bearingarms--2020-09-03--Minneapolis Law Prevents Protection Of Property For Dumbest Of Reasons

Minneapolis was ground zero for the riots and outright lawlessness in the wake of the death of George Floyd .
When the dust settled , entire city blocks were nothing but rubble and burned out husks of businesses .
Yet it didn ’ t necessarily have to be this way .
It seems a local ordinance in the city actually barred businesses from being able to take a proactive step to protect their property .
Yet even in the face of wanton destruction and violence , city ordinances are preventing Minneapolis business owners from protecting themselves and their property .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the city currently bans exterior security shutters .
These are the type of shutters they pull down over a mall storefront when it closes , that would make it much harder to break in and loot it .
They also prevent windows from being broken , which can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace .
Why are security shutters banned in Minneapolis ?
Because city officials say they “ cause visual blight , ” and “ create the impression that an area is ‘ unsafe ’ and ‘ troublesome.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running up against this regulation as they seek to protect their reopened stores from future flare-ups of violence .
( The earlier riots destroyed at least 1,500 Minneapolis businesses . )
Liquor store owner John Wolf saw his store looted after rioters broke in through his windows and stole more than $ 1 million in alcohol .
He ’ s fuming at the city regulations that stop him from protecting his property .
“ Times have changed , ” Wolf told the Star-Tribune .
“ I am going to spend millions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t want to buy 20 window panes and have them broken the first day .
Property owners should have options on how to protect themselves.
” Technically , business owners can apply for an exception to this rule .
But it is incredibly difficult to get such a variance approved .
I ’ m curious , though .
If security shutters “ cause visual blight ” and “ create the impression that an area is ‘ unsafe ’ and ‘ troublesome ’ , ” then just what the hell does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , just curious here .
I know we tend to talk about guns as a means to protect life and property , and there are times and places for that to be sure .
However , you can ’ t be everywhere .
It just makes sense to have some method of securing your property when you ’ re not there .
At home , you may have burglar bars on your windows and/or a security system .
You probably have some way to secure your guns when you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all common sense steps to protecting your home if you ’ re not around .
Security shutters would easily serve the same purpose for people ’ s businesses .
Because these businesses were legally barred from having such shutters , we ’ ll never know just how much of an impact they might have had in preventing some of the wanton destruction we saw in Minneapolis .
Plus , since much of this started in Minneapolis , what kind of impact could this have had throughout the nation ?
No doubt , protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if those wishing to riot had been unable to destroy property , would anything have gone beyond protests ?
Regardless , cities should get out of the way of people looking to protect their property , regardless of what tools they feel are best to accomplish that , be it security shutters or a firearm .

Minneapolis was ground zero for the riots and outright lawlessness in the wake of the death of George Floyd. When the dust settled, entire city blocks were nothing but rubble and burned out husks of businesses.
Yet it didn’t necessarily have to be this way.
It seems a local ordinance in the city actually barred businesses from being able to take a proactive step to protect their property.
Yet even in the face of wanton destruction and violence, city ordinances are preventing Minneapolis business owners from protecting themselves and their property. As reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the city currently bans exterior security shutters. These are the type of shutters they pull down over a mall storefront when it closes, that would make it much harder to break in and loot it. They also prevent windows from being broken, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace. Why are security shutters banned in Minneapolis? Because city officials say they “cause visual blight,” and “create the impression that an area is ‘unsafe’ and ‘troublesome.’” Now, many business owners are running up against this regulation as they seek to protect their reopened stores from future flare-ups of violence. (The earlier riots destroyed at least 1,500 Minneapolis businesses.) Liquor store owner John Wolf saw his store looted after rioters broke in through his windows and stole more than $1 million in alcohol. He’s fuming at the city regulations that stop him from protecting his property. “Times have changed,” Wolf told the Star-Tribune. “I am going to spend millions of dollars to bring my business back, and I don’t want to buy 20 window panes and have them broken the first day. Property owners should have options on how to protect themselves.” Technically, business owners can apply for an exception to this rule. But it is incredibly difficult to get such a variance approved.
I’m curious, though. If security shutters “cause visual blight” and “create the impression that an area is ‘unsafe’ and ‘troublesome’,” then just what the hell does burned out buildings signal to folks?
You know, just curious here.
I know we tend to talk about guns as a means to protect life and property, and there are times and places for that to be sure. However, you can’t be everywhere. It just makes sense to have some method of securing your property when you’re not there. At home, you may have burglar bars on your windows and/or a security system. You probably have some way to secure your guns when you’re not home as well.
These are all common sense steps to protecting your home if you’re not around. Security shutters would easily serve the same purpose for people’s businesses.
Because these businesses were legally barred from having such shutters, we’ll never know just how much of an impact they might have had in preventing some of the wanton destruction we saw in Minneapolis. Plus, since much of this started in Minneapolis, what kind of impact could this have had throughout the nation?
No doubt, protests would have still been held, but if those wishing to riot had been unable to destroy property, would anything have gone beyond protests?
Regardless, cities should get out of the way of people looking to protect their property, regardless of what tools they feel are best to accomplish that, be it security shutters or a firearm.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--Off-Duty Cop Shoots Armed Carjacker In Chicago

A would-be carjacker on Chicago ’ s south side got an unwelcome surprise early Thursday morning when his intended victim pulled out a gun of his own and fired in self-defense , wounding the man and ending the threat .
According to CBS 2 in Chicago , the attempted carjacking actually involved multiple suspects , but only one armed citizen ; an off-duty police officer who happened to be driving down an alley in the South Shores neighborhood around 2:30 a.m. when he was stopped by two or three assailants .
One offender displayed a gun and told the officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before firing a shot .
The officer shot back , striking one of the offenders in the arm .
Police located that offender in the lobby of a nearby building .
The suspect was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center and was placed in custody .
Police are searching for the other offenders .
The victim is a law enforcement officer , but is not with the Chicago Police Department and he was not injured .
So far police haven ’ t released any information about the suspect in the attempted carjacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago reached a grim milestone : 500 homicides so far this year , which is a 66 % increase over 2019 .
As the Chicago Tribune declared in a recent editorial , the mayhem in the city is out of control .
Recent Monday morning tallies of weekend violence have made for brutal reading .
Ten people were killed , more than 40 wounded this past weekend .
The Tribune identified 10 separate shootings , including three homicides , in just three hours or so starting Sunday at 2 a.m .
In one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were hit by gunfire and hospitalized .
Ten Chicago police officers have been shot this year , 41 have been fired on .
What is happening in Chicago ?
Superintendent David Brown ’ s answer Monday was vague , because there is no simple explanation , and chilling .
“ Violent offenders have acted with impunity , much more than we ’ ve seen in the past , ” said Brown , describing his first summer on the job .
“ There ’ s this sense of lawlessness among violent offenders.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent offenders is simple : far too many of them are getting away with their crimes .
Clearance rates for homicides and shootings are well below 50 % , and even when police do make arrests for things like robberies or other violent crimes , all too often judges in Cook County release the suspects on their own recognizance or incredibly low bail , quickly returning them back to the streets .
The number of criminal defendants freed on bail and ordered to wear electronic-monitoring bracelets has soared this year in Cook County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with murder , robbery or illegal possession of guns , a Chicago Sun-Times analysis has found .
Police Supt .
David Brown says many of those being set free on electronic monitoring are responsible for the steep rise in killings this year in Chicago .
On Aug. 9 , 43 people facing murder charges were in the county ’ s electronic-monitoring program — 40 % more than on the same day last year .
Also in the program were 160 people charged with robbery and about 1,000 charged with illegal gun possession — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Aug. 9 , 2019 .
Brown is correct in criticizing Cook County ’ s criminal justice system , but the truth is there ’ s plenty of blame to go around , from Mayor Lori Lightfoot on down .
Until criminals in Chicago believe with good reason that there will be swift and certain consequences for their violence , they ’ ll continue to operate as if the law doesn ’ t exist .

A would-be carjacker on Chicago’s south side got an unwelcome surprise early Thursday morning when his intended victim pulled out a gun of his own and fired in self-defense, wounding the man and ending the threat.
According to CBS 2 in Chicago, the attempted carjacking actually involved multiple suspects, but only one armed citizen; an off-duty police officer who happened to be driving down an alley in the South Shores neighborhood around 2:30 a.m. when he was stopped by two or three assailants.
One offender displayed a gun and told the officer to get out of the car, before firing a shot. The officer shot back, striking one of the offenders in the arm. Police located that offender in the lobby of a nearby building. The suspect was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center and was placed in custody. Police are searching for the other offenders. The victim is a law enforcement officer, but is not with the Chicago Police Department and he was not injured.
So far police haven’t released any information about the suspect in the attempted carjacking, which took place just days after Chicago reached a grim milestone: 500 homicides so far this year, which is a 66% increase over 2019. As the Chicago Tribune declared in a recent editorial, the mayhem in the city is out of control.
Recent Monday morning tallies of weekend violence have made for brutal reading. Ten people were killed, more than 40 wounded this past weekend. The Tribune identified 10 separate shootings, including three homicides, in just three hours or so starting Sunday at 2 a.m. In one incident, officers making a traffic stop were hit by gunfire and hospitalized. Ten Chicago police officers have been shot this year, 41 have been fired on. What is happening in Chicago? Superintendent David Brown’s answer Monday was vague, because there is no simple explanation, and chilling. “Violent offenders have acted with impunity, much more than we’ve seen in the past,” said Brown, describing his first summer on the job. “There’s this sense of lawlessness among violent offenders.”
The reason for the sense of lawlessness among violent offenders is simple: far too many of them are getting away with their crimes. Clearance rates for homicides and shootings are well below 50%, and even when police do make arrests for things like robberies or other violent crimes, all too often judges in Cook County release the suspects on their own recognizance or incredibly low bail, quickly returning them back to the streets.
The number of criminal defendants freed on bail and ordered to wear electronic-monitoring bracelets has soared this year in Cook County, including more than 1,000 people charged with murder, robbery or illegal possession of guns, a Chicago Sun-Times analysis has found. Police Supt. David Brown says many of those being set free on electronic monitoring are responsible for the steep rise in killings this year in Chicago. On Aug. 9, 43 people facing murder charges were in the county’s electronic-monitoring program — 40% more than on the same day last year. Also in the program were 160 people charged with robbery and about 1,000 charged with illegal gun possession — twice as many for those crimes as on Aug. 9, 2019.
Brown is correct in criticizing Cook County’s criminal justice system, but the truth is there’s plenty of blame to go around, from Mayor Lori Lightfoot on down. Until criminals in Chicago believe with good reason that there will be swift and certain consequences for their violence, they’ll continue to operate as if the law doesn’t exist.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--NC Town Bans Guns In Parks, Public Buildings Despite Preemption?

