bearingarms--2020-12-28--Anti-Gunners Turn To ATF To Push Gun Control

The ATF has a long and storied history of not respecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans .
Unfortunately , we ’ ve kind of been stuck with them .
After all , they ’ re the agency charged with regulating the firearm industry , and they do seem to enjoy their regulations .
For a few years , things were relatively quiet at the ATF .
They did their thing–including good work like trying to track down gun thieves–and generally left most people alone .
That went out the window , though , when the Trump administration directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , Pandora ’ s Box is open , and anti-gunners are looking to the ATF as their salvation .
Almost everyone agrees that the ATF is in trouble .
But this obscure federal agency may be President-elect Joe Biden ’ s best chance at having a real impact on gun policy—if he takes the opportunity to restore the beleaguered agency ’ s reputation and revive its mission .
In fact , experts told The New Republic that the ATF may be Biden ’ s best bet at leaving a mark on federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intransigent Congress .
All agreed that the bureau has faced significant problems over the years , but they outlined a series of proposals they said Biden could push to breathe new life into the bureau and address gun violence .
Meanwhile , representatives of the firearms industry said they worry that the incoming administration may use the ATF to punish what they say are law-abiding businesses .
The debate about gun violence has fixated on new legislation to close what advocates see as loopholes in federal law , from an assault weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own plan for tackling gun violence says “ legislation ” 19 times and “ ATF ” four .
While those plans meet the harsh reality of a broken and ineffective Congress , some experts say there is critical work that can still happen at the agency level .
In other words , they want Biden to legislate by decree .
Sure .
Times are tense , tenser than potentially at any point in the last half-century or so , but antagonizing a group of people ( gun owners ) who already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulating away their rights without any congressional actions is probably not going to settle things down by any stretch of the imagination .
In the minds of these anti-gunners , the moment the Biden administration declares something illegal , we ’ ll all just traipse to the nearest police station and hand all our stuff in .
Well , some will because they ’ re interested in remaining law-abiding citizens so much that they ’ ll take just about any infringement on their Second Amendment rights .
They ’ ll fight , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The thing is , there will be others who aren ’ t going to be interested in going that route .
For all the saber-rattling about the threat presented by militias , the anti-gunners sure do seem to enjoy the idea of antagonizing them .
After all , they ’ re pushing for Biden to do something that will take the fears and concerns of these people and turn it up to 11 .
There are things that Biden can likely get away with , but if he or his ATF take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re likely to see all kinds of bad things happen .
That ’ s a road people may think they want to go down , but they don ’ t .
Not really .

The ATF has a long and storied history of not respecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, we’ve kind of been stuck with them. After all, they’re the agency charged with regulating the firearm industry, and they do seem to enjoy their regulations.
For a few years, things were relatively quiet at the ATF. They did their thing–including good work like trying to track down gun thieves–and generally left most people alone. That went out the window, though, when the Trump administration directed the ATF to reclassify bump stocks.
Now, Pandora’s Box is open, and anti-gunners are looking to the ATF as their salvation.
Almost everyone agrees that the ATF is in trouble. But this obscure federal agency may be President-elect Joe Biden’s best chance at having a real impact on gun policy—if he takes the opportunity to restore the beleaguered agency’s reputation and revive its mission. In fact, experts told The New Republic that the ATF may be Biden’s best bet at leaving a mark on federal gun policy without having to rely on an intransigent Congress. All agreed that the bureau has faced significant problems over the years, but they outlined a series of proposals they said Biden could push to breathe new life into the bureau and address gun violence. Meanwhile, representatives of the firearms industry said they worry that the incoming administration may use the ATF to punish what they say are law-abiding businesses. The debate about gun violence has fixated on new legislation to close what advocates see as loopholes in federal law, from an assault weapons ban to universal background checks. Biden’s own plan for tackling gun violence says “legislation” 19 times and “ATF” four. While those plans meet the harsh reality of a broken and ineffective Congress, some experts say there is critical work that can still happen at the agency level.
In other words, they want Biden to legislate by decree.
Sure. Times are tense, tenser than potentially at any point in the last half-century or so, but antagonizing a group of people (gun owners) who already have concerns about federal overreach by further regulating away their rights without any congressional actions is probably not going to settle things down by any stretch of the imagination.
In the minds of these anti-gunners, the moment the Biden administration declares something illegal, we’ll all just traipse to the nearest police station and hand all our stuff in.
Well, some will because they’re interested in remaining law-abiding citizens so much that they’ll take just about any infringement on their Second Amendment rights. They’ll fight, but their battlegrounds will be courtrooms and legislatures.
The thing is, there will be others who aren’t going to be interested in going that route. For all the saber-rattling about the threat presented by militias, the anti-gunners sure do seem to enjoy the idea of antagonizing them. After all, they’re pushing for Biden to do something that will take the fears and concerns of these people and turn it up to 11.
There are things that Biden can likely get away with, but if he or his ATF take things just a bit too far, you’re likely to see all kinds of bad things happen. That’s a road people may think they want to go down, but they don’t. Not really.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Attempted Robbery Leads To New Gun Owner

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , nearly 9-million Americans became gun owners in 2020 , and Diana Hardesty is one of them .
The Illinois resident decided to embrace her right to keep and bear arms after she and a friend were held up at gunpoint in the parking lot of their local Walmart this past Sunday .
Even though she was unarmed at the time , Hardesty refused to be a victim .
“ I turned and started screaming like a crazy person—bloody murder—screaming , ‘ Help !
He ’ s got a gun !
’ Screaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Diana Hardesty .
Hardesty and Mattie Talbot were loading their car when a man jumped out of the passenger side of a dark-colored SUV , displayed a gun , and demanded a purse .
“ I wasn ’ t going to give my purse with my personal information in it , ” Hardesty said .
“ And I knew when I turned around there was going to be a good chance he was going to shoot me in the back .
But that ’ s just what he was going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t shoot Hardesty .
Instead he jammed his gun into Mattie Talbot ’ s side and demanded her purse .
After Talbot frantically explained that she didn ’ t have one on her , the frustrated suspect got back in his car and sped away empty-handed .
While Hardesty survived her encounter with an armed criminal , she ’ s not taking any chances if there ’ s a next time .
Sunday afternoon ’ s incident has also led to Diana protecting herself in a new way .
“ I got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that approaches me , I ’ m going to use him as target practice , ” she said .
“ And I ’ m going to practice until I can shoot a bullet through a keyhole.
” Good for her , though I have to say I ’ m a little curious about the ease with which Hardesty has acquired a firearm in Illinois .
This incident happened last Sunday , and Hardesty says she ’ s already got her gun .
Did she possess a Firearms Owner ID card before the attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no way that the Illinois State Police has already processed her application .
As of a couple of weeks ago the ISP had a backlog of about 140,000 FOID applications and renewals , and some applicants have been waiting for five or six months to receive their permission slip to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
The delays are almost as long for concealed carry applications , and that ’ s a huge problem for law abiding Illinois residents .
Criminals , on the other hand , are likely pleased with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of encountering an armed citizen .
Law-abiding citizens , on the other hand , are being forced to wait for months on end before receiving the FOID card required under state law to own a firearm and the carry license needed to bear arms .
I don ’ t know Diane Hardesty ’ s specific circumstances , but I do know that Illinois ’ gun control laws and the inability or unwillingness of the state police to process FOID and carry license applications in a timely manner have left tens of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their right of armed self-defense , even as criminals grow emboldened enough to try to rob a couple of women in a busy parking lot .
The Illinois State Rifle Association is seeking an injunction compelling the state police to process these applications in a timely manner , but a hearing on the issue has been pushed back until mid-January .
In the meantime , the delays are likely to grow even longer , and good folks like Diane Hardesty may find their ability to protect themselves in public and in home curtailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state police .

