bearingarms--2020-09-26--Attempt To Term Limit Justices Is Attack On Second Amendment

With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg , we ’ re likely to see another conservative justice appointed to the Supreme Court .
That ’ ll be three justices nominated by President Donald Trump .
If the most recent nominee is confirmed , that ’ s likely to create ramifications for decades to come .
Even if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins in November , there will still be a rather conservative court there that ’ ll thwart any overreach .
At least , in time .
One of those likely overreaches would be gun control .
Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t agree with the Court ’ s Heller decision .
It ’ s not unlikely that he ’ d want to pick Supreme Court justices that agree with him .
I mean , that ’ s kind of what presidents do .
The problem , of course , is that there aren ’ t any vacant seats .
By then , at least a third of all justices on the bench would be new appointments made in the last four years , so there won ’ t be much opportunity to appoint many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it looks like Democrats have a plan .
Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments , in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court ’ s legitimacy .
The new bill , seen by Reuters , would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election .
“ It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric , ” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna , who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday , along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately , is remove Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer from office .
While Breyer ’ s replacement wouldn ’ t be appreciably different in terms of gun control support , losing Thomas would be a massive blow to gun rights .
And Democrats know it .
See , as things stand , there ’ s likely to be a 6-3 split in the Court .
That ’ s huge .
While there ’ s some speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts has been the holdup on gun rights , a 6-3 split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing gun rights cases taken up by the Court and likely striking down some of these ridiculous regulations .
Removing Thomas from the bench and appointing a liberal justice would reverse that situation , putting it back into a 5-4 split .
Further , you know good and well that many Democrats are convinced they ’ re a perpetual majority , so they figure they can weed out the conservative justices over time , most likely .
In fairness , I have to admit that this would likely play much better than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing up until now .
Even liberals are recognizing that isn ’ t a great idea .
The question is , how likely is this to happen ?
Well , not very .
For one thing , it ’ ll take a constitutional amendment to create a term limit .
The Founding Fathers didn ’ t want the Supreme Court beholden to the whims of the public , so they got lifetime tenures .
To change that , you need an amendment , which isn ’ t likely to happen no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I suspect that even if an amendment wasn ’ t needed , such a bill would get challenged and then it goes before the Supreme Court–the very court whose members would have to decide if they should be ousted after so many years .
I ’ m not saying self-interested would overrule law , but…well…it wouldn ’ t be the first time .
Especially if self-interest and law lined up .
And yeah , all of this is really just an effort to try and protect gun control and destroy gun rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of several issues they ’ re pushing that they need the courts to back , but guns are up near the top of the list .
As things stand , Biden and company know his assault weapon ban won ’ t pass constitutional muster , so they want to change the courts so they can get their way none the less .

With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we’re likely to see another conservative justice appointed to the Supreme Court. That’ll be three justices nominated by President Donald Trump. If the most recent nominee is confirmed, that’s likely to create ramifications for decades to come. Even if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins in November, there will still be a rather conservative court there that’ll thwart any overreach.
At least, in time.
One of those likely overreaches would be gun control. Biden has made it clear that he doesn’t agree with the Court’s Heller decision. It’s not unlikely that he’d want to pick Supreme Court justices that agree with him. I mean, that’s kind of what presidents do.
The problem, of course, is that there aren’t any vacant seats. By then, at least a third of all justices on the bench would be new appointments made in the last four years, so there won’t be much opportunity to appoint many folks to the Supreme Court.
However, it looks like Democrats have a plan.
Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy. The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election. “It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.
What it would also do, almost immediately, is remove Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer from office. While Breyer’s replacement wouldn’t be appreciably different in terms of gun control support, losing Thomas would be a massive blow to gun rights.
And Democrats know it.
See, as things stand, there’s likely to be a 6-3 split in the Court. That’s huge.
While there’s some speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts has been the holdup on gun rights, a 6-3 split negates that holdup. We would start seeing gun rights cases taken up by the Court and likely striking down some of these ridiculous regulations.
Removing Thomas from the bench and appointing a liberal justice would reverse that situation, putting it back into a 5-4 split.
Further, you know good and well that many Democrats are convinced they’re a perpetual majority, so they figure they can weed out the conservative justices over time, most likely.
In fairness, I have to admit that this would likely play much better than the court packing scheme they’ve been pushing up until now. Even liberals are recognizing that isn’t a great idea.
The question is, how likely is this to happen?
Well, not very. For one thing, it’ll take a constitutional amendment to create a term limit. The Founding Fathers didn’t want the Supreme Court beholden to the whims of the public, so they got lifetime tenures. To change that, you need an amendment, which isn’t likely to happen no matter what this bill seems to want.
Further, I suspect that even if an amendment wasn’t needed, such a bill would get challenged and then it goes before the Supreme Court–the very court whose members would have to decide if they should be ousted after so many years. I’m not saying self-interested would overrule law, but…well…it wouldn’t be the first time. Especially if self-interest and law lined up.
And yeah, all of this is really just an effort to try and protect gun control and destroy gun rights. Oh, it’s one of several issues they’re pushing that they need the courts to back, but guns are up near the top of the list.
As things stand, Biden and company know his assault weapon ban won’t pass constitutional muster, so they want to change the courts so they can get their way none the less.


bearingarms--2020-09-27--2A Groups Applaud Barrett Nomination To Supreme Court

President Donald Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is being greeted with enthusiasm by Second Amendment organizations , while Michael Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun groups are already attacking the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge for what they describe as her “ extreme positions ” on the Second Amendment .
The National Rifle Association ’ s Institute for Legislative Action released a statement shortly after Trump ’ s official announcement applauding the president for his pick and urging the Senate to “ act swiftly to confirm her.
” The National Shooting Sports Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firearms industry , is sounding its support for Barrett ’ s nomination as well .
With pro-2A groups are supporting Barrett ’ s nomination , gun control groups are already launching their first attacks against Barrett , with Everytown for Gun Safety president John Feinblatt calling the judge “ a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court.
” Everytown is centering its criticism of Barrett around a dissenting opinion in a case involving a convicted felon who argued that his Second Amendment rights were being violated by federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibition on felons owning firearms .
As the anti-gun group puts it : Here are the actual facts in the case .
Rickey Kanter had pled guilty to one count of mail fraud for selling footwear inserts that weren ’ t compliant with Medicare , and receiving more than $ 300,000 in Medicare reimbursements for the fraudulent footwear .
Kanter was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for the non-violent offense , but as a convicted felon , he also lost his right to keep and bear arms for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that heard the case ultimately upheld the prohibition , Barrett dissented , arguing that while the Second Amendment allows for dangerous felons to be prohibited from owning firearms , there ’ s nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Founders intended every convicted felon , including those convicted of non-violent offenses , to categorically be stripped of their Second Amendment rights .
Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence , Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons .
The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent felons is carefully tailored to the goal of protecting public safety , nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior .
They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter ’ s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms .
Therefore , they could not bar him from possessing a firearm .
In an ironic twist , Everytown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently spending tens of millions of dollars in the state of Florida to restore the right to vote to tens of thousands of hand-picked felons ( including some convicted of crimes of violence ) in an attempt to swing the state to Joe Biden on Election Day .
The gun control groups are fine with violent felons having their right to vote restored in order to vote for the Democratic ticket , but object to non-violent felons ever being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms .
At a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reimagining ” the criminal justice system to provide more fairness and equitable outcomes , gun control activists are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo when it comes to barring even non-violent felons from the full restoration of their rights .
I suspect that their argument won ’ t sway too many Republican senators , but it should be a reminder to Democrats that gun control and the move to overhaul the criminal justice system are fundamentally at odds with each other .