North Carolina is a pretty pro-gun place .
They ’ re not at the tippy-top of the list of pro-gun states , but they ’ re not remotely near the bottom , either .
They ’ re fairly pro-gun .
Unless , of course , you ’ re in Wake County .
See , Wake County is a unique place within the state .
While they ’ re bound by the same laws as the rest of the state , the local sheriff has been taking his sweet time issuing permits regardless of what the law mandates .
It took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duff and get to work on the issue .
Now , within that same county , one town has decided to limit open carry regardless of state preemption laws .
The Holly Springs Town Council gave preliminary approval to a ban on the open carrying of deadly weapons in public parks and town buildings .
The Tuesday night vote was 3-2 for the ordinance , or local order , which will return for a final vote Sept. 15 and take effect six months after that .
The ordinance will make it illegal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons , including guns , knives or blades longer than three inches , as well as BB guns and pellet guns in specific parks and town buildings in Holly Springs , which has about 38,000 people .
Now , it doesn ’ t actually impact people with concealed carry permits from carrying concealed .
Of course , does this actually run afoul of North Carolina ’ s preemption law ?
Like many preemption laws , North Carolina ’ s does give local governments some authority to ban certain things .
One common example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the city limits .
However , Holly Springs is far from the first city to ban open carry to some degree within the city and those other laws are all still on the books .
However , that ’ s probably because it appears no one has challenged them on it .
Looking at North Carolina ’ s preemption law , I don ’ t see anything that actually permits this sort of act on the part of a local government .
I ’ m not an attorney in the state ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so maybe it ’ s hiding in some other section of law .
At least one attorney does seem to believe an ordinance such as this is fairly legal .
An example of a regulation that is within the power of local government is the power to prohibit open carry in “ public‑owned buildings , on the grounds or parking areas of those buildings , or in public parks or recreation areas.
” G.S .
14-409.40 ( f ) .
( Concealed carry in some of those areas may be permissible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another day . )
However , it appears that local governments do not have the authority to ban open carry completely , even on public property such as streets and sidewalks .
One could argue that such authority exists under two statutes , both of which are recognized as exceptions to the statewide pre-emption laws : • G.S .
160A-189 , which allows cities to “ by ordinance regulate , restrict , or prohibit the discharge of firearms at any time or place within the city except when used in defense of person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law‑enforcement officers , and [ to ] regulate the display of firearms on the streets , sidewalks , alleys , or other public property.
” • G.S .
153A-129 , which allows counties to “ by ordinance regulate , restrict , or prohibit the discharge of firearms .
.
.
except when used to take birds or animals .
.
.
when used in defense of person or property , or when used pursuant to lawful directions of law‑enforcement officers .
A county may also regulate the display of firearms on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other public property.
” But reading the power to “ regulate the display of firearms ” to allow local governments to ban open carry in public is probably wrong for two reasons .
First , it would be unconstitutional under Kerner .
As the court noted , “ [ t ] o exclude all pistols , however , is not a regulation , but a prohibition , of arms which come under the designation of ‘ arms ’ which the people are entitled to bear.
” Second , such a reading ignores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments to “ regulate .
.
.
or prohibit ” the discharge of firearms , but only to “ regulate ” the display of firearms .
The lack of parallelism appears to be intentional .
Therefore , although the precise extent of local government authority isn ’ t clear , and a variety of local regulations might be permissible , a complete ban on public open carry does not appear to be .
So while there does appear to be some legal framework backing up Holly Springs , I ’ m not convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My hope is that it would be struck down .
The truth is , people openly carrying firearms rarely represent a threat to peaceful , law-abiding citizens .

North Carolina is a pretty pro-gun place. They’re not at the tippy-top of the list of pro-gun states, but they’re not remotely near the bottom, either. They’re fairly pro-gun.
Unless, of course, you’re in Wake County.
See, Wake County is a unique place within the state. While they’re bound by the same laws as the rest of the state, the local sheriff has been taking his sweet time issuing permits regardless of what the law mandates. It took a lawsuit to get him off his duff and get to work on the issue.
Now, within that same county, one town has decided to limit open carry regardless of state preemption laws.
The Holly Springs Town Council gave preliminary approval to a ban on the open carrying of deadly weapons in public parks and town buildings. The Tuesday night vote was 3-2 for the ordinance, or local order, which will return for a final vote Sept. 15 and take effect six months after that. The ordinance will make it illegal to openly carry, possess or display deadly weapons, including guns, knives or blades longer than three inches, as well as BB guns and pellet guns in specific parks and town buildings in Holly Springs, which has about 38,000 people.
Now, it doesn’t actually impact people with concealed carry permits from carrying concealed.
Of course, does this actually run afoul of North Carolina’s preemption law?
Like many preemption laws, North Carolina’s does give local governments some authority to ban certain things. One common example is banning the discharge of a firearm within the city limits. However, Holly Springs is far from the first city to ban open carry to some degree within the city and those other laws are all still on the books.
However, that’s probably because it appears no one has challenged them on it.
Looking at North Carolina’s preemption law, I don’t see anything that actually permits this sort of act on the part of a local government. I’m not an attorney in the state (or anywhere else for that matter), so maybe it’s hiding in some other section of law. At least one attorney does seem to believe an ordinance such as this is fairly legal.
An example of a regulation that is within the power of local government is the power to prohibit open carry in “public‑owned buildings, on the grounds or parking areas of those buildings, or in public parks or recreation areas.” G.S. 14-409.40(f). (Concealed carry in some of those areas may be permissible, but that’s a subject for another day.) However, it appears that local governments do not have the authority to ban open carry completely, even on public property such as streets and sidewalks. One could argue that such authority exists under two statutes, both of which are recognized as exceptions to the statewide pre-emption laws: G.S. 160A-189, which allows cities to “by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the discharge of firearms at any time or place within the city except when used in defense of person or property or pursuant to lawful directions of law‑enforcement officers, and [to] regulate the display of firearms on the streets, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property.”
G.S. 153A-129, which allows counties to “by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the discharge of firearms . . . except when used to take birds or animals . . . when used in defense of person or property, or when used pursuant to lawful directions of law‑enforcement officers. A county may also regulate the display of firearms on the public roads, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property.” But reading the power to “regulate the display of firearms” to allow local governments to ban open carry in public is probably wrong for two reasons. First, it would be unconstitutional under Kerner. As the court noted, “[t]o exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms which come under the designation of ‘arms’ which the people are entitled to bear.” Second, such a reading ignores the fact that both statutes allow local governments to “regulate . . . or prohibit” the discharge of firearms, but only to “regulate” the display of firearms. The lack of parallelism appears to be intentional. Therefore, although the precise extent of local government authority isn’t clear, and a variety of local regulations might be permissible, a complete ban on public open carry does not appear to be.
So while there does appear to be some legal framework backing up Holly Springs, I’m not convinced. Maybe someone will challenge this regulation. My hope is that it would be struck down.
The truth is, people openly carrying firearms rarely represent a threat to peaceful, law-abiding citizens.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--Why Gun Control Will Likely Come Up During The First Presidential Debate