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, nearly 9-million Americans became gun owners in 2020, and Diana Hardesty is one of them. The Illinois resident decided to embrace her right to keep and bear arms after she and a friend were held up at gunpoint in the parking lot of their local Walmart this past Sunday. Even though she was unarmed at the time, Hardesty refused to be a victim.
“I turned and started screaming like a crazy person—bloody murder—screaming, ‘Help! He’s got a gun!’ Screaming with everything my lungs had,” said Diana Hardesty. Hardesty and Mattie Talbot were loading their car when a man jumped out of the passenger side of a dark-colored SUV, displayed a gun, and demanded a purse. “I wasn’t going to give my purse with my personal information in it,” Hardesty said. “And I knew when I turned around there was going to be a good chance he was going to shoot me in the back. But that’s just what he was going to have to do.”
The would-be robber didn’t shoot Hardesty. Instead he jammed his gun into Mattie Talbot’s side and demanded her purse. After Talbot frantically explained that she didn’t have one on her, the frustrated suspect got back in his car and sped away empty-handed.
While Hardesty survived her encounter with an armed criminal, she’s not taking any chances if there’s a next time.
Sunday afternoon’s incident has also led to Diana protecting herself in a new way. “I got me a gun and the next thug that approaches me, I’m going to use him as target practice,” she said. “And I’m going to practice until I can shoot a bullet through a keyhole.”
Good for her, though I have to say I’m a little curious about the ease with which Hardesty has acquired a firearm in Illinois. This incident happened last Sunday, and Hardesty says she’s already got her gun. Did she possess a Firearms Owner ID card before the attempted robbery, because if not there’s no way that the Illinois State Police has already processed her application. As of a couple of weeks ago the ISP had a backlog of about 140,000 FOID applications and renewals, and some applicants have been waiting for five or six months to receive their permission slip to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The delays are almost as long for concealed carry applications, and that’s a huge problem for law abiding Illinois residents. Criminals, on the other hand, are likely pleased with the delays, since that improves their odds of encountering an armed citizen.
Law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, are being forced to wait for months on end before receiving the FOID card required under state law to own a firearm and the carry license needed to bear arms. I don’t know Diane Hardesty’s specific circumstances, but I do know that Illinois’ gun control laws and the inability or unwillingness of the state police to process FOID and carry license applications in a timely manner have left tens of thousands of residents across the state unable to exercise their right of armed self-defense, even as criminals grow emboldened enough to try to rob a couple of women in a busy parking lot.
The Illinois State Rifle Association is seeking an injunction compelling the state police to process these applications in a timely manner, but a hearing on the issue has been pushed back until mid-January. In the meantime, the delays are likely to grow even longer, and good folks like Diane Hardesty may find their ability to protect themselves in public and in home curtailed thanks to the inaction and delays by the state police.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Shooter In East Chicago Homicide Claims Self-Defense

In our minds , we think it ’ ll be some kind of a clear-cut case that doesn ’ t leave any real ambiguity , but that isn ’ t how it always works out .
The real world is complicated and messy .
It ’ s so complicated and messy that sometimes , claims of self-defense are hard to discern .
Now , the problem is that it doesn ’ t appear a gun was recovered at the scene , so the claim that Reed had a gun may well be on shaky ground .
However , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stashed the firearm after Williams fled from the apartment .
What we do know is that Reed is dead and now Williams is on the hook for having killed him .
Assuming Williams is telling the truth , it ’ s still a difficult proposition here because the evidence that supports his claim appears to be tenuous .
Without Reed ’ s weapon , there ’ s little to support his claim of being threatened .
Without that , his claims of self-defense aren ’ t likely to convince a prosecutor , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be as uncommon as you might think .
This could happen to any of us .
Then , top it off with the fact that many states require you to try and escape from an attack before you use lethal force , sometimes even if that attack is within your own home , and you can begin to see the issue .
Even if you make sure you ’ re justified to use force , some prosecutor may decide to go after you because you could have skirted out the back door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you didn ’ t feel like you could do so safely .
Honestly , defending yourself is a scary enough action , but then faced with the possibility that you could still be prosecuted ?
That ’ s even more terrifying , in my book .
One moment can ruin your life , even if you did everything right .

Self-defense claims can be complicated.
In our minds, we think it’ll be some kind of a clear-cut case that doesn’t leave any real ambiguity, but that isn’t how it always works out. The real world is complicated and messy. It’s so complicated and messy that sometimes, claims of self-defense are hard to discern.
Take a recent homicide in East Chicago.
Tyree K. Williams, 22, accused Max Reed, 31, of Merrillville, of holding him and his girlfriend at gunpoint about 6:10 a.m. Dec. 15 inside an apartment in the 3600 block of Michigan Court, records show. Williams told police he shot Reed because he was scared for his life, according to court documents. Reed was shot in the head and pronounced dead at the scene. … Williams told police he fought Reed before Reed left, and that Reed had a nightstick. The nightstick was not recovered, court records state. Witnesses told police Reed left, but later returned with a gun and confronted Williams and others because he felt Williams had disrespected him, documents allege. When Reed returned, he entered an apartment occupied by Williams and others while holding his own girlfriend at gunpoint, records state. Williams claimed Reed demanded to know where a gun was located, so Williams said it was in a closet. Reed ordered his own girlfriend to search the closet, court records state. As Reed continued to hold Williams, Williams’ girlfriend and Reed’s girlfriend at gunpoint, Williams reached under a pillow for a gun and shot Reed, records state.
Now, the problem is that it doesn’t appear a gun was recovered at the scene, so the claim that Reed had a gun may well be on shaky ground. However, there was also a girlfriend present who could have stashed the firearm after Williams fled from the apartment.
What we do know is that Reed is dead and now Williams is on the hook for having killed him.
Assuming Williams is telling the truth, it’s still a difficult proposition here because the evidence that supports his claim appears to be tenuous. Without Reed’s weapon, there’s little to support his claim of being threatened. Without that, his claims of self-defense aren’t likely to convince a prosecutor, much less a jury.
And this may not be as uncommon as you might think. This could happen to any of us.
Then, top it off with the fact that many states require you to try and escape from an attack before you use lethal force, sometimes even if that attack is within your own home, and you can begin to see the issue. Even if you make sure you’re justified to use force, some prosecutor may decide to go after you because you could have skirted out the back door instead of defending yourself, even if you didn’t feel like you could do so safely.
Honestly, defending yourself is a scary enough action, but then faced with the possibility that you could still be prosecuted? That’s even more terrifying, in my book. One moment can ruin your life, even if you did everything right.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Time Is Running Out To Comment On This Pro-2A Proposal

While the ATF has pulled back it ’ s proposed guidance on pistol stablizing braces after a flood of public comments in opposition , another government agency is still accepting input on a proposed rule that would actually be incredibly beneficial to both the firearms industry and the gun owners that the industry serves .
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is soliciting feedback on its proposed “ Fair Access to Financial Services ” rule , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co I talk with Second Amendment activist Dennis Santiago about the proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have if it takes effect .
Dennis has written a great explainer on the proposed rule over at RedState that ’ s worth reading in its entirety , but here ’ s the key bit : It is called Chapter 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations .
That is where all the rules for regulating America ’ s vast banking system are codified .
Following years of complaints by companies that banks are denying them lending , credit and services , the Department of the Treasury ’ s Office of the Comptroller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reinforce its mandate to ensure fair access to banking and financial services to all legitimate businesses regardless of their political or philosophical persuasion .
The problem , as described in the OCC ’ s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) is that banks have been practicing discriminatory “ de-banking ” of politically disfavored clientele .
The lightning rod of the problem began in the 2014 to 2016 timeframe when bank regulators instructed banks to cease access to services discrimination following the declaration to an end to Operation Chokepoint , a failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firearms industry to combat criminal activity related to the US War on Drugs under the premise of combatting money laundering .
The fiasco exploded in the government ’ s face when a parallel program called Fast and Furious turned out to be one of the sources of that money laundering activity .
In the years 2016 to 2020 , banks privatized the bad practices of Operation Chokepoint and continued to de-bank not just gun companies , but other “ sindustries ” such as oil exploration , correctional facilities , family planning organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks , industrial farming , and other activities that are part of the overall landscape of a vast and vibrant US economy .
The OCC ’ s proposed rule would a stop to the politically and ideologically motivated discrimination by the largest financial institutions in the country by requiring them to : ( 1 ) Make each financial service it offers available to all persons in the geographic market served by the covered bank on proportionally equal terms ; ( 2 ) Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s quantified and documented failure to meet quantitative , impartial risk-based standards established in advance by the covered bank ; ( 3 ) Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers when the effect of the denial is to prevent , limit , or otherwise disadvantage the person : ( i ) From entering or competing in a market or business segment ; or ( ii ) In such a way that benefits another person or business activity in which the covered bank has a financial interest ; and ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with others , any person a financial service the bank offers .
This would be a huge boon to the firearms industry and other “ sindustries ” that are viewed with disdain by activists and woke corporate overlords , but the time to sound off on the proposed rule is running short .
The public comment period ends at midnight on January 4th , so if you want to add your voice to the growing chorus of support for the measure you can submit your comment here .
Santiago tells me that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from gun control activists that have already been submitted , so it ’ s even more important that gun owners and Second Amendment advocates chime in as well .
Look for a follow up with Dennis Santiago in the first weeks of the new year , but in the meantime don ’ t let Monday ’ s deadline pass before you add your comment to the thousands already received by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency .

While the ATF has pulled back it’s proposed guidance on pistol stablizing braces after a flood of public comments in opposition, another government agency is still accepting input on a proposed rule that would actually be incredibly beneficial to both the firearms industry and the gun owners that the industry serves.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is soliciting feedback on its proposed “Fair Access to Financial Services” rule, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co I talk with Second Amendment activist Dennis Santiago about the proposed rule and the impact that it would have if it takes effect.
Dennis has written a great explainer on the proposed rule over at RedState that’s worth reading in its entirety, but here’s the key bit:
It is called Chapter 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That is where all the rules for regulating America’s vast banking system are codified. Following years of complaints by companies that banks are denying them lending, credit and services, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has decided to act to reinforce its mandate to ensure fair access to banking and financial services to all legitimate businesses regardless of their political or philosophical persuasion. The problem, as described in the OCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is that banks have been practicing discriminatory “de-banking” of politically disfavored clientele. The lightning rod of the problem began in the 2014 to 2016 timeframe when bank regulators instructed banks to cease access to services discrimination following the declaration to an end to Operation Chokepoint, a failed policy that attempted to use restrictions on the firearms industry to combat criminal activity related to the US War on Drugs under the premise of combatting money laundering. The fiasco exploded in the government’s face when a parallel program called Fast and Furious turned out to be one of the sources of that money laundering activity. In the years 2016 to 2020, banks privatized the bad practices of Operation Chokepoint and continued to de-bank not just gun companies, but other “sindustries” such as oil exploration, correctional facilities, family planning organizations, independent non-bank owned automated teller machine networks, industrial farming, and other activities that are part of the overall landscape of a vast and vibrant US economy.
The OCC’s proposed rule would a stop to the politically and ideologically motivated discrimination by the largest financial institutions in the country by requiring them to:
(1) Make each financial service it offers available to all persons in the geographic market served by the covered bank on proportionally equal terms; (2) Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers except to the extent justified by such person’s quantified and documented failure to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards established in advance by the covered bank; (3) Not deny any person a financial service the bank offers when the effect of the denial is to prevent, limit, or otherwise disadvantage the person: (i) From entering or competing in a market or business segment; or (ii) In such a way that benefits another person or business activity in which the covered bank has a financial interest; and (4) Not deny, in coordination with others, any person a financial service the bank offers.
This would be a huge boon to the firearms industry and other “sindustries” that are viewed with disdain by activists and woke corporate overlords, but the time to sound off on the proposed rule is running short. The public comment period ends at midnight on January 4th, so if you want to add your voice to the growing chorus of support for the measure you can submit your comment here.
Santiago tells me that there a number of identical scripted comments coming from gun control activists that have already been submitted, so it’s even more important that gun owners and Second Amendment advocates chime in as well. Look for a follow up with Dennis Santiago in the first weeks of the new year, but in the meantime don’t let Monday’s deadline pass before you add your comment to the thousands already received by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Columbus Police Officer Fired Over Fatal Shooting

A fairly common refrain from me here at Bearing Arms is that I understand that being a police officer is a difficult job .
As a result , I ’ m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at times when others might not .
I also understand that cops aren ’ t superhuman paragons of virtue .
They ’ re living , breathing people with all the failings that might entail .
While there is a lot of anti-police sentiment targeting police officers who may have actually done it right , there are also police officers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , one of those police officers isn ’ t an officer any longer .
The Columbus police officer who shot and killed Andre ’ Hill last week has been fired from his job with the division of police .
Columbus Safety Director Ned Pettus Jr. issued a statement after a hearing Monday morning saying he would uphold Chief Thomas Quinlan ’ s recommendation to terminate Adam Coy .
“ The information , evidence and representations made by Chief Quinlan as the investigator are , in my opinion , indisputable .
His disciplinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pettus said .
“ The actions of Adam Coy do not live up to the oath of a Columbus Police officer , or the standards we , and the community , demand of our officers.
” Members of the police union representing Columbus officers attended the hearing on behalf of Coy , who was not in attendance , according to a statement from Pettus ’ office .
Coy and another officer responded to a neighbor ’ s nonemergency call after 1 a.m. Tuesday about a car in front of his house in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been running , then shut off , then turned back on , according to a copy of the call released Wednesday .
Mayor Andrew Ginther said it remains unclear if that car had anything to do with Hill .
Police bodycam footage showed Hill emerging from a garage and holding up a cellphone in his left hand seconds before he was fatally shot by Coy .
There is no audio because the officer hadn ’ t activated the body camera ; an automatic “ look back ” feature captured the shooting without audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second officer and his failure to turn on his body cam .
Look , I wasn ’ t there and I don ’ t know what was going through Coy ’ s head .
Did he see the phone and think it was a gun ?
Probably .
Is that the result of improper training ?
Most likely .
It doesn ’ t matter , though .
He allegedly shot an unarmed man while wearing a badge .
This at a time when anti-police sentiment is at its highest point since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers need to do everything right .
They need to follow procedure perfectly and understand that they ’ re under a microscope .
Coy clearly didn ’ t .
Now he ’ s out of a job and will likely face criminal charges .
Had he followed procedure and turned on his body cam when he should have , it might have included some information that would have exonerated him .
Instead , he ’ s looking at prison .
That ’ s not a good place to be if you ’ ve @ @ @ @

A fairly common refrain from me here at Bearing Arms is that I understand that being a police officer is a difficult job. As a result, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at times when others might not. I also understand that cops aren’t superhuman paragons of virtue. They’re living, breathing people with all the failings that might entail.
While there is a lot of anti-police sentiment targeting police officers who may have actually done it right, there are also police officers who look to be doing it wrong.
Now, one of those police officers isn’t an officer any longer.
The Columbus police officer who shot and killed Andre’ Hill last week has been fired from his job with the division of police. Columbus Safety Director Ned Pettus Jr. issued a statement after a hearing Monday morning saying he would uphold Chief Thomas Quinlan’s recommendation to terminate Adam Coy. “The information, evidence and representations made by Chief Quinlan as the investigator are, in my opinion, indisputable. His disciplinary recommendation is well-supported and appropriate,” Pettus said. “The actions of Adam Coy do not live up to the oath of a Columbus Police officer, or the standards we, and the community, demand of our officers.” Members of the police union representing Columbus officers attended the hearing on behalf of Coy, who was not in attendance, according to a statement from Pettus’ office. Coy and another officer responded to a neighbor’s nonemergency call after 1 a.m. Tuesday about a car in front of his house in the city’s northwest side that had been running, then shut off, then turned back on, according to a copy of the call released Wednesday. Mayor Andrew Ginther said it remains unclear if that car had anything to do with Hill. Police bodycam footage showed Hill emerging from a garage and holding up a cellphone in his left hand seconds before he was fatally shot by Coy. There is no audio because the officer hadn’t activated the body camera; an automatic “look back” feature captured the shooting without audio.
An investigation is also underway regarding the second officer and his failure to turn on his body cam.
Look, I wasn’t there and I don’t know what was going through Coy’s head. Did he see the phone and think it was a gun? Probably. Is that the result of improper training? Most likely.
It doesn’t matter, though. He allegedly shot an unarmed man while wearing a badge. This at a time when anti-police sentiment is at its highest point since the 1970s. This is a time when officers need to do everything right. They need to follow procedure perfectly and understand that they’re under a microscope.
Coy clearly didn’t. Now he’s out of a job and will likely face criminal charges. Had he followed procedure and turned on his body cam when he should have, it might have included some information that would have exonerated him. Instead, he’s looking at prison. That’s not a good place to be if you’ve worn a badge.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Armed Dad Uses Rifle To Stop Home Invasion

While the national media almost never reports on armed citizen stories , each and every day Americans are using firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones .
One of the most recent incidents took place Sunday evening in Port Arthur , Texas , where police say three suspects forcibly entered a home only to encounter a father armed with a rifle who was intent on protecting his kids .
According to PAPD , officers responded at about 8:30 p.m. Sunday to a home invasion type robbery with a shooting call .
The preliminary investigation revealed three armed assailants forcibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 18th Street as a female resident was arriving home .
The commotion alerted a male resident who armed himself with a rifle and confronted the would-be robbers in protection of his young children who were home during the robbery .
One of the robbers was shot and killed during the encounter .
The incident in currently under investigation by the Port Arthur Police Departments Major Crime Team .
Police say the other two suspects fled the scene , but 27-year old Terence Ellies was fatally wounded by the homeowner .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a happy ending .
Just hours after the home invasion in Port Arthur , Texas , a family in La Cresta , California were the victims of a home invasion as well .
In that case , multiple individuals gained entry to the residence , and a shootout took place inside the home .
Deputies were summoned at 4:01 a.m. , and found two people dead when they arrived , Sheriff ’ s officials said .
One decedent was a suspect in what the agency called a botched home invasion robbery .
Information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who was fatally shot .
A second suspect in the robbery and one other person who was shot were taken to a hospital .
Details regarding the severity of their wounds was not immediately available .
Sheriff ’ s officials believe at least one more suspect fled in a car .
A detailed description of any possible outstanding suspect or vehicle was not available Monday afternoon .
As most of us realize , a gun is not a magic talisman that will automatically protect you from harm , but a tool that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loved ones if necessary .
It ’ s absolutely tragic that one of the residents in La Certa was killed in this home invasion , but that awful news doesn ’ t make me less interested in owning a gun for self-defense .
I know that the guns in my home don ’ t guarantee my safety or the safety of my family , but I also know that they increase our odds of surviving an encounter with any home invaders who may decide to target our rural home .
Hopefully that scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d much rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it .

