bearingarms--2020-08-18--Texas Woman Stops Armed Burglar Thanks To A Gun Of Her Own

Here ’ s a story you won ’ t hear “ gun safety ” activists like Shannon Watts talk about , even though it involves a strong , empowered woman using a firearm responsibly to ensure her own safety .
A Bell County , Texas woman is alive and well today thanks to the fact that she was armed for self-defense when a stranger broke into her home on Monday night .
According to Bell County Sheriff Eddy Lange , the woman was on the second floor of the home when she heard a banging at her front door .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but more like someone trying to break in the door , so the homeowner grabbed her pistol and headed downstairs .
That ’ s where she ended up confronting the intruder , who was also armed but apparently wasn ’ t expecting to see a homeowner with a gun .
The burglar quickly fled through the front door and hopped into a car with several other individuals , speeding away into the night .
Their getaway was short-lived , however , as the car was pulled over not far away in the county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed citizen protect her own life with a firearm , her actions helped lead to the arrest of Marquis Henderson as well .
Like the vast majority of defensive gun uses , the armed citizen protecting herself in her home never had to pull the trigger ; the presence of the firearm in her hands was enough to make the intruder who ’ d broken in decide he didn ’ t want to engage in a shootout with an armed victim .
Anti-gun politicians and gun control activists can pretend that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws that would stand in the way of this homeowner protecting herself with a firearm , but have you noticed that those supposed supporters of the Second Amendment and “ common sense gun safety laws ” can never bring themselves to praise armed citizens like this lady in Texas ?
In truth , their definition of “ gun safety ” is “ don ’ t own a gun , ” which means they simply can ’ t praise any armed citizens , because they don ’ t want to do anything to actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watts and the gunsense crowd will simply bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge self-defense stories like these while they fight to ensure that these kinds of stories never happen at all .

Here’s a story you won’t hear “gun safety” activists like Shannon Watts talk about, even though it involves a strong, empowered woman using a firearm responsibly to ensure her own safety. A Bell County, Texas woman is alive and well today thanks to the fact that she was armed for self-defense when a stranger broke into her home on Monday night.
According to Bell County Sheriff Eddy Lange, the woman was on the second floor of the home when she heard a banging at her front door. It wasn’t a knock, but more like someone trying to break in the door, so the homeowner grabbed her pistol and headed downstairs. That’s where she ended up confronting the intruder, who was also armed but apparently wasn’t expecting to see a homeowner with a gun.
The burglar quickly fled through the front door and hopped into a car with several other individuals, speeding away into the night. Their getaway was short-lived, however, as the car was pulled over not far away in the county seat of Belton.
The sheriff’s department said all four people inside were arrested and charged with burglary of a habitation. Deputies said they did not find a weapon in the vehicle. The suspects were identified as 20-year-old Corey Henderson, 19-year-old Marquis Henderson, 18-year-old Devonne Palmer, and 20-year-old Raven Singleton. Harker Heights police said one of the suspects, Marquis Henderson, was also wanted for a shooting at a Bush’s Chicken in January. Police issued a warrant for Henderson’s arrest on Jan. 27 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He’s accused of shooting a man at the Bush’s at 250 Commercial Dr. on Jan. 22. The victim survived. Henderson was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bond was set at $500,000.
Not only did the armed citizen protect her own life with a firearm, her actions helped lead to the arrest of Marquis Henderson as well. Like the vast majority of defensive gun uses, the armed citizen protecting herself in her home never had to pull the trigger; the presence of the firearm in her hands was enough to make the intruder who’d broken in decide he didn’t want to engage in a shootout with an armed victim.
Anti-gun politicians and gun control activists can pretend that they don’t want to pass any laws that would stand in the way of this homeowner protecting herself with a firearm, but have you noticed that those supposed supporters of the Second Amendment and “common sense gun safety laws” can never bring themselves to praise armed citizens like this lady in Texas?
In truth, their definition of “gun safety” is “don’t own a gun,” which means they simply can’t praise any armed citizens, because they don’t want to do anything to actively encourage gun ownership. Instead, Shannon Watts and the gunsense crowd will simply bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge self-defense stories like these while they fight to ensure that these kinds of stories never happen at all.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Opposition To Albuquerque Gun Ban From Unlikely Allies

The typical pro-gun crowd and Black Lives Matter have almost nothing in common , with the possible exception of basic biological similarities .
That ’ s about it .
They ’ ll probably disagree on pretty much any issue you set between them as a matter of course .
Such is politics in 2020 .
Of course , that just tells you how badly Albuquerque city officials have managed to screw the pooch with their attempted gun ban .
They can cite people , but if the DA isn ’ t going to prosecute people , all they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why the Oregon State Police pulled out of Portland , after all .
Yet the fact that members of Black Lives Matter , the DA , and the NRA all seem to stand in opposition to this measure should serve as a wakeup call for the city .
If all of these people think you ’ re wrong , you might want to rethink what you ’ re doing .
Especially since the moment some kid gets hurt at one of these public grounds , some parent is going to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational facilities or whatever implies some degree of adult supervision .
The moment a kid gets hurt , even if it ’ s by doing something stupid , the city is opened up for a lawsuit .
Which means the city would then have to admit that no , they aren ’ t educational sites and their gun ban is unconstitutional , or they ’ ll have to shell out for the kid ’ s injuries…which will just invite more lawsuits .
Honestly , they ’ re not getting out of this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this nonsense right away .

The typical pro-gun crowd and Black Lives Matter have almost nothing in common, with the possible exception of basic biological similarities. That’s about it. They’ll probably disagree on pretty much any issue you set between them as a matter of course.
Such is politics in 2020.
Of course, that just tells you how badly Albuquerque city officials have managed to screw the pooch with their attempted gun ban.
Three unlikely groups are pushing back against the city of Albuquerque’s ordinance that bans weapons in city parks, citing that the rule was not actually passed by the city council. Questions were raised about the ordinance after Black Lives Matter protester Frankie Grady was arrested for having a gun on Civic Plaza during a demonstration last month, but police charged him with carrying a firearm on school grounds. On Sunday, those charges were dismissed. “I think the city is taking a position that they can apply this law to any public ground, and city property, where a school event may have once taken place or has once taken place, but obviously the district attorney’s office and I don’t agree,” said Ryan Villa, Grady’s attorney. Court documents for Grady reveal that the district attorney’s office dropped the charges because they were concerned about the “constitutionality and the legal basis for the charge.” District Attorney Raul Torrez reached out to the attorney general for guidance. A spokesperson from Torrez’s office sent KOB 4 the following statement: “Before pursuing any criminal prosecution under the City’s recent administrative order banning firearms on Civic Plaza, we have asked the attorney general for a formal opinion on the constitutionality of that measure. As we await the attorney general’s opinion, we will continue to work with our public safety partners to ensure the proper balance between the right to peaceful assembly and the right to keep and bear arms.” Meanwhile, the city of Albuquerque said they’re going to continue using the state-wide ban on weapons at schools to cite people who bring weapons to city parks.
They can cite people, but if the DA isn’t going to prosecute people, all they’re doing is wasting their time. That’s why the Oregon State Police pulled out of Portland, after all.
Yet the fact that members of Black Lives Matter, the DA, and the NRA all seem to stand in opposition to this measure should serve as a wakeup call for the city. If all of these people think you’re wrong, you might want to rethink what you’re doing.
Especially since the moment some kid gets hurt at one of these public grounds, some parent is going to decide to sue the city. Declaring them educational facilities or whatever implies some degree of adult supervision. The moment a kid gets hurt, even if it’s by doing something stupid, the city is opened up for a lawsuit.
Which means the city would then have to admit that no, they aren’t educational sites and their gun ban is unconstitutional, or they’ll have to shell out for the kid’s injuries…which will just invite more lawsuits.
Honestly, they’re not getting out of this one easy, nor should they…unless they stop this nonsense right away.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Virginia Democrats Avoid Gun Control In Special Session

