bearingarms--2020-10-20--Why Destroying Guns Is Bad For Cities

Why Destroying Guns Is Bad For Cities

Lately , there ’ s been something of a push for communities to destroy confiscated firearms .
The argument is that by selling those firearms to dealers , you ’ re simply funneling guns right back into criminal hands .
No community leader wants to do that , so they ’ ve taken to destroying the firearms instead .
However , there ’ s a cost involved in doing that .
Now , it ’ s unclear who foots the cost of destroying firearms .
If the cities themselves do , they have to pay out money .
If not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means cities aren ’ t getting nearly as much money .
Yet there ’ s a much better way .
The Aiken Department of Public Safety is looking to offload dozens of surplus guns to the highest bidder .
Up for grabs are Smith & Wessons , Berettas , Rugers , Colts , a Glock and more , ranging from good to poor condition , documents posted to the city ’ s website show .
A request for proposals was published earlier this month .
Bids are due in November .
Picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed .
The batch of guns for sale stems from confiscations and adjudicated cases , City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh said Monday .
The city , he added , has for years conducted these sort of bulk sales ; the revenue helps fund city operations , of which Public Safety is a significant part .
That ’ s right , by selling these firearms–assuming there ’ s no lawful owner to be found–can actually help fund city operations .
While I ’ m not a fan of civil asset forfeiture , this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are taken from people who can ’ t lawfully have a gun .
They ’ re then sold back to the community , raising money to continue fighting crime .
Further , these guns can then be sold to people who might not otherwise be able to afford a firearm .
“ But then criminals will get them all over again.
” Yeah , it seems that happens in some places .
However , let ’ s also be clear that if the crooks aren ’ t getting these guns , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no reason to believe criminals will be disarmed if these firearms are destroyed .
See , these guns aren ’ t just handed out on street corners .
They ’ re sold to licensed dealers who then conduct NICS background checks for each sale .
While a criminal may straw buy a gun somehow or eventually steal the firearm from a lawful buyer , they ’ re not just walking back into the store and getting their gun handed back to them .
Again , though , if they want a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a gun .
Meanwhile , because of the relatively low cost for these firearms , dealers can offer these guns at pretty low prices .
This means a new gun buyer , particular someone of limited financial means , can actually afford a quality firearm rather than the low-cost junk they ’ re usually stuck with .
More people armed helps police as well , which means the benefits for law enforcement becomes something of a double-whammy .
Not only do they get the money from selling the weapons , but more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a win-win if ever I saw one .

Lately, there’s been something of a push for communities to destroy confiscated firearms. The argument is that by selling those firearms to dealers, you’re simply funneling guns right back into criminal hands. No community leader wants to do that, so they’ve taken to destroying the firearms instead.
However, there’s a cost involved in doing that.
Now, it’s unclear who foots the cost of destroying firearms. If the cities themselves do, they have to pay out money. If not, then the scrap companies do, which means cities aren’t getting nearly as much money.
Yet there’s a much better way.
The Aiken Department of Public Safety is looking to offload dozens of surplus guns to the highest bidder. Up for grabs are Smith & Wessons, Berettas, Rugers, Colts, a Glock and more, ranging from good to poor condition, documents posted to the city’s website show. A request for proposals was published earlier this month. Bids are due in November. Picking and choosing from the lot is not allowed. The batch of guns for sale stems from confiscations and adjudicated cases, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh said Monday. The city, he added, has for years conducted these sort of bulk sales; the revenue helps fund city operations, of which Public Safety is a significant part.
That’s right, by selling these firearms–assuming there’s no lawful owner to be found–can actually help fund city operations. While I’m not a fan of civil asset forfeiture, this is a different animal entirely. These are guns that are taken from people who can’t lawfully have a gun. They’re then sold back to the community, raising money to continue fighting crime.
Further, these guns can then be sold to people who might not otherwise be able to afford a firearm.
“But then criminals will get them all over again.”
Yeah, it seems that happens in some places. However, let’s also be clear that if the crooks aren’t getting these guns, they’re getting different guns. There’s no reason to believe criminals will be disarmed if these firearms are destroyed.
See, these guns aren’t just handed out on street corners. They’re sold to licensed dealers who then conduct NICS background checks for each sale. While a criminal may straw buy a gun somehow or eventually steal the firearm from a lawful buyer, they’re not just walking back into the store and getting their gun handed back to them.
Again, though, if they want a gun, they’re going to get a gun.
Meanwhile, because of the relatively low cost for these firearms, dealers can offer these guns at pretty low prices. This means a new gun buyer, particular someone of limited financial means, can actually afford a quality firearm rather than the low-cost junk they’re usually stuck with.
More people armed helps police as well, which means the benefits for law enforcement becomes something of a double-whammy. Not only do they get the money from selling the weapons, but more armed citizens means more trouble for criminals. That’s a win-win if ever I saw one.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Two More Guilty Pleas In CA Concealed Carry Scandal

So far Santa Clara County , California Sheriff Laurie Smith has avoided indictment in a scandal over the issuance of concealed carry permits that emanated from the top levels of the sheriffs department and directed tens of thousands of dollars towards an independent campaign organization supporting her re-election efforts , but two more individuals connected with the bribery scandal have plead guilty to their role in the scandal .
KPIX-TV in San Francisco reported on the Monday guilty pleas by AS Solution , Inc. managers Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren , who followed CEO and founder Christian West in acknowledging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prosecutors said the defendants are accused of conspiring to engineer a $ 90,000 bribe — $ 45,000 of which allegedly went to support Sheriff Laurie Smith ’ s re-election in 2018 — to obtain concealed firearms permits .
Nielsen was charged with three misdemeanors : conspiracy to solicit the acceptance of a bribe , conspiracy to file CCW license applications with false statements and making a campaign contribution in a false name .
Stromgren was charged with a misdemeanor count of conspiracy to file CCW license applications with false statements .
Santa Clara @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only employee of the sheriff ’ s office that ’ s been charged in the bribery scandal , though D.A .
Jeff Rosen has said the investigation continues .
Sheriff Smith was called to testify before a grand jury this summer , but repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination even when asked basic questions about her time as sheriff .
On Aug. 3 , from a witness stand at the old Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse , Sheriff Smith almost immediately began taking the Fifth .
When Deputy District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does for a living , Smith told him she ’ s worked for the Sheriff ’ s Office for 47 years .
Before he could even get to asking about the gun permits , known as CCWs , she invoked her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career .
“ Sir , under Article 1 of the California Constitution , Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me , ” she said , cutting herself off abruptly .
Though absent from the transcript , witnesses to the proceeding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visibly overcome with emotion , paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes .
“ That ’ s fine , ” Chase assured , allowing her a moment to regain composure .
“ Take your time , sheriff .
There is no rush here .
We are not in a rush.
” Smith picked up where she left off “ … and Evidence Code 940 , ” she continued .
“ I assert my privilege against self-incrimination .
Therefore , I ’ m declining to answer your questions.
” The San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resign her office , noting that the sheriff was either aware of the bribes in support of her re-election efforts or was clueless about how her top deputies were handling concealed carry applications .
Either way , the editors opined , Smith ’ s invocation of the Fifth Amendment was “ unacceptable ” to citizens demanding answers .
County residents have a right to know if the county ’ s top cop knew about corruption in her office , or worse , was involved in it .
Her refusal to answer those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold her office .
This can not be tolerated in Santa Clara County or anywhere in the Bay Area or the rest of California .
Law enforcement officials must be held to the highest legal and ethical standards and must be fully cooperative in any criminal investigation .
Anything less undermines the powerful trust placed in them .
Smith ’ s office only approved a handful of concealed carry applications , and at least 25 % of those who received approval had donated to her re-election efforts .
During grand jury testimony , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of applications were never even looked at .
When asked who was “ the driving force in processing CCWs , ” former PIO Richard Glennon testified , “ Captain Jensen by far.
” But Glennon ’ s clear understanding was that Jensen was acting at Smith ’ s behest .
“ It quickly became apparent that when I took over the position that ( Jensen ) was still kind of the go-between between the sheriff and myself .
He would basically bring me the applications that she had approved to move forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on top of Jensen ’ s unofficial duties .
According to Glennon , Jensen “ was active in running campaign events .
He would be going to a lot of the lunches .
During the campaign events , he was the one at the door collecting the money.
” When prosecutor Chase asked Glennon what Jensen told him to do with typical applications , those that didn ’ t come from Smith ’ s political supporters , he replied , “ They were basically put in a drawer and left in the drawer.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law , which requires a response be given within 90 days .
The fact that ordinary citizens couldn ’ t even get their applications looked at is a scandal in and of itself , but thanks to California ’ s subjective and discriminatory concealed carry permitting law , county sheriffs have broad discretion in approving or denying applications .
The opportunity for bribery as well as discrimination would disappear if lawmakers in Sacramento were to adopt a “ shall issue ” licensing system , but since that would prompt a flood of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Bay area , the anti-gun legislators in Sacramento will never take that step .
They prefer a system where the rich and powerful have access to concealed carry licenses ( even if they pay for the privilege ) , while the average gun owner is routinely denied their right to bear arms .