While the national media almost never reports on armed citizen stories, each and every day Americans are using firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones. One of the most recent incidents took place Sunday evening in Port Arthur, Texas, where police say three suspects forcibly entered a home only to encounter a father armed with a rifle who was intent on protecting his kids.
According to PAPD, officers responded at about 8:30 p.m. Sunday to a home invasion type robbery with a shooting call. The preliminary investigation revealed three armed assailants forcibly entered a home in the 2500 block of 18th Street as a female resident was arriving home. The commotion alerted a male resident who armed himself with a rifle and confronted the would-be robbers in protection of his young children who were home during the robbery. One of the robbers was shot and killed during the encounter. The incident in currently under investigation by the Port Arthur Police Departments Major Crime Team.
Police say the other two suspects fled the scene, but 27-year old Terence Ellies was fatally wounded by the homeowner.
Of course, not every armed citizen story has a happy ending. Just hours after the home invasion in Port Arthur, Texas, a family in La Cresta, California were the victims of a home invasion as well. In that case, multiple individuals gained entry to the residence, and a shootout took place inside the home.
Deputies were summoned at 4:01 a.m., and found two people dead when they arrived, Sheriff’s officials said. One decedent was a suspect in what the agency called a botched home invasion robbery. Information was not immediately released on the second person who was fatally shot. A second suspect in the robbery and one other person who was shot were taken to a hospital. Details regarding the severity of their wounds was not immediately available. Sheriff’s officials believe at least one more suspect fled in a car. A detailed description of any possible outstanding suspect or vehicle was not available Monday afternoon.
According to local media reports , one of those killed in the home invasion was a resident of the home, and another resident was injured in the attack.
As most of us realize, a gun is not a magic talisman that will automatically protect you from harm, but a tool that will help you protect yourself and your loved ones if necessary. It’s absolutely tragic that one of the residents in La Certa was killed in this home invasion, but that awful news doesn’t make me less interested in owning a gun for self-defense. I know that the guns in my home don’t guarantee my safety or the safety of my family, but I also know that they increase our odds of surviving an encounter with any home invaders who may decide to target our rural home. Hopefully that scenario will never come to pass, but I’d much rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Why WV AG Joined Fight To Defend The NRA

With New York Attorney General Letitia James declaring war on the National Rifle Association , she likely figured that it would raise her profile with little risk to her .
After all , it ’ s not like New York voters–most of whom live in anti-gun New York City–would actually care if she lost her case .
They ’ d just care that she tried to take on the evil special interest that most people seem to think is responsible for every violent crime in the last 30-40 years or so .
It ’ s unlikely she expected a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right out and oppose her , but they did .
One of those making a stand is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey .
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey recently joined a 16-state coalition supporting the National Rifle Association ’ s lawsuit against New York ’ s attorney general .
The coalition argues that New York ’ s attorney general unjustly seeks to dissolve the NRA , which is the country ’ s oldest civil rights organization and leading Second Amendment advocacy organization .
“ New York ’ s lawsuit seeks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Morrisey said .
“ West Virginia remains in fervent support of the Second Amendment .
Our office will vigorously oppose any effort to roll back gun rights and attack those who cherish the freedom to bear arms .
“ As I said when New York filed its misguided lawsuit , West Virginia invites all national gun groups and gun manufacturers to consider relocating to the Mountain State and work with our office to protect gun rights for citizens in West Virginia and across our nation .
We vigorously enforce all of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our enforcement , ” he continued .
The NRA ’ s countersuit seeks to block a politically motivated attempt by New York ’ s attorney general , in a separate lawsuit , to dissolve the NRA .
She hopes her initial lawsuit to dissolve the organization will undermine Americans ’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms .
And really , that last line there ?
That ’ s what this is really about .
James doesn ’ t like the fact that when it comes to a discussion about gun control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to contend with .
They ’ ve blocked countless anti-gun proposals through the years and James resents it .
New York officials have declared jihad on the NRA over the last few years and they ’ re not even trying to hide it .
Morrisey and the other attorney generals are making a state that we all need them to make .
It ’ s a stand that , frankly , more attorney generals need to make .
After all , if James can get the NRA dissolved , how long until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general ’ s ire ?
It would set a dangerous precedent that no one should be comfortable with .
Frankly , the NRA ’ s membership doesn ’ t need James to stand for them .
They don ’ t want James to make any kind of gestures or moves on their behalf .
They just want James to go away and leave them alone .
James won ’ t , though , because it ’ s not about the membership .
It ’ s about taking on the entity that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it won ’ t let them have their way .
That ’ s all this has ever been about .

With New York Attorney General Letitia James declaring war on the National Rifle Association, she likely figured that it would raise her profile with little risk to her. After all, it’s not like New York voters–most of whom live in anti-gun New York City–would actually care if she lost her case. They’d just care that she tried to take on the evil special interest that most people seem to think is responsible for every violent crime in the last 30-40 years or so.
It’s unlikely she expected a significant number of other attorney generals to come right out and oppose her, but they did.
One of those making a stand is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey recently joined a 16-state coalition supporting the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit against New York’s attorney general. The coalition argues that New York’s attorney general unjustly seeks to dissolve the NRA, which is the country’s oldest civil rights organization and leading Second Amendment advocacy organization. “New York’s lawsuit seeks to destroy the Second Amendment,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “West Virginia remains in fervent support of the Second Amendment. Our office will vigorously oppose any effort to roll back gun rights and attack those who cherish the freedom to bear arms. “As I said when New York filed its misguided lawsuit, West Virginia invites all national gun groups and gun manufacturers to consider relocating to the Mountain State and work with our office to protect gun rights for citizens in West Virginia and across our nation. We vigorously enforce all of our state laws and never let politics impact our enforcement,” he continued. The NRA’s countersuit seeks to block a politically motivated attempt by New York’s attorney general, in a separate lawsuit, to dissolve the NRA. She hopes her initial lawsuit to dissolve the organization will undermine Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
And really, that last line there? That’s what this is really about. James doesn’t like the fact that when it comes to a discussion about gun control, the NRA becomes the 800-pound gorilla everyone has to contend with. They’ve blocked countless anti-gun proposals through the years and James resents it.
New York officials have declared jihad on the NRA over the last few years and they’re not even trying to hide it.
Morrisey and the other attorney generals are making a state that we all need them to make. It’s a stand that, frankly, more attorney generals need to make. After all, if James can get the NRA dissolved, how long until other groups become the target of some attorney general’s ire? It would set a dangerous precedent that no one should be comfortable with.
Frankly, the NRA’s membership doesn’t need James to stand for them. They don’t want James to make any kind of gestures or moves on their behalf. They just want James to go away and leave them alone.
James won’t, though, because it’s not about the membership. It’s about taking on the entity that she and progressives like her absolutely despise because it won’t let them have their way.
That’s all this has ever been about.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Nevada Lawmakers Take Aim At Concealed Carry

A group of twelve lawmakers in Nevada will consider a new restriction on public employees who choose to carry on the job when the state ’ s Legislative Commission meets on Tuesday .
As the law stands now , those employees who aren ’ t specifically prohibited from carrying a gun at work can do so , but under the proposed rule change they would be required to notify their appointing authority or designee .
Failure to disclose the fact that the employee is carrying would result in disciplinary action or even termination .
As NRA ’ s Institute for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solution in search of a problem .
I can definitely see this leading to discrimination and harassment against those who choose to carry .
After all , concealed carry is concealed for a reason .
These employees may not want everyone in the office to know that they ’ re lawfully armed for self-defense , particularly if their boss or supervisor is anti-gun .
The public does have the chance to weigh in during today ’ s meeting of the Legislative Commission .
If you want to submit a written comment you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or you can join the meeting by phone as well starting at 1 p.m. Pacific on Tuesday .
I suspect that there will be at least a few public employees speaking out in favor of the proposed rule change , but I ’ m hoping that they ’ re outnumbered by employees and members of the general public who see this for what it is ; an attempt to target the lawful carrying of firearms in the guise of transparency and public safety .
A quick look at the public comments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council reveals that there ’ s already plenty of opposition to the proposal .
Here ’ s one example that does a great job of laying out the problems with the potential change in policy .
“ It has come to my attention that there is a proposed law to require public employees that are concealed carry permit ( CCW ) holders to notify their employer or designated representative if they will be carrying a firearm at work .
I do NOT support this .
Nevada already has a thorough vetting process for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose of which is for the permit holder to carry a firearm in a concealed manner .
Having to alert someone , even if that someone is an employer or supervisor , defeats the purpose of a CCW altogether , and may subject a permit holder to differential treatment , and possibly even disciplinary action from an employer or supervisor that simply disagrees with an employee ’ s choice of carrying a firearm .
I encourage you to vote against any such proposal.
” That ’ s just one of more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though I haven ’ t read all of the public comments submitted so far I ’ ve yet to run across one that is in support of the measure .
Let ’ s hope that the pro-Second Amendment voices can put a halt to this proposal now , but even if this measure is defeated , gun owners in Nevada should be on guard for more attempts to restrict their rights in the upcoming legislative session .
We know that the end goal of the anti-gun crowd isn ’ t to regulate public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to negate our right to keep and bear arms entirely .

