bearingarms--2020-05-07--GOP Senators Look To Beef Up NICS

GOP Senators Look To Beef Up NICS

The NICS background check system has had a rough couple of years .
First , we learned how it failed to flag the Sutherland Springs shooter , someone who had been dishonorably discharged from the Air Force .
That led to the Fix NICS legislation that passed with bipartisan support .
Now , the system is bogged down with requests after back-to-back months of record-setting sales .
A ton of people want guns , people who have never had a gun before , and that means background checks , especially since new gun owners likely don ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system bogged down , a lot of people are trying to take advantage of that and hope they can slide through , picking up a gun after the three-day wait but before a failed check can make it back to the gun store .
Because of that , a couple of Republican senators want to beef up the system to handle the increased load .
A number of Republican Senators are looking to bolster the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ] ) after back-to-back record-setting sales months in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , millions of Americans practicing safe social distancing have lined up outside of firearm retailers in order to purchase firearms .
The resulting record-breaking surge has placed significant pressure on the National Instant Criminal Background System ( NICS ) , which helps to ensure that criminals and other prohibited persons can not gain access to firearms , ” Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray this week .
More than two-dozen other Senators also signed on .
“ As our country continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeking additional information on the impact the coronavirus has had on your agencies and the firearm transfer process so that we have a clearer picture on where things stand and how we can better assist through the legislative and appropriations process , ” the letter continues .
Honestly , this is another example of a NICS-related issue that should face bipartisan support .
For Republicans , this is a measure that will speed up the process for law-abiding Americans to purchase guns .
For Democrats , this is a measure that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those who are already prohibited .
No , it won ’ t do so universally , but it will make it a bit harder for those individuals and that ’ s not a bad thing .
The question is whether Democrats will agree or not .
Right now , I ’ m not sure they will .
They seem bound and determined not to do much of anything , especially if it might possibly benefit law-abiding gun owners and buyers .
However , if they don ’ t , how many armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores because of Democratic petulance ?
Oh , I have little doubt they ’ d get them otherwise , but at least then they won ’ t get them from lawful dealers who are trying to comply with the rules and regulations required of them .
Not that I expect they ’ d accept the blame , mind you .
Still , while many Democrats are all but begging gun stores to wait past the required period for background checks to come back–something they can ’ t actually make them do–it might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system so those dealers won ’ t have to .

The NICS background check system has had a rough couple of years. First, we learned how it failed to flag the Sutherland Springs shooter, someone who had been dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. That led to the Fix NICS legislation that passed with bipartisan support.
Now, the system is bogged down with requests after back-to-back months of record-setting sales. A ton of people want guns, people who have never had a gun before, and that means background checks, especially since new gun owners likely don’t have a concealed carry permit.
Unfortunately, with the system bogged down, a lot of people are trying to take advantage of that and hope they can slide through, picking up a gun after the three-day wait but before a failed check can make it back to the gun store.
Because of that, a couple of Republican senators want to beef up the system to handle the increased load.
A number of Republican Senators are looking to bolster the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS])after back-to-back record-setting sales months in March and April. “In response to the pandemic, millions of Americans practicing safe social distancing have lined up outside of firearm retailers in order to purchase firearms. The resulting record-breaking surge has placed significant pressure on the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS), which helps to ensure that criminals and other prohibited persons cannot gain access to firearms,” Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray this week. More than two-dozen other Senators also signed on. “As our country continues to respond to the pandemic, we are seeking additional information on the impact the coronavirus has had on your agencies and the firearm transfer process so that we have a clearer picture on where things stand and how we can better assist through the legislative and appropriations process,” the letter continues.
Honestly, this is another example of a NICS-related issue that should face bipartisan support.
For Republicans, this is a measure that will speed up the process for law-abiding Americans to purchase guns. For Democrats, this is a measure that will help keep guns out of the hands of those who are already prohibited.
No, it won’t do so universally, but it will make it a bit harder for those individuals and that’s not a bad thing.
The question is whether Democrats will agree or not. Right now, I’m not sure they will. They seem bound and determined not to do much of anything, especially if it might possibly benefit law-abiding gun owners and buyers.
However, if they don’t, how many armed criminals will purchase guns from law-abiding gun stores because of Democratic petulance? Oh, I have little doubt they’d get them otherwise, but at least then they won’t get them from lawful dealers who are trying to comply with the rules and regulations required of them.
Not that I expect they’d accept the blame, mind you.
Still, while many Democrats are all but begging gun stores to wait past the required period for background checks to come back–something they can’t actually make them do–it might be a wise move to beef up the system so those dealers won’t have to.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Woman Uses Shotgun In Self-Defense After Ex Breaks Into Her Home

A Texas woman was forced to defend herself after her ex-boyfriend broke into her San Antonio home on Wednesday evening , shooting and killing the man when he forced his way into the bathroom where she was hiding .
KSAT-TV in San Antonio reports that the suspect , whose name has not yet been released by police , was at the house when the woman arrived home .
According to authorities , the woman demanded the man leave , and he complied , only to return a few hours later .
According to police , the woman was in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the stairs and went to grab her shotgun .
Moments later , she opened fire on her ex as he entered the bathroom .
He was transported to University Hospital , where he later died .
Police said that the woman had changed the locks to her home and that the man had been texting her all day .
San Antonio police believe the suspect broke a window of the home in order to gain access .
Thankfully , the homeowner wasn ’ t injured by her ex , and authorities say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
This defensive gun use was one of several in the state of Texas that took place in a period of a little more than 24 hours .
On Tuesday evening , a suspected robber was shot and killed in Port Arthur by one of his intended victims .
Port Arthur Police officers were sent to report a robbery in progress just after 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Island Grocery in the 1900 block of South Highway 82 on Pleasure Island , according to a news release from the Port Arthur Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store near the foot of the MLK Bridge , they were told that the suspect had left and was last seen driving east along Highway 82 , the release said .
Officers spoke to a man and woman at the Island Grocery who told them a man armed with a rifle had attempted to steal their car , police said .
While speaking to the man and woman officers were informed of a shooting about three to four miles away along South Highway 82 .
Officers then headed to the scene of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the street , according to the release .
That suspect , identified as 25-year old Leon Jones III from Opelousas , Louisiana , had apparently tried to rob a couple who were crabbing .
Police say one of the intended victims was able to get to his car and retrieve a handgun .
The pair fired at each other , and Jones was fatally shot by the legal gun owner , who wasn ’ t injured in the attack .
A few hours later in Houston , a convenience store clerk shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempted to enter the store , which was closed and locked up for the evening .
In all three of these cases , the victims could have been injured or killed by their attackers , but thankfully were unharmed because of their ability to fight back in self-defense .
While gun control activists are still loudly proclaiming that no one needs a gun , these three victims are alive and well today thanks to the fact that they had one .

A Texas woman was forced to defend herself after her ex-boyfriend broke into her San Antonio home on Wednesday evening, shooting and killing the man when he forced his way into the bathroom where she was hiding.
KSAT-TV in San Antonio reports that the suspect, whose name has not yet been released by police, was at the house when the woman arrived home. According to authorities, the woman demanded the man leave, and he complied, only to return a few hours later.
According to police, the woman was in the bathroom when she heard the man walking up the stairs and went to grab her shotgun. Moments later, she opened fire on her ex as he entered the bathroom. He was transported to University Hospital, where he later died. Police said that the woman had changed the locks to her home and that the man had been texting her all day.
San Antonio police believe the suspect broke a window of the home in order to gain access. Thankfully, the homeowner wasn’t injured by her ex, and authorities say she won’t be facing any charges.
This defensive gun use was one of several in the state of Texas that took place in a period of a little more than 24 hours. On Tuesday evening, a suspected robber was shot and killed in Port Arthur by one of his intended victims.
Port Arthur Police officers were sent to report a robbery in progress just after 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Island Grocery in the 1900 block of South Highway 82 on Pleasure Island, according to a news release from the Port Arthur Police Department. As officers headed to the store near the foot of the MLK Bridge, they were told that the suspect had left and was last seen driving east along Highway 82, the release said. Officers spoke to a man and woman at the Island Grocery who told them a man armed with a rifle had attempted to steal their car, police said. While speaking to the man and woman officers were informed of a shooting about three to four miles away along South Highway 82. Officers then headed to the scene of the shooting where they found the suspect dead in the street, according to the release.
That suspect, identified as 25-year old Leon Jones III from Opelousas, Louisiana, had apparently tried to rob a couple who were crabbing. Police say one of the intended victims was able to get to his car and retrieve a handgun. The pair fired at each other, and Jones was fatally shot by the legal gun owner, who wasn’t injured in the attack.
A few hours later in Houston, a convenience store clerk shot and killed one of four suspects who attempted to enter the store, which was closed and locked up for the evening.
The clerk was in a plexiglass pod when he was approached by the robbers, police said. The clerk, fearing for his life, opened fire on the suspects, wounding and killing one of the men, police said. A second suspect ran from the scene while two others drove away in a dark-colored BMW. Police confirmed that a man was found not far from the scene with a gunshot wound but would not confirm whether or not it was the suspect who ran from the scene. The man was transported to a local hospital. The clerk was not injured in the incident.
In all three of these cases, the victims could have been injured or killed by their attackers, but thankfully were unharmed because of their ability to fight back in self-defense. While gun control activists are still loudly proclaiming that no one needs a gun, these three victims are alive and well today thanks to the fact that they had one.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Memo Says COVID-19 Survivors 'Permanently Disqualified' From Joining Military

