bearingarms--2020-12-03--Florida Republicans Respond To Ammo Background Check Bill

The state of Florida ’ s official nickname is The Sunshine State , but gun-loving residents have long called it The Gunshine State .
Of course , the state isn ’ t as pro-gun as some others , but it ’ s had a fairly solid reputation for some time .
In the knee-jerk reactionism that followed , the state passed a handful of gun control measures .
However , it became clear the voters weren ’ t interested in more of that .
That hasn ’ t stopped some from trying .
As noted on Wednesday , a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ammo purchases .
It seems the state ’ s Republicans have opinions on the bill .
But Republicans , who currently hold the majority in both chambers , say the bill doesn ’ t address the real issue and would only punish responsible gun owners .
Anthony Sabatini , a Howey-in-the-Hills Republican who recently filed a bill in the House ( HB 6001 ) that would allow people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry on campus , says Daley ’ s refiling for the 2021 Legislative Session would expand the role of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is an absolutely terrible , ineffective , and unnecessary anti-Second Amendment Bill that will result in putting innocent people in jail and creating a hugely expanded police-state with hundreds of new government employees to oversee it , ” Sabatini told The Captiolist .
While Daley is hopeful that 2021 ’ s version of the bill will pass , State Representative Spencer Roach says there ’ s no chance his measure will see the light of day .
“ There is no ‘ ammunition loophole , ’ ” said the retired JAG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possession of ammunition by those who are also legally prohibited from possessing a firearm .
This bill is yet another failure to grasp the simple logic that criminals do not follow firearms laws in the first place , meaning that this bill will only serve to penalize law-abiding American citizens who simply want to protect themselves and defend their families .
“ Jaime Guttenberg was failed by the ill-conceived ‘ Promise Program , ’ an incompetent Sheriff , and most of all by coward-cop Scot Peterson , who hid in a stairwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a sworn oath to protect were gunned down in a “ gun-free ” zone , ” he continued .
Jaime Guttenberg was failed by a lot of things , but it wasn ’ t the gun laws in the state .
Let ’ s also remember that the alleged shooter–called “ alleged ” only because he hasn ’ t been convicted yet–had multiple encounters with police , including domestic violence calls , yet hadn ’ t been arrested a single time .
Just one domestic violence conviction would have prevented him from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures of the Broward County Sheriff ’ s Office should not be ignored .
Because of those failures , the alleged shooter was able to legally purchase a firearm and ammunition .
He passed the freaking background check because the sheriff failed .
He ’ d have passed a background check for ammunition as well .
Honestly , my hope is that this suffers such an ignoble defeat that the effort to restrict gun rights in such a way is never attempted in Florida again .
I ’ m not sure it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not sure it ’ ll ever come up for a vote .
Either way , it ’ s never going to happen , which is good .
Everywhere that has tried it has managed to find out that it ’ s a complete and total mess .
There are better ways to address violence .
It ’ s well past time for anti-gunners to at least try and listen to them .

The state of Florida’s official nickname is The Sunshine State, but gun-loving residents have long called it The Gunshine State. Of course, the state isn’t as pro-gun as some others, but it’s had a fairly solid reputation for some time.
Then Parkland happened.
In the knee-jerk reactionism that followed, the state passed a handful of gun control measures. However, it became clear the voters weren’t interested in more of that.
That hasn’t stopped some from trying. As noted on Wednesday, a bill has been pre-filed to require background checks for ammo purchases.
It seems the state’s Republicans have opinions on the bill.
But Republicans, who currently hold the majority in both chambers, say the bill doesn’t address the real issue and would only punish responsible gun owners. Anthony Sabatini, a Howey-in-the-Hills Republican who recently filed a bill in the House (HB 6001) that would allow people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry on campus, says Daley’s refiling for the 2021 Legislative Session would expand the role of government and infringe on individuals’ rights. “It is an absolutely terrible, ineffective, and unnecessary anti-Second Amendment Bill that will result in putting innocent people in jail and creating a hugely expanded police-state with hundreds of new government employees to oversee it,” Sabatini told The Captiolist. … While Daley is hopeful that 2021’s version of the bill will pass, State Representative Spencer Roach says there’s no chance his measure will see the light of day. “There is no ‘ammunition loophole,’” said the retired JAG Officer. “Florida law already prohibits the possession of ammunition by those who are also legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. This bill is yet another failure to grasp the simple logic that criminals do not follow firearms laws in the first place, meaning that this bill will only serve to penalize law-abiding American citizens who simply want to protect themselves and defend their families. “Jaime Guttenberg was failed by the ill-conceived ‘Promise Program,’ an incompetent Sheriff, and most of all by coward-cop Scot Peterson, who hid in a stairwell for 48 minutes while 34 people he took a sworn oath to protect were gunned down in a “gun-free” zone,” he continued.
I agree with Roach completely.
Jaime Guttenberg was failed by a lot of things, but it wasn’t the gun laws in the state.
Let’s also remember that the alleged shooter–called “alleged” only because he hasn’t been convicted yet–had multiple encounters with police, including domestic violence calls, yet hadn’t been arrested a single time. Just one domestic violence conviction would have prevented him from ever purchasing a firearm lawfully.
The failures of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office should not be ignored.
Because of those failures, the alleged shooter was able to legally purchase a firearm and ammunition. He passed the freaking background check because the sheriff failed. He’d have passed a background check for ammunition as well.
Honestly, my hope is that this suffers such an ignoble defeat that the effort to restrict gun rights in such a way is never attempted in Florida again. I’m not sure it’ll get that, though, because I’m not sure it’ll ever come up for a vote.
Either way, it’s never going to happen, which is good. Everywhere that has tried it has managed to find out that it’s a complete and total mess.
There are better ways to address violence. It’s well past time for anti-gunners to at least try and listen to them.


bearingarms--2020-12-03--Ninth Circuit: LAPD Officer Can Be Sued For Destroying Gun Collection

A former police officer in Glendale , California has been given the green light in his quest to sue the city of Los Angeles as well as individual police officers who melted down hundreds of firearms from his private collection after they were seized in a criminal investigation .
On Wednesday , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wayne Wright , the former Glendale officer , has standing to pursue his civil case against the city and Detective James Edwards , who back in 2004 obtained a court order to destroy more than 300 guns from Wright ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard A. Paez reverses , in part , a summary judgment granted by District Court Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of California , who died in 2019 .
Real determined in a Dec 19 , 2018 order that gun owner Wayne Wright ’ s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were not abridged because he had no entitlement to notice by the Los Angeles Police Department that it had sought and obtained a Los Angeles Superior Court order for the destruction of his property .
Real determined that individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Edwards who obtained the order—were entitled to qualified immunity because they had acted within the law and according to department policy .
Paez said in his opinion : “ We have no problem concluding that a rational trier of fact could find a due process violation under these circumstances .
The wealth of precedent suggests that by failing to provide Wright with notice and the opportunity to be heard before the court issued the destruction order .
Edwards denied Wright the most basic and fundamental guarantees of due process.
” After Wright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2004 , he ended up pleading guilty to a single count of unlawful possession of an assault weapon , which a judge later reduced to a misdemeanor offense .
Even after the case was resolved in court , however , the LAPD maintained possession of Wright ’ s gun collection .
Eventually about 80 firearms were returned to Wright , but Det .
James Edwards obtained an ex parte order in 2013 ( nearly a decade after the guns had been seized ) to melt down and destroy the remaining guns in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion by Judge Paez notes that Wright and the city were in discussions about the return of his firearm collection when Edwards obtained the order allowing him to destroy the guns , and said that the subsequent smelting of the guns “ constituted a permanent deprivation ” of his civil rights .
Qualified immunity was unavailable , Paez said , because the wrongfulness of Edwards ’ s conduct was “ clearly established , ” pointing out : “ [ W ] e have no doubt that Edwards had fair notice that his conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Although ‘ due process ’ has been castigated as ‘ cryptic ’ and ‘ abstract.
’ its balustrades have been identified , time and again , as notice and an opportunity to be heard…California courts have for decades observed this straightforward rule , which adds to our confidence that the law was clearly established.
” “ We are further convinced that the obligation to provide notice was clearly established given that Edwards was seeking ex parte permission to destroythe firearms—a permanent kind of deprivation.
” The unanimous three-judge panel on the Ninth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for former Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and City Attorney Mike Feuer .
In his opinion , Paez argued that both Beck and Feuer were suited in their official capacities , while qualified immunity only applies to officials who are sued as individuals .
This is a surprisingly strong decision by the Ninth Circuit .
Not only did the three-judge panel unanimously overturn the decision of U.S. District Judge Manuel Real , it places the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms on equal footing with the rest of our civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be , of course , but it ’ s still a pleasant surprise to see coming out of the Ninth Circuit , long considered to be one of the most hostile appellate courts when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms .
Wright is seeking $ 4.8-million from the city and the officials named in his lawsuit , and thanks to the Ninth Circuit ’ s ruling , the legal challenge over the destruction of an impressive gun collection can now proceed .
Hopefully Wright finds some justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace the hundreds of firearms destroyed by the overzealous anti-gun officials in Los Angeles .