A group of twelve lawmakers in Nevada will consider a new restriction on public employees who choose to carry on the job when the state’s Legislative Commission meets on Tuesday. As the law stands now, those employees who aren’t specifically prohibited from carrying a gun at work can do so, but under the proposed rule change they would be required to notify their appointing authority or designee. Failure to disclose the fact that the employee is carrying would result in disciplinary action or even termination.
As NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action says, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
This is a drastic change from current practice and will have an impact on public employees across the state. Per the minutes of the State Personnel Commission meeting on the same topic, the regulation was prompted by a petition from two employees. This appears to be nothing more than a harassment mechanism of persons lawfully exercising their rights.
I can definitely see this leading to discrimination and harassment against those who choose to carry. After all, concealed carry is concealed for a reason. These employees may not want everyone in the office to know that they’re lawfully armed for self-defense, particularly if their boss or supervisor is anti-gun.
The public does have the chance to weigh in during today’s meeting of the Legislative Commission. If you want to submit a written comment you can can email [email protected], or you can join the meeting by phone as well starting at 1 p.m. Pacific on Tuesday.
To dial in to provide testimony during this period of public comment in the meeting, any time after 1:00 p.m. on Monday, December 28, 2020: Dial: (669) 900-6833 When prompted to provide your Meeting ID, please enter: 974 9616 7016 then press # When prompted for a Participant ID, please enter # To resolve any issues related to dialing in to provide public comment for this meeting, please call (775) 684-6990.
I suspect that there will be at least a few public employees speaking out in favor of the proposed rule change, but I’m hoping that they’re outnumbered by employees and members of the general public who see this for what it is; an attempt to target the lawful carrying of firearms in the guise of transparency and public safety.
A quick look at the public comments that have already been submitted to the Legislative Council reveals that there’s already plenty of opposition to the proposal. Here’s one example that does a great job of laying out the problems with the potential change in policy.
“It has come to my attention that there is a proposed law to require public employees that are concealed carry permit (CCW) holders to notify their employer or designated representative if they will be carrying a firearm at work. I do NOT support this. Nevada already has a thorough vetting process for the issuance of CCW permits, the purpose of which is for the permit holder to carry a firearm in a concealed manner. Having to alert someone, even if that someone is an employer or supervisor, defeats the purpose of a CCW altogether, and may subject a permit holder to differential treatment, and possibly even disciplinary action from an employer or supervisor that simply disagrees with an employee’s choice of carrying a firearm. I encourage you to vote against any such proposal.”
That’s just one of more than a dozen comments slamming the proposal, and though I haven’t read all of the public comments submitted so far I’ve yet to run across one that is in support of the measure. Let’s hope that the pro-Second Amendment voices can put a halt to this proposal now, but even if this measure is defeated, gun owners in Nevada should be on guard for more attempts to restrict their rights in the upcoming legislative session. We know that the end goal of the anti-gun crowd isn’t to regulate public employees who are lawfully carrying, but to negate our right to keep and bear arms entirely.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Georgia Senate Race Basically A Referendum On Second Amendment

I was already sick of campaign literature and commercials when November rolled around , but I considered myself fortunate .
After all , it would all soon be over , right ?
I mean , the election typically marks the end of the campaign .
Granted , I expected Sen. Kelly Loeffler to find herself in a runoff due to the nature of the jungle primary she found herself in–it ’ s rare for a candidate to get 50 percent plus one vote in such a format–but it ’ s just one race .
I could deal with that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. David Perdue to find himself in one , though .
Yet here we are , with two runoffs and the balance of the senate hanging precariously .
This is especially important for those of us focused on the Second Amendment .
As former Rep. Bob Barr and attorney Amy Swearer note , the Second Amendment really does hang in the balance here .
In an unusual twist of electoral fate , not one but both of Georgia ’ s sitting Republican United States senators face Democrat challengers in a runoff election scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two days after the 117th Congress will have been seated .
The Second Amendment does not by name appear on the Georgia ballot , but it might as well .
If both incumbent senators – David Perdue and Kelley Loeffler – are defeated next month , the new Senate will be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats , which means that two weeks later , on Jan. 20 when Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th president of the United States , his newly installed vice president , Kamala Harris , becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neither Biden nor Harris is friend to the Second Amendment , and neither are the two Democrats – Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock – running against Perdue and Loeffler .
Their election would be a toxic mixture for the majority of Georgians who are now and historically have been strong backers of the right to keep and bear arms , both philosophically and in practice .
An evenly split Senate resulting from a twin Republican defeat in Georgia next month will have profound impact on Second Amendment issues coming before the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmations .
In this regard , it is important to understand where Georgia ’ s pair of Democrat challengers now fighting to join the Senate , stand on such issues .
Even a cursory look at where Ossoff ( who is challenging Perdue ) and Warnock ( Loeffler ’ s adversary ) stand on matters relating to firearms reveals they are bitter enemies of gun rights , especially as those views are held and practiced by most Georgians .
Obviously , I agree completely with Barr and Swearer .
Neither of these two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment .
They might claim it in campaign stops or in commercials , but it doesn ’ t take much delving into their plans to see precisely what they want , which is to gut our gun rights to the point that they ’ ll be less than useless to defend us from a tyrannical government .
Yet there are also those out there who want to play games with this runoff .
They think that by somehow telling pro-gun folks not to vote in the runoff , that they can somehow prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m going to lay it down to you straight .
While I do think there were an awful lot of shenanigans in the election , particularly here in Georgia .
I have my thoughts as to why Georgia GOP officials didn ’ t trip over themselves to expose it , but I won ’ t get into it right now .
What Wood claims in his tweet is that if we don ’ t vote , it ’ ll expose the voter fraud for the whole world to see .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply makes it easier for Democrats to win .
After all , why bother to steal an election if the other side will just hand it over ?
That ’ s precisely what a voting boycott will do .
The truth of the matter is that if pro-gun folks don ’ t vote , then they have no room to complain when Ossoff and Warnock waltz into the Senate .
It ’ s as simple as that .
Wood and those like him can scream about the algorithm ’ s impact , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve actually examined that algorithm , then there ’ s no reason to believe they actually know just how it will do what .
I think it makes more sense to swamp the voting machines with legitimate pro-GOP votes to the point that it makes fraud impossible , but that ’ s just me .

I was already sick of campaign literature and commercials when November rolled around, but I considered myself fortunate. After all, it would all soon be over, right? I mean, the election typically marks the end of the campaign.
Granted, I expected Sen. Kelly Loeffler to find herself in a runoff due to the nature of the jungle primary she found herself in–it’s rare for a candidate to get 50 percent plus one vote in such a format–but it’s just one race. I could deal with that, right?
I didn’t expect Sen. David Perdue to find himself in one, though.
Yet here we are, with two runoffs and the balance of the senate hanging precariously. This is especially important for those of us focused on the Second Amendment.
As former Rep. Bob Barr and attorney Amy Swearer note, the Second Amendment really does hang in the balance here.
In an unusual twist of electoral fate, not one but both of Georgia’s sitting Republican United States senators face Democrat challengers in a runoff election scheduled for Jan. 5, 2021, just two days after the 117th Congress will have been seated. The Second Amendment does not by name appear on the Georgia ballot, but it might as well. If both incumbent senators – David Perdue and Kelley Loeffler – are defeated next month, the new Senate will be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, which means that two weeks later, on Jan. 20 when Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th president of the United States, his newly installed vice president, Kamala Harris, becomes the tie-breaking, de facto 101st senator. Neither Biden nor Harris is friend to the Second Amendment, and neither are the two Democrats – Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock – running against Perdue and Loeffler. Their election would be a toxic mixture for the majority of Georgians who are now and historically have been strong backers of the right to keep and bear arms, both philosophically and in practice. An evenly split Senate resulting from a twin Republican defeat in Georgia next month will have profound impact on Second Amendment issues coming before the Senate, in terms of both legislation and confirmations. In this regard, it is important to understand where Georgia’s pair of Democrat challengers now fighting to join the Senate, stand on such issues. Even a cursory look at where Ossoff (who is challenging Perdue) and Warnock (Loeffler’s adversary) stand on matters relating to firearms reveals they are bitter enemies of gun rights, especially as those views are held and practiced by most Georgians.
Obviously, I agree completely with Barr and Swearer. Neither of these two candidates is a friend of the Second Amendment. They might claim it in campaign stops or in commercials, but it doesn’t take much delving into their plans to see precisely what they want, which is to gut our gun rights to the point that they’ll be less than useless to defend us from a tyrannical government.
Yet there are also those out there who want to play games with this runoff. They think that by somehow telling pro-gun folks not to vote in the runoff, that they can somehow prevent a takeover in the Senate.
I have received much criticism for demanding that GA fix the 11/3 fraud before we vote in 1/5 runoff. In full disclosure, I am not a fan of any of the 4 candidates in Senate runoff. Communists or China compromised in my opinion. I just want an HONEST election. Don’t you? pic.twitter.com/AjEuuWRFGJ — Lin Wood (@LLinWood) December 26, 2020
I’m going to lay it down to you straight. While I do think there were an awful lot of shenanigans in the election, particularly here in Georgia. I have my thoughts as to why Georgia GOP officials didn’t trip over themselves to expose it, but I won’t get into it right now.
What Wood claims in his tweet is that if we don’t vote, it’ll expose the voter fraud for the whole world to see. However, I’d argue that a boycott simply makes it easier for Democrats to win. After all, why bother to steal an election if the other side will just hand it over?
That’s precisely what a voting boycott will do.
The truth of the matter is that if pro-gun folks don’t vote, then they have no room to complain when Ossoff and Warnock waltz into the Senate. It’s as simple as that. Wood and those like him can scream about the algorithm’s impact, but unless they can show me where they’ve actually examined that algorithm, then there’s no reason to believe they actually know just how it will do what.
I think it makes more sense to swamp the voting machines with legitimate pro-GOP votes to the point that it makes fraud impossible, but that’s just me.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Felon Gets Stolen Gun As Christmas Present

