bearingarms--2020-07-28--New Orleans Musician Swaps Trumpets For Kids' Guns

I happen to believe that everyone should have a gun if they want one .
More guns tend to translate as fewer problems with criminals , by and large , but with a few exceptions .
Gangs , for example , have plenty of guns and lots of violence .
That ’ s a topic for a different day , though .
For the most part , more guns mean less crime .
However , we can all agree that armed children is a bad thing .
They can ’ t legally have guns , after all , yet far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real problem .
These are guns that are likely to be used in crime and we all know it .
One New Orleans musician has started his own variation of a buyback to try and get those guns off the streets .
‘ Bring me a gun and I ’ ll give you a trumpet ’ , promises trumpeter Shamarr Allen in a bid to combat violent gun crime in New Orleans .
In Louisiana , an estimated 49 percent of households currently own a gun and the state ranks fourth highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of which can be attributed to young offenders .
That ’ s why trumpeter Shamarr Allen has come up with a novel idea : exchanging firearms for trumpets .
Titled Trumpet Is My Weapon , his bright initiative hopes to combat gun crime in New Orleans and inspire young people to follow a safer path in life .
Earlier this month , Allen promised via Instagram : “ To all the youth in New Orleans , Bring me a gun and I ’ ll give you a trumpet no questions asked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ run out of trumpets.
” To help get his exchange program off the ground , Allen set up a Go Fund Me page on 17 July with a fundraising target of $ 6,500 – and already , he ’ s exceeded this amount with a current total of $ 32,728 .
At the end of the day , though , this is another buyback and we all know that buybacks don ’ t really work .
I don ’ t really expect this one to have much impact on the violent crime rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may do , though , is give some kids an out .
You see , music is big in New Orleans .
Maybe not as big as some of us who don ’ t live there think , but it ’ s still a big deal .
The trumpet may help some kids find a way out of the criminal life they were headed toward and do something that makes the world a bit better .
Allen ’ s efforts may not change the world , but they just might change someone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty good reason to proceed .
That doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t issues .
For one , I ’ d worry about where the kids get the guns .
Stealing Mom or Dad ’ s gun so they can get a trumpet is bad news , of course .
Assuming that risk is mitigated , I have to applaud the effort .
No tax dollars are funding it , after all , and it ’ s targeting a particular group that shouldn ’ t have guns in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone if you ask me .

I happen to believe that everyone should have a gun if they want one. More guns tend to translate as fewer problems with criminals, by and large, but with a few exceptions. Gangs, for example, have plenty of guns and lots of violence. That’s a topic for a different day, though.
For the most part, more guns mean less crime.
However, we can all agree that armed children is a bad thing. They can’t legally have guns, after all, yet far too many have them. They represent a real problem. These are guns that are likely to be used in crime and we all know it.
One New Orleans musician has started his own variation of a buyback to try and get those guns off the streets.
‘Bring me a gun and I’ll give you a trumpet’, promises trumpeter Shamarr Allen in a bid to combat violent gun crime in New Orleans. In Louisiana, an estimated 49 percent of households currently own a gun and the state ranks fourth highest in gun-related deaths across the nation – many of which can be attributed to young offenders. That’s why trumpeter Shamarr Allen has come up with a novel idea: exchanging firearms for trumpets. Titled Trumpet Is My Weapon, his bright initiative hopes to combat gun crime in New Orleans and inspire young people to follow a safer path in life. Earlier this month, Allen promised via Instagram: “To all the youth in New Orleans, Bring me a gun and I’ll give you a trumpet no questions asked. I’m doing this until I run out of trumpets.” To help get his exchange program off the ground, Allen set up a Go Fund Me page on 17 July with a fundraising target of $6,500 – and already, he’s exceeded this amount with a current total of $32,728.
At the end of the day, though, this is another buyback and we all know that buybacks don’t really work.
I don’t really expect this one to have much impact on the violent crime rate in New Orleans.
But what it may do, though, is give some kids an out. You see, music is big in New Orleans. Maybe not as big as some of us who don’t live there think, but it’s still a big deal. The trumpet may help some kids find a way out of the criminal life they were headed toward and do something that makes the world a bit better.
Allen’s efforts may not change the world, but they just might change someone’s world, and that’s a pretty good reason to proceed.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t issues. For one, I’d worry about where the kids get the guns. Stealing Mom or Dad’s gun so they can get a trumpet is bad news, of course. Assuming that risk is mitigated, I have to applaud the effort. No tax dollars are funding it, after all, and it’s targeting a particular group that shouldn’t have guns in the first place.
Sounds like a win for everyone if you ask me.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Dems Rewrite History, Attack On Barr Over Armed MI Protesters

Attorney General Bill Barr faced sharply partisan questioning by the House Judiciary Committee about the Trump administration ’ s response to riots around the country today , including one bizarre attempt by Rep. Primila Jayapal ( D-WA ) to chide Barr for not sending in federal law enforcement after armed protesters legally entered the Michigan state capitol building back in April as part of a anti-lockdown protest .
There were plenty of capitol police officers on hand during that protest , but no arrests were made because no laws were broken .
Despite that , Jayapal seems to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep and bear arms should result in a federal show of force .
“ When white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns , there is no need for the president to ‘ activate ’ you , because they ’ re getting the president ’ s personal agenda done , ” U.S. Rep. Primila Jayapal ( D-Washington ) said during confrontational questioning of Barr , who was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee .
“ But when black people and people of color protest police brutality , systemic racism and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to those critical issues , then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers ( and ) pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president.
” “ Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched , shot and beheaded ?
” Jayapal wasn ’ t the only member of Congress to bring up the Michigan protest .
According to DeadlineDetroit.com , Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin also suggested that Barr should have deployed federal law enforcement to Michigan in the wake of the protest that only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t send a secret paramilitary police force on horseback to unleash tear gas and pepper spray , billy clubs and rubber bullets against these protesters storming the state capitol of Michigan , ” Raskin said .
“ No , you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of Michigan and Virginia .
Now , of course your side lost your motions for emergency injunctions , but you got to spread Trump ’ s message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders , the masking and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complete rewriting of recent history .
Nobody “ stormed the state capitol of Michigan.
” People were lawfully protesting , and yes , a couple dozen of them were legally carrying firearms .
After a few hours , the reopen protest ended , the protesters went home without breaking so much as a lightbulb or scuffing the floor .
There was no riot , and in questioning the lack of a federal response to a one-off peaceful protest , both Jayapal and Raskin have raised far more questions about their own beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to protests than any questions they might have raised about Barr ’ s actions .
Comparing the 60+ nights of riots in Portland to a 3-hour protest in Lansing is deeply unserious , but then again , Democrats in general were deeply unserious in their questioning of the Attorney General .
Intent on portraying the deployment of a few dozen federal law enforcement officials to protect the federal courthouse as an act of outright fascism , House Democrats ended up beclowning themselves in front of the cameras .
By suggesting that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserved tear gas and rubber bullets , on the other hand , demonstrates that these Democrats don ’ t really have much of a problem with the heavy hand of authoritarianism at all.. as long as they ’ re the authority .

Attorney General Bill Barr faced sharply partisan questioning by the House Judiciary Committee about the Trump administration’s response to riots around the country today, including one bizarre attempt by Rep. Primila Jayapal (D-WA) to chide Barr for not sending in federal law enforcement after armed protesters legally entered the Michigan state capitol building back in April as part of a anti-lockdown protest.
There were plenty of capitol police officers on hand during that protest, but no arrests were made because no laws were broken. Despite that, Jayapal seems to believe that the lawful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms should result in a federal show of force.
“When white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns, there is no need for the president to ‘activate’ you, because they’re getting the president’s personal agenda done,” U.S. Rep. Primila Jayapal (D-Washington) said during confrontational questioning of Barr, who was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. “But when black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the president’s very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers (and) pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president.” “Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot and beheaded?”
Jayapal wasn’t the only member of Congress to bring up the Michigan protest. According to DeadlineDetroit.com, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin also suggested that Barr should have deployed federal law enforcement to Michigan in the wake of the protest that only lasted a few hours.
“You didn’t send a secret paramilitary police force on horseback to unleash tear gas and pepper spray, billy clubs and rubber bullets against these protesters storming the state capitol of Michigan,” Raskin said. “No, you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of Michigan and Virginia. Now, of course your side lost your motions for emergency injunctions, but you got to spread Trump’s message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders, the masking and social distancing.”
Pure political theater, and a complete rewriting of recent history. Nobody “stormed the state capitol of Michigan.” People were lawfully protesting, and yes, a couple dozen of them were legally carrying firearms. After a few hours, the reopen protest ended, the protesters went home without breaking so much as a lightbulb or scuffing the floor. There was no riot, and in questioning the lack of a federal response to a one-off peaceful protest, both Jayapal and Raskin have raised far more questions about their own beliefs regarding federal law enforcement as an appropriate response to protests than any questions they might have raised about Barr’s actions.
Comparing the 60+ nights of riots in Portland to a 3-hour protest in Lansing is deeply unserious, but then again, Democrats in general were deeply unserious in their questioning of the Attorney General. Intent on portraying the deployment of a few dozen federal law enforcement officials to protect the federal courthouse as an act of outright fascism, House Democrats ended up beclowning themselves in front of the cameras. By suggesting that a boisterous, yet legal and peaceable assembly deserved tear gas and rubber bullets, on the other hand, demonstrates that these Democrats don’t really have much of a problem with the heavy hand of authoritarianism at all.. as long as they’re the authority.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Brady's Fearmongering On Suppressors Beyond Ridiculous

