bearingarms--2020-01-30--NJ's New "Red Flag" Law Being Used More Than Once Per Day

According to statistics from New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts , the state ’ s red flag firearms seizure law , which took effect last September , has been used nearly 200 times to take firearms from individuals via a court order .
Scott Bach , the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs , tells NJ.com that the new law is stripping residents of their constitutional rights to due process and their right to keep and bear arms .
“ Red flag is travesty for anyone who values Constitutional rights , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs .
“ It ’ s abuse of process .
It is being used to harass gun owners.
” Bach said the rate at which people are having their guns seized under the law is about what the organization expected .
Petitions can be made based off online threats or erratic behavior by a person , among other reasons .
State Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald , D-Camden — a main sponsor of the law — told NJ Advance Media when the law went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around a mental health concern.
” “ In a lot of cases , you ’ ll hear that a family member will say their child was struggling with depression or suicidal tendencies , ” Greenwald said at the time .
“ They can now ask a judge to intercede and remove the gun until that individual can be tested and be determined to be safe to themselves and others.
” It would be good to know whether the suicide rate in the state has gone up or down since the law took effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had gone down , especially given the fact that the biggest increases in suicides in the state have been among pre-teens and adolescent girls .
In 2017 , there were 100 documented suicides among New Jersey ’ s 15- to 24-year-olds , the highest number and rate since the 1990s , according to federal data .
The state has also seen an alarming rise in attempted overdoses among children between ages 9 and 12 , according to a report by its Poison Control Center .
However , despite the climbing youth suicide numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , treatment for depression and anxiety remains inaccessible and unaffordable for many families , NJ Advance Media ’ s investigation found .
Tens of thousands of students attend schools that don ’ t meet the recommended ratio for counselors or certified school nurses , and the state has a stunning shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists .
Rather than addressing the real issue , lawmakers decided instead to “ do something ” and approve a red flag bill that strips people of their rights but does absolutely nothing to help those who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementation of the state ’ s Extreme Risk Protection Order law , according to the statistics , it should come as no surprise that judges are approving the vast majority of petitions .
So far , 186 temporary extreme risk protective orders have been granted as of Jan. 22 , according to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts , meaning more than one person a day has had their guns taken away — at least temporarily — in New Jersey since the law went into effect .
In 25 cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order was denied by a judge , according to court data .
After a temporary order is granted and the firearms are seized , the individual is entitled to a hearing within 10 days in front of the judge before a final order is issued .
If a final order is granted by a judge , it lasts indefinitely , but the person can also seek to have the order terminated at any time after the order goes into effect .
There have been a total of 88 final orders granted since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Administrative Office of the Courts .
Judges have denied 29 final orders , according to the courts .
The vast majority of requests have been approved , though it ’ s interesting to note that only about half of the temporary orders led to a final order being granted .
To me , that suggests that the temporary orders are being rubber-stamped by judges , while the evidence that ’ s presented in many cases may not be enough to seek or receive a final order .
Of course this system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests it may already be happening to dozens of New Jersey residents .

According to statistics from New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, the state’s red flag firearms seizure law, which took effect last September, has been used nearly 200 times to take firearms from individuals via a court order. Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, tells NJ.com that the new law is stripping residents of their constitutional rights to due process and their right to keep and bear arms.
“Red flag is travesty for anyone who values Constitutional rights,” said Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. “It’s abuse of process. It is being used to harass gun owners.” Bach said the rate at which people are having their guns seized under the law is about what the organization expected. Petitions can be made based off online threats or erratic behavior by a person, among other reasons. State Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, D-Camden — a main sponsor of the law — told NJ Advance Media when the law went into effect that it was “really based around a mental health concern.” “In a lot of cases, you’ll hear that a family member will say their child was struggling with depression or suicidal tendencies,” Greenwald said at the time. “They can now ask a judge to intercede and remove the gun until that individual can be tested and be determined to be safe to themselves and others.”
It would be good to know whether the suicide rate in the state has gone up or down since the law took effect. I would be shocked if it had gone down, especially given the fact that the biggest increases in suicides in the state have been among pre-teens and adolescent girls.
In 2017, there were 100 documented suicides among New Jersey’s 15- to 24-year-olds, the highest number and rate since the 1990s, according to federal data. The state has also seen an alarming rise in attempted overdoses among children between ages 9 and 12, according to a report by its Poison Control Center. However, despite the climbing youth suicide numbers and increased demand for mental health services, treatment for depression and anxiety remains inaccessible and unaffordable for many families, NJ Advance Media’s investigation found. Tens of thousands of students attend schools that don’t meet the recommended ratio for counselors or certified school nurses, and the state has a stunning shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists.
Rather than addressing the real issue, lawmakers decided instead to “do something” and approve a red flag bill that strips people of their rights but does absolutely nothing to help those who are truly in crisis.
As for the implementation of the state’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law, according to the statistics, it should come as no surprise that judges are approving the vast majority of petitions.
So far, 186 temporary extreme risk protective orders have been granted as of Jan. 22, according to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning more than one person a day has had their guns taken away — at least temporarily — in New Jersey since the law went into effect. In 25 cases, a petition was made but the temporary order was denied by a judge, according to court data. After a temporary order is granted and the firearms are seized, the individual is entitled to a hearing within 10 days in front of the judge before a final order is issued. If a final order is granted by a judge, it lasts indefinitely, but the person can also seek to have the order terminated at any time after the order goes into effect. There have been a total of 88 final orders granted since the law went into effect, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Judges have denied 29 final orders, according to the courts.
The vast majority of requests have been approved, though it’s interesting to note that only about half of the temporary orders led to a final order being granted. To me, that suggests that the temporary orders are being rubber-stamped by judges, while the evidence that’s presented in many cases may not be enough to seek or receive a final order. Of course this system is ripe for abuse, and the evidence suggests it may already be happening to dozens of New Jersey residents.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Gabby Giffords Thinks It Takes Courage To Preach To The Choir

Gabby Giffords was always a Democrat , but she wasn ’ t anti-gun .
Not for a long time , anyway .
In fairness , being shot does occasionally make people take a step back and reevaluate things .
However , Giffords was running for office in a pro-gun state , so it was being rabidly anti-gun wasn ’ t in her best interest at the time .
After she was shot and left Congress , though , she turned all her attention to gun control .
Whether it was from being shot or whether she always held these beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the outside to know .
However , I can laugh at her for talking about how pushing gun control requires “ courage.
” Only blocks away from where two shooters gunned down four people in Jersey City last month in what was ruled a hate crime , former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and Gov .
Phil Murphy on Wednesday announced a $ 20 million plan to combat gun violence .
Giffords , who was the victim of a near-fatal shooting in 2011 , said it ’ s “ time to come together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stopping gun violence takes courage , the courage to do what ’ s right , ” Giffords said to a room of at least 150 people inside the Mary McLeod Bethune Life Center in Jersey City .
“ Be bold , be courageous .
The nation ’ s counting on you , ” she added .
“ We must never stop fighting .
Fight , fight , fight !
” So the one-time congresswoman who was photographed for her campaign on a gun range with an AR-15 so she could “ toughen her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , now that there ’ s absolutely nothing to risk , she ’ s all about the “ courage ” to fight for gun control .
Worse , she chooses a gun controlled city in one of the most gun-controlled states to preach to the choir and has the audacity to talk about courage ?
There ’ s not a damn thing she did here that was brave except for continuing to ignore her rank hypocrisy on guns .
Further , it ’ s rather insulting to those of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Arguing that it takes courage to fight for gun control suggests there ’ s something to lose by fighting for gun control .
Since this is New Jersey she ’ s saying this in , it ’ s certainly not losing elections .
The implication is that there ’ s a risk to life and limb for making a stand like this .
And that pisses me off .
We aren ’ t the dangerous ones and we ’ re good and fed up with being treated like we are .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Giffords turned to when she wanted to “ toughen her image ” for the voters ; when she wanted to look like a badass .
Where were her claims of courage then ?
“ Oh , but Tom , she got shot .
That changes things !
” Bull .
Rep. Steve Scalise got shot too , and he ’ s still as pro-gun as he was five seconds before a Bernie Bro opened fire .
The “ she got shot ” justification is bull .
Giffords and her husband , Senatorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For Giffords , it was to betray the image she portrayed to get elected in the first place so she could capitalize on her status as a survivor .
That didn ’ t take courage , that was nothing more than rank opportunism .