We can already predict what the main topics of discussion will be during the upcoming presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden ; the chaos on our streets , the coronavirus , police reform , and racism will almost certainly dominate the debates that deal with domestic policy .
I ’ ll make a prediction that gun control is also brought up during the first debate between the nominees , and I ’ ll even hazard a guess as to what aspect of gun control moderator Chris Wallace will focus on .
Back during the DNC , Wallace praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gabrielle Giffords , calling it “ enormously powerful ” and declaring that Giffords gave voice to the concerns that “ most Americans have about gun violence.
” To me , that already demonstrates that Wallace is going to approach the gun issue from a pro-Biden perspective , but that wasn ’ t all he said .
I don ’ t think you have to Nostradamus to get the feeling that a ban on so-called assault weapons is something that Chris Wallace really wants to have as a debate topic .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t ask a question about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 is if he reasons that his past quotes in support of gun control would come up and be used as an example of media bias .
It ’ s possible that ’ s how it plays out , but I suspect that the desire to try to pin Trump down on banning “ assault weapons ” while allowing Joe Biden to wax rhapsodically about his plan to require existing gun owners to either pay hundreds of dollars to register their firearms or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in to the federal government .
I imagine the framing will be something like this : “ Mr .
President , over the past four months we ’ ve seen a number of extremists on the left and the right , many of them armed to the teeth with assault weapons , take to the streets , either as vigilantes intent on protecting their communities or mixed in with the mostly peaceful protesters to provide cover as they try to cause trouble .
One of your supporters is facing two counts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin with a semi-automatic rifle .
Given that these weapons of mass destruction have been used in so many shootings over the past few years , tell me why you don ’ t support banning these battlefield weapons of war ?
” Here ’ s what I ’ d tell Chris Wallace if I were President Trump .
First of all , Chris , let ’ s be clear .
These aren ’ t battlefield weapons of war .
They ’ re the most commonly sold rifle in the country , and millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shooting competitions , or hunting .
I don ’ t think you could ban them without violating the Second Amendment , but I wouldn ’ t ban them even if I could , and I ’ ll tell you why .
We can ’ t ban our way to safety .
Joe Biden says in one breath that he wants to fundamentally transform policing , and in the next breath he says he wants to make it a federal felony offense punishable by ten years in prison for simply keeping ahold of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun safe , unless of course you tell the federal government exactly what you own and you write them a check .
Hand over a few hundred dollars and they swear they ’ ll let you keep your gun .
Just like the Biden/Obama administration swore you ’ d get to keep your doctor .
If you like your gun you can keep your gun , they say .
You believe that ?
The fact is , these guns are rarely used in crime .
More people are killed by fists , feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an AR-15 .
Banning them isn ’ t going to make anybody safer , but I ’ ll tell you what will .
Our crime rates were at or near 50 year lows before Democratic politicians began emptying out jails and telling officers not to make arrests for some crimes back in the spring .
Since then the problem ’ s only gotten worse .
A lot of Joe ’ s buddies have been going easy on criminals , but you know , they ’ ve been making it really hard for police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets .
I know Joe Biden doesn ’ t think you have the right to own the most commonly sold rifle in the country , but I think it ’ s downright evil to spend an ounce of energy trying to put Americans in prison for keeping their rifle and not registering it with the government .
My administration is going after the people who are setting fire to buildings .
We ’ re going after international terrorists and dicators .
We ’ re going after the people who are intent on causing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t care what their political ideology is .
If you ’ re trying to hurt America , we ’ re going to stop you .
Joe Biden ?
He ’ s going after legal , law-abiding gun owners by turning them into criminals with the stroke of a pen .
It won ’ t make us any safer , it will make us less free , and it simply won ’ t happen on my watch .
Obviously that could use a little translating to Trump-speak , but you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave you with this bonus prediction : If Wallace does bring up gun control , his question to Joe Biden will include reference to Biden ’ s 1994 “ assault weapons ban ” , and may even quote criticism that the law , which expired ten years after its passage , didn ’ t really impact crime .
That gives Biden an opportunity to talk about how great his new and improved gun ban is compared to the old one , and it also allows Wallace to look like he ’ s giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really lobbing him a softball .

We can already predict what the main topics of discussion will be during the upcoming presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden; the chaos on our streets, the coronavirus, police reform, and racism will almost certainly dominate the debates that deal with domestic policy. I’ll make a prediction that gun control is also brought up during the first debate between the nominees, and I’ll even hazard a guess as to what aspect of gun control moderator Chris Wallace will focus on.
Back during the DNC, Wallace praised the pro-gun control speech by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, calling it “enormously powerful” and declaring that Giffords gave voice to the concerns that “most Americans have about gun violence.” To me, that already demonstrates that Wallace is going to approach the gun issue from a pro-Biden perspective, but that wasn’t all he said.
“I understand that Republicans will say that Joe Biden wants to take away your Second Amendment rights. The only problem with that is, Biden has made it clear over and over; he’s not interested in taking away Second Amendment rights, he’s interested in taking away weapons of mass destruction like assault weapons.”
I don’t think you have to Nostradamus to get the feeling that a ban on so-called assault weapons is something that Chris Wallace really wants to have as a debate topic. In fact, the only reason that Wallace wouldn’t ask a question about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 is if he reasons that his past quotes in support of gun control would come up and be used as an example of media bias.
It’s possible that’s how it plays out, but I suspect that the desire to try to pin Trump down on banning “assault weapons” while allowing Joe Biden to wax rhapsodically about his plan to require existing gun owners to either pay hundreds of dollars to register their firearms or receive some token financial compensation to turn them in to the federal government.
I imagine the framing will be something like this:
“Mr. President, over the past four months we’ve seen a number of extremists on the left and the right, many of them armed to the teeth with assault weapons, take to the streets, either as vigilantes intent on protecting their communities or mixed in with the mostly peaceful protesters to provide cover as they try to cause trouble. One of your supporters is facing two counts of murder for shooting protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin with a semi-automatic rifle. Given that these weapons of mass destruction have been used in so many shootings over the past few years, tell me why you don’t support banning these battlefield weapons of war?”
Here’s what I’d tell Chris Wallace if I were President Trump.
First of all, Chris, let’s be clear. These aren’t battlefield weapons of war. They’re the most commonly sold rifle in the country, and millions of Americans own them for home defense, shooting competitions, or hunting. I don’t think you could ban them without violating the Second Amendment, but I wouldn’t ban them even if I could, and I’ll tell you why. We can’t ban our way to safety. Joe Biden says in one breath that he wants to fundamentally transform policing, and in the next breath he says he wants to make it a federal felony offense punishable by ten years in prison for simply keeping ahold of the rifle that’s in your gun safe, unless of course you tell the federal government exactly what you own and you write them a check. Hand over a few hundred dollars and they swear they’ll let you keep your gun. Just like the Biden/Obama administration swore you’d get to keep your doctor. If you like your gun you can keep your gun, they say. You believe that? The fact is, these guns are rarely used in crime. More people are killed by fists, feet, and blunt objects than someone with an AR-15. Banning them isn’t going to make anybody safer, but I’ll tell you what will. Our crime rates were at or near 50 year lows before Democratic politicians began emptying out jails and telling officers not to make arrests for some crimes back in the spring. Since then the problem’s only gotten worse. A lot of Joe’s buddies have been going easy on criminals, but you know, they’ve been making it really hard for police officers to keep the peace on the streets. I know Joe Biden doesn’t think you have the right to own the most commonly sold rifle in the country, but I think it’s downright evil to spend an ounce of energy trying to put Americans in prison for keeping their rifle and not registering it with the government. My administration is going after the people who are setting fire to buildings. We’re going after international terrorists and dicators. We’re going after the people who are intent on causing chaos and murder and mayhem, and we don’t care what their political ideology is. If you’re trying to hurt America, we’re going to stop you. Joe Biden? He’s going after legal, law-abiding gun owners by turning them into criminals with the stroke of a pen. It won’t make us any safer, it will make us less free, and it simply won’t happen on my watch.
Obviously that could use a little translating to Trump-speak, but you get the basic idea.
I’ll leave you with this bonus prediction: If Wallace does bring up gun control, his question to Joe Biden will include reference to Biden’s 1994 “assault weapons ban”, and may even quote criticism that the law, which expired ten years after its passage, didn’t really impact crime. That gives Biden an opportunity to talk about how great his new and improved gun ban is compared to the old one, and it also allows Wallace to look like he’s giving Biden a tough question even though he’s really lobbing him a softball.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--One In Nine Democrats Among New Gun Buyers

There are a lot of signals for how gun control isn ’ t the winning issue for Democrats like they thought it would be when the campaigns first kicked off .
While I was convinced it wasn ’ t the winner they believed back then , a lot has changed since the early parts of the campaign .
Back then , people were more worried about rare events like mass shootings .
Today , they ’ re worried about massive riots or other civil unrest that have been happening daily for months now .
Yet an interesting factoid crossed my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of a survey that found one in nine Democrats have purchased a firearm in recent months .
More than one in nine registered Democrats recently bought a firearm , according to a late-August Epoch Times Big Data Poll Nearly 12 percent of Democrats bought a gun in the past three months and almost 19 percent of Republicans did so , the poll showed .
The trend was particularly strong in the 18-29 age group ( over 22 percent ) , black people ( 21 percent ) , union members ( nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 percent ) , and those earning over $ 200,000 ( 19 percent ) .
Meanwhile , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden calls for some two dozen gun-control measures , including a ban on sales and manufacturing of military-style sporting rifles , such as the AR-15 .
He also wants universal background checks for nearly all gun transfers and the repeal of a law that shields gun makers from liability for lawful gun sales .
He would prohibit online gun sales and supports state “ red flag ” laws and gun-licensing regimes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last three months , but how many of the remaining eight in nine bought guns prior to three months ago .
After all , gun stores in California particularly have reported people buying guns only to be dismayed at the gun control measures they admit they voted for .
As such , there ’ s reason to believe a fair number bought guns four to six months ago as well .
If the Democratic Party starts to recognize the number of gun owners in its ranks , how will that shape their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I doubt they ’ ll ever become pro-gun by any stretch , but it may soften a lot of their efforts .
Hell , it might direct them to focus on armed criminals more than law-abiding citizens for a change .
I wouldn ’ t hold my breath on that one , mind you , but still… Then again , many in the Democratic Party don ’ t seem to understand that even some of their base support gun rights .
I know some on the right don ’ t understand how someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but regardless of how it happens , let ’ s just accept that it does and hope their numbers grow enough that it ’ ll force the party to tone down their hatred of the Second Amendment .
There ’ s no guarantee that ’ ll happen , but if Democrats continue pushing anti-gun measures that piss of large portions of their base , they ’ ll start to see results at the polls .
That ’ s something Democrats are known to listen to , after all .
With all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their own polling .
I honestly have no idea just how unbaised their polling was , so it ’ s possible that the questions asked were leading somehow , but I don ’ t really see how that would make an impact .
Either you bought a gun or you didn ’ t , right ?
Still , I ’ m trying to be fair here .
Regardless , it ’ s an interesting data point and it should be interesting to see how this information changes how Democrats approach things moving @ @ @ @ @ @