President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is being greeted with enthusiasm by Second Amendment organizations, while Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups are already attacking the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge for what they describe as her “extreme positions” on the Second Amendment.
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action released a statement shortly after Trump’s official announcement applauding the president for his pick and urging the Senate to “act swiftly to confirm her.”
Judge Barrett’s record demonstrates a steadfast commitment to the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. With this nomination, President Trump continues his record of nominating qualified, fair-minded federal judges who respect the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – to our nation’s highest court.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is the trade organization for the firearms industry, is sounding its support for Barrett’s nomination as well.
“We are pleased to lend our support to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to approve her nomination as expeditiously as possible,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “We are confident Judge Barrett will serve our nation with distinction as an Associate Justice of our nation’s highest court and her service will reaffirm the importance of originalist jurists when protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”
With pro-2A groups are supporting Barrett’s nomination, gun control groups are already launching their first attacks against Barrett, with Everytown for Gun Safety president John Feinblatt calling the judge “a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court.”
“Amy Coney Barrett’s alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment would make her an ideal Supreme Court Justice for the NRA, but a terrible one for the safety of the American people,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “Giving her a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court will make us all less safe, and our grassroots army of nearly 6 million supporters is going to fight like hell to stop that from happening.”
Everytown is centering its criticism of Barrett around a dissenting opinion in a case involving a convicted felon who argued that his Second Amendment rights were being violated by federal and Wisconsin state law because of the prohibition on felons owning firearms. As the anti-gun group puts it:
In a 2019 dissent, which is highlighted in Everytown’s memo, Judge Barrett wrote that people convicted of serious felonies should be allowed to possess guns and endorsed a dangerous and largely historical approach to Second Amendment analysis –– similar to one used by Justice Kavanaugh and other opponents of strong gun safety laws –– that could put many important gun laws at risk. These beliefs are a clear warning sign that if confirmed, she will likely side with gun lobby extremists and reject reasonable gun safety measures.
Here are the actual facts in the case. Rickey Kanter had pled guilty to one count of mail fraud for selling footwear inserts that weren’t compliant with Medicare, and receiving more than $300,000 in Medicare reimbursements for the fraudulent footwear. Kanter was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for the non-violent offense, but as a convicted felon, he also lost his right to keep and bear arms for life.
While the three judge panel that heard the case ultimately upheld the prohibition, Barrett dissented, arguing that while the Second Amendment allows for dangerous felons to be prohibited from owning firearms, there’s nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Founders intended every convicted felon, including those convicted of non-violent offenses, to categorically be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence, Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns but that felons do not lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent felons is carefully tailored to the goal of protecting public safety, nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior. They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter’s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms. Therefore, they could not bar him from possessing a firearm.
In an ironic twist, Everytown founder and chief funder Michael Bloomberg is currently spending tens of millions of dollars in the state of Florida to restore the right to vote to tens of thousands of hand-picked felons (including some convicted of crimes of violence) in an attempt to swing the state to Joe Biden on Election Day. The gun control groups are fine with violent felons having their right to vote restored in order to vote for the Democratic ticket, but object to non-violent felons ever being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
At a time when the Biden/Harris campaign is calling for “reimagining” the criminal justice system to provide more fairness and equitable outcomes, gun control activists are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo when it comes to barring even non-violent felons from the full restoration of their rights. I suspect that their argument won’t sway too many Republican senators, but it should be a reminder to Democrats that gun control and the move to overhaul the criminal justice system are fundamentally at odds with each other.


bearingarms--2020-09-27--GOA Official: Open Seat Bad News For "Pelosi Puppets"

While I won ’ t wish death on anyone , I ’ m not going to pretend that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn ’ t something of a boon for gun rights supporters .
Despite the confirmations of Justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , the Court still refuses to take on any meaningful challenges to gun control .
This is despite the many examples of clearly unconstitutional gun laws .
Now , the vacancy created has a lot of people scrambling .
It ’ s clearly bad news for some folks .
A pro-gun activist says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court nominees would be a vast improvement over Ruth Bader Ginsburg when it comes to Second Amendment rights .
During her tenure on the high court , Ginsburg was not a friend of the Second Amendment .
So Mike Hammond , legislative council to Gun Owners of America , says her vacant seat is a huge deal for the gun rights advocates .
“ If [ President Trump ] replaces her with a conservative , then you have a somewhat more reliable conservative bench in terms of their willingness to adhere to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to making up their own law in order to achieve their ideological objectives , ” Hammond notes .
The two potential nominees he argues would stand strongly for Second Amendment rights are Judges Amy Coney Barrett ( 7th U.S .
Circuit Court ) and Barbara Lagoa ( 11th U.S .
Circuit Court ) .
Hammond also believes that unless the president completely screws up , it can only help him in November ’ s election .
Frankly , I see it as a win even if Trump loses .
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
I damn sure don ’ t want a President Biden or a President Harris .
I just see it as simply a case of such a conservative Court having such an impact on the country that it can potentially negate much of what a Biden administration might want to enact .
It ’ s a check and balance as the Founders intended .
Regardless , we all know that Pelosi and her cohorts are likely freaking out over the vacant seat .
Rep. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and her cohorts likely don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or how it ’ s filled , but Pelosi and her crowd do .
They also know what happens if Trump ’ s nominee is confirmed quickly .
They ’ re also likely cursing Harry Reid over his nuclear option .
So yeah , they ’ re all freaking out right now , and that makes me giggle in ways I can not describe .
However , I ’ ll giggle more if we get a staunch pro-gun justice on the bench and we can start undoing some of the unconstitutional nonsense we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last decade .
After that , we can hopefully see the Second Amendment actually begin to matter as ordinary citizens can exercise their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms without the interference of the government .
That ’ s what I really want , and for once , we might actually be in a position where it happens .
Unfortunately , I ’ ve thought we were there before , and it hasn ’ t worked out , so I ’ m not holding my breath on that .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be an enemy of the Second Amendment , at least .

While I won’t wish death on anyone, I’m not going to pretend that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t something of a boon for gun rights supporters. Despite the confirmations of Justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the Court still refuses to take on any meaningful challenges to gun control. This is despite the many examples of clearly unconstitutional gun laws.
Now, the vacancy created has a lot of people scrambling.
It’s clearly bad news for some folks.
A pro-gun activist says two of President Trump’s potential Supreme Court nominees would be a vast improvement over Ruth Bader Ginsburg when it comes to Second Amendment rights. During her tenure on the high court, Ginsburg was not a friend of the Second Amendment. So Mike Hammond, legislative council to Gun Owners of America, says her vacant seat is a huge deal for the gun rights advocates. “If [President Trump] replaces her with a conservative, then you have a somewhat more reliable conservative bench in terms of their willingness to adhere to the Constitution and the laws as opposed to making up their own law in order to achieve their ideological objectives,” Hammond notes. The two potential nominees he argues would stand strongly for Second Amendment rights are Judges Amy Coney Barrett (7th U.S. Circuit Court) and Barbara Lagoa (11th U.S. Circuit Court).
Hammond also believes that unless the president completely screws up, it can only help him in November’s election.
Frankly, I see it as a win even if Trump loses.
I’m not saying I necessarily want that, mind you. I damn sure don’t want a President Biden or a President Harris. I just see it as simply a case of such a conservative Court having such an impact on the country that it can potentially negate much of what a Biden administration might want to enact. It’s a check and balance as the Founders intended.
Regardless, we all know that Pelosi and her cohorts are likely freaking out over the vacant seat. Rep. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and her cohorts likely don’t understand why the seat is vacant or how it’s filled, but Pelosi and her crowd do. They also know what happens if Trump’s nominee is confirmed quickly.
They’re also likely cursing Harry Reid over his nuclear option.
So yeah, they’re all freaking out right now, and that makes me giggle in ways I cannot describe.
However, I’ll giggle more if we get a staunch pro-gun justice on the bench and we can start undoing some of the unconstitutional nonsense we’ve been seeing in his country over the last decade. After that, we can hopefully see the Second Amendment actually begin to matter as ordinary citizens can exercise their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms without the interference of the government.
That’s what I really want, and for once, we might actually be in a position where it happens. Unfortunately, I’ve thought we were there before, and it hasn’t worked out, so I’m not holding my breath on that.
I will feel better about knowing the Court won’t be an enemy of the Second Amendment, at least.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--Study: Age Restrictions On Guns Have Little Impact On Crime Rates