A former police officer in Glendale, California has been given the green light in his quest to sue the city of Los Angeles as well as individual police officers who melted down hundreds of firearms from his private collection after they were seized in a criminal investigation.
On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wayne Wright, the former Glendale officer, has standing to pursue his civil case against the city and Detective James Edwards, who back in 2004 obtained a court order to destroy more than 300 guns from Wright’s collection.
The opinion by Judge Richard A. Paez reverses, in part, a summary judgment granted by District Court Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of California, who died in 2019. Real determined in a Dec 19, 2018 order that gun owner Wayne Wright’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were not abridged because he had no entitlement to notice by the Los Angeles Police Department that it had sought and obtained a Los Angeles Superior Court order for the destruction of his property. Real determined that individuals named in Wright’s suit—including Detective James Edwards who obtained the order—were entitled to qualified immunity because they had acted within the law and according to department policy. Paez said in his opinion: “We have no problem concluding that a rational trier of fact could find a due process violation under these circumstances. The wealth of precedent suggests that by failing to provide Wright with notice and the opportunity to be heard before the court issued the destruction order. Edwards denied Wright the most basic and fundamental guarantees of due process.”
After Wright’s home was raided by police in 2004, he ended up pleading guilty to a single count of unlawful possession of an assault weapon, which a judge later reduced to a misdemeanor offense. Even after the case was resolved in court, however, the LAPD maintained possession of Wright’s gun collection. Eventually about 80 firearms were returned to Wright, but Det. James Edwards obtained an ex parte order in 2013 (nearly a decade after the guns had been seized) to melt down and destroy the remaining guns in the LAPD’s possession.
The opinion by Judge Paez notes that Wright and the city were in discussions about the return of his firearm collection when Edwards obtained the order allowing him to destroy the guns, and said that the subsequent smelting of the guns “constituted a permanent deprivation” of his civil rights.
Qualified immunity was unavailable, Paez said, because the wrongfulness of Edwards’s conduct was “clearly established,” pointing out: “[W]e have no doubt that Edwards had fair notice that his conduct violated Wrights due process right to notice. Although ‘due process’ has been castigated as ‘cryptic’ and ‘abstract.’ its balustrades have been identified, time and again, as notice and an opportunity to be heard…California courts have for decades observed this straightforward rule, which adds to our confidence that the law was clearly established.” He added: “We are further convinced that the obligation to provide notice was clearly established given that Edwards was seeking ex parte permission to destroythe firearms—a permanent kind of deprivation.”
The unanimous three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit also rejected claims of qualified immunity for former Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and City Attorney Mike Feuer. In his opinion, Paez argued that both Beck and Feuer were suited in their official capacities, while qualified immunity only applies to officials who are sued as individuals.
This is a surprisingly strong decision by the Ninth Circuit. Not only did the three-judge panel unanimously overturn the decision of U.S. District Judge Manuel Real, it places the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms on equal footing with the rest of our civil rights. That’s as it should be, of course, but it’s still a pleasant surprise to see coming out of the Ninth Circuit, long considered to be one of the most hostile appellate courts when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
Wright is seeking $4.8-million from the city and the officials named in his lawsuit, and thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the legal challenge over the destruction of an impressive gun collection can now proceed. Hopefully Wright finds some justice, but there’s simply no way to replace the hundreds of firearms destroyed by the overzealous anti-gun officials in Los Angeles.


bearingarms--2020-12-03--Is Left Starting To Understand Where NRA Stances Come From?

The National Rifle Association is the boogieman for the anti-gun left in this country .
During the recent campaigns , plenty of politicians talk about how they were going to stand up to the NRA , how they were going to put the NRA in their place .
This is the same NRA that ’ s embattled at every flank , of course , yet still apparently managed to pose enough opposition to prevent a $ 100 billion effort by Micahel Bloomberg and company from yielding any fruits .
At least , that ’ s what happened if you believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gun Utopia .
However , it seems that some on the left are starting to brush up against the understanding that the NRA isn ’ t what they need to worry about .
On a frigid Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this year , Philip Van Cleave brought out the big guns to Richmond .
As he stood on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol , Van Cleave—a 68-year-old balding and mustachioed software programmer—delivered a stern warning to the Democrats who had recently gained control of the state government : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor [ Ralph ] Northam and the general assembly that the last election was not a referendum on gun control.
” In front of him , an ocean of pro-gun protesters whooped in solidarity .
Nearly all were armed , many gripping AR-15-style rifles or other assault weapons .
A good number were decked out in paramilitary outfits and tactical gear .
Confederate and Gadsden flags waved high and wide .
It was a scene that once would have been credited to the National Rifle Association—the nation ’ s oldest gun rights group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , has inflamed and radicalized a broad coalition of conservative gun owners through alarmist messaging , especially during the Obama administration , and cemented itself as a formidable political force .
But the NRA has since dwindled in power , and the rally was the work of Van Cleave ’ s Virginia Citizens Defense League , a no-compromise , far-right gun rights group that he once boasted was “ proud ” to have been labeled an “ extremist ” organization .
The rally was a bellwether : the sudden downfall of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the rise of more radical pro-gun organizations and militias seeking to take its place .
Since 2016 , the NRA has seen a steady decline in its ranks .
Meanwhile , there ’ s been a boon in membership for more extreme groups like the VCDL and the Second Amendment Foundation , which recently filed a number of lawsuits challenging state gun control laws , and the National Association for Gun Rights , which paints itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA .
There ’ s no doubt a void @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s unclear what groups will dominate .
“ We ’ ve got 100 million gun owners in this country , ” says Joshua Powell , the NRA director ’ s former chief of staff .
“ Whether it ’ s the NRA or some other group , somebody ’ s going to have to fill those shoes.
” Powell was fired from the NRA last year amid allegations of sexual harassment , and he ’ s since published a memoir detailing the behind-the-scenes corruption within the organization .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents Second Amendment supporters , gun owners , ” Powell adds .
“ This is part and parcel to the fabric of our country .
The Second Amendment is not going anywhere.
” Van Cleave is also confident that there will be a group , or a splintered coalition of smaller groups , to step into the NRA ’ s shoes .
“ There ’ s not going to be a void there , ” he says .
“ Somebody ’ s going to fill that.
” See , while Mother Jones still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has radicalized gun owners , they also manage to point out that a lot of the newer groups are far more “ extreme ” in their beliefs .
What they don ’ t get is that much of the NRA ’ s membership woes stem from people believing that the NRA is too soft .
They think the NRA is too willing to play ball .
A case in point is the bump stock ban .
The NRA was apparently willing to play a little ball to let the ban happen .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red flag laws should be implemented .
Now , I ’ ve spoken with NRA officials in the past and I understand the thinking .
The NRA ’ s approach–a wise one , in my opinion–is to try to lessen the impact of measures that are probably going to happen anyway .
For example , Congress was moving forward with a bump stock ban that was also going to hit us far harder than the ATF reclassification of bump stocks ever would have .
It would have potentially made it so anything other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the wording included pretty much any modification that might increase your rate of fire .
Want a lighter trigger ?
Nope , that would have been illegal .
Instead , the ATF reclassified bump stocks .
I still disagree with the move , of course , but I get the thinking .
A lot of people on the gun rights side don ’ t , though .
They ’ re upset with the NRA–the group that supposedly is responsible for all the ills of the gun control crowd–for not being sufficiently immovable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from both sides .
See , the NRA doesn ’ t set the tone .
For all the ink spilled about how the NRA was taken over to become what it is today , people need to remember that membership demanded that takeover .
If not , it would have evaporated overnight .
The NRA doesn ’ t set the tone for gun owners , it ’ s reflective of it .
Any current membership ills is because the NRA has either failed to communicate it well enough to the membership or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanations .
Yet if the NRA ’ s membership is really more anti-gun , as some have alleged , then why are these other more “ radical ” groups doing so well ?
Gun rights supporters aren ’ t interested in red flag laws and assault weapon bans .
We want our rights .
All of them .
That includes the ones previously taken away .
If the New York attorney general is successful in destroying the NRA , they ’ re not suddenly going to find no opposition to gun control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the gun debate , but it ’ s also not the only gorilla .
We , the gun rights supporters , are the ones who have set the tone .
The NRA and all the other groups are just trying to meet the demand .