Anti-gunners often like to present themselves to people as something of experts on firearms .
In truth , they ’ re experts in telling people how bad guns are , regardless of anything approaching facts .
In truth , they often get actual facts about firearms hilariously wrong .
These so-called “ experts ” don ’ t really know anything at all about guns as a whole .
A prime example comes to us via Mark Olivia , writing at our sister site , Townhall .
Gun control has a problem with the truth .
They can ’ t shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Violence is the latest example of just making it up as they go and thinking no one will notice .
Officials there sent out a plea for money claiming the Trump administration ’ s rollback of a 2002 State Department ban on suppressor exports is putting U.S. service members ’ lives at risk .
The fundraiser email read as follows : “ The harm is clear : This repeal will increase the risk that U.S. service members will be shot or killed with American-made guns and accessories .
It ’ s also complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a basic fact check .
Even checking Wikipedia would suffice .
Suppressors are just a muffler for a gun .
They ’ re not the Hollywood depiction of the “ pffft ” puff sound glamorized by the silver screen .
Suppressors reduce the noise of gunfire to around 140 decibels , the threshold where instant and permanent hearing loss occurs .
It ’ s still about as loud as a jackhammer .
Further , it ’ s beyond ridiculous to think that America ’ s enemies are unable to get their hands on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at our local gun stores .
First , the Taliban and ISIS have plenty of sources for guns that have nothing to do with the American firearms market .
That means they can get their paws on suppressors easily enough .
Hell , they can probably manufacture their own within the territory they control .
It ’ s freaking 19th-century technology , after all .
( Yeah , I know , suppressors of today are different than those first ones , but the point remains that it ’ s not rocket science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be on the American market for them to be on the end of their weapons .
More than that , though , I think Brady knows this .
They ’ re simply hoping their donors are too stupid to know .
The bad part is , they ’ re probably right .
The average anti-gunner is absolutely clueless on firearms .
They legitimately think terrorists in foreign nations obtain their firearms primarily through the civilian gun market here in the United States and that if we start selling suppressors , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world using them .
The real threat is in groups like Brady continuing to attack our essential liberties because they can ’ t fathom that law-abiding Americans not only can own these items without murdering millions , but do so on a regular basis .
They can ’ t imagine that a safety device would be used for non-nefarious purposes .
You see , that ’ s the point Brady misses .
Suppressors aren ’ t magic .
They don ’ t eliminate the sound of a gunshot .
Even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking the sound barrier could still be heard .
Suppressors only make it so people don ’ t get hearing damage when they pull the trigger .
That ’ s it .
But Brady can ’ t fundraise off that , so they make it out like it it ’ s a clear threat to our troops .
Meanwhile , those same troops look at claims like this and laugh .
At least , those with any experience with suppressors do .

Anti-gunners often like to present themselves to people as something of experts on firearms. In truth, they’re experts in telling people how bad guns are, regardless of anything approaching facts. In truth, they often get actual facts about firearms hilariously wrong. These so-called “experts” don’t really know anything at all about guns as a whole.
A prime example comes to us via Mark Olivia, writing at our sister site, Townhall.
Gun control has a problem with the truth. They can’t shoot straight. Brady: United Against Gun Violence is the latest example of just making it up as they go and thinking no one will notice. Officials there sent out a plea for money claiming the Trump administration’s rollback of a 2002 State Department ban on suppressor exports is putting U.S. service members’ lives at risk. The fundraiser email read as follows: “The harm is clear: This repeal will increase the risk that U.S. service members will be shot or killed with American-made guns and accessories. “This repeal is immoral. It’s unpatriotic. It’s lethal.” It’s also complete BS. Brady should learn to conduct a basic fact check. Even checking Wikipedia would suffice. Suppressors are just a muffler for a gun. They’re not the Hollywood depiction of the “pffft” puff sound glamorized by the silver screen. Suppressors reduce the noise of gunfire to around 140 decibels, the threshold where instant and permanent hearing loss occurs. It’s still about as loud as a jackhammer.
Precisely.
Further, it’s beyond ridiculous to think that America’s enemies are unable to get their hands on suppressors without them being available for purchase at our local gun stores.
First, the Taliban and ISIS have plenty of sources for guns that have nothing to do with the American firearms market. That means they can get their paws on suppressors easily enough. Hell, they can probably manufacture their own within the territory they control. It’s freaking 19th-century technology, after all. (Yeah, I know, suppressors of today are different than those first ones, but the point remains that it’s not rocket science.)
They don’t need them to be on the American market for them to be on the end of their weapons.
More than that, though, I think Brady knows this. They’re simply hoping their donors are too stupid to know. The bad part is, they’re probably right. The average anti-gunner is absolutely clueless on firearms. They legitimately think terrorists in foreign nations obtain their firearms primarily through the civilian gun market here in the United States and that if we start selling suppressors, we’ll end up with every terrorist in the world using them.
Well, that’s not a real threat.
The real threat is in groups like Brady continuing to attack our essential liberties because they can’t fathom that law-abiding Americans not only can own these items without murdering millions, but do so on a regular basis. They can’t imagine that a safety device would be used for non-nefarious purposes.
You see, that’s the point Brady misses. Suppressors aren’t magic. They don’t eliminate the sound of a gunshot. Even if they could, the crack of the round breaking the sound barrier could still be heard. Suppressors only make it so people don’t get hearing damage when they pull the trigger. That’s it.
But Brady can’t fundraise off that, so they make it out like it it’s a clear threat to our troops. Meanwhile, those same troops look at claims like this and laugh. At least, those with any experience with suppressors do.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--What Austin Protest Shooting Says About Gun Control

Over the weekend , an armed protestor was shot during a protest in Austin , TX .
It seems that a vehicle somehow ended up in the middle of the protest .
Shots were fired , the victim was right there near the vehicle with an AK , and the driver pulled his own weapon and dispatched the person he saw as a threat to his life .
However , the media has decided this should renew the gun control debate in Texas .
Garrett Foster was seen carrying an AK-47 rifle at a Black Lives Matter protest this weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot .
Austin police confirmed the 28-year-old died at the hospital , after being shot several times during a confrontation between a motorist and protesters .
An independent journalist filming the protest and dash camera footage from another driver both captured the moment a car turned into a crowd of protesters on Congress .
Seconds later , there was a volley of gunfire .
“ Gunshots were fired from inside the vehicle at Mr. Foster , ” Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said .
“ During the initial investigation of this incident , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rifle at the driver of this vehicle prior to being shot.
” Texas Gun Sense Board President Ed Scruggs called this shooting a “ perfect storm of weak Texas gun laws coming together at that intersection.
” He argues that at three separate moments in this situation , the presence or use of a gun escalated the situation .
“ This doesn ’ t involve the motives of the people involved in this incident , ” he said .
“ It ’ s really a case of the atmosphere we are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make violence more possible.
” Funny how people like this always use an incident like this to justify their push for gun control , but ignore the numerous instances when guns save lives…a fact that Mr. Scruggs ignores in this case as well ?
All indications are that the individual in the car had ample reason to fear for their life .
They then used their weapon to save that life .
Foster may or may not have pointed the gun at the driver .
Photos from just before the shooting show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant it still presented a threat to the driver .
Regardless of what laws allowed Foster to be armed , it was Foster ’ s actions that appear to have lead to his death .
I ’ m sorry , but I ’ m not really all that heartbroken over it .
More importantly , though , the driver of that vehicle now joins the hundreds of thousands of people who have had to use a firearm in self-defense .
“ Oh , but if Foster hadn ’ t been armed , none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some might say .
Well , maybe .
However , we also know that the “ largely peaceful protestors ” were beating the car .
We ’ ve also seen numerous cases where drivers have been pulled from their vehicles and beaten .
It would be ridiculous to say what would have happened under a different set of circumstances would automatically have been peaceful .
The driver had reason to fear for his life .
Foster had a gun at a protest .
He ’ s already talked a lot of smack and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anymore .
That ’ s the only debate to really be had right now .
At the end of the day , this is another case of guns saving lives .
No spin is going to change that , nor should it .

