bearingarms--2020-03-06--Philly's "Lost or Stolen" Ordinance Challenged In Court

A local law requiring gun owners to report any firearm that is lost or stolen to police within 24 hours is being challenged in a Philadelphia case involving a man whose gun was found in a traffic stop back in 2018 .
Rashad Armstrong told police his firearm had gone missing about a month before it was discovered in a vehicle in Lancaster , Pennsylvania along with drugs .
Prosecutors in Philadelphia used the local “ lost and stolen ” ordinance for the first time since it was put on the books in 2008 , but Armstrong ’ s attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have the authority to enforce its local law .
On Thursday , Armstrong ’ s attorneys sought a permanent injunction , arguing that only the General Assembly can regulate guns , citing case law in support of their argument .
Preemption prevents the city from enforcing the ordinance against Armstrong or any other Philadelphian .
“ This is just another occasion of the city of Philadelphia violating an individual ’ s rights and it ’ s time for us as a country to stand up when the municipal movement starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional rights , ” said Armstrong ’ s attorney , Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group .
Prince argued that regardless of the city ’ s well-meaning intentions to reduce gun violence , the city ’ s only recourse is to petition the lawmakers in Harrisburg to change state laws .
But Ben Geffen , one of the Public Interest Law Center ’ s attorneys teaming up with the city ’ s legal team to fight the injunction request , pushed back .
“ State law does put some restrictions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it doesn ’ t completely eliminate the power of cities to do anything about gun violence , ” he said .
Geffen is representing nonprofits working to reduce gun violence in the city , as well as mothers Kimberly Burrell and Freda Hall .
Both women ’ s sons were shot to death .
The guns used in the killings were obtained illegally from sources in Philadelphia .
The women believe enforcing the law could prevent murders .
“ Law-abiding , responsible gun owners who lose a gun or whose gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , ” said Geffen .
If a judge rules that the city does have the authority to enforce its local ordinance , Armstrong could face a $ 2,000 fine for failing to report his missing firearm .
Supporters of the ordinance say it ’ s meant to crack down on straw purchases of firearms , where someone buys a gun for an individual who ’ s not allowed to legally own one .
There ’ s no evidence that these laws actually do anything to reduce straw purchases , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used by Armstrong ’ s attorneys .
Instead , they ’ re pointing out the plain language in Pennsylvania ’ s firearm preemption law , which states that no “ county , municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership , possession , transfer or transportation of firearms , ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
” As WHYY notes , previous District Attorneys in Philadelphia chose not to try to enforce the law , believing it violated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that changed when Larry Krasner was elected to the office in 2018 .
The hearing will continue next month in Philadelphia , and it could be several more weeks after that before we learn if the judge will allow the case to continue .
Both sides say they ultimately believe the state Supreme Court will hear the case and decide whether or not Philly ’ s local gun control ordinance can be enforced .

A local law requiring gun owners to report any firearm that is lost or stolen to police within 24 hours is being challenged in a Philadelphia case involving a man whose gun was found in a traffic stop back in 2018. Rashad Armstrong told police his firearm had gone missing about a month before it was discovered in a vehicle in Lancaster, Pennsylvania along with drugs. Prosecutors in Philadelphia used the local “lost and stolen” ordinance for the first time since it was put on the books in 2008, but Armstrong’s attorneys are arguing in court that the city doesn’t have the authority to enforce its local law.
From WHYY:
On Thursday, Armstrong’s attorneys sought a permanent injunction, arguing that only the General Assembly can regulate guns, citing case law in support of their argument. Preemption prevents the city from enforcing the ordinance against Armstrong or any other Philadelphian. “This is just another occasion of the city of Philadelphia violating an individual’s rights and it’s time for us as a country to stand up when the municipal movement starts to violate our rights, especially our constitutional rights,” said Armstrong’s attorney, Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group. Prince argued that regardless of the city’s well-meaning intentions to reduce gun violence, the city’s only recourse is to petition the lawmakers in Harrisburg to change state laws. But Ben Geffen, one of the Public Interest Law Center’s attorneys teaming up with the city’s legal team to fight the injunction request, pushed back. “State law does put some restrictions on how some local governments can regulate guns, but it doesn’t completely eliminate the power of cities to do anything about gun violence,” he said. Geffen is representing nonprofits working to reduce gun violence in the city, as well as mothers Kimberly Burrell and Freda Hall. Both women’s sons were shot to death. The guns used in the killings were obtained illegally from sources in Philadelphia. The women believe enforcing the law could prevent murders. “Law-abiding, responsible gun owners who lose a gun or whose gun is stolen call the cops and report it,” said Geffen.
If a judge rules that the city does have the authority to enforce its local ordinance, Armstrong could face a $2,000 fine for failing to report his missing firearm. Supporters of the ordinance say it’s meant to crack down on straw purchases of firearms, where someone buys a gun for an individual who’s not allowed to legally own one.
There’s no evidence that these laws actually do anything to reduce straw purchases, but that’s not the thrust of the argument used by Armstrong’s attorneys. Instead, they’re pointing out the plain language in Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law, which states that no “county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”
As WHYY notes, previous District Attorneys in Philadelphia chose not to try to enforce the law, believing it violated the state’s firearm preemption statute, but that changed when Larry Krasner was elected to the office in 2018.
The hearing will continue next month in Philadelphia, and it could be several more weeks after that before we learn if the judge will allow the case to continue. Both sides say they ultimately believe the state Supreme Court will hear the case and decide whether or not Philly’s local gun control ordinance can be enforced.


bearingarms--2020-03-06--Online Ammo Retailer Sued Over Santa Fe High School Shooting

The shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas may have drifted out of the limelight , but not for those involved .
That ’ s understandable , though .
After all , they were there .
They have to deal with that trauma for the rest of their lives .
They ’ re not forgetting anything .
However , a new lawsuit is likely to push the shooting back into the news once again .
It seems that someone has decided to sue the online ammo retailer that allegedly sold to the shooter .
An online ammunition retailer has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed over the May 2018 shooting rampage at Santa Fe High School .
Attorneys representing those who were killed or injured during the shooting claim [ killer ’ s name redacted ] started buying ammunition online two weeks after the mass shooting in Parkland , Florida .
[ The shooter ] was 17 at the time of the shooting and federal law prohibited him from buying ammunition .
According to the Gun Control Act , rifle and shotgun ammunition can not be sold to anyone under 18 and other types of ammunition can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lawsuit claims Luckygunner.com sold [ him ] handgun and shotgun rounds without verifying his age .
“ The 17-year old did not need to produce any identification or provide proof of age to complete the purchase , and his order was approved in two minutes , ” the lawsuit reads .
Neither Texas nor federal law expressly requires retailers to check IDs prior to ammunition sales .
“ Instead of designing a website that allowed them to verify the purchase age for every customer , the Luckygunner Defendants made a decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless the shipment was destined for a small handful of states where certain proof is expressly required by state law , ” court documents read .
In other words , Lucky Gunner did nothing that was illegal .
While yes , it ’ s illegal for those under certain ages to buy certain kinds of ammo , there ’ s no requirement for any ammo retailer to add extra steps in selling or delivering ammunition to anyone .
And that ’ s important because Lucky Gunner is covered under the Lawful Commerce in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re protected because they did nothing illegal in the process of conducting business .
Had Lucky Gunner failed to comply with the law at it is written , that ’ s one thing .
That isn ’ t what happened , though .
The parents are upset .
I get that .
I ’ d be upset as hell too .
They even admit as much : In a statement to KPRC 2 , the mother of Christopher Stone , Rosie Stone , writes : “ Everybody who had a hand in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will fight to hold each and every one of them accountable .
Luckygunner should be shut down for the irresponsible handling of who ’ s buying these bullets .
They sold to a minor , he was 17 .
Those bullets that they so carelessly handed over , killed our son .
His irresponsible gun owner of a father supplied the guns and Luckygunner supplied the bullets .
It ’ s a vicious cycle of how this killer pulled off this mass shooting .
All he needed was a red carpet rollout .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone but the kid who actually did the shooting .
For the record , Lucky Gunner does require people to check that they ’ re over the age of 21 , so it ’ s not like they ’ re ignoring the law here .
As a result , Mrs. Stone is likely to find herself sorely disappointed when this goes to court .
A company not following steps you might think are better doesn ’ t make them complicit in mass murder .
Lucky Gunner operated in compliance with ever legal requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re not the villains here .
No , the villains are likely the attorneys who approached these parents just looking for someone to sue .
They preyed on grieving parents just to fatten their own wallets .
After all , they ’ re likely to get paid whether they win or lose .

The shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas may have drifted out of the limelight, but not for those involved. That’s understandable, though. After all, they were there. They have to deal with that trauma for the rest of their lives. They’re not forgetting anything.
However, a new lawsuit is likely to push the shooting back into the news once again.
It seems that someone has decided to sue the online ammo retailer that allegedly sold to the shooter.
An online ammunition retailer has now been named in a civil lawsuit filed over the May 2018 shooting rampage at Santa Fe High School. Attorneys representing those who were killed or injured during the shooting claim [killer’s name redacted] started buying ammunition online two weeks after the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. [The shooter] was 17 at the time of the shooting and federal law prohibited him from buying ammunition. According to the Gun Control Act, rifle and shotgun ammunition cannot be sold to anyone under 18 and other types of ammunition cannot be sold to anyone under 21. The lawsuit claims Luckygunner.com sold [him] handgun and shotgun rounds without verifying his age. “The 17-year old did not need to produce any identification or provide proof of age to complete the purchase, and his order was approved in two minutes,” the lawsuit reads. Neither Texas nor federal law expressly requires retailers to check IDs prior to ammunition sales. “Instead of designing a website that allowed them to verify the purchase age for every customer, the Luckygunner Defendants made a decision not to ask for proof of age unless the shipment was destined for a small handful of states where certain proof is expressly required by state law,” court documents read.
In other words, Lucky Gunner did nothing that was illegal. While yes, it’s illegal for those under certain ages to buy certain kinds of ammo, there’s no requirement for any ammo retailer to add extra steps in selling or delivering ammunition to anyone.
And that’s important because Lucky Gunner is covered under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In essence, they’re protected because they did nothing illegal in the process of conducting business.
Had Lucky Gunner failed to comply with the law at it is written, that’s one thing. That isn’t what happened, though.
The parents are upset. I get that. I’d be upset as hell too. They even admit as much:
In a statement to KPRC 2, the mother of Christopher Stone, Rosie Stone, writes: “Everybody who had a hand in our son’s murder, we will fight to hold each and every one of them accountable. Luckygunner should be shut down for the irresponsible handling of who’s buying these bullets. They sold to a minor, he was 17. Those bullets that they so carelessly handed over, killed our son. His irresponsible gun owner of a father supplied the guns and Luckygunner supplied the bullets. It’s a vicious cycle of how this killer pulled off this mass shooting. All he needed was a red carpet rollout. “
Unfortunately, they’re blaming everyone but the kid who actually did the shooting.
For the record, Lucky Gunner does require people to check that they’re over the age of 21, so it’s not like they’re ignoring the law here. As a result, Mrs. Stone is likely to find herself sorely disappointed when this goes to court.
A company not following steps you might think are better doesn’t make them complicit in mass murder. Lucky Gunner operated in compliance with ever legal requirement so far as we can tell. They’re not the villains here.
No, the villains are likely the attorneys who approached these parents just looking for someone to sue. They preyed on grieving parents just to fatten their own wallets. After all, they’re likely to get paid whether they win or lose.


bearingarms--2020-03-07--CO Dems: We're In A Crisis And The Cure Is Gun Control

Back in 2013 , Democrats in control of Colorado ’ s legislature rammed through universal background checks and a ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15-rounds .
When he signed the bills , then-Governor John Hickenlooper promised that the new laws would make Colorado safer .
They haven ’ t .
Violent crime is up by more than 25-percent since the new laws were put on the books , but Democrats in the legislature are doubling down on their anti-gun efforts by proclaiming the state is in a crisis and the only hope is to pass even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Colorado Democrats are introducing two new gun bills Friday afternoon that they say represent the next steps in what will be a years-long attempt at stemming gun violence here .
Rep. Monica Duran , a Wheat Ridge Democrat who ’ s sponsoring one of the new bills , said , “ Each year , whatever it might be , whatever it might look like , we will be bringing ( gun ) legislation to the point to where it ’ s just as common as a health care bill , just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not some big thing , where it ’ s standard , normal .
We ’ re going to be dealing with this.
” Before we get to the specific legislation Democrats are pushing this year , let ’ s examine Rep. Duran ’ s comments for a second .
She claims that every year lawmakers are going to be introducing new gun control bills on a piecemeal basis .
If they truly believe there ’ s a crisis , why not just introduce every gun control bill that you support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument is an explicitly political one .
She ’ s admitting to taking an incrementalist approach ( otherwise known as “ boiling the frog ” ) because she and other Democrats know if they were to push their entire anti-gun agenda in one session , they ’ d not only cause a huge backlash among gun owners in the state , but they ’ d lose their legislative majorities in the next election .
Instead , they ’ re pushing just two bills this year ; a storage law and a “ lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners .
The first of the new bills would require secure storage of firearms , and would in fact penalize people who do not comply .
In homes and businesses , under this bill , gun owners would be required to either store their weapons in safe boxes or place locking devices on them .
The bill offers some flexibility in terms of what the storage looks like , as long as it ’ s secure enough to be accessible only with the use of a key , combination code or biometric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply with these rules would be a class 2 misdemeanor under the proposed bill .
Additionally , the safe storage bill — sponsored in the House by Duran and Rep. Kyle Mullica , D-Northglenn — would require gun dealers to provide locking devices to buyers , and proposes to punish noncompliant gun dealers with fines up to $ 500 .
The second bill is also starting in the House and will be sponsored there by Sullivan and Rep. Sonya Jaquez Lewis , D-Boulder County .
The bill seeks to require that anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been either lost or stolen to report that loss or theft to law enforcement within 48 hours .
It , too , would create new criminal punishments for violators : Failure to comply would be treated as a petty offense , punishable by a small fine , in the first event .
But second and subsequent offenses would be treated as class 3 misdemeanors .
As the Denver Post reports , Republican lawmakers are uniformly opposed to the new proposals , but given their minority status in both the state House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can do to stop their passage .
House Minority Leader Patrick Neville , a survivor of the Columbine attack in 1999 , says he ’ s concerned that the proposed laws would establish a back-door gun registry in the state .
“ Now we have an effective gun registration , ” he said .
“ A lot of people don ’ t want the government knowing that they own firearms.
” Neville voiced concern weeks ago that requiring “ safe storage ” of guns could mean owners need an extra few seconds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , would be significant in the case of a home invasion .
The Democratic sponsors wrote in an exception that states anyone who has their gun within reach — for instance , in a nightstand next to where the owner is sleeping — does not need to secure the gun .
Neville said that ’ s not good enough .
“ You might have folks that store firearms in a certain room … now they walk into a different room and they ’ re criminals , ” he said , adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law is enforceable .
Neither one of these proposals will do anything to address the rising violent crime and suicide rates in Colorado , but they ’ ll allow anti-gun politicians to claim they did “ something.
” That may be enough for Democrat lawmakers , but it shouldn ’ t satisfy or please any resident in the state who are seeking real answers instead of soundbite-sized solutions that do nothing but criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right .

Back in 2013, Democrats in control of Colorado’s legislature rammed through universal background checks and a ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15-rounds. When he signed the bills, then-Governor John Hickenlooper promised that the new laws would make Colorado safer.
They haven’t. Violent crime is up by more than 25-percent since the new laws were put on the books, but Democrats in the legislature are doubling down on their anti-gun efforts by proclaiming the state is in a crisis and the only hope is to pass even more laws aimed at legal gun owners.
Colorado Democrats are introducing two new gun bills Friday afternoon that they say represent the next steps in what will be a years-long attempt at stemming gun violence here. Rep. Monica Duran, a Wheat Ridge Democrat who’s sponsoring one of the new bills, said, “Each year, whatever it might be, whatever it might look like, we will be bringing (gun) legislation to the point to where it’s just as common as a health care bill, just as common as an environmental bill, where it’s not some big thing, where it’s standard, normal. We’re going to be dealing with this.”
Before we get to the specific legislation Democrats are pushing this year, let’s examine Rep. Duran’s comments for a second. She claims that every year lawmakers are going to be introducing new gun control bills on a piecemeal basis. If they truly believe there’s a crisis, why not just introduce every gun control bill that you support this legislative session?
Duran’s argument is an explicitly political one. She’s admitting to taking an incrementalist approach (otherwise known as “boiling the frog”) because she and other Democrats know if they were to push their entire anti-gun agenda in one session, they’d not only cause a huge backlash among gun owners in the state, but they’d lose their legislative majorities in the next election. Instead, they’re pushing just two bills this year; a storage law and a “lost or stolen” reporting requirement for legal gun owners.
The first of the new bills would require secure storage of firearms, and would in fact penalize people who do not comply. In homes and businesses, under this bill, gun owners would be required to either store their weapons in safe boxes or place locking devices on them. The bill offers some flexibility in terms of what the storage looks like, as long as it’s secure enough to be accessible only with the use of a key, combination code or biometric data such as fingerprints. Failing to comply with these rules would be a class 2 misdemeanor under the proposed bill. Additionally, the safe storage bill — sponsored in the House by Duran and Rep. Kyle Mullica, D-Northglenn — would require gun dealers to provide locking devices to buyers, and proposes to punish noncompliant gun dealers with fines up to $500. The second bill is also starting in the House and will be sponsored there by Sullivan and Rep. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, D-Boulder County. The bill seeks to require that anyone who becomes aware that a gun they own has been either lost or stolen to report that loss or theft to law enforcement within 48 hours. It, too, would create new criminal punishments for violators: Failure to comply would be treated as a petty offense, punishable by a small fine, in the first event. But second and subsequent offenses would be treated as class 3 misdemeanors.
As the Denver Post reports, Republican lawmakers are uniformly opposed to the new proposals, but given their minority status in both the state House and Senate, there’s not much they can do to stop their passage. House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, a survivor of the Columbine attack in 1999, says he’s concerned that the proposed laws would establish a back-door gun registry in the state.
“Now we have an effective gun registration,” he said. “A lot of people don’t want the government knowing that they own firearms.” Neville voiced concern weeks ago that requiring “safe storage” of guns could mean owners need an extra few seconds to unlock their guns, which, he said, would be significant in the case of a home invasion. The Democratic sponsors wrote in an exception that states anyone who has their gun within reach — for instance, in a nightstand next to where the owner is sleeping — does not need to secure the gun. Neville said that’s not good enough. “You might have folks that store firearms in a certain room … now they walk into a different room and they’re criminals,” he said, adding that he’s not confident the law is enforceable.
Neither one of these proposals will do anything to address the rising violent crime and suicide rates in Colorado, but they’ll allow anti-gun politicians to claim they did “something.” That may be enough for Democrat lawmakers, but it shouldn’t satisfy or please any resident in the state who are seeking real answers instead of soundbite-sized solutions that do nothing but criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.