Virginia lawmakers are back in Richmond today for the start of a special session called by Gov .
Ralph Northam , but the governor ’ s gun ban , which was defeated in the state Senate earlier this year , isn ’ t on the agenda .
Instead , the special session will focus on several police reform measures as well as budget issues related to the cratering of the economy thanks to coronavirus-related closures .
It ’ s a somewhat surprising move , considering that Northam has been adamant about reviving his gun ban , and there were rumors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democrat legislators who voted against HB 961 in the regular session was circulating his own version of a gun ban bill in the hopes of attracting support .
It could be that Northam realized he still doesn ’ t have the support he needs to pass the ban , so rather than risk a second defeat in a matter of months , he decided against pushing HB 961 .
I think it ’ s also likely , however , that Northam and Virginia Democrats don ’ t want to risk giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in November , so they ’ re holding off on their anti-gun agenda until after the elections .
There are signs that gun owners are incredibly motivated to vote in the state at the moment , including the results of local elections held back in May , in which pro-2A voters were able to oust anti-gun city council members in the college town of Staunton , as well as elect several other Second Amendment supporters in races across the state .
While no state legislators are up for re-election in Virginia this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are expected to be incredibly close , and a high-profile attempt by Democrats in the state to ban so-called assault weapons , “ large capacity ” magazines , and lawfully-owned suppressors would not only energize gun owners to turn out to vote , but could pose problems for freshmen Democrat representatives like Abigail Spanberger ( VA-07 ) and Elaine Luria ( VA-02 ) , both of whom are facing formidable challenges from the GOP .
Both Spanberger and Luria backed a federal gun ban in 2019 , but neither candidate mentions their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites and haven ’ t brought up their backing of the ban while on the campaign trail .
If Northam and Democrat legislators were to push HB 961 now , it would absolutely emerge as a campaign issue in both contests .
Far better , as far as Democrats are concerned , to hold off on any talk about banning guns until after the elections have passed .
Instead of Democrats pushing gun control , the special session which kicks off today features a couple of bills filed by Republicans that seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control laws that Democrats did pass earlier this year .
NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action recently highlighted two of the bills filed by GOP delegate Glenn Davis .
House Bill 5020 exempts holders of a concealed handgun permit from any local ordinances that prohibit possessing , carrying , or transporting firearms and ammunition .
Since Senate Bill 35 went into effect on July 1st to weaken Virginia ’ s decades old preemption law , a number of localities have already started to pass or consider their own restrictions on self-defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ local gun ban ordinances .
HB 5020 removes this confusion , at least for concealed handgun permit holders , and preserves the right to self-defense across the whole Commonwealth .
House Bill 5024 removes the Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for buyers of firearms in private sales without first obtaining government permission .
Current law , which was passed this year and went into effect on July 1st , provides the Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for both the buyer and seller if they fail to obtain government permission .
In addition to the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed SB 5041 , which would allow Virginians to continue to use online training for their concealed carry license until January of 2022 .
At the moment , the ability for concealed carry applicants to use online training will expire on December 31st of this year , but this bill would push back the effective date of that change for twelve months .
It ’ s highly unlikely that any of the Republican-proposed pieces of legislation will make it to Gov .
Northam ’ s desk .
In fact , I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of committee .
From now through Election Day , Virginia ’ s Democrats are going to do everything they can to avoid any specifics about their gun control agenda and will instead focus on meaningless and vacuous phrases like “ common sense gun safety , ” while leaving out the details of their anti-gun agenda .
If Democrats truly believed that their anti-gun agenda was going to benefit them politically , they ’ d be embracing Northam ’ s gun ban .
The fact that they ’ re running away from it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the real popularity ( or lack thereof ) of the sweeping gun control laws that Virginia Democrats want to put in place .

Virginia lawmakers are back in Richmond today for the start of a special session called by Gov. Ralph Northam, but the governor’s gun ban, which was defeated in the state Senate earlier this year, isn’t on the agenda. Instead, the special session will focus on several police reform measures as well as budget issues related to the cratering of the economy thanks to coronavirus-related closures. It’s a somewhat surprising move, considering that Northam has been adamant about reviving his gun ban, and there were rumors just a few weeks ago that one of the Democrat legislators who voted against HB 961 in the regular session was circulating his own version of a gun ban bill in the hopes of attracting support.
It could be that Northam realized he still doesn’t have the support he needs to pass the ban, so rather than risk a second defeat in a matter of months, he decided against pushing HB 961. I think it’s also likely, however, that Northam and Virginia Democrats don’t want to risk giving gun owners any more reasons to turn out in November, so they’re holding off on their anti-gun agenda until after the elections.
There are signs that gun owners are incredibly motivated to vote in the state at the moment, including the results of local elections held back in May, in which pro-2A voters were able to oust anti-gun city council members in the college town of Staunton, as well as elect several other Second Amendment supporters in races across the state. While no state legislators are up for re-election in Virginia this fall, there are several congressional races that are expected to be incredibly close, and a high-profile attempt by Democrats in the state to ban so-called assault weapons, “large capacity” magazines, and lawfully-owned suppressors would not only energize gun owners to turn out to vote, but could pose problems for freshmen Democrat representatives like Abigail Spanberger (VA-07) and Elaine Luria (VA-02), both of whom are facing formidable challenges from the GOP.
Both Spanberger and Luria backed a federal gun ban in 2019, but neither candidate mentions their support for the ban on their campaign websites and haven’t brought up their backing of the ban while on the campaign trail. If Northam and Democrat legislators were to push HB 961 now, it would absolutely emerge as a campaign issue in both contests. Far better, as far as Democrats are concerned, to hold off on any talk about banning guns until after the elections have passed.
Instead of Democrats pushing gun control, the special session which kicks off today features a couple of bills filed by Republicans that seek to delay or dismantle some of the gun control laws that Democrats did pass earlier this year. NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action recently highlighted two of the bills filed by GOP delegate Glenn Davis.
House Bill 5020 exempts holders of a concealed handgun permit from any local ordinances that prohibit possessing, carrying, or transporting firearms and ammunition. Since Senate Bill 35 went into effect on July 1st to weaken Virginia’s decades old preemption law, a number of localities have already started to pass or consider their own restrictions on self-defense. They are creating a confusing patchwork of local gun ban ordinances. HB 5020 removes this confusion, at least for concealed handgun permit holders, and preserves the right to self-defense across the whole Commonwealth. House Bill 5024 removes the Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for buyers of firearms in private sales without first obtaining government permission. Current law, which was passed this year and went into effect on July 1st, provides the Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for both the buyer and seller if they fail to obtain government permission.
In addition to the House bills, state Senator Richard Stuart has filed SB 5041, which would allow Virginians to continue to use online training for their concealed carry license until January of 2022. At the moment, the ability for concealed carry applicants to use online training will expire on December 31st of this year, but this bill would push back the effective date of that change for twelve months.
It’s highly unlikely that any of the Republican-proposed pieces of legislation will make it to Gov. Northam’s desk. In fact, I’d be shocked if they actually make it out of committee. From now through Election Day, Virginia’s Democrats are going to do everything they can to avoid any specifics about their gun control agenda and will instead focus on meaningless and vacuous phrases like “common sense gun safety,” while leaving out the details of their anti-gun agenda.
If Democrats truly believed that their anti-gun agenda was going to benefit them politically, they’d be embracing Northam’s gun ban. The fact that they’re running away from it tells you all you need to know about the real popularity (or lack thereof) of the sweeping gun control laws that Virginia Democrats want to put in place.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Why Marking Bags With Guns Is A Bad Idea

It ’ s not impossible to travel with a firearm .
It has to be in your checked luggage , of course , but every airline has procedures for transporting firearms when you travel .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s not a pain in the butt , of course , but it can be done .
However , some airlines have been known to flag bags with guns .
There ’ s nothing stopping them from doing it , either , and that ’ s a problem .
Why ?
Well , because not every airport employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any theft is a bad thing , don ’ t get me wrong .
However , I think we can all agree that the theft of a firearm is a special kind of problem .
Stealing guns isn ’ t just about stealing property , it ’ s also about what happens after it ’ s stolen .
Stolen weapons are the lifeblood of the black market for weapons .
While some are purchased with the intention of being sold to criminals , the vast majority of the weapons in criminal hands were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it becomes imperative that airlines take reasonable and responsible steps to try and protect bags with firearms from becoming potential targets .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong here .
There ’ s no indication that these two alleged thieves had any indication there was a firearm in the bag .
It ’ s most likely that they just popped open a bag and “ lucked up ” and found a firearm .
It ’ s not about these two , though .
It ’ s about the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A couple of years ago , one of the well-known firearms instructors–I forget who–wrote a blog post about how he was furious at one of the major airlines .
The airline in question had “ flagged ” his bag that had a firearm in it with a visual marker that his bag had a weapon inside .
He was angry and he had every right to be .
Now , this was a couple of years ago and I ’ m not sure if this airline still does this or not .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in years at this point , so I haven ’ t got a clue .
I sincerely hope they don ’ t , though , and crap like this is why .
While airport jobs are tough to get and require a background check , background checks only tell us that you haven ’ t been caught doing anything .
They ’ re not indicative of future behavior necessarily .
My sincere hope is that airlines will look at this story , look at their own policies , and recognize that airport employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even good people and adjust accordingly .

It’s not impossible to travel with a firearm. It has to be in your checked luggage, of course, but every airline has procedures for transporting firearms when you travel.
I’m not saying it’s not a pain in the butt, of course, but it can be done.
However, some airlines have been known to flag bags with guns. There’s nothing stopping them from doing it, either, and that’s a problem.
Why? Well, because not every airport employee is a trustworthy angel.
Two workers at a New Orleans airport were arrested after allegedly stealing property from checked luggage. Karl Brown Jr., 20, and an unidentified woman who worked at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport are accused of a number of crimes after their scheme was discovered, according to Nola.com. “They stole cash, guns, electronics and other property from the baggage,” Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Capt. Jason Rivarde said. The department did not detail how Brown and the woman became suspects, but said the two are accused of stealing from bags between December 2019 and May 2020. A search of Brown’s apartment turned up multiple items that had been reported missing by travelers, including luxury jewelry and purses, a handgun and a knife, clothing and electronics.
Now, any theft is a bad thing, don’t get me wrong.
However, I think we can all agree that the theft of a firearm is a special kind of problem. Stealing guns isn’t just about stealing property, it’s also about what happens after it’s stolen.
Stolen weapons are the lifeblood of the black market for weapons. While some are purchased with the intention of being sold to criminals, the vast majority of the weapons in criminal hands were stolen from someone first.
As such, it becomes imperative that airlines take reasonable and responsible steps to try and protect bags with firearms from becoming potential targets.
Now, don’t get me wrong here. There’s no indication that these two alleged thieves had any indication there was a firearm in the bag. It’s most likely that they just popped open a bag and “lucked up” and found a firearm.
It’s not about these two, though. It’s about the people who haven’t been caught yet.
A couple of years ago, one of the well-known firearms instructors–I forget who–wrote a blog post about how he was furious at one of the major airlines. The airline in question had “flagged” his bag that had a firearm in it with a visual marker that his bag had a weapon inside. He was angry and he had every right to be.
Now, this was a couple of years ago and I’m not sure if this airline still does this or not. I haven’t been on an airplane in years at this point, so I haven’t got a clue. I sincerely hope they don’t, though, and crap like this is why. While airport jobs are tough to get and require a background check, background checks only tell us that you haven’t been caught doing anything. They’re not indicative of future behavior necessarily.
My sincere hope is that airlines will look at this story, look at their own policies, and recognize that airport employees aren’t saints and sometimes aren’t even good people and adjust accordingly.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Why Most Gun And Ammo Makers Aren't Expanding Production