Have you ever completely spaced out on getting a Christmas gift for someone ?
I know I ’ ve had my share of Christmas Eve trips to Walmart over the years , and honestly , that would have been a much better choice for Mya Renee Thorpe .
Instead of a bottle of cheap cologne or fuzzy pajama pants , the Georgia teenager allegedly decided to do something really special for her boyfriend this year : steal a bunch of stuff , including a gun , and then hand over the stolen goods as a Christmas present .
The 19-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25-year old man told police that she stole his SUV , a handgun , $ 300 cash , and even his Carhartt jacket from a Rome , Georgia motel on Christmas morning .
There were a couple of problems with Thorpe ’ s plan , starting with the fact that she allegedly committed several felonies while trying to ensure her boyfriend had a good Christmas .
There ’ s also the issue of Thorpe ’ s boyfriend , who as it turns out is a convicted felon .
Stephen Lamar Johnson , 33 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week after reports said he was found in possession of a stolen firearm while at a hotel on Martha Berry Blvd .
Reports said that the handgun had been stolen by his girlfriend on Christmas .
Police went on to add that Johnson attempted to hide the gun due to him being a convicted felon .
Thorpe ’ s present could result in a five year prison sentence for her 33-year old boyfriend , and she now has some legal troubles of her own to deal with .
The teen has been charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by taking a motor vehicle , possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony , and knowingly providing a firearm to a convicted felon .
I ’ m not sure how well a defense of “ I ’ m a moron , your honor ” is going to work for Thorpe , but that ’ s probably the best legal argument that she has .
Local news accounts don ’ t say anything about Stephen Johnson being found in possession of a stolen car ; cash ; or a nice winter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonder ; did Mya Thorpe try to give someone else a stolen SUV on Christmas morning ?
Did her dad or brother get a spiffy Carhartt jacket ?
Did Mom get a nice wad of cash stuffed into her stocking ?
They say it ’ s the thought that counts , but I ’ m not sure that applies in cases where you can ’ t help but ask “ What on earth was she thinking ?
” Thorpe ’ s Christmas gift is certainly going to provide a lifetime of memories for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been much better off just giving her beau a gift card than a stolen gun .

Have you ever completely spaced out on getting a Christmas gift for someone? I know I’ve had my share of Christmas Eve trips to Walmart over the years, and honestly, that would have been a much better choice for Mya Renee Thorpe. Instead of a bottle of cheap cologne or fuzzy pajama pants, the Georgia teenager allegedly decided to do something really special for her boyfriend this year: steal a bunch of stuff, including a gun, and then hand over the stolen goods as a Christmas present.
The 19-year old was busted this week after a 25-year old man told police that she stole his SUV, a handgun, $300 cash, and even his Carhartt jacket from a Rome, Georgia motel on Christmas morning.
There were a couple of problems with Thorpe’s plan, starting with the fact that she allegedly committed several felonies while trying to ensure her boyfriend had a good Christmas. There’s also the issue of Thorpe’s boyfriend, who as it turns out is a convicted felon.
Stephen Lamar Johnson, 33 of Cave Spring, was arrested this week after reports said he was found in possession of a stolen firearm while at a hotel on Martha Berry Blvd. Reports said that the handgun had been stolen by his girlfriend on Christmas. Police went on to add that Johnson attempted to hide the gun due to him being a convicted felon.
Thorpe’s present could result in a five year prison sentence for her 33-year old boyfriend, and she now has some legal troubles of her own to deal with. The teen has been charged with felony theft by taking, theft by taking a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and knowingly providing a firearm to a convicted felon.
I’m not sure how well a defense of “I’m a moron, your honor” is going to work for Thorpe, but that’s probably the best legal argument that she has.
Local news accounts don’t say anything about Stephen Johnson being found in possession of a stolen car; cash; or a nice winter work coat, which really makes me wonder; did Mya Thorpe try to give someone else a stolen SUV on Christmas morning? Did her dad or brother get a spiffy Carhartt jacket? Did Mom get a nice wad of cash stuffed into her stocking?
They say it’s the thought that counts, but I’m not sure that applies in cases where you can’t help but ask “What on earth was she thinking?” Thorpe’s Christmas gift is certainly going to provide a lifetime of memories for herself and her boyfriend, but she would have been much better off just giving her beau a gift card than a stolen gun.


bearingarms--2020-12-29--Authorities Deflect From Their Role In Violence Surge

Communities of all sizes are seeing a significant surge in violent crime .
It ’ s happening in places like New York and Chicago , but it ’ s also happening in much smaller communities as well .
Unsurprisingly , people are asking why ?
They want their public officials to tell them not just why this is happening but how they ’ re going to fix it .
After all , that ’ s what people expect the government to do .
It ’ s part of why they pay their taxes , after all .
Also unsurprisingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deflect from their role in the fiasco .
Now , I agree that there ’ s no single , clear-cut reason for the surge we ’ ve been seeing .
It would be easy if there were and life is rarely that simple .
There wasn ’ t a single cause for violent crime before and we ’ re unlikely to find a single cause now .
Yet what ’ s interesting to me is that while they point to the social and economic changes brought about by the pandemic and the anti-police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many of these same authorities released thousands of prisoners into our communities all in one fell swoop .
Do they really think that so many convicted criminals entering society at one time wouldn ’ t create some degree of increase in criminality ?
Are they that deluded that they believe their rehabilitation efforts were so successful now when there ’ s little evidence they were before ?
It ’ s not overly surprising , though .
If they admitted that was a problem , then they ’ d be held accountable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on pikes and everyone knows it , so they deflect away from that so as to keep their heads and their jobs .
Unfortunately , the media seems little interested in questioning them on that .
In the above-linked article , the words “ release , ” “ prisoner , ” or “ inmate ” aren ’ t mentioned a single time .
There ’ s no mention of the thousands of inmates released from prison by officials concerned about COVID-19 decimating their prison populations .
It ’ s almost as if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have played any kind of a factor .
If so , they ’ re dumber than I usually give them credit for .

Communities of all sizes are seeing a significant surge in violent crime. It’s happening in places like New York and Chicago, but it’s also happening in much smaller communities as well.
Unsurprisingly, people are asking why? They want their public officials to tell them not just why this is happening but how they’re going to fix it. After all, that’s what people expect the government to do. It’s part of why they pay their taxes, after all.
Also unsurprisingly, some of those officials are trying to deflect from their role in the fiasco.
When Andre Avery drives his commercial truck through Detroit, he keeps his pistol close. Avery, 57, grew up in the Motor City and is aware that homicides and shootings are surging, even though before the pandemic they were dropping in Detroit and elsewhere. His gun is legal, and he carries it with him for protection. “I remain extremely alert,” said Avery, who now lives in nearby Belleville. “I’m not in crowds. If something looks a little suspicious, I’m out of there.” In Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and even smaller Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Milwaukee, 2020 has been deadly not only because of the pandemic, but because gun violence is spiking. Authorities and some experts say there is no one clear-cut reason for the spike. They instead point to social and economic upheaval caused by the COVID-19 virus, public sentiment toward police following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody and a historic shortage of jobs and resources in poorer communities as contributing factors. It’s happening in cities large and small, Democrat and Republican-led.
Now, I agree that there’s no single, clear-cut reason for the surge we’ve been seeing. It would be easy if there were and life is rarely that simple. There wasn’t a single cause for violent crime before and we’re unlikely to find a single cause now.
Yet what’s interesting to me is that while they point to the social and economic changes brought about by the pandemic and the anti-police sentiment, they completely ignore the fact that many of these same authorities released thousands of prisoners into our communities all in one fell swoop. Do they really think that so many convicted criminals entering society at one time wouldn’t create some degree of increase in criminality? Are they that deluded that they believe their rehabilitation efforts were so successful now when there’s little evidence they were before?
It’s not overly surprising, though. If they admitted that was a problem, then they’d be held accountable for it. The voters would demand heads on pikes and everyone knows it, so they deflect away from that so as to keep their heads and their jobs.
Unfortunately, the media seems little interested in questioning them on that. In the above-linked article, the words “release,” “prisoner,” or “inmate” aren’t mentioned a single time. There’s no mention of the thousands of inmates released from prison by officials concerned about COVID-19 decimating their prison populations.
It’s almost as if they genuinely don’t believe that could have played any kind of a factor. If so, they’re dumber than I usually give them credit for.