bearingarms--2020-03-07--DOJ Charges 3 Pawn Shop Workers With Illegal Gun Sales

St. Louis , Missouri has seen an increase in homicides and violent crime in recent months , and now the Department of Justice is charging three men that are alleged to have sold dozens of firearms to prohibited persons in violation of state and federal law , fueling the violence on the city ’ s streets .
According to the indictment handed down in federal court on Friday , federal agents had been interested in what was happening at Piazza Jewelry and Pawn for several months .
Over the first eight months of 2019 , more than 170 guns seized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Piazza Jewelry and Pawn at 10201 Page Avenue , an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives wrote in a court affidavit .
The affidavit accompanied charging documents against three former employees of the shop .
Six of the confiscated guns were used in homicides , four in robberies , 20 in various weapons offenses and another 36 were used by people prohibited from possessing a weapon , ATF Special Agent Chad Foreman wrote in the affidavit that was released Thursday .
About 40 % of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyers whose previous gun purchase was connected to criminal activity… An employee admitted that so-called straw purchases , where someone who can not legally buy a firearm uses a go-between to make the purchase , happened regularly , Foreman wrote .
That employee also admitted that known felons were able to buy guns at Piazza , he wrote .
Based on that information , ATF agents conducted a sting operation of the shop beginning in October of 2019 .
[ Foreman ] and a female undercover agent pretended to be a couple and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , Foreman picked out a gun and the other agent purchased it , the affidavit said .
On Oct. 24 , they saw another couple making a similar purchase .
The man was a convicted felon and both later told investigators that “ they had heard repeatedly ‘ on the street ’ that Piazza was the place to go to acquire firearms through a straw purchaser , ” Foreman said .
On Nov. 25 , the ATF sent in a convicted felon wearing a wire , who told Johnson that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ keep that information quiet ” and allowed the felon ’ s partner to buy a .45 caliber Glock , Foreman wrote .
The felon then bought ammunition , which is also illegal , he wrote .
That sting operation led to a raid by BATFE in December of 2019 , and ultimately resulted in the charges handed down in federal court against the three current and former employees of the pawn shop on Friday .
Criminals will find a way to obtain firearms , but that doesn ’ t mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a one-stop shopping experience for those who ’ ve lost their right to keep and bear arms .
We haven ’ t heard the defendants side of the story yet , but based on the affidavit from Foreman , at least one of those arrested admitted to police that he knowingly engaged in straw purchases .
I ’ m willing to hear what the defense has to say , but right now it doesn ’ t look for the three men .
One thing I ’ m curious to see is if any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
It would be odd to only charge the seller and not the buyer of the firearms , and prosecuting those who illegally obtained the guns would send as big as message as prosecuting those who illegally sold them .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

St. Louis, Missouri has seen an increase in homicides and violent crime in recent months, and now the Department of Justice is charging three men that are alleged to have sold dozens of firearms to prohibited persons in violation of state and federal law, fueling the violence on the city’s streets.
According to the indictment handed down in federal court on Friday, federal agents had been interested in what was happening at Piazza Jewelry and Pawn for several months.
Over the first eight months of 2019, more than 170 guns seized or recovered by law enforcement were traced to Piazza Jewelry and Pawn at 10201 Page Avenue, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wrote in a court affidavit. The affidavit accompanied charging documents against three former employees of the shop. Six of the confiscated guns were used in homicides, four in robberies, 20 in various weapons offenses and another 36 were used by people prohibited from possessing a weapon, ATF Special Agent Chad Foreman wrote in the affidavit that was released Thursday. About 40% of those who bought guns from Piazza were repeat buyers whose previous gun purchase was connected to criminal activity… An employee admitted that so-called straw purchases, where someone who cannot legally buy a firearm uses a go-between to make the purchase, happened regularly, Foreman wrote. That employee also admitted that known felons were able to buy guns at Piazza, he wrote.
Based on that information, ATF agents conducted a sting operation of the shop beginning in October of 2019.
[Foreman] and a female undercover agent pretended to be a couple and bought guns on three occasions. Each time, Foreman picked out a gun and the other agent purchased it, the affidavit said. On Oct. 24, they saw another couple making a similar purchase. The man was a convicted felon and both later told investigators that “they had heard repeatedly ‘on the street’ that Piazza was the place to go to acquire firearms through a straw purchaser,” Foreman said.


bearingarms--2020-03-07--Memphis Crime Commission Opposes Constitutional Carry Push

Constitutional carry is one of those things that should exist in all 50 states .
After all , criminals aren ’ t obtaining permits to carry their firearms , so the law only regulates the law-abiding citizens .
It ’ s a barrier to the lawful bearing of arms that is downright unconstitutional .
In Tennessee , though , the governor wants to change that .
He recognizes the bad guys aren ’ t worrying about permits and that permitting requirements aren ’ t stopping them , so why hamstring the law-abiding ?
Unfortunately , though , some are less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Memphis Shelby Crime Commission board of directors has reportedly voted to oppose Governor Bill Lee ’ s plan to support legislation that would remove handgun permits in Tennessee .
The Crime Commission says 39 out of 49 participating members voted to oppose the governor ’ s gun plan .
The Crime Commission released a statement on the vote , saying in part , “ In considering changes in state law involving guns , we urge our state legislators to always ask themselves whether a change is likely to increase gun violence or reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such violence.
” The problem is , they think the governor hasn ’ t done that .
More guns mean fewer crimes being committed .
When people don ’ t have to go through the hassle of getting a permit , they ’ re more likely to carry a firearm .
That means more guns on the streets in the hands of law-abiding citizens .
You ’ re deluding yourself if you think the bad guys won ’ t make note of it .
“ Joe had to give that robbing folks stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over that mess now.
” Yes , that ’ s precisely what will happen and we all know it .
Once that starts , crime will drop throughout the state .
Bad guys don ’ t want to get shot any more than the rest of us .
As a result , they ’ ll start avoiding situations where they ’ re more likely to be shot .
The problem is , though , the Memphis Crime Commission is a group of people isolated in an urban enclave with typical urban sensibilities on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listened to their fellow urbanites in other cities and remained convinced that gun control will save the day , despite it failing in cities like Detroit , Baltimore , and Chicago .
Yet the expansion of gun rights has yet to lead to any upticks in crime .
Why is that ?
If more guns mean more crime as the Memphis Crime Commission seems to suggest , those upticks would appear shortly after gun rights are expanded .
While correlation doesn ’ t equal causation , causation does tend to show a correlation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a non-issue , but the good folks with the Memphis Crime Commission think it is .
With them being so unable to look at objective reality , it kind of makes you wonder just how in the hell they ’ re going to do anything about crime in Memphis .
What ’ s next ?
Are they going to blame the color orange for the opioid epidemic ?
It makes just as much sense as believing an expansion of gun rights will result in more crime despite it literally never having done @ @ @

Constitutional carry is one of those things that should exist in all 50 states. After all, criminals aren’t obtaining permits to carry their firearms, so the law only regulates the law-abiding citizens. It’s a barrier to the lawful bearing of arms that is downright unconstitutional.
In Tennessee, though, the governor wants to change that. He recognizes the bad guys aren’t worrying about permits and that permitting requirements aren’t stopping them, so why hamstring the law-abiding?
Unfortunately, though, some are less than thrilled with this plan.
The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission board of directors has reportedly voted to oppose Governor Bill Lee’s plan to support legislation that would remove handgun permits in Tennessee. The Crime Commission says 39 out of 49 participating members voted to oppose the governor’s gun plan. … The Crime Commission released a statement on the vote, saying in part, “In considering changes in state law involving guns, we urge our state legislators to always ask themselves whether a change is likely to increase gun violence or reduce it and consistently take action to reduce such violence.”
The problem is, they think the governor hasn’t done that.
More guns mean fewer crimes being committed. When people don’t have to go through the hassle of getting a permit, they’re more likely to carry a firearm. That means more guns on the streets in the hands of law-abiding citizens. You’re deluding yourself if you think the bad guys won’t make note of it.
“Joe had to give that robbing folks stuff up. People gonna get shot over that mess now.”
Yes, that’s precisely what will happen and we all know it. Once that starts, crime will drop throughout the state. Bad guys don’t want to get shot any more than the rest of us. As a result, they’ll start avoiding situations where they’re more likely to be shot.
As a result, constitutional carry will reduce gun violence.
The problem is, though, the Memphis Crime Commission is a group of people isolated in an urban enclave with typical urban sensibilities on things like guns. They’ve listened to their fellow urbanites in other cities and remained convinced that gun control will save the day, despite it failing in cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago.
Yet the expansion of gun rights has yet to lead to any upticks in crime. Why is that? If more guns mean more crime as the Memphis Crime Commission seems to suggest, those upticks would appear shortly after gun rights are expanded. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, causation does tend to show a correlation.
In other words, it’s a non-issue, but the good folks with the Memphis Crime Commission think it is.
With them being so unable to look at objective reality, it kind of makes you wonder just how in the hell they’re going to do anything about crime in Memphis. What’s next? Are they going to blame the color orange for the opioid epidemic? It makes just as much sense as believing an expansion of gun rights will result in more crime despite it literally never having done so before.