The National Rifle Association is the boogieman for the anti-gun left in this country. During the recent campaigns, plenty of politicians talk about how they were going to stand up to the NRA, how they were going to put the NRA in their place.
This is the same NRA that’s embattled at every flank, of course, yet still apparently managed to pose enough opposition to prevent a $100 billion effort by Micahel Bloomberg and company from yielding any fruits. At least, that’s what happened if you believe the NRA is the only barrier to anti-gun Utopia.
However, it seems that some on the left are starting to brush up against the understanding that the NRA isn’t what they need to worry about.
On a frigid Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this year, Philip Van Cleave brought out the big guns to Richmond. As he stood on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol, Van Cleave—a 68-year-old balding and mustachioed software programmer—delivered a stern warning to the Democrats who had recently gained control of the state government: “We’re here today to remind Governor [Ralph] Northam and the general assembly that the last election was not a referendum on gun control.” In front of him, an ocean of pro-gun protesters whooped in solidarity. Nearly all were armed, many gripping AR-15-style rifles or other assault weapons. A good number were decked out in paramilitary outfits and tactical gear. Confederate and Gadsden flags waved high and wide. It was a scene that once would have been credited to the National Rifle Association—the nation’s oldest gun rights group, which, over the past several decades, has inflamed and radicalized a broad coalition of conservative gun owners through alarmist messaging, especially during the Obama administration, and cemented itself as a formidable political force. But the NRA has since dwindled in power, and the rally was the work of Van Cleave’s Virginia Citizens Defense League, a no-compromise, far-right gun rights group that he once boasted was “proud” to have been labeled an “extremist” organization. … The rally was a bellwether: the sudden downfall of the nation’s most powerful gun group and the rise of more radical pro-gun organizations and militias seeking to take its place. Since 2016, the NRA has seen a steady decline in its ranks. Meanwhile, there’s been a boon in membership for more extreme groups like the VCDL and the Second Amendment Foundation, which recently filed a number of lawsuits challenging state gun control laws, and the National Association for Gun Rights, which paints itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA. There’s no doubt a void to be filled by the NRA, but it’s unclear what groups will dominate. “We’ve got 100 million gun owners in this country,” says Joshua Powell, the NRA director’s former chief of staff. “Whether it’s the NRA or some other group, somebody’s going to have to fill those shoes.” Powell was fired from the NRA last year amid allegations of sexual harassment, and he’s since published a memoir detailing the behind-the-scenes corruption within the organization. “It is important to have an institution that represents Second Amendment supporters, gun owners,” Powell adds. “This is part and parcel to the fabric of our country. The Second Amendment is not going anywhere.” Van Cleave is also confident that there will be a group, or a splintered coalition of smaller groups, to step into the NRA’s shoes. “There’s not going to be a void there,” he says. “Somebody’s going to fill that.”
See, while Mother Jones still clings to the idea that the NRA has radicalized gun owners, they also manage to point out that a lot of the newer groups are far more “extreme” in their beliefs.
What they don’t get is that much of the NRA’s membership woes stem from people believing that the NRA is too soft. They think the NRA is too willing to play ball. A case in point is the bump stock ban. The NRA was apparently willing to play a little ball to let the ban happen. They’ve also issued suggestions on how red flag laws should be implemented.
Now, I’ve spoken with NRA officials in the past and I understand the thinking. The NRA’s approach–a wise one, in my opinion–is to try to lessen the impact of measures that are probably going to happen anyway.
For example, Congress was moving forward with a bump stock ban that was also going to hit us far harder than the ATF reclassification of bump stocks ever would have. It would have potentially made it so anything other than a stock trigger would be illegal since the wording included pretty much any modification that might increase your rate of fire. Want a lighter trigger? Nope, that would have been illegal.
Instead, the ATF reclassified bump stocks. I still disagree with the move, of course, but I get the thinking.
A lot of people on the gun rights side don’t, though. They’re upset with the NRA–the group that supposedly is responsible for all the ills of the gun control crowd–for not being sufficiently immovable.
Honestly, the NRA is catching it from both sides.
See, the NRA doesn’t set the tone. For all the ink spilled about how the NRA was taken over to become what it is today, people need to remember that membership demanded that takeover. If not, it would have evaporated overnight. The NRA doesn’t set the tone for gun owners, it’s reflective of it. Any current membership ills is because the NRA has either failed to communicate it well enough to the membership or the membership has failed to accept the explanations.
Yet if the NRA’s membership is really more anti-gun, as some have alleged, then why are these other more “radical” groups doing so well?
Gun rights supporters aren’t interested in red flag laws and assault weapon bans. We want our rights. All of them. That includes the ones previously taken away.
If the New York attorney general is successful in destroying the NRA, they’re not suddenly going to find no opposition to gun control. The NRA may be the 800-pound gorilla in the gun debate, but it’s also not the only gorilla.
We, the gun rights supporters, are the ones who have set the tone. The NRA and all the other groups are just trying to meet the demand.


bearingarms--2020-12-03--"Gun Free" Mall Bringing In K9 Units To Sniff Out Firearms

A Wisconsin shopping mall that was home to a recent shooting that left eight people injured says it will start enforcing the facility ’ s “ no guns allowed ” policy by bringing in dogs trained to detect firearms .
Mayfair Mall ’ s general manager says the Vapor Wake Public Safety Canine Detection Program will pair K9 units with mall security guards in an attempt to keep the mall gun free .
In a news release , Chris Jaeger , the senior general manager of the mall , said firearms and weapons are prohibited inside Mayfair .
The new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to identify anyone in violation of this important policy , ” Jaeger said .
“ The VWK9 program demonstrates our ongoing commitment to provide a safe , peaceful and inclusive environment for everyone , ” Jaeger said .
A news release from Brookfield Properties , the operator of the mall , said the security program at the mall is both “ highly visible and behind the scenes.
” “ The VWK9 program is an additional safety measure and something the entire community can appreciate , ” the news release said .
Back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups of people led to a 15-year old pulling a gun and opening fire , wounding eight people , including four “ innocent bystanders.
” The 15-year old suspect was taken into custody after fleeing the mall in the chaos , and he ’ s currently facing eight separate counts of reckless injury while armed with a dangerous weapon .
There ’ ve been concerns about safety at the Wauwatosa mall even before the shooting a couple of weeks ago .
In fact , the mall has apparently been in talks with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mall since the beginning of the year , but only decided to move forward with the plan after the 15-year old opened fire .
I have several questions about how this will actually work in practice , as opposed to being another bit of security theater .
If the K9 units actually hit on a patron who ’ s just strolling through the mall , what happens next ?
Are police called in to pat the patron down ?
Does mall security confront the patron and try to remove them from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sniff out oils and gunpowder residue left behind after a firearm discharges , is it possible that the canines could inadvertently hit on a customer who ’ d recently come from a range , or someone who ’ d been out hunting earlier in the day ?
Mayfair Mall is privately owned and can implement whatever security features it wants , but I don ’ t know that I ’ d actually feel any safer wandering through a mall with gun-sniffing dogs on hand .
My guess is that the K9 units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed carry licensees who ’ ve unintentionally brought their firearm with them into the mall than pinging on gang members or criminals who are carrying with nefarious intent .
The mall ’ s management might not see any difference between the two , and the gun-sniffing dogs certainly won ’ t be able to differentiate between someone who ’ s forgetful and someone intent on committing a felony , but I ’ m guessing that concealed carry holders and those regularly train at gun ranges may be shopping elsewhere in the near future

A Wisconsin shopping mall that was home to a recent shooting that left eight people injured says it will start enforcing the facility’s “no guns allowed” policy by bringing in dogs trained to detect firearms. Mayfair Mall’s general manager says the Vapor Wake Public Safety Canine Detection Program will pair K9 units with mall security guards in an attempt to keep the mall gun free.
In a news release, Chris Jaeger, the senior general manager of the mall, said firearms and weapons are prohibited inside Mayfair. The new program will allow “trained security professionals to identify anyone in violation of this important policy,” Jaeger said. “The VWK9 program demonstrates our ongoing commitment to provide a safe, peaceful and inclusive environment for everyone,” Jaeger said. A news release from Brookfield Properties, the operator of the mall, said the security program at the mall is both “highly visible and behind the scenes.” “The VWK9 program is an additional safety measure and something the entire community can appreciate,” the news release said.
Back on November 22nd, an altercation between two groups of people led to a 15-year old pulling a gun and opening fire, wounding eight people, including four “innocent bystanders.” The 15-year old suspect was taken into custody after fleeing the mall in the chaos, and he’s currently facing eight separate counts of reckless injury while armed with a dangerous weapon.
There’ve been concerns about safety at the Wauwatosa mall even before the shooting a couple of weeks ago. In fact, the mall has apparently been in talks with the Vapor Wake about bringing their dogs to the mall since the beginning of the year, but only decided to move forward with the plan after the 15-year old opened fire.
I have several questions about how this will actually work in practice, as opposed to being another bit of security theater. If the K9 units actually hit on a patron who’s just strolling through the mall, what happens next? Are police called in to pat the patron down? Does mall security confront the patron and try to remove them from the facility?
Considering the dogs are trained to sniff out oils and gunpowder residue left behind after a firearm discharges, is it possible that the canines could inadvertently hit on a customer who’d recently come from a range, or someone who’d been out hunting earlier in the day?
Mayfair Mall is privately owned and can implement whatever security features it wants, but I don’t know that I’d actually feel any safer wandering through a mall with gun-sniffing dogs on hand. My guess is that the K9 units are far more likely to sniff out concealed carry licensees who’ve unintentionally brought their firearm with them into the mall than pinging on gang members or criminals who are carrying with nefarious intent. The mall’s management might not see any difference between the two, and the gun-sniffing dogs certainly won’t be able to differentiate between someone who’s forgetful and someone intent on committing a felony, but I’m guessing that concealed carry holders and those regularly train at gun ranges may be shopping elsewhere in the near future