When I enlisted in the Navy , the process was kind of nervewracking .
You ’ re asked a million questions and you ’ ve already been told you could be prosecuted for perjury for giving false information .
Among those questions are a number that deals with your health .
There ’ s a reason for that , of course .
Service in the military can be pretty harsh .
You need to be healthy in order to do what needs to be done .
Even those that deal with childhood disease are generally important as they typically are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your health as an adult .
That ’ s why I ’ m scratching my head when I read that a DoD memo has declared that survivors of the novel coronavirus are “ permanently disqualified ” from military service .
The military will stop recruiting applicants who have tested positive for COVID-19 , according to a proposal in a memo from the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command ( MEPCOM ) .
The contents of the memo , which has been circulating on the internet , were confirmed to Newsweek by the Pentagon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The story was first reported by the Military Times .
“ During the medical history interview or examination , a history of COVID-19 , confirmed by either a laboratory test or a clinician diagnosis , is permanently disqualifying , ” the memo reads .
“ During the screening process , a reported history of confirmed COVID-19 will be annotated ‘ Considered disqualifying ’ “ pic.twitter.com/ZKx91AUbXo If an applicant seems likely positive for the coronavirus , they can return to the MEPS if they ’ re symptom-free after 14 days .
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical diagnosis can return to MEPS 28 days after their diagnosis .
However , their application will be marked as “ permanently disqualifying , ” and while applicants can request a waiver the memo offers no further guidance for possible COVID-19 exceptions , meaning that “ a review authority would have no justification to grant a waiver , ” says the Military Times .
Of course , that raises a lot of questions .
The biggest one has to be “ Why ?
” As far as we know , COVID-19 has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Someone who contracts the disease and recovers should be free and clear of long-term effects , so what justification does the military have to permanently bar these individuals from service ?
Plus , one almost has to wonder whether or not there ’ s something we ’ re simply not being told about the virus and the long-term effects of it .
While I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand , we have to remember that it wouldn ’ t be the first time we were lied to during this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work ?
Yeah , well , now we ’ re being required to wear them in many places .
We were told they didn ’ t work so that we wouldn ’ t buy them up .
We were lied to .
Of course , governments never lie to people , right ?
< /sarcasm > Anyway , I can ’ t help but wonder how much of this is directed by fear and how much of it may be directed by information that simply hasn ’ t been made public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience long-term effects ?
Or is the military simply overreacting to the situation ?
What are the odds we ’ ll get any answers to those questions ?

When I enlisted in the Navy, the process was kind of nervewracking. You’re asked a million questions and you’ve already been told you could be prosecuted for perjury for giving false information. Among those questions are a number that deals with your health. There’s a reason for that, of course. Service in the military can be pretty harsh. You need to be healthy in order to do what needs to be done.
Even those that deal with childhood disease are generally important as they typically are conditions that may have an impact on your health as an adult.
That’s why I’m scratching my head when I read that a DoD memo has declared that survivors of the novel coronavirus are “permanently disqualified” from military service.
The military will stop recruiting applicants who have tested positive for COVID-19, according to a proposal in a memo from the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM). The contents of the memo, which has been circulating on the internet, were confirmed to Newsweek by the Pentagon, which described them as “interim guidance.” The story was first reported by the Military Times. “During the medical history interview or examination, a history of COVID-19, confirmed by either a laboratory test or a clinician diagnosis, is permanently disqualifying,” the memo reads. “During the screening process, a reported history of confirmed COVID-19 will be annotated ‘Considered disqualifying’“ pic.twitter.com/ZKx91AUbXo — Free (@Nathaniel_Free) May 4, 2020 … If an applicant seems likely positive for the coronavirus, they can return to the MEPS if they’re symptom-free after 14 days. Anyone who tests positive through a lab test or clinical diagnosis can return to MEPS 28 days after their diagnosis. However, their application will be marked as “permanently disqualifying,” and while applicants can request a waiver the memo offers no further guidance for possible COVID-19 exceptions, meaning that “a review authority would have no justification to grant a waiver,” says the Military Times.
Of course, that raises a lot of questions. The biggest one has to be “Why?”
As far as we know, COVID-19 has no long-lasting effects on the respiratory system. Someone who contracts the disease and recovers should be free and clear of long-term effects, so what justification does the military have to permanently bar these individuals from service?
Plus, one almost has to wonder whether or not there’s something we’re simply not being told about the virus and the long-term effects of it. While I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, we have to remember that it wouldn’t be the first time we were lied to during this pandemic. Remember being told that masks don’t work? Yeah, well, now we’re being required to wear them in many places. We were told they didn’t work so that we wouldn’t buy them up. We were lied to.
Of course, governments never lie to people, right?
Anyway, I can’t help but wonder how much of this is directed by fear and how much of it may be directed by information that simply hasn’t been made public yet. Are COVID-19 survivors going to experience long-term effects? Or is the military simply overreacting to the situation?
What are the odds we’ll get any answers to those questions?


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Gov't Audit Reveals Big Problems With NZ Gun Confiscation Scheme

New Zealand ’ s Auditor General released a new report on the country ’ s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme this week , detailing major problems with how much the program cost , and how little the government knows about whether or not it was successful in stripping legal gun owners of the firearms they possess .
Auditor-General John Ryan has been investigating the cost and effectiveness of the confiscation since last September , and in his report released Wednesday , the government official revealed the country will spend close to $ 150-million on its efforts , far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found the police managed the scheme effectively , communicated well with the public , and that compensation payments did not exceed what was appropriate .
But it also found the administration costs for the scheme were more than expected .
In March last year , police produced an initial estimate of $ 18m to administer the scheme .
The estimate was based on limited information from the Australian buyback scheme and was completed quickly , before the costs of the supporting technology were fully known , ” Ryan said .
“ The police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , administering the scheme will have cost up to $ 35m .
This includes costs of tracked staff time , contractors , and goods and services .
“ This is nearly double the $ 18m the 2019 Budget provided and includes about $ 5.5m the police spent on the scheme in 2018/19.
” That figure doesn ’ t include the money given to gun owners in exchange for their legally owned firearms , which Ryan says will eventually come out to about $ 120-million .
Even after all that money was spent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to determine just how effective the ban was in taking firearms out of homes .
“ The police ’ s provisional information , as at February 13 , 2020 , shows that 61,332 newly prohibited firearms had been collected and destroyed , or modified by police-approved gunsmiths so that they comply with the new requirements and remain the property of their owners.
” But neither police nor any other agency knew how many prohibited firearms , magazines , and parts were in the community when the law was changed .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of individual firearms .
In part , because of this , the police do not have accurate information about how many firearms there are in the community .
“ Without this information , we do not yet know how effective the scheme was.
” In other words , because New Zealand didn ’ t have a gun registration scheme , they have no idea how many banned firearms are still in the hands of gun owners who refused to give them up .
That ’ s why Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law as part of her latest gun control proposals .
Requiring all gun owners to be licensed may tell the government who the legal gun owners are , but it doesn ’ t tell them what guns they own .
So , after spending $ 150-million , the New Zealand government has no idea if their gun ban was a success or not , only that it cost far more than originally expected and the government wants more gun laws to help them round up more guns when ( not if ) they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently legal to own .
It sounds like the country ’ s gun confiscation program didn ’ t do anything to make New Zealand safer , but it has made the country less free .

New Zealand’s Auditor General released a new report on the country’s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme this week, detailing major problems with how much the program cost, and how little the government knows about whether or not it was successful in stripping legal gun owners of the firearms they possess.
Auditor-General John Ryan has been investigating the cost and effectiveness of the confiscation since last September, and in his report released Wednesday, the government official revealed the country will spend close to $150-million on its efforts, far more than was originally budgeted.
The report found the police managed the scheme effectively, communicated well with the public, and that compensation payments did not exceed what was appropriate. But it also found the administration costs for the scheme were more than expected. In March last year, police produced an initial estimate of $18m to administer the scheme. The estimate was based on limited information from the Australian buyback scheme and was completed quickly, before the costs of the supporting technology were fully known,” Ryan said. “The police now estimate that, once fully completed, administering the scheme will have cost up to $35m. This includes costs of tracked staff time, contractors, and goods and services. “This is nearly double the $18m the 2019 Budget provided and includes about $5.5m the police spent on the scheme in 2018/19.”
That figure doesn’t include the money given to gun owners in exchange for their legally owned firearms, which Ryan says will eventually come out to about $120-million. Even after all that money was spent, the Auditor-General says there’s no way to determine just how effective the ban was in taking firearms out of homes.
“The police’s provisional information, as at February 13, 2020, shows that 61,332 newly prohibited firearms had been collected and destroyed, or modified by police-approved gunsmiths so that they comply with the new requirements and remain the property of their owners.” But neither police nor any other agency knew how many prohibited firearms, magazines, and parts were in the community when the law was changed. “The previous regulatory regime focused on firearms owners instead of individual firearms. In part, because of this, the police do not have accurate information about how many firearms there are in the community. “Without this information, we do not yet know how effective the scheme was.”
In other words, because New Zealand didn’t have a gun registration scheme, they have no idea how many banned firearms are still in the hands of gun owners who refused to give them up. That’s why Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is now pushing for a new gun registration law as part of her latest gun control proposals. Requiring all gun owners to be licensed may tell the government who the legal gun owners are, but it doesn’t tell them what guns they own.
So, after spending $150-million, the New Zealand government has no idea if their gun ban was a success or not, only that it cost far more than originally expected and the government wants more gun laws to help them round up more guns when (not if) they decide to ban more firearms that are currently legal to own. It sounds like the country’s gun confiscation program didn’t do anything to make New Zealand safer, but it has made the country less free.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--After Armed Protests, MI Legislator Gets Armed Escort Of Her Own