Gabby Giffords was always a Democrat, but she wasn’t anti-gun. Not for a long time, anyway.
In fairness, being shot does occasionally make people take a step back and reevaluate things. However, Giffords was running for office in a pro-gun state, so it was being rabidly anti-gun wasn’t in her best interest at the time.
After she was shot and left Congress, though, she turned all her attention to gun control. Whether it was from being shot or whether she always held these beliefs, it’s impossible for us on the outside to know.
However, I can laugh at her for talking about how pushing gun control requires “courage.”
Only blocks away from where two shooters gunned down four people in Jersey City last month in what was ruled a hate crime, former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and Gov. Phil Murphy on Wednesday announced a $20 million plan to combat gun violence. Giffords, who was the victim of a near-fatal shooting in 2011, said it’s “time to come together” and tackle gun violence. … “Stopping gun violence takes courage, the courage to do what’s right,” Giffords said to a room of at least 150 people inside the Mary McLeod Bethune Life Center in Jersey City. “Be bold, be courageous. The nation’s counting on you,” she added. “We must never stop fighting. Fight, fight, fight!”
So the one-time congresswoman who was photographed for her campaign on a gun range with an AR-15 so she could “toughen her image” now crusades against guns.
In other words, now that there’s absolutely nothing to risk, she’s all about the “courage” to fight for gun control. Worse, she chooses a gun controlled city in one of the most gun-controlled states to preach to the choir and has the audacity to talk about courage?
There’s not a damn thing she did here that was brave except for continuing to ignore her rank hypocrisy on guns.
Further, it’s rather insulting to those of us on the other side of the debate. Arguing that it takes courage to fight for gun control suggests there’s something to lose by fighting for gun control. Since this is New Jersey she’s saying this in, it’s certainly not losing elections. The implication is that there’s a risk to life and limb for making a stand like this.
And that pisses me off.
We aren’t the dangerous ones and we’re good and fed up with being treated like we are.
Meanwhile, we’re the people folks like Giffords turned to when she wanted to “toughen her image” for the voters; when she wanted to look like a badass. Where were her claims of courage then?
“Oh, but Tom, she got shot. That changes things!”
Bull. Rep. Steve Scalise got shot too, and he’s still as pro-gun as he was five seconds before a Bernie Bro opened fire. The “she got shot” justification is bull. Giffords and her husband, Senatorial candidate Mark Kelly, made a choice. For Giffords, it was to betray the image she portrayed to get elected in the first place so she could capitalize on her status as a survivor.
That didn’t take courage, that was nothing more than rank opportunism.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Utah Gets Its First 2A Sanctuary County

Utah Gets Its First 2A Sanctuary County

Inspired by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that has swept across the state of Virginia , commissioners in Uintah County , Utah have declared the community a Second Amendment Sanctuary as well , becoming the first in the state to do so .
The unanimous vote took place Wednesday morning , and Fox 13 in Utah reports the ordinance has buy-in from the county attorney as well as commissioners .
Bill Stringer , one of the Uintah County Commissioners at the special meetings said their needs , as a county , are not being represented on the Federal and State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people living in rural America that are saying , no one is listening to us , ” said Stringer .
“ No one is paying any attention.
” Stringer said the people of Uintah County are “ clinging ” to their guns and bibles as they watch some in the nation push for gun control .
The ordinance passed makes Uintah County a Second Amendment Sanctuary – meaning any gun control measures passed by the Federal and State governments can be considered unconstitutional except for extreme circumstances .
Jonathan Stearmer , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinance during the meeting , countering the call for more gun control by stating it violated the constitutional right to bear arms .
“ The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right , ” said Stearmer .
“ Which means those fundamental rights can only be restricted , narrowly tailored to a state interest.
” Note that the commissioners in Uintah County have passed an actual ordinance , not just a resolution .
Under the language approved by commissioners , any violation of the ordinance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce unconstitutional gun control laws ) will be considered a misdemeanor offense in the county .
County commissioners say the move is a pre-emptive one , rather than a response to any particular piece of legislation filed in Utah this year .
Meanwhile , anti-gun activists continue their campaign against the movement , with gun control advocate and professor Robert Spitzer penning a new attack on Second Amendment Sanctuaries for a Syracuse , New York paper .
In 2018 , for example , a county in Illinois enacted a resolution vowing not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the state legislature , including proposals to ban bump stocks , assault weapons and large-capacity magazines ( those holding more than 10 rounds ) .
A Virginia county recently enacted a resolution that “ would oppose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
” Over 70 local governments in Illinois have enacted similar measures ; in Virginia , where the state legislature is now on the verge of enacting several new gun laws , more than 120 municipalities have approved sanctuary provisions .
In all , local governments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now this movement has , it seems , come to New York .
Last week , the Solon Town Board , located in my home county of Cortland , announced that it was going to consider such a resolution .
According to a board member , “ We ’ ll abide by the state ’ s [ gun ] laws they have set now , ” but “ if they try any overreach .
.
.
we ’ re not going to abide by that.
” Spitzer lays out the usual objections ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , communities can ’ t just decide not to enforce laws they don ’ t like , and so on .
The problem with Spitzer ’ s argument is that these sanctuaries aren ’ t actually doing anything illegal .
In fact , while Uintah County passed an actual ordinance , most of the Second Amendment Sanctuaries around the country have simply passed non-binding resolutions vowing to oppose any unconstitutional gun law by any legal means .
Spitzer , like other anti-gun activists , also ignores the long history in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s to Prohibition and the civil rights movement of the 20th century .
What Spitzer defines as dangerous is simply part of our cultural DNA .
I suspect that we ’ ll soon see more counties in Utah follow Uintah County ’ s lead , and I ’ ll be keeping my eye on wha the town board in Solon , New York does as well .
Despite the huffing and puffing by gun control advocates , the Second Amendment Sanctuary isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it ’ s just getting started .

Inspired by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that has swept across the state of Virginia, commissioners in Uintah County, Utah have declared the community a Second Amendment Sanctuary as well, becoming the first in the state to do so.
The unanimous vote took place Wednesday morning, and Fox 13 in Utah reports the ordinance has buy-in from the county attorney as well as commissioners.
Bill Stringer, one of the Uintah County Commissioners at the special meetings said their needs, as a county, are not being represented on the Federal and State level. “It’s unsettling for people living in rural America that are saying, no one is listening to us,” said Stringer. “No one is paying any attention.” Stringer said the people of Uintah County are “clinging” to their guns and bibles as they watch some in the nation push for gun control. The ordinance passed makes Uintah County a Second Amendment Sanctuary – meaning any gun control measures passed by the Federal and State governments can be considered unconstitutional except for extreme circumstances. Jonathan Stearmer, the Principal Deputy Uintah County Attorney explained the ordinance during the meeting, countering the call for more gun control by stating it violated the constitutional right to bear arms. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right,” said Stearmer. “Which means those fundamental rights can only be restricted, narrowly tailored to a state interest.”
Note that the commissioners in Uintah County have passed an actual ordinance, not just a resolution. Under the language approved by commissioners, any violation of the ordinance (in essence, any attempt to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws) will be considered a misdemeanor offense in the county.
County commissioners say the move is a pre-emptive one, rather than a response to any particular piece of legislation filed in Utah this year.
Meanwhile, anti-gun activists continue their campaign against the movement, with gun control advocate and professor Robert Spitzer penning a new attack on Second Amendment Sanctuaries for a Syracuse, New York paper.
In 2018, for example, a county in Illinois enacted a resolution vowing not to enforce “unconstitutional” gun measures then before the state legislature, including proposals to ban bump stocks, assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds). A Virginia county recently enacted a resolution that “would oppose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.” Over 70 local governments in Illinois have enacted similar measures; in Virginia, where the state legislature is now on the verge of enacting several new gun laws, more than 120 municipalities have approved sanctuary provisions. In all, local governments in 20 states have done the same. Now this movement has, it seems, come to New York. Last week, the Solon Town Board, located in my home county of Cortland, announced that it was going to consider such a resolution. According to a board member, “We’ll abide by the state’s [gun] laws they have set now,” but “if they try any overreach. . . we’re not going to abide by that.”
Spitzer lays out the usual objections; the the resolutions have no force of law, communities can’t just decide not to enforce laws they don’t like, and so on. The problem with Spitzer’s argument is that these sanctuaries aren’t actually doing anything illegal. In fact, while Uintah County passed an actual ordinance, most of the Second Amendment Sanctuaries around the country have simply passed non-binding resolutions vowing to oppose any unconstitutional gun law by any legal means.
Spitzer, like other anti-gun activists, also ignores the long history in the United States to local opposition to unjust laws, from the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s to Prohibition and the civil rights movement of the 20th century. What Spitzer defines as dangerous is simply part of our cultural DNA.
I suspect that we’ll soon see more counties in Utah follow Uintah County’s lead, and I’ll be keeping my eye on wha the town board in Solon, New York does as well. Despite the huffing and puffing by gun control advocates, the Second Amendment Sanctuary isn’t going away any time soon. In fact, it’s just getting started.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Despite No New Gun Laws, Firearm Fatalities Didn't Increase

This time last year , anti-gunners eagerly jumped on an increase in the firearm fatality rate .
That ’ s the rate of people who are killed with a firearm versus other causes .
The numbers are released at a delayed rate , so last year ’ s stories were all based on violence from 2017 .
Yet after 2017 , there were no real advances in gun control .
No new national laws , no new restrictions on firearm ownership .
Nothing at all ; a state we ’ ve been told would only make the problem worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers in and guess what ?
The report , which is often released 12 or so months after year-end , shows nearly 40,000 people died by firearms in America , including suicide , homicide and accidents .
The rate of firearm deaths dipped slightly between 2017 and 2018 , going from 12 to 11.9 per 100,000 people .
Those numbers are age-adjusted , meaning researchers controlled for differences in the distribution of various age groups , which can affect mortality rates .
In 2017 , 39,773 people died by firearm , the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC started tracking them in 1979 .
In 2018 , an almost identical 39,741 people died by firearm .
Now , I ’ ll be honest .
Holding ground isn ’ t really ideal .
I won ’ t pretend it is .
However , there ’ s something important we all need to understand about these numbers , and that ’ s how that 39,741 number comes about .
You see , that ’ s the total number of people killed with a firearm .
It doesn ’ t differentiate between homicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore while bandying it about like a club .
Suicide is a mental health issue , not a gun issue .
Suicide may be carried out most often with a gun , but it ’ s not the only way someone can kill themselves .
Gun control only attempts to address one of those methods of suicide and ignores all the other .
More importantly , it ignores the roots of the issue .
Namely , the mental wellbeing of the people who may attempt suicide .
The real issue , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems that while the total number of fatalities held pretty firm , the suicide rate is what increased .
In 2018 , the number of suicides in the U.S. increased , continuing a multi-year trend .
The national age-adjusted rate ticked up slightly in 2018 , going from 14 to 14.2 per 100,000 people .
A firearm is by far the most common method of suicide , accounting for about 50 % nationwide and suicides account for by far the most firearms deaths .
But that relationship is often overlooked .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Call To Mind and Guns & America found that the vast majority of Americans were unaware that suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths , overestimating the impact of mass shootings and other homicides on the numbers .
First , good on KERA News for pointing out this fact .
Most media outlets tend to not dig much deeper than the total number .
That said , note that the suicide rate increased .
If that went up and the overall number dipped just a bit , then we can extrapolate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all without new gun control legislation being passed .
That ’ s an important point , because we were told without those laws , the problem would keep getting worse .
Well , it didn ’ t .
That ’ s because their attempts at scaremongering are just that , scaremongering .