So far Santa Clara County, California Sheriff Laurie Smith has avoided indictment in a scandal over the issuance of concealed carry permits that emanated from the top levels of the sheriffs department and directed tens of thousands of dollars towards an independent campaign organization supporting her re-election efforts, but two more individuals connected with the bribery scandal have plead guilty to their role in the scandal.
KPIX-TV in San Francisco reported on the Monday guilty pleas by AS Solution, Inc. managers Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren, who followed CEO and founder Christian West in acknowledging their role in the bribery scheme.
Prosecutors said the defendants are accused of conspiring to engineer a $90,000 bribe — $45,000 of which allegedly went to support Sheriff Laurie Smith’s re-election in 2018 — to obtain concealed firearms permits. Nielsen was charged with three misdemeanors: conspiracy to solicit the acceptance of a bribe, conspiracy to file CCW license applications with false statements and making a campaign contribution in a false name. Stromgren was charged with a misdemeanor count of conspiracy to file CCW license applications with false statements.
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Captain James Jensen is the only employee of the sheriff’s office that’s been charged in the bribery scandal, though D.A. Jeff Rosen has said the investigation continues. Sheriff Smith was called to testify before a grand jury this summer, but repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination even when asked basic questions about her time as sheriff.
On Aug. 3, from a witness stand at the old Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse, Sheriff Smith almost immediately began taking the Fifth. When Deputy District Attorney John Chase asked her what she does for a living, Smith told him she’s worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 47 years. Before he could even get to asking about the gun permits, known as CCWs, she invoked her constitutional right over an innocuous request to summarize her law enforcement career. “Sir, under Article 1 of the California Constitution, Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution—excuse me,” she said, cutting herself off abruptly. Though absent from the transcript, witnesses to the proceeding say that’s when Smith, visibly overcome with emotion, paused to collect herself and wipe tears from her eyes. “That’s fine,” Chase assured, allowing her a moment to regain composure. “Take your time, sheriff. There is no rush here. We are not in a rush.” Smith picked up where she left off “… and Evidence Code 940,” she continued. “I assert my privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, I’m declining to answer your questions.”
The San Jose Mercury News has called on Smith to resign her office, noting that the sheriff was either aware of the bribes in support of her re-election efforts or was clueless about how her top deputies were handling concealed carry applications. Either way, the editors opined, Smith’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment was “unacceptable” to citizens demanding answers.
County residents have a right to know if the county’s top cop knew about corruption in her office, or worse, was involved in it. Her refusal to answer those questions under oath makes her unfit to hold her office. This cannot be tolerated in Santa Clara County or anywhere in the Bay Area or the rest of California. Law enforcement officials must be held to the highest legal and ethical standards and must be fully cooperative in any criminal investigation. Anything less undermines the powerful trust placed in them.
Smith’s office only approved a handful of concealed carry applications, and at least 25% of those who received approval had donated to her re-election efforts. During grand jury testimony, one former employee admitted that the vast majority of applications were never even looked at.
When asked who was “the driving force in processing CCWs,” former PIO Richard Glennon testified, “Captain Jensen by far.” But Glennon’s clear understanding was that Jensen was acting at Smith’s behest. “It quickly became apparent that when I took over the position that (Jensen) was still kind of the go-between between the sheriff and myself. He would basically bring me the applications that she had approved to move forward,” Glennon testified. That was on top of Jensen’s unofficial duties. According to Glennon, Jensen “was active in running campaign events. He would be going to a lot of the lunches. During the campaign events, he was the one at the door collecting the money.” When prosecutor Chase asked Glennon what Jensen told him to do with typical applications, those that didn’t come from Smith’s political supporters, he replied, “They were basically put in a drawer and left in the drawer.” That would be a violation of state law, which requires a response be given within 90 days.
The fact that ordinary citizens couldn’t even get their applications looked at is a scandal in and of itself, but thanks to California’s subjective and discriminatory concealed carry permitting law, county sheriffs have broad discretion in approving or denying applications. The opportunity for bribery as well as discrimination would disappear if lawmakers in Sacramento were to adopt a “shall issue” licensing system, but since that would prompt a flood of applicants in Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Bay area, the anti-gun legislators in Sacramento will never take that step. They prefer a system where the rich and powerful have access to concealed carry licenses (even if they pay for the privilege), while the average gun owner is routinely denied their right to bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Montana Teachers Union Spends $800K Opposing Gun Rights

In a state like Montana , you probably have a large number of educators who identify with the right when it comes to politics .
After all , this is a state Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points in 2016 .
It ’ s safe to say that a lot of people there aren ’ t really liberals , which means that a large number of teachers aren ’ t .
Despite that , many are probably members of Montana Federation of Public Employees , the union consisting primarily of teachers and other public employees seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on opposing gun control .
Why is the union that is supposed to represent Montana school teachers spending $ 800,000 to campaign against a referendum on the ballot this November ?
Does it involve teacher pay ?
Would it take away the pensions of teachers or public employees ?
Nope .
The teachers union is spending $ 800,000 to campaign against your gun rights .
Legislative Referendum 130 ( LR 130 ) is strongly backed by the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) and the Montana Shooting Sports Association ( MSSA ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other day on the radio , I mentioned this Montana Free Press story noting the big bucks coming from the Montana Federation of Public Employees ( MFPE ) in opposition to LR 130 : According to campaign finance reports from the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices , opponents of the initiative have far outraised supporters , with nearly $ 800,000 coming from the political action committee of the state ’ s largest union , the Montana Federation of Public Employees , which represents primarily teachers and government employees .
Another $ 100,000 came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the lobbying arm of the national gun safety nonprofit funded by billionaire and former presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg .
So why would the teachers union be spending nearly a million dollars to lobby against your gun rights ?
It seems especially odd in a place like Montana where teachers , just like the rest of us , support our 2nd Amendment rights .
To be sure , this looks odd .
But , to be fair , a union spending money on an issue that directly impacts its members would make sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , I can see a union spending money to oppose a measure that would allow guns in schools , for example .
So just what is LR 130 ?
Well , it ’ s a measure that would strengthen the state ’ s preemption law , removing a few exceptions where communities can currently establish their own gun control laws .
Now , I ’ m not shocked that the leftist who runs the union opposes this measure .
Anti-gun leftists often oppose preemption , claiming some newfound concern for federalism even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights at the national level .
The idea of the union honcho not liking LR 130 isn ’ t surprising in the least .
However , spending union money on a measure that really has no tie to anything the union does is something else entirely .
Frankly , this is the kind of thing that should warrant a federal investigation .
It probably doesn ’ t under current law , but it probably should .
No , not because I don ’ t like what they ’ re saying , but because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to further the union president ’ s personal political agenda on issues that have no relation to union business .
Frankly , it appears the ball is in the union members ’ court .
It ’ s up to them to take issue with the president ’ s actions and hold her accountable .
My most sincere hope is that they not only do , but do so in such a way it becomes clear that this can not be tolerated .
That should go for those who actually oppose LR 130 as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have felt of the advertising was going in support of the measure ?

In a state like Montana, you probably have a large number of educators who identify with the right when it comes to politics. After all, this is a state Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points in 2016. It’s safe to say that a lot of people there aren’t really liberals, which means that a large number of teachers aren’t.
Despite that, many are probably members of Montana Federation of Public Employees, the union consisting primarily of teachers and other public employees seems to have decided to spend its money on opposing gun control.
Why is the union that is supposed to represent Montana school teachers spending $800,000 to campaign against a referendum on the ballot this November? Does it involve teacher pay? Would it take away the pensions of teachers or public employees? Nope. The teachers union is spending $800,000 to campaign against your gun rights. Legislative Referendum 130 (LR 130) is strongly backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA). … While talking about the ballot initiatives the other day on the radio, I mentioned this Montana Free Press story noting the big bucks coming from the Montana Federation of Public Employees (MFPE) in opposition to LR 130: According to campaign finance reports from the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, opponents of the initiative have far outraised supporters, with nearly $800,000 coming from the political action committee of the state’s largest union, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which represents primarily teachers and government employees. Another $100,000 came from Everytown for Gun Safe Action Fund, the lobbying arm of the national gun safety nonprofit funded by billionaire and former presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg. So why would the teachers union be spending nearly a million dollars to lobby against your gun rights? It seems especially odd in a place like Montana where teachers, just like the rest of us, support our 2nd Amendment rights.
To be sure, this looks odd.
But, to be fair, a union spending money on an issue that directly impacts its members would make sense. While I may oppose such a position, I can see a union spending money to oppose a measure that would allow guns in schools, for example.
So just what is LR 130? Well, it’s a measure that would strengthen the state’s preemption law, removing a few exceptions where communities can currently establish their own gun control laws.
That’s it.
Now, I’m not shocked that the leftist who runs the union opposes this measure. Anti-gun leftists often oppose preemption, claiming some newfound concern for federalism even while they try to infringe on our rights at the national level. The idea of the union honcho not liking LR 130 isn’t surprising in the least.
However, spending union money on a measure that really has no tie to anything the union does is something else entirely. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that should warrant a federal investigation. It probably doesn’t under current law, but it probably should. No, not because I don’t like what they’re saying, but because they’re clearly misusing union money to further the union president’s personal political agenda on issues that have no relation to union business.
Frankly, it appears the ball is in the union members’ court. It’s up to them to take issue with the president’s actions and hold her accountable. My most sincere hope is that they not only do, but do so in such a way it becomes clear that this cannot be tolerated.
That should go for those who actually oppose LR 130 as well. After all, how would they have felt of the advertising was going in support of the measure?