bearingarms--2020-03-08--Factcheck Provides Cover For Biden And Beto's Gun Control Plans

The website Factcheck.org is out with what ’ s supposedly a debunking of claims that Joe Biden ’ s embraced Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke ’ s gun ban and compensated confiscation plans , but the supposed fact checkers are only telling half of the story .
Here ’ s what Factcheck got right : Joe Biden ’ s gun control agenda , as outlined on his website , does not call for the confiscation of so-called assault weapons .
Instead , under Biden ’ s proposal , all existing owners of “ assault weapons ” would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ high capacity magazines ” under the National Firearms Act .
Those who did not choose to do so could also sell their firearms to the government as part of a “ buyback.
” Anyone found to be in possession of a banned firearm or magazine that wasn ’ t registered under the National Firearms Act could be charged with a federal crime .
However , even though Biden ’ s plan doesn ’ t spell out a confiscation strategy , that ’ s exactly what it would amount to in many cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an item through the National Firearms Act , and forcing gun owners to pay $ 200 to the government to maintain possession of each of their banned guns and magazines would be cost prohibitive for many Americans .
Instead , they ’ d be compelled to turn over their guns and magazines or else risk federal felony charges in the future .
Violations of the National Firearms Act can be punished by up to ten years in federal prison , so we ’ re not talking about a minor fine .
You could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintaining possession of a gun or magazine that you legally purchased under Biden ’ s plan .
Obviously there are grave constitutional concerns over Biden ’ s gun grab , but there are some practical problems with it as well .
Biden ’ s gun control plan doesn ’ t define a “ high capacity magazine , ” but it ’ s fair to say that whether it ’ s defined as a magazine than can hold more than 10 , 15 , or 20 rounds , that will cover hundreds of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s legal gun owners .
It can already take months to get NFA approval for a single item , so if tens of millions of gun owners are trying to register hundreds of millions of magazines , the system will simply be overwhelmed .
How do gun owners register magazines under the NFA to begin with , given that magazines aren ’ t firearms and aren ’ t serialized ?
Honestly , Biden ’ t plan is so complicated and inherently flawed that I wouldn ’ t be surprised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s simpler ( if equally unconstitutional ) plan to simply ban all semi-automatic long guns and “ high capacity ” magazines and have a mandatory compensated confiscation program .
Biden hasn ’ t done that yet , however .
When Factcheck.org reached out to the Biden campaign for “ clarification ” about his comments that O ’ Rourke would be leading his gun control efforts , this is what they received in response .
“ Vice President Biden is the sole candidate in the race who has beaten the NRA — twice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wracking communities across our nation is a full-blown moral and safety crisis , especially for our children .
He ’ s honored to have Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s endorsement , and is thrilled that Beto will be leading grassroots support for the Vice President ’ s gun reform proposals that we absolutely can ’ t afford not to make as soon as possible .
It ’ s vital that the next president be able to take on and defeat the gun manufacturers and their lobby , and Joe Biden is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credentials to do so.
” O ’ Rourke himself , on the other hand , is still talking up gun confiscation .
If Biden ’ s point man on gun control is still calling for a “ mandatory buyback , ” then I think it ’ s fair to say that ’ s what he ’ s going to be pushing Biden to do .
Factcheck may be accurate in stating that Biden has made no commitment to adopting O ’ Rourke ’ s proposal , but clearly O ’ Rourke himself thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether O ’ Rourke gets his way or not is largely irrelevant , given the unconstitutional proposal put forth by Biden .
Either plan , if enacted , would strip Americans of their right to own the most commonly produced rifle in the country .
Both plans would make it a felony to possess the most commonly owned magazines in the country .
Both plans would violate the constitutional rights of Americans , and I suspect both plans would be met with a great deal of non-compliance .

The website Factcheck.org is out with what’s supposedly a debunking of claims that Joe Biden’s embraced Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s gun ban and compensated confiscation plans, but the supposed fact checkers are only telling half of the story.
Here’s what Factcheck got right: Joe Biden’s gun control agenda, as outlined on his website, does not call for the confiscation of so-called assault weapons. Instead, under Biden’s proposal, all existing owners of “assault weapons” would be required to register their firearms and “high capacity magazines” under the National Firearms Act. Those who did not choose to do so could also sell their firearms to the government as part of a “buyback.” Anyone found to be in possession of a banned firearm or magazine that wasn’t registered under the National Firearms Act could be charged with a federal crime.
However, even though Biden’s plan doesn’t spell out a confiscation strategy, that’s exactly what it would amount to in many cases. It costs $200 to register an item through the National Firearms Act, and forcing gun owners to pay $200 to the government to maintain possession of each of their banned guns and magazines would be cost prohibitive for many Americans. Instead, they’d be compelled to turn over their guns and magazines or else risk federal felony charges in the future. Violations of the National Firearms Act can be punished by up to ten years in federal prison, so we’re not talking about a minor fine. You could spend a decade behind bars simply for maintaining possession of a gun or magazine that you legally purchased under Biden’s plan.
Obviously there are grave constitutional concerns over Biden’s gun grab, but there are some practical problems with it as well. Biden’s gun control plan doesn’t define a “high capacity magazine,” but it’s fair to say that whether it’s defined as a magazine than can hold more than 10, 15, or 20 rounds, that will cover hundreds of millions of magazines and the vast majority of the nation’s legal gun owners.
It can already take months to get NFA approval for a single item, so if tens of millions of gun owners are trying to register hundreds of millions of magazines, the system will simply be overwhelmed. How do gun owners register magazines under the NFA to begin with, given that magazines aren’t firearms and aren’t serialized?
Honestly, Biden’t plan is so complicated and inherently flawed that I wouldn’t be surprised to see him adopt O’Rourke’s simpler (if equally unconstitutional) plan to simply ban all semi-automatic long guns and “high capacity” magazines and have a mandatory compensated confiscation program.
Biden hasn’t done that yet, however. When Factcheck.org reached out to the Biden campaign for “clarification” about his comments that O’Rourke would be leading his gun control efforts, this is what they received in response.
“Vice President Biden is the sole candidate in the race who has beaten the NRA — twice. The epidemic of gun violence that is wracking communities across our nation is a full-blown moral and safety crisis, especially for our children. He’s honored to have Beto O’Rourke’s endorsement, and is thrilled that Beto will be leading grassroots support for the Vice President’s gun reform proposals that we absolutely can’t afford not to make as soon as possible. It’s vital that the next president be able to take on and defeat the gun manufacturers and their lobby, and Joe Biden is the only candidate with the right background and credentials to do so.”
O’Rourke himself, on the other hand, is still talking up gun confiscation.
This guy makes the case for both an assault weapons ban and a mandatory buyback program better than I ever could. These are weapons of war that have no place in our communities, in our politics or in our public discourse. https://t.co/ce5PvaxqMk — Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 6, 2020
If Biden’s point man on gun control is still calling for a “mandatory buyback,” then I think it’s fair to say that’s what he’s going to be pushing Biden to do. Factcheck may be accurate in stating that Biden has made no commitment to adopting O’Rourke’s proposal, but clearly O’Rourke himself thinks it’s still a possibility.
Whether O’Rourke gets his way or not is largely irrelevant, given the unconstitutional proposal put forth by Biden. Either plan, if enacted, would strip Americans of their right to own the most commonly produced rifle in the country. Both plans would make it a felony to possess the most commonly owned magazines in the country. Both plans would violate the constitutional rights of Americans, and I suspect both plans would be met with a great deal of non-compliance.


bearingarms--2020-03-08--Man Pleads Guilty Of Buying Gun Parts Stolen From ATF Facility