Days after dozens of armed protestors flooded into the state capitol demanding an end to Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home order , a Michigan lawmaker showed up for work on Wednesday morning with armed escort of her own .
Rep. Sarah Anthony , a freshman Democrat from the Lansing area , was accompanied by three individuals carrying modern sporting rifles as she strolled into the capitol building on Wednesday .
The legislator says she didn ’ t request the armed security , but didn ’ t object to it either .
“ We were all just appalled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security that I had , that other legislators had , and the fact that a lot of the demonstrators last week were adorning many racist , anti-Semitic signage .
I think it just triggered a lot of folks , especially African Americans.
” Anthony and other lawmakers met this morning for an appropriations committee meeting .
The scene was quiet .
Anthony ’ s cadre of Second Amendment advocates had no trouble entering the building .
They left to quietly stand on the front steps after Anthony made it inside an elevator .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first of all .
We want people to understand that people of color can come out here with guns just the same as anybody else can , ” said Michael Lynn Jr. , a black Lansing firefighter and community activist who helped organize Anthony ’ s security detail .
I probably don ’ t agree with Rep. Anthony ’ s politics , but I absolutely agree with Michael Lynn that every law-abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms .
What I really want to know is where Anthony stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking to Lynn and other activists has had any impact on her thinking about how gun control laws impact black constituents in her district .
After being protected by guys with semi-automatic rifles , does she believe that they should be banned ?
Will she support a proposed ban on firearms in the state capitol , or will she stand up for the right of people like Lynn to continue to carry a firearm inside the building ?
Because Lynn is black , he suspects that cops would ’ ve been a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had his group been as boisterous as some of the crowds last week .
He wanted to prove a point that Second Amendment rights aren ’ t limited on the basis of race .
“ I could hear the fear in her voice during that protest , ” Lynn explained .
“ It was the visual of her being that scared to go to work .
It meant we had to do something .
We came out here today to make sure we could provide some protection , even if it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I don ’ t think Rep. Anthony had anything to worry about from the protests last week , which were boisterous but non-violent , but if Lynn and his fellow gun owners made her feel safer , I ’ m glad they were there .
Actually , even if this was just a political stunt on the part of Anthony , I ’ m still glad Lynn and his fellow gun owners provided an escort for the representative .
Lynn ’ s point about the Second Amendment not being limited on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I just hope that his time with the lawmaker helps her understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms for all of the constituents she represents .

Days after dozens of armed protestors flooded into the state capitol demanding an end to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order, a Michigan lawmaker showed up for work on Wednesday morning with armed escort of her own.
Rep. Sarah Anthony, a freshman Democrat from the Lansing area, was accompanied by three individuals carrying modern sporting rifles as she strolled into the capitol building on Wednesday. The legislator says she didn’t request the armed security, but didn’t object to it either.
“We were all just appalled by the lack of support and lack of security that I had, that other legislators had, and the fact that a lot of the demonstrators last week were adorning many racist, anti-Semitic signage. I think it just triggered a lot of folks, especially African Americans.” Anthony and other lawmakers met this morning for an appropriations committee meeting. The scene was quiet. Anthony’s cadre of Second Amendment advocates had no trouble entering the building. They left to quietly stand on the front steps after Anthony made it inside an elevator. “We want to change the narrative, first of all. We want people to understand that people of color can come out here with guns just the same as anybody else can,” said Michael Lynn Jr., a black Lansing firefighter and community activist who helped organize Anthony’s security detail.
I probably don’t agree with Rep. Anthony’s politics, but I absolutely agree with Michael Lynn that every law-abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms.
What I really want to know is where Anthony stands on gun control issues, and if speaking to Lynn and other activists has had any impact on her thinking about how gun control laws impact black constituents in her district. After being protected by guys with semi-automatic rifles, does she believe that they should be banned? Will she support a proposed ban on firearms in the state capitol, or will she stand up for the right of people like Lynn to continue to carry a firearm inside the building?
Because Lynn is black, he suspects that cops would’ve been a bit more cautious — and perhaps violent — had his group been as boisterous as some of the crowds last week. He wanted to prove a point that Second Amendment rights aren’t limited on the basis of race. “I could hear the fear in her voice during that protest,” Lynn explained. “It was the visual of her being that scared to go to work. It meant we had to do something. We came out here today to make sure we could provide some protection, even if it’s only just to make her feel better.”
I don’t think Rep. Anthony had anything to worry about from the protests last week, which were boisterous but non-violent, but if Lynn and his fellow gun owners made her feel safer, I’m glad they were there. Actually, even if this was just a political stunt on the part of Anthony, I’m still glad Lynn and his fellow gun owners provided an escort for the representative. Lynn’s point about the Second Amendment not being limited on the basis of race is absolutely correct. I just hope that his time with the lawmaker helps her understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms for all of the constituents she represents.


bearingarms--2020-05-07--Man Busted With 90 Guns Researched Mass Shootings

One of the biggest issues with creating laws to combat mass shootings is that it ’ s simply not needed .
We have plenty of laws on the books already that can allow us to thwart mass shooters before they can hurt anyone .
We also know that there ’ s absolutely no law on the books that will really stop a determined bad actor from getting guns .
Recently , the ATF made an arrest that may well suggest both of those points as absolutely correct .
It seems Kimpton had a neat little scam going .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the guns shipped to various FFL holders all over the state .
Then he ’ d go and pick them up , only to then challenge the purchases with his credit card company , saying he never got the stuff .
The same stuff he had already taken possession of .
That means all those guns were basically stolen .
However , since he also didn ’ t actually pay for any of the equipment , he was able to amass quite the arsenal .
OK , that last bit is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AP .
It ’ s not like they really understand guns or how bump stocks actually work .
And it ’ s only a few hundred rounds per weapon , though that ’ s not particularly relevant .
What is relevant , however , was some research that Klimpton conducted .
This suggests that he planned on using these weapons in some kind of a mass shooting .
In fact , he was looking at local shootings , which means he wasn ’ t interested in how Las Vegas was carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be something he could replicate .
Look , those determined to commit evil deeds will do whatever they can to secure weapons for their evil deeds .
I don ’ t know for sure Kimpton is one of those people , someone determined to carry out evil at the end of a gun , but the evidence certainly looks that way from this point of view .
If so , it ’ s important to remember that he was stopped .
As so many other potential mass shooters have been .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how a 25-year-old was able to dispute that many charges on his credit card and the card company not think anything was fishy before he ’ d managed to get 90 freaking guns .
Regardless , Kimper is in jail with no bond set .
Sounds like the judge is worried about Kimper should he get out of jail .
I ’ d say that might not be a bad thing .

One of the biggest issues with creating laws to combat mass shootings is that it’s simply not needed. We have plenty of laws on the books already that can allow us to thwart mass shooters before they can hurt anyone. We also know that there’s absolutely no law on the books that will really stop a determined bad actor from getting guns.
Recently, the ATF made an arrest that may well suggest both of those points as absolutely correct.
A South Carolina student was arrested and accused of illegally possessing 90 weapons, including numerous assault rifles, authorities said. Edward Daniel Kimpton Jr., 25, was charged Tuesday with wire fraud, mail fraud and illegal possession of machine guns, The Columbia State reported. Kimpton was arrested Friday after an 18-month investigation by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Secret Service. He’s a Midlands Technical College student, officials confirmed.
It seems Kimpton had a neat little scam going. He’d buy the guns online, then have the guns shipped to various FFL holders all over the state. Then he’d go and pick them up, only to then challenge the purchases with his credit card company, saying he never got the stuff.
The same stuff he had already taken possession of. That means all those guns were basically stolen.
However, since he also didn’t actually pay for any of the equipment, he was able to amass quite the arsenal.
Federal agents searched Kimpton’s house and storage unit and found 90 weapons, 23,763 bullets, body armor, tactical clothing, gas masks, and five bump stocks, which are used to change regular assault rifles into automatic weapons.
OK, that last bit is a little stupid, but it’s the AP. It’s not like they really understand guns or how bump stocks actually work.
And it’s only a few hundred rounds per weapon, though that’s not particularly relevant.
What is relevant, however, was some research that Klimpton conducted.
During the investigation, authorities discovered that Kimpton researched content on South Carolina mass shooters in Charleston in 2015 and Florence in 2018. He also made online searches for instructions on how to use bump stocks, the complaint said.
This suggests that he planned on using these weapons in some kind of a mass shooting. In fact, he was looking at local shootings, which means he wasn’t interested in how Las Vegas was carried out, probably because that wouldn’t be something he could replicate.
Look, those determined to commit evil deeds will do whatever they can to secure weapons for their evil deeds. I don’t know for sure Kimpton is one of those people, someone determined to carry out evil at the end of a gun, but the evidence certainly looks that way from this point of view. If so, it’s important to remember that he was stopped.
As so many other potential mass shooters have been.
Of course, I’m trying to figure out how a 25-year-old was able to dispute that many charges on his credit card and the card company not think anything was fishy before he’d managed to get 90 freaking guns.
Regardless, Kimper is in jail with no bond set. Sounds like the judge is worried about Kimper should he get out of jail.
I’d say that might not be a bad thing.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Utah Man Loses Case To Block Bump Stock Ban