You may have wondered , as you were scanning nearly empty shelves at your local gun store or scrolling through page after page of “ out of stock ” ammunition at your favorite online store , why it is that firearms and ammunition manufacturers aren ’ t expanding their operations to meet the surge in demand from customers ?
After all , we ’ ve had record setting gun sales every month since March , the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that more than 2-million Americans have purchased a gun for the first time this year , and clearly these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand .
Doesn ’ t it make sense to expand , even if that means laying out millions of dollars to retool factories to increase productivity ?
Not necessarily , as reporter Aaron Smith of Forbes points out in a new story .
Even though demand for guns and ammunition has never been higher , adding production capacity isn ’ t cheap , easy , or fast , and most companies are looking at the future with caution , unsure of what will happen to gun sales after the November elections .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like in 2016 , when sales surged to record levels only to implode on Election Day .
Sales then were driven by fears of gun control fueled by mass shootings , but those fears evaporated with the election of President Trump , a Republican endorsed by the National Rifle Association .
Gun sales plunged immediately after his election , resulting in layoffs and sliding stocks for Sturm , Ruger and Smith & Wesson .
Gun makers fear that fickle consumers could slow down spending , depending on election results , the severity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clashes between police and protesters .
If Donald Trump wins re-election in November , it ’ s likely that some of the demand for firearms will subside , but at the moment the biggest drivers of gun sales appears to be civil unrest and violence that are on display nightly in cities across the country .
We all hope that violence will subside in the weeks ahead as well , but in a year as crazy as 2020 , it ’ s awfully hard to make predictions .
Unfortunately , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
“ Like any other manufacturing base , firearm and ammunition makers forecast their best analysis for what the demand will be for their products in the coming year , ” said [ Mark ] Oliva of the NSSF .
“ That includes placing orders for raw materials , including bar stock to make barrels , component materials to make ammunition and predicting labor , warehousing and shipping costs , distribution channels and retail demand.
” Volatility makes this tricky to predict .
Soaring demand in 2016 leading up the election was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 and 2018 .
Some smaller manufacturers didn ’ t survive the transition and went out of business .
The larger survivors learned valuable lessons , making them cautious even in times of record sales .
“ Whipsaw reactions , to meet demand spike , come with risk , ” said Oliva .
I think that with all these new gun owners , the new normal ( whenever we get there ) will include an increased demand for both firearms and ammunition compared to what we saw back in 2017 and 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still very much open for debate .
This caution on the part of firearm and ammunition manufacturers is one reason why many gun store owners say they don ’ t expect things to get back to normal until sometime in 2021 .
It ’ s not great news for those of us scouring the Internet and our local gun shops for a box or two of 9mm or even .22LR right now , but it is understandable from a business perspective .
In the meantime , these companies will keep producing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity , and we ’ ll keep buying up every round that ends up on a store shelf .

You may have wondered, as you were scanning nearly empty shelves at your local gun store or scrolling through page after page of “out of stock” ammunition at your favorite online store, why it is that firearms and ammunition manufacturers aren’t expanding their operations to meet the surge in demand from customers? After all, we’ve had record setting gun sales every month since March, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that more than 2-million Americans have purchased a gun for the first time this year, and clearly these companies can’t meet the current demand. Doesn’t it make sense to expand, even if that means laying out millions of dollars to retool factories to increase productivity?
Not necessarily, as reporter Aaron Smith of Forbes points out in a new story. Even though demand for guns and ammunition has never been higher, adding production capacity isn’t cheap, easy, or fast, and most companies are looking at the future with caution, unsure of what will happen to gun sales after the November elections.
They don’t want to get burned like in 2016, when sales surged to record levels only to implode on Election Day. Sales then were driven by fears of gun control fueled by mass shootings, but those fears evaporated with the election of President Trump, a Republican endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Gun sales plunged immediately after his election, resulting in layoffs and sliding stocks for Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson. Gun makers fear that fickle consumers could slow down spending, depending on election results, the severity of the pandemic, or the persistence of clashes between police and protesters.
If Donald Trump wins re-election in November, it’s likely that some of the demand for firearms will subside, but at the moment the biggest drivers of gun sales appears to be civil unrest and violence that are on display nightly in cities across the country. We all hope that violence will subside in the weeks ahead as well, but in a year as crazy as 2020, it’s awfully hard to make predictions. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what these companies are having to do.
“Like any other manufacturing base, firearm and ammunition makers forecast their best analysis for what the demand will be for their products in the coming year,” said [Mark] Oliva of the NSSF. “That includes placing orders for raw materials, including bar stock to make barrels, component materials to make ammunition and predicting labor, warehousing and shipping costs, distribution channels and retail demand.” Volatility makes this tricky to predict. Soaring demand in 2016 leading up the election was followed by a glut in the market in 2017 and 2018. Some smaller manufacturers didn’t survive the transition and went out of business. The larger survivors learned valuable lessons, making them cautious even in times of record sales. “Whipsaw reactions, to meet demand spike, come with risk,” said Oliva.
I think that with all these new gun owners, the new normal (whenever we get there) will include an increased demand for both firearms and ammunition compared to what we saw back in 2017 and 2018, but how much of an increase is still very much open for debate.
This caution on the part of firearm and ammunition manufacturers is one reason why many gun store owners say they don’t expect things to get back to normal until sometime in 2021. It’s not great news for those of us scouring the Internet and our local gun shops for a box or two of 9mm or even .22LR right now, but it is understandable from a business perspective. In the meantime, these companies will keep producing as much as they can under their current capacity, and we’ll keep buying up every round that ends up on a store shelf.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Cincinnati Prosecutor: Violence Proves "Defuding Police" A Bad Move

Cincinnati isn ’ t known as a particularly violent city .
Not when you think of places like Chicago , Baltimore , Saint Louis , and places like that .
Yet violence ripped through the streets of the city over the weekend .
While violent crime is awful and complicated , there ’ s almost always a political element to it .
Oh , that political element often isn ’ t a driving factor behind the crime itself , but it ’ s almost invariably linked to the aftermath .
For example , a governor using it to push his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to expect it would have done a damn thing to stop the violence .
These days , we have more than one agenda floating around .
Sure , there ’ s gun control , but we also have people who want to defund law enforcement all over the country .
And that has to be brought up right about now as well .
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he ’ s “ alarmed , shocked and saddened ” by a string of gun violence across the city , lamenting that calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer .
The prosecutor ’ s comments come as 21 people were shot , four fatally , in seven different shootings in a 24-hour period on Sunday .
In one case , 10 people were shot at a single location .
Police do not believe that the shootings are related , with shootings being reported in several different neighborhoods , including Over-the-Rhine , Walnut Hills , West End , North Avondale , Pendleton and East Price Hill .
Deters vowed to work with local law enforcement to bring those responsible to justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should silence calls to defund police .
“ To those who call to ‘ defund ’ the police , this weekend should silence that call once and for all , ” Deters said .
“ While I believe that we should police smartly and efficiently and use all of our resources in the best way possible , ‘ defunding ’ the police is not the answer .
I suspect that everyone affected by the violence this weekend- – victims , family members , residents in the communities- – were grateful for the Cincinnati @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ongoing efforts to solve these horrible crimes.
” Now , it ’ s important to understand that those who want to defund police are on something of a spectrum .
Many want police departments completely abolished , of course , but others want police budgets simply reduced .
All want that money to go toward programs that would hopefully reduce violence in the long term ; programs like efforts to combat so-called income inequality and similar issues many believe drive violence .
However , it would take years for any of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The violence is happening now .
Deters is absolutely correct that defunding police isn ’ t the answer .
Not by a longshot .
Right now , with violence surging in cities of all sizes , defunding police so they can ’ t solve these crimes may well be the dumbest effort I ’ ve ever heard of .
And I was in the military , for crying out loud .
I honestly don ’ t get the defund police movement , but especially now that we ’ re seeing this massive surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then again , those pushing this kind of thing aren ’ t that bright to begin with .