Over the weekend, an armed protestor was shot during a protest in Austin, TX. It seems that a vehicle somehow ended up in the middle of the protest. Shots were fired, the victim was right there near the vehicle with an AK, and the driver pulled his own weapon and dispatched the person he saw as a threat to his life.
Sounds pretty straightforward.
However, the media has decided this should renew the gun control debate in Texas.
Garrett Foster was seen carrying an AK-47 rifle at a Black Lives Matter protest this weekend. The same night, he was shot. Austin police confirmed the 28-year-old died at the hospital, after being shot several times during a confrontation between a motorist and protesters. An independent journalist filming the protest and dash camera footage from another driver both captured the moment a car turned into a crowd of protesters on Congress. Seconds later, there was a volley of gunfire. “Gunshots were fired from inside the vehicle at Mr. Foster,” Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said. “During the initial investigation of this incident, it appears Mr. Foster may have pointed his rifle at the driver of this vehicle prior to being shot.” … Texas Gun Sense Board President Ed Scruggs called this shooting a “perfect storm of weak Texas gun laws coming together at that intersection.” He argues that at three separate moments in this situation, the presence or use of a gun escalated the situation. “This doesn’t involve the motives of the people involved in this incident,” he said. “It’s really a case of the atmosphere we are in, promoted by our lax gun laws that make violence more possible.”
Funny how people like this always use an incident like this to justify their push for gun control, but ignore the numerous instances when guns save lives…a fact that Mr. Scruggs ignores in this case as well?
All indications are that the individual in the car had ample reason to fear for their life. They then used their weapon to save that life.
Foster may or may not have pointed the gun at the driver. Photos from just before the shooting show he had it at low-ready, which meant it still presented a threat to the driver. Regardless of what laws allowed Foster to be armed, it was Foster’s actions that appear to have lead to his death.
I’m sorry, but I’m not really all that heartbroken over it.
More importantly, though, the driver of that vehicle now joins the hundreds of thousands of people who have had to use a firearm in self-defense.
“Oh, but if Foster hadn’t been armed, none of this would have happened,” some might say.
Well, maybe. However, we also know that the “largely peaceful protestors” were beating the car. We’ve also seen numerous cases where drivers have been pulled from their vehicles and beaten. It would be ridiculous to say what would have happened under a different set of circumstances would automatically have been peaceful.
The driver had reason to fear for his life. Foster had a gun at a protest. He’s already talked a lot of smack and now he won’t talk anything anymore. That’s the only debate to really be had right now.
At the end of the day, this is another case of guns saving lives. No spin is going to change that, nor should it.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Portland's Riots Are About Politics, Not Justice

I ’ ve been of two minds about the increasing violence that we ’ re seeing in deep-blue , Democrat-controlled cities like Seattle and Portland over the past few months .
On the one hand , the riots and violent demonstrations that we ’ ve seen in dozens of cities since the death of George Floyd is unlike anything that I ’ ve witnessed firsthand in American history ( I wasn ’ t around for the riots in the 1960s ) , and the deep cultural and political divisions have only grown wider as the coronavirus and our response has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on tens of millions of Americans .
Revolutions don ’ t happen when we ’ re fat and happy , after all .
They generally require stress to be placed on a nation until it breaks , and this is a pretty stressful time that we ’ re living in .
On the other hand , even in a city like Portland , where riots have become a nightly feature around the federal courthouse , we ’ re talking about a couple of thousand people at most who are actively taking part in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually committing acts of violence .
Portland ’ s about as left-leaning as you can get without tipping over , but only a handful of the city ’ s 653,000 residents are turning out to try to burn it down .
Thanks to the media ’ s love and reliance on chaos and anger , the riots in Portland and other cities have been amplified , but the number of would-be revolutionaries hasn ’ t really grown in response .
They ’ re a real phenomenon , in other words , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to America .
To help me sort out my internal debate , I welcomed Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlichter to Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. today , and I ’ m glad that I did .
Kurt ’ s squarely on board with the school of thought that the riots are now a political response to President Trump and the 2020 election , and have little or nothing to do with the death of George Floyd or even calls for criminal justice reform .
The Portland NAACP said as much recently when its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white spectacle.
” “ Spectacle is the best way to describe what Portland ’ s protests have become , ” he told KATU News Monday .
“ Vandalizing government buildings and throwing projectiles , these things draw attention , but I want to make it very clear , that we are grateful for allies that are on the streets , and we applaud them for the courageous efforts that they ’ re taking to stand up for Black lives .
However , it ’ s not just the protests , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world that takes this spectacular moment in history and makes it spectacle.
” He went on to say demonstrators should “ summon a tone of seriousness.
” Oh , I ’ d argue the antifa-types , anarchists , and wannabe Trotskys and Lenins who think that they ’ re the vanguard of the revolution are serious , but those truly committed revolutionaries don ’ t care about how their violence is being perceived .
As Kurt points out , there ’ s a growing concern on the Left that the continued riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly growing tiresome for many Americans .
Our mutual friend Ed Morrissey has been covering the effort to abolish the police in Minneapolis , for example , and what a disaster that ’ s become .
In Seattle , they ’ re apparently talking about dismantling the entire local criminal justice system .
If you watch the show on a regular basis , you know that I ’ ve got no problems pointing out failures of the justice system , but there ’ s a big difference between working to reduce plea bargains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial by jury altogether .
A majority of Americans may be in a reformist mindset at the moment , but they ’ re not revolutionaries ready to storm the Bastille .
So , I don ’ t want to overstate the threat that our nation faces in these tenuous times , but I don ’ t want to understate it either .
Not only is the media ( broadcast and social ) amplifying the violence and turning into a nihilistic piece of political performance art , but as Attorney General Bill Barr pointedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What makes me concerned for the country is for the first time in my memory , that the leaders of one of our two great political parties , the Democratic Party , are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts.
” Those who are intent on violently tearing this country down and building utopia on the ashes make up a pretty small percentage of the population , but their own Marxist ideology tells them that they don ’ t need to be a political majority to overthrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not like the lack of interest on the part of a majority of the American people will dissuade them .
I don ’ t think they could actually achieve their goal , but with the media egging them on and Democrat politicians offering muted objections ( at least until Election Day ) , they can make life pretty miserable for residents of their cities in the meantime .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Kurt above , which also includes a little discussion about his new book .
Stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the day , including a Montana woman who held an armed intruder for police after she discovered him asleep on her couch .