There are still a lot of people who are less than happy about the bump stock ban .
In fairness , why wouldn ’ t they be ?
There was no grandfather clause , no ability to register bump stocks , no nothing for those who had them except to turn them over or destroy them .
Sure , a fair number of people probably did neither , but they ’ re not exactly going to talk about it , nor should they .
However , one man seemed determined to try and overturn the bump stock ban .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You see , a machine gun is defined as a weapon that fires multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger .
A bump stock doesn ’ t change the way a semi-auto firearm functions .
Instead , it merely facilitates pulling that semi-automatic trigger much , much faster .
As such , I fail to see how they can be classified as machine guns when they don ’ t meet the legal definition of such a weapon .
The problem is that after Las Vegas , no one wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to earn the ire of the public by saying the weapon used to kill so many people and injured so many more not only was legal but will remain so .
What they don ’ t get is that bump fire is still perfectly legal and can be facilitated through the use of things like belt loops and rubber bands .
The ban makes no one safer .
It merely put a company out of business and deprived their previous customers out of property they purchased lawfully at the time .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ ve accomplished nothing except to further alienate the group of people who are already tense enough and expecting further encroachments on their second amendment rights .
No one is going to win if this ban stands , mark my words .
The long term impact will not be the good supporters think it will be .

There are still a lot of people who are less than happy about the bump stock ban. In fairness, why wouldn’t they be? There was no grandfather clause, no ability to register bump stocks, no nothing for those who had them except to turn them over or destroy them.
Sure, a fair number of people probably did neither, but they’re not exactly going to talk about it, nor should they.
However, one man seemed determined to try and overturn the bump stock ban. Unfortunately, he just got a major setback.
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday ruled against a Utah gun rights advocate who challenged the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns. A three judge panel from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said a lower court was right to reject a request from Clark Aposhian to temporarily block the ban, which took effect last year, because he did not show he was likely to win his case. The appeals court also said he failed to show that blocking the ban would not hurt the public’s interest. The decision came two months after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal of the ban, enacted as a result of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. A similar challenge to the ban is set to go to trial in July in Texas. … In a solo dissent, Judge Joel Carson said the law only refers to the trigger itself, not any external action, pointing out that mechanical bump stocks require the shooter to apply constant forward pressure with their non-trigger hand and cannot function all by themselves as the law requires.
That’s a key point here.
You see, a machine gun is defined as a weapon that fires multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. A bump stock doesn’t change the way a semi-auto firearm functions. Instead, it merely facilitates pulling that semi-automatic trigger much, much faster.
As such, I fail to see how they can be classified as machine guns when they don’t meet the legal definition of such a weapon.
The problem is that after Las Vegas, no one wants to take the football. No one wants to earn the ire of the public by saying the weapon used to kill so many people and injured so many more not only was legal but will remain so.
What they don’t get is that bump fire is still perfectly legal and can be facilitated through the use of things like belt loops and rubber bands. The ban makes no one safer. It merely put a company out of business and deprived their previous customers out of property they purchased lawfully at the time. There was no compensation for that property, either.
They’ve accomplished nothing except to further alienate the group of people who are already tense enough and expecting further encroachments on their second amendment rights. No one is going to win if this ban stands, mark my words. The long term impact will not be the good supporters think it will be.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Meet The Michigan Gun Store Owner Who Opened During the Pandemic

Not re-open , mind you .
Though Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer didn ’ t get around to including gun stores in the list of “ essential businesses ” that were allowed to remain open until mid-April , which may not be that shocking considered some of the bone-headed decisions she ’ s made over the past couple of months .
Still , by April 11 Whitmer had , however reluctantly , restored the ability of gun stores in the state to open for business , which was great news for Michigan resident Lisa Mayo .
An hour after Whitmer declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resident Lisa Mayo decided to pull the trigger on a plan she ’ d been working on for months : opening up her own brick-and-mortar gun store after several years as an FFL primarily working gun shows .
Mayo had been planning on opening up later this fall , but once the emergency order was in effect , she moved quickly to sign a lease , called the ATF to start the necessary paperwork , and in late April , a couple of weeks after Whitmer ’ s modified order that included gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses , ” she was able to open the doors to Flashpoint Firearms in the Grand Rapids suburb of Comstock Park .
Lisa Mayo joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to talk about the whirlwind of activity that ’ s taken place since she signed her lease back in March .
After a frenzied rush to open , she ’ s seen a surge in demand that ’ s fueled record-high gun sales over the past couple of months .
And like other gun store owners , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers to date have been first-time gun buyers .
When I asked Mayo why these folks are buying guns , she replied that it was fear .
Fears that things will get worse , instead of better .
Fears that crime will rise if people become desperate .
Ultimately , fear of an uncertain future is what ’ s driving sales , but it ’ s not uncertainty about a new gun control law or even who the next president will be ( though that may drive more sales as we get closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a much more fundamental and non-partisan fear ; how much more will our lives change ?
As for who these first-time gun buyers are , Mayo says she hasn ’ t seen any particular demographic stand out .
Instead , she says it ’ s really been a cross-section of the local community who ’ ve walked away from her store as happy customers .
For more of my conversation with Lisa Mayo , check out the video window above , and stick around for the story of an Illinois man on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid more than a decade behind bars thanks to a sweetheart of a plea deal , a Georgia man who came to the defense of his elderly neighbor who was being beaten inside his home , and a good deed that saved the life of a very good boy in Virginia .
One programming note as well .
I had a brief conversation today with Mike Lynn , Jr. , one of the armed escorts who walked Rep. Sarah Anthony into her office at the state capitol earlier this week .
Originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s program , but I really felt like I was crunched for time and had to end the interview much sooner than I would have liked .
Mike ’ s agreed to speak with me again on Monday , and I ’ m looking forward to a great conversation to share on the next Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co .

Not re-open, mind you. Though Gov. Gretchen Whitmer didn’t get around to including gun stores in the list of “essential businesses” that were allowed to remain open until mid-April, which may not be that shocking considered some of the bone-headed decisions she’s made over the past couple of months. Still, by April 11 Whitmer had, however reluctantly, restored the ability of gun stores in the state to open for business, which was great news for Michigan resident Lisa Mayo.
An hour after Whitmer declared her original state of emergency, Michigan resident Lisa Mayo decided to pull the trigger on a plan she’d been working on for months: opening up her own brick-and-mortar gun store after several years as an FFL primarily working gun shows. Mayo had been planning on opening up later this fall, but once the emergency order was in effect, she moved quickly to sign a lease, called the ATF to start the necessary paperwork, and in late April, a couple of weeks after Whitmer’s modified order that included gun stores in the list of “essential businesses,” she was able to open the doors to Flashpoint Firearms in the Grand Rapids suburb of Comstock Park.
Lisa Mayo joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about the whirlwind of activity that’s taken place since she signed her lease back in March. After a frenzied rush to open, she’s seen a surge in demand that’s fueled record-high gun sales over the past couple of months. And like other gun store owners, she says the vast majority of her customers to date have been first-time gun buyers.
When I asked Mayo why these folks are buying guns, she replied that it was fear. Fears that things will get worse, instead of better. Fears that crime will rise if people become desperate. Ultimately, fear of an uncertain future is what’s driving sales, but it’s not uncertainty about a new gun control law or even who the next president will be (though that may drive more sales as we get closer to the election). It’s a much more fundamental and non-partisan fear; how much more will our lives change? As for who these first-time gun buyers are, Mayo says she hasn’t seen any particular demographic stand out. Instead, she says it’s really been a cross-section of the local community who’ve walked away from her store as happy customers.
For more of my conversation with Lisa Mayo, check out the video window above, and stick around for the story of an Illinois man on probation for illegal gun possession who managed to avoid more than a decade behind bars thanks to a sweetheart of a plea deal, a Georgia man who came to the defense of his elderly neighbor who was being beaten inside his home, and a good deed that saved the life of a very good boy in Virginia.
One programming note as well. I had a brief conversation today with Mike Lynn, Jr., one of the armed escorts who walked Rep. Sarah Anthony into her office at the state capitol earlier this week. Originally that interview was going to run on today’s program, but I really felt like I was crunched for time and had to end the interview much sooner than I would have liked. Mike’s agreed to speak with me again on Monday, and I’m looking forward to a great conversation to share on the next Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--NY Sheriff Warns Of Fake Letter Claiming Gun Confiscation