There are a lot of signals for how gun control isn’t the winning issue for Democrats like they thought it would be when the campaigns first kicked off. While I was convinced it wasn’t the winner they believed back then, a lot has changed since the early parts of the campaign. Back then, people were more worried about rare events like mass shootings. Today, they’re worried about massive riots or other civil unrest that have been happening daily for months now.
Yet an interesting factoid crossed my feed recently, and that’s the result of a survey that found one in nine Democrats have purchased a firearm in recent months.
More than one in nine registered Democrats recently bought a firearm, according to a late-August Epoch Times Big Data Poll Nearly 12 percent of Democrats bought a gun in the past three months and almost 19 percent of Republicans did so, the poll showed. The trend was particularly strong in the 18-29 age group (over 22 percent), black people (21 percent), union members (nearly 32 percent), urbanites (over 19 percent), and those earning over $200,000 (19 percent). … Meanwhile, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden calls for some two dozen gun-control measures, including a ban on sales and manufacturing of military-style sporting rifles, such as the AR-15. He also wants universal background checks for nearly all gun transfers and the repeal of a law that shields gun makers from liability for lawful gun sales. He would prohibit online gun sales and supports state “red flag” laws and gun-licensing regimes.
This is…interesting.
See, this survey only asked about the last three months, but how many of the remaining eight in nine bought guns prior to three months ago. After all, gun stores in California particularly have reported people buying guns only to be dismayed at the gun control measures they admit they voted for. As such, there’s reason to believe a fair number bought guns four to six months ago as well.
If the Democratic Party starts to recognize the number of gun owners in its ranks, how will that shape their decisions on how to address guns? I doubt they’ll ever become pro-gun by any stretch, but it may soften a lot of their efforts.
Hell, it might direct them to focus on armed criminals more than law-abiding citizens for a change. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one, mind you, but still…
Then again, many in the Democratic Party don’t seem to understand that even some of their base support gun rights. I know some on the right don’t understand how someone can be a Democrat and be pro-gun, but regardless of how it happens, let’s just accept that it does and hope their numbers grow enough that it’ll force the party to tone down their hatred of the Second Amendment.
There’s no guarantee that’ll happen, but if Democrats continue pushing anti-gun measures that piss of large portions of their base, they’ll start to see results at the polls. That’s something Democrats are known to listen to, after all.
With all that said, this is the Epoch Times with their own polling. I honestly have no idea just how unbaised their polling was, so it’s possible that the questions asked were leading somehow, but I don’t really see how that would make an impact. Either you bought a gun or you didn’t, right? Still, I’m trying to be fair here.
Regardless, it’s an interesting data point and it should be interesting to see how this information changes how Democrats approach things moving forward, if at all.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--Joe Biden's Bizarre Response To Jacob Blake Shooting

Joe Biden emerged from his basement on Wednesday to actually answer some questions from the press , as his carefully managed campaign clearly has seen signs of trouble in internal polling and wants to show that old Joe is still spry enough to think on his feet and even visit places like Kenosha , Wisconsin .
The only problem with that strategy is that it involves Biden actually speaking , which isn ’ t going too well these days .
During Wednesday ’ s press availability , Biden was asked about comments made last week by Kamala Harris in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot Jacob Blake should be arrested .
Did Biden agree , and does he believe that the officers in the Breonna Taylor case should be arrested as well ?
Check out his response .
First , Biden says we should let the judicial system “ work it ’ s way , ” and then seconds later says that he does believe the officers in Kenosha and Louisville should “ at a minimum ” be charged , even though neither investigation has concluded .
Biden literally can ’ t keep his mind made up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought up the murder of Aaron Danielson in Portland , Oregon , which is odd , since Danielson wasn ’ t killed by police .
Since Biden is ham-handedly trying to portray himself as the candidate of law and order , however , Biden wanted to use Danielson ’ s death as an attack on Trump supporters , who Biden is claiming are ultimately responsible for the months of violent protests .
“ I think what happened in , uh , Portland , where one of the Trump guys riding along in vans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess , or paintballs , apparently there was someone shot by someone in a crowd .
With a bullet .
Killed .
I think that person should meet legal requirements whatever that calls for .
It should be investigated , and it should be followed through on what needs to be done .
Let the judicial system work .
Let ’ s make sure justice is done.
” Notice anything different about how Biden approached the death of Jacob Blake and the death of Aaron Danielson ?
In essence , Biden implied that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even bring himself to say that the man caught on camera shooting Danielson should be charged , though he didn ’ t have a problem with proclaiming that the officers in the deaths of Blake and Breonna Taylor should be , at a minimum , facing charges .
This is an embarrassment for the Biden campaign , but it should be even more enlightening for American voters .
Biden ’ s trying to tell voters that he ’ s the one who can restore peace to the country ’ s streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than sixty seconds he delivered a very different message to them ; not every life matters .
I ’ m sure Biden will talk tough in Kenosha on Thursday , but I ’ m equally sure that nothing he says should be taken seriously .
This is the man , after all , who repeatedly declared that he would be the president to put an end to fossil fuels , who ’ s now trying to claim that he won ’ t kill fracking jobs in Pennsylvania , where polls now show the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will say , or at least attempt to say , whatever he thinks will get him elected .
Right now , that means trying to talk semi-tough about stopping riots while also desperately trying to do or say anything that would upset his base .
That means calling for the arrest of officers in the Blake and Taylor cases , while pinning the blame for Aaron Danielson ’ s death on Danielson himself .
I ’ m honestly surprised that Biden didn ’ t add anything about the shooting in Kenosha , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll bring it up while he ’ s there .

Joe Biden emerged from his basement on Wednesday to actually answer some questions from the press, as his carefully managed campaign clearly has seen signs of trouble in internal polling and wants to show that old Joe is still spry enough to think on his feet and even visit places like Kenosha, Wisconsin. The only problem with that strategy is that it involves Biden actually speaking, which isn’t going too well these days.
During Wednesday’s press availability, Biden was asked about comments made last week by Kamala Harris in which she said the officers in Kenosha who shot Jacob Blake should be arrested. Did Biden agree, and does he believe that the officers in the Breonna Taylor case should be arrested as well? Check out his response.
Holy crap. Biden just said that Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the Trump supporter who was killed in Portland was there “inciting response” Jay was walking on the street with a friend, targeted, and executed in cold blood by Antifa. pic.twitter.com/YybuyWUNdo — Courtney Holland 🇺🇸 (@hollandcourtney) September 2, 2020
First, Biden says we should let the judicial system “work it’s way,” and then seconds later says that he does believe the officers in Kenosha and Louisville should “at a minimum” be charged, even though neither investigation has concluded. Biden literally can’t keep his mind made up from sentence to sentence.
Then Biden brought up the murder of Aaron Danielson in Portland, Oregon, which is odd, since Danielson wasn’t killed by police. Since Biden is ham-handedly trying to portray himself as the candidate of law and order, however, Biden wanted to use Danielson’s death as an attack on Trump supporters, who Biden is claiming are ultimately responsible for the months of violent protests.
“I think what happened in, uh, Portland, where one of the Trump guys riding along in vans inciting responses, shooting rubber bullets I guess, or paintballs, apparently there was someone shot by someone in a crowd. With a bullet. Killed. I think that person should meet legal requirements whatever that calls for. It should be investigated, and it should be followed through on what needs to be done. Let the judicial system work. Let’s make sure justice is done.”
Notice anything different about how Biden approached the death of Jacob Blake and the death of Aaron Danielson? In essence, Biden implied that Danielson had it coming. He couldn’t even bring himself to say that the man caught on camera shooting Danielson should be charged, though he didn’t have a problem with proclaiming that the officers in the deaths of Blake and Breonna Taylor should be, at a minimum, facing charges.
This is an embarrassment for the Biden campaign, but it should be even more enlightening for American voters. Biden’s trying to tell voters that he’s the one who can restore peace to the country’s streets, but in the span of less than sixty seconds he delivered a very different message to them; not every life matters.
I’m sure Biden will talk tough in Kenosha on Thursday, but I’m equally sure that nothing he says should be taken seriously. This is the man, after all, who repeatedly declared that he would be the president to put an end to fossil fuels, who’s now trying to claim that he won’t kill fracking jobs in Pennsylvania, where polls now show the race within the margin of error. Biden will say, or at least attempt to say, whatever he thinks will get him elected. Right now, that means trying to talk semi-tough about stopping riots while also desperately trying to do or say anything that would upset his base. That means calling for the arrest of officers in the Blake and Taylor cases, while pinning the blame for Aaron Danielson’s death on Danielson himself. I’m honestly surprised that Biden didn’t add anything about the shooting in Kenosha, though I’m sure he’ll bring it up while he’s there.


bearingarms--2020-09-03--Do Gun Control Groups Know Their Issue Is A Loser In 2020?