The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives is supposed to be the go-to agency for keeping guns out of the wrong hands .
If you don ’ t believe me , just ask them .
They ’ ll tell you all about how awesome they are , I ’ m sure .
Unfortunately , they ’ re not quite as good at their jobs as they might like for some folks to believe .
While their high-profile screw-ups are the stuff of legend , this is one that is probably far more common and far less talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleading guilty Thursday to charges that he bought and sold guns and gun parts that had been stolen from a federal disposal facility .
Richard Adam Schreiber , 38 , of Everett , pleaded guilty to five federal counts related to the thefts by a contract security guard at the National Firearms and Ammunition Destruction Branch in Martinsburg , West Virginia .
His attorney , Dan Kiss , said in an email that Schreiber “ has accepted responsibility for his actions in this matter by his plea today.
” The former guard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lengthy federal sentence .
Yates told investigators he would arrive at work early and take guns , gun parts and ammunition that had been seized during criminal investigations or were retired by federal agencies , authorities said .
The investigation began when a firearm was seized in Philadelphia with conflicting serial numbers , including one linked to the federal firearms destruction facility .
Prosecutors said agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives seized 101 firearms , 1,352 slides and 123,000 rounds of ammunition from Schreiber .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine guns , from people who bought them from Schreiber .
Now , let me ask you this : If the ATF can ’ t keep guns out of criminal hands that were in one of their secure facilities , then what hope is there of keeping guns out of criminal hands in general ?
The truth is , you can ’ t .
Guns will always end up in criminal hands , like how water always finds the low spots .
You can do whatever you want to try and stop it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wind and everyone knows it .
Meanwhile , legislators continue to try and push the idea that you can somehow prevent criminals from getting guns with just one more law , just one new rule that will suddenly change everything .
That ’ s not how it works and it doesn ’ t take a rocket scientist to see it .
The truth of the matter is these rules make it harder on law-abiding criminals and , maybe , drive up the costs for the most dangerous criminals .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best-case scenario for gun control rules .
If you believe you can somehow disarm people and make guns disappear forever , just remember this story .
Remember that even the ATF couldn ’ t stop federal firearms from ending up in criminal hands .
A whole lot of bad guys were armed from the ATF ’ s stocks of firearms for destruction .
If they can ’ t keep their own house in order , then how in the hell are they going to do anything to keep anyone else ’ s safe @ @ @

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is supposed to be the go-to agency for keeping guns out of the wrong hands. If you don’t believe me, just ask them. They’ll tell you all about how awesome they are, I’m sure.
Unfortunately, they’re not quite as good at their jobs as they might like for some folks to believe.
While their high-profile screw-ups are the stuff of legend, this is one that is probably far more common and far less talked about.
Pennsylvania man awaits sentencing after pleading guilty Thursday to charges that he bought and sold guns and gun parts that had been stolen from a federal disposal facility. Richard Adam Schreiber, 38, of Everett, pleaded guilty to five federal counts related to the thefts by a contract security guard at the National Firearms and Ammunition Destruction Branch in Martinsburg, West Virginia. His attorney, Dan Kiss, said in an email that Schreiber “has accepted responsibility for his actions in this matter by his plea today.” The former guard, Christopher Lee Yates, is serving a lengthy federal sentence. Yates told investigators he would arrive at work early and take guns, gun parts and ammunition that had been seized during criminal investigations or were retired by federal agencies, authorities said. The investigation began when a firearm was seized in Philadelphia with conflicting serial numbers, including one linked to the federal firearms destruction facility. Prosecutors said agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seized 101 firearms, 1,352 slides and 123,000 rounds of ammunition from Schreiber. They also recovered 28 firearms, including three machine guns, from people who bought them from Schreiber.
Now, let me ask you this: If the ATF can’t keep guns out of criminal hands that were in one of their secure facilities, then what hope is there of keeping guns out of criminal hands in general?
The truth is, you can’t. Guns will always end up in criminal hands, like how water always finds the low spots. You can do whatever you want to try and stop it, but you’re just spitting in the wind and everyone knows it.
Meanwhile, legislators continue to try and push the idea that you can somehow prevent criminals from getting guns with just one more law, just one new rule that will suddenly change everything. That’s not how it works and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see it.
The truth of the matter is these rules make it harder on law-abiding criminals and, maybe, drive up the costs for the most dangerous criminals. That’s it. That’s the best-case scenario for gun control rules.
If you believe you can somehow disarm people and make guns disappear forever, just remember this story. Remember that even the ATF couldn’t stop federal firearms from ending up in criminal hands. A whole lot of bad guys were armed from the ATF’s stocks of firearms for destruction. If they can’t keep their own house in order, then how in the hell are they going to do anything to keep anyone else’s safe and sound?


bearingarms--2020-03-09--Bloomberg's Gun Control Groups Endorse Joe Biden

No surprise , especially given the fact that Michael Bloomberg himself endorsed Joe Biden when he suspended his presidential campaign , but the Bloomberg-founded and funded Everytown for Gun Safety officially announced that Biden ’ s their guy with an endorsement on Monday .
Joe Biden has received the endorsement of one of the nation ’ s largest gun control advocacy groups , Everytown for Gun Safety , in the latest sign that Bernie Sanders ’ spotty record on guns may be weighing him down in the presidential primary .
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund plans to spend $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of which will go toward trying to elect Biden .
An Everytown spokesman said the group typically airs advertisements and engages in grassroots organizing for the candidates it endorses , though it ’ s unclear when the group will begin to spend on Biden ’ s behalf .
The group , which was co-founded by billionaire former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg , also boasts 6 million supporters and more than 375,000 grassroots donors , numbers that could help boost attention and support for Biden ’ s presidential bid nationwide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press , the odds of Everytown endorsing Sanders over Biden was about as high as Marianne Williamson ’ s odds of winning the Democratic nomination .
It simply wasn ’ t going to happen .
The entire reason Michael Bloomberg jumped in to the race was his concern that Sanders would win the nomination , but it was Sanders ’ socialism , not his “ spotty ” gun control record , that worried Bloomberg .
The $ 60-million that Everytown plans on spending this election should worry gun owners , because it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iceberg .
Bloomberg has said he ’ s keeping his own presidential campaign staff in place through November to support the eventual nominee as well .
I ’ ve seen a lot of folks argue that Bloomberg ’ s flameout is evidence that his spending did him no good , but that ’ s not exactly true .
His massive ad blitz took him from about 5 % to 20 % in most polls of Democrat voters , but once they saw him in person during the Las Vegas debate , they didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The advertising campaign worked for him .
It ’ s Bloomberg himself who couldn ’ t seal the deal .
So , Bloomberg ’ s spending could very well have an impact , not just on the presidential race , but on dozens of down-ticket races as well .
Everytown says it will spend nearly $ 10-million to try to flip the Texas statehouse by targeting suburban districts ( much as the group did in Virginia in 2019 ) , and they only need to pick up nine seats to hand control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-gun Democrats .
Bloomberg the candidate was a joke .
Bloomberg the billionaire backer of politicians is not .

No surprise, especially given the fact that Michael Bloomberg himself endorsed Joe Biden when he suspended his presidential campaign, but the Bloomberg-founded and funded Everytown for Gun Safety officially announced that Biden’s their guy with an endorsement on Monday.
Joe Biden has received the endorsement of one of the nation’s largest gun control advocacy groups, Everytown for Gun Safety, in the latest sign that Bernie Sanders’ spotty record on guns may be weighing him down in the presidential primary. Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund plans to spend $60 million on electoral activities this cycle, some of which will go toward trying to elect Biden. An Everytown spokesman said the group typically airs advertisements and engages in grassroots organizing for the candidates it endorses, though it’s unclear when the group will begin to spend on Biden’s behalf. The group, which was co-founded by billionaire former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, also boasts 6 million supporters and more than 375,000 grassroots donors, numbers that could help boost attention and support for Biden’s presidential bid nationwide.
With all due respect to the Associated Press, the odds of Everytown endorsing Sanders over Biden was about as high as Marianne Williamson’s odds of winning the Democratic nomination. It simply wasn’t going to happen. The entire reason Michael Bloomberg jumped in to the race was his concern that Sanders would win the nomination, but it was Sanders’ socialism, not his “spotty” gun control record, that worried Bloomberg.
The $60-million that Everytown plans on spending this election should worry gun owners, because it’s really only the tip of the iceberg. Bloomberg has said he’s keeping his own presidential campaign staff in place through November to support the eventual nominee as well. I’ve seen a lot of folks argue that Bloomberg’s flameout is evidence that his spending did him no good, but that’s not exactly true. His massive ad blitz took him from about 5% to 20% in most polls of Democrat voters, but once they saw him in person during the Las Vegas debate, they didn’t like what they saw. The advertising campaign worked for him. It’s Bloomberg himself who couldn’t seal the deal.
So, Bloomberg’s spending could very well have an impact, not just on the presidential race, but on dozens of down-ticket races as well. Everytown says it will spend nearly $10-million to try to flip the Texas statehouse by targeting suburban districts (much as the group did in Virginia in 2019), and they only need to pick up nine seats to hand control of the Texas House of Representatives over to anti-gun Democrats.
Bloomberg the candidate was a joke. Bloomberg the billionaire backer of politicians is not.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--As MN Considers New Gun Laws, More People Than Ever Have Carry Permits