Right now , people are willing to believe almost anything .
It doesn ’ t help that some people have done things so stupid that it boggles the mind .
All that stuff makes it even easier for people to believe some of the other things that get bandied about .
That seems to be what happened in Chautauqua County in New York .
It seems a letter began circulating warning that the sheriff was about to declare martial law and all that entailed , including gun confiscation .
Now , the sheriff is trying to set the record straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter was received by the Town of Busti clerk this week .
It erroneously stated that Sheriff Jim Quattrone had declared Martial Law and would be requiring county residents to surrender any AR-15-style guns by Dec. 31 .
Sheriff Quattrone said the letter was not true and was a “ bad and potentially dangerous prank.
” Well , in fairness , would it be the worst thing we ’ ve seen from New York during this crisis .
( I ’ m looking at you , New York City , and your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a given train , thus increasing the spread of the disease . )
However , Sheriff Quattrone is adamant that he has no intention to do any such thing .
And really , why would he ?
Chautauqua County has a population of over 134,000 people , but as of this writing , it only has 40 reported cases of COVID-19 .
In other words , it ’ s not like there ’ s an outbreak there big enough to warrant emergency measures , much less martial law .
Especially since that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t taken place pretty much anywhere else , including major hot spots .
Frankly , it ’ s unlikely the sheriff could get away with something like that even if he wanted to .
And I believe him when he said that he doesn ’ t want to .
Look , right now , a lot of people are looking at this stuff and thinking about how the government is overreaching left and right .
They ’ re not wrong to be skeptical .
The problem is , people are also jumpy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well before we were all locked down in our homes .
Now , it ’ s even worse and letters like this aren ’ t remotely funny .
If this is a prank , it ’ s a poorly thought out one .
Look , with the tensions we have , it ’ s not hard to imagine people seeing that “ letter ” and deciding it was time to open hunting season on sheriff ’ s deputies .
It ’ s not hard to see other public officials become targeted as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idiotic idea of a joke .
If this isn ’ t a prank…well , then I don ’ t know what it is .
This isn ’ t a case of someone misconstruing a comment , apparently .
It ’ s someone who wanted to make it look like the sheriff wanted to deprive people of their civil liberties , particularly their Second Amendment rights .
About the only alternative to a prank I can think of right now is that it was an intentional effort to hurt Sheriff Quattrone .
That sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any better , though .
Hopefully , people didn ’ t put too much stock in this kind of stupid .
If they did , I hope they at least see the error of their ways .

Right now, people are willing to believe almost anything. It doesn’t help that some people have done things so stupid that it boggles the mind. All that stuff makes it even easier for people to believe some of the other things that get bandied about.
That seems to be what happened in Chautauqua County in New York. It seems a letter began circulating warning that the sheriff was about to declare martial law and all that entailed, including gun confiscation.
Now, the sheriff is trying to set the record straight.
According to a Facebook post, the letter was received by the Town of Busti clerk this week. It erroneously stated that Sheriff Jim Quattrone had declared Martial Law and would be requiring county residents to surrender any AR-15-style guns by Dec. 31. Sheriff Quattrone said the letter was not true and was a “bad and potentially dangerous prank.”
Well, in fairness, would it be the worst thing we’ve seen from New York during this crisis. (I’m looking at you, New York City, and your reduced subway schedules that put more people in a given train, thus increasing the spread of the disease.)
However, Sheriff Quattrone is adamant that he has no intention to do any such thing. And really, why would he?
Chautauqua County has a population of over 134,000 people, but as of this writing, it only has 40 reported cases of COVID-19. In other words, it’s not like there’s an outbreak there big enough to warrant emergency measures, much less martial law. Especially since that’s a step that hasn’t taken place pretty much anywhere else, including major hot spots.
Frankly, it’s unlikely the sheriff could get away with something like that even if he wanted to. And I believe him when he said that he doesn’t want to.
Look, right now, a lot of people are looking at this stuff and thinking about how the government is overreaching left and right. They’re not wrong to be skeptical.
The problem is, people are also jumpy. Tensions in this country were already high well before we were all locked down in our homes. Now, it’s even worse and letters like this aren’t remotely funny. If this is a prank, it’s a poorly thought out one.
Look, with the tensions we have, it’s not hard to imagine people seeing that “letter” and deciding it was time to open hunting season on sheriff’s deputies. It’s not hard to see other public officials become targeted as well, all because of someone’s idiotic idea of a joke.
If this isn’t a prank…well, then I don’t know what it is. This isn’t a case of someone misconstruing a comment, apparently. It’s someone who wanted to make it look like the sheriff wanted to deprive people of their civil liberties, particularly their Second Amendment rights.
About the only alternative to a prank I can think of right now is that it was an intentional effort to hurt Sheriff Quattrone. That sure as hell doesn’t make it any better, though.
Hopefully, people didn’t put too much stock in this kind of stupid. If they did, I hope they at least see the error of their ways.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Woman Shoots Three McDonald's Employees Over Closed Dining Room

All throughout the country , dining rooms are closed for most restaurants .
Sure , a lot are doing takeout–including many that never did takeout before–but no one is eating in those dining rooms .
Even in places where the government hasn ’ t close the dining-in option , some restaurants have taken unilateral action to protect their employees and the public .
While you don ’ t have to agree with it , they do have the right to do just that .
By now , most of us should be well aware of this fact .
It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than pleased by it , though .
Three McDonald ’ s employees in Oklahoma City suffered gunshot wounds when a customer opened fire because she was angry that the restaurant ’ s dining area was closed because of the coronavirus pandemic , police said Thursday .
Gloricia Woody , 32 , was in custody after the Wednesday night shooting on four counts of assault and battery with a deadly weapon , said police Capt .
Larry Withrow .
It was not known if Woody has an attorney , Withrow said .
Woody entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the dining room was closed for safety reasons , Withrow said .
“ ( Woody ) was asked to leave but refused , ” leading to a physical altercation between Woody and one employee , ” according to Withrow .
“ The suspect was forced out of the restaurant by employees .
She reentered the restaurant with a handgun and fired approximately three rounds in the restaurant , ” Withrow said .
One employee was shot in the arm , one suffered a shrapnel wound in the shoulder area and another employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The employee who fought with Woody suffered a head injury during the altercation , police said .
Apparently , two of the employees were just 16-years-old while the others were 18 .
Holy crap on a cracker , that ’ s weapons-grade derp right there .
By now , everyone should at least be used to dining rooms in restaurants not being open , but even if you ’ re not , who does that ?
McDonald ’ s CEO Chris Kempczinski chalked it up to the stresses many people are feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add that violence is never justified .
Of course , he had to get a dig in by saying , “ especially gun violence , ” even though that ’ s really rather irrelevant right now .
My guess is that Woody is at least somewhat unhinged and probably shouldn ’ t be out on her own anyway .
Then again , she might not have been unhinged a couple of months ago .
We ’ re likely to see more outbursts like this in the coming weeks .
While anti-gunners would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the truth of the matter is that humans–especially humans in the United States–aren ’ t wired to be cooped up like this for weeks and weeks on end .
People are going to get wound up in ways they never would have before .
That will manifest itself in violence in far too many cases .
Stuff like this is only the beginning , I ’ m afraid .
Couple this with the downturn expected in the economy and we may have far more interesting times than any of us want .

All throughout the country, dining rooms are closed for most restaurants. Sure, a lot are doing takeout–including many that never did takeout before–but no one is eating in those dining rooms.
Even in places where the government hasn’t close the dining-in option, some restaurants have taken unilateral action to protect their employees and the public. While you don’t have to agree with it, they do have the right to do just that.
By now, most of us should be well aware of this fact.
It seems a woman in Oklahoma City was less than pleased by it, though.
Three McDonald’s employees in Oklahoma City suffered gunshot wounds when a customer opened fire because she was angry that the restaurant’s dining area was closed because of the coronavirus pandemic, police said Thursday. Gloricia Woody, 32, was in custody after the Wednesday night shooting on four counts of assault and battery with a deadly weapon, said police Capt. Larry Withrow. It was not known if Woody has an attorney, Withrow said. Woody entered the restaurant’s lobby and was told the dining room was closed for safety reasons, Withrow said. “(Woody) was asked to leave but refused,” leading to a physical altercation between Woody and one employee,” according to Withrow. “The suspect was forced out of the restaurant by employees. She reentered the restaurant with a handgun and fired approximately three rounds in the restaurant,” Withrow said. One employee was shot in the arm, one suffered a shrapnel wound in the shoulder area and another employee was struck in the side by shrapnel. The employee who fought with Woody suffered a head injury during the altercation, police said.
Apparently, two of the employees were just 16-years-old while the others were 18.
Holy crap on a cracker, that’s weapons-grade derp right there.
By now, everyone should at least be used to dining rooms in restaurants not being open, but even if you’re not, who does that?
McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski chalked it up to the stresses many people are feeling due to the lockdown but went on to add that violence is never justified. Of course, he had to get a dig in by saying, “especially gun violence,” even though that’s really rather irrelevant right now.
My guess is that Woody is at least somewhat unhinged and probably shouldn’t be out on her own anyway. Then again, she might not have been unhinged a couple of months ago.
We’re likely to see more outbursts like this in the coming weeks. While anti-gunners would like to chalk it up to guns, the truth of the matter is that humans–especially humans in the United States–aren’t wired to be cooped up like this for weeks and weeks on end. People are going to get wound up in ways they never would have before. That will manifest itself in violence in far too many cases. Stuff like this is only the beginning, I’m afraid.
Couple this with the downturn expected in the economy and we may have far more interesting times than any of us want.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Canadian Gun Group Prepping Lawsuit Over Trudeau's Gun Ban