Do laws barring those under the age of 21 from legally purchasing handguns ( and in some states , certain semi-automatic long guns ) actually make a difference in terms of reducing violent crime and homicides ?
Gun control activists certainly think so , but a new study from a pair of researchers at the University of Washington shows that the restrictions don ’ t have much of an impact on crime rates .
To reach their conclusions , researchers looked at the homicide rates between 1995 and 2017 in five states that instituted age restrictions on gun purchases ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Maryland , and Massachusetts .
The researchers compared the firearm-related homicide rate in 32 states that didn ’ t increase the age to purchase a firearm to see if gun-related homicides decreased more in the states with the additional restrictions .
What they found was that there was little difference between the states that imposed an increased age restriction and those that didn ’ t .
“ The central issue is that there ’ s a very high degree of informal access to firearms , such as through family members or illicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study ’ s lead author and a doctoral student in epidemiology in the UW School of Public Health .
“ And we can ’ t address that kind of availability with age limits.
” In the study , published Aug. 31 in JAMA Pediatrics , UW researchers found that rates of firearm homicides perpetrated by young adults age 18 to 20 years old were not significantly different in the two groups of states .
Determining what laws do have an effect on homicide rates is paramount , she added , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the years studied nearly 36,000 were perpetrated by people in the study ’ s age range .
Because most handguns used in crimes by young adults are acquired from sources unlikely to be affected by age restrictions , “ it is not surprising that we found no association ” between state laws and homicides , the study said .
In other words , those 18-20 year-olds who are committing violent crimes with guns aren ’ t getting them legally to begin with , so the age restrictions imposed in some states aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At best , these laws allow for another criminal charge to be filed after a crime has been committed .
At worst , the laws deny young adults their Second Amendment rights to legally acquire a firearm under the guise of public safety .
In a nation with more than 400-million firearms in the hands of citizens , the idea of reducing “ gun violence ” by targeting the supply of firearms should be a non-starter , but Moe is still insistent that it ’ s the best way to reduce violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the availability of firearms at a time when Americans are buying guns like never before makes absolutely no sense .
First of all , the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms , and unless a Biden/Harris administration packs the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices who overturn or nullify the Heller decision , that ’ s not going to change .
Secondly , Moe and her co-authors fail to acknowledge that homicides in the United States declined dramatically between 1995 and 2017 , even while the “ de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to FBI uniform crime statistics , there were 21,606 homicides and non-negligent manslaughters in 1995 , which resulted in a homicide rate of 8.2 per 100,000 people .
By 2018 the number of murders had declined to 16,214 , resulting in a homicide rate of 5.0 per 100,000 people .
Even though the population of the United States grew by more than 60-million people , the raw number of murders declined by more than 4,000 .
That tells me that it ’ s not the availability of firearms that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense to treat all 18-20 year olds as if they ’ re a threat to others .
It ’ s difficult to find numbers specifically for 18 , 19 , and 20-year olds , but in 2018 , there were about 5,000 arrests of 17-24 year olds for homicide , again according to the FBI .
There are also more than 30-million Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 , which means that far fewer than 1 % of Americans in that age range are ever going to be charged with murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that matter ) .
Reducing the supply of firearms for all in the hopes of stopping criminals from illegally acquiring guns is pipe dream for gun control advocates that has no basis in reality .
In fact , that theory is completely backwards .
What we should do instead is reduce the demand for firearms among those who are most likely to use them in the commission of criminal violent acts .
How do we do that ?
One way is through a strategy of “ coerced use reduction ” ; specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a carrot-and-stick approach , as outlined by criminal justice professor David Kennedy in a 1996 paper that examined the effects of one such strategy in Boston , Massachusetts .
Because the members of particular gangs are fairly well known to police , probation officers , and streetworkers , and because these officials can readily gather more intelligence as required , these actions are carefully focused on active gang members and often on those gang members most deeply involved in the active disputes .
Thus , uninvolved youth do not seem to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explicit communication campaign , often carried out face-to-face between police officers and gang members , to deliver the message that it is violence that has provoked this unusual , heightened activity , and that it will take an end to the violence to make it stop .
Third , gang mediation specialists are deployed and other social services mobilized .
The gun violence seems invariably to stop .
One such operation in Dorchester ’ s Wendover Street area resulted in not only the suppression of a severe gang violence problem but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The widespread adoption of the strategy in Boston ultimately reduced the juvenile homicide rate by more than 50 % without putting a single new gun control law on the books or trying to reduce the availability of firearms among law-abiding residents .
Given the fact that Kennedy ’ s research has been available for nearly 25-years , the only reason I can think of that Moe and her colleagues are still suggesting a supply-side strategy of reducing access to firearms for all in the hopes of it having a trickle-down effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blinded by their own views on firearms that they can ’ t see any other way to reduce crime than by going after gun ownership itself .

Do laws barring those under the age of 21 from legally purchasing handguns (and in some states, certain semi-automatic long guns) actually make a difference in terms of reducing violent crime and homicides? Gun control activists certainly think so, but a new study from a pair of researchers at the University of Washington shows that the restrictions don’t have much of an impact on crime rates.
To reach their conclusions, researchers looked at the homicide rates between 1995 and 2017 in five states that instituted age restrictions on gun purchases; New York, Wyoming, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The researchers compared the firearm-related homicide rate in 32 states that didn’t increase the age to purchase a firearm to see if gun-related homicides decreased more in the states with the additional restrictions. What they found was that there was little difference between the states that imposed an increased age restriction and those that didn’t.
“The central issue is that there’s a very high degree of informal access to firearms, such as through family members or illicit channels,” said Caitlin Moe, the study’s lead author and a doctoral student in epidemiology in the UW School of Public Health. “And we can’t address that kind of availability with age limits.” In the study, published Aug. 31 in JAMA Pediatrics, UW researchers found that rates of firearm homicides perpetrated by young adults age 18 to 20 years old were not significantly different in the two groups of states. Determining what laws do have an effect on homicide rates is paramount, she added, because of the roughly 275,000 homicides involving a firearm during the years studied nearly 36,000 were perpetrated by people in the study’s age range. Because most handguns used in crimes by young adults are acquired from sources unlikely to be affected by age restrictions, “it is not surprising that we found no association” between state laws and homicides, the study said.
In other words, those 18-20 year-olds who are committing violent crimes with guns aren’t getting them legally to begin with, so the age restrictions imposed in some states aren’t going to have an impact. At best, these laws allow for another criminal charge to be filed after a crime has been committed. At worst, the laws deny young adults their Second Amendment rights to legally acquire a firearm under the guise of public safety.
In a nation with more than 400-million firearms in the hands of citizens, the idea of reducing “gun violence” by targeting the supply of firearms should be a non-starter, but Moe is still insistent that it’s the best way to reduce violent crime.
“It’s incredibly important that we address this major cause of death in young people,” said Moe, who is also affiliated with the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center. And that solution will need to be a countrywide, unified effort to address the “de facto availability” of firearms, especially among youth.
A unified, nationwide effort to address the availability of firearms at a time when Americans are buying guns like never before makes absolutely no sense. First of all, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms, and unless a Biden/Harris administration packs the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices who overturn or nullify the Heller decision, that’s not going to change.
Secondly, Moe and her co-authors fail to acknowledge that homicides in the United States declined dramatically between 1995 and 2017, even while the “de facto availability” of guns remained unchanged. According to FBI uniform crime statistics, there were 21,606 homicides and non-negligent manslaughters in 1995, which resulted in a homicide rate of 8.2 per 100,000 people. By 2018 the number of murders had declined to 16,214, resulting in a homicide rate of 5.0 per 100,000 people. Even though the population of the United States grew by more than 60-million people, the raw number of murders declined by more than 4,000. That tells me that it’s not the availability of firearms that’s driving violence.
It also makes no sense to treat all 18-20 year olds as if they’re a threat to others. It’s difficult to find numbers specifically for 18, 19, and 20-year olds, but in 2018, there were about 5,000 arrests of 17-24 year olds for homicide, again according to the FBI. There are also more than 30-million Americans between the ages of 17 and 24, which means that far fewer than 1% of Americans in that age range are ever going to be charged with murder (or any other firearm-related offense, for that matter).
Reducing the supply of firearms for all in the hopes of stopping criminals from illegally acquiring guns is pipe dream for gun control advocates that has no basis in reality. In fact, that theory is completely backwards. What we should do instead is reduce the demand for firearms among those who are most likely to use them in the commission of criminal violent acts. How do we do that? One way is through a strategy of “coerced use reduction”; specifically targeting that small number of youthful offenders with a carrot-and-stick approach, as outlined by criminal justice professor David Kennedy in a 1996 paper that examined the effects of one such strategy in Boston, Massachusetts.
Because the members of particular gangs are fairly well known to police, probation officers, and streetworkers, and because these officials can readily gather more intelligence as required, these actions are carefully focused on active gang members and often on those gang members most deeply involved in the active disputes. Thus, uninvolved youth do not seem to be adversely affected. The second element is an explicit communication campaign, often carried out face-to-face between police officers and gang members, to deliver the message that it is violence that has provoked this unusual, heightened activity, and that it will take an end to the violence to make it stop. Third, gang mediation specialists are deployed and other social services mobilized. The gun violence seems invariably to stop. One such operation in Dorchester’s Wendover Street area resulted in not only the suppression of a severe gang violence problem but also the surrender of over a dozen handguns.
The widespread adoption of the strategy in Boston ultimately reduced the juvenile homicide rate by more than 50% without putting a single new gun control law on the books or trying to reduce the availability of firearms among law-abiding residents. Given the fact that Kennedy’s research has been available for nearly 25-years, the only reason I can think of that Moe and her colleagues are still suggesting a supply-side strategy of reducing access to firearms for all in the hopes of it having a trickle-down effect on criminals is that they’re so blinded by their own views on firearms that they can’t see any other way to reduce crime than by going after gun ownership itself.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--Two Very Different 2A Takes In The Twin Cities