Cincinnati isn’t known as a particularly violent city. Not when you think of places like Chicago, Baltimore, Saint Louis, and places like that. Yet violence ripped through the streets of the city over the weekend.
While violent crime is awful and complicated, there’s almost always a political element to it.
Oh, that political element often isn’t a driving factor behind the crime itself, but it’s almost invariably linked to the aftermath. For example, a governor using it to push his gun control bill when he has no reason to expect it would have done a damn thing to stop the violence.
These days, we have more than one agenda floating around. Sure, there’s gun control, but we also have people who want to defund law enforcement all over the country.
And that has to be brought up right about now as well.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he’s “alarmed, shocked and saddened” by a string of gun violence across the city, lamenting that calls to defund law enforcement are not the answer. The prosecutor’s comments come as 21 people were shot, four fatally, in seven different shootings in a 24-hour period on Sunday. In one case, 10 people were shot at a single location. Police do not believe that the shootings are related, with shootings being reported in several different neighborhoods, including Over-the-Rhine, Walnut Hills, West End, North Avondale, Pendleton and East Price Hill. Deters vowed to work with local law enforcement to bring those responsible to justice, adding that the weekend’s events should silence calls to defund police. “To those who call to ‘defund’ the police, this weekend should silence that call once and for all,” Deters said. “While I believe that we should police smartly and efficiently and use all of our resources in the best way possible, ‘defunding’ the police is not the answer. I suspect that everyone affected by the violence this weekend- – victims, family members, residents in the communities- – were grateful for the Cincinnati Police Department’s immediate response and their ongoing efforts to solve these horrible crimes.”
Now, it’s important to understand that those who want to defund police are on something of a spectrum. Many want police departments completely abolished, of course, but others want police budgets simply reduced. All want that money to go toward programs that would hopefully reduce violence in the long term; programs like efforts to combat so-called income inequality and similar issues many believe drive violence.
However, it would take years for any of those programs to yield results. Years. The violence is happening now.
Deters is absolutely correct that defunding police isn’t the answer. Not by a longshot. Right now, with violence surging in cities of all sizes, defunding police so they can’t solve these crimes may well be the dumbest effort I’ve ever heard of.
And I was in the military, for crying out loud.
I honestly don’t get the defund police movement, but especially now that we’re seeing this massive surge in violence happening all over the country. Then again, those pushing this kind of thing aren’t that bright to begin with.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--McCloskeys' Appearance At RNC Puts Biden/Harris Gun Control Agenda In Spotlight

Mark and Patricia McCloskey , the St. Louis couple facing felony charges for pointing their firearms at protesters after they damaged a gate and entered the couple ’ s private community back in June , will be featured at next week ’ s Republican National Convention , according to sources who broke the news during the first evening of the Democratic National Convention .
The news helped to distract from the first night of the DNC , which wasn ’ t hard , frankly .
The evening featured a lot of pre-taped speeches , blamecasting from New York Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was supposed to be .
I ’ m not sure when an RNC last featured someone facing felony charges , but then again , that ’ s part of the draw for Republicans and the Trump campaign in highlighting the couple .
The message sent by the McCloskeys ’ appearance is simple : Democrats want to ban your guns and prevent you from defending yourself and your family , and they ’ ll try to destroy you for exercising your Second Amendment rights .
In fact , it looks like the RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the targets of cancellation by the Left .
In addition to the McCloskeys , Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann , who recently settled a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit filed against CNN , will also be speaking , according to Republican officials .
The McCloskeys aren ’ t exactly the perfect surrogates for the Second Amendment , but given the high profile of their case and the natural tie-in to Donald Trump ’ s “ law-and-order ” campaign , it makes sense that they would be featured as an example of what can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise their right to keep and bear arms when Democrats are in charge .
The McCloskeys believed they were protecting their home from threats , and in return St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner decided to make an example out of them .
Ordinarily , it might not be the best idea for a criminal defendant to take a high-profile speaking gig at the RNC while their case is still ongoing , but this isn ’ t exactly an ordinary prosecution .
Gardner ’ s already offered to allow the McCloskeys to enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them out of prison , but Missouri Gov .
Brad Parson has also already said he ’ ll pardon the couple if they ’ re convicted , and the state ’ s attorney general has filed a motion to intervene in the case in order to drop the charges completely .
In other words , the case is already a political circus .
The couple appearing center stage at the RNC will most likely enrage the Left , but it ’ s not going hurt the McCloskeys ’ chances in a court of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder that if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris end up in the White House , the attacks on the McCloskeys will be just a preview of the broader war on legal gun owners that Democrats are planning to wage in 2021 .

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple facing felony charges for pointing their firearms at protesters after they damaged a gate and entered the couple’s private community back in June, will be featured at next week’s Republican National Convention, according to sources who broke the news during the first evening of the Democratic National Convention.
The news helped to distract from the first night of the DNC, which wasn’t hard, frankly. The evening featured a lot of pre-taped speeches, blamecasting from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and whatever the hell this was supposed to be.
The moment Trump won re-election pic.twitter.com/nEuUp8F0zp — Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) August 18, 2020
I’m not sure when an RNC last featured someone facing felony charges, but then again, that’s part of the draw for Republicans and the Trump campaign in highlighting the couple. The message sent by the McCloskeys’ appearance is simple: Democrats want to ban your guns and prevent you from defending yourself and your family, and they’ll try to destroy you for exercising your Second Amendment rights.
In fact, it looks like the RNC will feature several individuals who’ve been the targets of cancellation by the Left. In addition to the McCloskeys, Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann, who recently settled a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit filed against CNN, will also be speaking, according to Republican officials.
The McCloskeys aren’t exactly the perfect surrogates for the Second Amendment, but given the high profile of their case and the natural tie-in to Donald Trump’s “law-and-order” campaign, it makes sense that they would be featured as an example of what can happen to average people who try to exercise their right to keep and bear arms when Democrats are in charge. The McCloskeys believed they were protecting their home from threats, and in return St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner decided to make an example out of them.
Ordinarily, it might not be the best idea for a criminal defendant to take a high-profile speaking gig at the RNC while their case is still ongoing, but this isn’t exactly an ordinary prosecution. Gardner’s already offered to allow the McCloskeys to enter into a diversion program that would keep them out of prison, but Missouri Gov. Brad Parson has also already said he’ll pardon the couple if they’re convicted, and the state’s attorney general has filed a motion to intervene in the case in order to drop the charges completely.
In other words, the case is already a political circus. The couple appearing center stage at the RNC will most likely enrage the Left, but it’s not going hurt the McCloskeys’ chances in a court of law, and will hopefully serve as a reminder that if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris end up in the White House, the attacks on the McCloskeys will be just a preview of the broader war on legal gun owners that Democrats are planning to wage in 2021.


bearingarms--2020-08-18--Legal Experts Skepitcal Of NY AG's Plan To Dissolve NRA

New York Attorney General Letitia James is the darling of the anti-gun movement .
After all , she ’ s the one fighting to dissolve the 800-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to gun rights .
She ’ s literally trying to destroy the National Rifle Association .
The problem is , even many anti-gunners are wary of her efforts , as they honestly should be .
While much of the news about spending by the leadership sounds bad , the idea of dissolving a group you once called a “ terrorist organization ” has rightfully struck some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what ’ s to stop someone from going after someone like Planned Parenthood or some other scared organization on the left ?
Now , legal experts are weighing in , and they ’ re skeptical .
University of Pittsburgh law professor Philip Hackney , who worked at the Office of the Chief Counsel of the IRS overseeing the nonprofit sector from 2006 to 2011 , said the investigation was appropriate .
Hackney said he believed the alleged malfeasance by NRA executives was the driving force behind her dissolution effort .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her hand , ” he said .
Still , he said he would “ be surprised ” if a court considered the removal of some NRA executives an insufficient solution and instead opted for wholesale dissolution of the organization .
Hackney compared the NRA case to cases against the Kamehameha Schools and Adelphi University—both of which had their entire governing boards forcibly removed by government action and had to pay millions in back taxes .
Neither was dissolved , though , and both continue to operate today .
Olson said the investigation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s and 80s provided a useful example of how much more aggressive James is treating the NRA .
The Teamsters were alleged to have been host to an extensive mob-run racketeering effort that covered everything from money laundering to murder .
The union eventually agreed to a takeover by government officials that lasted 30 years , but there was no attempt to shut it down .
He said that James ’ s bid to dissolve the NRA amounted to overreach and could taint an otherwise legitimate investigation .
And that last bit really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t it ?
The Teamsters were alleged to have been a mob front and they weren ’ t dissolved .
Even if everything alleged by the media regarding Wayne LaPierre and others in the NRA ’ s leadership is true–and this is the same media that routinely argues absolute fantasy when it comes to gun crimes , so they shouldn ’ t be taken on face value on anything–it ’ s hardly the same as working hand-in-hand with the mafia .
Where the difference lies is that James simply doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stand them because they oppose legislation she and her political party like .
You know , gun control .
They ’ re a thorn in the side of any would-be gun-grabber and everyone knows it .
So , James is trying to use the power of her office to try and push them out of the way .
This is a politically-motivated hit job and anyone with half a brain can see it .