While the Canadian constitution doesn ’ t contain any explicit protections for the right to keep and bear arms , and a 1993 Supreme Court decision ruled that Canadian citizens have no right to own firearms , which could make a constitutional challenge difficult .
“ Canadians , unlike Americans , do not have a constitutional right to bear arms , ” the high court stated in 1993 , in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons .
“ Indeed , most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said the court .
The rights issue was tested again in the case of an Ontario firearms dealer and manufacturer .
Bruce Montague was charged with several weapons offences after police found more than 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at Montague ’ s home in northwestern Ontario .
Montague didn ’ t renew the registrations on his weapons , convinced that he had a constitutional right to bear arms without government interference or regulation , despite the passage of Bill C-68 , the Firearms Act , in 1995 .
Montague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to possess firearms for self defence ” derived from the constitution of Britain .
He pointed to the preamble of the Constitution Act , 1867 , Canada ’ s founding constitutional document , which in his view imported the English Bill of Rights of 1689 , which states in Article 7 : “ That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
” Montague further argued that in 1982 , this historical right was shielded from any ordinary legislation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Freedoms , which reads : “ The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
” His convictions were upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal and in September 2010 , the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a final appeal , without offering reasons .

While the Canadian constitution doesn’t contain any explicit protections for the right to keep and bear arms, and a 1993 Supreme Court decision ruled that Canadian citizens have no right to own firearms, which could make a constitutional challenge difficult.
“Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms,” the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.
“Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited,” said the court.
The rights issue was tested again in the case of an Ontario firearms dealer and manufacturer.
Bruce Montague was charged with several weapons offences after police found more than 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at Montague’s home in northwestern Ontario.
Montague didn’t renew the registrations on his weapons, convinced that he had a constitutional right to bear arms without government interference or regulation, despite the passage of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, in 1995.
Montague argued that he had “a constitutional right to possess firearms for self defence” derived from the constitution of Britain.
He pointed to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada’s founding constitutional document, which in his view imported the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states in Article 7: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
Montague further argued that in 1982, this historical right was shielded from any ordinary legislation by section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads: “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”
His convictions were upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal and in September 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a final appeal, without offering reasons.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Gun Control Groups Defense Of Nikki Fried Betrays Their True Agenda

When it comes to COVID-19 , gun control groups probably shouldn ’ t have had anything to offer .
After all , they claim they support law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms , they just want some “ common sense ” restrictions on those rights .
Pro-gun activists have argued for years that they really want to basically take away those rights , which many gun control activists take issue with .
Pro-gun groups have been fighting , though , to keep gun stores open and to keep people able to exercise their Second Amendment rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a lot of push for new laws on any front .
We ’ re all just trying to hold on .
Yet anti-gun groups are making moves that betray the fact that , for them , it ’ s not about keeping guns out of the hands of bad people , it ’ s about keeping guns out of the hands of everyone .
For example , their defense of Nikki Fried ’ s actions regarding carry permits in Florida .
The Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence is defending Agriculture Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has raged for a week over her decision to restrict some concealed weapons permits processing during the coronavirus crisis .
Pro-gun groups have pilloried Fried for “ infringing ” on their rights for halting online gun licensing .
The Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence , a group cofounded by the League of Women Voters of Florida and The Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus , entered the fray Thursday .
“ Commissioner Fried is placing the safety of all Floridians over the petty demands of the gun lobby by working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before granting a permit that will allow someone to carry a loaded , concealed firearm in public , ” the coalition ’ s co-chairs Angie Gallo and Andy Pelosi stated in a news release .
“ The integrity of Florida ’ s concealed weapons licensing background check system must remain paramount to any baseless claims that permits are either not being run or delayed.
” The problem is that no one is arguing about proper background checks not being done .
Quite the opposite , actually .
The pro-gun groups are demanding they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is the anti-gunners are defending no background checks being performed because it means people can ’ t get carry permits .
That means people can ’ t exercise their right to keep and bear arms fully while complying with carry permit requirements .
Sure , the couch it in the language of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people , but they ’ re defending actions that keep guns out of a lot more people ’ s hands than just any bad guys–you know , people who aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it ’ s really about .
You see , this isn ’ t the first , much less a unique situation .
Anti-gunners have been defending the closures of gun stores all over the country .
They ’ ve cited COVID-19 concerns and many other things , but it ’ s all betrayed their real agenda .
They don ’ t care about the virus with these stands , they care about making it impossible for you to have a firearm .
They don ’ t want you to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The coronavirus is just an excuse , a pretext they ’ ll jump on simply because it ’ s handy .
At the end of the day , their sole purpose is to restrict guns down to the point that the Second Amendment is practically meaningless , and they ’ ll use any justification than can concoct to make that happen .

When it comes to COVID-19, gun control groups probably shouldn’t have had anything to offer. After all, they claim they support law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms, they just want some “common sense” restrictions on those rights. Pro-gun activists have argued for years that they really want to basically take away those rights, which many gun control activists take issue with.
Pro-gun groups have been fighting, though, to keep gun stores open and to keep people able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Right now, there’s not a lot of push for new laws on any front. We’re all just trying to hold on.
Yet anti-gun groups are making moves that betray the fact that, for them, it’s not about keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, it’s about keeping guns out of the hands of everyone.
For example, their defense of Nikki Fried’s actions regarding carry permits in Florida.
The Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence is defending Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried in the war of words that has raged for a week over her decision to restrict some concealed weapons permits processing during the coronavirus crisis. Pro-gun groups have pilloried Fried for “infringing”on their rights for halting online gun licensing. The Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, a group cofounded by the League of Women Voters of Florida and The Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, entered the fray Thursday. “Commissioner Fried is placing the safety of all Floridians over the petty demands of the gun lobby by working to ensure that proper background checks are performed before granting a permit that will allow someone to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public,” the coalition’s co-chairs Angie Gallo and Andy Pelosi stated in a news release. “The integrity of Florida’s concealed weapons licensing background check system must remain paramount to any baseless claims that permits are either not being run or delayed.”
The problem is that no one is arguing about proper background checks not being done. Quite the opposite, actually. The pro-gun groups are demanding they be carried out, actually.
The problem is the anti-gunners are defending no background checks being performed because it means people can’t get carry permits. That means people can’t exercise their right to keep and bear arms fully while complying with carry permit requirements. Sure, the couch it in the language of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, but they’re defending actions that keep guns out of a lot more people’s hands than just any bad guys–you know, people who aren’t getting permits anyway.
And that is what it’s really about.
You see, this isn’t the first, much less a unique situation. Anti-gunners have been defending the closures of gun stores all over the country. They’ve cited COVID-19 concerns and many other things, but it’s all betrayed their real agenda.
They don’t care about the virus with these stands, they care about making it impossible for you to have a firearm. They don’t want you to be able to get a gun under any circumstances. The coronavirus is just an excuse, a pretext they’ll jump on simply because it’s handy.
At the end of the day, their sole purpose is to restrict guns down to the point that the Second Amendment is practically meaningless, and they’ll use any justification than can concoct to make that happen.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--Background Check Bill Vetoed By Maryland Governor

Gun control advocates in Maryland suffered a defeat this week with Governor Larry Hogan ’ s veto of a bill requiring background checks on transfers of long guns .
HB 4 would have imposed criminal penalties on the private transfers and sales of rifles and shotguns , and was a top priority for anti-gun groups like Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety , which lobbied Hogan extensively after the legislature approved the measure , and tried to tie the bill to a 2018 active assailant attack in Annapolis .
Along with Moms Demand Action , Everytown believes the HB 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get their hands on rifles and shotguns .
They say it could prevent shootings similar to the Capital Gazette newsroom mass shooting .
Maryland lawmakers approved the bill and sent to the governor ’ s desk before legislature closed on March 16 in response to the pandemic .
As you can imagine , pro-Second Amendment groups in the state are encouraged by Hogan ’ s veto , with the head of one organization telling Fox Baltimore that the bill was fundamentally flawed .
Mark W. Pennak , president of Maryland Shall Issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wholly new set of restrictions on temporary and permanent long gun “ transfers ” which would be defined in an extremely broad manner .
The bills would severely criminalize any non-compliance with its many and highly complex new restrictions.
” Since the arrival of Covid-19 , new FBI data shows that gun sales have increased amid the pandemic .
According to an Everytown analysis , an estimated 4.2 million guns were sold in March and April combined compared to 2.3 million guns sold during the same time period last year .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins who testified before the General Assembly in support of the Firearms Safety Act of 2013 and said , “ imposing comprehensive back ground checks beyond those required by federal law does nothing to promote public safety.
” The background check measure was one of three dozen bills rejected by Hogan on Thursday , which was the last day for the governor to veto measures before they would automatically become law .
Several of the bills came with too high a price tag for the governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HB 4 , were vetoed because the governor says they didn ’ t do enough to address violent crime in the state .
The bill has been a Democratic priority for the last two legislative sessions .
The bill ’ s sponsor , Del .
Vanessa Atterbeary ( D-Howard ) , tweeted that she was “ beyond disappointed ” with the veto of the bill .
Other lawmakers took exception to Hogan ’ s veto letter , in which he highlighted the failure of the House of Delegates to pass his own crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong willingness to consider other proposals , including some of those passed by the legislature , if they were included as part of a comprehensive crime package which included my proposals , ” Hogan wrote .
While the Senate incorporated portions of Hogan priorities into a package in that chamber , the House did not take up the package “ and thus failed to meaningfully address violent crime , ” Hogan wrote .
Democrats in control of the state legislature could meet to try to override the governor ’ s vetoes , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear uncertain as to when a veto override session might take place .
In the meantime , Hogan ’ s veto of HB 4 is a positive step for gun owners in the state , and should send a message to lawmakers to focus on the violent criminals driving crime in Baltimore , instead of focusing their efforts on the state ’ s legal gun owners .