As violent crime soars in the Minneapolis/St .
Paul , folks living in the Twin Cities are responding in very different ways .
While some anti-violence activists are embracing things like a “ gun buyback , ” many residents are purchasing firearms for self-defense , often for the first time in their lives .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a closer look at what ’ s happening in Minneapolis and why we ’ re seeing two very different responses to the increase in violent crime .
We start with the gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday , Bishop Richard Howell , Jr. and the Shiloh Temple church will be hosting a “ gun buyback ” event .
Howell says his church has been the site of far too many funerals this year involving young men , and that “ something ” needs to happen to reduce the violence .
“ No one is gon na get arrested .
No one is gon na get charged for anything .
All we want is give us your guns .
That ’ s one less gun we have to worry about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to be concerned about that may be taken away , ” he said .
“ We shouldn ’ t have to go through our loved ones being murdered and killed for no reason .
We need a way to stop that , and I think that buyback program will help with that , ” Howell said .
“ There has to be more than just praying .
There has to be direct action to make those prayers come to pass.
” Unfortunately for Bishop Howell , the compensated confiscation event hosted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead to less violence , and could actually make it more difficult for police to make arrests in some of the 59 homicides that have taken place in Minneapolis this year .
There ’ s virtually no evidence that these types of programs lead to a reduction in violence , accidental shootings , or suicide , but if a criminal is looking to ditch a gun used in a crime , a “ no questions asked ” turn-in program allows them to not only do so , but to get some easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need or want another gun , they can always acquire another one on the black market , through theft , or a straw purchase .
In fact , at this point it might be easier for a criminal to get ahold of a gun than a law-abiding citizen trying to purchase a firearm from a Twin Cities gun shop .
As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently reported , the Great Gun Run of 2020 has left many stores with a depleted inventory of firearms and almost no ammunition available for sale .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March , as the pandemic led to panic buying and shortages of staples , like rice and toilet paper , that some feared might lead to home invasions , gun shop owners said .
George Floyd ’ s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May , and the protests and riots that followed , further stoked fears of social unrest and violence , intensifying the run on guns and ammunition for self-defense .
“ [ People ] have seen firsthand that law enforcement is not always going to be there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vick , executive vice president of Stock & Barrel Gun Club , a gun shop and range with clubs in Chanhassen and Eagan .
Dave Amon , an agent at Gunstop of Minnetonka , said demand shows no signs of slowing — especially as the national conversation around the changing role of law enforcement rages on .
“ I ’ ve seen a lot more single moms that are scared and need something to protect them , ” he said .
“ They ’ re scared when people talk about defunding the police.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ highs across the country for months know , but the Twin Cities are likely seeing an extra boost in interest thanks to the Minneapolis City Council ’ s idiotic decision to try to push to abolish the city ’ s police force and replace it with… well , they ’ ve been awfully unclear as to what would come next after the defund the department .
Over at HotAir , my friend Ed Morrissey points out that council members are now running away from their earlier calls to “ reimagine policing ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city .
The single most important thing that could be done to reduce the surge in violence in Minneapolis is to ensure that there are consequences for those violent acts .
Forget about “ no questions asked gun buybacks ” and focus on actually apprehending violent suspects .
That means working with residents who have witnessed violent crimes , but who may be reluctant to talk to police out of concerns for their own personal safety or because they believe that officers don ’ t take the violence seriously .
It means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Attorney ’ s office to target the most violent and prolific offenders with federal charges that typically result in lengthier prison stays and less opportunity for early release from their sentences .
It also means providing an opportunity to escape the drug and gang-fueled violence , and that ’ s where Bishop Howell could truly make a difference and an impact on those young lives that are being destroyed by their own bad decisions .
Be sure to check out the entire show above , and stick around for even more news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was able to defend herself from her abusive boyfriend , a Louisiana man with a lengthy criminal history now facing murder charges after allegedly shooting a man in the head in an argument over a pair of Nikes , and a child in South Carolina who ’ s alive and well today thanks to the live-saving efforts of several strangers on a crowded beach .

As violent crime soars in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, folks living in the Twin Cities are responding in very different ways. While some anti-violence activists are embracing things like a “gun buyback,” many residents are purchasing firearms for self-defense, often for the first time in their lives. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a closer look at what’s happening in Minneapolis and why we’re seeing two very different responses to the increase in violent crime.
We start with the gun control side of the equation. This coming Saturday, Bishop Richard Howell, Jr. and the Shiloh Temple church will be hosting a “gun buyback” event. Howell says his church has been the site of far too many funerals this year involving young men, and that “something” needs to happen to reduce the violence.
“No one is gonna get arrested. No one is gonna get charged for anything. All we want is give us your guns. That’s one less gun we have to worry about in this community and one less life we have to be concerned about that may be taken away,” he said. And one less funeral. “We shouldn’t have to go through our loved ones being murdered and killed for no reason. We need a way to stop that, and I think that buyback program will help with that,” Howell said. “There has to be more than just praying. There has to be direct action to make those prayers come to pass.”
Unfortunately for Bishop Howell, the compensated confiscation event hosted by his church isn’t likely to lead to less violence, and could actually make it more difficult for police to make arrests in some of the 59 homicides that have taken place in Minneapolis this year. There’s virtually no evidence that these types of programs lead to a reduction in violence, accidental shootings, or suicide, but if a criminal is looking to ditch a gun used in a crime, a “no questions asked” turn-in program allows them to not only do so, but to get some easy cash at the same time. If they need or want another gun, they can always acquire another one on the black market, through theft, or a straw purchase.
In fact, at this point it might be easier for a criminal to get ahold of a gun than a law-abiding citizen trying to purchase a firearm from a Twin Cities gun shop. As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently reported, the Great Gun Run of 2020 has left many stores with a depleted inventory of firearms and almost no ammunition available for sale.
The surge in gun and ammunition purchases began in March, as the pandemic led to panic buying and shortages of staples, like rice and toilet paper, that some feared might lead to home invasions, gun shop owners said. George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May, and the protests and riots that followed, further stoked fears of social unrest and violence, intensifying the run on guns and ammunition for self-defense. “[People] have seen firsthand that law enforcement is not always going to be there to protect them,” said Kevin Vick, executive vice president of Stock & Barrel Gun Club, a gun shop and range with clubs in Chanhassen and Eagan. Dave Amon, an agent at Gunstop of Minnetonka, said demand shows no signs of slowing — especially as the national conversation around the changing role of law enforcement rages on. “I’ve seen a lot more single moms that are scared and need something to protect them,” he said. “They’re scared when people talk about defunding the police.”
Gun sales have been at record highs across the country for months know, but the Twin Cities are likely seeing an extra boost in interest thanks to the Minneapolis City Council’s idiotic decision to try to push to abolish the city’s police force and replace it with… well, they’ve been awfully unclear as to what would come next after the defund the department. Over at HotAir, my friend Ed Morrissey points out that council members are now running away from their earlier calls to “reimagine policing” in the wake of the rising violence in the city.
This outcome was entirely predictable, and for many who live in Minneapolis, a huge relief as well. The New York Times describes the collapse of the abolish-the-police mission by the city “a case study in how idealistic calls for structural change can falter.” It’s better described as yet another reminder that sloganeering doesn’t replace actual governance, and what happens when politicians react to activists rather than talk to their own constituents.
The single most important thing that could be done to reduce the surge in violence in Minneapolis is to ensure that there are consequences for those violent acts. Forget about “no questions asked gun buybacks” and focus on actually apprehending violent suspects. That means working with residents who have witnessed violent crimes, but who may be reluctant to talk to police out of concerns for their own personal safety or because they believe that officers don’t take the violence seriously. It means working with federal law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney’s office to target the most violent and prolific offenders with federal charges that typically result in lengthier prison stays and less opportunity for early release from their sentences. It also means providing an opportunity to escape the drug and gang-fueled violence, and that’s where Bishop Howell could truly make a difference and an impact on those young lives that are being destroyed by their own bad decisions.
Be sure to check out the entire show above, and stick around for even more news, like the woman in western Pennsylvania who was able to defend herself from her abusive boyfriend, a Louisiana man with a lengthy criminal history now facing murder charges after allegedly shooting a man in the head in an argument over a pair of Nikes, and a child in South Carolina who’s alive and well today thanks to the live-saving efforts of several strangers on a crowded beach.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--Feds Bust Felon Who Threatened To Shoot Cops During Livestream

A 29-year old Louisville man who threatened to shoot police officers during a livestream on Facebook is now facing federal felon-in-possession charges for illegally possessing a handgun .
Cortez Edwards was seen on the social media platform on September 23rd displaying an AR-style pistol and offering to shoot police officers who were outside of his home investigating a nearby disturbance if someone paid him $ 30,000 .
When agents served a search on Edwards ’ home on Sunday , they didn ’ t find the AR-style pistol that was seen during the livestream , but they did turn up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second time in two years that the 29-year old has faced charges for illegally possessing a firearm .
Back in February of 2019 Edwards was charged with a lengthy number of felony drug and gun-related offenses , including two counts of enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in first degree , enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in third degree , enhancement trafficking in marijuana in first degree , three counts of enhancement possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and complicity to possession of firearm by a convicted felon .
Why wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges instead of in his home waving around a gun that he ’ s not legally allowed to own ?
Unfortunately , we don ’ t have any details yet as to the 2019 charges and why Edwards wasn ’ t behind bars for the serious offenses .
It ’ s possible that the suspect ’ s case hasn ’ t yet gone to trial even though it ’ s been more than a year since his first arrest , but it ’ s also entirely plausible that Edwards was offered some sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution for some reason .
Regardless of his previous criminal history , the current charges could land Edwards in a federal prison for a decade , and he ’ ll have to serve at least 85 % of his sentence before he ’ s eligible for release .
The federal charges against Cortez Edwards comes as Donald Trump ’ s Department of Justice is seeking to crack down on violent criminals in cities beset by violence .
Also on Monday , the U.S. Attorney in Cincinnati announced that 16 convicted felons in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegally possessing a firearm as part of the DOJ ’ s Operation LeGend , a coordinated effort targeting violent offenders across the country .
From July through early September nearly 500 suspects have been charged with federal crimes , even as some Democrats have criticized the operation as an election year stunt on the part of the Trump administration .
I don ’ t think too many people would classify the arrest of Cortez Edwards as a stunt .
If nothing else , it should be a warning to other convicted criminals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers while holding a gun you ’ re no longer allowed to possess .

