anti-gun power grab and nothing else .
Yeah , this is part of why I don ’ t favor armed protests over non-Second Amendment topics .
It gives people like this an excuse .
That said , if it wasn ’ t the lockdown protests , it would have been something else .
The fact that concealed carry is included is ample enough evidence to know precisely what ’ s driving this effort .
Frankly , some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of both firearms and lawfully-armed citizens .

While I don’t think open carry is always the best policy, I will vehemently defend people’s right to do it. However, I do believe there are times when it’s less than ideal. Just because you have a right to do something, it doesn’t mean it’s smart to do it. That includes taking guns into a state capitol to protest something that has nothing to do with firearms.
However, nothing in that justifies a bill before the state senate seeking to ban the practice of openly carrying a firearm in the capitol.
A pair of state Senate bills introduced Tuesday call for banning guns from Michigan’s Capitol. The bills, introduced during a months-long fight over the building’s weapons policy, would prohibit open and concealed carry of firearms inside the building. Michigan State Police officers and Capitol security would be exempt. Firearms still would be allowed on the Capitol lawn. “The only reason most people bring firearms into the Capitol is to intimidate and that is not how the state’s Capitol — the people’s house — is designed to work, nor should it continue to be permissible,” Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, said in a release. Bayer and Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, sponsored the legislation.
This follows a bill from earlier this month that would dissolve the appointed commission that’s in charge of establishing firearm policy for the capitol.
In other words, the commission didn’t do what they were told to do and now someone wants to not just take it out of their hands, but remove the commission entirely.
Typical.
Honestly, this is beyond stupid. The claim that “most people bring firearms into the Capitol” in order to intimidate is a claim that has no evidence to back it up. Bayer is projecting her own fears as somehow the goal of those who brought guns into the building.
But now it’s not about openly carrying guns. Concealed carry doesn’t intimidate anyone. Concealed means concealed. It means no one knows it’s there, which makes it kind of difficult for that gun to intimidate anyone. By trying to ban that as well, Bayer and Polehanki have betrayed their true motivations.
See, it’s not about the lockdown protests at all. That’s just the pretext.
No, this is about restricting guns because they simply don’t like them. They’re anti-gun and this is the kind of gun control they figure they can get passed right now, but also expect this to be expanded down the road as well. For now, it’s just about the building, but next it’ll be the grounds in totality. After that, it’ll keep encompassing more and more.
It’s an anti-gun power grab and nothing else.
Yeah, this is part of why I don’t favor armed protests over non-Second Amendment topics. It gives people like this an excuse. That said, if it wasn’t the lockdown protests, it would have been something else. The fact that concealed carry is included is ample enough evidence to know precisely what’s driving this effort.
Frankly, some people need to get over their irrational fear of both firearms and lawfully-armed citizens.