This time last year, anti-gunners eagerly jumped on an increase in the firearm fatality rate. That’s the rate of people who are killed with a firearm versus other causes. The numbers are released at a delayed rate, so last year’s stories were all based on violence from 2017.
Yet after 2017, there were no real advances in gun control. No new national laws, no new restrictions on firearm ownership. Nothing at all; a state we’ve been told would only make the problem worse.
Well, we have 2018’s numbers in and guess what?
The report, which is often released 12 or so months after year-end, shows nearly 40,000 people died by firearms in America, including suicide, homicide and accidents. The rate of firearm deaths dipped slightly between 2017 and 2018, going from 12 to 11.9 per 100,000 people. Those numbers are age-adjusted, meaning researchers controlled for differences in the distribution of various age groups, which can affect mortality rates. In 2017, 39,773 people died by firearm, the highest number of firearm deaths recorded since the CDC started tracking them in 1979. In 2018, an almost identical 39,741 people died by firearm.
Now, I’ll be honest. Holding ground isn’t really ideal. I won’t pretend it is.
However, there’s something important we all need to understand about these numbers, and that’s how that 39,741 number comes about. You see, that’s the total number of people killed with a firearm. It doesn’t differentiate between homicide and suicide, a point anti-gunners typically ignore while bandying it about like a club.
Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Suicide may be carried out most often with a gun, but it’s not the only way someone can kill themselves. Gun control only attempts to address one of those methods of suicide and ignores all the other.
More importantly, it ignores the roots of the issue. Namely, the mental wellbeing of the people who may attempt suicide.
The real issue, though, is violent crimes like homicide.
Yet it seems that while the total number of fatalities held pretty firm, the suicide rate is what increased.
In 2018, the number of suicides in the U.S. increased, continuing a multi-year trend. The national age-adjusted rate ticked up slightly in 2018, going from 14 to 14.2 per 100,000 people. A firearm is by far the most common method of suicide, accounting for about 50% nationwide and suicides account for by far the most firearms deaths. But that relationship is often overlooked. A 2019 national poll from APM Research Lab, Call To Mind and Guns & America found that the vast majority of Americans were unaware that suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths, overestimating the impact of mass shootings and other homicides on the numbers.
First, good on KERA News for pointing out this fact. Most media outlets tend to not dig much deeper than the total number.
That said, note that the suicide rate increased. If that went up and the overall number dipped just a bit, then we can extrapolate that gun homicides actually decreased.
And all without new gun control legislation being passed.
That’s an important point, because we were told without those laws, the problem would keep getting worse. Well, it didn’t. That’s because their attempts at scaremongering are just that, scaremongering.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Bloomberg Unveils Super Bowl Ad Focusing On Gun Control

Michael Bloomberg released his :60 Super Bowl ad on Thursday morning , and the spot focuses on his gun control efforts as the founder of Everytown for Gun Safety .
The ad , titled “ George , ” talks about 20-year old George Kemp , Jr. who was shot and killed in Texas in 2013 .
Kemp ’ s mother , Calandrian Simpson Kemp , describes the pain of losing her child , before the ad transitions to pictures of Bloomberg at a Mayors Against Illegal Guns podium as Kemp says that Bloomberg “ heard mothers crying , so he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that Bloomberg isn ’ t “ afraid of the gun lobby… they ’ re afraid of him , ” portraying the fight as one between the valiant billionaire and some amorphous “ gun lobby , ” as opposed to Bloomberg ’ s billions versus the millions of law-abiding gun owners he wants to turn into felons or unarmed subjects .
If Bloomberg is really serious about tackling “ gun violence , ” you ’ d think he ’ d want criminals to be afraid of him , not the nation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mention a single gun control policy backed by Bloomberg , nor does highlight Bloomberg ’ s comments just a few years ago about reducing gun violence by disarming black men under the age of 25 , as well as “ throwing ” young minority males “ up against the wall ” to stop and frisk them for weapons as a means of enforcing his gun control laws .
In fact , now that Bloomberg ’ s running for president , he now says he ’ s opposed to the controversial practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bloomberg hugging a young child , with the tag “ Mike Will Get It Done , ” but it ’ s unclear what the “ it ” is .
Reducing violent crime ?
It ’ s already declining .
The fact is that Bloomberg and gun control groups are pushing policies that an increasing number of researchers say are ineffective at stopping violence involving firearms .
Dr Bindu Kalesan says that her work and that of others shows even further differences between various groups and communities that suggest that a broad and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ineffective .
Instead , she says that efforts to counteract gun violence need to be tailored to the groups they affect and address the social issues that drive them , such as poverty , mental health issues and drug use .
That ’ s not the Bloomberg way .
Instead , his plans are aimed squarely at legal gun owners .
You can watch Bloomberg ’ s ad , which doesn ’ t mention any of these policies , below .

Michael Bloomberg released his :60 Super Bowl ad on Thursday morning, and the spot focuses on his gun control efforts as the founder of Everytown for Gun Safety.
The ad, titled “George,” talks about 20-year old George Kemp, Jr. who was shot and killed in Texas in 2013. Kemp’s mother, Calandrian Simpson Kemp, describes the pain of losing her child, before the ad transitions to pictures of Bloomberg at a Mayors Against Illegal Guns podium as Kemp says that Bloomberg “heard mothers crying, so he started fighting.”
Kemp goes on to say that Bloomberg isn’t “afraid of the gun lobby… they’re afraid of him,” portraying the fight as one between the valiant billionaire and some amorphous “gun lobby,” as opposed to Bloomberg’s billions versus the millions of law-abiding gun owners he wants to turn into felons or unarmed subjects. If Bloomberg is really serious about tackling “gun violence,” you’d think he’d want criminals to be afraid of him, not the nation’s legal gun owners.
The ad doesn’t mention a single gun control policy backed by Bloomberg, nor does highlight Bloomberg’s comments just a few years ago about reducing gun violence by disarming black men under the age of 25, as well as “throwing” young minority males “up against the wall” to stop and frisk them for weapons as a means of enforcing his gun control laws. In fact, now that Bloomberg’s running for president, he now says he’s opposed to the controversial practice.
The ad closes with a shot of Bloomberg hugging a young child, with the tag “Mike Will Get It Done,” but it’s unclear what the “it” is. Reducing violent crime? It’s already declining.
The fact is that Bloomberg and gun control groups are pushing policies that an increasing number of researchers say are ineffective at stopping violence involving firearms.
Dr Bindu Kalesan says that her work and that of others shows even further differences between various groups and communities that suggest that a broad and blunt approach to stemming gun violence may be ineffective. Instead, she says that efforts to counteract gun violence need to be tailored to the groups they affect and address the social issues that drive them, such as poverty, mental health issues and drug use.
That’s not the Bloomberg way. Instead, his plans are aimed squarely at legal gun owners.
Require point-of-sale background checks for all gun sales and finally close the private sale loophole, which enables prohibited people to buy guns simply by finding unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on the Internet.
Require every gun buyer to get a permit before making a purchase.
Use sales records to identify crime guns and notify local police when individuals have been prohibited from having a gun. A central system will let local authorities know when a gun owner has become barred from having firearms – due to a criminal conviction or a restraining order.
Allow for extreme risk screening before guns are purchased so that issuers would be equipped to deny permits to troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others.
Curb the dangers of downloadable guns and ghost guns by reversing Trump’s proposed firearm export regulations that loosen oversight of gun exports—and make it easier to publish 3D-printing gun blueprints online. And work to pass legislation barring online publication of those files.
Pass a federal red flag law that expands extreme risk orders to 50 states—and funds state efforts to maximize the policy.
Require gun buyers to be at least 21 years old to buy handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
Require all gun buyers to wait at least 48 hours before any firearm purchase.
Reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Require secure storage of firearms which have been shown to reduce the risk of child gun injuries by up to 85 percent. However, an estimated 4.6 million American children live in houses with an unlocked gun.
Ban all guns in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities – except for law enforcement.
You can watch Bloomberg’s ad, which doesn’t mention any of these policies, below.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Lawmaker In Hot Water After Comments About Preventing Holocaust