One criticism some have leveled against the NRA in the past is that they were too focused on just gun politics and , as a result , gave good grades to liberals who simply didn ’ t vote for gun control .
Now , the criticism is all about how they ’ re focused on all these other issues besides guns .
In fairness , it ’ s different people leveling the two criticism , but the current outrage is more interesting right now .
You see , it ’ s interesting because it seems many of those who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , it seems the groups they support are backing a lot of things that have nothing to do with gun control .
A leading gun-control group is spending millions to boost swing state Democrats , but its latest ads highlight non-gun issues , potentially signaling the limited appeal of gun restrictions in many key Senate races .
Everytown for Gun Safety ’ s super PAC , backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg , is running ads in Iowa and North Carolina that go beyond the group ’ s core mission of gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ernst ( R. , Iowa ) and Senator Thom Tillis ( R. , N.C. ) on health care and energy in addition to mentioning gun issues .
“ Ernst has taken thousands and thousands from big oil , the insurance industry , and the gun lobby , ” narration in the group ’ s Iowa ad said .
“ Voting for them , against us .
That ’ s Joni Ernst.
” In North Carolina , the group first criticized Tillis ’ s vote to repeal Obamacare and contributions from the health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on universal background checks and contributions from gun-rights groups .
The ad then claims Tillis ’ s door is “ always open ” for “ lobbyists with cash.
” Miles Coleman , associate editor of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia ’ s Center for Politics , said Everytown ’ s attempt to appeal to issues beyond the Second Amendment could indicate that the group is not confident in gun control ’ s appeal in swing states .
That looks like a solid take on what they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off , Democrats were convinced that gun control was going to be a winning issue for them .
At the time , they may have been right .
Guns were still being blamed for mass shootings and the pendulum never really swung all the way back from Parkland .
Americans were living pretty well and content which meant they felt safe except for a few black swan events like mass shootings , so they were open to supposed solutions to those .
At that point , people started buying guns .
Some were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others were worried about the economy and the potential for crime to accompany it .
Then we get the riots and even more people are going out to buy guns .
As a result , we have more than 5 million new gun owners in this country and that number is increasing at a prodigious rate .
You ’ re damn right the anti-gun groups know they can ’ t win solely on guns , so they ’ re backing liberal policies as well with only the vaguest hint of gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m curious how many of these groups still consider themselves non-partisan .
Self-delusion can be pretty powerful .

One criticism some have leveled against the NRA in the past is that they were too focused on just gun politics and, as a result, gave good grades to liberals who simply didn’t vote for gun control. Now, the criticism is all about how they’re focused on all these other issues besides guns. In fairness, it’s different people leveling the two criticism, but the current outrage is more interesting right now.
You see, it’s interesting because it seems many of those who are leveling that charge are massive hypocrites.
After all, it seems the groups they support are backing a lot of things that have nothing to do with gun control.
A leading gun-control group is spending millions to boost swing state Democrats, but its latest ads highlight non-gun issues, potentially signaling the limited appeal of gun restrictions in many key Senate races. Everytown for Gun Safety’s super PAC, backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, is running ads in Iowa and North Carolina that go beyond the group’s core mission of gun control. The ads attack Senator Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) and Senator Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) on health care and energy in addition to mentioning gun issues. “Ernst has taken thousands and thousands from big oil, the insurance industry, and the gun lobby,” narration in the group’s Iowa ad said. “Voting for them, against us. That’s Joni Ernst.” In North Carolina, the group first criticized Tillis’s vote to repeal Obamacare and contributions from the health insurance lobby before taking aim at his vote on universal background checks and contributions from gun-rights groups. The ad then claims Tillis’s door is “always open” for “lobbyists with cash.” Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said Everytown’s attempt to appeal to issues beyond the Second Amendment could indicate that the group is not confident in gun control’s appeal in swing states.
That looks like a solid take on what they’re doing.
When the campaigns first kicked off, Democrats were convinced that gun control was going to be a winning issue for them. At the time, they may have been right. Guns were still being blamed for mass shootings and the pendulum never really swung all the way back from Parkland. Americans were living pretty well and content which meant they felt safe except for a few black swan events like mass shootings, so they were open to supposed solutions to those.
Then COVID-19 hit.
At that point, people started buying guns. Some were worried about being blamed for the virus. Others were worried about the economy and the potential for crime to accompany it.
Then we get the riots and even more people are going out to buy guns.
As a result, we have more than 5 million new gun owners in this country and that number is increasing at a prodigious rate. You’re damn right the anti-gun groups know they can’t win solely on guns, so they’re backing liberal policies as well with only the vaguest hint of gun control being an issue as well.
I’m curious how many of these groups still consider themselves non-partisan. Self-delusion can be pretty powerful.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Portland Shooting Suspect Killed By Federal Authorities

Michael Forest Reinoehl , the Portland protester under investigation in the fatal shooting of Aaron Danielson last weekend , was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Lacey , Washington late Thursday evening , hours after an exclusive interview with the suspect aired on Vice News in which he claimed that he acted in self-defense .
According to press accounts , a warrant for Reinoehl ’ s arrested was issued Thursday , but when a task force comprised of FBI agents and U.S .
Marshals along with the Lakewood Police Department , the Pierce County Sheriff ’ s Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on the suspect , Reinoehl allegedly pulled a gun .
Minutes after the Times report about Reinoehl ’ s death was first published , President Donald Trump tweeted at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation , calling for a quick arrest of the man who killed Danielson .
“ Why aren ’ t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “ Jay ” Danielson .
Do your job , and do it fast .
Everybody knows who this thug is .
No wonder Portland is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times spoke to witnesses to the attempted arrest , with at least one witnessing Reinoehl carrying what looked like a firearm .
Just a few hours before authorities closed in on Reinoehl , Vice aired an interview with the 48-year old Antifa supporter , where he told a freelance journalist that he believed he and a friend were about to be stabbed , which is why he pulled his gun and fired .
That doesn ’ t jibe with the video evidence of Danielson ’ s death , which the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days ago .
Here ’ s how they describe the moments leading up to the shooting .
The man in white and another man dressed in black can be seen crossing the street , apparently to confront Mr. Danielson and Mr. Pappas .
There is shouting that is hard to hear on Mr. Dunlap ’ s livestream , but in a second video filmed by Nathan Millsap , a Portland videographer , the audio is clearer .
A man , who Mr. Pappas later contends is the gunman , shouts : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We got a couple right here.
” Another man says , “ He ’ s macing you , he ’ s pulling it out.
” The sound of spraying is audible , followed immediately by two gunshots .
Mr. Dunlap captures the shooting on his livestream .
Mr. Danielson can be seen raising his arm and beginning to spray a pepper spray-like substance , followed almost immediately by the gunshots .
The man in white backs away with his arm raised and then runs , along with the man dressed in black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and both videos show that the shots were fired after Danielson used what appears to be pepper spray or mace on the two men who ’ d approached him .
Reinoehl , was previously arrested on charges of possessing a loaded gun in a public place , resisting arrest and interfering with police back on July 5th , but the charges were later dropped days before Multnomah County D.A .
Mike Schmidt , who ’ s said his office won ’ t prosecute most people arrested during the ongoing protests , took office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested on several charges after racing his 17-year old son down an interstate in rural Oregon .
Reinoehl is also wanted on a failure to appear warrant in a June 8 speed racing case in Baker County in eastern Oregon .
He and his 17-year-old son were racing in two different cars at speeds of up to 111 mph heading east on Interstate 84 after midnight near North Powder , according to state police .
Michael Reinoehl faces allegations including driving under the influence of a controlled substance , recklessly endangering another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while suspended and uninsured .
He was stopped driving a 2005 Cadillac STS with his 11-year-old daughter as a passenger , police said .
Inside the car , police said they found marijuana , “ unidentified prescription pills ” and a loaded Glock pistol for which Reinoehl didn ’ t have a concealed handgun license .
I have a feeling that Antifa is going to try to turn Reinoehl into a martyr for the cause .
As word of his death spread among the activists and agitators in Portland Thursday evening , several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ station “ chanting racial justice slogans , ” according to the Times .
As the news sinks in , I suspect that some on the Left are going to want to do more than chant .
If I were Oregon Governor Kate Brown , I ’ d be calling out the National Guard now to get ahead of what could be a very violent Friday night in Portland .