I’ve been of two minds about the increasing violence that we’re seeing in deep-blue, Democrat-controlled cities like Seattle and Portland over the past few months. On the one hand, the riots and violent demonstrations that we’ve seen in dozens of cities since the death of George Floyd is unlike anything that I’ve witnessed firsthand in American history (I wasn’t around for the riots in the 1960s), and the deep cultural and political divisions have only grown wider as the coronavirus and our response has resulted in widespread unemployment and economic hardships on tens of millions of Americans. Revolutions don’t happen when we’re fat and happy, after all. They generally require stress to be placed on a nation until it breaks, and this is a pretty stressful time that we’re living in.
On the other hand, even in a city like Portland, where riots have become a nightly feature around the federal courthouse, we’re talking about a couple of thousand people at most who are actively taking part in the demonstrations, with a fewer number actually committing acts of violence. Portland’s about as left-leaning as you can get without tipping over, but only a handful of the city’s 653,000 residents are turning out to try to burn it down. Thanks to the media’s love and reliance on chaos and anger, the riots in Portland and other cities have been amplified, but the number of would-be revolutionaries hasn’t really grown in response. They’re a real phenomenon, in other words, but they don’t pose an existential threat to America.
To help me sort out my internal debate, I welcomed Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlichter to Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. today, and I’m glad that I did. Kurt’s squarely on board with the school of thought that the riots are now a political response to President Trump and the 2020 election, and have little or nothing to do with the death of George Floyd or even calls for criminal justice reform. The Portland NAACP said as much recently when its president called the nightly riots a “white spectacle.”
“Spectacle is the best way to describe what Portland’s protests have become,” he told KATU News Monday. “Vandalizing government buildings and throwing projectiles, these things draw attention, but I want to make it very clear, that we are grateful for allies that are on the streets, and we applaud them for the courageous efforts that they’re taking to stand up for Black lives. However, it’s not just the protests, it’s how it looks to the rest of the world that takes this spectacular moment in history and makes it spectacle.” He went on to say demonstrators should “summon a tone of seriousness.”
Oh, I’d argue the antifa-types, anarchists, and wannabe Trotskys and Lenins who think that they’re the vanguard of the revolution are serious, but those truly committed revolutionaries don’t care about how their violence is being perceived. As Kurt points out, there’s a growing concern on the Left that the continued riots and civil disorder in these cities is quickly growing tiresome for many Americans. Our mutual friend Ed Morrissey has been covering the effort to abolish the police in Minneapolis, for example, and what a disaster that’s become.
In Seattle, they’re apparently talking about dismantling the entire local criminal justice system. If you watch the show on a regular basis, you know that I’ve got no problems pointing out failures of the justice system, but there’s a big difference between working to reduce plea bargains and scrapping both plea bargains and a trial by jury altogether. A majority of Americans may be in a reformist mindset at the moment, but they’re not revolutionaries ready to storm the Bastille.
So, I don’t want to overstate the threat that our nation faces in these tenuous times, but I don’t want to understate it either. Not only is the media (broadcast and social) amplifying the violence and turning into a nihilistic piece of political performance art, but as Attorney General Bill Barr pointedly told members of Congress today, “What makes me concerned for the country is for the first time in my memory, that the leaders of one of our two great political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts.”
Those who are intent on violently tearing this country down and building utopia on the ashes make up a pretty small percentage of the population, but their own Marxist ideology tells them that they don’t need to be a political majority to overthrow the existing order, so it’s not like the lack of interest on the part of a majority of the American people will dissuade them. I don’t think they could actually achieve their goal, but with the media egging them on and Democrat politicians offering muted objections (at least until Election Day), they can make life pretty miserable for residents of their cities in the meantime.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Kurt above, which also includes a little discussion about his new book. Stick around after for more Second Amendment-related news of the day, including a Montana woman who held an armed intruder for police after she discovered him asleep on her couch.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Remington Files Bankruptcy Despite Increased Demand

All around the nation , the demand for guns has skyrocketed .
Many people are reporting their local gun stores are still out of both firearms and ammunition .
It ’ s a grand time to be in the gun industry , to be sure .
Or , at least , that ’ s what you ’ d think .
While gun sales are soaring through the roof , not everyone is on easy street at the moment .
In particular , embattled Remington .
Firearms maker Remington Arms Co. filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time since 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can repay even as fearful Americans buy more guns than ever .
Remington , which supplies weapons for hunting , shooting sports , law enforcement and the military , sought chapter 11 protection and will try to sell its business at a time when civil unrest and worries about personal safety have driven firearm sales to record highs .
The chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Decatur , Ala. , marks Remington ’ s second restructuring since 2018 , when it filed for chapter 11 and transferred ownership to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chase & Co. Remington has been searching for potential buyers and was in talks to sell itself out of bankruptcy to the Navajo Nation before negotiations collapsed in recent weeks , leaving the company without a lead bidder , or stalking horse , in place .
Despite shedding roughly $ 775 million in debt in 2018 , the company has struggled with high interest costs and has faced litigation related to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre , in which the killer used a Bushmaster rifle manufactured by Remington .
Which shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of litigation .
It ’ s not about justice .
It ’ s not about addressing a mistake or negligence by the company in question .
It ’ s about trying to make it too costly for these companies to remain in business .
It ’ s an attempt to create gun control without having to go through Congress or state legislatures .
After all , if there are no guns for sale , there ’ s no reason to limit who can buy them , right ?
However , in the interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the litigation that ’ s the problem .
While demand for products is up , manufacturers are having some challenges in meeting that demand .
Demand is great , but if you can ’ t meet it , it doesn ’ t do you a whole lot of good .
Remington ’ s bankruptcy isn ’ t a good sign for the company .
Further , if their challenges are replicated across the industry , it could be bad news for gun buyers .
Even without the court case , no raw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell .
Companies can only hold on for so long at that rate , and that might mean more bankruptcies coming down the road .
Hopefully , that won ’ t be the case , but we should keep an eye on the industry and see .

All around the nation, the demand for guns has skyrocketed. Many people are reporting their local gun stores are still out of both firearms and ammunition. It’s a grand time to be in the gun industry, to be sure.
Or, at least, that’s what you’d think.
While gun sales are soaring through the roof, not everyone is on easy street at the moment. In particular, embattled Remington.
Firearms maker Remington Arms Co. filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time since 2018, weighed down by more debt than it can repay even as fearful Americans buy more guns than ever. Remington, which supplies weapons for hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement and the military, sought chapter 11 protection and will try to sell its business at a time when civil unrest and worries about personal safety have driven firearm sales to record highs. The chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Decatur, Ala., marks Remington’s second restructuring since 2018, when it filed for chapter 11 and transferred ownership to investors including Franklin Resources Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Remington has been searching for potential buyers and was in talks to sell itself out of bankruptcy to the Navajo Nation before negotiations collapsed in recent weeks, leaving the company without a lead bidder, or stalking horse, in place. … Despite shedding roughly $775 million in debt in 2018, the company has struggled with high interest costs and has faced litigation related to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, in which the killer used a Bushmaster rifle manufactured by Remington.
Which shows us the true point of this kind of litigation. It’s not about justice. It’s not about addressing a mistake or negligence by the company in question. It’s about trying to make it too costly for these companies to remain in business. It’s an attempt to create gun control without having to go through Congress or state legislatures.
After all, if there are no guns for sale, there’s no reason to limit who can buy them, right?
However, in the interest of fairness, it’s not just the litigation that’s the problem. While demand for products is up, manufacturers are having some challenges in meeting that demand.
But buoyant sales at the counter don’t immediately flow to manufacturers like Remington, which traces its roots to 1816 and makes firearms at facilities in Ilion, N.Y., and Huntsville, Ala. Some firearms companies also face supply-chain issues that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, making it difficult to ramp up production to meet growing demand.
Demand is great, but if you can’t meet it, it doesn’t do you a whole lot of good.
Remington’s bankruptcy isn’t a good sign for the company. Further, if their challenges are replicated across the industry, it could be bad news for gun buyers. Even without the court case, no raw materials means no ability to make products to sell. Companies can only hold on for so long at that rate, and that might mean more bankruptcies coming down the road.
Hopefully, that won’t be the case, but we should keep an eye on the industry and see.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Media Attacking Pro-Gun "Hypocrisy"

Media Attacking Pro-Gun "Hypocrisy"

In politics , it ’ s important to try and be consistent .
While there are sometimes different situations that require different solutions–solutions that might be right for one case but wrong for another–it ’ s generally a good thing to have a consistent set of principles to help shape your beliefs on various topics .
When you don ’ t , your opponents will use all of that inconsistency to try and dismantle your arguments .
And that especially applies to the mainstream media .
When coronavirus lockdowns spread nationwide in March , millions of Americans flocked to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock up for what would become months stuck at home .
Black Americans did the same , but some had one addendum to their shopping list : a firearm .
Since the beginning of the pandemic , there has been growing interest among African Americans in arming themselves , as evidenced by increased membership in Black gun owner organizations .
Philip Smith , president of the National African American Gun Owners ’ Association , said his organization ’ s annual membership has increased by much as 2,000 new members per day — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His organization has grown to more than 30,000 members this year and has an online following of nearly 90,000 people .
Now , we ’ ve talked about the influx of new minority gun owners .
Personally , I think it ’ s a great thing and we ’ re likely to see a shift in how lawmakers go about talking on gun control if suddenly Democrats have to face the fact that a key demographic for them now supports gun rights .
However , some don ’ t see it that way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , protests turned into riots .
Now , armed parties are showing up .
Not just individuals , but entire groups are popping in with loaded weapons .
This is , of course , their right .
So long as they ’ re obeying the laws in their location , I don ’ t see them doing anything wrong .
You see , it ’ s that consistency thing I ’ m talking about .
It ’ s just too bad that not everyone is that consistent .
Their demonstration and others have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler decried the “ mob rule ” in Atlanta , as the cable network played images of Black protesters carrying semi-automatic weapons .
“ We ’ re a nation of the rule of law and this is exactly what will happen if we defund the police , ” Loeffler warned .
Her rhetoric echoes that of the White House and other Republicans in Washington , who have taken an increasingly antagonistic tone towards protesters and members of the Black Lives Matter movement over the past month .
Trump has as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking points in favor of tough policing .
The president and his supporters , meanwhile , defended a white St. Louis couple captured on video pointing guns at Black protesters marching by .
According to Fox News , the they retrieved their firearms after spotting armed protesters .
Other members of his circle have taken to calling Black Lives Matter protesters “ Marxists ” who have been “ planning to destroy the police for years.
” Now , I ’ m fine with attacking their arguments and their positions via our own freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that by attacking them being armed , they ’ re playing right into Democrats ’ hands .
You see , there ’ s been a push for years to declare gun rights supporters–particularly politicians–as racist .
They ’ ve long argued that if armed black men and women started walking through town , we ’ d see a push for gun control .
Many of us have pointed out that was absolute BS , of course .
We have no issue with armed Americans so long as they ’ re carrying weapons lawfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto Loeffler ’ s comments and used them to try and discredit the gun rights movement .
They tied them in with others attacking Black Lives Matter in an attempt to discredit them as well .
Unfortunately for them , Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement .
Even their founder admits she ’ s a trained Marxist .
But that ’ ll be ignored because of what they perceive as hypocrisy on the Second Amendment .