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Court Reinstates Lawsuit Over Seattle Gun Storage Requirements

Gun owners in Washington State won a victory on Monday after a state appellate court ruled that a challenge to Seattle ’ s gun storage law can proceed , overturning a Superior Court ruling from 2018 asserting that the plaintiffs didn ’ t have standing to sue over the requirements .
The Second Amendment Foundation ’ s Alan Gottlieb says his group , which brought the original lawsuit , is pleased by the decision of the appeals court .
“ It ’ s a great victory for the Second Amendment Foundation and our case against Seattle , ” said Alan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We have to have a trial on the merits of the case , which I believe we will win eventually , ” he added .
“ We ’ re reviewing the decision and will confer with our pro bono legal counsel on our potential next steps , ” said Dan Nolte with the Seattle City Attorney ’ s Office .
The city can decide to appeal the appeals court decision to the state Supreme Court , or go to trial in the lower court on the merits .
Gun rights advocates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s going to be great now because we can finally move ahead , ” Gotlieb said .
“ A lot of our cases in Washington state have been stalled and taken a long time to actually get resolved and it ’ s because they really don ’ t want to rule in our favor but they know eventually they ’ re going to have to.
” Gottlieb notes that the challenge to Seattle ’ s storage law isn ’ t the first lawsuit filed in the state over gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County judge struck down an identical gun storage law in the city of Edmonds , ruling that the requirement violated state statutes .
Both Edmonds ’ and Seattle ’ s storage laws require gun owners to keep all firearms in a locked container unless they are being carried in the home or “ under the control ” of the gun owner .
Those found to have violated the ordinance can face fines of up to $ 10,000 , though it ’ s unclear if anyone in Seattle has actually been charged since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Seattle officials now have to decide if they ’ ll appeal the recent court decision to the state Supreme Court , or if they ’ ll drop their objections to standing and proceed to trial .
My guess is that they ’ ll drag out the legal fight for as long as possible , which means asking the state Supreme Court to reject the appeals court ruling and declare the lawsuit null and void .
Before city officials take that step , however , they ’ ll be consulting with the litigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is representing the city pro bono in its defense of the ordinance .
Ultimately , it sounds like Mayor Jenny Durkan will do whatever Mike Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun attorneys recommend , even if it violates the Second Amendment rights of Seattle residents .

Gun owners in Washington State won a victory on Monday after a state appellate court ruled that a challenge to Seattle’s gun storage law can proceed, overturning a Superior Court ruling from 2018 asserting that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue over the requirements.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb says his group, which brought the original lawsuit, is pleased by the decision of the appeals court.
“It’s a great victory for the Second Amendment Foundation and our case against Seattle,” said Alan Gotlieb with the Second Amendment Foundation. “We have to have a trial on the merits of the case, which I believe we will win eventually,” he added. “We’re reviewing the decision and will confer with our pro bono legal counsel on our potential next steps,” said Dan Nolte with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. The city can decide to appeal the appeals court decision to the state Supreme Court, or go to trial in the lower court on the merits. Gun rights advocates are looking forward to their day in court. “That’s going to be great now because we can finally move ahead,” Gotlieb said. “A lot of our cases in Washington state have been stalled and taken a long time to actually get resolved and it’s because they really don’t want to rule in our favor but they know eventually they’re going to have to.”
Gottlieb notes that the challenge to Seattle’s storage law isn’t the first lawsuit filed in the state over gun storage requirements. Last October a Snohomish County judge struck down an identical gun storage law in the city of Edmonds, ruling that the requirement violated state statutes.
Both Edmonds’ and Seattle’s storage laws require gun owners to keep all firearms in a locked container unless they are being carried in the home or “under the control” of the gun owner. Those found to have violated the ordinance can face fines of up to $10,000, though it’s unclear if anyone in Seattle has actually been charged since the law took effect in February of 2019.
Seattle officials now have to decide if they’ll appeal the recent court decision to the state Supreme Court, or if they’ll drop their objections to standing and proceed to trial. My guess is that they’ll drag out the legal fight for as long as possible, which means asking the state Supreme Court to reject the appeals court ruling and declare the lawsuit null and void. Before city officials take that step, however, they’ll be consulting with the litigation wing of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is representing the city pro bono in its defense of the ordinance. Ultimately, it sounds like Mayor Jenny Durkan will do whatever Mike Bloomberg’s anti-gun attorneys recommend, even if it violates the Second Amendment rights of Seattle residents.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--At Least They're Consistent In Calling Everyone White Supremacists

The media has embraced something of a pattern over the last few years .
Anyone on the right who they don ’ t like gets labeled not just an extremist , but a white supremacist .
It starts with the president and works its way down .
Right now , the media is on a kick where they ’ ve decided the biggest threat isn ’ t the thousands of leftists who have taken to the streets and burned down portions of our cities .
Oh no , the real threat is from white supremacists .
On 6 October Chad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , released his department ’ s annual assessment of violent threats to the nation .
Analysts didn ’ t have to dig deep into the assessment to discover its alarming content .
In a foreword , Wolf wrote that he was “ particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent , targeted attacks in recent years .
[ They ] seek to force ideological change in the United States through violence , death , and destruction.
” Two days later , the FBI swooped .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly been plotting to carry out a range of attacks in Michigan , including the kidnapping of the Democratic governor , Gretchen Whitmer .
Later revelations revealed that a group of anti-government paramilitaries that included some of those arrested had also discussed kidnapping the governor of Virginia .
The double strike , just days apart , of the threat assessment and the Michigan plot arrests marked an important moment in America ’ s tortured history of racist terrorism .
US authorities appeared not only to have woken up finally to the extent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing something about it .
Now , I won ’ t argue that racist terrorism is a thing .
Especially in the not distant enough past when racist bastards would bomb black churches and the like .
However , at the risk of defending the absolute morons who were plotting to kidnap the Michigan governor , there ’ s no reason to believe them to be white supremacists .
After all , at least one of the plotters attended a Black Lives Matter rally .
If he ’ s a white supremacist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , I ’ m not defending any of these guys .
They ’ re morons at best .
Not only was it idiotic to think something like this would actually be a good thing , but their attempts at planning their “ op ” were downright laughable .
Yet the problem is that the media is trying to associate “ militia ” with “ white supremacist ” because they know people will not back actual racists .
So , if they can poison people ’ s minds against militias , then they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone finding out that many of these militias consist of law-abiding Americans who are simply working to defend their God-given rights .
They ’ re not racist in any way , much less white supremacists .
However , for the media , they know they only need to provide enough facts that you can verify for about 80 percent of their story .
If they do and you check them , you ’ ll find those are right and assume everything else it valid as well .
It ’ s misinformation masquerading as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ par for the course for this day and age , isn ’ t it ?
Meanwhile , actual white supremacists are thankful that the biased media is providing them with so much cover .

The media has embraced something of a pattern over the last few years. Anyone on the right who they don’t like gets labeled not just an extremist, but a white supremacist. It starts with the president and works its way down.
Right now, the media is on a kick where they’ve decided the biggest threat isn’t the thousands of leftists who have taken to the streets and burned down portions of our cities. Oh no, the real threat is from white supremacists.
On 6 October Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, released his department’s annual assessment of violent threats to the nation. Analysts didn’t have to dig deep into the assessment to discover its alarming content. In a foreword, Wolf wrote that he was “particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years. [They] seek to force ideological change in the United States through violence, death, and destruction.” Two days later, the FBI swooped. It arrested 13 rightwing extremists who had allegedly been plotting to carry out a range of attacks in Michigan, including the kidnapping of the Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Later revelations revealed that a group of anti-government paramilitaries that included some of those arrested had also discussed kidnapping the governor of Virginia. The double strike, just days apart, of the threat assessment and the Michigan plot arrests marked an important moment in America’s tortured history of racist terrorism. US authorities appeared not only to have woken up finally to the extent of the white supremacist threat but were actually doing something about it.
Now, I won’t argue that racist terrorism is a thing. Especially in the not distant enough past when racist bastards would bomb black churches and the like.
However, at the risk of defending the absolute morons who were plotting to kidnap the Michigan governor, there’s no reason to believe them to be white supremacists. After all, at least one of the plotters attended a Black Lives Matter rally.
One of alleged plotters, 23-year-old Daniel Harris, attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was upset about the killing of George Floyd and police violence.
If he’s a white supremacist, he kind of sucks at it.
Now, I’m not defending any of these guys. They’re morons at best. Not only was it idiotic to think something like this would actually be a good thing, but their attempts at planning their “op” were downright laughable.
Yet the problem is that the media is trying to associate “militia” with “white supremacist” because they know people will not back actual racists. So, if they can poison people’s minds against militias, then they don’t need to worry about anyone finding out that many of these militias consist of law-abiding Americans who are simply working to defend their God-given rights.
They’re not racist in any way, much less white supremacists.
However, for the media, they know they only need to provide enough facts that you can verify for about 80 percent of their story. If they do and you check them, you’ll find those are right and assume everything else it valid as well. It’s misinformation masquerading as journalism.
Then again, this is par for the course for this day and age, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, actual white supremacists are thankful that the biased media is providing them with so much cover.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Confusion Over "No Guns At Polling Places" Edict In MI