bearingarms--2020-09-30--Proposed Gun "Buyback" A Waste Of Time And Money

An anti-gun activist in the Niagara Falls area of New York has come up with an extraordinarily awful idea to try to reduce violent crime in her community , and she ’ s hoping to get the community itself to subsidize it .
There ’ s nothing wrong with Jill Shaw ’ s desire to see a reduction in the growing violence in Niagara Falls , where homicides are up a staggering 300 % compared to 2019 .
The problem is that Shaw ’ s proposed solution is nothing more than a waste of time and money .
Shaw has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside a so-called crime house called the “ Red House ” where one man died earlier this month .
Now , she ’ s on another mission to get guns off the streets .
Shaw is trying to raise enough money through donations and a Go Fund Me account to be able to give any person who turns in a gun $ 500 cash , no questions asked .
The gun buy back will be financially supported by the community—those who want to take a stand .
“ I ’ m hoping it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even if she successfully manages to raise enough money to move forward with the compensated confiscation event , it won ’ t be successful in stemming the violence .
There ’ s virtually no evidence that the so-called buybacks have any impact on crime rates , but they ’ re still fairly popular with anti-gun politicians and activists like Shaw because they enable them to say they did “ something.
” Typical gun buy-backs are supported by the governments , both local and federal .
Shaw says those typically don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a gun .
She ’ s hoping the $ 500 will be incentive enough to bring a gun and trade it in .
But she says they can ’ t do this without your help .
“ We have to make it big so we get a big result , ” she said .
$ 500 a gun might result in more guns being turned in , but it won ’ t change the types of guns that are handed over , nor is it likely to change who turns in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confiscation events tend to attract people who have guns in their home that may have belonged to a spouse who ’ s passed away , people looking to unload “ garbage guns ” that aren ’ t worth much money and may not even be operable , and even gun owners who turn in inexpensive guns and use the cash to go purchase another firearm .
That ’ s why most cities have turned away from compensated confiscations .
As Kelly King , a spokeswoman for the Newport News , Virginia police department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city won ’ t be holding any “ buybacks ” in the future , the events led to guns being turned in , but it had no impact on the crime rate .
I applaud Jill Shaw ’ s desire to make Niagara Falls a safer place , but that doesn ’ t mean people should donate any money to her compensated confiscation efforts .
For the moment anyway , it looks like many residents agree with me .
Shaw ’ s GoFundMe hasn ’ t even raised enough money to collect a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll soon turn her attention to more productive means of violence intervention rather than waste her time on such an ineffective endeavor .

An anti-gun activist in the Niagara Falls area of New York has come up with an extraordinarily awful idea to try to reduce violent crime in her community, and she’s hoping to get the community itself to subsidize it. There’s nothing wrong with Jill Shaw’s desire to see a reduction in the growing violence in Niagara Falls, where homicides are up a staggering 300% compared to 2019. The problem is that Shaw’s proposed solution is nothing more than a waste of time and money.
Shaw has been front and center this summer protesting outside a so-called crime house called the “Red House” where one man died earlier this month. Now, she’s on another mission to get guns off the streets. Shaw is trying to raise enough money through donations and a Go Fund Me account to be able to give any person who turns in a gun $500 cash, no questions asked. The gun buy back will be financially supported by the community—those who want to take a stand. “I’m hoping it will be successful,” she said.
Even if she successfully manages to raise enough money to move forward with the compensated confiscation event, it won’t be successful in stemming the violence. There’s virtually no evidence that the so-called buybacks have any impact on crime rates, but they’re still fairly popular with anti-gun politicians and activists like Shaw because they enable them to say they did “something.”
Typical gun buy-backs are supported by the governments, both local and federal. Shaw says those typically don’t provide enough of an incentive to trade in a gun. She’s hoping the $500 will be incentive enough to bring a gun and trade it in. But she says they can’t do this without your help. “We have to make it big so we get a big result,” she said.
$500 a gun might result in more guns being turned in, but it won’t change the types of guns that are handed over, nor is it likely to change who turns in a gun in exchange for cash. Compensated confiscation events tend to attract people who have guns in their home that may have belonged to a spouse who’s passed away, people looking to unload “garbage guns” that aren’t worth much money and may not even be operable, and even gun owners who turn in inexpensive guns and use the cash to go purchase another firearm.
That’s why most cities have turned away from compensated confiscations. As Kelly King, a spokeswoman for the Newport News, Virginia police department put it when elaborating on why the city won’t be holding any “buybacks” in the future, the events led to guns being turned in, but it had no impact on the crime rate.
She said the purchased guns were not traceable back to a crime and were often just old or broken. The buybacks yielded few, if any, assault weapons and only a few long guns, she said. Getting guns off the street is a top priority for the police department, King said, but no wide-sweeping options exist to bring in hundreds of illegal guns at once. Police officers doing their daily work gradually bring in these weapons, however.
I applaud Jill Shaw’s desire to make Niagara Falls a safer place, but that doesn’t mean people should donate any money to her compensated confiscation efforts. For the moment anyway, it looks like many residents agree with me. Shaw’s GoFundMe hasn’t even raised enough money to collect a single firearm, and hopefully she’ll soon turn her attention to more productive means of violence intervention rather than waste her time on such an ineffective endeavor.