Gun control advocates in Maryland suffered a defeat this week with Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of a bill requiring background checks on transfers of long guns. HB 4 would have imposed criminal penalties on the private transfers and sales of rifles and shotguns, and was a top priority for anti-gun groups like Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety, which lobbied Hogan extensively after the legislature approved the measure, and tried to tie the bill to a 2018 active assailant attack in Annapolis .
Along with Moms Demand Action, Everytown believes the HB 4 would make it hard for prohibited purchasers to get their hands on rifles and shotguns. They say it could prevent shootings similar to the Capital Gazette newsroom mass shooting. Maryland lawmakers approved the bill and sent to the governor’s desk before legislature closed on March 16 in response to the pandemic.
As you can imagine, pro-Second Amendment groups in the state are encouraged by Hogan’s veto, with the head of one organization telling Fox Baltimore that the bill was fundamentally flawed.
Mark W. Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue said, “This bill would add a wholly new set of restrictions on temporary and permanent long gun “transfers” which would be defined in an extremely broad manner. The bills would severely criminalize any non-compliance with its many and highly complex new restrictions.” Since the arrival of Covid-19, new FBI data shows that gun sales have increased amid the pandemic. According to an Everytown analysis, an estimated 4.2 million guns were sold in March and April combined compared to 2.3 million guns sold during the same time period last year. Despite the numbers, Pennak cites a study from Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins who testified before the General Assembly in support of the Firearms Safety Act of 2013 and said, “imposing comprehensive back ground checks beyond those required by federal law does nothing to promote public safety.”
The background check measure was one of three dozen bills rejected by Hogan on Thursday, which was the last day for the governor to veto measures before they would automatically become law. Several of the bills came with too high a price tag for the governor’s liking, while other bills, including HB 4, were vetoed because the governor says they didn’t do enough to address violent crime in the state.
The bill has been a Democratic priority for the last two legislative sessions. The bill’s sponsor, Del. Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard), tweeted that she was “beyond disappointed” with the veto of the bill. Other lawmakers took exception to Hogan’s veto letter, in which he highlighted the failure of the House of Delegates to pass his own crime bill proposals. “I expressed my strong willingness to consider other proposals, including some of those passed by the legislature, if they were included as part of a comprehensive crime package which included my proposals,” Hogan wrote. While the Senate incorporated portions of Hogan priorities into a package in that chamber, the House did not take up the package “and thus failed to meaningfully address violent crime,” Hogan wrote.
Democrats in control of the state legislature could meet to try to override the governor’s vetoes, but with the current coronavirus crisis, legislators appear uncertain as to when a veto override session might take place. In the meantime, Hogan’s veto of HB 4 is a positive step for gun owners in the state, and should send a message to lawmakers to focus on the violent criminals driving crime in Baltimore, instead of focusing their efforts on the state’s legal gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-05-08--GeorgiaCarry.Org Files Lawsuit Over Permits During Lockdown

Among the many states that have made it impossible to get a permit is , surprisingly , gun-friendly Georgia .
The state shut down all courthouses fairly early in the pandemic , which also included the probate courts .
In Georgia , that ’ s the issuing authority for Georgia Weapons Carry licenses , which means no new weapons carry licenses are being issued .
To be fair , this is more likely a side effect of the lockdown rather than a goal , unlike some other states I could name , but that doesn ’ t really matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who may have decided they need to carry a firearm , can ’ t .
Gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.Org has filed a lawsuit to address that .
Monday morning , May 4 , 2020 , GeorgiaCarry.Org filed our third lawsuit against Governor Brian Kemp and the state of Georgia in the Superior Court of Union County .
The case is Elizabeth House & GeorgiaCarry.Org , Inc , vs BRIAN KEMP , individually and in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia and Dwain Brackett , individually and in his official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Union County in the below violations : 1 ) Violations of the right to keep and bear arms : Article I , Sec .
I , Par .
VIII of the Georgia Constitution guarantee a right to keep and bear arms .
By effectively preventing House from carrying a handgun outside her home , motor vehicle , or place of business , either openly or concealed , Kemp and Brackett are violating the Constitution of the State of Georgia I ’ m going to invite you to and read the rest over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This isn ’ t the first lawsuit GGO has filed on this issue during the pandemic .
They lost a case in April over pretty much this exact same thing .
The reasoning ?
Monroe had argued during the hearing that the suspension put would-be license applicants between “ the proverbial rock and a hard place.
” They must have a carry license to exercise their constitutional right to carry a gun , but it ’ s impossible to get a carry license because probate judges have decided processing the applications is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones found that a claim that Carter feared arrest and prosecution under the carry law while the state of emergency is in effect isn ’ t reasonable , particularly because state law prohibits law enforcement officers from detaining someone solely to determine whether the person has a carry license .
In Georgia , it ’ s technically illegal for a police officer to demand you present proof of having a Georgia Weapons Carry License .
That means you can walk around with a firearm illegally and the police can ’ t actually tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not doing anything illegal .
In other words , the judge figured that there ’ s no reason to fear arrest and prosecution for breaking the law , thus there were no grounds for a lawsuit .
Now , in a way , this could be taken to mean the state has de facto constitutional carry .
After all , if people can carry without a permit and not have to fear arrest by law enforcement over it , isn ’ t that kind of the same thing ?
The problem , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal .
The judge is arguing that it ’ s fine to break the law so long as you can ’ t be arrested for doing so , which just doesn ’ t strike me as the soundest legal argument a judge could make .
As a resident of Georgia , I sincerely hope this lawsuit gets a better hearing than the previous one .
Folks in Georgiadamn sure deserve to be treated like law-abiding citizens wishing to comply with the law by the judicial branch rather than whatever the hell that judge @ @ @ @ @ @

Among the many states that have made it impossible to get a permit is, surprisingly, gun-friendly Georgia.
The state shut down all courthouses fairly early in the pandemic, which also included the probate courts. In Georgia, that’s the issuing authority for Georgia Weapons Carry licenses, which means no new weapons carry licenses are being issued.
Yeah, that’s not good.
To be fair, this is more likely a side effect of the lockdown rather than a goal, unlike some other states I could name, but that doesn’t really matter. It means that many in the state who may have decided they need to carry a firearm, can’t.
Gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.Org has filed a lawsuit to address that.
Monday morning, May 4, 2020, GeorgiaCarry.Org filed our third lawsuit against Governor Brian Kemp and the state of Georgia in the Superior Court of Union County. The case is Elizabeth House & GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc, vs BRIAN KEMP, individually and in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia and Dwain Brackett, individually and in his official capacity as judge of the probate court of Union County in the below violations: 1) Violations of the right to keep and bear arms: Article I, Sec. I, Par. VIII of the Georgia Constitution guarantee a right to keep and bear arms. By effectively preventing House from carrying a handgun outside her home, motor vehicle, or place of business, either openly or concealed, Kemp and Brackett are violating the Constitution of the State of Georgia
I’m going to invite you to and read the rest over at their site for more details.
This isn’t the first lawsuit GeorgiaCarry.Org has filed on this issue during the pandemic. They lost a case in April over pretty much this exact same thing. The reasoning?
Monroe had argued during the hearing that the suspension put would-be license applicants between “the proverbial rock and a hard place.” They must have a carry license to exercise their constitutional right to carry a gun, but it’s impossible to get a carry license because probate judges have decided processing the applications is not an essential function, he said. Jones found that a claim that Carter feared arrest and prosecution under the carry law while the state of emergency is in effect isn’t reasonable, particularly because state law prohibits law enforcement officers from detaining someone solely to determine whether the person has a carry license.
In Georgia, it’s technically illegal for a police officer to demand you present proof of having a Georgia Weapons Carry License. That means you can walk around with a firearm illegally and the police can’t actually tell that so long as you’re not doing anything illegal.
In other words, the judge figured that there’s no reason to fear arrest and prosecution for breaking the law, thus there were no grounds for a lawsuit.
Now, in a way, this could be taken to mean the state has de facto constitutional carry. After all, if people can carry without a permit and not have to fear arrest by law enforcement over it, isn’t that kind of the same thing?
The problem, though, is that it’s still illegal. The judge is arguing that it’s fine to break the law so long as you can’t be arrested for doing so, which just doesn’t strike me as the soundest legal argument a judge could make.
As a resident of Georgia, I sincerely hope this lawsuit gets a better hearing than the previous one. Folks in Georgiadamn sure deserve to be treated like law-abiding citizens wishing to comply with the law by the judicial branch rather than whatever the hell that judge seemed to see them as.


bearingarms--2020-05-09--Ahmaud Arbery Shooting: Just Shooting Or Murder?