A 29-year old Louisville man who threatened to shoot police officers during a livestream on Facebook is now facing federal felon-in-possession charges for illegally possessing a handgun.
Cortez Edwards was seen on the social media platform on September 23rd displaying an AR-style pistol and offering to shoot police officers who were outside of his home investigating a nearby disturbance if someone paid him $30,000.
“Louisville needs healing and safety for its citizens, not armed felons seeking bids to shoot police,” said Coleman. “Federal law enforcement here will continue to respond as one to swiftly mitigate threats to our city.”
When agents served a search on Edwards’ home on Sunday, they didn’t find the AR-style pistol that was seen during the livestream, but they did turn up a Glock 19 handgun.
This is actually the second time in two years that the 29-year old has faced charges for illegally possessing a firearm. Back in February of 2019 Edwards was charged with a lengthy number of felony drug and gun-related offenses, including two counts of enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in first degree, enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in third degree, enhancement trafficking in marijuana in first degree, three counts of enhancement possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and complicity to possession of firearm by a convicted felon.
Why wasn’t Edwards in prison on those charges instead of in his home waving around a gun that he’s not legally allowed to own? Unfortunately, we don’t have any details yet as to the 2019 charges and why Edwards wasn’t behind bars for the serious offenses. It’s possible that the suspect’s case hasn’t yet gone to trial even though it’s been more than a year since his first arrest, but it’s also entirely plausible that Edwards was offered some sort of plea deal or that prosecutors suspended prosecution for some reason.
Regardless of his previous criminal history, the current charges could land Edwards in a federal prison for a decade, and he’ll have to serve at least 85% of his sentence before he’s eligible for release.
The federal charges against Cortez Edwards comes as Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is seeking to crack down on violent criminals in cities beset by violence. Also on Monday, the U.S. Attorney in Cincinnati announced that 16 convicted felons in the city will be facing federal charges for illegally possessing a firearm as part of the DOJ’s Operation LeGend, a coordinated effort targeting violent offenders across the country. From July through early September nearly 500 suspects have been charged with federal crimes, even as some Democrats have criticized the operation as an election year stunt on the part of the Trump administration.
I don’t think too many people would classify the arrest of Cortez Edwards as a stunt. If nothing else, it should be a warning to other convicted criminals that it’s a truly terrible idea to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers while holding a gun you’re no longer allowed to possess.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--Police: Woman Shoots, Kills Boyfriend After Hours Of Abuse

A woman in western Pennsylvania says she was forced to shoot her boyfriend after he held her against her will and repeatedly assaulted her over a period of several hours this weekend .
The woman , whose name has not been released , called 911 just after 5 a.m. on Saturday , telling dispatchers that she had shot the man and then fled her home .
When police arrived at the home a short time later , they found 24-year old Nigel Broadus dead from multiple gunshot wounds .
Police said the abuse started around 2 a.m. Saturday , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held against her will for about three hours .
During the assault , police said , Mr. Broadus threatened to kill her and began looking for her legally purchased firearm that she kept in the house .
Broadus was allegedly looking for the gun , but the woman grabbed it first .
As Broadus once against approached her , she fired several shots before fleeing and contacting police .
Authorities in Allegheny County say they ’ ll present their evidence to the district attorney to see if charges are warranted , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If her story checks out , there ’ s no way that prosecutors will bring charges , because this would be as clear-cut a case of self-defense as you could possibly find .
This latest incident is just one of several recent self-defense stories involving women who were able to protect themselves or others thanks to their lawfully-possessed firearm .
In Mesa , Arizona a woman who was home alone was able to fend off an intruder armed with a knife after he allegedly threatened her and refused to leave the residence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was working on yard work when she heard a loud noise from inside her home .
When she went to check it out she discovered Jones in her home armed with a knife .
Jones threatened her with the knife before she shot him once in the chest .
Jones was taken to a hospital .
Once discharged he was charged with first degree burglary and aggravated assault .
In addition to these charges , Jones also had two outstanding arrest warrants according to police .
In Spanaway , Washington , a 78-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burglar for police after she caught him trying to break in to her home .
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , women currently make up about 40 % of gun buyers this year , and with the group estimating that 5-million Americans have purchased firearms for the first time since January , that translates to as many as 2-million women who ’ ve become new gun owners in 2020 .
That ’ s bad news for gun control groups like Moms Demand Action , who routinely ignore these cases of women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s good news for everyone who believes that self-defense is a human right .
.

A woman in western Pennsylvania says she was forced to shoot her boyfriend after he held her against her will and repeatedly assaulted her over a period of several hours this weekend. The woman, whose name has not been released, called 911 just after 5 a.m. on Saturday, telling dispatchers that she had shot the man and then fled her home. When police arrived at the home a short time later, they found 24-year old Nigel Broadus dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
Police said the abuse started around 2 a.m. Saturday, when the 28-year-old woman was repeatedly assaulted and held against her will for about three hours. During the assault, police said, Mr. Broadus threatened to kill her and began looking for her legally purchased firearm that she kept in the house.
Broadus was allegedly looking for the gun, but the woman grabbed it first. As Broadus once against approached her, she fired several shots before fleeing and contacting police.
Authorities in Allegheny County say they’ll present their evidence to the district attorney to see if charges are warranted, but the woman was not arrested at the scene. If her story checks out, there’s no way that prosecutors will bring charges, because this would be as clear-cut a case of self-defense as you could possibly find.
This latest incident is just one of several recent self-defense stories involving women who were able to protect themselves or others thanks to their lawfully-possessed firearm. In Mesa, Arizona a woman who was home alone was able to fend off an intruder armed with a knife after he allegedly threatened her and refused to leave the residence.
The woman told police that she was working on yard work when she heard a loud noise from inside her home. When she went to check it out she discovered Jones in her home armed with a knife. Jones threatened her with the knife before she shot him once in the chest. Jones was taken to a hospital. Once discharged he was charged with first degree burglary and aggravated assault. In addition to these charges, Jones also had two outstanding arrest warrants according to police.
In Spanaway, Washington, a 78-year old woman ended up holding a would-be burglar for police after she caught him trying to break in to her home.
The woman, who goes by Sandy, knew something was wrong when her dog, Booboo, started barking Sunday night. “I opened my door, and standing right 2, 3 feet in front of me was a man. We looked at each other for a few seconds, and he turned and started to leave. And I said, ‘Oh no, you don’t. You stay right there!’” she said… “I reached over and got my shotgun. And I cocked it, and I told him to stay right there,” she said. “Told him to go sit on the steps. I followed him out, and I just stood here with the shotgun waiting for the police to come.” It was Sandy’s first time using the shotgun, which she got years ago to protect her family as a single mother. She was initially “scared to death” while holding the intruder at gunpoint. “But then I was totally calm, really and truly. I thought, ‘This is amazing!’ I said, ‘You know, I’ve got grandchildren your age!’”
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, women currently make up about 40% of gun buyers this year, and with the group estimating that 5-million Americans have purchased firearms for the first time since January, that translates to as many as 2-million women who’ve become new gun owners in 2020. That’s bad news for gun control groups like Moms Demand Action, who routinely ignore these cases of women acting in self-defense, but it’s good news for everyone who believes that self-defense is a human right. .


bearingarms--2020-09-28--9-Year Old Suspended For BB Gun At Home Not An Isolated Incident