Michael Forest Reinoehl, the Portland protester under investigation in the fatal shooting of Aaron Danielson last weekend, was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Lacey, Washington late Thursday evening, hours after an exclusive interview with the suspect aired on Vice News in which he claimed that he acted in self-defense.
According to press accounts, a warrant for Reinoehl’s arrested was issued Thursday, but when a task force comprised of FBI agents and U.S. Marshals along with the Lakewood Police Department, the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department and the Washington State Department of Corrections.closed in on the suspect, Reinoehl allegedly pulled a gun.
Minutes after the Times report about Reinoehl’s death was first published, President Donald Trump tweeted at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, calling for a quick arrest of the man who killed Danielson. “Why aren’t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “Jay” Danielson. Do your job, and do it fast. Everybody knows who this thug is. No wonder Portland is going to hell!” Trump tweeted.
The New York Times spoke to witnesses to the attempted arrest, with at least one witnessing Reinoehl carrying what looked like a firearm.
Chad Smith, 29, who lives next door to the apartment where the shooting occurred, said he was standing outside at about 6:45 p.m. when he saw two S.U.V.s race toward the complex. He heard about a minute and a half of gunshots, he said, then saw a man walking backward next to a white pickup truck, holding what appeared to be a gun, and officers firing in his direction. Trevor Brown, 24, who lives in a townhouse nearby, said he heard several shots fired and saw as many as four police officers in the road, who fired three or four times. He said he then saw Mr. Reinoehl lying on the ground.
Just a few hours before authorities closed in on Reinoehl, Vice aired an interview with the 48-year old Antifa supporter, where he told a freelance journalist that he believed he and a friend were about to be stabbed, which is why he pulled his gun and fired. That doesn’t jibe with the video evidence of Danielson’s death, which the New York Times laid out just a couple of days ago. Here’s how they describe the moments leading up to the shooting.
The man in white and another man dressed in black can be seen crossing the street, apparently to confront Mr. Danielson and Mr. Pappas. There is shouting that is hard to hear on Mr. Dunlap’s livestream, but in a second video filmed by Nathan Millsap, a Portland videographer, the audio is clearer. A man, who Mr. Pappas later contends is the gunman, shouts: “Hey, we got some right here. We got a couple right here.” Another man says, “He’s macing you, he’s pulling it out.” The sound of spraying is audible, followed immediately by two gunshots. Mr. Dunlap captures the shooting on his livestream. Mr. Danielson can be seen raising his arm and beginning to spray a pepper spray-like substance, followed almost immediately by the gunshots. The man in white backs away with his arm raised and then runs, along with the man dressed in black.
No mention of any knife, and both videos show that the shots were fired after Danielson used what appears to be pepper spray or mace on the two men who’d approached him.
Reinoehl, was previously arrested on charges of possessing a loaded gun in a public place, resisting arrest and interfering with police back on July 5th, but the charges were later dropped days before Multnomah County D.A. Mike Schmidt, who’s said his office won’t prosecute most people arrested during the ongoing protests, took office. The previous month, Reinoehl was arrested on several charges after racing his 17-year old son down an interstate in rural Oregon.
Reinoehl is also wanted on a failure to appear warrant in a June 8 speed racing case in Baker County in eastern Oregon. He and his 17-year-old son were racing in two different cars at speeds of up to 111 mph heading east on Interstate 84 after midnight near North Powder, according to state police. Michael Reinoehl faces allegations including driving under the influence of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another, unlawful possession of a gun and driving while suspended and uninsured. He was stopped driving a 2005 Cadillac STS with his 11-year-old daughter as a passenger, police said. Inside the car, police said they found marijuana, “unidentified prescription pills” and a loaded Glock pistol for which Reinoehl didn’t have a concealed handgun license.
I have a feeling that Antifa is going to try to turn Reinoehl into a martyr for the cause. As word of his death spread among the activists and agitators in Portland Thursday evening, several hundred crowded in front of a police station “chanting racial justice slogans,” according to the Times. As the news sinks in, I suspect that some on the Left are going to want to do more than chant. If I were Oregon Governor Kate Brown, I’d be calling out the National Guard now to get ahead of what could be a very violent Friday night in Portland.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Michael Reinoehl Is Not A Martyr

Michael Reinoehl Is Not A Martyr

I ’ ve been filling in on WMAL in Washington , D.C. during morning drive alongside Vince Coglianese , so my alarm ’ s been going off a few hours earlier than usual .
It was about 3:30 this morning when I read the news that authorities had shot and killed Michael Reinoehl last night outside of Lacey , Washington .
A multi-agency fugitive task force went to serve a murder warrant on Reinoehl , but according to Attorney General Bill Barr , when he pulled a gun , officers opened fire , killing him .
Barr went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undoubtably perceive Barr ’ s statement as a provocation , and as I said in my first post on Reinoehl ’ s death , Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown should call up the National Guard as a proactive measure , because I ’ ve got a bad feeling about this weekend .
As I show on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , some voices on the Left are already trying to turn Michael Reinoehl into some John Brown-type figure ; a martyr for the cause of… something .
Racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
All of the above ?
Actually , Michael Reinoehl was also allowed to drive across a state line after allegedly murdering people , and could have been peacefully apprehended by law enforcement had he not drawn a gun .
And just as Reinoehl said before his death that he acted in self-defense , Kyle Rittenhouse says the same thing .
Frankly , I think Rittenhouse has the stronger self-defense claim based on the videos that I ’ ve seen , but I ’ m willing to keep an open mind .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea that Reinoehl ’ s shooting of Aaron Danielson was a righteous killing , and they ’ re elevating him to sainthood in their secular religion .
Those who actually knew Reinoehl best , however , seem to have a different opinion .
Reinoehl ’ s sister also said in an interview that “ He ’ s the kind of person who should have stayed as far away from the protests as possible , because he ’ s not the kind of person who could rationally work through that intense environment.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of his family had cut him out of their lives three years ago , after they caught him stealing prescription pills from his mother .
She also described him as “ having a temper , ” and was “ easily provoked.
” Reinoehl ’ s fellow revolutionaries are saying nice things about him , but they ’ re about the only ones .
Reinoehl seems to have lied about much of his life .
He said he was a professional snowboarder affiliated with a Portland company called Deviation .
They say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said he was in the army , but hated it .
The Army says it can ’ t find any record of his service .
Then there ’ s the fact that Reinoehl got his kids involved in his activities .
Back in July , when he gave an interview at a protest , his 11-year old daughter was by his side .
“ The fact is that she is going to be contributing to running this new country that we ’ re fighting for , ” he declared “ And she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street , not by what people have said.
” I have no issue with taking kids to peaceful protests , but the demonstrations in Portland were anything but peaceful , and Reinoehl knew that .
In fact , during that very same interview Reinoehl showed the reporter his bloody arm and claimed that he had just been shot .
Still , Reinoehl viewed what he was doing as a revolutionary act , and even described the violence between the Left and the Right on the streets of Portland as “ warfare.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praising a 17-year old going to Kenosha , Wisconsin with a rifle to guard a business that wasn ’ t his , but they ’ re ready to canonize a 48-year old man who brought his 11-year old daughter along while he tried to kickstart a revolution .
Michael Reinoehl is neither a martyr nor a saint .
His cause was not just , his heart had far too much room for hate , and his death will not spark a revolution , though it may lead to a more broken windows and @ @ @ @ @

I’ve been filling in on WMAL in Washington, D.C. during morning drive alongside Vince Coglianese, so my alarm’s been going off a few hours earlier than usual. It was about 3:30 this morning when I read the news that authorities had shot and killed Michael Reinoehl last night outside of Lacey, Washington. A multi-agency fugitive task force went to serve a murder warrant on Reinoehl, but according to Attorney General Bill Barr, when he pulled a gun, officers opened fire, killing him.
Barr went on to say:
“The tracking down of Reinoehl — a dangerous fugitive, admitted Antifa member, and suspected murderer — is a significant accomplishment in the ongoing effort to restore law and order to Portland and other cities. I applaud the outstanding cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement, particularly the fugitive task force team that located Reinoehl and prevented him from escaping justice. The streets of our cities are safer with this violent agitator removed, and the actions that led to his location are an unmistakable demonstration that the United States will be governed by law, not violent mobs.”
Reinoehl’s comrades-in-arms will undoubtably perceive Barr’s statement as a provocation, and as I said in my first post on Reinoehl’s death, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown should call up the National Guard as a proactive measure, because I’ve got a bad feeling about this weekend.
As I show on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, some voices on the Left are already trying to turn Michael Reinoehl into some John Brown-type figure; a martyr for the cause of… something. Racial equality? Social justice? Violent revolution? All of the above?
Kyle Rittenhouse walked right by police, was allowed to drive across a state line after murdering two people, then was peacefully apprehended by law enforcement. Michael Reinoehl acted in self-defense against a fascist and was killed by law enforcement. See what’s wrong here? — Petty Is Praxis (@rtyson82) September 4, 2020
Actually, Michael Reinoehl was also allowed to drive across a state line after allegedly murdering people, and could have been peacefully apprehended by law enforcement had he not drawn a gun. And just as Reinoehl said before his death that he acted in self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse says the same thing. Frankly, I think Rittenhouse has the stronger self-defense claim based on the videos that I’ve seen, but I’m willing to keep an open mind. The Left, however, has already embraced the idea that Reinoehl’s shooting of Aaron Danielson was a righteous killing, and they’re elevating him to sainthood in their secular religion.
Those who actually knew Reinoehl best, however, seem to have a different opinion.
Sister of Portland Antifa gunman Michael Reinoehl reacts to his death: "I wouldn't say at this point that this counts as bad news." – DAILY MAIL — Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) September 4, 2020
Reinoehl’s sister also said in an interview that “He’s the kind of person who should have stayed as far away from the protests as possible, because he’s not the kind of person who could rationally work through that intense environment.”
According to Reinoehl’s sister, most of his family had cut him out of their lives three years ago, after they caught him stealing prescription pills from his mother. She also described him as “having a temper,” and was “easily provoked.” Reinoehl’s fellow revolutionaries are saying nice things about him, but they’re about the only ones.
Reinoehl seems to have lied about much of his life. He said he was a professional snowboarder affiliated with a Portland company called Deviation. They say they’ve never heard of him. He said he was in the army, but hated it. The Army says it can’t find any record of his service.
Then there’s the fact that Reinoehl got his kids involved in his activities. Back in July, when he gave an interview at a protest, his 11-year old daughter was by his side. “The fact is that she is going to be contributing to running this new country that we’re fighting for,” he declared “And she’s going to learn everything on the street, not by what people have said.”
I have no issue with taking kids to peaceful protests, but the demonstrations in Portland were anything but peaceful, and Reinoehl knew that. In fact, during that very same interview Reinoehl showed the reporter his bloody arm and claimed that he had just been shot. Still, Reinoehl viewed what he was doing as a revolutionary act, and even described the violence between the Left and the Right on the streets of Portland as “warfare.” The Left has excoriated the Right for praising a 17-year old going to Kenosha, Wisconsin with a rifle to guard a business that wasn’t his, but they’re ready to canonize a 48-year old man who brought his 11-year old daughter along while he tried to kickstart a revolution.
Michael Reinoehl is neither a martyr nor a saint. His cause was not just, his heart had far too much room for hate, and his death will not spark a revolution, though it may lead to a more broken windows and perhaps even lost lives.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Biden's Latest Lip Service To The 2A Ignores Its Core Purpose