bearingarms--2020-12-03--Mark Kelly Sworn In, Media Overhypes The Significance

Former astronaut turned gun-control activist Mark Kelly was sworn in and is now a United States Senator .
While most who won in November have to wait a bit before taking office , Kelly didn ’ t .
And now , the media is making a big deal over it .
Democrats picked up a Senate seat on Wednesday when former astronaut Mark Kelly was sworn in as a US senator for Arizona after defeating Republican Sen. Martha McSally last month .
While other senators-elect will have to wait until January to be sworn in for the new Congress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of office right away since he won a special election .
A Kelly aide told CNN earlier in the day that Kelly would be sworn in with his wife , former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords , and his two daughters by his side , and that his twin brother , Scott Kelly , and family friends would also be attending .
Party control of the Senate still has yet to be determined and now hinges on two Georgia runoffs set for January .
Securing the seat from Arizona is nevertheless a major victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sights on it as one of their early top pickup opportunities in 2020 .
For once , CNN wasn ’ t the worst of the bunch .
Other media outlets made a huge deal about how this narrows the Republican majority in the Senate , which is an insane pronouncement to make .
After all , it ’ s a single seat that makes no difference right now and , depending on the outcome here in Georgia during next month ’ s runoff election , may not make much difference later either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve got yet another anti-gun crusader who doesn ’ t seem to understand the reality surrounding our Second Amendment rights .
His swearing-in , however , does remind us of just how important the races here in Georgia are .
If we don ’ t step up and take care of business in the runoff , people like Kelly will be able to exert much more influence and be able to push through some particularly egregious infringements on our Second Amendment rights .
Kelly doesn ’ t care about your family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you need a firearm to protect yourself or your loved ones .
He ’ s still angry that a maniac did something horrible and cares nothing about how guns are used more often to protect life than to take a life .
He ’ s myopic when it comes to guns , so he ’ ll take your gun to punish you for what someone did to his wife .
The best way to keep him from doing that is to rally behind the pro-gun candidates in Georgia .
Honestly , right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two races .
Without at least one of those seats , we have a 50-50 split in the Senate , Democrats in control of the House , and a Democrat in the White House .
That ’ s not a good position to be in .
So , at the end of the day , Kelly ’ s seat doesn ’ t necessarily matter worth a damn , but only if we make sure it doesn ’ t .

Former astronaut turned gun-control activist Mark Kelly was sworn in and is now a United States Senator. While most who won in November have to wait a bit before taking office, Kelly didn’t.
And now, the media is making a big deal over it.
Democrats picked up a Senate seat on Wednesday when former astronaut Mark Kelly was sworn in as a US senator for Arizona after defeating Republican Sen. Martha McSally last month. While other senators-elect will have to wait until January to be sworn in for the new Congress, Kelly was able to take the oath of office right away since he won a special election. A Kelly aide told CNN earlier in the day that Kelly would be sworn in with his wife, former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, and his two daughters by his side, and that his twin brother, Scott Kelly, and family friends would also be attending. Party control of the Senate still has yet to be determined and now hinges on two Georgia runoffs set for January. Securing the seat from Arizona is nevertheless a major victory for Democrats, who had set their sights on it as one of their early top pickup opportunities in 2020.
For once, CNN wasn’t the worst of the bunch. Other media outlets made a huge deal about how this narrows the Republican majority in the Senate, which is an insane pronouncement to make.
After all, it’s a single seat that makes no difference right now and, depending on the outcome here in Georgia during next month’s runoff election, may not make much difference later either.
With Kelly in office, though, we’ve got yet another anti-gun crusader who doesn’t seem to understand the reality surrounding our Second Amendment rights.
His swearing-in, however, does remind us of just how important the races here in Georgia are. If we don’t step up and take care of business in the runoff, people like Kelly will be able to exert much more influence and be able to push through some particularly egregious infringements on our Second Amendment rights.
Kelly doesn’t care about your family. He doesn’t care whether you need a firearm to protect yourself or your loved ones. He’s still angry that a maniac did something horrible and cares nothing about how guns are used more often to protect life than to take a life. He’s myopic when it comes to guns, so he’ll take your gun to punish you for what someone did to his wife.
The best way to keep him from doing that is to rally behind the pro-gun candidates in Georgia.
Honestly, right now, just about everything revolves around those two races. Without at least one of those seats, we have a 50-50 split in the Senate, Democrats in control of the House, and a Democrat in the White House. That’s not a good position to be in.
So, at the end of the day, Kelly’s seat doesn’t necessarily matter worth a damn, but only if we make sure it doesn’t.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--Ex-Cop Sentenced For Faking 4473s And Sending Guns To Mexico

When you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer , you have to fill out a Form 4473 .
That form , as most of our usual readers are quite aware , asks a series of questions .
They need to be answered accurately under penalty of perjury .
One wrong answer , though , and you don ’ t get to buy your firearm .
Of course , people like on the 4473s all the time .
It ’ s how some people get guns despite not being allowed to have them , after all .
The one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , is someone who served as a police officer .
That doesn ’ t mean , though , that they don ’ t do bad things from time to time which can allow the wrong people to get guns , though .
A former law enforcement officer in Texas will now spend four years behind bars for falsifying 4473s and selling guns to shady characters in Mexico .
Jose Cruz , 49 , was sentenced this week to 48 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Randy Crane , reports The Monitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz , while working as the manager of The Gun Rack in McAllen , Texas , sent as many as 80 weapons and at least 500 rounds of ammo south of the border .
Judge Crane said that “ After a gunfight where there were multiple people killed , ” agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) were able to trace the recovered guns at the crime scene back to Cruz ’ s store .
After interviewing Cruz , ATF agents discovered he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms they didn ’ t purchase .
Then , he would sell those extra guns out the back door to individuals to “ protect himself , ” according to his statement during the sentencing hearing on Monday .
Allegedly , there were parties threatening Cruz if he didn ’ t sell the guns .
Why Cruz didn ’ t reach out to law enforcement , though , is a question that remains unanswered .
Not that it matters .
He did the act , now he does the time .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fueling the violence in Mexico , yet it would be wise to remember that these guns were not legally obtained .
These were criminal acts that ran afoul of United States law in the first place .
While Mexico can stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum about these guys , I ’ d love to hear them tell us how they ’ d curb these kinds of acts within the constraints of the Constitution .
The truth is , criminals will get guns no matter how much you try to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so they got them illegally .
Whether Cruz was willingly selling them or not doesn ’ t matter .
What matters is they were sold regardless of what the law said .
That ’ s something the Mexican government needs to come to understand .
While guns may be crossing the border , they ’ re breaking not just Mexican law to do so , but American law as well .
Now , Cruz is facing four years in prison and being stripped of his right to keep and bear arms for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he gained for doing so was worth it or not .

When you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, you have to fill out a Form 4473. That form, as most of our usual readers are quite aware, asks a series of questions. They need to be answered accurately under penalty of perjury. One wrong answer, though, and you don’t get to buy your firearm.
Of course, people like on the 4473s all the time. It’s how some people get guns despite not being allowed to have them, after all.
The one person you expect to appreciate these facts, though, is someone who served as a police officer. That doesn’t mean, though, that they don’t do bad things from time to time which can allow the wrong people to get guns, though.
A former law enforcement officer in Texas will now spend four years behind bars for falsifying 4473s and selling guns to shady characters in Mexico. Jose Cruz, 49, was sentenced this week to 48 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Randy Crane, reports The Monitor. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz, while working as the manager of The Gun Rack in McAllen, Texas, sent as many as 80 weapons and at least 500 rounds of ammo south of the border. Judge Crane said that “After a gunfight where there were multiple people killed,” agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were able to trace the recovered guns at the crime scene back to Cruz’s store. After interviewing Cruz, ATF agents discovered he was padding honest customer’s 4473s with firearms they didn’t purchase. Then, he would sell those extra guns out the back door to individuals to “protect himself,” according to his statement during the sentencing hearing on Monday.
Allegedly, there were parties threatening Cruz if he didn’t sell the guns. Why Cruz didn’t reach out to law enforcement, though, is a question that remains unanswered.
Not that it matters. He did the act, now he does the time.
Of course, these are guns that are blamed for fueling the violence in Mexico, yet it would be wise to remember that these guns were not legally obtained. These were criminal acts that ran afoul of United States law in the first place. While Mexico can stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum about these guys, I’d love to hear them tell us how they’d curb these kinds of acts within the constraints of the Constitution.
The truth is, criminals will get guns no matter how much you try to stop them. They could obtain them legally, so they got them illegally. Whether Cruz was willingly selling them or not doesn’t matter. What matters is they were sold regardless of what the law said.
That’s something the Mexican government needs to come to understand. While guns may be crossing the border, they’re breaking not just Mexican law to do so, but American law as well.
Now, Cruz is facing four years in prison and being stripped of his right to keep and bear arms for a lifetime. I wonder if whatever he gained for doing so was worth it or not.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--Rising Gun Sales Aren't To Blame For The 2020 Crime Spike