Earlier this week , it was Holocaust Remembrance Day , a solemn day we remember the millions of lives lost to the Nazi concentration camps .
No , not lost .
Taken .
Those lives were taken from millions of Jews whose only “ crime ” was to be Jewish .
Those people were at the mercy of an unmerciful government and it did not work out well for any of them .
Now , a lawmaker is under fire for his words regarding the Holocaust and gun rights .
A Republican senator from Kent County is under fire after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive ideas in the U.S. could lead to events similar to the Holocaust .
“ For we in this chamber to think that it ( the Holocaust ) can ’ t happen here ?
That is absolutely a fool ’ s errand , ” Lawson said on the Senate floor on Tuesday .
“ We can when we continue to take away the rights , we continue to work on disarming our population , our legally owned firearms , taking away and continue to encroach on that .
… We continue this path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t forget that everything that Hitler did was legal .
Murdering those people was legal .
Disarming those people was legal .
Do we want to follow that same path ?
Because I ’ m telling you , from where I sit , it ’ s not that far away.
” Lawson ’ s argument is one that gun rights advocates in Delaware use when lobbying against gun control legislation in the statehouse .
Last week , multiple people made a similar argument during a committee hearing for a Democrat-sponsored bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware .
According to PolitiFact.com , a news organization that fact-checks political arguments , gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust .
The problem is PolitiFact is looking at it from an incredibly biased perspective .
Here ’ s precisely what PolitiFact has to say : In other words , their entire decision to classify the claim as false is premised on the idea that the Nazis were just too big and powerful and that they ’ d have just rolled over Jewish resistance .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really be supported by history .
Small , under-armed groups have given militaries fits for generations .
The mujahadeen fought the Soviets to a standstill .
The Viet Cong made life in Vietnam more interesting than many veterans care to remember .
Those are just two examples .
So Lawson ’ s argument , regardless of what PolitiFact claims , is certainly valid .
Not that some of his colleagues seem to understand that fact .
Also that afternoon , the House passed a bill by Rep. Debra Heffernan , D-Bellefonte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charter schools teach about the Holocaust and genocide .
Lawson supports this bill .
Heffernan also sponsored the resolution to recognize Monday as International Holocaust Remembrance Day .
In a statement , Heffernan said she was “ beyond horrified and appalled ” by Lawson ’ s comments and she felt like they were directed at Jaffe , her constituent .
“ Sen .
Lawson took that horrifying recounting of surviving a genocide , and while Ms. Jaffe was still in the chamber , tried to turn her somber story into a Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen .
Lawson owes Ms. Jaffe an apology.
” Lawson said he would not , nor should he .
One of the phrases we often hear about the Holocaust , a phrase we should all internalize , is “ Never Again.
” I hate to break it to you , but if you don ’ t have an armed population , the odds of something like this happening again go up .
Look at the attempted genocides all over the world since World War II .
None have been tried in an armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s comments , but she ’ ll learn to deal with it .
I , for one , refuse to allow myself or my family to be at the mercy of a state that can decide at any moment to become unmerciful .

Earlier this week, it was Holocaust Remembrance Day, a solemn day we remember the millions of lives lost to the Nazi concentration camps. No, not lost. Taken. Those lives were taken from millions of Jews whose only “crime” was to be Jewish.
Those people were at the mercy of an unmerciful government and it did not work out well for any of them.
Now, a lawmaker is under fire for his words regarding the Holocaust and gun rights.
A Republican senator from Kent County is under fire after warning that stricter gun laws and other progressive ideas in the U.S. could lead to events similar to the Holocaust. “For we in this chamber to think that it (the Holocaust) can’t happen here? That is absolutely a fool’s errand,” Lawson said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. “We can when we continue to take away the rights, we continue to work on disarming our population, our legally owned firearms, taking away and continue to encroach on that. … We continue this path that we’re taking, please don’t forget that everything that Hitler did was legal. Murdering those people was legal. Disarming those people was legal. Do we want to follow that same path? Because I’m telling you, from where I sit, it’s not that far away.” … Lawson’s argument is one that gun rights advocates in Delaware use when lobbying against gun control legislation in the statehouse. Last week, multiple people made a similar argument during a committee hearing for a Democrat-sponsored bill to ban homemade and 3D-printed guns in Delaware. According to PolitiFact.com, a news organization that fact-checks political arguments, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust.
The problem is PolitiFact is looking at it from an incredibly biased perspective. Here’s precisely what PolitiFact has to say:
Let’s make something clear: The Nazis did deny guns specifically to Jews. But, given the size of their forces and their methods of confiscation and extermination, this is a trivial factor. The notion that it would have made any difference is unreasonable.
In other words, their entire decision to classify the claim as false is premised on the idea that the Nazis were just too big and powerful and that they’d have just rolled over Jewish resistance. That’s a biased claim and one that can’t really be supported by history.
Small, under-armed groups have given militaries fits for generations. The mujahadeen fought the Soviets to a standstill. The Viet Cong made life in Vietnam more interesting than many veterans care to remember. Those are just two examples.
So Lawson’s argument, regardless of what PolitiFact claims, is certainly valid.
Not that some of his colleagues seem to understand that fact.
Also that afternoon, the House passed a bill by Rep. Debra Heffernan, D-Bellefonte, to require that Delaware public and charter schools teach about the Holocaust and genocide. Lawson supports this bill. Heffernan also sponsored the resolution to recognize Monday as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In a statement, Heffernan said she was “beyond horrified and appalled” by Lawson’s comments and she felt like they were directed at Jaffe, her constituent. “Sen. Lawson took that horrifying recounting of surviving a genocide, and while Ms. Jaffe was still in the chamber, tried to turn her somber story into a Second Amendment argument,” Heffernan said. “Sen. Lawson owes Ms. Jaffe an apology.”
Lawson said he would not, nor should he.
One of the phrases we often hear about the Holocaust, a phrase we should all internalize, is “Never Again.” I hate to break it to you, but if you don’t have an armed population, the odds of something like this happening again go up. Look at the attempted genocides all over the world since World War II. None have been tried in an armed society.
Heffernan may not like Lawson’s comments, but she’ll learn to deal with it.
I, for one, refuse to allow myself or my family to be at the mercy of a state that can decide at any moment to become unmerciful.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Petition Begun To Move County To West Virginia

Well , technically , no one will be “ moving ” the county .
What will happen , though , is that the county will shift as part of Virginia and into West Virginia .
At least , that ’ s the theory .
You see , a lot of Virginia counties are displeased with how Governor Ralph Northam and his fellow beltway Democrats are bound and determined to ram gun control down the throat of the rest of the state , regardless of what they want .
It ’ s a prime example of why were have an electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those Virginian counties that are taking issue with it have an out .
West Virginia has offered them a new home .
Now , it looks like folks in one county may be considering taking them up on the offer .
Campbell County attorney and conservative activist , Rick Boyer , is following through with a plan to add VEXIT on the 2020 ballot in November .
“ People are just realizing the brand new Virginia is not the Virginia I grew up in and my kids are not going to grow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I enjoyed and they want to do something about it , ” he said .
“ I think a large part of Virginia is realizing we are not represented by the current legislation and the current Governor.
” Boyer says the possibility of new gun laws in Virginia , as well as the movement in rural Virginia counties to establish themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries , inspired his petition aiming to get enough signatures to put the ‘ VEXIT ’ initiative on the ballot as a referendum .
“ Vexit ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supervisors .
The supervisor who asked for it said he ’ s not sure the county would be better off in WV , but that it would send a message to Va lawmakers .
https : //t.co/YmQpaymwvi pic.twitter.com/mriijTCwha Matt Cline , a member of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors says this is still a grey area and a number of things would need to be considered before a decision could be made , but he ’ s not surprised by the growing movement .
“ The fact that people in Campbell County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first to make this push as we did with the second amendment sanctuary status is not surprising to me at all , and I am proud the people are standing up , ” he said .
Of course , many have mocked the suggestion , including more than a few Republicans .
However , it ’ s not a bad idea .
The truth is , if the urban elites around the beltway are bound and determined to dictate to the rest of the state–people they barely deign to acknowledge as human–then maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to diffuse the impact those votes would make on them .
In other words , jumping ship to West Virginia might well be something to consider .
At the very least , a handful of counting making an effort to leave might well be enough to warn Northam and company of this anti-gun jihad they ’ ve been engaged in since they took office .
Is it worth breaking up your entire state for the sake of a few gun control laws that we all know won ’ t actually stop the bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts ?
I ’ d wager the answer is no .
If I ’ m wrong , though , then at least those counties can jump ship and head toward a state that ’ s not bound and determined to destroy their civil liberties .