bearingarms--2020-12-30--Industry Execs Provide Update On Ammo Shortage

If you want to know what ’ s going on with the lack of ammunition at the moment , there are few folks with more knowledge of the situation than Jason Hornady .
The vice-president of Hornady Manufacturing recently put out a video that helps to put the surge in ammo sales into perspective .
Hornady says that ammunition sales first spiked in March , when the company saw an 86 % increase over March of 2019 .
That , in essence , wiped out the company ’ s inventory , and they ’ ve been making and shipping as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The stuff that goes out today was literally put in a box yesterday , ” he explains .
“ We ’ ve made one-third more ammunition than we did last year .
Unfortunately we don ’ t have an extra factory laying around or anything else .
We ’ ve got ‘ X ’ number of people , and we ’ re certainly trying to add as much capacity as we can.
” Hornady also addresses some of the rumors around the ammunition shortage ; assuring customers that there isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and keep it off the civilian market .
Apparently some folks have even suggested that Hornady could be making more ammunition if they weren ’ t busy making t-shirts , but Jason Hornady patiently explains that the company actually buys their shirts , so there ’ s no production time being lost by focusing on fashion .
“ We understand it ’ s frustrating .
It ’ s frustrating for us too , ” Hornady says in conclusion .
“ Keep shooting , because we ’ re going to keep making more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only ammunition manufacturer who ’ s addressing the shortage .
A couple of weeks ago Jason Vanderbrink , who ’ s the president of Federal , CCI , Speer , and Remington Ammunition , also released a video expressing his frustration with the hate mail and claims that the companies aren ’ t doing enough to keep up with demand .
Vanderbrink had to specifically say that the companies are not storing ammunition in “ secret warehouses , ” and that ammunition is being made and shipped every day in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated 7-million new gun owners each purchased two boxes of ammunition , that would amount to an extra 700,000 rounds that would need to be produced .
Factor in the ammo hoarding that ’ s been taking place for most of the year , and you can understand why the supply simply can ’ t keep up with demand .
Neither Hornady or Vanderbrink said anything about when they expect things to get back to some semblance of normalcy , but that may be because they simply don ’ t know .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into 2021 , or will sales begin to subside as the country hopefully begins to open back up in the coming months ?
Will the surge in violent crime lead to more Americans buying guns for self-defense ?
Will Democrats push hard for new gun control laws , which typically results in a run on guns and ammunition ?
We don ’ t know the answers yet , so it ’ s hard to predict when the ammunition marketplace will regain a balance between supply and demand .
Both Hornady and Vanderbrink insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going all out to try to keep American gun owners supplied , so unless there are unforeseen supply chain issues or factory closures because of COVID cases , I think the most likely scenario is incremental improvement in ammo availability throughout the coming year .

If you want to know what’s going on with the lack of ammunition at the moment, there are few folks with more knowledge of the situation than Jason Hornady. The vice-president of Hornady Manufacturing recently put out a video that helps to put the surge in ammo sales into perspective.
Hornady says that ammunition sales first spiked in March, when the company saw an 86% increase over March of 2019. That, in essence, wiped out the company’s inventory, and they’ve been making and shipping as fast as they can ever since.
“The stuff that goes out today was literally put in a box yesterday,” he explains. “We’ve made one-third more ammunition than we did last year. Unfortunately we don’t have an extra factory laying around or anything else. We’ve got ‘X’ number of people, and we’re certainly trying to add as much capacity as we can.”
Hornady also addresses some of the rumors around the ammunition shortage; assuring customers that there isn’t a government conspiracy to buy up ammo and keep it off the civilian market. Apparently some folks have even suggested that Hornady could be making more ammunition if they weren’t busy making t-shirts, but Jason Hornady patiently explains that the company actually buys their shirts, so there’s no production time being lost by focusing on fashion.
“We understand it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating for us too,” Hornady says in conclusion. “Keep shooting, because we’re going to keep making more, we promise.”
Jason Hornady isn’t the only ammunition manufacturer who’s addressing the shortage. A couple of weeks ago Jason Vanderbrink, who’s the president of Federal, CCI, Speer, and Remington Ammunition, also released a video expressing his frustration with the hate mail and claims that the companies aren’t doing enough to keep up with demand.
Vanderbrink had to specifically say that the companies are not storing ammunition in “secret warehouses,” and that ammunition is being made and shipped every day in their factories. He noted that if the estimated 7-million new gun owners each purchased two boxes of ammunition, that would amount to an extra 700,000 rounds that would need to be produced. Factor in the ammo hoarding that’s been taking place for most of the year, and you can understand why the supply simply can’t keep up with demand.
Neither Hornady or Vanderbrink said anything about when they expect things to get back to some semblance of normalcy, but that may be because they simply don’t know. Will the record-setting pace of gun sales continue into 2021, or will sales begin to subside as the country hopefully begins to open back up in the coming months? Will the surge in violent crime lead to more Americans buying guns for self-defense? Will Democrats push hard for new gun control laws, which typically results in a run on guns and ammunition?
We don’t know the answers yet, so it’s hard to predict when the ammunition marketplace will regain a balance between supply and demand. Both Hornady and Vanderbrink insist, however, that their factories are going all out to try to keep American gun owners supplied, so unless there are unforeseen supply chain issues or factory closures because of COVID cases, I think the most likely scenario is incremental improvement in ammo availability throughout the coming year.


bearingarms--2020-12-30--Feds Opt To Not Pursue Charges In Tamir Rice Case

The Tamir Rice case is probably the most heartbreaking story I ’ ve covered in a long time .
A young boy doing something that shouldn ’ t have been an issue was shot by police .
There was tons of outrage and I understand exactly why people were upset .
I mean , he was only 12-year-old and playing in a park .
There shouldn ’ t have been an issue .
Unfortunately , there was .
Now , the federal government has declined to pursue charges against the officers involved in the shooting .
The Justice Department announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal charges against two Cleveland police officers in the 2014 killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice , saying video of the shooting was of too poor a quality for prosecutors to conclusively establish what had happened .
In closing the case , the department brought to an end a long-running investigation into a high-profile shooting that helped galvanize the Black Lives Matter movement and that became part of the national dialogue about police use of force against minorities , including children .
The decision , revealed in a lengthy statement , does not condone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cumulative evidence was not enough to support a federal criminal civil rights prosecution .
Tamir was playing with a pellet gun outside a recreation center in Cleveland on Nov. 22 , 2014 , when he was shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann , who is white , seconds after Loehmann and his partner , Officer Frank Garmback , arrived at the scene .
The officers were called to the recreation center after a man drinking beer and waiting for a bus had called 911 to report that a “ guy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The caller told a 911 dispatcher that it was probably a juvenile and the gun might be “ fake , ” though that information was never relayed to the officers .
Let ’ s be honest , as tragic as Rice ’ s death might have been , the Justice Department has made the right call here .
First , let ’ s face the facts .
Namely that determining if something is a pellet gun or a real firearm is virtually impossible in the split second you need to react .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the witness believed it to be a “ fake ” or not , that information doesn ’ t need to be given to the officer .
The caller had no definitive knowledge it was a fake , only a guess , which is irrelevant to the officers on the scene .
They ’ ll need to assume it ’ s a real gun regardless of what some dude drinking a beer on a bus stop bend might think .
Having seen the video of the incident , Rice ’ s “ gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a bad quality video , though , and it would be difficult to determine much of anything to conclude definitively the officers did anything illegal .
Changes need to happen because of Tamir Rice , but charges against these officers–the very same officers who will have to deal with the fact they were involved in the killing of a 12-year-old boy–aren ’ t what we need .
What we need is to teach our kids that even semi-realistic guns aren ’ t toys that should be played with out in public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at people in general , and that if the police show up there ’ s a good chance they believe it ’ s a real gun , so do as you ’ re told .
We need to learn from this , but until people can get past the racial component , we won ’ t .

The Tamir Rice case is probably the most heartbreaking story I’ve covered in a long time. A young boy doing something that shouldn’t have been an issue was shot by police. There was tons of outrage and I understand exactly why people were upset. I mean, he was only 12-year-old and playing in a park. There shouldn’t have been an issue.
Unfortunately, there was.
Now, the federal government has declined to pursue charges against the officers involved in the shooting.
The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would not bring federal criminal charges against two Cleveland police officers in the 2014 killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, saying video of the shooting was of too poor a quality for prosecutors to conclusively establish what had happened. In closing the case, the department brought to an end a long-running investigation into a high-profile shooting that helped galvanize the Black Lives Matter movement and that became part of the national dialogue about police use of force against minorities, including children. The decision, revealed in a lengthy statement, does not condone the officers’ actions but rather says the cumulative evidence was not enough to support a federal criminal civil rights prosecution. Tamir was playing with a pellet gun outside a recreation center in Cleveland on Nov. 22, 2014, when he was shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann, who is white, seconds after Loehmann and his partner, Officer Frank Garmback, arrived at the scene. The officers were called to the recreation center after a man drinking beer and waiting for a bus had called 911 to report that a “guy” was pointing a gun at people. The caller told a 911 dispatcher that it was probably a juvenile and the gun might be “fake,” though that information was never relayed to the officers.
Let’s be honest, as tragic as Rice’s death might have been, the Justice Department has made the right call here.
First, let’s face the facts. Namely that determining if something is a pellet gun or a real firearm is virtually impossible in the split second you need to react.
Further, let’s also note that whether the witness believed it to be a “fake” or not, that information doesn’t need to be given to the officer. The caller had no definitive knowledge it was a fake, only a guess, which is irrelevant to the officers on the scene. They’ll need to assume it’s a real gun regardless of what some dude drinking a beer on a bus stop bend might think.
Having seen the video of the incident, Rice’s “gun” looked real enough. It’s a bad quality video, though, and it would be difficult to determine much of anything to conclude definitively the officers did anything illegal.
Changes need to happen because of Tamir Rice, but charges against these officers–the very same officers who will have to deal with the fact they were involved in the killing of a 12-year-old boy–aren’t what we need. What we need is to teach our kids that even semi-realistic guns aren’t toys that should be played with out in public, that they shouldn’t be pointed at people in general, and that if the police show up there’s a good chance they believe it’s a real gun, so do as you’re told.
We need to learn from this, but until people can get past the racial component, we won’t.