Gun control activists are pointing their fingers at the surge in gun sales , claiming that the arming of law-abiding Americans is driving the increase in shootings and homicides in many American cities .
Using statistics as well as first-hand accounts from senior law enforcement officials , on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we break down what ’ s really responsible for the rise in violence .
Let ’ s start with the fact that the rise in crime is real , but it ’ s also not happening in every city across the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-fatal shooting rates in 2020 are going to be the worst in decades , with shootings still up more than 100 % last month compared to November of 2019 , but it ’ s hard to blame that on a rise in gun sales in New York City .
In fact , police officials there say that 40 % of those arrested in shootings this year have a previous gun arrest , so we ’ re not seeing a huge influx of crime among those who ’ ve managed to acquire a New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other cities , it ’ s gang and drug-fueled violence that ’ s creating the spike .
Another bit of evidence that more legally-owned guns doesn ’ t lead to more violent crime .
In Pierce County , Washington , gun sales are more than double what they were in 2019 , yet the number of firearm-related deaths is slightly down from last year .
That ’ s actually the case in many law enforcement jurisdictions , according to the Police Executive Research Forum , which recently surveyed more than 200 departments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more than half had reported an increase in homicides .
The 223 agencies in PERF ’ s analysis reported a total of 7,158 homicides from January through September of 2020 .
That represents an increase of 28 % over the 5,583 homicides those agencies reported during the first nine months of 2019 .
Overall , 58 % of the agencies reported increases in homicides during the first nine months of 2020 , 20 % reported decreases , and 22 % ( mostly small and medium-sized agencies ) reported no change .
Homicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities .
Fifty-six of the 67 major cities recorded a rise in homicides between 2019 and 2020 .
Only 10 of these agencies reported a decrease , and in one agency there was no change .
Homicides are up sharply in many cities located in states with restrictive gun control laws .
It ’ s not just New York City , where homicides are up 38 % compared to 2019 .
There ’ s been a 58 % increase in homicides in Prince George ’ s County , Maryland ; a 52 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago , and a 22 % increase in Los Angeles .
Meanwhile , Oklahoma City , located in a state with Constitutional carry laws on the books , has seen its homicide rate decline by 21 % .
In El Paso , Texas , homicides are down 66 % compared to 2019 , and no one ’ s going to confuse the gun control laws in Texas and California anytime soon .
It ’ s pretty clear that the increase in crime isn ’ t happening because more people are legally buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials in a number of cities , the Police Executive Research Forum found several important commonalities that are having a negative impact on the crime rate ; less policing and emboldened criminals .
A big thing we ’ re seeing right now is the number of people on bond or parole committing homicide .
We had 28 suspects last year who were on bond or parole when they committed a murder , and this year we ’ ve had 44 .
The person who killed one of our officers a week ago was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possessing a weapon .
We always have people out on bond or parole who commit crimes , but the number is higher this year .
Bond reform in some cases is needed , but you have people who allegedly committed violent crimes getting out on bond when they haven ’ t in the past .
We ’ re down 200 officers .
After the riot situation when the Third Precinct was burned down , we had a bunch of officers go out with PTSD or just retire .
Now we have to supplement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized units .
We had a Violent Criminal Apprehension Team , which went out and got our bad guys so that investigators could work their cases .
We had to put them back into the Patrol Division .
Arrests are down , but even when they take place many suspects are turned right back onto the streets because of COVID restrictions on jail capacity .
Court systems are regularly closed when staffers test positive for the coronavirus , and the criminal justice system , never particularly speedy in normal circumstances , has sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities over the past nine months .
The decline in proactive policing , combined with the increase in no-bond cases and the slowdown in the court system , are emboldening violent criminals who increasingly believe that they can literally get away with murder .
That ’ s what ’ s really driving the increase in crime , and as crime goes up people become more afraid and less willing to cooperate with police because of their fear of retaliation .
That further emboldens criminals and makes it more difficult to make arrests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to bring these numbers down , we need to focus on the individuals who are actually committing the crimes , but sadly far too many Democrats at the local , state , and federal level still believe that we can ban our way to safety , and that the best way to have less crime is to make sure that there are fewer guns ( and fewer legal gun owners ) across the United States .

Gun control activists are pointing their fingers at the surge in gun sales, claiming that the arming of law-abiding Americans is driving the increase in shootings and homicides in many American cities. Using statistics as well as first-hand accounts from senior law enforcement officials, on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we break down what’s really responsible for the rise in violence.
Let’s start with the fact that the rise in crime is real, but it’s also not happening in every city across the country. New York City’s homicide and non-fatal shooting rates in 2020 are going to be the worst in decades, with shootings still up more than 100% last month compared to November of 2019, but it’s hard to blame that on a rise in gun sales in New York City. In fact, police officials there say that 40% of those arrested in shootings this year have a previous gun arrest, so we’re not seeing a huge influx of crime among those who’ve managed to acquire a New York City pistol license. Like most other cities, it’s gang and drug-fueled violence that’s creating the spike.
Another bit of evidence that more legally-owned guns doesn’t lead to more violent crime. In Pierce County, Washington, gun sales are more than double what they were in 2019, yet the number of firearm-related deaths is slightly down from last year. That’s actually the case in many law enforcement jurisdictions, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, which recently surveyed more than 200 departments of all sizes and found that just a little more than half had reported an increase in homicides.
The 223 agencies in PERF’s analysis reported a total of 7,158 homicides from January through September of 2020. That represents an increase of 28% over the 5,583 homicides those agencies reported during the first nine months of 2019. Overall, 58% of the agencies reported increases in homicides during the first nine months of 2020, 20% reported decreases, and 22% (mostly small and medium-sized agencies) reported no change. Homicide increases were especially pronounced among the largest cities. Fifty-six of the 67 major cities recorded a rise in homicides between 2019 and 2020. Only 10 of these agencies reported a decrease, and in one agency there was no change.
Homicides are up sharply in many cities located in states with restrictive gun control laws. It’s not just New York City, where homicides are up 38% compared to 2019. There’s been a 58% increase in homicides in Prince George’s County, Maryland; a 52% increase in Boston, 51% increase in Chicago, and a 22% increase in Los Angeles.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma City, located in a state with Constitutional carry laws on the books, has seen its homicide rate decline by 21%. In El Paso, Texas, homicides are down 66% compared to 2019, and no one’s going to confuse the gun control laws in Texas and California anytime soon.
It’s pretty clear that the increase in crime isn’t happening because more people are legally buying guns. In interviews with senior police officials in a number of cities, the Police Executive Research Forum found several important commonalities that are having a negative impact on the crime rate; less policing and emboldened criminals.
Here’s Houston PD Assistant Chief Heather Morris:
A big thing we’re seeing right now is the number of people on bond or parole committing homicide. We had 28 suspects last year who were on bond or parole when they committed a murder, and this year we’ve had 44. The person who killed one of our officers a week ago was out on $100 bond for unlawfully possessing a weapon. We always have people out on bond or parole who commit crimes, but the number is higher this year. Bond reform in some cases is needed, but you have people who allegedly committed violent crimes getting out on bond when they haven’t in the past.
Louisville Metro Police Assistant Chief Andy McClinton:
Our self-initiated activity, traffic stops, and field interrogations have plummeted. I think that’s another reason we’re seeing the high number of rounds fired. If our self-initiated activity is low and people know that there’s a fairly good chance they’re not going to get stopped, they ride around in vehicles armed.
Minneapolis Police Commander Charlie Adams:
We’re down 200 officers. After the riot situation when the Third Precinct was burned down, we had a bunch of officers go out with PTSD or just retire. Now we have to supplement the street patrols with some of our specialized units. We had a Violent Criminal Apprehension Team, which went out and got our bad guys so that investigators could work their cases. We had to put them back into the Patrol Division.
Los Angeles Police Captain Paul Vernon:
When the protests hit at the end of May, that’s when the violent crime went out of control. I see three reasons for that. Police were distracted by all the protests. There was also the political rhetoric about the police that emboldened the criminals. And the defunding of the police takes resources away, particularly from the specialized units that go after the violent criminals.
Omaha Police Captain Steve Cerveny:
Our patrols, officer-initiated activity, and traffic stops are way down. That has a tremendous impact as well. We have an active gang unit that does a fantastic job, and they are out there making stops, contacts, and seizing a lot of firearms. But we’re having a lot less of our uniformed patrol willing to make stops, for a variety of reasons. The lack of traffic stops has impacted our numbers and caused some of those increases.
Arrests are down, but even when they take place many suspects are turned right back onto the streets because of COVID restrictions on jail capacity. Court systems are regularly closed when staffers test positive for the coronavirus, and the criminal justice system, never particularly speedy in normal circumstances, has sometimes ground to a complete halt in many cities over the past nine months.
The decline in proactive policing, combined with the increase in no-bond cases and the slowdown in the court system, are emboldening violent criminals who increasingly believe that they can literally get away with murder. That’s what’s really driving the increase in crime, and as crime goes up people become more afraid and less willing to cooperate with police because of their fear of retaliation. That further emboldens criminals and makes it more difficult to make arrests, and a vicious cycle ensues.
If we want to bring these numbers down, we need to focus on the individuals who are actually committing the crimes, but sadly far too many Democrats at the local, state, and federal level still believe that we can ban our way to safety, and that the best way to have less crime is to make sure that there are fewer guns (and fewer legal gun owners) across the United States.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--Bill Filed To Inflict "Duty To Retreat" On Texans