Well, technically, no one will be “moving” the county. What will happen, though, is that the county will shift as part of Virginia and into West Virginia.
At least, that’s the theory.
You see, a lot of Virginia counties are displeased with how Governor Ralph Northam and his fellow beltway Democrats are bound and determined to ram gun control down the throat of the rest of the state, regardless of what they want. It’s a prime example of why were have an electoral college at the federal level.
However, those Virginian counties that are taking issue with it have an out. West Virginia has offered them a new home.
Now, it looks like folks in one county may be considering taking them up on the offer.
Campbell County attorney and conservative activist, Rick Boyer, is following through with a plan to add VEXIT on the 2020 ballot in November. “People are just realizing the brand new Virginia is not the Virginia I grew up in and my kids are not going to grow up in the same level of freedom that I enjoyed and they want to do something about it,” he said. “I think a large part of Virginia is realizing we are not represented by the current legislation and the current Governor.” Boyer says the possibility of new gun laws in Virginia, as well as the movement in rural Virginia counties to establish themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries, aiming to get enough signatures to put the ‘VEXIT’ initiative on the ballot as a referendum. “Vexit” on the agenda for Tazewell County Board of Supervisors. The supervisor who asked for it said he’s not sure the county would be better off in WV, but that it would send a message to Va lawmakers. https://t.co/YmQpaymwvi pic.twitter.com/mriijTCwha — Mason Adams (@MasonAtoms) February 4, 2020 Matt Cline, a member of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors says this is still a grey area and a number of things would need to be considered before a decision could be made, but he’s not surprised by the growing movement. “The fact that people in Campbell County are making this push and being the first to make this push as we did with the second amendment sanctuary status is not surprising to me at all, and I am proud the people are standing up,” he said.
Of course, many have mocked the suggestion, including more than a few Republicans. However, it’s not a bad idea. The truth is, if the urban elites around the beltway are bound and determined to dictate to the rest of the state–people they barely deign to acknowledge as human–then maybe it’s time for those states to diffuse the impact those votes would make on them.
In other words, jumping ship to West Virginia might well be something to consider. At the very least, a handful of counting making an effort to leave might well be enough to warn Northam and company of this anti-gun jihad they’ve been engaged in since they took office.
Is it worth breaking up your entire state for the sake of a few gun control laws that we all know won’t actually stop the bad people of that state from committing illegal acts?
I’d wager the answer is no.
If I’m wrong, though, then at least those counties can jump ship and head toward a state that’s not bound and determined to destroy their civil liberties.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Second Amendment Surge: January NICS Checks Set New Record

The FBI ’ s National Instant Check System conducted a record number of instant background checks in January of this year , according to the federal agency .
The FBI released the NICS numbers on Wednesday , showing more than 2.7 million background checks were processed through NICS in January .
That ’ s the highest number for January background checks ever recorded by the FBI , surpassing the 2.5 million checks performed in January of 2016 .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has noted that several states use the NICS system to regularly re-check the permit status of concealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with using the raw data as a barometer for gun sales .
That ’ s why the firearms industry trade group releases their own set of adjusted NICS numbers which seeks to account for those administrative checks , though they note : Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales , the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions .
In addition to other purposes , NICS is used to check transactions for sales or transfers of new or used firearms .
It should be noted that these statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiated through the NICS .
They do not represent the number of firearms sold or sales dollars .
Based on varying state laws , local market conditions and purchase scenarios , a one-to-one correlation can not be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale .
With that caveat in mind , the NSSF-adjusted NICS numbers for January 2020 are 1,171,478 .
That ’ s an 18.6 % increase over the adjusted figures for January of 2019 , and only the fifth January since 2000 that ’ s seen more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NSSF-adjusted figures .
January of 2020 was also the third highest adjusted NICS number since 2000 , behind January of 2013 and January of 2016 , when 1,362,847 or so retail checks were conducted .
In other words , a lot of Americans are buying a lot of firearms at the moment , though sales in one state in particular saw an enormous increase in January .
According to the NSSF , the state of Virginia saw a whopping 84.6 % increase in the adjusted NICS figure for January 2020 compared to January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Governor Ralph Northam is helping to sell a lot of guns he wants to ban , and I believe strong sales will continue in Virginia at least through July , when any bad bills signed by Governor Northam become bad laws .
I also suspect that , like Northam in Virginia , Democrat candidates like Michael Bloomberg are going to be responsible for a lot of gun sales across the country in the months ahead .
When Americans feel like their rights are being threatened , they generally respond by exercising those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I just hope that those Americans who purchase a firearm in the months ahead also vote in November , and work to elect strong , pro-Second Amendment candidates between now and Election Day .

The FBI’s National Instant Check System conducted a record number of instant background checks in January of this year, according to the federal agency. The FBI released the NICS numbers on Wednesday, showing more than 2.7 million background checks were processed through NICS in January.
That’s the highest number for January background checks ever recorded by the FBI, surpassing the 2.5 million checks performed in January of 2016.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has noted that several states use the NICS system to regularly re-check the permit status of concealed carry holders, which can cause issues with using the raw data as a barometer for gun sales. That’s why the firearms industry trade group releases their own set of adjusted NICS numbers which seeks to account for those administrative checks, though they note:
Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions. In addition to other purposes, NICS is used to check transactions for sales or transfers of new or used firearms. It should be noted that these statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold or sales dollars. Based on varying state laws, local market conditions and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.
With that caveat in mind, the NSSF-adjusted NICS numbers for January 2020 are 1,171,478. That’s an 18.6% increase over the adjusted figures for January of 2019, and only the fifth January since 2000 that’s seen more than a million NICS checks according to the NSSF-adjusted figures. January of 2020 was also the third highest adjusted NICS number since 2000, behind January of 2013 and January of 2016, when 1,362,847 or so retail checks were conducted.
In other words, a lot of Americans are buying a lot of firearms at the moment, though sales in one state in particular saw an enormous increase in January.
According to the NSSF, the state of Virginia saw a whopping 84.6% increase in the adjusted NICS figure for January 2020 compared to January of 2019, from 36,678 to 67,699. Governor Ralph Northam is helping to sell a lot of guns he wants to ban, and I believe strong sales will continue in Virginia at least through July, when any bad bills signed by Governor Northam become bad laws.
I also suspect that, like Northam in Virginia, Democrat candidates like Michael Bloomberg are going to be responsible for a lot of gun sales across the country in the months ahead. When Americans feel like their rights are being threatened, they generally respond by exercising those rights as much as they can. I just hope that those Americans who purchase a firearm in the months ahead also vote in November, and work to elect strong, pro-Second Amendment candidates between now and Election Day.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Indiana Senate Passes Teacher Gun Training Program

We protect all kinds of important things with armed individuals .
Banks have armed guards .
So do our military bases .
Even Congress has armed protection .
What often lacks armed protection , though , are school kids .
While some schools have resource officers , that only goes so far as we saw in Parkland .
Our children deserve to be protected by people with guns .
On the other hand , teachers are law-abiding adults .
They should be permitted to carry guns to protect themselves .
The fact that they would do so and , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a very pleasant bonus .
However , in far too many places , teachers don ’ t have that option .
In Indiana , though , they do .
However , some are concerned that the lack of dedicated training is a problem , so now thanks to the state Senate , a teacher gun training program is one step closer to being a reality .
Indiana teachers who carry guns in schools would need to undergo annual training under a proposal advancing in the state Legislature .
The state Senate voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that specifies a 40-hour training program for teachers volunteering to be armed , followed by 16 hours of additional training each year .
Republican Sen. Chris Garten of Charlestown urged support for the proposal because teachers can be armed with permission of their school districts but the state doesn ’ t have any training requirements .
I ’ m sorry , but I don ’ t trust a bunch of lawmakers to understand what all is involved in carrying a firearm .
While I think teachers should seek specific training for their needs–including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to see the law mandating it .
This is a step backward for Indiana and shouldn ’ t happen .
Of course , one group of people are taking issue with the bill for a completely different reason My knee-jerk reaction is that if Moms Demand Action hates it , it ’ s probably a good idea .
However , that ’ s not a great way to look at it .
They don ’ t want anyone carrying guns anywhere for anything .
They probably didn ’ t even realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place or else that would be the crux of their argument against the bill .
No , I ’ m not in favor of the bill , but only because it ’ s a step backward for Indiana teachers .
If this was necessary for them to be able to carry guns , then so be it .
That would be a move that would shift the needle toward liberty .
I can deal with that , even if it ’ s not the best-case scenario .
This , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction and that ’ s something we should never tolerate .
Our children deserve better .
They deserve armed teachers who are preserving their lives and liberty .
Unnecessary roadblocks like training requirements don ’ t make anyone any safer than they would be otherwise .
It just lets lawmakers pat themselves on the back as they make themselves feel important .