Michigan ’ s Secretary of State announced last week that the open carrying of firearms would be banned within 100 feet of polling locations across the state , but the head of the state ’ s association of police chiefs is warning that Jocelyn Benson ’ s edict is unenforceable because it doesn ’ t have the force of law .
Robert Stevenson , the executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police , says that he ’ s hearing from many departments around the state who are reluctant or unwilling to enforce the administrative order .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules , but in researching the issue , there ’ s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce these rules , ” Stevenson said .
“ Their theory is if people don ’ t follow the rules and don ’ t leave ( the polling place ) , they ’ d have a trespassing situation where police would be able to take enforcement action .
“ But the feedback I ’ ve been getting from our police agencies is that they ’ re uncomfortable trying to enforce something they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce , ” Stevenson said .
“ Our hope is that this will get resolved and there ’ ll be some clear guidance .
“ … But as it stands now , there ’ s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce the Secretary of State ’ s edict.
” Rather than acknowledge the confusion , Tracy Wimmer , a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State , is doubling down and asserting that the state ’ s Attorney General has signed off on the legality of the order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the attorney general , the state ’ s top law enforcement official , reviewing relevant laws and legal precedent and ruling , in her capacity as that law enforcement official , that the secretary has the authority , ” Wimmer said in a Monday email .
“ It is within the scope of authority for executives to interpret relevant and applicable law and apply it appropriately , and is indeed based in law.
” The Detroit News points out that Benson ’ s order has become a political football , with many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Second Amendment organizations criticizing the announcement and questioning both Benson ’ s authority to issue the rule and Attorney General Dana Nessel ’ s opinion that the rule is enforceable .
At least one organization says it ’ s planning on suing the state over the order .
Democrats like Nessel are trying to claim that it ’ s just Republican obstructionism that ’ s at work here , but with the police chiefs association coming out and disputing the ability of local law enforcement to arrest those openly carrying near a polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the concerns run deeper than partisan politics .
It will likely take a lawsuit to clear things up , but with just two weeks left before Election Day , any organization that ’ s planning on filing a legal challenge to Benson ’ s order better get started .
In the meantime , police chiefs and county sheriffs are likely to decide for themselves whether or not the Secretary of State ’ s administrative rule is going to be enforced .
The Michigan Sheriffs Association was advising elected sheriffs to consult with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision , said Matt Saxton , CEO and executive director of the association .
On Monday , Saxton added : “ This administrative order does cause concern because it puts law enforcement in the middle of the issue .
In my opinion , the order was a solution in search of a problem .
I ’ ve been in law enforcement for 28 years , and every year there ’ s some concern about safety in the polling places , and we ’ ve been able to handle those concerns with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that Benson , Nessel , and Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer are playing politics with the decision .
That ’ s not exactly surprising , given the recent arrest of more than a dozen people in connection with the planned kidnapping of Whitmer , but it doesn ’ t automatically make Benson ’ s rule applicable or enforceable across the state .
By banning open carry , it ’ s actually likely that Benson has spurred some folks to carry who wouldn ’ t have otherwise .
The “ solution in search of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem instead of solving one that didn ’ t exist .

Michigan’s Secretary of State announced last week that the open carrying of firearms would be banned within 100 feet of polling locations across the state, but the head of the state’s association of police chiefs is warning that Jocelyn Benson’s edict is unenforceable because it doesn’t have the force of law.
Robert Stevenson, the executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, says that he’s hearing from many departments around the state who are reluctant or unwilling to enforce the administrative order.
“The Secretary of State issued these administrative rules, but in researching the issue, there’s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce these rules,” Stevenson said. “Their theory is if people don’t follow the rules and don’t leave (the polling place), they’d have a trespassing situation where police would be able to take enforcement action. “But the feedback I’ve been getting from our police agencies is that they’re uncomfortable trying to enforce something they clearly don’t have the authority to enforce,” Stevenson said. “Our hope is that this will get resolved and there’ll be some clear guidance. “… But as it stands now, there’s nothing in the law that gives police the authority to enforce the Secretary of State’s edict.”
Rather than acknowledge the confusion, Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State, is doubling down and asserting that the state’s Attorney General has signed off on the legality of the order.
“The directive was the result of the attorney general, the state’s top law enforcement official, reviewing relevant laws and legal precedent and ruling, in her capacity as that law enforcement official, that the secretary has the authority,” Wimmer said in a Monday email. “It is within the scope of authority for executives to interpret relevant and applicable law and apply it appropriately, and is indeed based in law.”
The Detroit News points out that Benson’s order has become a political football, with many county sheriffs, Republican lawmakers, and pro-Second Amendment organizations criticizing the announcement and questioning both Benson’s authority to issue the rule and Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion that the rule is enforceable. At least one organization says it’s planning on suing the state over the order.
Democrats like Nessel are trying to claim that it’s just Republican obstructionism that’s at work here, but with the police chiefs association coming out and disputing the ability of local law enforcement to arrest those openly carrying near a polling place, it’s clear that the concerns run deeper than partisan politics.
It will likely take a lawsuit to clear things up, but with just two weeks left before Election Day, any organization that’s planning on filing a legal challenge to Benson’s order better get started. In the meantime, police chiefs and county sheriffs are likely to decide for themselves whether or not the Secretary of State’s administrative rule is going to be enforced.
The Michigan Sheriffs Association was advising elected sheriffs to consult with their counsels and local prosecutors about Benson’s decision, said Matt Saxton, CEO and executive director of the association. On Monday, Saxton added: “This administrative order does cause concern because it puts law enforcement in the middle of the issue. In my opinion, the order was a solution in search of a problem. I’ve been in law enforcement for 28 years, and every year there’s some concern about safety in the polling places, and we’ve been able to handle those concerns with no issues.”
I think it’s likely that Benson, Nessel, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are playing politics with the decision. That’s not exactly surprising, given the recent arrest of more than a dozen people in connection with the planned kidnapping of Whitmer, but it doesn’t automatically make Benson’s rule applicable or enforceable across the state. By banning open carry, it’s actually likely that Benson has spurred some folks to carry who wouldn’t have otherwise. The “solution in search of a problem” may have created a problem instead of solving one that didn’t exist.


bearingarms--2020-10-20--Apparent Letter Warns Some Of Post-Election Attack

Let ’ s be honest , 2020 has been the year when all the crazies seem to have decided to come out to play .
We ’ ve had nightly unrest in Portland , riots in just about every major city at some time or another this year and even in some of the not-so major ones , and we still haven ’ t even hit the election yet .
Four years ago , the results of the election soon sent folks out into the streets as disappointed leftists figured they might as well burn everything down since they didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re looking at it potentially happening again , and a letter that ’ s supposedly shown up in Kansas City is laying out some rather specific and potentially alarming threats .
Schlapp , the American Conservative Union Chairman , shared the above picture saying it was sent to someone in Kansas City .
I spent several hours on Monday trying to get confirmation that the flyers were genuine , because you really just can ’ t take these things at face value .
Now , I ’ m not saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since it looks like the only part he got wrong was where the letter was originally .
Instead of Kansas City , it appears to have been sent to a woman in New Hampshire .
Of course it could still be a hoax .
After all , the comment about how they ’ ll attack “ should Trump not concede the election , ” sounds like the way a leftist would phrase it .
Threatening property damage–a violent act , to be sure–sounds like the way leftists have been dealing with disappointment all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not like they ’ ve shown a respect for private property .
The warning of “ this ” Civil War is particularly ominous .
If anything , the left is fully responsible for making it so a potential hoax such as this could be so damned believable .
The thing is , though , it may not be a hoax .
If that ’ s the case , then folks may want to prepare themselves for having to defend their homes .
Those homes wouldn ’ t be the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 and there ’ s no reason to believe that those homes would be the last , either .
What ’ s amazing , though , is that even if the letter isn ’ t real , there are those on the left who think this is a swell idea and would like to join in the “ fun.
” These are often the very same people who will tell you that you don ’ t need a gun and that having an AR-15 is only because of male inadequacies ( they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of time with this argument ) or delusions about defeating the United States military , never thinking that we have them also in case the mob turns violent .
Hopefully , the election passes and we find that this was , indeed , nothing .
Perhaps it ’ s legit but meant to scare people into being silent about their support for the president .
Maybe it ’ s something else .
Either way , it ’ s a reminder to keep locked and loaded come November .