New York Attorney General Letitia James is the darling of the anti-gun movement. After all, she’s the one fighting to dissolve the 800-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to gun rights. She’s literally trying to destroy the National Rifle Association.
The problem is, even many anti-gunners are wary of her efforts, as they honestly should be. While much of the news about spending by the leadership sounds bad, the idea of dissolving a group you once called a “terrorist organization” has rightfully struck some as a bad move. After all, what’s to stop someone from going after someone like Planned Parenthood or some other scared organization on the left?
Now, legal experts are weighing in, and they’re skeptical.
University of Pittsburgh law professor Philip Hackney, who worked at the Office of the Chief Counsel of the IRS overseeing the nonprofit sector from 2006 to 2011, said the investigation was appropriate. Hackney said he believed the alleged malfeasance by NRA executives was the driving force behind her dissolution effort. “I think the NRA officers and directors forced her hand,” he said. Still, he said he would “be surprised” if a court considered the removal of some NRA executives an insufficient solution and instead opted for wholesale dissolution of the organization. Hackney compared the NRA case to cases against the Kamehameha Schools and Adelphi University—both of which had their entire governing boards forcibly removed by government action and had to pay millions in back taxes. Neither was dissolved, though, and both continue to operate today. Olson said the investigation of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the 1970s and 80s provided a useful example of how much more aggressive James is treating the NRA. The Teamsters were alleged to have been host to an extensive mob-run racketeering effort that covered everything from money laundering to murder. The union eventually agreed to a takeover by government officials that lasted 30 years, but there was no attempt to shut it down. He said that James’s bid to dissolve the NRA amounted to overreach and could taint an otherwise legitimate investigation.
And that last bit really does put this in perspective, doesn’t it?
The Teamsters were alleged to have been a mob front and they weren’t dissolved. Even if everything alleged by the media regarding Wayne LaPierre and others in the NRA’s leadership is true–and this is the same media that routinely argues absolute fantasy when it comes to gun crimes, so they shouldn’t be taken on face value on anything–it’s hardly the same as working hand-in-hand with the mafia.
Where the difference lies is that James simply doesn’t like the NRA. She can’t stand them because they oppose legislation she and her political party like. You know, gun control. They’re a thorn in the side of any would-be gun-grabber and everyone knows it. So, James is trying to use the power of her office to try and push them out of the way.
This is a politically-motivated hit job and anyone with half a brain can see it.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Suspect Busted After Allegedly Stealing Guns From Outdoor Store

The Second Amendment protects the right to own a firearm .
The Heller and McDonald decisions handed down by the Supreme Court locked in the individual right to own a gun and made it clear that gun bans are unconstitutional .
In other words , guns are here to stay .
However , gun control advocates argue that the policies they ’ re pushing will reduce crime because criminals won ’ t be able to obtain a firearm .
That ’ s fascinating to hear because this man had little trouble with getting his hands on them .
A suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were recovered after a break-in at an outdoor sports store in Lapeer County earlier this month .
Deputies from the Lapeer County Sheriff ’ s Office responded to a break-in alarm at Bowman ’ s Outdoors , located at 5936 N. Vandyke Road , in the early morning hours on Aug. 14 .
After arriving to the scene , deputies discovered the building had been broken into and entry had been made .
More than two dozen firearms were stolen and the suspects had fled the scene , the sheriff ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were responsible for the break-in .
The suspects fled the scene in a light-colored Chevrolet Cruze .
Several pieces of evidence were recovered at the scene including footwear impressions , tire tread impressions , DNA evidence , and other types of evidence .
So clearly , we weren ’ t talking about a master criminal .
A source called common sense tells me that he also didn ’ t fill out the Form 4473 or undergo a criminal background check .
Regardless , though , he managed to steal a pile of guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovered , but not all of them .
Yet this crime highlights why gun control simply won ’ t and can not work .
You see , the suspect allegedly stole the firearms .
He probably sold some to other criminals , thus putting guns on the streets through his criminal acts and outright defiance of any laws , gun control or otherwise .
See , that ’ s the problem that gun control advocates fail to understand .
They push for laws that will restrain criminals , but that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , laws against theft alone would stop this kind of thing .
People wouldn ’ t steal guns to carry out crimes because there would be no crime at all .
Hell , if laws worked all on their own , fewer people would bother to own a firearm .
After all , if laws worked , we wouldn ’ t have to worry about tyranny from either the government or thugs .
Laws , however , are only words on a piece of paper .
They require enforcement to have any meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will figure that if they can keep from getting caught , then they ’ re free to do as they wish .
They steal and arm criminals because they have no respect for those words on a page and they have no respect for those who enforce those words on a page .
In other words , gun control will fail because it ’ s just more words that people like this will ignore .
Meanwhile , those words on a page do inhibit some people .
They do get in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who actually care what the words say and try to obey them .
Those are the ones impacted , thus putting them at a disadvantage when dealing with those who don ’ t care a whit about what the words have to say .
Gun control can not work because the very people supposedly meant to be impacted simply won ’ t be .
It ’ ll be the rest of us who pay the price .

The Second Amendment protects the right to own a firearm. The Heller and McDonald decisions handed down by the Supreme Court locked in the individual right to own a gun and made it clear that gun bans are unconstitutional.
In other words, guns are here to stay.
However, gun control advocates argue that the policies they’re pushing will reduce crime because criminals won’t be able to obtain a firearm. That’s fascinating to hear because this man had little trouble with getting his hands on them.
A suspect has been arrested and 23 stolen firearms were recovered after a break-in at an outdoor sports store in Lapeer County earlier this month. Deputies from the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Office responded to a break-in alarm at Bowman’s Outdoors, located at 5936 N. Vandyke Road, in the early morning hours on Aug. 14. After arriving to the scene, deputies discovered the building had been broken into and entry had been made. More than two dozen firearms were stolen and the suspects had fled the scene, the sheriff’s office said. Security footage revealed three males were responsible for the break-in. The suspects fled the scene in a light-colored Chevrolet Cruze. Several pieces of evidence were recovered at the scene including footwear impressions, tire tread impressions, DNA evidence, and other types of evidence.
So clearly, we weren’t talking about a master criminal. A source called common sense tells me that he also didn’t fill out the Form 4473 or undergo a criminal background check.
Regardless, though, he managed to steal a pile of guns. It sounds like most have been recovered, but not all of them.
Yet this crime highlights why gun control simply won’t and cannot work. You see, the suspect allegedly stole the firearms. He probably sold some to other criminals, thus putting guns on the streets through his criminal acts and outright defiance of any laws, gun control or otherwise.
See, that’s the problem that gun control advocates fail to understand. They push for laws that will restrain criminals, but that’s not even remotely possible. If it were, laws against theft alone would stop this kind of thing. People wouldn’t steal guns to carry out crimes because there would be no crime at all.
Hell, if laws worked all on their own, fewer people would bother to own a firearm. After all, if laws worked, we wouldn’t have to worry about tyranny from either the government or thugs.
Laws, however, are only words on a piece of paper. They require enforcement to have any meaning, which also means that some people will figure that if they can keep from getting caught, then they’re free to do as they wish. They steal and arm criminals because they have no respect for those words on a page and they have no respect for those who enforce those words on a page.
In other words, gun control will fail because it’s just more words that people like this will ignore.
Meanwhile, those words on a page do inhibit some people. They do get in the way of some folks, but only those who actually care what the words say and try to obey them. Those are the ones impacted, thus putting them at a disadvantage when dealing with those who don’t care a whit about what the words have to say.
Gun control cannot work because the very people supposedly meant to be impacted simply won’t be. It’ll be the rest of us who pay the price.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--How A Study Accidentally Proves Gun Control Isn't Needed

“ If you ban guns , there won ’ t be guns for anyone to buy and criminals won ’ t be able to get them.
” That ’ s the refrain of the yellow-bellied gun-grabber , of course .
Most of us have heard some variation on this at some point in time and most of us just roll our eyes .
Some will counter , though .
“ Yeah , that ’ s how we got rid of drugs , ” they ’ ll fire back , and in doing so make an excellent point .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the fact that we even have an opioid epidemic proves that they ’ re still an issue , right ?
However a recently published story might actually quantify it a bit better and , probably by accident , prove that gun control just won ’ t work .
While the researchers go on to try and make an anti-gun case , I think they fail .
After all , let ’ s look at these numbers for a moment .
One out of every 100 children in the U.S. means one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm in some way , shape , or form .
One in 70 works out to something like 1.43 percent .
In other words , children are more likely to die from a drug overdose than from a firearm .
This is despite the numerous laws on the books banning many drugs and tightly controlling virtually everything else with a handful of exceptions .
Meanwhile , guns are supposedly all but completely uncontrolled in this country .
That ’ s not true , of course , but let me have a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s look at the real problem with those killed in both of these statistics .
Almost all of these dead children are dead due to illegal activity .
With drug overdoses , the very act is typically criminal .
While some overdose on lawfully-prescribed medication , most use more illicit drugs .
With firearms , though , it ’ s a bit more complicated .
A small handful is the result of an accident , of course , but most are the result of things like gang crossfire or are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
Some of these are actual gang members themselves–even if they ’ re not legal adults , gangs recruit early–and many of them are armed themselves .
Armed criminals , however , tend to arm themselves through illegal means .
They buy guns on the black market or get a straw buyer to obtain their firearms .
In other words , the vast majority of all of these deaths are the result of criminal acts .
Yet despite guns being arguably less controlled than drugs , they result in fewer deaths .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t it ?
It ’ s almost like gun control isn ’ t the problem in the first place .