Minnesota is , like many states , facing the possibility of embracing gun control measures so politicians don ’ t have to do any real work to make their states safer .
Rather than look at the root causes of their problems and try to fix those , they simply opt to regulate guns and law-abiding gun owners .
After all , it ’ s easier that way .
It ’ s the political version of the guy who does his book report every year on Island of the Blue Dolphins .
However , gun owners are generally not fans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s especially true of people who go to the trouble of getting a carry permit .
And in Minnesota , more people than ever have carry permits .
A record 301,268 Minnesota civilians have permits to carry a firearm in public , a number that has nearly doubled over the past six years .
Minnesota sheriffs issued 51,404 new five-year permits in 2019 , with residents from Hennepin , Anoka and Dakota counties applying in the highest numbers .
Minnesota ’ s growing number of firearm carriers comes as some gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals at the State Capitol that could make it harder to buy firearms .
Other states have seen a jump in permit applications as similar gun measures were being debated .
Permit holder Sarah Cade Hauptman said that carrying a firearm “ gives you more options to respond to dangerous situations .
It ’ s all about having a choice and a chance.
” Hauptman , of Maplewood , said she frames her thinking about the law in terms of being a woman and a feminist .
“ I view my gun as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force with bigger , stronger or more numerous opponents , ” she said .
“ I have the ability to enforce decisions about my body and my boundaries without depending on others .
… I have more options than just hoping for rescue .
I ’ m my own rescue.
” Of course , she ’ s right .
Unsurprisingly , there are still those who oppose concealed carry at all .
They seem to think that everyone who walks around with a gun is either a criminal , an idiot , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been born out by statistics in any state with concealed carry , including Minnesota , but they continue to go on believing their own self-delusions about how more guns make us more violent .
Yet with more people than ever with carry permits , the real threat isn ’ t to the public but to the ability for anti-Second Amendment groups to push forward still more gun control legislation .
These people represent a potentially growing group of politically-engaged proponents for the right to keep and bear arms .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take kindly to new laws and regulations which seek to infringe on that right .
They ’ re scared , but they ’ re pretending that fear is born of a concern about being shot , when it ’ s really nothing more than a concern about becoming irrelevant .
I have news for them though .
They ’ ve always been irrelevant .
It ’ s just that now , many Americans are starting to realize it and aren ’ t rolling over to keep them happy .

Minnesota is, like many states, facing the possibility of embracing gun control measures so politicians don’t have to do any real work to make their states safer. Rather than look at the root causes of their problems and try to fix those, they simply opt to regulate guns and law-abiding gun owners. After all, it’s easier that way. It’s the political version of the guy who does his book report every year on Island of the Blue Dolphins.
However, gun owners are generally not fans of new gun control laws. That’s especially true of people who go to the trouble of getting a carry permit.
And in Minnesota, more people than ever have carry permits.
A record 301,268 Minnesota civilians have permits to carry a firearm in public, a number that has nearly doubled over the past six years. Minnesota sheriffs issued 51,404 new five-year permits in 2019, with residents from Hennepin, Anoka and Dakota counties applying in the highest numbers. Minnesota’s growing number of firearm carriers comes as some gun owners across the state are concerned about new proposals at the State Capitol that could make it harder to buy firearms. Other states have seen a jump in permit applications as similar gun measures were being debated. Permit holder Sarah Cade Hauptman said that carrying a firearm “gives you more options to respond to dangerous situations. It’s all about having a choice and a chance.” Hauptman, of Maplewood, said she frames her thinking about the law in terms of being a woman and a feminist. “I view my gun as a tool that gives me parity of force with bigger, stronger or more numerous opponents,” she said. “I have the ability to enforce decisions about my body and my boundaries without depending on others. … I have more options than just hoping for rescue. I’m my own rescue.”
Of course, she’s right.
Unsurprisingly, there are still those who oppose concealed carry at all. They seem to think that everyone who walks around with a gun is either a criminal, an idiot, or both. Historically, that hasn’t been born out by statistics in any state with concealed carry, including Minnesota, but they continue to go on believing their own self-delusions about how more guns make us more violent.
That’s simply not the case.
Yet with more people than ever with carry permits, the real threat isn’t to the public but to the ability for anti-Second Amendment groups to push forward still more gun control legislation. These people represent a potentially growing group of politically-engaged proponents for the right to keep and bear arms. They’re people who aren’t going to take kindly to new laws and regulations which seek to infringe on that right.
They’re scared, but they’re pretending that fear is born of a concern about being shot, when it’s really nothing more than a concern about becoming irrelevant.
I have news for them though. They’ve always been irrelevant. It’s just that now, many Americans are starting to realize it and aren’t rolling over to keep them happy.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--Virginia Gun Bills Head To Northam's Desk

The 2020 legislative session has concluded in Richmond , and while gun owners can be pleased that the centerpiece of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s proposal didn ’ t make it to his desk , unfortunately every other piece of his gun control agenda did pass the legislature in some form or fashion and will soon be signed into law .
Joining me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. is David Adams , legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association , who not only breaks down specifics about the final language in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also talks a little about the inevitable litigation that will follow soon after Gov .
Ralph Northam signs his bills into law .
In the grand scheme of things , the bills aren ’ t as bad as they could have been , but that doesn ’ t mean they ’ re any good .
Take concealed carry , for example .
Senate Democrats introduced a bill removing online training as an option for those applying for their concealed carry license .
House Democrats went much further and took away any NRA-certified firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After a tussle in conference committee , the bill emerged largely in line with the state Senate version .
It ’ s still a step backwards , but it ’ s a smaller step than what the House wanted .
On the other hand , the “ red flag ” bill sent to Northam is a lot closer to the House version than the one offered by the state Senate , which would have required the approval of two law enforcement officers and the commonwealth ’ s attorney before a petition could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the final red flag bill allows for a single law enforcement officer to file for a “ substantial risk petition ” and still relies on ex parte hearings and an incredibly low evidentiary standard to confiscate firearms from individuals .
Check out the entire interview above for a closer look at several other anti-gun bills that will soon become law , including “ one-gun-a-month ” and a bill targeting the state ’ s firearm preemption law .
And stick around afterwards for today ’ s recidivist report , an armed citizen story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deed of the day from Muscatine , Iowa .

The 2020 legislative session has concluded in Richmond, and while gun owners can be pleased that the centerpiece of Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposal didn’t make it to his desk, unfortunately every other piece of his gun control agenda did pass the legislature in some form or fashion and will soon be signed into law.
Joining me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. is David Adams, legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, who not only breaks down specifics about the final language in each of the gun control bills, but also talks a little about the inevitable litigation that will follow soon after Gov. Ralph Northam signs his bills into law.
In the grand scheme of things, the bills aren’t as bad as they could have been, but that doesn’t mean they’re any good. Take concealed carry, for example. Senate Democrats introduced a bill removing online training as an option for those applying for their concealed carry license. House Democrats went much further and took away any NRA-certified firearms safety course in addition to online training. After a tussle in conference committee, the bill emerged largely in line with the state Senate version. It’s still a step backwards, but it’s a smaller step than what the House wanted.
On the other hand, the “red flag” bill sent to Northam is a lot closer to the House version than the one offered by the state Senate, which would have required the approval of two law enforcement officers and the commonwealth’s attorney before a petition could be filed with a court. Instead, the final red flag bill allows for a single law enforcement officer to file for a “substantial risk petition” and still relies on ex parte hearings and an incredibly low evidentiary standard to confiscate firearms from individuals.
Check out the entire interview above for a closer look at several other anti-gun bills that will soon become law, including “one-gun-a-month” and a bill targeting the state’s firearm preemption law. And stick around afterwards for today’s recidivist report, an armed citizen story from southern California, and a good deed of the day from Muscatine, Iowa.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--The Only Demons In Florida Red Flag Case Were The Ones Lying

There are plenty of red flag cases floating around , many of which aren ’ t likely to be much of anything .
Someone loses their cool and someone else petitions the court to yank that person ’ s guns because they ’ re “ unstable.
” Proponents of such laws only look at the total number of orders issued to assess whether or not the law “ works.
” They don ’ t delve into the details .
However , a case out of Florida illustrates not only how these laws can be misused , but also how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of red flag orders being issued in order to assess their effectiveness .
The allegations against Kevin Morgan were alarming .
They described just the sort of circumstances that Florida legislators had in mind when they approved that state ’ s “ red flag ” law in 2018 , three weeks after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland .
Morgan ’ s estranged wife , Joanie , claimed he was depressed , suicidal , and obsessed with the apocalypse , which he thought was imminent .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , guns , and ammunition in anticipation of the end times ; that he talked about seeing , hearing , and wrestling with demons ; and that he had performed a ritual that involved rubbing “ oils ” on their children and the walls of their house .
She reported that he was abusing the drugs he had been prescribed for chronic pain , had talked about dismembering his former wife , had intimated he would do the same to her if she ever disrespected him , and had threatened to kill her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during surgery and intubation .
On the strength of such claims , Joanie Morgan obtained a temporary domestic violence protection injunction , an involuntary psychiatric evaluation order under the Florida Mental Health Act ( a.k.a .
the Baker Act ) , and a temporary “ risk protection order ” under the red flag law , which authorizes the suspension of a person ’ s Second Amendment rights when he is deemed a threat to himself or others .
All three were ex parte orders , meaning they were issued without giving Kevin Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
But when it was time for a judge to decide whether the initial gun confiscation order , which was limited to 14 days , should be extended for a year , Morgan got a hearing , and the lurid picture painted by his wife disintegrated .
By the end of the hearing , in an extraordinary turn of events unlike anything you are likely to see in a courtroom drama , the lawyer representing the Citrus County Sheriff ’ s Office , which was seeking the final order , conceded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s evidentiary standard , and the judge agreed .
I advise you to go and read the whole piece because there are a lot of details there worth knowing and understanding .
Including how the sheriff ’ s department didn ’ t bother to investigate these claims but instead took them at face value .
Through it all , though , Morgan was calm and polite , eventually shattering the narrative surrounding him at this point .
He was lucky , though .
Had her claims been less audacious , Morgan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the order held in place indefinitely , all without any real evidence .
This isn ’ t the only example of someone trying to misuse the system , either .
For example , we have a woman in Colorado who tried to use their red flag law to punish the police officer who shot her son–someone who was trying to commit suicide by cop .
In other words , this isn ’ t the only example of this kind of thing .
It ’ s happening and it ’ s real , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish to believe .
Morgan dodged a bullet only because the claims were so ridiculous that it was fairly easy to disprove them .
Had his wife and mother-in-law simply agreed to say something far more simple and more difficult to disprove , he may well have found his Second Amendment rights revoked for a prolonged period of time .
All because someone got their undies in a bunch and wanted to punish their partner during a divorce .
But sure .
Red flag laws are great and are never misused .
Pull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got bells on it .