For a couple of days now we ’ ve been talking about Ka Mauri Harrison , the 4th grader from Harvey , Louisiana who was suspended from his virtual schooling for six days after a teacher spotted him picking up a BB gun from his bedroom floor and putting it away so his younger brother didn ’ t trip over it .
Not only has Harrison received some backing from high profile groups like the NRA , Louisiana ’ s Attorney General is now investigating to determine if the young man ’ s rights were violated by the school suspension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says she ’ s been flooded with calls from around the country since the student ’ s story began receiving national attention .
By Friday , the family ’ s attorney , Chelsea Cusimano , had fielded requests from most national news networks , including ABC , CBS and CNN , as well as newspapers including the Washington Post and USA Today .
But other messages poured in , including tales of similar incidents in other states .
A family in Louisville emailed to say that a gun was seen during their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not suspended .
A man from New Jersey wanted to speak with the Harrisons because his son had been suspending for holding a Nerf gun while doing online class .
Cusimano said one person requested her legal aid in a similar matter .
“ It ’ s something that ’ s not comprehensible , ” she said of the response .
Harrison is at least the fourth student that I ’ m aware of who ’ s faced disciplinary action after inadvertently displaying a BB gun , Nerf gun , or airsoft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past few months .
Back in June a Baltimore County , Maryland family had their home searched after a teacher spotted a BB gun on the bedroom wall of an 11-year old .
In Colorado , two students received visits from police after similar incidents involving toy guns .
Obviously not every incident is going to result in a news story .
You need parents who are willing to speak out and take their case to the press , and then you need reporters who are interested in covering what happened .
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been ringing off the hook with parents who want to share similar stories about their kids , it ’ s pretty apparent that these aren ’ t just a handful of isolated incidents that we ’ re talking about .
My advice for parents is to be proactive .
Contact your school district now and ask them what their policies are when it comes to virtual learning and the inadvertent display of a toy gun or a BB gun during class .
If you ’ re not satisfied with the response , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share your concerns , and be prepared to show up at the next school board meeting .
There ’ s strength in numbers , so try to get other parents involved as well .
Ka Mauri ’ s parents aren ’ t giving up their fight , and they say they ’ ve been amazed by the support the family has received .
“ It ’ s been overwhelming , ” Nyron Harrison said .
Messages have been flooding in through Facebook and email , he said .
“ We ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranges and different gun clubs.
” Messages have come in from “ West Virginia , Colorado , a lot of places , ” he said .
Ka ’ Mauri understands a little bit of what is going on , his father said .
“ I try to keep it on the positive note and give him the feeling that he ’ s done nothing wrong , ” he said .
“ A lot of people want to help him.
” Indeed we do , but we also know that Ka Mauri isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had do deal with an insane response by a school district when it comes to toy or BB guns .
This isn ’ t a problem relegated only to anti-gun states or deep-blue Democratic-run school districts .
The problem is clearly more widespread than many may have realized , and it ’ s time that parents start speaking up to ensure that kids aren ’ t punished for simply being kids .

For a couple of days now we’ve been talking about Ka Mauri Harrison, the 4th grader from Harvey, Louisiana who was suspended from his virtual schooling for six days after a teacher spotted him picking up a BB gun from his bedroom floor and putting it away so his younger brother didn’t trip over it. Not only has Harrison received some backing from high profile groups like the NRA, Louisiana’s Attorney General is now investigating to determine if the young man’s rights were violated by the school suspension.
Harrison’s attorney, meanwhile, says she’s been flooded with calls from around the country since the student’s story began receiving national attention.
By Friday, the family’s attorney, Chelsea Cusimano, had fielded requests from most national news networks, including ABC, CBS and CNN, as well as newspapers including the Washington Post and USA Today. But other messages poured in, including tales of similar incidents in other states. A family in Louisville emailed to say that a gun was seen during their son’s virtual lesson and he was not suspended. A man from New Jersey wanted to speak with the Harrisons because his son had been suspending for holding a Nerf gun while doing online class. Cusimano said one person requested her legal aid in a similar matter. “It’s something that’s not comprehensible,” she said of the response.
Harrison is at least the fourth student that I’m aware of who’s faced disciplinary action after inadvertently displaying a BB gun, Nerf gun, or airsoft gun during virtual class sessions over the past few months. Back in June a Baltimore County, Maryland family had their home searched after a teacher spotted a BB gun on the bedroom wall of an 11-year old. In Colorado, two students received visits from police after similar incidents involving toy guns.
Obviously not every incident is going to result in a news story. You need parents who are willing to speak out and take their case to the press, and then you need reporters who are interested in covering what happened. Given the fact that Cusimano’s phone has been ringing off the hook with parents who want to share similar stories about their kids, it’s pretty apparent that these aren’t just a handful of isolated incidents that we’re talking about.
My advice for parents is to be proactive. Contact your school district now and ask them what their policies are when it comes to virtual learning and the inadvertent display of a toy gun or a BB gun during class. If you’re not satisfied with the response, talk to your school board representative and share your concerns, and be prepared to show up at the next school board meeting. There’s strength in numbers, so try to get other parents involved as well.
Ka Mauri’s parents aren’t giving up their fight, and they say they’ve been amazed by the support the family has received.
“It’s been overwhelming,” Nyron Harrison said. Messages have been flooding in through Facebook and email, he said. “We’ve been getting a lot of invites to gun ranges and different gun clubs.” Messages have come in from “West Virginia, Colorado, a lot of places,” he said. Ka’Mauri understands a little bit of what is going on, his father said. “I try to keep it on the positive note and give him the feeling that he’s done nothing wrong,” he said. “A lot of people want to help him.”
Indeed we do, but we also know that Ka Mauri isn’t the only kid who’s had do deal with an insane response by a school district when it comes to toy or BB guns. This isn’t a problem relegated only to anti-gun states or deep-blue Democratic-run school districts. The problem is clearly more widespread than many may have realized, and it’s time that parents start speaking up to ensure that kids aren’t punished for simply being kids.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--WI Couple Says Foster Parent Rules Violate Their 2A Rights

Brian and Kate Lafferty have been foster parents for three years , but when they going through the process of renewing their license , they were given a form to sign asserting that they would not have any loaded firearms in their home , even if they were carrying for self-defense inside their residence .
Besides requiring that firearms be locked up unloaded , the agency that oversees the foster care program in the Laffertys home county also demands that ammunition be locked up and stored separately from any guns in the home .
The couple balked at the language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which also required them to list every firearm that the Laffertys own as well as where they ’ re stored .
Rather than give up their role as foster parents , however , the couple are now suing the state and county agencies that oversee foster parents for violating the Second Amendment .
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families said in a statement that the rules for foster parents must take into consideration both the safety of children and the rights of parents .
“ The department ’ s longstanding administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a reasonable balance between a person ’ s right to possess firearms and the agency ’ s responsibility to keep children safe while they are placed out of their homes , ” the statement said .
Making it nearly impossible to protect your family ( including your foster kids ) with a firearm if necessary isn ’ t striking any sort of “ reasonable balance.
” Rather , it establishes a double standard , and one where foster families are placed at a greater risk of being the victims of violent crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to access a firearm .
Brian and Kate Lafferty were the subject of a profile in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last December , and they come across as a genuine and down-to-earth couple who are trying to help kids in a tough situation .
Lafferty said that to celebrate Christmas , she and her husband plan to do traditional holiday activities with their foster children .
They will make cinnamon rolls in the morning and open presents .
Then , she said , they will spend time with their extended family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She and her husband , Brian have fostered two sets of siblings .
They had two boys , until June , for three years .
And now , they have two boys , ages 7 and 9 , who have been with them for about four weeks .
“ We treat them as if they are our own , ” said Lafferty .
But she knows that these foster children are only in her home temporarily… The hardest thing about fostering is knowing you will have to say goodbye , said Lafferty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she recently had to part from two brothers , ages 8 and 11 , whom she and her husband had fostered for three years .
“ When we said goodbye , it was the hardest thing we ever had to go through , ” she said .
But she also said that shebecame close with the boys ’ biological father and that they keep in touch .
It is a lifelong relationship , she explained .
“ We had to grieve ( after saying goodbye to her past foster kids ) .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let our hearts heal , ” said Lafferty .
“ But we knew we could do it again.
” She said it was rewarding to see the children flourish and grow .
“ This is what we are supposed to be doing , ” she said .
“ We made a lasting impact in their lives , and we were a positive influence .
More people should step up .
These kids are our future .
I think it is good to have foster families in all communities.
” We need more folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , but foster parents shouldn ’ t have to decide between helping a child in need and being able to protect their family in their home .
Unfortunately , many other states have similar restrictions in place for foster parents , though the state of Texas made some improvements to their law last year by at least allowing foster parents to store locked firearms and ammunition together , making it easier to access and use a gun in self-defense if necessary .
I doubt the state of Wisconsin will take similar steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common sense will prevail in a court of law and they can soon return to helping kids in need while keeping them safe at home .