We protect all kinds of important things with armed individuals. Banks have armed guards. So do our military bases. Even Congress has armed protection.
What often lacks armed protection, though, are school kids. While some schools have resource officers, that only goes so far as we saw in Parkland. Our children deserve to be protected by people with guns.
On the other hand, teachers are law-abiding adults. They should be permitted to carry guns to protect themselves. The fact that they would do so and, by extension, also protect our children is just a very pleasant bonus.
However, in far too many places, teachers don’t have that option.
In Indiana, though, they do. However, some are concerned that the lack of dedicated training is a problem, so now thanks to the state Senate, a teacher gun training program is one step closer to being a reality.
Indiana teachers who carry guns in schools would need to undergo annual training under a proposal advancing in the state Legislature. The state Senate voted 42-7 Tuesday in favor of the bill that specifies a 40-hour training program for teachers volunteering to be armed, followed by 16 hours of additional training each year. Republican Sen. Chris Garten of Charlestown urged support for the proposal because teachers can be armed with permission of their school districts but the state doesn’t have any training requirements.
And?
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust a bunch of lawmakers to understand what all is involved in carrying a firearm. While I think teachers should seek specific training for their needs–including scenario-based training from qualified instructors–I don’t want to see the law mandating it. This is a step backward for Indiana and shouldn’t happen.
Of course, one group of people are taking issue with the bill for a completely different reason
Members of the gun control group Moms Demand Action told a Senate committee last week that they opposed the bill as “normalizing” a high-risk strategy of arming teachers.
My knee-jerk reaction is that if Moms Demand Action hates it, it’s probably a good idea. However, that’s not a great way to look at it. They don’t want anyone carrying guns anywhere for anything. They probably didn’t even realize teachers could carry a gun in Indiana in the first place or else that would be the crux of their argument against the bill.
No, I’m not in favor of the bill, but only because it’s a step backward for Indiana teachers. If this was necessary for them to be able to carry guns, then so be it. That would be a move that would shift the needle toward liberty. I can deal with that, even if it’s not the best-case scenario. This, though, moves the needle in the wrong direction and that’s something we should never tolerate.
Our children deserve better. They deserve armed teachers who are preserving their lives and liberty. Unnecessary roadblocks like training requirements don’t make anyone any safer than they would be otherwise. It just lets lawmakers pat themselves on the back as they make themselves feel important.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Massive Support for 2A Sanctuary Ordinance In Upstate New York County

Hundreds of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters turned out in Lewis County , New York on Tuesday evening to push local lawmakers to adopt a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance declaring no county funds will be spent on enforcing the state ’ s gun laws .
Patrick Morse was one of the more than 300 individuals in attendance , and the Lewis County gun store owner joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the support the proposed ordinance is receiving from residents , the county sheriff , and some members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Carpinelli is on board with the proposal , other upstate sheriffs say they can ’ t support similar ordinances in their counties .
In St. Lawrence County , after dozens of residents showed up for Monday ’ s local legislative meeting to push for an ordinance , Sheriff Brooks Bigwarfe said he can ’ t pick and choose what laws to enforce .
The sheriffs of Montgomery and Fulton counties are saying much the same thing .
Both Montgomery County Sheriff Jeff Smith and Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino issued statements this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking them to declare their respective counties “ 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties.
” Smith and Giardino are Republicans who serve rural counties with many active gun owners .
In written letters posted to their respective Facebook pages , each outlined his objection to New York ’ s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 , commonly known as the New York SAFE Act .
While each explained his strong support for the second amendment — each also said he can not announce he will refuse to enforce laws he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district attorney and former judge , explained why he won ’ t , and why other sheriffs should not , declare their counties “ 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.
” “ Under my Oath as the Fulton County Sheriff , my oath as an admitted Attorney in the State , as a Former District Attorney and County Court Judge , I can ’ t refuse to enforce any duly passed law which has been found Constitutional by the Courts .
To do so would make myself or any other Sheriff derelict in their duties and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ As Sheriffs we have to be cognizant of the fact that a Governor can remove a Sheriff who refuses to enforce the laws of the State of New York.
” Smith said Gov .
Andrew Cuomo could remove him from office if he announced he was going to refuse to enforce the SAFE Act , although he has some law enforcement discretion .
“ I , nor members of the Montgomery County Sheriff ’ s office , have ever gone out of our way to seek Safe Act violations and confiscate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter .
It is true that Gov .
Cuomo could remove any sheriff who says they ’ re not going to enforce any new gun control laws going forward , or will no longer enforce the SAFE Act provisions .
However , there ’ s nothing in state law forbidding those sheriffs from running for their old position in the special election that must take place after a removal by the governor .
Cuomo could appoint someone to fill the sheriff ’ s position , but only until that special election takes place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any upstate sheriff removed from office by Gov .
Cuomo for not enforcing the SAFE Act would handily win a special election , supported by residents who want to reward the sheriff for taking a stand .
Patrick Morse , the Lewis County gun store owner , says sheriffs need to decide what side they ’ re on ; the Constitution or Cuomo ’ s .
I suspect that if Cuomo were actually interested in strict enforcement of the SAFE Act laws , these sheriffs might be taking a different position .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAFE Act arrests and prosecutions are taking place in just two of New York City ’ s five boroughs , and Sheriff Smith says he ’ s unaware of any arrests for SAFE Act violations in Montgomery County .
If Cuomo was to demand that these sheriffs start looking for pistol permit holders who didn ’ t re-register their handguns or register their semi-automatic rifles with the State Police , for instance , would they still claim that they just have to follow the law , or would that be a line in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cross ?
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Patrick Morse above , and stick around afterward for today ’ s armed citizen story featuring a neighbor who came to the aid of a carjacking victim , a Delaware man arrested three times in the past five years for being a felon in possession of a firearm , and a Vietnam veteran who came to the aid of Cleveland police officers when a suspect was trying to escape .
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podcast page , or to Townhall Media on YouTube .
One programming note : I ’ ll be at the doctor ’ s on Friday with my wife to talk about the next steps in her cancer fight , so I ’ ll be pre-recording Friday ’ s all-email show on Thursday .
If you have any questions or comments , send them to , but get them in by Thursday morning if you want to have them addressed on Friday ’ s show .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , @ @ @ @ @

Hundreds of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters turned out in Lewis County, New York on Tuesday evening to push local lawmakers to adopt a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance declaring no county funds will be spent on enforcing the state’s gun laws.
Patrick Morse was one of the more than 300 individuals in attendance, and the Lewis County gun store owner joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the support the proposed ordinance is receiving from residents, the county sheriff, and some members of the county legislature.
While Lewis County Sheriff Michael Carpinelli is on board with the proposal, other upstate sheriffs say they can’t support similar ordinances in their counties. In St. Lawrence County, after dozens of residents showed up for Monday’s local legislative meeting to push for an ordinance, Sheriff Brooks Bigwarfe said he can’t pick and choose what laws to enforce.
“I can’t pick and choose laws. It might be a burglary. It might be the SAFE Act. I can’t start picking and choosing what laws I’m going to enforce. That would be dangerous for the office and the citizens of St. Lawrence County,” he said.
The sheriffs of Montgomery and Fulton counties are saying much the same thing.
Both Montgomery County Sheriff Jeff Smith and Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino issued statements this week rejecting calls from social media groups asking them to declare their respective counties “2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties.” Smith and Giardino are Republicans who serve rural counties with many active gun owners. In written letters posted to their respective Facebook pages, each outlined his objection to New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, commonly known as the New York SAFE Act. While each explained his strong support for the second amendment — each also said he cannot announce he will refuse to enforce laws he doesn’t like personally. Giardino, a former district attorney and former judge, explained why he won’t, and why other sheriffs should not, declare their counties “2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.” “Under my Oath as the Fulton County Sheriff, my oath as an admitted Attorney in the State, as a Former District Attorney and County Court Judge, I can’t refuse to enforce any duly passed law which has been found Constitutional by the Courts. To do so would make myself or any other Sheriff derelict in their duties and subject to removal,” he said. “As Sheriffs we have to be cognizant of the fact that a Governor can remove a Sheriff who refuses to enforce the laws of the State of New York.” Smith said Gov. Andrew Cuomo could remove him from office if he announced he was going to refuse to enforce the SAFE Act, although he has some law enforcement discretion. “I, nor members of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office, have ever gone out of our way to seek Safe Act violations and confiscate guns,” he said in his letter.
It is true that Gov. Cuomo could remove any sheriff who says they’re not going to enforce any new gun control laws going forward, or will no longer enforce the SAFE Act provisions. However, there’s nothing in state law forbidding those sheriffs from running for their old position in the special election that must take place after a removal by the governor. Cuomo could appoint someone to fill the sheriff’s position, but only until that special election takes place.
I have a sneaking suspicion that any upstate sheriff removed from office by Gov. Cuomo for not enforcing the SAFE Act would handily win a special election, supported by residents who want to reward the sheriff for taking a stand. Patrick Morse, the Lewis County gun store owner, says sheriffs need to decide what side they’re on; the Constitution or Cuomo’s.
I suspect that if Cuomo were actually interested in strict enforcement of the SAFE Act laws, these sheriffs might be taking a different position. We already know that the vast majority of SAFE Act arrests and prosecutions are taking place in just two of New York City’s five boroughs, and Sheriff Smith says he’s unaware of any arrests for SAFE Act violations in Montgomery County.
If Cuomo was to demand that these sheriffs start looking for pistol permit holders who didn’t re-register their handguns or register their semi-automatic rifles with the State Police, for instance, would they still claim that they just have to follow the law, or would that be a line in the sand that they would be unwilling to cross?
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Patrick Morse above, and stick around afterward for today’s armed citizen story featuring a neighbor who came to the aid of a carjacking victim, a Delaware man arrested three times in the past five years for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and a Vietnam veteran who came to the aid of Cleveland police officers when a suspect was trying to escape.
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Townhall.com’s podcast page, or to Townhall Media on YouTube. One programming note: I’ll be at the doctor’s on Friday with my wife to talk about the next steps in her cancer fight, so I’ll be pre-recording Friday’s all-email show on Thursday. If you have any questions or comments, send them to [email protected], but get them in by Thursday morning if you want to have them addressed on Friday’s show. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Washington Post Notes Impact Hunting Has On Endangered Species

There are a lot of people who look down on hunting and hunters .
They view hunting as barbaric , something one simply shouldn ’ t engage in as a civilized individual .
We should get our meat from the grocery store just like countless generations should have…in their minds , at least .
That mindset doesn ’ t make a lot of sense to me .
Hunters aren ’ t senselessly slaughtering animals and leaving their carcasses in the woods , for crying out loud .
There are laws that exist to regulate hunting , laws that also help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .
However , hunting is on the decline .
For better or worse , that ’ s just how it is .
Before all those animal lovers celebrate , though , they should understand the ramifications of that fact .
Unfortunately , that ’ s part of what hunting is about .
Hunters gladly pay the fees for hunting permits not just because they enjoy hunting , but because they understand where that money goes .
Hunters are , by their very nature , conservationists .
They want these animals protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balk and licensing fees for the most part because they know where that money goes .
Yet anti-hunters , who think of themselves as the true friends of wildlife , are more than content to let thousands of species die out than to let non-endangered species be hunted .
Now , I ’ m not going to say the anti-hunting activists are responsible for the decline in hunting .
I don ’ t know that they ’ ve been nearly as effective as they ’ d like to be .
I think part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunting falls on people like me , people have failed to successfully get their kids involved in hunting and other outdoor activities .
We fail and then the next generation has no interest in pursuing it on their own .
Still , it ’ s important we all remember what ’ s at stake .
It ’ s why I ’ m continuing to work to get my kids involved and out there ; all so we can preserve the things that really count .