“If you ban guns, there won’t be guns for anyone to buy and criminals won’t be able to get them.”
That’s the refrain of the yellow-bellied gun-grabber, of course. Most of us have heard some variation on this at some point in time and most of us just roll our eyes. Some will counter, though.
“Yeah, that’s how we got rid of drugs,” they’ll fire back, and in doing so make an excellent point. After all, illegal drugs are still plentiful and based on the fact that we even have an opioid epidemic proves that they’re still an issue, right?
However a recently published story might actually quantify it a bit better and, probably by accident, prove that gun control just won’t work.
A new study published in the American Journal of Medicine conducted by a physician at MetroHealth Medical Center is calculating the future risk of death from firearms and drug overdoses in the U.S. According to Dr. Ashwini Sehgal, who is also a Professor of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, one out of every 100 American children will die from firearms and one out of every 70 will die from drug overdoses if current trends continue.
While the researchers go on to try and make an anti-gun case, I think they fail. After all, let’s look at these numbers for a moment.
One out of every 100 children in the U.S. means one percent of all kids die due to a firearm in some way, shape, or form. One in 70 works out to something like 1.43 percent.
In other words, children are more likely to die from a drug overdose than from a firearm. This is despite the numerous laws on the books banning many drugs and tightly controlling virtually everything else with a handful of exceptions. Meanwhile, guns are supposedly all but completely uncontrolled in this country.
That’s not true, of course, but let me have a little fun with this one.
Now, let’s look at the real problem with those killed in both of these statistics. Almost all of these dead children are dead due to illegal activity. With drug overdoses, the very act is typically criminal. While some overdose on lawfully-prescribed medication, most use more illicit drugs.
With firearms, though, it’s a bit more complicated. A small handful is the result of an accident, of course, but most are the result of things like gang crossfire or are the victim of a crime in some other way. Some of these are actual gang members themselves–even if they’re not legal adults, gangs recruit early–and many of them are armed themselves.
Armed criminals, however, tend to arm themselves through illegal means. They buy guns on the black market or get a straw buyer to obtain their firearms.
In other words, the vast majority of all of these deaths are the result of criminal acts. Yet despite guns being arguably less controlled than drugs, they result in fewer deaths. Funny how that shakes out, now doesn’t it? It’s almost like gun control isn’t the problem in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Detroit 2A Hero Trains Hundreds Of Women With Free Gun Class

This isn ’ t just a good news story , it ’ s a great news story , and I ’ m thrilled that Rick Ector is telling it on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co.
I ’ ve known Rick for a long time , and he ’ s a tireless defender of the right to keep and bear arms as well as a great ambassador for our Second Amendment rights .
For the past nine years he ’ s put on a free gun safety training class for women in the Detroit area , typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and each and every year the event has grown bigger than the last .
For a while , though , it looked like this year ’ s event was in trouble .
Thanks to Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home orders , it was going to be difficult to host a lot of people without running afoul of the coronavirus regulations .
Reluctantly , Rick was forced to postpone the Mother ’ s Day training course in the hopes of rescheduling later this year .
Thankfully , Ector was able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he tells me that the turnout was absolutely incredible .
Expanding to two days of training sessions , Ector and volunteer firearms instructors were able to educate nearly 2,000 women over the course of two days on how to safely and responsibly handle a firearm , including a whopping 1,200 ladies on the first day !
One of my first questions to Rick was one that you ’ re probably thinking to yourself right now ; how on earth did he squirrel away enough ammunition to put on all these training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit to Michigan-based Fenix Ammunition , which set aside thousands of rounds for Rick back in March of this year and actually saved it for him during the past few months as he worked to put the weekend of firearms training together .
What an amazing weekend , and how great it is to see such a strong turnout in the Detroit area .
Rick Ector , along with his sponsors and volunteers , did more to promote real gun safety in one weekend than Michael Bloomberg , Shannon Watts , Moms Demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ever done in the state of Michigan ( or the rest of the country , for that matter ) .
Kudos to Rick and all of the folks who helped make this event such a success , and I ’ m sure that next year ’ s 10th annual event will be even bigger than the record-setting turnout we saw this past weekend .
Be sure to check out my entire conversation with Rick Ector in the video window above , and stick around after for even more news , like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bond out of jail and is now wanted for another homicide , an Ohio homeowner who held a burglar at gunpoint until local police arrived , and a vacationing family in Oregon who were in the right place at the right time to help repair a local memorial to an Oregon state trooper .

This isn’t just a good news story, it’s a great news story, and I’m thrilled that Rick Ector is telling it on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. I’ve known Rick for a long time, and he’s a tireless defender of the right to keep and bear arms as well as a great ambassador for our Second Amendment rights. For the past nine years he’s put on a free gun safety training class for women in the Detroit area, typically over Mother’s Day weekend, and each and every year the event has grown bigger than the last.
For a while, though, it looked like this year’s event was in trouble. Thanks to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders, it was going to be difficult to host a lot of people without running afoul of the coronavirus regulations. Reluctantly, Rick was forced to postpone the Mother’s Day training course in the hopes of rescheduling later this year.
Thankfully, Ector was able to put on the event this past weekend, and he tells me that the turnout was absolutely incredible. Expanding to two days of training sessions, Ector and volunteer firearms instructors were able to educate nearly 2,000 women over the course of two days on how to safely and responsibly handle a firearm, including a whopping 1,200 ladies on the first day!
One of my first questions to Rick was one that you’re probably thinking to yourself right now; how on earth did he squirrel away enough ammunition to put on all these training sessions? Rick gives a lot of credit to Michigan-based Fenix Ammunition, which set aside thousands of rounds for Rick back in March of this year and actually saved it for him during the past few months as he worked to put the weekend of firearms training together.
Final count from the weekend: 1,918 women trained in two days. Estimate is roughly 80% first time shooters. Thank you to everyone who helped make this come together, including @detroitccw for being the brains behind the madness. The 2A is looking stronger than ever! — Fwee-nix Ammunition (@FenixAmmunition) August 17, 2020
What an amazing weekend, and how great it is to see such a strong turnout in the Detroit area. Rick Ector, along with his sponsors and volunteers, did more to promote real gun safety in one weekend than Michael Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Moms Demand Action, and Everytown for Gun Safety have ever done in the state of Michigan (or the rest of the country, for that matter). Kudos to Rick and all of the folks who helped make this event such a success, and I’m sure that next year’s 10th annual event will be even bigger than the record-setting turnout we saw this past weekend.
Be sure to check out my entire conversation with Rick Ector in the video window above, and stick around after for even more news, like the murder suspect in Houston who was allowed to bond out of jail and is now wanted for another homicide, an Ohio homeowner who held a burglar at gunpoint until local police arrived, and a vacationing family in Oregon who were in the right place at the right time to help repair a local memorial to an Oregon state trooper.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Cuomo Says It's Time To "Reimagine Policing" As Shootings Spike In NY's Capital City

Seven years ago , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo swore that the sweeping package of gun control bills known as the SAFE Act that he signed into law would lead to a safer state .
Instead , homicides and shootings are skyrocketing in New York City , Buffalo , Rochester , and the state capital of Albany , where there ’ ve already been 98 victims of shootings this year .
Albany police confirm 98 people have been hurt or killed by guns this year , with only 35 percent of cases resulting in arrest or identification of suspects .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , and they only figured out about six and it ’ s been going on for years .
So at the end of the day , they go through all that training but then look what ’ s going on , ” says one young man , self-identified as “ JP ” .
These neighbors say they don ’ t feel the support Mayor Kathy Sheehan and Police Chief Eric Hawkins always preach to the community .
“ Mayor Kathy , you ’ re not nothing , you just be talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of y ’ all .
Y ’ all just be talking .
Y ’ all don ’ t come in the neighborhoods , ” says “ JP ” .
“ How can you communicate or police a community when you don ’ t live there or even understand the social situation to make laws and regulations for that said community ?
” asks Reverend Victor Collier .
If city residents are angry at the mayor and the police chief , they should reserve some of their ire for the governor .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed the restrictive gun control laws and regulations on the community seven years ago , thanks to help from anti-gun Democrats in the state legislature .
At the time , Cuomo promised that the laws would protect New Yorkers .
Instead , shootings and homicides are more common than they were when the SAFE Act was signed .
Cuomo ’ s now proclaiming that local governments across the state need to “ reinvent policing , ” or else risk losing funding .
Monday , the governor said he planned to send letters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of the initiative .
“ Talk to members of the community ; they have real issues .
Talk to the police department ; they have real issues .
They will tell you there are policies in place that frustrate their ability to do their job , ” said Cuomo .
“ Talk to members of the community , they ’ ll say there are policies in place that they find repugnant .
They ’ re real feelings on both sides , I understand that .
Acknowledge them and then you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Form a collaborative .
Put people at the table .
We understand the issues .
We understand the tensions .
We understand the differences of opinion .
Let ’ s design a public safety function , a police department , where the police say they can operate with these policies and the community says their reforms that they require necessary for social justice.
” Cuomo could start by repealing the SAFE Act , including the portion of the law that makes possession of a handgun without a permit a felony offense .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pistol permit laws entirely , as well as adopting a “ shall issue ” system for concealed carry licenses throughout the state .
As we ’ ve noted here repeatedly , the felony crime of possessing a handgun without a license is primarily used in New York City against young black men who have no serious criminal history at all , but also have no way to legally carry a firearm for self-defense in New York City .
Rather than reimagining policing , Cuomo should rethink his stance on gun control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t worked .
Denying minority communities their right to keep and bear arms hasn ’ t worked .
Throwing people in prison for non-violent possessory offenses hasn ’ t worked .
It ’ s time for a different approach ; one that respects and acknowledges the Second Amendment as a real right .
Quit putting up barriers between New Yorkers and their ability to lawfully and responsibly own a firearm .
Bring firearms education training into urban areas , and start inculcating a culture of responsible gun ownership in places where New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stop treating legal gun owners as the enemy , and focus the efforts of law enforcement like a laser on the relatively few number of violent offenders who are driving the shootings in cities like Albany , Rochester , and Syracuse .
Officers need to be on the ground and in these high-crime neighborhoods , and they need to develop working relationships with the good people in bad neighborhoods to ensure that they can get witnesses to provide information that can lead to arrests , as well as being willing to testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted towards stopping violent criminals , not law-abiding gun owners .
We ’ ve seen what a dismal failure Gov .
Cuomo ’ s anti-gun strategy has been , and it ’ s long past time that he and other anti-gun politicians change course .
If Cuomo wants law enforcement to reimagine policing , he needs to reimagine and rethink his embrace of gun control .