Brian and Kate Lafferty have been foster parents for three years, but when they going through the process of renewing their license, they were given a form to sign asserting that they would not have any loaded firearms in their home, even if they were carrying for self-defense inside their residence. Besides requiring that firearms be locked up unloaded, the agency that oversees the foster care program in the Laffertys home county also demands that ammunition be locked up and stored separately from any guns in the home.
The couple balked at the language from the Washington County Human Services Department, which also required them to list every firearm that the Laffertys own as well as where they’re stored. Rather than give up their role as foster parents, however, the couple are now suing the state and county agencies that oversee foster parents for violating the Second Amendment.
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families said in a statement that the rules for foster parents must take into consideration both the safety of children and the rights of parents. “The department’s longstanding administrative rules for foster families were established to create a reasonable balance between a person’s right to possess firearms and the agency’s responsibility to keep children safe while they are placed out of their homes,” the statement said.
Making it nearly impossible to protect your family (including your foster kids) with a firearm if necessary isn’t striking any sort of “reasonable balance.” Rather, it establishes a double standard, and one where foster families are placed at a greater risk of being the victims of violent crimes because they’re far less likely to be able to access a firearm.
Brian and Kate Lafferty were the subject of a profile in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last December, and they come across as a genuine and down-to-earth couple who are trying to help kids in a tough situation.
Lafferty said that to celebrate Christmas, she and her husband plan to do traditional holiday activities with their foster children. They will make cinnamon rolls in the morning and open presents. Then, she said, they will spend time with their extended family, maybe watching a bit of football. She and her husband, Brian have fostered two sets of siblings. They had two boys, until June, for three years. And now, they have two boys, ages 7 and 9, who have been with them for about four weeks. “We treat them as if they are our own,” said Lafferty. But she knows that these foster children are only in her home temporarily… The hardest thing about fostering is knowing you will have to say goodbye, said Lafferty. She went through this herself when she recently had to part from two brothers, ages 8 and 11, whom she and her husband had fostered for three years. “When we said goodbye, it was the hardest thing we ever had to go through,” she said. But she also said that shebecame close with the boys’ biological father and that they keep in touch. It is a lifelong relationship, she explained. “We had to grieve (after saying goodbye to her past foster kids). We took some time off from fostering and let our hearts heal,” said Lafferty. “But we knew we could do it again.” She said it was rewarding to see the children flourish and grow. “This is what we are supposed to be doing,” she said. “We made a lasting impact in their lives, and we were a positive influence. More people should step up. These kids are our future. I think it is good to have foster families in all communities.”
We need more folks like the Laffertys in the foster care system, but foster parents shouldn’t have to decide between helping a child in need and being able to protect their family in their home. Unfortunately, many other states have similar restrictions in place for foster parents, though the state of Texas made some improvements to their law last year by at least allowing foster parents to store locked firearms and ammunition together, making it easier to access and use a gun in self-defense if necessary.
I doubt the state of Wisconsin will take similar steps voluntarily, but hopefully the Laffertys and common sense will prevail in a court of law and they can soon return to helping kids in need while keeping them safe at home.


bearingarms--2020-09-28--Gun Control Advocates Melting Down Over Barrett Nomination

As Democrats sharpen their rhetorical knives in preparation for the upcoming confirmation fight over Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge Amy Comey Barrett to the Supreme Court , gun control groups are already attacking the nominee over her views on the Second Amendment .
At USA Today , Moms Demand Action ’ s Shannon Watts is doing her best to scare suburban moms by portraying Barrett as a judge with “ an alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment ” who would put countless gun control laws at risk with her view that the right of the people to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
Judge Barrett ’ s dangerous views were on full display just last year , when she and two other judges heard an appeal from a man who claimed his serious felony conviction should not have prohibited him from possessing firearms .
Dissenting from her two colleagues — both appointed by President Ronald Reagan — Judge Barrett sided with the plaintiff , taking an outlier approach to Second Amendment analysis that no federal appeals court has ever adopted .
She even went out of her way to endorse a gun lobby-backed interpretation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a law unrelated to the case at hand but central to many recent and ongoing challenges to public safety laws regulating the carrying of guns in public .
Dangerous ?
Hardly .
Watts makes it sound like Barrett would give violent felons a firearm as they leave prison , when it fact the case involved a Wisconsin man who was convicted of one felony count of mail fraud for allegedly getting Medicare reimbursement funds through sales of unapproved shoe inserts .
That ’ s not a violent crime , and Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man from legally being allowed to own a firearm was soundly based in both history and tradition , as National Review ‘ s Ed Whelan recently pointed out .
Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence , Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns but that felons do not lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons .
The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of protecting public safety , nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior .
They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter ’ s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms .
Therefore , they could not bar him from possessing a firearm .
It ’ s true that Amy Coney Barrett would likely take a dim view of many of the gun control laws that Shannon Watts and her fellow gun-banners have put in place over the past decades , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view that the Second Amendment actually means what it says ; the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the People that can ’ t be infringed by the government .
For the gun control movement , that ’ s the true danger of having Barrett on the Supreme Court , as Watts makes clear .
Over the past few years , Moms Demand Action volunteers have taken on the NRA at the ballot box , in statehouses and in Congress .
Our movement is winning .
But our progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on racial justice and so many critical issues , can be halted — and even reversed — with one more Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice .
Every one of our nearly 6 million supporters will fight like hell to make sure that the American people –– not President Trump and Sen. McConnell –– get to decide who picks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s replacement .
Justice Ginsburg fought for us for decades .
Now , it ’ s our turn .
It ’ s not the job of a Supreme Court justice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA .
In the case of the Second Amendment and gun control laws , it ’ s the duty of justices to determine whether or not those laws violate our constitutional rights .
We know that Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , Shannon Watts , Michael Bloomberg , and the rest of the gun-ban crowd view the Second Amendment as an anachronism ; a right to own a musket for service in a well-regulated militia .
Unfortunately for them , that view of the right to keep and bear arms was rejected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 in the Heller and McDonald cases .
Barrett ’ s views on the Second Amendment certainly don ’ t align with Shannon Watts , but they ’ re solidly in line with Supreme Court precedent and the plain meaning of the amendment ’ s text and tradition .
Far from being dangerous , Barrett ’ s legal analysis of the right to keep and bear arms indicates that she ’ s a thoughtful and thorough judge who ’ s unwilling to serve as a rubber stamp of approval for gun control at @ @ @ @ @ @

As Democrats sharpen their rhetorical knives in preparation for the upcoming confirmation fight over Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge Amy Comey Barrett to the Supreme Court, gun control groups are already attacking the nominee over her views on the Second Amendment. At USA Today, Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts is doing her best to scare suburban moms by portraying Barrett as a judge with “an alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment” who would put countless gun control laws at risk with her view that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of Americans.
Judge Barrett’s dangerous views were on full display just last year, when she and two other judges heard an appeal from a man who claimed his serious felony conviction should not have prohibited him from possessing firearms. Dissenting from her two colleagues — both appointed by President Ronald Reagan — Judge Barrett sided with the plaintiff, taking an outlier approach to Second Amendment analysis that no federal appeals court has ever adopted. She even went out of her way to endorse a gun lobby-backed interpretation of a 14th century English firearms law — a law unrelated to the case at hand but central to many recent and ongoing challenges to public safety laws regulating the carrying of guns in public.
Dangerous? Hardly. Watts makes it sound like Barrett would give violent felons a firearm as they leave prison, when it fact the case involved a Wisconsin man who was convicted of one felony count of mail fraud for allegedly getting Medicare reimbursement funds through sales of unapproved shoe inserts. That’s not a violent crime, and Barrett’s dissent in the decision to bar the man from legally being allowed to own a firearm was soundly based in both history and tradition, as National Review‘s Ed Whelan recently pointed out.
Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence, Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns but that felons do not lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent felons is carefully tailored to the goal of protecting public safety, nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior. They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter’s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms. Therefore, they could not bar him from possessing a firearm.
It’s true that Amy Coney Barrett would likely take a dim view of many of the gun control laws that Shannon Watts and her fellow gun-banners have put in place over the past decades, but that’s because of Barrett’s not-so-shocking view that the Second Amendment actually means what it says; the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the People that can’t be infringed by the government. For the gun control movement, that’s the true danger of having Barrett on the Supreme Court, as Watts makes clear.
Over the past few years, Moms Demand Action volunteers have taken on the NRA at the ballot box, in statehouses and in Congress. Our movement is winning. But our progress on this public health crisis, and on racial justice and so many critical issues, can be halted — and even reversed — with one more Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice. Every one of our nearly 6 million supporters will fight like hell to make sure that the American people –– not President Trump and Sen. McConnell –– get to decide who picks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement. Justice Ginsburg fought for us for decades. Now, it’s our turn.
It’s not the job of a Supreme Court justice to fight for gun control groups or the NRA. In the case of the Second Amendment and gun control laws, it’s the duty of justices to determine whether or not those laws violate our constitutional rights. We know that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun-ban crowd view the Second Amendment as an anachronism; a right to own a musket for service in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately for them, that view of the right to keep and bear arms was rejected by the Supreme Court back in 2008 and 2010 in the Heller and McDonald cases.
Barrett’s views on the Second Amendment certainly don’t align with Shannon Watts, but they’re solidly in line with Supreme Court precedent and the plain meaning of the amendment’s text and tradition. Far from being dangerous, Barrett’s legal analysis of the right to keep and bear arms indicates that she’s a thoughtful and thorough judge who’s unwilling to serve as a rubber stamp of approval for gun control at the expense of the Constitution.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--Remington To Be Broken Up, Sold