Michael Bloomberg and company did all they could to flip Texas from red to blue .
They dropped an insane amount of money in an effort to flip the state , and he failed miserably .
Texas wasn ’ t his only failure , to be sure , but it was a big one .
However , for some ridiculous reason , anti-gun lawmakers in the state seem to believe they actually won .
We know this because they pre-file bills like this .
Yes and no .
The bill does strike “ robbery , or aggravated robbery ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly force against in Sections 9.32 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( B ) .
But the use of deadly force — and not just with a firearm — to prevent the loss of “ tangible , movable property ” is left intact in Section 9.41 .
The problem is that HB 196 would also do something else , something problematic .
Texas has no duty for victims to retreat .
This bill would require a victim to attempt to retreat in the face of an attacker before using deadly force , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home ( Section 9.31 ( c ) ) .
This eliminates so-called stand your ground protection .
Now , realistically , this bill shouldn ’ t have a hope in hell of passing .
This is something a lawmaker throws on the pile to get attention , to tell his anti-gun constituents he or she is really trying to strip law-abiding Texans of valued legal protections , but knowing full well that it ’ ll never see the light of day .
At least , I hope that ’ s what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Terry Meza is delusional and should probably reside in a padded cell rather than helping shape the laws of the state of Texas .
Meza represents Austin , apparently , which is one of the most anti-gun regions of the state , so either way , a move like this from her isn ’ t overly surprising .
At least , it shouldn ’ t be .
However , it ’ s also important to remember that Democrats got curb-stomped in the election .
There ’ s absolutely no way the Republican-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stand Your Ground law .
If Meza was interested in anything but grandstanding , she ’ d probably set her sites on something a little more attainable .
It ’ s not , though .
This is nothing more than an attempt to stomp her feet and tell the world that she has all the right opinions so people need to start listening to her or else .
Luckily , pretty much no one else in the state is the least bit interested in what she has to say .
What should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gun bills get filed in the state .
They won ’ t see the light of day , no one will expect them to pass , but they do show us just what would have happened had Bloomberg and company successfully flipped the state .
It ’ s a reminder of just how important state elections can actually be .
After all , had they flipped the state , Meza ’ s bill would have had a real possibility of passing , thus impacting the lives of millions of Texans .
These are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to protect them and the lives of others .
They ’ re not the kind of people who will run from a fight .
Of course , that ’ s also probably why Bloomberg ’ s effort was doomed to fail from the start , just like Meza ’ s bill .

Michael Bloomberg and company did all they could to flip Texas from red to blue. They dropped an insane amount of money in an effort to flip the state, and he failed miserably. Texas wasn’t his only failure, to be sure, but it was a big one.
However, for some ridiculous reason, anti-gun lawmakers in the state seem to believe they actually won.
We know this because they pre-file bills like this.
Yes and no. The bill does strike “robbery, or aggravated robbery” from the list of things one can use deadly force against in Sections 9.32(a)(3)(B). But the use of deadly force — and not just with a firearm — to prevent the loss of “tangible, movable property” is left intact in Section 9.41. … The problem is that HB 196 would also do something else, something problematic. Texas has no duty for victims to retreat. This bill would require a victim to attempt to retreat in the face of an attacker before using deadly force, except when you are in your own home (Section 9.31(c)). This eliminates so-called stand your ground protection.
Now, realistically, this bill shouldn’t have a hope in hell of passing. This is something a lawmaker throws on the pile to get attention, to tell his anti-gun constituents he or she is really trying to strip law-abiding Texans of valued legal protections, but knowing full well that it’ll never see the light of day.
At least, I hope that’s what’s going on.
Otherwise, Texas state Rep. Terry Meza is delusional and should probably reside in a padded cell rather than helping shape the laws of the state of Texas.
Meza represents Austin, apparently, which is one of the most anti-gun regions of the state, so either way, a move like this from her isn’t overly surprising. At least, it shouldn’t be.
However, it’s also important to remember that Democrats got curb-stomped in the election. There’s absolutely no way the Republican-controlled state is remotely interested in revisiting their Stand Your Ground law.
If Meza was interested in anything but grandstanding, she’d probably set her sites on something a little more attainable. It’s not, though. This is nothing more than an attempt to stomp her feet and tell the world that she has all the right opinions so people need to start listening to her or else.
Luckily, pretty much no one else in the state is the least bit interested in what she has to say.
What should be interesting is to see how many other anti-gun bills get filed in the state. They won’t see the light of day, no one will expect them to pass, but they do show us just what would have happened had Bloomberg and company successfully flipped the state. It’s a reminder of just how important state elections can actually be.
After all, had they flipped the state, Meza’s bill would have had a real possibility of passing, thus impacting the lives of millions of Texans. These are people who value their lives and are willing to protect them and the lives of others. They’re not the kind of people who will run from a fight.
Of course, that’s also probably why Bloomberg’s effort was doomed to fail from the start, just like Meza’s bill.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--A Trump In Charge Of The NRA?

A Trump In Charge Of The NRA?

I wouldn ’ t put a lot of stock into this report from Business Insider , which relies heavily on anonymous sources to both play up and downplay the prospects of Donald Trump , Jr. taking over as executive vice president of the NRA from Wayne LaPierre .
According to the website , Team Trump is “ looking for a franchise for Trump , Jr. ” and the gun rights organization is of interest given Don Junior ’ s interest in hunting and the Second Amendment .
Other anonymous sources , though , claim that Junior ’ s not interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blaze ’ s Chris Pandolfo points out .
However , another Republican source told BI that Trump Jr. was not interested in involving himself with the NRA as the organization in recent years has been plagued by infighting .
Current and former NRA executives have been accused of using money donated to the non-profit group to enrich themselves and the NRA is under investigation by the New York attorney general ’ s office .
“ Don is just not getting involved in that pissing match , ” the source said .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA leadership is selected by the organization ’ s board , which according to one of the Republicans who spoke to BI is currently filled with people loyal to LaPierre .
It ’ s clear at this point that LaPierre will be running the NRA for as long as he wants , or at least until he chooses to leave .
There ’ s little chance that the NRA ’ s board would force LaPierre out in favor of Donald Trump , Jr. or anyone else given the current makeup of the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when LaPierre does decide it ’ s time to step away he ’ ll be heavily involved in selecting his replacement .
Could Wayne LaPierre give the nod to Donald Trump , Jr ?
Anything is possible , but I don ’ t think it would be the right move .
For better or worse , Team Trump is ultimately about the Trump brand and family , while the NRA should be laser-focused on the right to keep and bear arms .
Trump , Jr. would certainly be a high-profile pick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave , but would come with a lot of baggage as well , including a potential pardon by Papa Trump .
For a number of reasons , then , I ’ m not putting much stock in the BI report , but if Don Junior is seriously interested in a “ franchise ” to keep his name out there over the next couple of years , why not start a gun company or buy out a smaller manufacturer ?
A Trump-branded gun company ( maybe Trump Armory or Trump Tactical ? )
would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support and interest , and Junior could use his position as CEO to rail against the anti-gun actions that are sure to come over the next four years of a Biden/Harris administration .
It wouldn ’ t be as high profile a position as running the NRA , but Donald Trump , Jr. would still be in a position to generate headlines for himself and his family while bolstering his Second Amendment bona fides .
Can you imagine the press attention when the first MAGA-15s start rolling off the assembly line , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered for sale ?
There would be a yuge response from the media , both on the Left and on the Right , and Junior would quickly become one of the most visible and identifiable gun makers in the country , assuring him a platform to publicly expound on his views while developing his own brand .
If Donald Trump , Jr. really is pondering what to do in the next chapter of his life , a Trump gun company should be on the table .

I wouldn’t put a lot of stock into this report from Business Insider, which relies heavily on anonymous sources to both play up and downplay the prospects of Donald Trump, Jr. taking over as executive vice president of the NRA from Wayne LaPierre. According to the website, Team Trump is “looking for a franchise for Trump, Jr.” and the gun rights organization is of interest given Don Junior’s interest in hunting and the Second Amendment.
Other anonymous sources, though, claim that Junior’s not interested in running the NRA, as The Blaze’s Chris Pandolfo points out.
However, another Republican source told BI that Trump Jr. was not interested in involving himself with the NRA as the organization in recent years has been plagued by infighting. Current and former NRA executives have been accused of using money donated to the non-profit group to enrich themselves and the NRA is under investigation by the New York attorney general’s office. “Don is just not getting involved in that pissing match,” the source said. Even if Trump Jr. indeed wants the job, NRA leadership is selected by the organization’s board, which according to one of the Republicans who spoke to BI is currently filled with people loyal to LaPierre.
It’s clear at this point that LaPierre will be running the NRA for as long as he wants, or at least until he chooses to leave. There’s little chance that the NRA’s board would force LaPierre out in favor of Donald Trump, Jr. or anyone else given the current makeup of the board of directors, and I would expect that when LaPierre does decide it’s time to step away he’ll be heavily involved in selecting his replacement.
Could Wayne LaPierre give the nod to Donald Trump, Jr? Anything is possible, but I don’t think it would be the right move. For better or worse, Team Trump is ultimately about the Trump brand and family, while the NRA should be laser-focused on the right to keep and bear arms. Trump, Jr. would certainly be a high-profile pick to run the organization when LaPierre decides to leave, but would come with a lot of baggage as well, including a potential pardon by Papa Trump.
For a number of reasons, then, I’m not putting much stock in the BI report, but if Don Junior is seriously interested in a “franchise” to keep his name out there over the next couple of years, why not start a gun company or buy out a smaller manufacturer?
A Trump-branded gun company (maybe Trump Armory or Trump Tactical?) would begin operations with a sizable base of support and interest, and Junior could use his position as CEO to rail against the anti-gun actions that are sure to come over the next four years of a Biden/Harris administration. It wouldn’t be as high profile a position as running the NRA, but Donald Trump, Jr. would still be in a position to generate headlines for himself and his family while bolstering his Second Amendment bona fides. Can you imagine the press attention when the first MAGA-15s start rolling off the assembly line, or when Trump-branded 20-round “MAGA-zines” are offered for sale?
There would be a yuge response from the media, both on the Left and on the Right, and Junior would quickly become one of the most visible and identifiable gun makers in the country, assuring him a platform to publicly expound on his views while developing his own brand. If Donald Trump, Jr. really is pondering what to do in the next chapter of his life, a Trump gun company should be on the table.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--Loeffler Blasts Warnock's Mockery Of Gun Owners