There are a lot of people who look down on hunting and hunters. They view hunting as barbaric, something one simply shouldn’t engage in as a civilized individual. We should get our meat from the grocery store just like countless generations should have…in their minds, at least.
That mindset doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Hunters aren’t senselessly slaughtering animals and leaving their carcasses in the woods, for crying out loud. There are laws that exist to regulate hunting, laws that also help make sure hunting is viable for generations to come.
However, hunting is on the decline. For better or worse, that’s just how it is.
Before all those animal lovers celebrate, though, they should understand the ramifications of that fact.
But today, that symbiosis is off kilter: Americans’ interest in hunting is on the decline, cutting into funding for conservation, which stems largely from hunting licenses, permits and taxes on firearms, bows and other equipment. Even as more people are engaging in outdoor activities, hunting license sales have fallen from a peak of about 17 million in the early ’80s to 15 million last year, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data . The agency’s 2016 survey suggested a steeper decline to 11.5 million Americans who say they hunt, down more than 2 million from five years earlier. “The downward trends are clear,” said Samantha Pedder of the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, which works to increase the diversity of hunters. The resulting financial shortfall is hitting many state wildlife agencies. In Wisconsin , a $4 million to $6 million annual deficit forced the state’s Department of Natural Resources to reduce warden patrols and invasive species control. Michigan’s legislature had to dig into general-tax coffers to save some of the state’s wildlife projects, while other key programs, such as protecting bees and other pollinating creatures, remain “woefully underfunded,” according to Edward Golder, a spokesman for the state’s natural resources department. Some states, including Missouri, are directing sales tax revenue to conservation. Here in Pennsylvania — where the game commission gets more than 50 percent of its revenue from licenses, permits and taxes — the agency had to cancel construction projects, delay vehicle purchases and leave dozens of positions vacant, according to a 2016 report , even as it tackled West Nile virus and tried to protect rare creatures such as the wood rat.
Unfortunately, that’s part of what hunting is about. Hunters gladly pay the fees for hunting permits not just because they enjoy hunting, but because they understand where that money goes. Hunters are, by their very nature, conservationists. They want these animals protected and preserved and they don’t balk and licensing fees for the most part because they know where that money goes.
Yet anti-hunters, who think of themselves as the true friends of wildlife, are more than content to let thousands of species die out than to let non-endangered species be hunted.
Now, I’m not going to say the anti-hunting activists are responsible for the decline in hunting. I don’t know that they’ve been nearly as effective as they’d like to be. I think part of the issue with the decline in hunting falls on people like me, people have failed to successfully get their kids involved in hunting and other outdoor activities. We fail and then the next generation has no interest in pursuing it on their own.
Still, it’s important we all remember what’s at stake. It’s why I’m continuing to work to get my kids involved and out there; all so we can preserve the things that really count.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Mike DeWine's Gun Control Bills Are In Trouble In Ohio

It ’ s been six months since a shooting in Dayton , Ohio left nine people dead and twenty others wounded .
In the aftermath of the mass murder , Gov .
Mike DeWine in August of 2019 called for lawmakers to adopt a red flag law and universal background checks , but when he rolled out his official proposals a couple of months later , the language had changed .
Instead of an Extreme Risk Protection Order , DeWine called for allowing involuntary commitments for drug and alcohol abuse , and rather than a universal background check law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for voluntary private background checks conducted by county sheriffs .
Since then , the proposals have gone nowhere , and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reports that several high-ranking Republican lawmakers remain uncommitted or opposed to DeWine ’ s agenda .
House Speaker Larry Householder , who represents a rural district east of Columbus , said Tuesday the gun debate falls along demographic lines .
Householder , a powerful Republican , is a key figure in deciding whether DeWine ’ s gun plan , or anything in it , will advance .
People in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as not only a right , but part of their way of life , Householder said .
“ We have to protect ourselves .
So how do you balance this with taking someone ’ s right away ?
… I ’ m of the belief that the biggest gun lobby we have in the state of Ohio are the millions upon millions of Ohioans who lawfully own firearms for sport and protection .
I don ’ t so much worry about the NRA or anyone else , ” he said… Senate President Larry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself a “ staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
” He said less controversial aspects of the governor ’ s plan , such as increasing criminal penalties for gun-related offenses , or trying to increase the state ’ s capacity to house people with mental illnesses , have been taken up recently by the legislature through other bills .
“ I can ’ t guarantee one way or the other that any of them will get any particular votes .
That ’ s up to the members to decide which are the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we ’ re certainly having a full and fair discussion of the issues , and we certainly are vetting them as fully as possible.
” Despite the clear signals from legislative leaders , DeWine is still trying to paint as sunny a picture as possible for the future of his agenda .
When DeWine was asked Tuesday how he planned to ensure his gun-reform package passes the legislature , the governor — as he has before — expressed optimism that legislators will pass it .
“ I ’ m not reading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a bad reception .
You know some of these things take time , ” DeWine said .
“ But , you know , this is a priority .
This is important.
” As Sen. Obhof points out , some of the governor ’ s proposals are moving forward , but the portion of his Ohio STRONG agenda that could impact the rights of gun owners is what ’ s really in trouble .
The truth is , while in theory I like the idea of being able to voluntarily access the NICS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bill isn ’ t really voluntary at all .
Coupled with the ability to have a local sheriff conduct a background check on a private gun buyer , the legislation lowers the standard needed for prosecutors to go after a gun seller who didn ’ t use the convoluted system DeWine would set up .
There are legitimate reasons for legal gun owners to be concerned about DeWine ’ s proposals , and if he really wants to see the measures get a fair hearing in the legislature , he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns instead of dismissing them .

It’s been six months since a shooting in Dayton, Ohio left nine people dead and twenty others wounded. In the aftermath of the mass murder, Gov. Mike DeWine in August of 2019 called for lawmakers to adopt a red flag law and universal background checks, but when he rolled out his official proposals a couple of months later, the language had changed. Instead of an Extreme Risk Protection Order, DeWine called for allowing involuntary commitments for drug and alcohol abuse, and rather than a universal background check law, the governor unveiled a plan to allow for voluntary private background checks conducted by county sheriffs.
Since then, the proposals have gone nowhere, and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reports that several high-ranking Republican lawmakers remain uncommitted or opposed to DeWine’s agenda.
House Speaker Larry Householder, who represents a rural district east of Columbus, said Tuesday the gun debate falls along demographic lines. Householder, a powerful Republican, is a key figure in deciding whether DeWine’s gun plan, or anything in it, will advance. People in his district and communities like it view guns as not only a right, but part of their way of life, Householder said. “We have to protect ourselves. So how do you balance this with taking someone’s right away?… I’m of the belief that the biggest gun lobby we have in the state of Ohio are the millions upon millions of Ohioans who lawfully own firearms for sport and protection. I don’t so much worry about the NRA or anyone else,” he said… Senate President Larry Obhof, a Medina Republican, called himself a “staunch defender of the Second Amendment.” He said less controversial aspects of the governor’s plan, such as increasing criminal penalties for gun-related offenses, or trying to increase the state’s capacity to house people with mental illnesses, have been taken up recently by the legislature through other bills. “I can’t guarantee one way or the other that any of them will get any particular votes. That’s up to the members to decide which are the right policies,” he said. “But we’re certainly having a full and fair discussion of the issues, and we certainly are vetting them as fully as possible.”
Despite the clear signals from legislative leaders, DeWine is still trying to paint as sunny a picture as possible for the future of his agenda.
When DeWine was asked Tuesday how he planned to ensure his gun-reform package passes the legislature, the governor — as he has before — expressed optimism that legislators will pass it. “I’m not reading the [legislature’s] reception as being a bad reception. You know some of these things take time,” DeWine said. “But, you know, this is a priority. This is important.”
As Sen. Obhof points out, some of the governor’s proposals are moving forward, but the portion of his Ohio STRONG agenda that could impact the rights of gun owners is what’s really in trouble. The truth is, while in theory I like the idea of being able to voluntarily access the NICS system for private sales, DeWine’s bill isn’t really voluntary at all. Coupled with the ability to have a local sheriff conduct a background check on a private gun buyer, the legislation lowers the standard needed for prosecutors to go after a gun seller who didn’t use the convoluted system DeWine would set up. There are legitimate reasons for legal gun owners to be concerned about DeWine’s proposals, and if he really wants to see the measures get a fair hearing in the legislature, he’d do well to actually listen to those concerns instead of dismissing them.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--PA Gov Wants GOP-Led Legislature To Capitulate On Guns