In politics, it’s important to try and be consistent. While there are sometimes different situations that require different solutions–solutions that might be right for one case but wrong for another–it’s generally a good thing to have a consistent set of principles to help shape your beliefs on various topics.
When you don’t, your opponents will use all of that inconsistency to try and dismantle your arguments.
And that especially applies to the mainstream media.
When coronavirus lockdowns spread nationwide in March, millions of Americans flocked to their local grocery stores and wholesale markets to stock up for what would become months stuck at home. Black Americans did the same, but some had one addendum to their shopping list: a firearm. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been growing interest among African Americans in arming themselves, as evidenced by increased membership in Black gun owner organizations. … Philip Smith, president of the National African American Gun Owners’ Association, said his organization’s annual membership has increased by much as 2,000 new members per day — a figure he used to see annually. His organization has grown to more than 30,000 members this year and has an online following of nearly 90,000 people.
Now, we’ve talked about the influx of new minority gun owners. Personally, I think it’s a great thing and we’re likely to see a shift in how lawmakers go about talking on gun control if suddenly Democrats have to face the fact that a key demographic for them now supports gun rights.
However, some don’t see it that way.
Following the death of George Floyd, protests turned into riots. Now, armed parties are showing up. Not just individuals, but entire groups are popping in with loaded weapons.
This is, of course, their right. So long as they’re obeying the laws in their location, I don’t see them doing anything wrong. You see, it’s that consistency thing I’m talking about.
It’s just too bad that not everyone is that consistent.
Their demonstration and others have drawn the ire of some conservatives. Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler decried the “mob rule” in Atlanta during a June 24 interview on Fox News , as the cable network played images of Black protesters carrying semi-automatic weapons. “We’re a nation of the rule of law and this is exactly what will happen if we defund the police,” Loeffler warned. Her rhetoric echoes that of the White House and other Republicans in Washington, who have taken an increasingly antagonistic tone towards protesters and members of the Black Lives Matter movement over the past month. Trump has referred to the movement as a “hate group” and repeated talking points in favor of tough policing. The president and his supporters, meanwhile, defended a white St. Louis couple captured on video pointing guns at Black protesters marching by. According to Fox News, the couple told police they retrieved their firearms after spotting armed protesters. Other members of his circle have taken to calling Black Lives Matter protesters “Marxists” who have been “planning to destroy the police for years.”
Now, I’m fine with attacking their arguments and their positions via our own freedom of speech. But the problem is that by attacking them being armed, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands.
You see, there’s been a push for years to declare gun rights supporters–particularly politicians–as racist. They’ve long argued that if armed black men and women started walking through town, we’d see a push for gun control.
Many of us have pointed out that was absolute BS, of course. We have no issue with armed Americans so long as they’re carrying weapons lawfully and peacefully.
Yet people have latched onto Loeffler’s comments and used them to try and discredit the gun rights movement. They tied them in with others attacking Black Lives Matter in an attempt to discredit them as well.
Unfortunately for them, Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement. Even their founder admits she’s a trained Marxist.
But that’ll be ignored because of what they perceive as hypocrisy on the Second Amendment.
Folks, don’t give them the ammo.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--California Lawmakers Aim To Speed Up State's Slow-Motion Handgun Ban

Lawmakers in California have returned to the state capitol in Sacramento after an extended summer recess , and they ’ ve got several gun control bills in their sights .
None of them are good , but one in particular could result in an almost total ban on handgun sales in the state , all in the name of public safety .
NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action reports that the Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear AB 2847 on Friday , and will likely send the measure on to the full Senate for a quick vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes to the state ’ s existing microstamping law , and none of them will be good for gun owners .
Under existing state law , every new model of handgun sold in the state must be able to imprint ( or microstamp ) a unique identifying code in two locations on each cartridge as it ’ s fired .
It ’ s virtually impossible for gun manufacturers to create a handgun that do that , which means that since the law took effect in 2013 , no new models of handguns have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even worse , when existing models of handguns undergo any design change whatsoever , even moving a simple screw a millimeter to the left or right , California DOJ has declared the change has resulted in a new handgun model , and that gun gets dropped from the roster of handguns available for sale as well .
It ’ s a slow-motion gun ban , and AB 2847 is going to make things worse .
As NRA-ILA points out : AB 2847 , sponsored by Assembly Member David Chiu ( D-17 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be certified for sale by requiring a microstamp in one place on the interior of the handgun ( current law requires two imprinting locations ) .
The bill also requires the removal of three certified handguns from the roster for each new handgun added. It should be noted that no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the handgun roster since microstamping was certified in 2013 .
By changing the microstamping requirements from two imprinting locations to one , anti-gun lawmakers in California are hoping to spur manufacturers to adopt the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each handgun .
That ’ s technologically possible , though in practice criminals could easily defeat the technology with a nail file , or by simply swapping out firing pins .
I don ’ t think many legislators are actually concerned about how criminals could get around the supposed crime-fighting technology , frankly .
I think they ’ re much more interested in using the microstamping law to restrict the ability to legally acquire any handgun as much as they can .
If this bill becomes law , for every new model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three guns that don ’ t will be made illegal for sale in the state .
California ’ s handgun roster has already shrunk dramatically thanks to the state DOJ ’ s interpretation of what constitutes a “ new model , ” and AB 2847 would gut the roster even further , leaving Californians with few options for the most commonly sold class of firearms in the country .
Or how about this nightmare scenario : an anti-gun billionaire like Michael Bloomberg decides to buy a gun company like Remington , which just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pump out limited quantities of many models of microstamped handguns , each model only slightly different from the next .
If Bloomberg Arms were to release 30 different varieties of handguns , then 90 existing handguns would disappear for sale in the state , even if Bloomberg Arms only produced something like 50 handguns for each model .
As of right now there are 826 models of handguns that are available ( in theory , anyway ) for sale in California .
It might seem like a stretch for an anti-gun gun company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handguns , which would wipe out the existing roster , but if you ’ ve got billions of dollars at your disposal , anything ’ s possible .
I don ’ t think it ’ s likely that would happen , but if AB 2847 becomes law , it ’ s a certainty that anti-gun activists and politicians will get pretty creative to deny Californians the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones with a pistol .