Sen. Kelly Loeffler hasn ’ t spent long in the Senate .
While her opponent is trying to make a big thing about her being appointed to the position–something standard when a senator leaves part way through their term–she ’ s still a United States senator .
She ’ s also running against Georgia ’ s version of Rev .
Jeremiah Wright , the Obamas controversial “ former ” pastor in Chicago .
Rev .
Raphael Warnock , her opponent , has said some pretty despicable things , including basically saying those who serve in the military can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opted to mock armed citizens , too .
Loeffler hasn ’ t given him any ground , but now she ’ s blasting Warnock ’ s mockery .
Georgia Senate candidate Kelly Loeffler ( R ) responded to Democrat Raphael Warnock ’ s mockery of gun ownership by calling it “ disgusting.
” On November 30 , 2020 , Breitbart News reported Warnock mocked churchgoers who wanted to be able to carry guns for self-defense .
He did this in 2014 , as the Safe Carry Protection Act was being weighed by state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mockery of churchgoers defending themselves with guns via an exclusive comment to Breitbart News , wherein she said , “ As a radical activist preacher , Raphael Warnock has called people who own guns ‘ crazy , ’ called for universal background checks , and laughed at the thought of law-abiding gun owners carrying their weapons on private property .
That ’ s disgusting.
” Loeffler , unsurprisingly , has the NRA ’ s endorsement and likely the backing of any other pro-gun group you care to name .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who simply mocks what he does not understand .
In other words , Georgians like me who value our ability to defend ourselves .
Warnock seems to think that the only people who go to churches are those who show up to worship .
Yet , as Cam pointed out when he addressed Warnock ’ s mockery , Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford are two men to shot those who showed up to church for more nefarious reasons .
Church shootings are a thing .
While they ’ re not overly common , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re considered a sub-category of mass shootings .
They happen far too often .
Let ’ s also not ignore that the so-called “ Charleston Loophole ” is named after a supposed loophole anti-gunners blame for permitting the gunman in a church shooting to get his firearm .
I wonder , would Warnock have mocked one of those victims if they ’ d instead decided to carry a gun for protection ?
The truth of the matter is that maniacs exist in this world .
We don ’ t get to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
The bad guy always has the initiative .
As a result , a wise man prepares for such eventualities to potentially take place anywhere .
That includes a house of worship .
Yes , in a perfect world , such places would be immune to such horrors .
However , in a perfect world , violent crime of any type wouldn ’ t exist , much less horrors like mass shootings .
Loeffler ’ s right to call out Warnock ’ s mockery .
Frankly , as a Georgian , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that I should be forbidden from being able to protect my family in church .
It ’ s clear that Warnock ’ s ideas of how the world works bear no similarity to how it actually works .

Sen. Kelly Loeffler hasn’t spent long in the Senate. While her opponent is trying to make a big thing about her being appointed to the position–something standard when a senator leaves part way through their term–she’s still a United States senator. She’s also running against Georgia’s version of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Obamas controversial “former” pastor in Chicago.
Rev. Raphael Warnock, her opponent, has said some pretty despicable things, including basically saying those who serve in the military can’t be Christians.
He’s also opted to mock armed citizens, too.
Loeffler hasn’t given him any ground, but now she’s blasting Warnock’s mockery.
Georgia Senate candidate Kelly Loeffler (R) responded to Democrat Raphael Warnock’s mockery of gun ownership by calling it “disgusting.” On November 30, 2020, Breitbart News reported Warnock mocked churchgoers who wanted to be able to carry guns for self-defense. He did this in 2014, as the Safe Carry Protection Act was being weighed by state lawmakers. … Loeffler responded to Warnock’s mockery of churchgoers defending themselves with guns via an exclusive comment to Breitbart News, wherein she said, “As a radical activist preacher, Raphael Warnock has called people who own guns ‘crazy,’ called for universal background checks, and laughed at the thought of law-abiding gun owners carrying their weapons on private property. That’s disgusting.”
Loeffler, unsurprisingly, has the NRA’s endorsement and likely the backing of any other pro-gun group you care to name. After all, better her than Warnock, a man who simply mocks what he does not understand.
In other words, Georgians like me who value our ability to defend ourselves.
Warnock seems to think that the only people who go to churches are those who show up to worship. Yet, as Cam pointed out when he addressed Warnock’s mockery, Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford are two men to shot those who showed up to church for more nefarious reasons.
Church shootings are a thing. While they’re not overly common, they’re common enough that they’re considered a sub-category of mass shootings. They happen far too often.
Let’s also not ignore that the so-called “Charleston Loophole” is named after a supposed loophole anti-gunners blame for permitting the gunman in a church shooting to get his firearm. I wonder, would Warnock have mocked one of those victims if they’d instead decided to carry a gun for protection?
The truth of the matter is that maniacs exist in this world. We don’t get to decide when and where they commit their atrocities, either. The bad guy always has the initiative. As a result, a wise man prepares for such eventualities to potentially take place anywhere. That includes a house of worship.
Yes, in a perfect world, such places would be immune to such horrors. However, in a perfect world, violent crime of any type wouldn’t exist, much less horrors like mass shootings.
Loeffler’s right to call out Warnock’s mockery. Frankly, as a Georgian, I’m downright insulted by the idea that I should be forbidden from being able to protect my family in church. It’s clear that Warnock’s ideas of how the world works bear no similarity to how it actually works.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--Leader Of NFAC Charged With Pointing Gun At Cops

Looks like the Not F***ing Around Coalition may have a new honorary member , because the U.S. Attorney in Louisville certainly isn ’ t ****ing around either .
U.S. Attorney Russell Coleman is bringing federal charges against Grandmaster Jay , aka John Fitzgerald Johnson , the self-proclaimed leader of the black militia , for allegedly pointing a gun at police officers while leading a protest march through downtown Louisville back in September on September 4th .
Federal investigators allege that the incident started out when officers were notified of several heavily armed individuals who were parked on Armory Place next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with the federal agents , made their way to the roof of the Jefferson County Grand Jury Building , where they watched over Armory Place to monitor the heavily armed individuals , according to the court documents .
When the officers arrived to the rooftop , a short time later a few of them reported they were blinded by a light , which they determined was a “ flashlight mounted to the rifle being aimed at them by Johnson.
” Two of the officer said they heard one of them announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as they were on the roof .
According to the court documents , two of the officers said they recognized Johnson from their previous encounter with him earlier in the day when the NFAC was at G.G .
Moore Park .
According to a criminal complaint filed by FBI agent Daniel McNally , surveillance cameras in the downtown area captured the head of the NFAC pointing his rifle at officers on top of the Grand Jury Building .
Was Johnson aware that law enforcement officers were on the roof of the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction ?
McNally ’ s affidavit certainly implies that ’ s the case , noting that the NFAC leader had been told in briefings with local police that “ officers would be on rooftops of surrounding buildings ” and that a major with the Louisville Metro Police Department had “ admonished Johnson not not point weapons at the officers as it would be perceived as a threat.
” The FBI agent ’ s affidavit also goes into quite a bit of detail about Johnson ’ s past , portraying him as a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements and then using a rifle or long gun to threaten various individuals , including women and his wife.
” The 57-year old leader of the NFAC was arrested in 1995 for striking a woman in the face and pointing a shotgun at a man who tried to intervene , and the FBI took him in to custody in 2003 after Johnson allegedly threatened to kill his wife and her platoon sergeant during a ceremony at Fort Bragg .
The FBI report also alleges that Johnson was booted from the army in 1999 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of active service ; he was released “ under other than honorable conditions ” and demoted to private in lieu of a court martial .
Somehow Johnson was able to re-enlist in the army a few years later , but in 2005 was classified as AWOL and then a deserter .
Johnson was taken into custody by military police in 2006 , and he was once again allowed to leave the army under less than honorable conditions and with a demotion in rank in lieu of a court martial .
The affidavit also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an eye on Johnson and the NFAC since late May of this year , when Johnson proclaimed in a series of YouTube videos that people should “ assault police officers and then remove the officers ’ body cameras to conceal footage of them assaulting officers ” and that “ the only way to stop police violence is to identify and locate the homes of police , burn the houses to the ground , kill the officer , their family members , and associates.
” In his statement announcing the charges against Johnson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kentucky we revere our First and Second Amendment freedoms , not foolishness which puts police and protesters at grave risk.
” Johnson could face up to 20 years in a federal prison if convicted of pointing his rifle at officers , so clearly the Justice Department isn ’ t f***ing around in their pursuit of the NFAC leader .