There are plenty of red flag cases floating around, many of which aren’t likely to be much of anything. Someone loses their cool and someone else petitions the court to yank that person’s guns because they’re “unstable.”
Proponents of such laws only look at the total number of orders issued to assess whether or not the law “works.” They don’t delve into the details.
However, a case out of Florida illustrates not only how these laws can be misused, but also how it’s stupid to just count the cases of red flag orders being issued in order to assess their effectiveness.
The allegations against Kevin Morgan were alarming. They described just the sort of circumstances that Florida legislators had in mind when they approved that state’s “red flag” law in 2018, three weeks after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Morgan’s estranged wife, Joanie, claimed he was depressed, suicidal, and obsessed with the apocalypse, which he thought was imminent. She said he was stockpiling food, gold, guns, and ammunition in anticipation of the end times; that he talked about seeing, hearing, and wrestling with demons; and that he had performed a ritual that involved rubbing “oils” on their children and the walls of their house. She reported that he was abusing the drugs he had been prescribed for chronic pain, had talked about dismembering his former wife, had intimated he would do the same to her if she ever disrespected him, and had threatened to kill her with succinylcholine, a paralytic agent used during surgery and intubation. On the strength of such claims, Joanie Morgan obtained a temporary domestic violence protection injunction, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation order under the Florida Mental Health Act (a.k.a. the Baker Act), and a temporary “risk protection order” under the red flag law, which authorizes the suspension of a person’s Second Amendment rights when he is deemed a threat to himself or others. All three were ex parte orders, meaning they were issued without giving Kevin Morgan a chance to rebut the allegations against him. But when it was time for a judge to decide whether the initial gun confiscation order, which was limited to 14 days, should be extended for a year, Morgan got a hearing, and the lurid picture painted by his wife disintegrated. By the end of the hearing, in an extraordinary turn of events unlike anything you are likely to see in a courtroom drama, the lawyer representing the Citrus County Sheriff’s Office, which was seeking the final order, conceded that he had not met the law’s evidentiary standard, and the judge agreed.
I advise you to go and read the whole piece because there are a lot of details there worth knowing and understanding. Including how the sheriff’s department didn’t bother to investigate these claims but instead took them at face value. Through it all, though, Morgan was calm and polite, eventually shattering the narrative surrounding him at this point.
He was lucky, though. Had her claims been less audacious, Morgan’s wife may well have been able to get the order held in place indefinitely, all without any real evidence.
This isn’t the only example of someone trying to misuse the system, either. For example, we have a woman in Colorado who tried to use their red flag law to punish the police officer who shot her son–someone who was trying to commit suicide by cop.
In other words, this isn’t the only example of this kind of thing. It’s happening and it’s real, despite what red flag law proponents may wish to believe.
Morgan dodged a bullet only because the claims were so ridiculous that it was fairly easy to disprove them. Had his wife and mother-in-law simply agreed to say something far more simple and more difficult to disprove, he may well have found his Second Amendment rights revoked for a prolonged period of time.
All because someone got their undies in a bunch and wanted to punish their partner during a divorce.
But sure. Red flag laws are great and are never misused. Pull the other one. It’s got bells on it.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--Why Comparing Guns To Diseases Is Beyond Idiotic

Right now , a lot of attention is being directed at Covid-19 , also called the Coronavirus .
It ’ s understandable , too .
There ’ s a nasty bug floating around that may have a fairly high mortality rate , one that might be higher than the official sources indicate .
Then again , there may not be .
Right now , information is sketchy and unless you know the medicine side well enough , it ’ s easy to get confused .
Frankly , I figure it ’ s better to prepare for it being nasty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some are trying to compare the concern over this to gun violence .
The United States is facing many kinds of epidemics and public health crises that require our immediate attention .
Public health can be defined in broad terms as any set of circumstances that threaten the well-being of the general public and can be avoided with sensible government involvement .
When six Americans succumbed to coronavirus this past Monday , their deaths dominated the news .
That was perfectly understandable , considering that the quickly spreading disease had killed some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world but until then had claimed no lives in the United States .
But when at least 36 Americans died that same day amid the nation ’ s epidemic of gun violence , which has ended more than 6,700 lives in the U.S. this year alone , there was no national news about it .
Instead , it was treated as just another Monday of gun-related deaths in America — which , strictly in statistical terms , it was .
The contrast between the reactions to the COVID-19 outbreak and Monday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shootings and suicides was night and day , and it unfortunately speaks to the level to which gun violence has become part of the daily American experience .
But it doesn ’ t have to be this way .
This can be the year when Americans put their foot down by electing leaders who understand the need for greater gun safety in our country and support reasonable , responsible actions to get a handle on the problem .
This is an idiotic argument .
First , let ’ s understand some key differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A disease is the result of a microscopic organism that has no real volition beyond its evolutionary drive to reproduce itself .
It invades a host and spreads throughout the system because it has no free will to opt not to do that .
It ’ s a tiny lifeform that has no consciousness , no ability to decide for itself what it will and won ’ t do .
Those who perpetrate gun violence , however , do .
They make a conscious choice to use a gun for an illegal act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not commit violence .
They opt , however , do commit it anyway .
Because of that , the approaches to each of these are necessarily different .
You treat disease by establishing best practices like washing your hands and quarantining people if necessary because there ’ s not a lot of other options .
Violence , however , does .
There are other options .
You can reason with people , provide alternatives so they make different and better decisions .
There are options that allow us to get down to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further , there ’ s another key point that ’ s missing , and that ’ s how there ’ s absolutely no way for an individual to use a virus or bacteria defensively .
With a gun , you can , but not a virus .
That fact alone changes much of the argument and makes any attempt to equate a viral epidemic with gun violence beyond idiotic .
Then again , this is someone who uses the phrase “ gun safety ” in an obvious call for gun control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re used to seeing applied to them anyway .

Right now, a lot of attention is being directed at Covid-19, also called the Coronavirus. It’s understandable, too. There’s a nasty bug floating around that may have a fairly high mortality rate, one that might be higher than the official sources indicate. Then again, there may not be. Right now, information is sketchy and unless you know the medicine side well enough, it’s easy to get confused.
Frankly, I figure it’s better to prepare for it being nasty and be wrong than the alternative.
However, some are trying to compare the concern over this to gun violence.
The United States is facing many kinds of epidemics and public health crises that require our immediate attention. Public health can be defined in broad terms as any set of circumstances that threaten the well-being of the general public and can be avoided with sensible government involvement. When six Americans succumbed to coronavirus this past Monday, their deaths dominated the news. That was perfectly understandable, considering that the quickly spreading disease had killed some 3,000 people in other parts of the world but until then had claimed no lives in the United States. But when at least 36 Americans died that same day amid the nation’s epidemic of gun violence, which has ended more than 6,700 lives in the U.S. this year alone, there was no national news about it. Instead, it was treated as just another Monday of gun-related deaths in America — which, strictly in statistical terms, it was. The contrast between the reactions to the COVID-19 outbreak and Monday’s death toll from gun homicides, accidental shootings and suicides was night and day, and it unfortunately speaks to the level to which gun violence has become part of the daily American experience. … But it doesn’t have to be this way. This can be the year when Americans put their foot down by electing leaders who understand the need for greater gun safety in our country and support reasonable, responsible actions to get a handle on the problem.
This is an idiotic argument.
First, let’s understand some key differences between gun violence and a disease.
A disease is the result of a microscopic organism that has no real volition beyond its evolutionary drive to reproduce itself. It invades a host and spreads throughout the system because it has no free will to opt not to do that. It’s a tiny lifeform that has no consciousness, no ability to decide for itself what it will and won’t do.
Those who perpetrate gun violence, however, do. They make a conscious choice to use a gun for an illegal act. They have that volition to simply not commit violence. They opt, however, do commit it anyway.
Because of that, the approaches to each of these are necessarily different. You treat disease by establishing best practices like washing your hands and quarantining people if necessary because there’s not a lot of other options.
Violence, however, does. There are other options. You can reason with people, provide alternatives so they make different and better decisions. There are options that allow us to get down to the roots of crime and potentially end it.
Further, there’s another key point that’s missing, and that’s how there’s absolutely no way for an individual to use a virus or bacteria defensively. With a gun, you can, but not a virus.
That fact alone changes much of the argument and makes any attempt to equate a viral epidemic with gun violence beyond idiotic. Then again, this is someone who uses the phrase “gun safety” in an obvious call for gun control. “Smart” is probably an adjective they’re used to seeing applied to them anyway.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--NM Sheriff Concerned About "Red Flag" Law, But Plans To Enforce It