Lawmakers in California have returned to the state capitol in Sacramento after an extended summer recess, and they’ve got several gun control bills in their sights. None of them are good, but one in particular could result in an almost total ban on handgun sales in the state, all in the name of public safety.
NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action reports that the Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear AB 2847 on Friday, and will likely send the measure on to the full Senate for a quick vote as well. The legislation makes some changes to the state’s existing microstamping law, and none of them will be good for gun owners.
Under existing state law, every new model of handgun sold in the state must be able to imprint (or microstamp) a unique identifying code in two locations on each cartridge as it’s fired. It’s virtually impossible for gun manufacturers to create a handgun that do that, which means that since the law took effect in 2013, no new models of handguns have been made available for sale in California. Even worse, when existing models of handguns undergo any design change whatsoever, even moving a simple screw a millimeter to the left or right, California DOJ has declared the change has resulted in a new handgun model, and that gun gets dropped from the roster of handguns available for sale as well. It’s a slow-motion gun ban, and AB 2847 is going to make things worse. As NRA-ILA points out:
AB 2847, sponsored by Assembly Member David Chiu (D-17), revises the criteria for handguns to be certified for sale by requiring a microstamp in one place on the interior of the handgun (current law requires two imprinting locations). The bill also requires the removal of three certified handguns from the roster for each new handgun added. It should be noted that no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the handgun roster since microstamping was certified in 2013.
By changing the microstamping requirements from two imprinting locations to one, anti-gun lawmakers in California are hoping to spur manufacturers to adopt the practice of putting a microstamp on the firing pin of each handgun. That’s technologically possible, though in practice criminals could easily defeat the technology with a nail file, or by simply swapping out firing pins. I don’t think many legislators are actually concerned about how criminals could get around the supposed crime-fighting technology, frankly. I think they’re much more interested in using the microstamping law to restrict the ability to legally acquire any handgun as much as they can.
If this bill becomes law, for every new model that has a microstamped firing pin, three guns that don’t will be made illegal for sale in the state. California’s handgun roster has already shrunk dramatically thanks to the state DOJ’s interpretation of what constitutes a “new model,” and AB 2847 would gut the roster even further, leaving Californians with few options for the most commonly sold class of firearms in the country.
Or how about this nightmare scenario: an anti-gun billionaire like Michael Bloomberg decides to buy a gun company like Remington, which just declared bankruptcy, and uses it to pump out limited quantities of many models of microstamped handguns, each model only slightly different from the next. If Bloomberg Arms were to release 30 different varieties of handguns, then 90 existing handguns would disappear for sale in the state, even if Bloomberg Arms only produced something like 50 handguns for each model.
As of right now there are 826 models of handguns that are available (in theory, anyway) for sale in California. It might seem like a stretch for an anti-gun gun company to create 275 different models of microstamped handguns, which would wipe out the existing roster, but if you’ve got billions of dollars at your disposal, anything’s possible. I don’t think it’s likely that would happen, but if AB 2847 becomes law, it’s a certainty that anti-gun activists and politicians will get pretty creative to deny Californians the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones with a pistol.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Wyoming Lawmakers Fight Back Against Dorr Brothers' Attacks

Usually , when a pro-gun group takes a shot at lawmakers , those lawmakers are responsible for pushing an obvious anti-gun agenda .
When they do that , we all tend to agree with them .
However , that ’ s not always the case .
For example , in Wyoming , Republican lawmakers are fighting back against vicious attacks by a supposedly pro-gun group .
growing group of Wyoming lawmakers — including the vice president of the Senate — are coming after one of the state ’ s most aggressive gun rights groups after it lodged efforts to discredit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable districts ahead of next month ’ s Republican primary .
The group , Wyoming Gun Owners , has been a consistent presence in Wyoming ’ s politics , presenting itself to residents as an uncompromising and unapologetically aggressive proponent for the Second Amendment in Cheyenne .
Throughout the last two weeks , however , the organization has focused on pitting its often aggressive campaign tactics and extensive digital operation against out-of-favor politicians .
Established lawmakers like Cheyenne Sen. Tara Nethercott and Kemmerer Rep. Fred Baldwin have come under Wyoming Gun Owners ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running unopposed in her primary this year .
Michael Von Flatern — a moderate Republican senator from Gillette — has received the most attacks over the years , dubbed the organization ’ s “ Biggest Enemy to Gun Owners in Wyoming ” and regularly disparaged outside of campaign season .
That ’ s…odd .
I mean , why attack a Republican lawmaker who is running unopposed ?
Well , you see , the big takeaway here is really who the group in question is .
You see , Wyoming Gun Owners is run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment game .
Now , I ’ m not really sure just what more Wyoming can pass .
They ’ ve got constitutional carry on the books , preemption so local governments can ’ t pass their own laws , no real regulations at all beyond the federal laws that I can see , so just what does Dorr want here ?
Oh , I get that the University of Wyoming ’ s campus is currently gun-free and I agree that has to be addressed ; but to attack lawmakers who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been waiting for the courts ?
Of course , Aaron Dorr and his brother are interesting individuals as it is .
We ’ ve looked at them before .
There ’ s reason to suspect that they ’ re not really doing much except stirring up hate and discontent on the right and using absolute faithfulness to the Second Amendment as their tool .
I ’ m not saying they ’ re doing it on purpose , but they ’ re still accomplishing that .
Some will argue that shakeup needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just so comfortable that they need some discomfort .
That ’ s not necessarily wrong .
The problem pops up when you ’ re looking at these Dorr-aligned groups and recognize that they ’ re taking in tons of money , holding rallies that paint the entire gun rights movement as extremists , then target lawmakers without any real concern over how politics is actually working .
For example , waiting for the legal challenge to the University of Wyoming ’ s anti-gun policy makes sense .
If that decision and quashed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nothing for anti-gun groups to try and challenge .
Waiting made sense .
Now , though , it ’ s time for lawmakers to act .
I suspect many of them will .
If not , then we can have that conversation .
Yet since Aaron Dorr ’ s brother is on the record as opposing Second Amendment sanctuary counties and he hasn ’ t been attacked by his siblings , I kind of have to wonder just how vehement their defense of the Second Amendment really is .
The truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorrs or their networks push for with a great amount of skepticism .
I think everyone else should as well .

Usually, when a pro-gun group takes a shot at lawmakers, those lawmakers are responsible for pushing an obvious anti-gun agenda. When they do that, we all tend to agree with them.
However, that’s not always the case.
For example, in Wyoming, Republican lawmakers are fighting back against vicious attacks by a supposedly pro-gun group.
growing group of Wyoming lawmakers — including the vice president of the Senate — are coming after one of the state’s most aggressive gun rights groups after it lodged efforts to discredit incumbent Republican lawmakers in a number of vulnerable districts ahead of next month’s Republican primary. The group, Wyoming Gun Owners, has been a consistent presence in Wyoming’s politics, presenting itself to residents as an uncompromising and unapologetically aggressive proponent for the Second Amendment in Cheyenne. Throughout the last two weeks, however, the organization has focused on pitting its often aggressive campaign tactics and extensive digital operation against out-of-favor politicians. Established lawmakers like Cheyenne Sen. Tara Nethercott and Kemmerer Rep. Fred Baldwin have come under Wyoming Gun Owners’ microscope this summer, even with Nethercott running unopposed in her primary this year. Michael Von Flatern — a moderate Republican senator from Gillette — has received the most attacks over the years, dubbed the organization’s “Biggest Enemy to Gun Owners in Wyoming” and regularly disparaged outside of campaign season.
That’s…odd. I mean, why attack a Republican lawmaker who is running unopposed?
Well, you see, the big takeaway here is really who the group in question is. You see, Wyoming Gun Owners is run by perhaps the biggest grifters in the Second Amendment game.
Incumbents in highly competitive districts like House District 24, currently occupied by Rep. Sandy Newsome, have come under some of the most withering attacks from the organization, depicted by Wyoming Gun Owners as lapdogs of legislative leadership while they face intense competition from candidates on the right wing of the Republican Party who have pledged to back all of the organization’s legislative priorities. “She hasn’t been in office long,” Aaron Dorr, the organization’s policy director, said in a recent video opposing Newsome in favor of her opponent, Nina Webber. “But she’s quickly made a name for herself as a do-nothing moderate who the leadership team can always count on to oppose any gun bills that come along, and to be a safe leadership vote.”
Now, I’m not really sure just what more Wyoming can pass. They’ve got constitutional carry on the books, preemption so local governments can’t pass their own laws, no real regulations at all beyond the federal laws that I can see, so just what does Dorr want here?
Oh, I get that the University of Wyoming’s campus is currently gun-free and I agree that has to be addressed; but to attack lawmakers who are ostensibly on your side simply because they might have been waiting for the courts?
Of course, Aaron Dorr and his brother are interesting individuals as it is. We’ve looked at them before. There’s reason to suspect that they’re not really doing much except stirring up hate and discontent on the right and using absolute faithfulness to the Second Amendment as their tool. I’m not saying they’re doing it on purpose, but they’re still accomplishing that.
Some will argue that shakeup needs to happen, that some lawmakers are just so comfortable that they need some discomfort.
That’s not necessarily wrong. The problem pops up when you’re looking at these Dorr-aligned groups and recognize that they’re taking in tons of money, holding rallies that paint the entire gun rights movement as extremists, then target lawmakers without any real concern over how politics is actually working.
For example, waiting for the legal challenge to the University of Wyoming’s anti-gun policy makes sense. If that decision and quashed the school’s efforts, then there’s nothing for anti-gun groups to try and challenge. Waiting made sense. Now, though, it’s time for lawmakers to act. I suspect many of them will.
If not, then we can have that conversation.
Yet since Aaron Dorr’s brother is on the record as opposing Second Amendment sanctuary counties and he hasn’t been attacked by his siblings, I kind of have to wonder just how vehement their defense of the Second Amendment really is.
The truth is, I look at anything the Dorrs or their networks push for with a great amount of skepticism. I think everyone else should as well.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Roberts' Reluctance And The 2A Waiting Game