Let’s be honest, 2020 has been the year when all the crazies seem to have decided to come out to play. We’ve had nightly unrest in Portland, riots in just about every major city at some time or another this year and even in some of the not-so major ones, and we still haven’t even hit the election yet.
Four years ago, the results of the election soon sent folks out into the streets as disappointed leftists figured they might as well burn everything down since they didn’t get their way.
Now, we’re looking at it potentially happening again, and a letter that’s supposedly shown up in Kansas City is laying out some rather specific and potentially alarming threats.
These fliers are being left in Kansas City neighborhoods. This on top of our former KS National Committeeman getting run over on his yard due to his Trump sign. Please pray that America will reject this violence and hate. pic.twitter.com/vQlb1ZqiVg — Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) October 19, 2020
Schlapp, the American Conservative Union Chairman, shared the above picture saying it was sent to someone in Kansas City. I spent several hours on Monday trying to get confirmation that the flyers were genuine, because you really just can’t take these things at face value.
Now, I’m not saying Schlapp is making this up. Especially since it looks like the only part he got wrong was where the letter was originally. Instead of Kansas City, it appears to have been sent to a woman in New Hampshire.
Of course it could still be a hoax.
After all, the comment about how they’ll attack “should Trump not concede the election,” sounds like the way a leftist would phrase it. Threatening property damage–a violent act, to be sure–sounds like the way leftists have been dealing with disappointment all this time, so why not? It’s not like they’ve shown a respect for private property. The warning of “this” Civil War is particularly ominous.
If anything, the left is fully responsible for making it so a potential hoax such as this could be so damned believable.
The thing is, though, it may not be a hoax. If that’s the case, then folks may want to prepare themselves for having to defend their homes. Those homes wouldn’t be the first thing leftists burned to the ever-loving ground in 2020 and there’s no reason to believe that those homes would be the last, either.
What’s amazing, though, is that even if the letter isn’t real, there are those on the left who think this is a swell idea and would like to join in the “fun.” These are often the very same people who will tell you that you don’t need a gun and that having an AR-15 is only because of male inadequacies (they fail to address women gun owners, most of time with this argument) or delusions about defeating the United States military, never thinking that we have them also in case the mob turns violent.
Hopefully, the election passes and we find that this was, indeed, nothing. Perhaps it’s legit but meant to scare people into being silent about their support for the president. Maybe it’s something else.
Either way, it’s a reminder to keep locked and loaded come November.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Georgia Arrest Shows Why Gun Control Fails

Gun control is often the fallacy of believing that additional laws will somehow stop criminal from breaking other laws .
The belief that if we somehow pass a couple more rules , suddenly bad guys will start walking the straight and narrow is absolutely deluded .
The truth is , we have more than enough gun laws on the books .
Especially since it ’ s clear that the ones we have aren ’ t really stopping criminals from getting guns .
Here ’ s an example from Macon , Georgia .
They were all arrested .
Now , police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported stolen .
There ’ s a pretty high likelihood that the other four were stolen but the serial numbers weren ’ t reported .
Of the six people arrested , only one was old enough to lawfully purchase a handgun .
So , how many laws were allegedly violated here ?
Now , with that in mind , just how many gun laws could be concocted to address this ?
Zero , that ’ s how many .
There were at least four stolen guns in the apartment .
That tells us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns .
They were going outside the law , for crying out loud .
And these weren ’ t master criminals with deep underworld contacts to shady arms dealers from exotic locations .
They ’ re a handful of street punks who managed to pick up some firearms from someone they knew who either stole them or bought them from the thief .
Yeah , it ’ s that easy for criminals to get guns illegally .
What you ’ re not going to see is a law that can actually prevent this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not physically possible .
Yet anti-gunners will continue to push for laws that restrict the rights of the law-abiding because of the already illegal acts of people who obtained their guns illegally .
It ’ s absolutely insane .
These six people stand accused of possessing guns they couldn ’ t legally own , but there are legions more out there right now with illicit firearms stolen from law-abiding citizens .
Here ’ s a though for the lawmakers .
Instead of going after gun owners , why don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who sell stolen good and engage in other actually illegal activities .
You know , just to shake stuff up a bit ?
I know , it sounds crazy , but it ’ s something that might actually work for a change .
You should give it a try .

Gun control is often the fallacy of believing that additional laws will somehow stop criminal from breaking other laws. The belief that if we somehow pass a couple more rules, suddenly bad guys will start walking the straight and narrow is absolutely deluded.
The truth is, we have more than enough gun laws on the books. Especially since it’s clear that the ones we have aren’t really stopping criminals from getting guns.
Here’s an example from Macon, Georgia.
A total of six people were arrested Monday afternoon after a wanted man was found with stolen guns at a Macon apartment complex. According to a news release, it happened at the Majestic Gardens Apartments on Rocky Creek Road around 12:30 p.m. It says investigators received a tip that 18-year-old Rashid Ivey, who was wanted on aggravated assault warrants, was at an apartment in the complex. They went to the apartment and found Ivey inside the apartment along with five other people. The release says a search warrant was executed at the apartment and eight guns were found – four had been reported stolen in Bibb County and Florida. The five other people in the apartment included 23-year-old Sefon Dennard, 17-year-old Phaizon Pollard and three juveniles.
They were all arrested.
Now, police found eight guns. Four had been reported stolen. There’s a pretty high likelihood that the other four were stolen but the serial numbers weren’t reported. Of the six people arrested, only one was old enough to lawfully purchase a handgun.
So, how many laws were allegedly violated here?
Now, with that in mind, just how many gun laws could be concocted to address this? Zero, that’s how many.
There were at least four stolen guns in the apartment. That tells us that they weren’t lawfully purchasing guns. They were going outside the law, for crying out loud.
And these weren’t master criminals with deep underworld contacts to shady arms dealers from exotic locations. They’re a handful of street punks who managed to pick up some firearms from someone they knew who either stole them or bought them from the thief. Yeah, it’s that easy for criminals to get guns illegally.
What you’re not going to see is a law that can actually prevent this kind of thing, either. It’s not physically possible.
Yet anti-gunners will continue to push for laws that restrict the rights of the law-abiding because of the already illegal acts of people who obtained their guns illegally. It’s absolutely insane.
These six people stand accused of possessing guns they couldn’t legally own, but there are legions more out there right now with illicit firearms stolen from law-abiding citizens.
Here’s a though for the lawmakers. Instead of going after gun owners, why don’t you focus on cracking down on people who sell stolen good and engage in other actually illegal activities. You know, just to shake stuff up a bit?
I know, it sounds crazy, but it’s something that might actually work for a change. You should give it a try.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Did Kentucky AG Really Present "Everything" To Breonna Taylor Grand Jury?

The short answer , for me anyway , is “ no.
” Daniel Cameron , in his first public statement after a grand jury in Kentucky handed down an indictment on three charges of wanton endangerment for a Louisville police officer who fired blindly during the raid on Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment , said that his office presented “ everything ” to the jurors before they made their decision .
As it turns out , Cameron not only never brought up the possibility of charges against the officers who shot and killed Taylor when they returned fire after Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single round as officers came through the door , believing they were home invaders ; according to one grand juror when jurors asked about the possibility of charges for Taylor ’ s death , they were told the case wasn ’ t strong enough to pursue .
I happen to agree with Cameron that the possibility of successfully prosecuting officers for Taylor ’ s death is remote , largely because Kenneth Walker has already stated that he was the first one to fire .
At that point , officers had the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on them , just as Walker had the right to stop what he perceived to be a home invasion .
I ’ ve said all along that the death of Breonna Taylor is a tragedy , but I don ’ t think that it was a crime .
The problem is that Daniel Cameron ’ s original statement after the grand jury indictment sure made it sound like his office had presented the evidence involving all of the officers who were involved in the Taylor shooting , not just Brett Hankison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into an adjacent apartment as police returned fire after Taylor ’ s single shot .
By the time Cameron ’ s office presented their case to the grand jury , there had been months of public calls for the officers involved in Taylor ’ s death to be charged with murder .
Presenting the evidence ( or lack thereof ) on murder or manslaughter charges would have resulted in one of two things ; indictment on those charges by a grand jury or those same jurors clearing officers of criminal wrongdoing .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Cameron is facing now ; grand jurors who are speaking out because they disagreed with the process , Taylor ’ s family excoriating you in the press , and questions about why you weren ’ t forthcoming with the charges that were presented to the grand jury in the first place .
Even if prosecutors had to try a weak case against the Louisville police officers , that would have been a better outcome than the situation we have now , where Cameron ’ s critics will maintain that the criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protected police instead , which is why we need to scrap the whole system and build something grand and glorious on its ashes .
The odds are , though , that the grand jury would ultimately have reached the same conclusion as Cameron ; the case against the officers who killed Breonna Taylor isn ’ t prosecutable because they could all reasonably claim that they were acting in defense of their lives .
Since one of them was actually shot by Kenneth Walker before they returned fire , they had a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been angry over the decision .
There may even have been protests and riots in Louisville as a result .
Still , it would have been the decision of a grand jury , not Cameron ’ s alone , and that would have made a big difference in the long term .
Cameron almost certainly acted within his authority as Attorney General in only presenting wanton endangerment charges against Brett Hankinson , but it was still a mistake to not let grand jurors come to their own conclusions about the culpability of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breonna Taylor during their raid on her home .