On Friday , the Biden/Harris campaign announced the creation of Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden , which is kind of a mouthful , but a perfect illustration of the contempt the Democratic presidential candidate regularly displays towards the right to keep and bear arms .
The new group isn ’ t exactly a Who ’ s Who of the Second Amendment world , but more like “ Who ?
Who ?
” gaggle of Democratic officials and party stalwarts .
Of course , it ’ s nearly impossible to get any actual Second Amendment supporters to publicly back Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new group laughably claims that : Sounds like Joe Biden ’ s “ protection ” of the Second Amendment would strip it of its core purpose , according to the U.S. Supreme Court ; the right of self-defense .
It also ignores the words of James Madison , who wrote in Federalist 46 about the necessity of an armed populace to prevent and check federal tyranny .
Let a regular army , fully equal to the resources of the country , be formed ; and let it be entirely at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would not be going too far to say , that the State governments , with the people on their side , would be able to repel the danger .
The highest number to which , according to the best computation , a standing army can be carried in any country , does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls ; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms .
This proportion would not yield , in the United States , an army of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands , officered by men chosen from among themselves , fighting for their common liberties , and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence .
This new front group for the Biden/Harris campaign is just another piece of astroturf in his Potemkin village ; a way to claim that Biden supports the Second Amendment .
Why , look at all these gun owners who support him !
The mainstream media will unquestionably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a single adversarial question about what Biden ’ s supposed support for the Second Amendment really means .
To paraphrase Biden ’ s thoughts on black voters , if you ’ re voting for Biden , you ain ’ t a Second Amendment supporter .
Not only would his campaign agenda turn your rights into privileges , but his likely appointments to the Supreme Court would lead to decisions that would undo much of Heller and McDonald , which anti-gun activists view on par with judicial abominations like the Dred Scott decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second Amendment , unless you think the right of the people to keep and bear arms only exists when you ’ re in the field or at the sporting clays course .

On Friday, the Biden/Harris campaign announced the creation of Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden, which is kind of a mouthful, but a perfect illustration of the contempt the Democratic presidential candidate regularly displays towards the right to keep and bear arms. The new group isn’t exactly a Who’s Who of the Second Amendment world, but more like “Who? Who?” gaggle of Democratic officials and party stalwarts. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to get any actual Second Amendment supporters to publicly back Biden, given his anti-gun and anti-gun owner agenda.
The new group laughably claims that:
Joe Biden has committed to key principles that will ensure a strong future for hunting and fishing in America: Protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase and responsibly use firearms for hunting and sporting.
Conserve America’s natural resources, including its public lands.
Increase opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation.
Sounds like Joe Biden’s “protection” of the Second Amendment would strip it of its core purpose, according to the U.S. Supreme Court; the right of self-defense. It also ignores the words of James Madison, who wrote in Federalist 46 about the necessity of an armed populace to prevent and check federal tyranny.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
This new front group for the Biden/Harris campaign is just another piece of astroturf in his Potemkin village; a way to claim that Biden supports the Second Amendment. Why, look at all these gun owners who support him! The mainstream media will unquestionably repeat and amplify the campaign messaging, without a single adversarial question about what Biden’s supposed support for the Second Amendment really means.
To paraphrase Biden’s thoughts on black voters, if you’re voting for Biden, you ain’t a Second Amendment supporter. Not only would his campaign agenda turn your rights into privileges, but his likely appointments to the Supreme Court would lead to decisions that would undo much of Heller and McDonald, which anti-gun activists view on par with judicial abominations like the Dred Scott decision. Biden’s no friend to the Second Amendment, unless you think the right of the people to keep and bear arms only exists when you’re in the field or at the sporting clays course.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Study: Active Shooter Drills Increase Anxiety, Depression

School systems all over the country , when they have butts in physical seats again , will likely start looking at just how to prepare for active shooters .
They ’ ve been doing it for a while , of course , but it ’ ll just start again .
After all , ever since Columbine , it ’ s every school official ’ s worst nightmare .
I get that .
Honestly , who wouldn ’ t ?
Schools have treated active shooter events like other rare but deadly situations such as fires or natural disasters .
As such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exact same way , namely by having drills .
Now , it seems there is a problem with those drills .
In particular , the impact they have on students .
School active shooter drills increase anxiety and depression in those forced to participate in them , according to a study released Thursday by the pro-gun control group Everytown For Gun Safety .
The study , based on analysis of nearly 28 million social media posts , found active shooter drills were associated with a 42 percent increase in anxiety and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , teachers and parents .
Researchers analyzed changes to social media posts in the 90 days preceding and following a drill .
The study flagged increased use of words like “ afraid , ” “ struggling , ” “ nervous , ” “ therapy ” and “ suicidal.
” “ It wasn ’ t just a short duration that everybody shakes off — it ’ s having a lasting impression , ” Sarah Burd-Sharps , Everytown ’ s research director , told NBC News .
Now , this is an Everytown study so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the start .
However , I ’ m not going to do that .
Part of it , of course , is that the findings just kind of make sense .
Mass shootings are rare , all things considered .
If you look at all the potential places such a shooting could take place that you find yourself in every single day , the odds of being caught in such a thing is astronomical .
School shootings are even rarer than mass shootings .
The odds of a student being involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like they have to do something because if they don ’ t and there is such a shooting , the media will eviscerate them .
The problem is , while schools should be proactive about these shootings , drills don ’ t really help .
If anything , they tell a potential active shooter how to plan .
However , that said , there are some questionable aspects of this study , namely the methodology .
While I don ’ t disagree with the findings , the fact that they used social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen far too many people talk about anxiety and depression when it turns out they ’ re just uncomfortable or they didn ’ t enjoy a situation .
Those are very different things than an actual medical diagnosis for anxiety or depressive disorders .
As such , the results may well be off .
Not only could they be high due to the nature of the study , they could turn out to be wrong the other direction as well .
What if more students are experiencing these things and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get me wrong , I ’ m not saying both conditions exist at once .
I ’ m simply saying that the methodology could lead to errors in either direction .
It should be noted , though , that if teachers were allowed to carry firearms in every school in this country , there would be at least some who wouldn ’ t feel nearly as much anxiety about school shootings .

School systems all over the country, when they have butts in physical seats again, will likely start looking at just how to prepare for active shooters. They’ve been doing it for a while, of course, but it’ll just start again. After all, ever since Columbine, it’s every school official’s worst nightmare. I get that. Honestly, who wouldn’t?
Schools have treated active shooter events like other rare but deadly situations such as fires or natural disasters. As such, they’ve prepared for them the exact same way, namely by having drills.
Now, it seems there is a problem with those drills. In particular, the impact they have on students.
School active shooter drills increase anxiety and depression in those forced to participate in them, according to a study released Thursday by the pro-gun control group Everytown For Gun Safety. The study, based on analysis of nearly 28 million social media posts, found active shooter drills were associated with a 42 percent increase in anxiety and a 39 percent increase in depression among students, teachers and parents. Researchers analyzed changes to social media posts in the 90 days preceding and following a drill. The study flagged increased use of words like “afraid,” “struggling,” “nervous,” “therapy” and “suicidal.” “It wasn’t just a short duration that everybody shakes off — it’s having a lasting impression,” Sarah Burd-Sharps, Everytown’s research director, told NBC News.
Now, this is an Everytown study so I’m inclined to dismiss it from the start. However, I’m not going to do that. Part of it, of course, is that the findings just kind of make sense.
Mass shootings are rare, all things considered. If you look at all the potential places such a shooting could take place that you find yourself in every single day, the odds of being caught in such a thing is astronomical. School shootings are even rarer than mass shootings. The odds of a student being involved in one is miniscule.
Yet schools feel like they have to do something because if they don’t and there is such a shooting, the media will eviscerate them.
The problem is, while schools should be proactive about these shootings, drills don’t really help. If anything, they tell a potential active shooter how to plan.
Not good.
However, that said, there are some questionable aspects of this study, namely the methodology. While I don’t disagree with the findings, the fact that they used social media posts is problematic for me. I’ve seen far too many people talk about anxiety and depression when it turns out they’re just uncomfortable or they didn’t enjoy a situation. Those are very different things than an actual medical diagnosis for anxiety or depressive disorders.
As such, the results may well be off. Not only could they be high due to the nature of the study, they could turn out to be wrong the other direction as well. What if more students are experiencing these things and not posting them on social media?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying both conditions exist at once. I’m simply saying that the methodology could lead to errors in either direction.
It should be noted, though, that if teachers were allowed to carry firearms in every school in this country, there would be at least some who wouldn’t feel nearly as much anxiety about school shootings.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Feds Arrest Missouri Men With Guns Near Kenosha