Gun owners have had a pretty good idea that Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to take a Second Amendment case for awhile now .
First there was the Supreme Court ’ s mooting of a case dealing with a New York City gun law back in April , denying an opportunity for SCOTUS to once again weigh in on the right to keep and bear arms .
That was followed in June by the refusal to hear any of the ten cases dealing with the Second Amendment that the Court had been considering in conference .
At that point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the wild card , with justices Gorsuch , Thomas , Alito , and Kavanaugh all on board with taking at least one case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms .
It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case , yet even those four justices balked at accepting any .
That was a clear sign that they were concerned about which way Roberts might vote .
Having watched the Second Amendment get put on the back burner at the Supreme Court in recent months , I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was surprised to see CNN ’ s report on Monday providing a few more details on Roberts ’ reluctance , albeit through anonymous sources .
After hearing a New York City gun regulation challenge in December , the majority decided the case was moot because the city had amended its ordinance which banned the transporting of guns to firing ranges or second homes outside the city .
CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions .
Guided by Roberts , Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ per curiam ” opinion — joined by six justices , including Roberts — returning the case to lower court judges .
Kavanaugh also wrote a separate statement — this one he signed — suggesting it was time for the justices to resolve conflicting interpretations of Second Amendment rights .
Challenges to other firearms regulations were pending and conservatives who had wanted to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment had to consider whether to bring the issue back to the justices .
In mid-June , the high court turned down petitions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability of firearms and when they can be carried in public .
The action perplexed court observers who had believed the right-wing majority was eager to further elucidate the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller .
Some conservative justices indeed wanted to take up the issue , but they apparently could not count on a majority .
For those of us who pay close attention to the legal fights over the Second Amendment , the only new information that CNN gave us was the fact that Kavanaugh wrote the “ per curium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case back down to the lower courts .
What ’ s more surprising , frankly , is that CNN got anyone close to the Court to speak about what ’ s been going on there over the last term .
As my colleague Allahpundit notes at Hot Air , the Supreme Court has long been considered the last leak-proof institution in Washington , D.C.
It ’ s remarkable that anyone inside the Court would leak details of Roberts ’ s deliberations to CNN , and it ’ s more remarkable that this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s happened .
CNN also reported on Roberts ’ s alleged vote-switch last year on whether the new census could rightly include a citizenship question or not .
The Court rarely leaks ; clerks and staff know that their legal careers would be ruined if they were caught spilling secrets to reporters .
Yet this is the second time in 10 months that CNN has purported to expose Roberts — and they ’ re promising much more to come .
Who ’ s spilling the beans on him ?
Does he have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know if Roberts has any outright enemies on the Court , but he may very well have some incredibly frustrated colleagues .
Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Brett Kavanaugh have all spoken or written about the need to take a Second Amendment case since lower courts are running roughshod over the Court ’ s decisions in Heller and McDonald .
Could one of those justices be venting to CNN ?
It ’ s certainly a possibility , but to me the much bigger question is why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t decide to hear a Second Amendment challenge if the conservative wing of the Court was convinced that Roberts wasn ’ t going to side with the right to keep and bear arms ?
Is Roberts playing his cards so close to the vest that neither side is sure where he ’ ll land ?
Or is the Court ’ s left wing content to keep the status quo in place for now rather than attempt to deliver an opinion that would dramatically restrict the right to keep and bear arms ?
CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any answers to that question , and for now the Second Amendment waiting game continues .

Gun owners have had a pretty good idea that Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to take a Second Amendment case for awhile now. First there was the Supreme Court’s mooting of a case dealing with a New York City gun law back in April, denying an opportunity for SCOTUS to once again weigh in on the right to keep and bear arms. That was followed in June by the refusal to hear any of the ten cases dealing with the Second Amendment that the Court had been considering in conference.
At that point, it had become obvious that Roberts was the wild card, with justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh all on board with taking at least one case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case, yet even those four justices balked at accepting any. That was a clear sign that they were concerned about which way Roberts might vote.
Having watched the Second Amendment get put on the back burner at the Supreme Court in recent months, I can’t imagine that any gun owner was surprised to see CNN’s report on Monday providing a few more details on Roberts’ reluctance, albeit through anonymous sources.
After hearing a New York City gun regulation challenge in December, the majority decided the case was moot because the city had amended its ordinance which banned the transporting of guns to firing ranges or second homes outside the city. CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions. Guided by Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of what turned out to be an unsigned “per curiam” opinion — joined by six justices, including Roberts — returning the case to lower court judges. Kavanaugh also wrote a separate statement — this one he signed — suggesting it was time for the justices to resolve conflicting interpretations of Second Amendment rights. Challenges to other firearms regulations were pending and conservatives who had wanted to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment had to consider whether to bring the issue back to the justices. In mid-June, the high court turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws limiting the availability of firearms and when they can be carried in public. The action perplexed court observers who had believed the right-wing majority was eager to further elucidate the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller . Some conservative justices indeed wanted to take up the issue, but they apparently could not count on a majority.
For those of us who pay close attention to the legal fights over the Second Amendment, the only new information that CNN gave us was the fact that Kavanaugh wrote the “per curium” opinion that sent the NYC gun case back down to the lower courts. What’s more surprising, frankly, is that CNN got anyone close to the Court to speak about what’s been going on there over the last term. As my colleague Allahpundit notes at Hot Air, the Supreme Court has long been considered the last leak-proof institution in Washington, D.C.
It’s remarkable that anyone inside the Court would leak details of Roberts’s deliberations to CNN, and it’s more remarkable that this isn’t the first time it’s happened. CNN also reported on Roberts’s alleged vote-switch last year on whether the new census could rightly include a citizenship question or not. The Court rarely leaks; clerks and staff know that their legal careers would be ruined if they were caught spilling secrets to reporters. Yet this is the second time in 10 months that CNN has purported to expose Roberts — and they’re promising much more to come. Who’s spilling the beans on him? Does he have an enemy on the Court itself?
I don’t know if Roberts has any outright enemies on the Court, but he may very well have some incredibly frustrated colleagues. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh have all spoken or written about the need to take a Second Amendment case since lower courts are running roughshod over the Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald. Could one of those justices be venting to CNN? It’s certainly a possibility, but to me the much bigger question is why the liberal wing of the Court didn’t decide to hear a Second Amendment challenge if the conservative wing of the Court was convinced that Roberts wasn’t going to side with the right to keep and bear arms?
Is Roberts playing his cards so close to the vest that neither side is sure where he’ll land? Or is the Court’s left wing content to keep the status quo in place for now rather than attempt to deliver an opinion that would dramatically restrict the right to keep and bear arms? CNN’s sources didn’t provide any answers to that question, and for now the Second Amendment waiting game continues.


bearingarms--2020-07-28--Saturday's Seattle Protest Served With Dose Of Irony The Media Ignored

Seattle , Washington isn ’ t getting nearly as much press these days .
After all , with the end of the CHAZ , they ’ re just your typical leftist stronghold , not a raging pile of a trainwreck like Portland .
However , the unrest is far from over in the Emerald City .
Saturday , leftists took to the streets again .
However , what the media reports is…interesting .
On Saturday many in Seattle anticipated a Portland-like clash between protesters and Trump ’ s newly arrived security forces , who were sent to town “ on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services at a couple federal courthouses downtown .
But for now , at least , the grievances of Seattle protesters still lie mostly with Seattle ’ s police , which makes sense .
Protest leaders said direct actions carried out in the last week were designed to “ reignite ” the dwindling protest crowds here , and flyers for Saturday ’ s event mentioned solidarity with Portland , but some also listed familiar , local demands : Defund the police and reinvest the money in Black communities , free all protesters , No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jenny Durkan .
And so the demonstrations yesterday ended up looking more like a small-scale version of the June protests , with the Seattle Police Department responding to property damage and fireworks by throwing blast balls at protesters , indiscriminately pepper-spraying crowds , and unloading rounds of rubber bullets .
Yep .
Just peaceful protestors going about their protest before the jackbooted thugs in law enforcement started unleashing hell on them .
No , there wasn ’ t any inkling of violence .
No buildings were burned , vandalized , or anything of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if that ’ s true , then how did this happen : Seattle radio host and Twitter-based criminal defense advocate Paul Gallant “ dunked ” on President Donald Trump last month by denying that the riots are violent , then the radio host was scored on by rioters who trashed his apartment .
Now he ’ s taking up arms .
“ Walked through it last night out of curiosity and saw no burning , pillaging , or deaths , ” Gallant responded in June to Trump ’ s tweet calling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattle .
“ Chill dawg , ” Gallant added sarcastically .
Last night , Gallant had a sudden change of heart towards the “ peaceful protestors ” when he came home to his apartment complex vandalized .
He found the Starbucks underneath broken into with graffiti plastered on the storefront .
Cops told residents to stay away in case of explosives inside .
Gallant is now considering buying a firearm for protection .
Now , it ’ s nice that the protest delivered a nice little dose of irony , to be sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protestors the media continues to describe as “ mostly peaceful.
” Even if only 10 percent of these so-called protestors are violent , it wouldn ’ t matter .
These are the same people who tried to categorize the Michigan lockdown protestors as violent despite them not raising a finger to hurt anyone .
These are the same people who tried to call the Richmond Lobby Day protests violent despite not a single assault taking place .
Even if things like this are the result of a small number of protestors , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crowd to either put a stop to it or leave .
I make no judgment as to which a person should opt to do , but if you don ’ t do one or the other , you ’ re complicit .
Of course , the media won ’ t report it like that .
And yet , they wonder why so many of us distrust them on such a visceral level .