bearingarms--2020-12-30--Why Gun Control Isn't The Answer To The Rise In Crime

It looks like 2020 could end with the highest one-year increase in the number of homicides since at least 1960 , and you know that anti-gun activists will seize on that figure to push their gun control agenda at both the state and federal level in 2021 .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we dig into the statistics and latest research to explain why restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens isn ’ t going to impact the most violent criminals among us , and won ’ t lead to safer neighborhoods in cities plagued by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyst Jeff Asher is very interesting , in part because it reveals that the surge in violence hasn ’ t been the same for every U.S. city .
It ’ s perhaps not surprising to see the homicide rate increase by 72 % in Minneapolis after the riots and demands to defund the police , but the 95 % increase in homicides in Milwaukee is a little shocking , as is the 68 % increase in murders in the Denver suburb of Aurora , Colorado .
On the other hand , Oklahoma City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides down 20 % through the end of September .
According to the “ more guns , more crime ” hypothesis , that shouldn ’ t have happened , because not only has Oklahoma ( like every other state in the Union ) seen a huge number of guns sold this year , the state ’ s Constitutional Carry law was in effect for the entire calendar year .
While Tulsa , Oklahoma did see an increase in homicides , Oklahoma City ’ s had one of the safest years in recent memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both cities , but the homicide rates are very different , which should be a clue about the effectiveness of gun control laws in terms of reducing violent crime .
Former Baltimore police officer Peter Moskos , who ’ s now a criminal justice professor at John Jay College , has put together an online symposium of sorts called the Violence Reduction Project , which features over a dozen academics , researchers , and law enforcement officials giving their answers to the question of how to ensure that 2021 isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While reading through what these experts had to say , I was pleasantly surprised that traditional gun control policies like bans on “ assault weapons ” or “ large capacity ” magazines weren ’ t really on the radar of anyone who responded .
In fact , even a piece by University of Nebraska-Omaha professor Justin Nix entitled “ Fewer Guns , Fewer Shootings ” ended up not being a call for large-scale efforts to reduce legal gun ownership .
Instead , Nix ’ s idea is to revive a program that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early 1990s called “ Consent to Search.
” At a St. Louis community meeting in 1993 , a frustrated mother who suspected a nearby home was being used by teenagers to stash guns asked the police , “ Why don ’ t you just knock on the door and ask the mother if you can search the house ?
” ( Decker & Rosenfeld , 2004:1 ) .
From this suggestion , the Consent to Search Program was born .
The St. Louis Police Department ’ s Mobile Reserve Unit , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , simply knocked on doors in neighborhoods plagued by gun violence and asked parents if they could search the homes for guns .
Sergeant Risk developed a “ consent to search and seize ” form which promised that although officers would seize any illegal property they found , they would not make any arrests .
The program ’ s initial success was promising to say the very least .
In 1994 , 98 % of parents who were asked for consent to search their home granted it , and the Mobile Reserve Unit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So why was it abandoned ?
The short answer is politics .
Like Nix ’ s plan , the vast majority of the proposals offered by the Violence Reduction Project involve focused efforts on the most violent offenders , the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates , or both .
With a finite number of police officers to deal with violent crime , it makes sense to concentrate on strategies that offer the best chance to meaningfully reduce violence , and things like universal background check laws or bans on high-capacity magazines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly useful .
Even NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea has acknowledged this , telling reporters that the department ’ s new strategy is going to focus on people pulling the trigger , rather than trying to arrest everyone who ’ s carrying without a license .
When gun control activists inevitably start pointing their fingers at 2020 ’ s crime spike as a reason for more gun control laws , we can point out that some of the biggest increases in homicide rates were in cities like New York that already have extensive gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that many criminal justice researchers and law enforcement officials themselves prefer strategies and tactics that use focused deterrence to reduce crime instead of trying to ban or arrest our way to safety through widespread enforcement of non-violent , possessory offenses .
That doesn ’ t mean that these cops and academics are staunch Second Amendment advocates , by the way .
Many of them are not , but they still recognize that gun bans ; restrictive licensing laws ; and the like aren ’ t the best way to drive down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to focus on the violent criminals in any given city , not the law-abiding citizens and legal gun owners .

It looks like 2020 could end with the highest one-year increase in the number of homicides since at least 1960, and you know that anti-gun activists will seize on that figure to push their gun control agenda at both the state and federal level in 2021. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we dig into the statistics and latest research to explain why restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens isn’t going to impact the most violent criminals among us, and won’t lead to safer neighborhoods in cities plagued by violent crime.
Final national murder update of 2020: Murder up 36.7% in 57 agencies with data through at least September (though most have data through November). Murder up in 51 of 57, 37 of 58 agencies reporting murder up more than 30%. Spreadsheet here: https://t.co/vEhKHuFNrY pic.twitter.com/5HgVmwGmDS — Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) December 29, 2020
This thread by crime analyst Jeff Asher is very interesting, in part because it reveals that the surge in violence hasn’t been the same for every U.S. city. It’s perhaps not surprising to see the homicide rate increase by 72% in Minneapolis after the riots and demands to defund the police, but the 95% increase in homicides in Milwaukee is a little shocking, as is the 68% increase in murders in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colorado.
On the other hand, Oklahoma City has bucked the nationwide trend, with homicides down 20% through the end of September. According to the “more guns, more crime” hypothesis, that shouldn’t have happened, because not only has Oklahoma (like every other state in the Union) seen a huge number of guns sold this year, the state’s Constitutional Carry law was in effect for the entire calendar year. While Tulsa, Oklahoma did see an increase in homicides, Oklahoma City’s had one of the safest years in recent memory. The gun laws are virtually identical in both cities, but the homicide rates are very different, which should be a clue about the effectiveness of gun control laws in terms of reducing violent crime.
Former Baltimore police officer Peter Moskos, who’s now a criminal justice professor at John Jay College, has put together an online symposium of sorts called the Violence Reduction Project, which features over a dozen academics, researchers, and law enforcement officials giving their answers to the question of how to ensure that 2021 isn’t as violent as 2020 has been. While reading through what these experts had to say, I was pleasantly surprised that traditional gun control policies like bans on “assault weapons” or “large capacity” magazines weren’t really on the radar of anyone who responded. In fact, even a piece by University of Nebraska-Omaha professor Justin Nix entitled “Fewer Guns, Fewer Shootings” ended up not being a call for large-scale efforts to reduce legal gun ownership.
Instead, Nix’s idea is to revive a program that was in place in St. Louis back in the early 1990s called “Consent to Search.”
At a St. Louis community meeting in 1993, a frustrated mother who suspected a nearby home was being used by teenagers to stash guns asked the police, “Why don’t you just knock on the door and ask the mother if you can search the house?” (Decker & Rosenfeld, 2004:1). From this suggestion, the Consent to Search Program was born. The St. Louis Police Department’s Mobile Reserve Unit, a small group led by Sergeant Simon Risk, simply knocked on doors in neighborhoods plagued by gun violence and asked parents if they could search the homes for guns. Sergeant Risk developed a “consent to search and seize” form which promised that although officers would seize any illegal property they found, they would not make any arrests. The program’s initial success was promising to say the very least. In 1994, 98% of parents who were asked for consent to search their home granted it, and the Mobile Reserve Unit ultimately seized 402 guns that year. So why was it abandoned? The short answer is politics.
Like Nix’s plan, the vast majority of the proposals offered by the Violence Reduction Project involve focused efforts on the most violent offenders, the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates, or both. With a finite number of police officers to deal with violent crime, it makes sense to concentrate on strategies that offer the best chance to meaningfully reduce violence, and things like universal background check laws or bans on high-capacity magazines are both incredibly difficult to enforce and not particularly useful. Even NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea has acknowledged this, telling reporters that the department’s new strategy is going to focus on people pulling the trigger, rather than trying to arrest everyone who’s carrying without a license.
When gun control activists inevitably start pointing their fingers at 2020’s crime spike as a reason for more gun control laws, we can point out that some of the biggest increases in homicide rates were in cities like New York that already have extensive gun control laws. We can also point out that many criminal justice researchers and law enforcement officials themselves prefer strategies and tactics that use focused deterrence to reduce crime instead of trying to ban or arrest our way to safety through widespread enforcement of non-violent, possessory offenses.
That doesn’t mean that these cops and academics are staunch Second Amendment advocates, by the way. Many of them are not, but they still recognize that gun bans; restrictive licensing laws; and the like aren’t the best way to drive down the crime rate. For that, you need to focus on the violent criminals in any given city, not the law-abiding citizens and legal gun owners.