Two Missouri men are in custody and facing federal charges after traveling from their home state to the Kenosha , Wisconsin area with firearms , ammunition , and body armor .
40-year old Michael Karmo and his roommate , 33-year old Cody Smith , told FBI agents that they were heading to Kenosha to “ see for themselves ” what was happening in the Wisconsin city that ’ s been beset by riots and unrest since the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police more than a week ago .
At the moment , the pair are facing federal charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibited person .
Both men are prohibited by law from possessing firearms ; Karmo because of his prior felony convictions , and Smith because of a previous misdemeanor domestic violence conviction .
A federal complaint says the men are roommates in Hartville .
It says a person who had been in contact with the men told law enforcement officers the men said they were going to Kenosha to loot and possibly “ pick people off.
” The complaint says Smith told federal gents the men attended a rally for President Trump in Kenosha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see proof of the rioting .
And the document says Karmo told investigators the men were part of the 417 Second Amendment Militia , and decided to drive to Kenosha to “ see for themselves ” what was going on .
It says Karmo stopped in Iowa to visit someone he knew , and he was offended that person commented that Karmo and Smith looked like they were going to Kenosha to shoot people .
ABC News has more information about the pair , including some apparent ( and rather unexpected ) support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Karmo and the tipster allegedly included a photograph of Karmo holding a rifle with a drum-style magazine in it along with the message , “ This is the game changer , ” the complaint said .
After receiving the tip , law enforcement looked at a Facebook page with the username “ Michael Karmo ” and found photos of someone who appeared to be Karmo posing with firearms , including assault-style rifles , according to the complaint .
The complaint also included photos from Karmo ’ s alleged account , including one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun in front of a Blue Lives Matter flag .
2020 is weird enough that the idea of two prohibited persons backing the blue isn ’ t the craziest thing I ’ ve heard , but it ’ s still a pretty bizarre twist to this story .
The pair also allegedly told police that they ’ re members of a group called the 417 Second Amendment Militia , which describes itself on Facebook as “ a firearms and adventure group , which practices the safe bearing of arms through legal carry and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tactics .
Using adventure , camping , shooting , survival & preparedness skills in a civil community minded way.
” The group has about 550 followers on Facebook , but doesn ’ t appear to be active , with the last post from the organization coming in June of 2019 .
I have no idea what the pair ’ s intentions were , but I do know it was a mistake of epic proportions for Karmo and Smith to take their road trip to Wisconsin while illegally possessing both guns and ammunition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a first-hand look at the damage in Kenosha , but now they ’ re likely to get a much longer look at the inside of a federal prison cell .
Both men could be facing ten year sentences for the firearms and ammo found in their possession , and if convicted would have to serve 85 % of their sentence before they ’ re eligible for release .

Two Missouri men are in custody and facing federal charges after traveling from their home state to the Kenosha, Wisconsin area with firearms, ammunition, and body armor. 40-year old Michael Karmo and his roommate, 33-year old Cody Smith, told FBI agents that they were heading to Kenosha to “see for themselves” what was happening in the Wisconsin city that’s been beset by riots and unrest since the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police more than a week ago.
At the moment, the pair are facing federal charges of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Both men are prohibited by law from possessing firearms; Karmo because of his prior felony convictions, and Smith because of a previous misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
A federal complaint says the men are roommates in Hartville. It says a person who had been in contact with the men told law enforcement officers the men said they were going to Kenosha to loot and possibly “pick people off.” The complaint says Smith told federal gents the men attended a rally for President Trump in Kenosha on September 1, and wanted to see proof of the rioting. And the document says Karmo told investigators the men were part of the 417 Second Amendment Militia, and decided to drive to Kenosha to “see for themselves” what was going on. It says Karmo stopped in Iowa to visit someone he knew, and he was offended that person commented that Karmo and Smith looked like they were going to Kenosha to shoot people.
ABC News has more information about the pair, including some apparent (and rather unexpected) support for law enforcement.
Text messages between Karmo and the tipster allegedly included a photograph of Karmo holding a rifle with a drum-style magazine in it along with the message, “This is the game changer,” the complaint said. After receiving the tip, law enforcement looked at a Facebook page with the username “Michael Karmo” and found photos of someone who appeared to be Karmo posing with firearms, including assault-style rifles, according to the complaint. The complaint also included photos from Karmo’s alleged account, including one that appears to be Karmo posing with a gun in front of a Blue Lives Matter flag.
2020 is weird enough that the idea of two prohibited persons backing the blue isn’t the craziest thing I’ve heard, but it’s still a pretty bizarre twist to this story.
The pair also allegedly told police that they’re members of a group called the 417 Second Amendment Militia, which describes itself on Facebook as “a firearms and adventure group, which practices the safe bearing of arms through legal carry and ownership, and the fun practice of tactics. Using adventure, camping, shooting, survival & preparedness skills in a civil community minded way.” The group has about 550 followers on Facebook, but doesn’t appear to be active, with the last post from the organization coming in June of 2019.
I have no idea what the pair’s intentions were, but I do know it was a mistake of epic proportions for Karmo and Smith to take their road trip to Wisconsin while illegally possessing both guns and ammunition. They may have only intended to get a first-hand look at the damage in Kenosha, but now they’re likely to get a much longer look at the inside of a federal prison cell. Both men could be facing ten year sentences for the firearms and ammo found in their possession, and if convicted would have to serve 85% of their sentence before they’re eligible for release.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Editorial Says Leave Guns At Home, But Should You?

When people try to claim there ’ s no liberal bias in the media , I can ’ t help but laugh .
Sure , I once believed there wasn ’ t such a bias , but the truth of the matter is that after having been part of the media to some degree for a while now , I ’ ve come to realize that yeah , there is .
I see proof all the time .
One bit of evidence are newspaper editorials .
Different from op-eds , editorials are from the newspapers themselves .
The editorial board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members and essentially takes on the role as the voice of the newspaper .
I read a bunch of them , particularly on the topic of firearms , and it ’ s odd how so few ever take a pro-gun position .
Oh , a few do , but almost all of them take an anti-gun position , especially now with the issue of riots .
Except , guns and protests aren ’ t the problem .
While Aaron “ Jay ” Danielson was shot and killed during a protest , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The two killed in Kenosha were shot while taking part in a riot .
The same is true of James Scurlock who had his knee on his eventual shooter ’ s neck–the same kind of chokehold that was blamed for taking George Floyd ’ s life .
See , for me the problem is calling these last three “ protestors.
” They weren ’ t .
They were rioters , violent thugs and vandals who were looting and burning their way through towns .
Now , I happen to believe that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a town with the intention of trying to protect property that wasn ’ t your own .
That said , I ’ m not going to judge those who disagree .
Especially in light of the facts on the ground .
Most of these people weren ’ t killed during peaceful protests .
The one individual who was–Danielson–was killed by the same kind of people who were shot in these other incidents .
Frankly , I can ’ t say that I blame anyone for taking a gun to protect themselves anymore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kyle Rittenhouse would have been a victim as well , as would the gentleman who shot Scurlock .
Frankly , though , if I had to go near a protest , I ’ d damn sure not go unarmed , regardless of what some newspaper editorial said .

When people try to claim there’s no liberal bias in the media, I can’t help but laugh. Sure, I once believed there wasn’t such a bias, but the truth of the matter is that after having been part of the media to some degree for a while now, I’ve come to realize that yeah, there is.
I see proof all the time. One bit of evidence are newspaper editorials. Different from op-eds, editorials are from the newspapers themselves. The editorial board tends to be made up of key members and essentially takes on the role as the voice of the newspaper. I read a bunch of them, particularly on the topic of firearms, and it’s odd how so few ever take a pro-gun position.
Oh, a few do, but almost all of them take an anti-gun position, especially now with the issue of riots.
Americans can take pride in our First Amendment freedoms. This liberty must be safeguarded, now and for future generations. But of late, gun violence has marred such protests, in a frightening series of deaths. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, authorities have charged a 17-year-old in the shooting deaths of two protesters and the wounding of a third. In Portland, Oregon, gunfire last weekend took the life of a protester. And in Omaha, James Scurlock was fatally shot in May during protests over the death of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. Yes, the Second Amendment safeguards gun rights, though with leeway for government regulation, as the Supreme Court has stated. But experience — in Kenosha, in Portland, in Omaha itself — makes clear that guns and protests make for a perilous combination.
Except, guns and protests aren’t the problem.
While Aaron “Jay” Danielson was shot and killed during a protest, it was the exception, not the rule. The two killed in Kenosha were shot while taking part in a riot. The same is true of James Scurlock who had his knee on his eventual shooter’s neck–the same kind of chokehold that was blamed for taking George Floyd’s life.
See, for me the problem is calling these last three “protestors.” They weren’t. They were rioters, violent thugs and vandals who were looting and burning their way through towns.
Now, I happen to believe that it’s not a great idea to go into a town with the intention of trying to protect property that wasn’t your own. That said, I’m not going to judge those who disagree. Especially in light of the facts on the ground.
Most of these people weren’t killed during peaceful protests. The one individual who was–Danielson–was killed by the same kind of people who were shot in these other incidents. Frankly, I can’t say that I blame anyone for taking a gun to protect themselves anymore. Had he not had a gun, Kyle Rittenhouse would have been a victim as well, as would the gentleman who shot Scurlock.
(It should be noted that Danielson’s shooter, who is now deceased, has argued he fired in self-defense as well. However, I haven’t seen any evidence that Danielson had any kind of a weapon.)
Frankly, though, if I had to go near a protest, I’d damn sure not go unarmed, regardless of what some newspaper editorial said.