Looks like the Not F***ing Around Coalition may have a new honorary member, because the U.S. Attorney in Louisville certainly isn’t ****ing around either. U.S. Attorney Russell Coleman is bringing federal charges against Grandmaster Jay, aka John Fitzgerald Johnson, the self-proclaimed leader of the black militia, for allegedly pointing a gun at police officers while leading a protest march through downtown Louisville back in September on September 4th.
Federal investigators allege that the incident started out when officers were notified of several heavily armed individuals who were parked on Armory Place next to a parking garage. The officers, along with the federal agents, made their way to the roof of the Jefferson County Grand Jury Building, where they watched over Armory Place to monitor the heavily armed individuals, according to the court documents. When the officers arrived to the rooftop, a short time later a few of them reported they were blinded by a light, which they determined was a “flashlight mounted to the rifle being aimed at them by Johnson.” Two of the officer said they heard one of them announce that Johnson had aimed his rifle at them as they were on the roof. According to the court documents, two of the officers said they recognized Johnson from their previous encounter with him earlier in the day when the NFAC was at G.G. Moore Park.
According to a criminal complaint filed by FBI agent Daniel McNally, surveillance cameras in the downtown area captured the head of the NFAC pointing his rifle at officers on top of the Grand Jury Building.
Was Johnson aware that law enforcement officers were on the roof of the building when he pointed his rifle in their direction? McNally’s affidavit certainly implies that’s the case, noting that the NFAC leader had been told in briefings with local police that “officers would be on rooftops of surrounding buildings” and that a major with the Louisville Metro Police Department had “admonished Johnson not not point weapons at the officers as it would be perceived as a threat.”
The FBI agent’s affidavit also goes into quite a bit of detail about Johnson’s past, portraying him as a man with a history of “making threatening statements and then using a rifle or long gun to threaten various individuals, including women and his wife.”
The 57-year old leader of the NFAC was arrested in 1995 for striking a woman in the face and pointing a shotgun at a man who tried to intervene, and the FBI took him in to custody in 2003 after Johnson allegedly threatened to kill his wife and her platoon sergeant during a ceremony at Fort Bragg.
The FBI report also alleges that Johnson was booted from the army in 1999 after a little more than a year of active service; he was released “under other than honorable conditions” and demoted to private in lieu of a court martial. Somehow Johnson was able to re-enlist in the army a few years later, but in 2005 was classified as AWOL and then a deserter. Johnson was taken into custody by military police in 2006, and he was once again allowed to leave the army under less than honorable conditions and with a demotion in rank in lieu of a court martial.
The affidavit also reveals that the FBI had been keeping an eye on Johnson and the NFAC since late May of this year, when Johnson proclaimed in a series of YouTube videos that people should “assault police officers and then remove the officers’ body cameras to conceal footage of them assaulting officers” and that “the only way to stop police violence is to identify and locate the homes of police, burn the houses to the ground, kill the officer, their family members, and associates.”
In his statement announcing the charges against Johnson, U.S. Attorney Russell Coleman declared that “in Kentucky we revere our First and Second Amendment freedoms, not foolishness which puts police and protesters at grave risk.” Johnson could face up to 20 years in a federal prison if convicted of pointing his rifle at officers, so clearly the Justice Department isn’t f***ing around in their pursuit of the NFAC leader.


bearingarms--2020-12-04--None Of Biden's HHS Options Are Good For Gun Owners

As Joe Biden continues to work out who to include in his cabinet , we ’ re starting to get a glimpse into exactly what kind of government we ’ ll be getting with him .
Of course , with almost half a century in public office , Biden is hardly a political mystery , but this is his first time as part of any executive branch of government .
Cam previously looked at two of Biden ’ s potential pics for the Secretary of Health and Human Services .
According to Politico , New Mexico Gov .
Michelle Lujan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the top contenders for the job , and Biden could make his pick public as early as Monday of next week .
Of the two , Grisham has a longer anti-gun record , but that ’ s because she ’ s actually been in office .
Murthy , you might remember , caused a stir during his confirmation hearings in the Obama administration by declaring that gun control was a issue of public health .
Once he was confirmed , Murthy tried to downplay his comments , as evidenced by this NPR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if he was calling for more gun control laws .
Here ’ s what I would say – and here ’ s what I meant when I wrote that tweet – violence of all kinds is a public health issue .
When you have large numbers of people dying from preventable causes , that ’ s a health care issue .
That ’ s a public health issue .
That ’ s what I said .
That ’ s , in fact , what C. Everett Koop said when he was Surgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leading medical and nursing organizations have said for many years .
I want to find a way that we can reduce violence in America .
And I think you wouldn ’ t be hard-pressed to find parents or families of victims or health care practitioners who would disagree .
Politico quotes unnamed sources close to Biden who swear that Murthy has changed his views on guns as a public health issue , but I highly doubt that ’ s the case .
Gun control organizations and groups like the American Medical Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health as a way to push for more gun control laws , and Murthy hasn ’ t said anything publicly over the past few years to indicate he ’ s now opposed to the idea .
Neither of those two is great for gun owners , to be sure .
However , there ’ s a third name that ’ s popped up , and if you ’ re hoping this time around would be slightly better for the Second Amendment , you ’ re wrong .
Democratic Rhode Island Gov .
Gina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons ” ban and magazine capacity limits in her state , is also a prominent possible pick for Biden ’ s HHS , according to Bloomberg .
The governor called firearms in America a “ disturbing and preventable public health crises , ” Fox News reported .
“ It is unacceptable that our children are growing up in a country where they have to worry about gun violence , ” Raimondo said , according to Fox .
“ This is one of the most disturbing and preventable public health crises of this generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children to take action.
” Raimondo was a name being bandied about as a potential vice-presidential candidate .
By now , we all know how that went , but that doesn ’ t mean Biden isn ’ t willing to find a place for the Rhode Island governor .
She definitely has the anti-gun credentials , to be sure .
While we know what she tried to pass , we also have to look at the existing gun laws in her state and can see that when we talk about anti-gun states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix with larger states like California and Massachusetts .
It seems as though Biden wants to really try and push the angle that guns are a health concern .
Otherwise , why look at staunch anti-gunners for such a post ?
Granted , Murthy at least has relevant qualifications .
A former surgeon general in such a role makes sense , even if he is an anti-gunner deep in his core .
Of course , his appointment coming from the Trump administration may also taint him .
Frankly , I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three are good for us as gun owners .
If support for gun control is a key criterion for HHS secretary in the Biden era , then we know at least part of how they intend to cram gun control down our throats .
After all , anti-gunners love preening about it ’ s for our own good , so we know what ’ s coming .

As Joe Biden continues to work out who to include in his cabinet, we’re starting to get a glimpse into exactly what kind of government we’ll be getting with him. Of course, with almost half a century in public office, Biden is hardly a political mystery, but this is his first time as part of any executive branch of government.
Cam previously looked at two of Biden’s potential pics for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
According to Politico, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are the top contenders for the job, and Biden could make his pick public as early as Monday of next week. Of the two, Grisham has a longer anti-gun record, but that’s because she’s actually been in office. Murthy, you might remember, caused a stir during his confirmation hearings in the Obama administration by declaring that gun control was a issue of public health. Once he was confirmed, Murthy tried to downplay his comments, as evidenced by this NPR interview from 2017 when he was specifically asked if he was calling for more gun control laws. Here’s what I would say – and here’s what I meant when I wrote that tweet – violence of all kinds is a public health issue. When you have large numbers of people dying from preventable causes, that’s a health care issue. That’s a public health issue. That’s what I said. That’s, in fact, what C. Everett Koop said when he was Surgeon General, and that’s what the leading medical and nursing organizations have said for many years. I want to find a way that we can reduce violence in America. And I think you wouldn’t be hard-pressed to find parents or families of victims or health care practitioners who would disagree. Politico quotes unnamed sources close to Biden who swear that Murthy has changed his views on guns as a public health issue, but I highly doubt that’s the case. Gun control organizations and groups like the American Medical Association still embrace the idea of using public health as a way to push for more gun control laws, and Murthy hasn’t said anything publicly over the past few years to indicate he’s now opposed to the idea.
Neither of those two is great for gun owners, to be sure. However, there’s a third name that’s popped up, and if you’re hoping this time around would be slightly better for the Second Amendment, you’re wrong.
Democratic Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, who introduced an “assault weapons” ban and magazine capacity limits in her state, is also a prominent possible pick for Biden’s HHS, according to Bloomberg. The governor called firearms in America a “disturbing and preventable public health crises,” Fox News reported. “It is unacceptable that our children are growing up in a country where they have to worry about gun violence,” Raimondo said, according to Fox. “This is one of the most disturbing and preventable public health crises of this generation, and we owe it to our children to take action.”
Raimondo was a name being bandied about as a potential vice-presidential candidate. By now, we all know how that went, but that doesn’t mean Biden isn’t willing to find a place for the Rhode Island governor.
She definitely has the anti-gun credentials, to be sure. While we know what she tried to pass, we also have to look at the existing gun laws in her state and can see that when we talk about anti-gun states, Rhode Island needs to be in the mix with larger states like California and Massachusetts.
It seems as though Biden wants to really try and push the angle that guns are a health concern. Otherwise, why look at staunch anti-gunners for such a post? Granted, Murthy at least has relevant qualifications. A former surgeon general in such a role makes sense, even if he is an anti-gunner deep in his core. Of course, his appointment coming from the Trump administration may also taint him.
Frankly, I don’t care either way. None of these three are good for us as gun owners.
If support for gun control is a key criterion for HHS secretary in the Biden era, then we know at least part of how they intend to cram gun control down our throats. After all, anti-gunners love preening about it’s for our own good, so we know what’s coming.