Seven years ago, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo swore that the sweeping package of gun control bills known as the SAFE Act that he signed into law would lead to a safer state. Instead, homicides and shootings are skyrocketing in New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, and the state capital of Albany, where there’ve already been 98 victims of shootings this year.
Albany police confirm 98 people have been hurt or killed by guns this year, with only 35 percent of cases resulting in arrest or identification of suspects. “I lost 18 of my friends in 2018, and they only figured out about six and it’s been going on for years. So at the end of the day, they go through all that training but then look what’s going on,” says one young man, self-identified as “JP”. These neighbors say they don’t feel the support Mayor Kathy Sheehan and Police Chief Eric Hawkins always preach to the community. “Mayor Kathy, you’re not nothing, you just be talking. The chief, sheriff, all of y’all. Y’all just be talking. Y’all don’t come in the neighborhoods,” says “JP”. “How can you communicate or police a community when you don’t live there or even understand the social situation to make laws and regulations for that said community?” asks Reverend Victor Collier.
If city residents are angry at the mayor and the police chief, they should reserve some of their ire for the governor. After all, it was Gov. Cuomo who imposed the restrictive gun control laws and regulations on the community seven years ago, thanks to help from anti-gun Democrats in the state legislature. At the time, Cuomo promised that the laws would protect New Yorkers. Instead, shootings and homicides are more common than they were when the SAFE Act was signed.
Cuomo’s now proclaiming that local governments across the state need to “reinvent policing,” or else risk losing funding.
Monday, the governor said he planned to send letters to 500 jurisdictions in the state emphasizing the importance of the initiative. “Talk to members of the community; they have real issues. Talk to the police department; they have real issues. They will tell you there are policies in place that frustrate their ability to do their job,” said Cuomo. “Talk to members of the community, they’ll say there are policies in place that they find repugnant. They’re real feelings on both sides, I understand that. Acknowledge them and then you have to move to resolve them. How? Form a collaborative. Put people at the table. We understand the issues. We understand the tensions. We understand the differences of opinion. Let’s design a public safety function, a police department, where the police say they can operate with these policies and the community says their reforms that they require necessary for social justice.”
Cuomo could start by repealing the SAFE Act, including the portion of the law that makes possession of a handgun without a permit a felony offense. In fact, he could get rid of the pistol permit laws entirely, as well as adopting a “shall issue” system for concealed carry licenses throughout the state. As we’ve noted here repeatedly, the felony crime of possessing a handgun without a license is primarily used in New York City against young black men who have no serious criminal history at all, but also have no way to legally carry a firearm for self-defense in New York City.
Rather than reimagining policing, Cuomo should rethink his stance on gun control. Trying to make gun ownership taboo hasn’t worked. Denying minority communities their right to keep and bear arms hasn’t worked. Throwing people in prison for non-violent possessory offenses hasn’t worked. It’s time for a different approach; one that respects and acknowledges the Second Amendment as a real right.
Quit putting up barriers between New Yorkers and their ability to lawfully and responsibly own a firearm. Bring firearms education training into urban areas, and start inculcating a culture of responsible gun ownership in places where New York government has destroyed lawful gun culture. Stop treating legal gun owners as the enemy, and focus the efforts of law enforcement like a laser on the relatively few number of violent offenders who are driving the shootings in cities like Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse.
Officers need to be on the ground and in these high-crime neighborhoods, and they need to develop working relationships with the good people in bad neighborhoods to ensure that they can get witnesses to provide information that can lead to arrests, as well as being willing to testify at trial. Resources need to be devoted towards stopping violent criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. We’ve seen what a dismal failure Gov. Cuomo’s anti-gun strategy has been, and it’s long past time that he and other anti-gun politicians change course. If Cuomo wants law enforcement to reimagine policing, he needs to reimagine and rethink his embrace of gun control.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--It's Not Just Biden That Doesn't Get Second Amendment

Joe Biden has had a long career in politics .
He ’ s worked his way up the ranks and has reached the office of the vice president of the United States .
That ’ s not too shabby a career , if you look at it from the outside .
Now , I ’ m saying he ’ s done a good job at any of those levels , mind you .
I ’ m just saying he ’ s worked his way up the ladder .
He ’ s currently running to be president , and one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over at the Chicago Sun-Times , Jacob Sullum makes the case that Biden just doesn ’ t get the Second Amendment .
The Biden campaign ’ s website mentions the Second Amendment just once , saying , “ It ’ s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment , which is limited.
” Even that grudging acknowledgment is more than the Democratic Party ’ s platform offers .
After promising to respect the Second Amendment in 2004 , 2008 , and 2012 , the Democrats erased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although they did mention “ the rights of responsible gun owners.
” This year ’ s platform omits that phrase as well .
” I respect the Second Amendment , ” Biden insisted last March while arguing with a Detroit autoworker about gun control .
But the evidence he offered was not exactly reassuring .
” I have a shotgun , ” Biden said .
“ My sons hunt.
” He notably omitted any mention of the right to self-defense , which the Supreme Court has recognized as the Second Amendment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of handguns , which the justices described as the “ quintessential self-defense weapon.
” In explaining his plan to ban “ high-capacity magazines , ” Biden also talks about hunting .
“ Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun , ” his campaign says .
“ That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.
” This is , of course , prior to the Ninth Circuit ’ s ruling that magazine capacity bans are unconstitutional , of course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , Biden ’ s campaign website hasn ’ t changed a bit despite having had sufficient time to delete a few lines of text .
Then again , Biden thinks that we ’ re somehow protecting ducks more than children when it ’ s legal to hunt ducks , but even trying to harm a child is a criminal act .
I fail to see how anyone can make that mental leap .
Sullum continues to talk about the Ninth Circuit decision , but finishes with this : However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a bit here .
No , I ’ m not saying he ’ s right .
Of course he isn ’ t .
What I will say , though , is that he ’ s far from alone .
All around us , we see people who can ’ t seem to grasp the idea that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right to self-defense , that it ’ s about protecting this great nation , even from a tyrannical government if need be .
They spout about hunting as if hunting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment at all .
It ’ s as idiotic a reading as those who think the First Amendment applies to computers and the internet , the Fourth to cell phones and laptops , but the Second only applies to muskets ( especially since many American militiamen used the Kentucky rifle and not a “ musket ” ) .
Biden isn ’ t alone in his inability to grasp the purpose of the Second Amendment on any level at all .
He never has , but neither have entire legions of his fellow anti-gunners @

Joe Biden has had a long career in politics. He’s worked his way up the ranks and has reached the office of the vice president of the United States. That’s not too shabby a career, if you look at it from the outside.
Now, I’m saying he’s done a good job at any of those levels, mind you. I’m just saying he’s worked his way up the ladder.
He’s currently running to be president, and one of his big issues is gun control.
Over at the Chicago Sun-Times, Jacob Sullum makes the case that Biden just doesn’t get the Second Amendment.
The Biden campaign’s website mentions the Second Amendment just once, saying, “It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited.” Even that grudging acknowledgment is more than the Democratic Party’s platform offers. After promising to respect the Second Amendment in 2004, 2008, and 2012, the Democrats erased the constitutional provision from their 2016 platform, although they did mention “the rights of responsible gun owners.” This year’s platform omits that phrase as well. ”I respect the Second Amendment,” Biden insisted last March while arguing with a Detroit autoworker about gun control. But the evidence he offered was not exactly reassuring. ”I have a shotgun,” Biden said. “My sons hunt.” He notably omitted any mention of the right to self-defense, which the Supreme Court has recognized as the Second Amendment’s “central component,” or of handguns, which the justices described as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” In explaining his plan to ban “high-capacity magazines,” Biden also talks about hunting. “Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun,” his campaign says. “That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.”
This is, of course, prior to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that magazine capacity bans are unconstitutional, of course. Not that it will change a thing. After all, Biden’s campaign website hasn’t changed a bit despite having had sufficient time to delete a few lines of text.
Then again, Biden thinks that we’re somehow protecting ducks more than children when it’s legal to hunt ducks, but even trying to harm a child is a criminal act. I fail to see how anyone can make that mental leap.
Sullum continues to talk about the Ninth Circuit decision, but finishes with this:
In any case, the 9th Circuit concluded, the law’s speculative benefits cannot possibly justify its sweeping breadth. “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment,” it said. Biden does not merely disagree with that analysis. The evidence suggests he does not even understand it.
However, I’m going to defend Biden just a bit here.
No, I’m not saying he’s right. Of course he isn’t. What I will say, though, is that he’s far from alone.
All around us, we see people who can’t seem to grasp the idea that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right to self-defense, that it’s about protecting this great nation, even from a tyrannical government if need be. They spout about hunting as if hunting has anything to do with the Second Amendment at all. It’s as idiotic a reading as those who think the First Amendment applies to computers and the internet, the Fourth to cell phones and laptops, but the Second only applies to muskets (especially since many American militiamen used the Kentucky rifle and not a “musket”).
Biden isn’t alone in his inability to grasp the purpose of the Second Amendment on any level at all. He never has, but neither have entire legions of his fellow anti-gunners.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Chicago Mayor Now Blaming Mississippi For Rise In Shootings