Seattle, Washington isn’t getting nearly as much press these days. After all, with the end of the CHAZ, they’re just your typical leftist stronghold, not a raging pile of a trainwreck like Portland. However, the unrest is far from over in the Emerald City.
Saturday, leftists took to the streets again.
However, what the media reports is…interesting.
On Saturday many in Seattle anticipated a Portland-like clash between protesters and Trump’s newly arrived security forces, who were sent to town “on standby” allegedly to reinforce Federal Protective Services at a couple federal courthouses downtown. But for now, at least, the grievances of Seattle protesters still lie mostly with Seattle’s police, which makes sense. Protest leaders said direct actions carried out in the last week were designed to “reignite” the dwindling protest crowds here, and flyers for Saturday’s event mentioned solidarity with Portland, but some also listed familiar, local demands: Defund the police and reinvest the money in Black communities, free all protesters, No New Youth Jail, and recall Mayor Jenny Durkan. And so the demonstrations yesterday ended up looking more like a small-scale version of the June protests, with the Seattle Police Department responding to property damage and fireworks by throwing blast balls at protesters, indiscriminately pepper-spraying crowds, and unloading rounds of rubber bullets.
Yep. Just peaceful protestors going about their protest before the jackbooted thugs in law enforcement started unleashing hell on them.
No, there wasn’t any inkling of violence. No buildings were burned, vandalized, or anything of the sort, right?
Of course, if that’s true, then how did this happen:
Seattle radio host and Twitter-based criminal defense advocate Paul Gallant “dunked” on President Donald Trump last month by denying that the riots are violent, then the radio host was scored on by rioters who trashed his apartment. Now he’s taking up arms. “Walked through it last night out of curiosity and saw no burning, pillaging, or deaths,” Gallant responded in June to Trump’s tweet calling out the violent leftists who continue to terrorize Seattle. “Chill dawg,” Gallant added sarcastically. Last night, Gallant had a sudden change of heart towards the “peaceful protestors” when he came home to his apartment complex vandalized. He found the Starbucks underneath broken into with graffiti plastered on the storefront. Cops told residents to stay away in case of explosives inside.
Gallant is now considering buying a firearm for protection.
Now, it’s nice that the protest delivered a nice little dose of irony, to be sure. However, these are the same protestors the media continues to describe as “mostly peaceful.” Even if only 10 percent of these so-called protestors are violent, it wouldn’t matter. These are the same people who tried to categorize the Michigan lockdown protestors as violent despite them not raising a finger to hurt anyone. These are the same people who tried to call the Richmond Lobby Day protests violent despite not a single assault taking place.
Even if things like this are the result of a small number of protestors, it’s up to the rest of the crowd to either put a stop to it or leave. I make no judgment as to which a person should opt to do, but if you don’t do one or the other, you’re complicit.
Of course, the media won’t report it like that.
And yet, they wonder why so many of us distrust them on such a visceral level.


bearingarms--2020-07-29--WI Man Gets Life Sentence Over Road Rage Killing

Everyone seems to complain about the other drivers on the road .
In fairness , there are some awful drivers out there .
It ’ s why I ’ m damn glad I don ’ t have to drive to an office every day .
The only crash I ’ m likely to have during my daily commute is because the cat got tangled up in my feet .
But most of us do have to go somewhere at some point .
That probably means dealing with other drivers .
That also means the potential for road rage .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , be careful .
Don ’ t end up like this guy .
A Whitefish Bay man was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday , July 28 in the road rage shooting death of Tracey Smith in August 2019 near 51st Street and Capitol Drive .
Prosecutors said road rage led to the gunfire as Smith taught her son how to drive .
Wilks said it was self-defense .
A jury convicted Matthew Wilks , 36 , of first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a life sentence for the homicide conviction , and he is not eligible for extended supervision .
He was sentenced to serve five years in prison and five years ’ extended supervision on the firearm conviction , to be served concurrently .
Wilks did not testify during the trial .
In fact , the defense called no witnesses .
During closing arguments , Wilks ’ attorney said there was no disputing Wilks was the one who pulled the trigger but said his intent was not to kill .
And that was a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t difficult to answer , either .
“ The person from the van told my mom , ‘ Shut the ( expletive ) up , ’ and , ‘ ( Expletive ) , I ’ ll kill you , ’ ” said Caleb Smith .
“ Then , he shot my mom , and got in his car and made a U-turn.
” “ From Caleb Smith and Adria Harris , they heard just before the shot was fired , ‘ ( Expletive ) , I ’ ll kill you , ’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s view , that ’ s about as clear as a statement of intent because it is followed immediately by a gunshot.
” Here ’ s the thing , though .
If you have a firearm on your person , it ’ s on you to do everything you can to manage the situation to keep it from getting to this point .
If you ’ re someone with a temper , do everyone a favor .
Get anger management therapy immediately .
Treat it .
Get your temper in check .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ try and calm situations down , if possible .
Do everything you can to settle stuff down , if for no other reason than so you don ’ t end up in court getting life in prison over your reaction to a fender bender .
Now , a woman is dead , her son is likely traumatized , and someone else is going to prison for the rest of their life over an incident that just shouldn ’ t have happened .
Do yourself and your family a favor and learn .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a temper issue or not .
Maybe he was normally pretty chill but got set off this time .
It doesn ’ t matter .
He still went too far and is now going away .
Do not let this happen to you .

Everyone seems to complain about the other drivers on the road. In fairness, there are some awful drivers out there. It’s why I’m damn glad I don’t have to drive to an office every day. The only crash I’m likely to have during my daily commute is because the cat got tangled up in my feet.
But most of us do have to go somewhere at some point. That probably means dealing with other drivers.
That also means the potential for road rage. If you have a gun on your person, though, be careful. Don’t end up like this guy.
A Whitefish Bay man was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday, July 28 in the road rage shooting death of Tracey Smith in August 2019 near 51st Street and Capitol Drive. Prosecutors said road rage led to the gunfire as Smith taught her son how to drive. Wilks said it was self-defense. A jury convicted Matthew Wilks, 36, of first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon in February. In court Tuesday, he received a life sentence for the homicide conviction, and he is not eligible for extended supervision. He was sentenced to serve five years in prison and five years’ extended supervision on the firearm conviction, to be served concurrently. Wilks did not testify during the trial. In fact, the defense called no witnesses. During closing arguments, Wilks’ attorney said there was no disputing Wilks was the one who pulled the trigger but said his intent was not to kill.
And that was a big question.
However, it wasn’t difficult to answer, either.
“The person from the van told my mom, ‘Shut the (expletive) up,’ and, ‘(Expletive), I’ll kill you,’” said Caleb Smith. “Then, he shot my mom, and got in his car and made a U-turn.” “From Caleb Smith and Adria Harris, they heard just before the shot was fired, ‘(Expletive), I’ll kill you,’” said Tiffin. “In the state’s view, that’s about as clear as a statement of intent because it is followed immediately by a gunshot.”
Now, that’s pretty clear cut.
Here’s the thing, though. If you have a firearm on your person, it’s on you to do everything you can to manage the situation to keep it from getting to this point. If you’re someone with a temper, do everyone a favor. Get anger management therapy immediately. Treat it. Get your temper in check.
Further, learn some de-escalation techniques to try and calm situations down, if possible. Do everything you can to settle stuff down, if for no other reason than so you don’t end up in court getting life in prison over your reaction to a fender bender.
Now, a woman is dead, her son is likely traumatized, and someone else is going to prison for the rest of their life over an incident that just shouldn’t have happened.
Do yourself and your family a favor and learn.
I don’t know that Wilks had a temper issue or not. Maybe he was normally pretty chill but got set off this time. It doesn’t matter. He still went too far and is now going away.
Do not let this happen to you.