The short answer, for me anyway, is “no.” Daniel Cameron, in his first public statement after a grand jury in Kentucky handed down an indictment on three charges of wanton endangerment for a Louisville police officer who fired blindly during the raid on Breonna Taylor’s apartment, said that his office presented “everything” to the jurors before they made their decision.
As it turns out, Cameron not only never brought up the possibility of charges against the officers who shot and killed Taylor when they returned fire after Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker fired a single round as officers came through the door, believing they were home invaders; according to one grand juror when jurors asked about the possibility of charges for Taylor’s death, they were told the case wasn’t strong enough to pursue.
I happen to agree with Cameron that the possibility of successfully prosecuting officers for Taylor’s death is remote, largely because Kenneth Walker has already stated that he was the first one to fire. At that point, officers had the right to stop what they believed to be an attack on them, just as Walker had the right to stop what he perceived to be a home invasion.
I’ve said all along that the death of Breonna Taylor is a tragedy, but I don’t think that it was a crime. The problem is that Daniel Cameron’s original statement after the grand jury indictment sure made it sound like his office had presented the evidence involving all of the officers who were involved in the Taylor shooting, not just Brett Hankison, who is accused of firing multiple shots into an adjacent apartment as police returned fire after Taylor’s single shot.
By the time Cameron’s office presented their case to the grand jury, there had been months of public calls for the officers involved in Taylor’s death to be charged with murder. Presenting the evidence (or lack thereof) on murder or manslaughter charges would have resulted in one of two things; indictment on those charges by a grand jury or those same jurors clearing officers of criminal wrongdoing.
Either option would be better than the one that Cameron is facing now; grand jurors who are speaking out because they disagreed with the process, Taylor’s family excoriating you in the press, and questions about why you weren’t forthcoming with the charges that were presented to the grand jury in the first place.
Even if prosecutors had to try a weak case against the Louisville police officers, that would have been a better outcome than the situation we have now, where Cameron’s critics will maintain that the criminal justice system once again failed to find justice and protected police instead, which is why we need to scrap the whole system and build something grand and glorious on its ashes.
The odds are, though, that the grand jury would ultimately have reached the same conclusion as Cameron; the case against the officers who killed Breonna Taylor isn’t prosecutable because they could all reasonably claim that they were acting in defense of their lives. Since one of them was actually shot by Kenneth Walker before they returned fire, they had a solid defense.
Yes, people would have been angry over the decision. There may even have been protests and riots in Louisville as a result. Still, it would have been the decision of a grand jury, not Cameron’s alone, and that would have made a big difference in the long term. Cameron almost certainly acted within his authority as Attorney General in only presenting wanton endangerment charges against Brett Hankinson, but it was still a mistake to not let grand jurors come to their own conclusions about the culpability of the other officers who returned fire and killed Breonna Taylor during their raid on her home.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Emotional Appeals For Gun Control Points To Endgame

In the debate over firearms and the Second Amendment , it ’ s not unusual to see appeals to emotion .
Anti-gunners are particularly known for this kind of effort , and they ’ ve gained a lot of ground using this one , too .
People respond to appeals by folks who have either been shot or lost someone to gun violence .
A recent story popped up in my internet travels that made me remember that these nebulous terms and emotional appeals often points out the anti-gunners endgame .
In September her daughter , Sarah , was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice with a handgun he kept in their Davie County home — once in the shoulder and once through the spine .
He then turned the gun on himself .
Though he died instantly , Sarah survived for four more days in a hospital ICU — a period of shock and numbness for her family that they barely remember .
Then , in December , came the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown , Connecticut .
A 20-year old young man shot and killed 20 children and six staff members before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun .
For Browder , whose roles as mother , grandmother and retired teacher defined her life , the two tragedies were devastating .
But slowly , as she educated herself about gun violence through her grief , they became inspiring .
“ It was an evolution where I realized I had to do something , ” Browder said .
Browder says she figures if there was a tougher background check system , her son-in-law might not have been able to get the gun .
After all , he apparently had some mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a load of crap and we all know it .
See , while I do feel sympathy for Browder losing her daughter , there ’ s nothing in here that suggests that her son-in-law was legally prohibited from buying a gun .
“ Mental health issues ” is a nebulous term that can include anything from schizophrenia and sociopathy all the way to ADHD and other relatively minor disorders .
Yet , because the son-in-law hadn ’ t been adjudicated as unfit to have a firearm , there ’ s no background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped him from buying a gun and she likely knows it on some level .
Then we have Sandy Hook .
That ’ s the mass shooting where the killer murdered his own mother and stole her firearm to carry out that particular atrocity .
His mother was prohibited in no way from owning firearms .
The killer attempted to buy a firearm and was denied , so he killed his mother and stole the gun .
What laws , pray tell , could have stopped him ?
Clearly , laws against murdering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good , nor did the laws against slaughtering innocent children , so what would ?
The emotional aspect of this push by people like Browder actually hints at the endgame .
See , the only way for her son-in-law to have been unarmed is for no one to have been allowed to have a gun in the first place .
The same with the Sandy Hook killer .
That ’ s the only possible way either of these events could have been prevented .
Yet if you ask an anti-gunner if that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll say no .
However , when you push , you start to see how the only way they ’ ll stop pushing for more gun restrictions is if no one can have a gun .
Either they admit it to themselves or they don ’ t , but that ’ s actually where they want us to end up .
That ’ s what they ’ re pushing for , and that ’ s clear based on what spurs people like Browder on .
While I can be sympathetic to her regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I give up my guns and so will a lot of other people .

In the debate over firearms and the Second Amendment, it’s not unusual to see appeals to emotion. Anti-gunners are particularly known for this kind of effort, and they’ve gained a lot of ground using this one, too. People respond to appeals by folks who have either been shot or lost someone to gun violence.
A recent story popped up in my internet travels that made me remember that these nebulous terms and emotional appeals often points out the anti-gunners endgame.
For Susan Browder, 2012 was a a life-changing year. In September her daughter, Sarah, was killed by her husband. He shot her twice with a handgun he kept in their Davie County home — once in the shoulder and once through the spine. He then turned the gun on himself. Though he died instantly, Sarah survived for four more days in a hospital ICU — a period of shock and numbness for her family that they barely remember. Then, in December, came the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. A 20-year old young man shot and killed 20 children and six staff members before he, too, committed suicide with a gun. For Browder, whose roles as mother, grandmother and retired teacher defined her life, the two tragedies were devastating. But slowly, as she educated herself about gun violence through her grief, they became inspiring. “It was an evolution where I realized I had to do something,” Browder said.
Browder says she figures if there was a tougher background check system, her son-in-law might not have been able to get the gun. After all, he apparently had some mental health issues.
However, that’s a load of crap and we all know it.
See, while I do feel sympathy for Browder losing her daughter, there’s nothing in here that suggests that her son-in-law was legally prohibited from buying a gun. “Mental health issues” is a nebulous term that can include anything from schizophrenia and sociopathy all the way to ADHD and other relatively minor disorders.
Yet, because the son-in-law hadn’t been adjudicated as unfit to have a firearm, there’s no background check in the world that would have stopped him from buying a gun and she likely knows it on some level.
Then we have Sandy Hook.
That’s the mass shooting where the killer murdered his own mother and stole her firearm to carry out that particular atrocity. His mother was prohibited in no way from owning firearms. The killer attempted to buy a firearm and was denied, so he killed his mother and stole the gun.
What laws, pray tell, could have stopped him? Clearly, laws against murdering his mother didn’t do much good, nor did the laws against slaughtering innocent children, so what would?
The emotional aspect of this push by people like Browder actually hints at the endgame. See, the only way for her son-in-law to have been unarmed is for no one to have been allowed to have a gun in the first place. The same with the Sandy Hook killer. That’s the only possible way either of these events could have been prevented.
Maybe.
Yet if you ask an anti-gunner if that’s what they want, they’ll say no. However, when you push, you start to see how the only way they’ll stop pushing for more gun restrictions is if no one can have a gun. Either they admit it to themselves or they don’t, but that’s actually where they want us to end up. That’s what they’re pushing for, and that’s clear based on what spurs people like Browder on.
While I can be sympathetic to her regarding her loss, I will die before I give up my guns and so will a lot of other people.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Armed Citizens Fight Back In Louisiana Home Invasions

At least two home invasions in the state of Louisiana have been thwarted in recent days by armed citizens acting in self-defense , though neither case has received any national attention .
In the most recent case , authorities in Baton Rouge say that one home invader was killed when he burst into an occupied home late Monday night .
According to a representative with the Baton Rouge Police Department ( BRPD ) , 20-year-old Marcus Hayes Jr. was allegedly committing an armed robbery at a home in the 900 block of West McKinley Street around 11:10 p.m. , Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incident and police say one of them grabbed a gun and shot Hayes .
Officials say Hayes died at the scene of the crime .
Police say during the home invasion , two of the robbery victims were also shot and sustained non-life-threatening injuries .
Police found another individual with a gunshot wound to the stomach a few blocks away from the scene of the home invasion , but so far haven ’ t said if the teenager is a suspect or a victim in the attack .
Meanwhile , authorities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect believed to be involved in a home invasion that happened on October 11th .
21-year old Rodney Darrell Mitchell ’ s been booked into the Ouachita Correctional Center on charges of aggravated burglary and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon .
Police say that Mitchell was one of three men who forced their way into a home and assaulted a male resident .
A woman inside the home woke up hearing the commotion and grabbed her gun .
She saw the male resident struggling with two unknown armed men .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and one was wearing a dark hoodie and light blue jeans .
She said the latter pointed a gun at her .
She fired multiple rounds and heard one man say “ Aw , she shot me.
” According to the woman , a third suspect standing in the front hallway of the home “ in shock ” took off running with his fellow home invaders , and the three sped away before police could arrive .
A short time later , however , authorities received reports of a man suffering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital .
Emergency room staff told officers that Jeffrey W. Williams Jr. , 19 , told them he was hanging out on the eastside of Monroe with friends when someone drove by shooting at them .
The responding officer noted that Williams ’ clothing matched the description from the home invasion .
At the hospital , Monroe police interviewed Williams , who was reportedly alert .
He said he and another man entered the home and demanded money at gunpoint .
He said when the woman came into the living room , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he noticed he was shot in the abdomen as he fled the residence .
The man who also entered the home reportedly drove Williams to the hospital and dropped him at the emergency room .
Once Williams was released from the hospital he was booked into the local jail on $ 100,000 bond .
The third suspect remains unidentified , at least publicly , and so far there ’ s been no word of his arrest .
The Monroe home invasion is a perfect example of why laws banning ammunition magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a bad idea .
How dare politicians tell this woman who confronted three armed suspects in her home that she should not only be outnumbered , but outgunned as well .
If anti-gun politicians like Joe Biden get their way , it ’ s entirely possible that a person acting in self-defense while using an unregistered “ large capacity magazine ” would actually face more time behind bars than the home invaders themselves , perverting not only our right of self-defense but the idea of justice itself .