I ’ ve been quiet on the Ahmaud Arbery shooting for a little while for one simple reason : I didn ’ t have enough information .
I ’ m not about to excoriate armed citizens who did the right thing just because the media says I should .
No , I want the facts .
And , well , it doesn ’ t help that the media has sold us a bill of goods previously .
From Trayvon Martin to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri we ’ ve been sold a number of instances as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man…only for us to come to learn that Brown charged the police officer and sought to disarm him , making it a fight for the officer ’ s life or that Martin was bashing someone ’ s head against the concrete sidewalk .
There have been other cases as well , of course .
So , I was skeptical .
Yet as more information became apparent , so too did my opinion of what happened .
As National Review ‘ s David Harsanyi notes , this was outright murder .
A new and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia man named Ahmaud Arbery has emerged .
It ’ s a gut-wrenching thing to watch .
Perhaps there will be new evidence , but it ’ s difficult to envision any way a jury could see this incident as anything but a flat-out murder .
For those who haven ’ t been following the story : Former cop Gregory McMichael says he saw Arbery “ hauling ass ” down his street , and assumed the black man was the burglar who had recently been targeting neighborhood homes .
McMichael , his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a handgun and a shotgun , got into two cars and chased Arbery down the street .
The older McMichael told police that he shouted at Arbery to stop .
Arbery didn ’ t .
When the posse caught up with him there was a confrontation .
In the video , Arbery first goes around the vehicle to confront one of the men , and we hear a shot .
Then , the video shows Arbery tussling with another man , moving away as we hear the sound of two more shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground .
Whatever we might learn moving forward , the entire situation was instigated by the McMichael posse , which made the decision to chase a man down a street after concluding , without any genuine evidence , that he was a burglar .
As Harsanyi points out , even if Arbery was the burglar , it doesn ’ t excuse McMichael ’ s actions in any way , and he ’ s right .
Look , a home invasion is a terrifying thing and if you find a guy in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , so much for that .
There ’ s an understanding that an intruder in your home represents a clear threat to you and your family , and so using lethal force is justified in most states .
But Arbery wasn ’ t supposedly found inside someone ’ s home .
No , he was running down a public street .
His family says he did that because he liked to stay in shape .
He certainly looks dressed for a run , but even if he wasn ’ t , running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probable cause .
As Allahpundit noted over at our sister site Hot Air , even if it did , McMichael and his son didn ’ t have the authority to try and stop him .
Let ’ s go step by step here .
Step one is Georgia ’ s statute authorizing citizen ’ s arrests in certain cases : A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge .
If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion .
Note well : “ [ I ] f the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
” If you ’ re going to make a citizen ’ s arrest instead of phoning the cops , you ’ d better be very , very sure that your man is guilty of the offense he ’ s suspected of .
McMichael simply saw Arbery running and figured , “ Yep .
That must be him.
” He claims that Arbery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there ’ s a problem with that .
You see , descriptions tend to be vague .
That means he didn ’ t have “ immediate knowledge ” that Arbery did anything wrong .
As such , he had no business being out there .
None whatsoever .
Some have argued that the moment Arbery tried to “ go after ” the gun , he became a legitimate threat .
And , well , isn ’ t that what Michael Brown did ?
Well , not really .
Brown charged a uniformed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest .
Arbery was faced with a couple of white guys pointing guns at him in the middle of the street .
They weren ’ t cops , didn ’ t identify themselves as cops , and were trying to stop him while he was carrying out a lawful activity .
Further , neither of those two guys had any business trying to stop him from doing anything .
As such , he was defending himself .
To say they were justified in shooting him is to claim that a criminal is acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when that victim tries to disarm him .
It ’ s bullcrap and everyone should know it .
As if that wasn ’ t enough of a tragedy in and of itself , there ’ s the seeming reluctance by the authorities not to press charges as of this writing .
There ’ s no way that ’ s justified either .
It seems pretty clear from where I sit and from where a lot of other people sit as well , many of them attorneys rather than laymen like me .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of bogus claims of racially-motivated violence .
However , on this one , I can ’ t help but wonder if race did play a factor .
After all , it seems Arbery ’ s only “ crime ” was to run while black .
I can ’ t and won ’ t say for certain that it was , of course .
I don ’ t know what was in the heart of those men who confronted an unarmed individual simply because he sort of looked like someone else , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good .
As Harsanyi points out , folks on social media are trying to justify this response , but they really can ’ t .
Claiming that Arbery ’ s previous criminal record makes a difference is irrelevant .
No one ran a background check on the guy before trying to apprehend him , for crying out loud .
This is nothing more than an attempt and victim-blaming and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that .

I’ve been quiet on the Ahmaud Arbery shooting for a little while for one simple reason: I didn’t have enough information. I’m not about to excoriate armed citizens who did the right thing just because the media says I should. No, I want the facts.
And, well, it doesn’t help that the media has sold us a bill of goods previously. From Trayvon Martin to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri we’ve been sold a number of instances as a racially-motivated murder of an unarmed black man…only for us to come to learn that Brown charged the police officer and sought to disarm him, making it a fight for the officer’s life or that Martin was bashing someone’s head against the concrete sidewalk.
There have been other cases as well, of course.
So, I was skeptical. Yet as more information became apparent, so too did my opinion of what happened.
As National Review‘s David Harsanyi notes, this was outright murder.
A new and disturbing video of the shooting of 25-year-old Georgia man named Ahmaud Arbery has emerged. It’s a gut-wrenching thing to watch. Perhaps there will be new evidence, but it’s difficult to envision any way a jury could see this incident as anything but a flat-out murder. For those who haven’t been following the story: Former cop Gregory McMichael says he saw Arbery “hauling ass” down his street, and assumed the black man was the burglar who had recently been targeting neighborhood homes. McMichael, his son, and a third man, armed with a handgun and a shotgun, got into two cars and chased Arbery down the street. The older McMichael told police that he shouted at Arbery to stop. Arbery didn’t. When the posse caught up with him there was a confrontation. In the video, Arbery first goes around the vehicle to confront one of the men, and we hear a shot. Then, the video shows Arbery tussling with another man, moving away as we hear the sound of two more shots. Then we see Arbery falling to the ground. Whatever we might learn moving forward, the entire situation was instigated by the McMichael posse, which made the decision to chase a man down a street after concluding, without any genuine evidence, that he was a burglar.
As Harsanyi points out, even if Arbery was the burglar, it doesn’t excuse McMichael’s actions in any way, and he’s right.
Look, a home invasion is a terrifying thing and if you find a guy in your house and you shoot his butt, well, so much for that. There’s an understanding that an intruder in your home represents a clear threat to you and your family, and so using lethal force is justified in most states.
But Arbery wasn’t supposedly found inside someone’s home. No, he was running down a public street. His family says he did that because he liked to stay in shape. He certainly looks dressed for a run, but even if he wasn’t, running down the street doesn’t constitute probable cause.
As Allahpundit noted over at our sister site Hot Air, even if it did, McMichael and his son didn’t have the authority to try and stop him.
Let’s go step by step here. Step one is Georgia’s statute authorizing citizen’s arrests in certain cases: A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. Note well: “[I]f the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” If you’re going to make a citizen’s arrest instead of phoning the cops, you’d better be very, very sure that your man is guilty of the offense he’s suspected of.
McMichael simply saw Arbery running and figured, “Yep. That must be him.” He claims that Arbery fit the description of the suspect, but there’s a problem with that. You see, descriptions tend to be vague. That means he didn’t have “immediate knowledge” that Arbery did anything wrong.
As such, he had no business being out there. None whatsoever.
Some have argued that the moment Arbery tried to “go after” the gun, he became a legitimate threat. And, well, isn’t that what Michael Brown did?
Well, not really. Brown charged a uniformed police officer who was making a lawful arrest.
Arbery was faced with a couple of white guys pointing guns at him in the middle of the street. They weren’t cops, didn’t identify themselves as cops, and were trying to stop him while he was carrying out a lawful activity. Further, neither of those two guys had any business trying to stop him from doing anything.
As such, he was defending himself.
To say they were justified in shooting him is to claim that a criminal is acting in self-defense if he shoots his victim when that victim tries to disarm him. It’s bullcrap and everyone should know it.
As if that wasn’t enough of a tragedy in and of itself, there’s the seeming reluctance by the authorities not to press charges as of this writing. There’s no way that’s justified either. It seems pretty clear from where I sit and from where a lot of other people sit as well, many of them attorneys rather than laymen like me.
Over recent years, we’ve encountered a lot of bogus claims of racially-motivated violence. However, on this one, I can’t help but wonder if race did play a factor. After all, it seems Arbery’s only “crime” was to run while black. I can’t and won’t say for certain that it was, of course. I don’t know what was in the heart of those men who confronted an unarmed individual simply because he sort of looked like someone else, but it sure doesn’t look good.
As Harsanyi points out, folks on social media are trying to justify this response, but they really can’t. Claiming that Arbery’s previous criminal record makes a difference is irrelevant. No one ran a background check on the guy before trying to apprehend him, for crying out loud. This is nothing more than an attempt and victim-blaming and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that.