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf is no friend of gun owners .
He made that abundantly clear when he stood by Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto when the mayor stated his intention to ignore state law and to pass gun control within his city .
Wolfe did nothing and offered nothing but support , which is all you really need to know about the Democrat .
However , now he wants to Republican-led legislature to bend over , alienate their base , and pass his wish list of gun control laws .
While Pennsylvanian Republicans have signaled their willingness in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns , this is something they should profoundly reject .
The truth is , Wolf only supports the law when it benefits him and his .
That ’ s clear enough based on his tacit support for Peduto ’ s lawless efforts in Pittsburgh .
Yet what Wolfe has illustrated quite well is that those who wish to ignore the law simply will ignore the law .
How does new gun control do anyone any good when we know damn good and well that criminals don ’ t follow those laws ?
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see any law being proposed doing a damn bit of good .
Red flag laws are potentially leading to an increase in suicides , for example .
Punishing the victims of crimes for not reporting that crime , especially when they know nothing will come of it , isn ’ t exactly a winning strategy either .
So lawmakers in Pennsylvania should refrain from working with the governor on any of these measures .
We ’ ve slaughtered countless electrons here at Bearing Arms as to why each and every proposal being talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are .
More importantly , though , until Wolf illustrates that laws actually matter to him , even if he disagrees with them , there ’ s absolutely no reason at all to meet him halfway , a quarter of the way , or in any way on the issue of the Second Amendment .
Oh , I know and agree with the constitutional arguments against doing so as well , but not everyone shares those views .
They should at least be able to understand that rewarding lawlessness isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of Pennsylvania .

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf is no friend of gun owners. He made that abundantly clear when he stood by Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto when the mayor stated his intention to ignore state law and to pass gun control within his city. Wolfe did nothing and offered nothing but support, which is all you really need to know about the Democrat.
However, now he wants to Republican-led legislature to bend over, alienate their base, and pass his wish list of gun control laws.
A decade ago, then-Gov. Ed Rendell declared passing gun control laws in Pennsylvania “a lost cause,” saying the legislature was too beholden to gun rights groups to make any changes. On Tuesday, another Democratic governor made an impassioned plea to state lawmakers to take up the issue by mandating universal background checks and passing a “red flag” law to allow firearms to be temporarily seized from people declared by a court a threat to themselves or others. “Let’s make 2020 the year we choose to stop being cynical about the politics of gun violence,” Gov. Tom Wolf told a joint session of the legislature while pitching his latest budget. Many of Wolf’s proposals, including strengthening reporting requirements for lost and stolen firearms, mirror ones that Rendell and others called for in 2010. The state’s laws have remained largely unchanged since then. Republicans leaders, who control both legislative chambers, on Tuesday were noncommittal about Wolf’s call for action on gun bills.
While Pennsylvanian Republicans have signaled their willingness in the past to sit down on the issue of guns, this is something they should profoundly reject.
The truth is, Wolf only supports the law when it benefits him and his. That’s clear enough based on his tacit support for Peduto’s lawless efforts in Pittsburgh. Yet what Wolfe has illustrated quite well is that those who wish to ignore the law simply will ignore the law. How does new gun control do anyone any good when we know damn good and well that criminals don’t follow those laws?
At no point are we remotely likely to see any law being proposed doing a damn bit of good. Red flag laws are potentially leading to an increase in suicides, for example. Punishing the victims of crimes for not reporting that crime, especially when they know nothing will come of it, isn’t exactly a winning strategy either.
So lawmakers in Pennsylvania should refrain from working with the governor on any of these measures. We’ve slaughtered countless electrons here at Bearing Arms as to why each and every proposal being talked about is a horrible idea, and they are. More importantly, though, until Wolf illustrates that laws actually matter to him, even if he disagrees with them, there’s absolutely no reason at all to meet him halfway, a quarter of the way, or in any way on the issue of the Second Amendment.
Oh, I know and agree with the constitutional arguments against doing so as well, but not everyone shares those views. They should at least be able to understand that rewarding lawlessness isn’t going to benefit anyone, especially the people of Pennsylvania.


bearingarms--2020-02-05--Illinois Bill Will Make It Harder For Poor To Buy Guns

When you ’ re poor , things are rough in ways most people can ’ t understand .
Not only are you likely to live in the worst neighborhoods , you ’ re likely to be subjected to all kinds of crime .
It ’ s not unreasonable that you ’ d want to defend yourself .
Even if you don ’ t live in those neighborhoods , maybe because you ’ re out in the country , you still have it rough .
In fact , it might be bad enough you do a lot of hunting just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a great grandfather who fed his family during the Great Depression that way .
Of course , either of these things means you probably should buy a gun .
It ’ s the best way to do either of these things .
In Illinois , though , there ’ s a bill that will make it just that much harder for poor people to buy firearms .
An Illinois lawmaker is proposing an additional 10 percent sales tax on what she calls “ assault weapons ” but an advocate says her novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all firearms would be hit with the tax .
A firearm sale in Illinois already includes federal taxes , state sales taxes , and local taxes .
Chicago assesses a $ 25 per gun fee that ’ s long-faced a legal challenge .
State Sen. Ann Gillespie ’ s Senate Bill 2468 would impose a 10 percent retail sales tax on what she calls “ assault weapons ” and their magazines , which she refers to as a “ large capacity ammunition feeding device ” that would hold more than 10 rounds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun is anything that would accept one of those magazines , something Todd Vandermyde with the Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois says would encompass the broad majority of guns sold .
“ Every modern handgun that ’ s not a revolver or a Derringer comes into play , ” he said , adding that the tax would nearly immediately face a court challenge upon passage .
Vandermyde argues that the tax can be circumvented by purchasing a gun online and transferring it to a local FFL for transfer , and he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t count on , what the real problem is , is for how long ?
How long will that be allowed to remain the case ?
Additionally , most online retailers don ’ t sell used guns .
They sell new firearms , by and large , which come with a much higher price tag .
That means they ’ re likely too expensive for indigent people looking for something they can use for self-defense .
Vandermyde is also correct about all the handguns this bill would cover .
What he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles would be caught up in this mess as well .
You know , the preferred rifle for small game hunting ?
The Ruger 10/22 , perhaps the most popular .22 rifle on the market , can take magazines of more than 10 rounds .
It ’ ll qualify as an assault weapon under this bill .
That ’ s going to hurt those looking to supplement their groceries with fresh small game like squirrels or rabbits .
At the end of the day , all this will do is drive up costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some of our most vulnerable citizens to defend themselves , and do nothing to deter any crime at all .
Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that , but then again , maybe the lawmakers who support this tax aren ’ t as interested in deterring crime as they are deterring gun ownership .

When you’re poor, things are rough in ways most people can’t understand. Not only are you likely to live in the worst neighborhoods, you’re likely to be subjected to all kinds of crime. It’s not unreasonable that you’d want to defend yourself.
Even if you don’t live in those neighborhoods, maybe because you’re out in the country, you still have it rough. In fact, it might be bad enough you do a lot of hunting just to cover your needs. Hell, I had a great grandfather who fed his family during the Great Depression that way.
Of course, either of these things means you probably should buy a gun. It’s the best way to do either of these things. In Illinois, though, there’s a bill that will make it just that much harder for poor people to buy firearms.
An Illinois lawmaker is proposing an additional 10 percent sales tax on what she calls “assault weapons” but an advocate says her novel definition of the term would mean nearly all firearms would be hit with the tax. A firearm sale in Illinois already includes federal taxes, state sales taxes, and local taxes. Chicago assesses a $25 per gun fee that’s long-faced a legal challenge. State Sen. Ann Gillespie’s Senate Bill 2468 would impose a 10 percent retail sales tax on what she calls “assault weapons” and their magazines, which she refers to as a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” that would hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Her definition of a qualifying gun is anything that would accept one of those magazines, something Todd Vandermyde with the Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois says would encompass the broad majority of guns sold. “Every modern handgun that’s not a revolver or a Derringer comes into play,” he said, adding that the tax would nearly immediately face a court challenge upon passage.
Vandermyde argues that the tax can be circumvented by purchasing a gun online and transferring it to a local FFL for transfer, and he’s probably right. What he didn’t count on, what the real problem is, is for how long? How long will that be allowed to remain the case?
Additionally, most online retailers don’t sell used guns. They sell new firearms, by and large, which come with a much higher price tag. That means they’re likely too expensive for indigent people looking for something they can use for self-defense.
Vandermyde is also correct about all the handguns this bill would cover. What he didn’t point out was how many .22 rifles would be caught up in this mess as well. You know, the preferred rifle for small game hunting? The Ruger 10/22, perhaps the most popular .22 rifle on the market, can take magazines of more than 10 rounds. It’ll qualify as an assault weapon under this bill.
That’s going to hurt those looking to supplement their groceries with fresh small game like squirrels or rabbits.
At the end of the day, all this will do is drive up costs for law-abiding people, making it harder for some of our most vulnerable citizens to defend themselves, and do nothing to deter any crime at all. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that, but then again, maybe the lawmakers who support this tax aren’t as interested in deterring crime as they are deterring gun ownership.