Remington To Be Broken Up, Sold

Remington is one of the oldest firearm manufacturers in the United States .
It ’ s a venerable name that is known throughout the gun world .
Hell , even non-gun people know the name “ Remington.
” However , the company has fallen on hard times recently .
Now , as a result of those hard times , it looks like the company is being broken up and sold off piecemeal .
Gun maker Remington Outdoor will be broken up and sold after a multiday bankruptcy auction , in which seven different buyers won the bidding for parcels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holdings .
Sales of Remington ’ s ammunition and weapons manufacturing business , the Remington brand and others will bring in at least $ 155 million to be applied against the company ’ s debts .
Lawyers for Remington haven ’ t responded to requests to comment on the auction results , which were partially revealed Sunday in court filings .
Judge Clifton R. Jessup Jr. has scheduled a Tuesday hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Decatur , Ala. , to consider approval of the auction results .
The auction is the culmination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years .
The Huntsville , Ala. , company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late July , saying it didn ’ t have the cash to make weapons to satisfy demand for its products .
It appears that Vista Outdoors will get the ammunition business , which will put it with Speer , CCI , Blazer , and American Eagle ammunition .
Right now , ammo appears to be a very lucrative business , to say the least .
Meanwhile the firearm manufacturing was apparently purchased in part by Sturm Ruger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing was purchase by Round Hill Group LLC , who doesn ’ t seem to have any previous presence in the firearm industry .
So , what does this all mean for gun buyers ?
Honestly , it probably doesn ’ t mean all that much .
For now , guns will still be made and sold just like they have been .
Fewer individual companies is problematic since it ultimately reduces competition which can ultimately lead to higher prices , but that ’ s not likely to be a factor for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to have to deal with the lawsuit against Remington regarding the bogus attempt to blame the company for the Sandy Hook shooting .
Even if they ’ re victorious–and they should be–it ’ ll still be a costly road , which probably didn ’ t help efforts to keep the company together .
The important thing , though , is that the company still exists and will continue providing both firearms and ammunition for the foreseeable future .
Lord only knows , we need all the ammo manufacturers we can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even less ammo being made to fill the void we ’ ve seen over the last few weeks/months .
Then again , the same is true about firearm manufacturers .
After all , there are a lot of empty spaces on a lot of gun dealers ’ shelves right about now , so there ’ s plenty of room for everyone to make and sell firearms .
We need all our manufacturers , right about now , and that includes Remington .
Luckily , they ’ ll still be around for a little @ @

Remington is one of the oldest firearm manufacturers in the United States. It’s a venerable name that is known throughout the gun world. Hell, even non-gun people know the name “Remington.”
However, the company has fallen on hard times recently. Now, as a result of those hard times, it looks like the company is being broken up and sold off piecemeal.
Gun maker Remington Outdoor will be broken up and sold after a multiday bankruptcy auction, in which seven different buyers won the bidding for parcels of the company’s weapons and ammunition holdings. Sales of Remington’s ammunition and weapons manufacturing business, the Remington brand and others will bring in at least $155 million to be applied against the company’s debts. Lawyers for Remington haven’t responded to requests to comment on the auction results, which were partially revealed Sunday in court filings. Judge Clifton R. Jessup Jr. has scheduled a Tuesday hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Decatur, Ala., to consider approval of the auction results. The auction is the culmination of Remington’s second bankruptcy of recent years. The Huntsville, Ala., company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late July, saying it didn’t have the cash to make weapons to satisfy demand for its products.
It appears that Vista Outdoors will get the ammunition business, which will put it with Speer, CCI, Blazer, and American Eagle ammunition. Right now, ammo appears to be a very lucrative business, to say the least.
Meanwhile the firearm manufacturing was apparently purchased in part by Sturm Ruger & Co. The rest of the manufacturing was purchase by Round Hill Group LLC, who doesn’t seem to have any previous presence in the firearm industry.
So, what does this all mean for gun buyers?
Honestly, it probably doesn’t mean all that much. For now, guns will still be made and sold just like they have been. Fewer individual companies is problematic since it ultimately reduces competition which can ultimately lead to higher prices, but that’s not likely to be a factor for some time.
In the meantime, someone is going to have to deal with the lawsuit against Remington regarding the bogus attempt to blame the company for the Sandy Hook shooting. Even if they’re victorious–and they should be–it’ll still be a costly road, which probably didn’t help efforts to keep the company together.
The important thing, though, is that the company still exists and will continue providing both firearms and ammunition for the foreseeable future. Lord only knows, we need all the ammo manufacturers we can get. The last thing we need is even less ammo being made to fill the void we’ve seen over the last few weeks/months.
Then again, the same is true about firearm manufacturers. After all, there are a lot of empty spaces on a lot of gun dealers’ shelves right about now, so there’s plenty of room for everyone to make and sell firearms. We need all our manufacturers, right about now, and that includes Remington. Luckily, they’ll still be around for a little while.


bearingarms--2020-09-29--When Even The GOP Candidate Supports Gun Control

While some like to argue that gun control isn ’ t a partisan issue , it kind of is .
You generally know , as a gun rights supporter , you ’ re likely to get a better deal from the Republican candidate than the Democrat .
Especially since so many Democrats have been pushing hard for gun control for ages now , while Republicans typically frame themselves as being pro-gun .
Yet that ’ s not always the case , of course .
Oh , most will say they support the Second Amendment , but there ’ s something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to choose just how much gun control they want their candidate to back .
Incumbent U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood and her opponent for the 14th Congressional District seat , state Sen. Jim Oberweis , went head to head on police reform , abortion , gun control and other issues during a virtual forum over the weekend .
Regarding gun control , Underwood said she supports both universal background checks to reduce gun violence , and the restoration of the 1994 assault weapons ban , which expired in 2004 .
“ No child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no worker should fear a mass shooting at their job , ” she said .
“ Gun violence prevention is a public health issue , and it ’ s the responsibility of Congress to respond with a data-driven , evidence-based policy , like the bipartisan background check bill.
” Oberweis , who described himself as a “ strong supporter of the Second Amendment , ” said he also backs universal background checks , but generally doesn ’ t believe more laws are necessary .
Instead , he said , better enforcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best thing that we could do to protect our kids and adults would be to combine the five different databases that we have right now , ” Oberweis said .
“ Because the background check doesn ’ t do any good if you ’ re checking one system , and somebody doesn ’ t show up on that system , but they ’ re in one of the other systems.
” Now , bear in mind , this is Illinois , but holy crap .
This is what folks in that neck of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
You ’ ve got two candidates who are really only disagreeing with what degree of gun control to pass .
That ’ s it .
Oh , I get Oberweis claims he supports the Second Amendment , but he ’ s still going to back universal background checks if elected .
Most gun rights advocates wouldn ’ t really call that supporting the Second Amendment .
That ’ s especially true when you look at how much of a cluster flop universal background checks tend to end up becoming .
Honestly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pro-gun voices are kind of stuck having to back Oberweis despite his nonsensical position because it ’ s still better than his opponent who also backs a failed law that accomplished absolutely nothing except make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens .
That ’ s the choice these folks in Illinois face .
What ’ s more , though , is that if Oberweis is elected , we face the possibility that a Republican would cross the aisle to back a piece of legislation that should never see the light of day @

While some like to argue that gun control isn’t a partisan issue, it kind of is. You generally know, as a gun rights supporter, you’re likely to get a better deal from the Republican candidate than the Democrat. Especially since so many Democrats have been pushing hard for gun control for ages now, while Republicans typically frame themselves as being pro-gun.
Yet that’s not always the case, of course.
Oh, most will say they support the Second Amendment, but there’s something very wrong with the world when people have to choose just how much gun control they want their candidate to back.
Incumbent U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood and her opponent for the 14th Congressional District seat, state Sen. Jim Oberweis, went head to head on police reform, abortion, gun control and other issues during a virtual forum over the weekend. … Regarding gun control, Underwood said she supports both universal background checks to reduce gun violence, and the restoration of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. “No child should fear for their life at school, no worker should fear a mass shooting at their job,” she said. “Gun violence prevention is a public health issue, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to respond with a data-driven, evidence-based policy, like the bipartisan background check bill.” Oberweis, who described himself as a “strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” said he also backs universal background checks, but generally doesn’t believe more laws are necessary. Instead, he said, better enforcement of current laws is needed. “The best thing that we could do to protect our kids and adults would be to combine the five different databases that we have right now,” Oberweis said. “Because the background check doesn’t do any good if you’re checking one system, and somebody doesn’t show up on that system, but they’re in one of the other systems.”
Oh, brother.
Now, bear in mind, this is Illinois, but holy crap. This is what folks in that neck of the woods have as far as options?
You’ve got two candidates who are really only disagreeing with what degree of gun control to pass. That’s it. Oh, I get Oberweis claims he supports the Second Amendment, but he’s still going to back universal background checks if elected. Most gun rights advocates wouldn’t really call that supporting the Second Amendment.
That’s especially true when you look at how much of a cluster flop universal background checks tend to end up becoming.
Honestly, I’m more sad than anything. Pro-gun voices are kind of stuck having to back Oberweis despite his nonsensical position because it’s still better than his opponent who also backs a failed law that accomplished absolutely nothing except make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens. That’s the choice these folks in Illinois face.
It’s a sad state of the world.
What’s more, though, is that if Oberweis is elected, we face the possibility that a Republican would cross the aisle to back a piece of legislation that should never see the light of day.
Again, it’s a sad state.