At least two home invasions in the state of Louisiana have been thwarted in recent days by armed citizens acting in self-defense, though neither case has received any national attention.
In the most recent case, authorities in Baton Rouge say that one home invader was killed when he burst into an occupied home late Monday night.
According to a representative with the Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD), 20-year-old Marcus Hayes Jr. was allegedly committing an armed robbery at a home in the 900 block of West McKinley Street around 11:10 p.m., Monday. Six people were apparently home during the incident and police say one of them grabbed a gun and shot Hayes. Officials say Hayes died at the scene of the crime. Police say during the home invasion, two of the robbery victims were also shot and sustained non-life-threatening injuries.
Police found another individual with a gunshot wound to the stomach a few blocks away from the scene of the home invasion, but so far haven’t said if the teenager is a suspect or a victim in the attack.
Meanwhile, authorities in Monroe, Louisiana have arrested a second suspect believed to be involved in a home invasion that happened on October 11th. 21-year old Rodney Darrell Mitchell’s been booked into the Ouachita Correctional Center on charges of aggravated burglary and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Police say that Mitchell was one of three men who forced their way into a home and assaulted a male resident. A woman inside the home woke up hearing the commotion and grabbed her gun.
She saw the male resident struggling with two unknown armed men. One was wearing a light gray hoodie, and one was wearing a dark hoodie and light blue jeans. She said the latter pointed a gun at her. She fired multiple rounds and heard one man say “Aw, she shot me.”
According to the woman, a third suspect standing in the front hallway of the home “in shock” took off running with his fellow home invaders, and the three sped away before police could arrive. A short time later, however, authorities received reports of a man suffering a gunshot wound who was at a local hospital.
Emergency room staff told officers that Jeffrey W. Williams Jr., 19, told them he was hanging out on the eastside of Monroe with friends when someone drove by shooting at them. The responding officer noted that Williams’ clothing matched the description from the home invasion. At the hospital, Monroe police interviewed Williams, who was reportedly alert. He said he and another man entered the home and demanded money at gunpoint. He said when the woman came into the living room, she fired two or three shots at them, and he noticed he was shot in the abdomen as he fled the residence. The man who also entered the home reportedly drove Williams to the hospital and dropped him at the emergency room.
Once Williams was released from the hospital he was booked into the local jail on $100,000 bond. The third suspect remains unidentified, at least publicly, and so far there’s been no word of his arrest.
The Monroe home invasion is a perfect example of why laws banning ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds are a bad idea. How dare politicians tell this woman who confronted three armed suspects in her home that she should not only be outnumbered, but outgunned as well. If anti-gun politicians like Joe Biden get their way, it’s entirely possible that a person acting in self-defense while using an unregistered “large capacity magazine” would actually face more time behind bars than the home invaders themselves, perverting not only our right of self-defense but the idea of justice itself.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Americans Brace For Inevitable Post-Election Violence

In a little less than two weeks , we ’ ll be done voting .
At least for president , anyway .
Sure , there are going to be some run-offs here and there , but the lion ’ s share of the election will be over and we ’ ll have to deal with the aftermath .
Unfortunately , there ’ s ample reason to believe that aftermath won ’ t be particularly peaceful , either .
Across the nation , many are bracing for what may well be inevitable post-election violence .
More than one-third of the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create “ anarchy and chaos ” resulting in potentially lethal violence .
Unprovoked , several of those quizzed about the election by the group conducting regular “ barometer ” readings of America ’ s readiness to return to normal after the COVID-19 crisis mentioned concerns about gun violence , attacks by batons , and fire bombings .
“ We have not seen this alarming level of concern since we began surveying consumers at the beginning of April .
People are preparing themselves for the worst possible post-election outcomes with the ongoing pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Ron Bonjean , a partner at ROKK Solutions , one of three firms conducting the “ Back-to-Normal Barometer ” Secrets regularly tracks .
“ These results are chilling and indicate an America profoundly on-edge , ” said Rich Thau , president of Engagious , who with Sports and Leisure Research Group and ROKK has conducted the survey for months .
It found that 37 % are anxious over the possibility of chaos .
And the survey follows other recent findings that 61 % are worried about a second civil war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessities just in case .
Honestly , I think those 37 percent are pretty damn smart .
Then again , I ’ m part of that percentage , so of course I do .
At this point , we need to brace ourselves for the reality that violence may well be the response to the election results .
After all , while the polls appear to put Biden firmly in control of the election , this is what we saw four years ago and we all remember how that turned out .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing showing little actual support for Biden .
In particular , the turnout for campaign events suggests widespread and vehement support for the president and little for his challenger .
Anecdotally , I ’ ve heard from people all over the nation about how they ’ re not seeing yard signs for Biden but plenty of signs for Trump .
Of course , as a friend and state representative once reminded me , yard signs don ’ t vote .
As I see it , if Trump wins , there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw riots four years ago and people are even more pissed that Trump is able to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide now than they were then .
So yeah , riots .
If Biden wins , though , I suspect we ’ ll still see riots .
I don ’ t necessarily think the right will riot , but instead I see it like the riots that follow a sports team winning a championship .
Some people will be so smug and self-righteous that they ’ ll take things too far and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So yeah , I see riots as coming and as inevitable , and that ’ s before anyone tries to pass any legislation .
I don ’ t see it getting much better from there .

In a little less than two weeks, we’ll be done voting. At least for president, anyway. Sure, there are going to be some run-offs here and there, but the lion’s share of the election will be over and we’ll have to deal with the aftermath.
Unfortunately, there’s ample reason to believe that aftermath won’t be particularly peaceful, either.
Across the nation, many are bracing for what may well be inevitable post-election violence.
More than one-third of the nation is expecting the election in two weeks to create “anarchy and chaos” resulting in potentially lethal violence. Unprovoked, several of those quizzed about the election by the group conducting regular “barometer” readings of America’s readiness to return to normal after the COVID-19 crisis mentioned concerns about gun violence, attacks by batons, and fire bombings. “We have not seen this alarming level of concern since we began surveying consumers at the beginning of April. People are preparing themselves for the worst possible post-election outcomes with the ongoing pandemic in the background adding to their anxiety,” said Ron Bonjean, a partner at ROKK Solutions, one of three firms conducting the “Back-to-Normal Barometer” Secrets regularly tracks. “These results are chilling and indicate an America profoundly on-edge,” said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who with Sports and Leisure Research Group and ROKK has conducted the survey for months. It found that 37% are anxious over the possibility of chaos. And the survey follows other recent findings that 61% are worried about a second civil war, and some 58% are stockpiling necessities just in case.
Honestly, I think those 37 percent are pretty damn smart. Then again, I’m part of that percentage, so of course I do.
At this point, we need to brace ourselves for the reality that violence may well be the response to the election results. After all, while the polls appear to put Biden firmly in control of the election, this is what we saw four years ago and we all remember how that turned out.
Further, there are other metrics we’re seeing showing little actual support for Biden. In particular, the turnout for campaign events suggests widespread and vehement support for the president and little for his challenger. Anecdotally, I’ve heard from people all over the nation about how they’re not seeing yard signs for Biden but plenty of signs for Trump.
Of course, as a friend and state representative once reminded me, yard signs don’t vote.
As I see it, if Trump wins, there will be riots. I know this because we saw riots four years ago and people are even more pissed that Trump is able to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide now than they were then. So yeah, riots.
If Biden wins, though, I suspect we’ll still see riots. I don’t necessarily think the right will riot, but instead I see it like the riots that follow a sports team winning a championship. Some people will be so smug and self-righteous that they’ll take things too far and then you end up with a riot.
So yeah, I see riots as coming and as inevitable, and that’s before anyone tries to pass any legislation.
I don’t see it getting much better from there.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Wyoming Gun Owners Ordered To Disclose Its Donors