The sheriff of Santa Fe County , New Mexico says that despite his concerns about the state ’ s new “ red flag ” law , he plans on enforcing any Extreme Risk Protection Orders filed in his county when the law goes into effect in May .
Sheriff Adan Mendoza tells the Santa Fe New Mexican that he can ’ t pick and choose which laws to enforce , but that he also has several big issues with the red flag law signed by Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham .
One question that the New Mexican failed to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation by several sheriffs to sue the state over the red flag law .
Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace tells Bearing Arms that he and other sheriffs have been meeting with attorneys in preparation of filing the legal challenge to the new law , but it ’ s unclear whether Mendoza will sign on or be a party to the litigation .
Meanwhile , the law ’ s original sponsor in the legislature is still trying to justify the lack of due process protections .
If someone is an imminent threat to themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t chance the fact that they could take their life by another means .
In fact , we ’ ve seen that in states like Connecticut and Indiana , where red flag laws haven ’ t reduced their suicide rate despite having red flag laws on the books for years .
Ely ’ s explanation reveals another fundamental flaw in “ red flag ” legislation beyond the constitutional concerns ; it doesn ’ t actually do anything to address an individual in crisis .
It simply takes any legally owned guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual alone .
I ’ m disappointed to see Sheriff Mendoza say he ’ ll enforce the law , and I hope to see his name on the court filing when the lawsuit challenging the red flag law is filed .
If he truly is concerned about the effects of the new law , he owes it to his constituents to try to prevent the law from taking effect in the first place .

The sheriff of Santa Fe County, New Mexico says that despite his concerns about the state’s new “red flag” law, he plans on enforcing any Extreme Risk Protection Orders filed in his county when the law goes into effect in May.
Sheriff Adan Mendoza tells the Santa Fe New Mexican that he can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce, but that he also has several big issues with the red flag law signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
He also has concerns about the length of time a person has to wait between having their weapons seized and seeing a judge.
One question that the New Mexican failed to ask Sheriff Mendoza is if he supports planned litigation by several sheriffs to sue the state over the red flag law. Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace tells Bearing Arms that he and other sheriffs have been meeting with attorneys in preparation of filing the legal challenge to the new law, but it’s unclear whether Mendoza will sign on or be a party to the litigation.
Meanwhile, the law’s original sponsor in the legislature is still trying to justify the lack of due process protections.
If someone is an imminent threat to themselves, then simply taking their guns away doesn’t chance the fact that they could take their life by another means. In fact, we’ve seen that in states like Connecticut and Indiana, where red flag laws haven’t reduced their suicide rate despite having red flag laws on the books for years.
Ely’s explanation reveals another fundamental flaw in “red flag” legislation beyond the constitutional concerns; it doesn’t actually do anything to address an individual in crisis. It simply takes any legally owned guns away from the person, but leaves the individual alone.
I’m disappointed to see Sheriff Mendoza say he’ll enforce the law, and I hope to see his name on the court filing when the lawsuit challenging the red flag law is filed. If he truly is concerned about the effects of the new law, he owes it to his constituents to try to prevent the law from taking effect in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-03-09--New York Town Vows To Defy Any New State Gun Laws

The town of Solon , New York has taken what may be the boldest stance yet in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement , with local officials vowing not to enforce any new gun control laws that may be signed by Gov .
Andrew Cuomo .
The town law that passed after a raucous public hearing last week forbids town officials or employees from participating in the enforcement of any new state gun laws , and prohibits town funds from being spent to enforce new gun control laws passed in Albany as well , but there ’ s one catch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York , Solon doesn ’ t actually have a police force of its own .
“ With this local law , this town is making a statement , and that statement is , ‘ No more , ’ ” he said .
Two dozen people — including Cortland County Sheriff Mark Helms , county Republican Committee Chairwoman Connie White and James Uhlinger , a staffer for Claudia Tenney , a former congresswoman and congressional candidate — attended the meeting in the town garage .
Helms , who didn ’ t speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can ’ t “ pick and choose which laws that I ’ ll enforce ” as sheriff .
White , who said she hadn ’ t read the law , said she supported “ the community pushing back ” against intrusive state laws .
According to the local paper , several other towns in the area are considering similar language .
In addition to Truxton , the towns of Virgil and Cuyler and the village of McGraw are also considering similar proposals , and a resident of Willet said Thursday night that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s board to join .
At least one town in Cayuga County is also considering following suit .
Furlin said the effort was to counter what he sees as overreach by a state government attuned more to the needs of urban rather than rural constituents .
“ We are not New York City .
Our lives are vastly different from those in New York City .
We are country folk , ” Furlin said before the vote .
“ We ’ ve been called everything — redneck , hick , cowboy .
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has hopefully met its match with this board .
I think it will continue with Truxton , and I think once this rolls , the governor will get a clear understanding that we are not woodchucks , we are not rednecks and we are not hillbillies.
” I wish these towns the best , but I ’ m not hopeful that Gov .
Cuomo is going to get a clear understanding of the prevailing attitudes in these towns .
I think it ’ s much more likely that Cuomo will simply ignore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solon are passing them .
After all , Cuomo ’ s already pushing a half-dozen new gun control laws this session , and Democrat lawmakers are proposing dozens more .
“ We should not deny our communities and our state this opportunity that has been granted to us , of controlling both houses and the governor ’ s office , to pass tough measures of gun control in this session , ” said Assmb .
Felix Ortiz ( D-Brooklyn ) , who has sponsored several gun control bills .
“ I would say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years when you go to the history book , ” Ortiz said in an interview .
“ New York State will finally be able to move forward to have real gun control reforms in place.
” “ Finally ” ?
New York passed the SAFE Act in 2013 , which included registration of so-called assault weapons , a ban on magazines over 7-rounds , and more .
To say that the state currently has no “ real ” gun control laws in place is absurd , but that ’ s the attitude of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ll see if the local push to defy state lawmakers continues in Cortland County .
I hope it does , but at some point the Second Amendment supporters are going to have to get the local sheriff on board , or else the local laws are going to be basically symbolic acts with no real force behind them .

The town of Solon, New York has taken what may be the boldest stance yet in the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, with local officials vowing not to enforce any new gun control laws that may be signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The town law that passed after a raucous public hearing last week forbids town officials or employees from participating in the enforcement of any new state gun laws, and prohibits town funds from being spent to enforce new gun control laws passed in Albany as well, but there’s one catch. According to the Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in New York, Solon doesn’t actually have a police force of its own.
Town Supervisor Steve Furlin characterized the law as a policy statement. “With this local law, this town is making a statement, and that statement is, ‘No more,’” he said. Two dozen people — including Cortland County Sheriff Mark Helms, county Republican Committee Chairwoman Connie White and James Uhlinger, a staffer for Claudia Tenney, a former congresswoman and congressional candidate — attended the meeting in the town garage. Helms, who didn’t speak at the meeting, had previously said he can’t “pick and choose which laws that I’ll enforce” as sheriff. White, who said she hadn’t read the law, said she supported “the community pushing back” against intrusive state laws.
According to the local paper, several other towns in the area are considering similar language.
In addition to Truxton, the towns of Virgil and Cuyler and the village of McGraw are also considering similar proposals, and a resident of Willet said Thursday night that he intends to push that town’s board to join. At least one town in Cayuga County is also considering following suit. Furlin said the effort was to counter what he sees as overreach by a state government attuned more to the needs of urban rather than rural constituents. “We are not New York City. Our lives are vastly different from those in New York City. We are country folk,” Furlin said before the vote. “We’ve been called everything — redneck, hick, cowboy. Well, guess what? I think the government has hopefully met its match with this board. I think it will continue with Truxton, and I think once this rolls, the governor will get a clear understanding that we are not woodchucks, we are not rednecks and we are not hillbillies.”
I wish these towns the best, but I’m not hopeful that Gov. Cuomo is going to get a clear understanding of the prevailing attitudes in these towns. I think it’s much more likely that Cuomo will simply ignore these local laws and why communities like Solon are passing them. After all, Cuomo’s already pushing a half-dozen new gun control laws this session, and Democrat lawmakers are proposing dozens more.
“We should not deny our communities and our state this opportunity that has been granted to us, of controlling both houses and the governor’s office, to pass tough measures of gun control in this session,” said Assmb. Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn), who has sponsored several gun control bills. “I would say this can be one of the biggest years when you go to the history book,” Ortiz said in an interview. “New York State will finally be able to move forward to have real gun control reforms in place.”
“Finally”? New York passed the SAFE Act in 2013, which included registration of so-called assault weapons, a ban on magazines over 7-rounds, and more. To say that the state currently has no “real” gun control laws in place is absurd, but that’s the attitude of many anti-gun politicians at the state capitol.
We’ll see if the local push to defy state lawmakers continues in Cortland County. I hope it does, but at some point the Second Amendment supporters are going to have to get the local sheriff on board, or else the local laws are going to be basically symbolic acts with no real force behind them.