Lori Lightfoot seems to be pathologically incapable of accepting any responsibility for the staggering increase in shootings and homicides in the city of Chicago .
For months she ’ s been blaming the surge in shootings and homicides on “ lax gun laws ” in the state of Indiana , and now she ’ s including the state of Mississippi in her blame game .
Y ’ allPolitics.com , a Mississippi-based political blog , reports that Gov .
Tate Reeves is giving a big “ bless your heart ” to Mayor Lightfoot in response to her accusations .
Lightfoot ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violent crime in Chicago conveniently lets her off the hook for what ’ s happening in neighborhoods throughout the city .
It ’ s not her fault , it ’ s that we simply don ’ t have enough gun laws on the books .
That , of course , is nonsense , but it ’ s the go-to rationale for gun control advocates when they ’ re asked to explain why their laws aren ’ t making people any safer .
The mayor has been demanding more federal gun control laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there ’ s very little evidence that sweeping federal legislation would make a difference .
After the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 , for example , violent crime continued to rise throughout the U.S. for more than two decades before it began declining in 1991 .
That decline began three years before then-President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 crime bill into effect , which included a ten-year ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines , and it continued to drop after the ban was allowed to sunset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperately wants to absolve herself of any responsibility for the out-of-control violence on Chicago streets , but she can ’ t dodge the fact that stories like this are playing out on a daily basis under her watch .
Chicago police have released surveillance video to track down suspects in the shooting of a 12-year-old son of a Chicago firefighter .
In the minute long surveillance clip you see three men walking around in the 6300-block of South Ellis Avenue .
Moments later a man labeled “ suspect one ” by police opens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the group pointing their weapons toward a basketball court and park full of kids who were out playing .
The state of Mississippi isn ’ t responsible for this shooting .
Neither is the state of Indiana .
The individuals who pulled the triggers are ultimately the ones to blame here , but it ’ s up to Mayor Lightfoot , along with police and prosecutors , to ensure that guys like these don ’ t feel empowered to shoot up their neighborhoods because they know that most of the time they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their crimes .
When less than half of all homicides result in an arrest , and about 5 % of all non-fatal shootings end up with someone being charged , criminals are rightfully going to believe that they can get away with their crimes .
That ’ s the reality in Chicago at the moment , and until that changes , the increased violence is going to persist .
Lori Lightfoot needs to quit blaming the Second Amendment and start focusing on the violent criminals in her city if she has any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .

Lori Lightfoot seems to be pathologically incapable of accepting any responsibility for the staggering increase in shootings and homicides in the city of Chicago. For months she’s been blaming the surge in shootings and homicides on “lax gun laws” in the state of Indiana, and now she’s including the state of Mississippi in her blame game. Y’allPolitics.com, a Mississippi-based political blog, reports that Gov. Tate Reeves is giving a big “bless your heart” to Mayor Lightfoot in response to her accusations.
“This ridiculous conspiracy theory from the Chicago mayor—that Mississippians are to blame for the violence in her own city—is bizarre and pathetic,” Governor Reeves said. “No serious person could think that murders are out of control and people are burning police cars in Chicago because of Mississippi’s commitment to the constitution.”
Lightfoot’s excuses about what’s driving the violent crime in Chicago conveniently lets her off the hook for what’s happening in neighborhoods throughout the city. It’s not her fault, it’s that we simply don’t have enough gun laws on the books. That, of course, is nonsense, but it’s the go-to rationale for gun control advocates when they’re asked to explain why their laws aren’t making people any safer.
The mayor has been demanding more federal gun control laws be put in place as well, but there’s very little evidence that sweeping federal legislation would make a difference. After the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, violent crime continued to rise throughout the U.S. for more than two decades before it began declining in 1991. That decline began three years before then-President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 crime bill into effect, which included a ten-year ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and it continued to drop after the ban was allowed to sunset in 2004.
I understand that Lightfoot desperately wants to absolve herself of any responsibility for the out-of-control violence on Chicago streets, but she can’t dodge the fact that stories like this are playing out on a daily basis under her watch.
Chicago police have released surveillance video to track down suspects in the shooting of a 12-year-old son of a Chicago firefighter. In the minute long surveillance clip you see three men walking around in the 6300-block of South Ellis Avenue. Moments later a man labeled “suspect one” by police opens fire. Two other men follow, with the group pointing their weapons toward a basketball court and park full of kids who were out playing.
The state of Mississippi isn’t responsible for this shooting. Neither is the state of Indiana. The individuals who pulled the triggers are ultimately the ones to blame here, but it’s up to Mayor Lightfoot, along with police and prosecutors, to ensure that guys like these don’t feel empowered to shoot up their neighborhoods because they know that most of the time they’ll be able to get away with their crimes.
When less than half of all homicides result in an arrest, and about 5% of all non-fatal shootings end up with someone being charged, criminals are rightfully going to believe that they can get away with their crimes. That’s the reality in Chicago at the moment, and until that changes, the increased violence is going to persist. Lori Lightfoot needs to quit blaming the Second Amendment and start focusing on the violent criminals in her city if she has any real desire to make Chicago a safer place.


bearingarms--2020-08-19--Houston Police Chief Invites Laid Off Cops To Join Him

The chief has repeatedly spouted anti-gun talking points over and over and over .
He ’ s the kind of person that if I were to see him on fire , I doubt I would waste the urine to put it out .
Yet as the Defund the Police movement continues to spout its nonsense , Acevedo has a message for officers losing their jobs to it .
“ People of Houston , they don ’ t want less policing , they want better policing and well-trained police officers , ” said HPD Chief Art Acevedo .
Recently , Houston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will add roughly 400 new future HPD officers to the city ’ s police department .
“ We ’ re excited about the restoration of 5 classes , while places like Austin are cutting a significant amount of police resources.
” Last week , the Austin City Council unanimously voted to cut roughly $ 150 million from Austin ’ s Police Department , roughly a third of their budget .
Chief Acevedo tells us they ’ re working on a new program that would make it easier for qualified out-of-state police officers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program could involve a 10-week academy course , instead of 6 months .
Of course , cutting police as violence surges in pretty much every city in the nation is definitely a boneheaded move .
Then again , from what I understand about Austin , it shouldn ’ t be surprising to see they ’ d do something like that .
After all , the city is basically Texas ’ s version of Portland .
Yet Acevedo also made a comment that just tickled me to no end .
Now , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control after one of his officers was wounded in the line of duty…with his own gun .
He ’ s constantly spouted tons of anti-gun nonsense , yet he ’ s arguing against people making knee-jerk decisions that aren ’ t based on evidence ?
Anyway , about Acevedo ’ s invitation to other officers , let ’ s be clear for a moment .
It sounds good .
It ’ s a pro-police stance at a time when there aren ’ t many , and it ’ s likely to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tearing apart our cities .
However , Acevedo doesn ’ t have a lot of say on who can get certified in Texas .
While inviting laid-off Austin officers to come to Houston is probably fine , he extended his invitation to out-of-state officers .
He even says he ’ s working on a program that would allow out-of-state cops to qualify to work in Texas .
The problem with that is that he doesn ’ t have the authority to actually do any of that .
That falls under the purview of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TCOLE ) .
They already have a program for out-of-state officers to become certified in the state of Texas .
In other words , Acevedo isn ’ t working on a damn thing except , apparently , trying to reinvent the wheel .
In other words , it sure sounds like what Acevedo is really doing here is spewing a bunch of hot air and trying to make himself look good .
Then again , from what I ’ ve been able to gather about his law enforcement career , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo is a piece of work.
The chief has repeatedly spouted anti-gun talking points over and over and over. He’s the kind of person that if I were to see him on fire, I doubt I would waste the urine to put it out.
Yet as the Defund the Police movement continues to spout its nonsense, Acevedo has a message for officers losing their jobs to it.
“People of Houston, they don’t want less policing, they want better policing and well-trained police officers,” said HPD Chief Art Acevedo. Recently, Houston officials approved 5 new academy classes that will add roughly 400 new future HPD officers to the city’s police department. “We’re excited about the restoration of 5 classes, while places like Austin are cutting a significant amount of police resources.” Last week, the Austin City Council unanimously voted to cut roughly $150 million from Austin’s Police Department, roughly a third of their budget. … Chief Acevedo tells us they’re working on a new program that would make it easier for qualified out-of-state police officers to transfer and serve in Houston. This program could involve a 10-week academy course, instead of 6 months.
Of course, cutting police as violence surges in pretty much every city in the nation is definitely a boneheaded move. Then again, from what I understand about Austin, it shouldn’t be surprising to see they’d do something like that. After all, the city is basically Texas’s version of Portland.
Yet Acevedo also made a comment that just tickled me to no end.
“I think it’s ridiculous when you make decisions that are knee-jerk political decisions that are not based on evidence, not based on research,” said Chief Acevedo. “It ends up impacting the safety of American people in Austin.”
Now, this is the police chief that started ranting about gun control after one of his officers was wounded in the line of duty…with his own gun. He’s constantly spouted tons of anti-gun nonsense, yet he’s arguing against people making knee-jerk decisions that aren’t based on evidence?
That’s rich.
Anyway, about Acevedo’s invitation to other officers, let’s be clear for a moment. It sounds good. It’s a pro-police stance at a time when there aren’t many, and it’s likely to play well in Houston. Especially with violence tearing apart our cities.
However, Acevedo doesn’t have a lot of say on who can get certified in Texas.
While inviting laid-off Austin officers to come to Houston is probably fine, he extended his invitation to out-of-state officers. He even says he’s working on a program that would allow out-of-state cops to qualify to work in Texas. The problem with that is that he doesn’t have the authority to actually do any of that.
That falls under the purview of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE). They already have a program for out-of-state officers to become certified in the state of Texas. In other words, Acevedo isn’t working on a damn thing except, apparently, trying to reinvent the wheel.
In other words, it sure sounds like what Acevedo is really doing here is spewing a bunch of hot air and trying to make himself look good. Then again, from what I’ve been able to gather about his law enforcement career, that’s about all he’s good for.