Wyoming ’ s Secretary of State is demanding that a pro-gun group release a list of its donors after failing to comply with state campaign finance laws , escalating the fight between officials and lawmakers and the group Wyoming Gun Owners , run by the somewhat infamous ( at least in 2A circles ) Dorr brothers .
The battle between elected officials and the organization has been percolating for months , with several incumbent legislators accusing the group of running what amounts to a scam designed to enrich the Dorr family .
According to a letter sent to WYGO by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ’ s advertisements targeting several lawmakers in this election cycle runs afoul of state law .
While the organization is not new to Wyoming politics – and while the group is clearly listed as paying for those advertisements in disclosures on those advertisements – it ’ s not currently registered with the state as either a lobbying organization or a political action committee , which is required .
“ The Secretary of State ’ s Office has reviewed the advertisements paid for by WYGO and determined that they are clearly electioneering communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As such , WYGO failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Wyo .
Stat .
§ 22-25-106 ( h ) .
” Until recently , the group ’ s activities have gone unreported within state government , which can not begin investigating electioneering activity allegations unless someone makes a formal complaint .
While an initial complaint from earlier this month , first reported by the Riverton Ranger newspaper , went nowhere due to a lack of evidence to support the allegations , a second complaint with proper documentation was filed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , prompting the Secretary of State to take action .
Failure to comply with the Secretary of State ’ s demand could result in a $ 500 fine , which isn ’ t much of a penalty , but the case could also be referred to the state ’ s Attorney General , which could lead to a more in-depth investigation of the organization .
I ’ m of two minds here .
On the one hand , I don ’ t think the Dorrs are all that interested in using their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one of several Dorr-affiliated Second Amendment groups ) to work with lawmakers to achieve real legislative results .
The groups seem to be designed to raise money from gun owners by vowing to oppose incumbent lawmakers , regardless of how strong their Second Amendment records are .
On the other hand , by going after the names of WYGO ’ s donors , Buchanan ’ s office has now given the Dorrs the opportunity to argue that they ’ re being targeted by “ the establishment , ” and they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis for another fundraising appeal .
This may be the best option from the Secretary of State ’ s point of view , but I think it has the potential to backfire , elevating the Dorr brothers while allowing them to claim that the reason they ’ re coming under scrutiny is because of their effectiveness in rooting out the swamp .
It would be a laughable claim to make in pro-gun Wyoming , but by targeting donors instead of the leadership , lawmakers and the SoS have provided an opportunity for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Honestly , it ’ s ultimately up to gun owners to check out the groups that they donate to and decide for themselves whether they ’ re worth the money .
We should ask how those donations will be used , as well as looking at how effective is the organization in terms of legislation , litigation , voter outreach and education , firearms training , or whatever their mission statement is .
If you ’ re suspicious that the money you send isn ’ t going to be used to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear arms , look for another organization that ’ s worthy of your support .

Wyoming’s Secretary of State is demanding that a pro-gun group release a list of its donors after failing to comply with state campaign finance laws, escalating the fight between officials and lawmakers and the group Wyoming Gun Owners, run by the somewhat infamous (at least in 2A circles) Dorr brothers.
The battle between elected officials and the organization has been percolating for months, with several incumbent legislators accusing the group of running what amounts to a scam designed to enrich the Dorr family. According to a letter sent to WYGO by Secretary of State Ed Buchanan, the group’s advertisements targeting several lawmakers in this election cycle runs afoul of state law.
While the organization is not new to Wyoming politics – and while the group is clearly listed as paying for those advertisements in disclosures on those advertisements – it’s not currently registered with the state as either a lobbying organization or a political action committee, which is required. “The Secretary of State’s Office has reviewed the advertisements paid for by WYGO and determined that they are clearly electioneering communications,” the letter reads. “As such, WYGO failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Wyo. Stat. § 22-25-106(h).” Until recently, the group’s activities have gone unreported within state government, which cannot begin investigating electioneering activity allegations unless someone makes a formal complaint. While an initial complaint from earlier this month, first reported by the Riverton Ranger newspaper, went nowhere due to a lack of evidence to support the allegations, a second complaint with proper documentation was filed with the state a little over a week later, prompting the Secretary of State to take action.
Failure to comply with the Secretary of State’s demand could result in a $500 fine, which isn’t much of a penalty, but the case could also be referred to the state’s Attorney General, which could lead to a more in-depth investigation of the organization.
I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, I don’t think the Dorrs are all that interested in using their state organizations (Wyoming Gun Owners is just one of several Dorr-affiliated Second Amendment groups) to work with lawmakers to achieve real legislative results. The groups seem to be designed to raise money from gun owners by vowing to oppose incumbent lawmakers, regardless of how strong their Second Amendment records are.
On the other hand, by going after the names of WYGO’s donors, Buchanan’s office has now given the Dorrs the opportunity to argue that they’re being targeted by “the establishment,” and they’ll likely use the demand letter as the basis for another fundraising appeal.
This may be the best option from the Secretary of State’s point of view, but I think it has the potential to backfire, elevating the Dorr brothers while allowing them to claim that the reason they’re coming under scrutiny is because of their effectiveness in rooting out the swamp. It would be a laughable claim to make in pro-gun Wyoming, but by targeting donors instead of the leadership, lawmakers and the SoS have provided an opportunity for the Dorrs to at least make the argument.
Honestly, it’s ultimately up to gun owners to check out the groups that they donate to and decide for themselves whether they’re worth the money. We should ask how those donations will be used, as well as looking at how effective is the organization in terms of legislation, litigation, voter outreach and education, firearms training, or whatever their mission statement is. If you’re suspicious that the money you send isn’t going to be used to protect and defend your right to keep and bear arms, look for another organization that’s worthy of your support.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Anti-Gunners Selective About When Unfired Guns Count

In the debate about guns , gun control and gun rights , we throw a lot of numbers around .
For many on the gun rights side of things , we use various sources for the number of defensive gun uses .
Those numbers range from 100,000 or so at the low end and up to 2.5 million at the high end .
However , anti-gunners tend to count defensive gun uses differently .
Instead , they only seem to want to count the number of times someone is killed by someone using a firearm defensively .
They ignore all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who run off because their prey has teeth of their own .
It seems , though , that they actually do think an unfired gun counts for something , though .
Any discussion about gun violence in the United States can not ignore the harsh reality of the violent epidemic : More than 300 Americans are shot every day with a firearm , 103 of them fatally .
The toll of this violence on families and communities across the country is immeasurable and rightfully demands action from policymakers to prevent further acts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the instances when a gun is used but never fired in the act of committing a crime .
A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that between 2009 and 2018 , more than 3.6 million violent crimes were perpetrated with a gun without gunfire , affecting more than 4 million victims .
That means roughly 1,100 people survive the threat of gunfire by an armed perpetrator every day .
“ Gun violence in this country is so much more than the shootings that make headlines .
More than 1,100 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day during assaults and robberies , ” said Eugenio Weigend Vargas , associate director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress .
“ These incidents leave deep mental and emotional scars and deeply impact communities .
This further supports the need for stronger gun laws.
” Of course , this “ analysis ” comes from a biased source , so it should be taken with a grain of salt , but I applaud them for being among the first on the left to acknowledge that a firearm can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are questions .
First , how many of those supposed 3.6 million violent crimes would still have been committed regardless of any firearm law ?
Well , since most of the perpetrators obtained their firearms unlawfully via black market or other illegal gun sales , I ’ d say pretty much all of them .
Further , how many could have been perpetrated with a knife or other weapon ?
Most of them , would be my guess .
While it ’ s harder to hold up a convenience store with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here ’ s one that happened not too far from me a while back , for an example .
In other words , this analysis might be academically interesting , but it doesn ’ t actually tell us anything useful .
Meanwhile , armed criminals will continue to plague our cities and the best way to deal with it is to have armed citizens .
The scourge of violent crime won ’ t disappear .
If you look at other nations , nations with much lower rates of “ gun crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all other crime as well .
They ’ re simply not as violent a culture as we are , for whatever reason , so disarming Americans is clearly not the answer .
But you know anti-gunners .
They ’ re going to keep trying .

In the debate about guns, gun control and gun rights, we throw a lot of numbers around. For many on the gun rights side of things, we use various sources for the number of defensive gun uses. Those numbers range from 100,000 or so at the low end and up to 2.5 million at the high end.
However, anti-gunners tend to count defensive gun uses differently. Instead, they only seem to want to count the number of times someone is killed by someone using a firearm defensively. They ignore all those who are shot but survived or who run off because their prey has teeth of their own.
It seems, though, that they actually do think an unfired gun counts for something, though.
Any discussion about gun violence in the United States cannot ignore the harsh reality of the violent epidemic: More than 300 Americans are shot every day with a firearm, 103 of them fatally. The toll of this violence on families and communities across the country is immeasurable and rightfully demands action from policymakers to prevent further acts of gun violence. Far less discussed are the instances when a gun is used but never fired in the act of committing a crime. A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that between 2009 and 2018, more than 3.6 million violent crimes were perpetrated with a gun without gunfire, affecting more than 4 million victims. That means roughly 1,100 people survive the threat of gunfire by an armed perpetrator every day. “Gun violence in this country is so much more than the shootings that make headlines. More than 1,100 people in this country are threatened with guns every day during assaults and robberies,” said Eugenio Weigend Vargas, associate director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress. “These incidents leave deep mental and emotional scars and deeply impact communities. This further supports the need for stronger gun laws.”
Of course, this “analysis” comes from a biased source, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but I applaud them for being among the first on the left to acknowledge that a firearm can be effective without being fired.
However, there are questions.
First, how many of those supposed 3.6 million violent crimes would still have been committed regardless of any firearm law? Well, since most of the perpetrators obtained their firearms unlawfully via black market or other illegal gun sales, I’d say pretty much all of them.
Further, how many could have been perpetrated with a knife or other weapon? Most of them, would be my guess. While it’s harder to hold up a convenience store with a knife, it’s not impossible. Here’s one that happened not too far from me a while back, for an example.
In other words, this analysis might be academically interesting, but it doesn’t actually tell us anything useful.
Meanwhile, armed criminals will continue to plague our cities and the best way to deal with it is to have armed citizens. The scourge of violent crime won’t disappear. If you look at other nations, nations with much lower rates of “gun crime,” you typically find lower rates of all other crime as well. They’re simply not as violent a culture as we are, for whatever reason, so disarming Americans is clearly not the answer.
But you know anti-gunners. They’re going to keep trying.