bearingarms--2020-09-23--Does New Video Show Kyle Rittenhouse Acted In Self-Defense?

On Tuesday night , Fox News host Tucker Carlson shared a new video of the chaotic events in Kenosha , Wisconsin that resulted in the shooting deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber that led the host to wonder if the video proves that Kyle Rittenhouse , the 17-year old facing murder charges in the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber , was acting in self-defense .
( Warning : this video does contain footage of graphic violence ) The footage was provided to Carlson by L. Lin Wood , one of Rittenhouse ’ s attorneys , and while it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not sure it will change the minds of prosecutors .
As my colleague Ed Morrissey explains at HotAir : Carlson ’ s argument is pretty compelling , or at least the video evidence here is .
It makes pretty clear that neither shooting incidents were started by Rittenhouse , which is one crucial element for a self-defense case , although it ’ s not the only element required .
In both scenes , Rittenhouse was clearly running away , and in the second he had already been repeatedly assaulted .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceded Rittenhouse ’ s fire as men allegedly armed with blunt-force weapons ran up on Rittenhouse .
This still requires a couple of caveats — one in each direction .
While we have what appears to be compelling evidence , what we don ’ t have is all of the evidence .
In fact , we don ’ t even have proper foundation ( yet ) to ensure that this actually is evidence in the first shooting .
( Res ipsa loquitor on the second incident , we can assume . )
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such does not necessarily mean it ’ s so , after all .
All of that is true , but even the original charging documents filed by prosecutors don ’ t portray Rittenhouse as the initial aggressor in either shooting .
According to the evidence filed by prosecutors , Rittenhouse was walking down the street when Rosenbaum began to chase him , with others quickly joining in .
The video shared by Carlson on Tuesday night does contain some details that prosecutors left out of their charging documents ; most notably the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot into the air as he was running after Rittenhouse .
When Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum , he turned and began to raise the barrel of the rifle he was carrying .
Witnesses quoted by the prosecution say that Rosenbaum then reached for the gun as Rittenhouse fired .
In other words , there was already a strong case for self-defense based on the evidence submitted by prosecutors themselves .
If prosecutors charged Rittenhouse before seeing these videos , they rushed to judgment .
If they charged Rittenhouse after seeing these videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in play here , especially in the second shootings where Rittenhouse was in the middle of an aggravated assault after attempting to retreat .
And how they expect a jury to convict after watching these videos is beyond comprehension .
In fact , one has to wonder whether these charges will ever see a courtroom .
Rittenhouse may have exercised poor judgment in entering a riot zone with a firearm , but that ’ s not the same thing as initiating a confrontation , nor is attempting to extinguish a fire started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors are going to have to explain their charging decisions in light of this video evidence , and that will not be a comfortable experience , either in court or among their constituents .
My suspicion is that prosecutors filed charges against Rittenhouse as insurance against further riots and destruction in Kenosha on the part of far-Left agitators .
Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse wasn ’ t acting in self-defense was always going to be a stretch , but charging him with murder allowed prosecutors to claim that they were getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while sending a message to both sides to leave their guns at home if they were going out to protest .
Rittenhouse ’ s extradition hearing is set for this Friday , but it ’ s not likely that the hearing will provide either prosecutors or Rittenhouse ’ s attorneys much of a chance to argue over the evidence in the case .
That won ’ t happen until Rittenhouse ’ s preliminary hearing , which has yet to be scheduled .
During that hearing , however , prosecutors are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s probable cause to charge Rittenhouse with murder , and even with the lower standard of proof , I think that there ’ s a good chance Rittenhouse ’ s self-defense claims may prevail .

On Tuesday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson shared a new video of the chaotic events in Kenosha, Wisconsin that resulted in the shooting deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber that led the host to wonder if the video proves that Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year old facing murder charges in the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber, was acting in self-defense. (Warning: this video does contain footage of graphic violence)
The footage was provided to Carlson by L. Lin Wood, one of Rittenhouse’s attorneys, and while it does contain some new video elements, I’m not sure it will change the minds of prosecutors. As my colleague Ed Morrissey explains at HotAir:
Carlson’s argument is pretty compelling, or at least the video evidence here is. It makes pretty clear that neither shooting incidents were started by Rittenhouse, which is one crucial element for a self-defense case, although it’s not the only element required. In both scenes, Rittenhouse was clearly running away, and in the second he had already been repeatedly assaulted. The alleged gunshot in the first confrontation immediately preceded Rittenhouse’s fire as men allegedly armed with blunt-force weapons ran up on Rittenhouse. This still requires a couple of caveats — one in each direction. While we have what appears to be compelling evidence, what we don’t have is all of the evidence. In fact, we don’t even have proper foundation (yet) to ensure that this actually is evidence in the first shooting. (Res ipsa loquitor on the second incident, we can assume.) Just because a defense attorney claims it as such does not necessarily mean it’s so, after all.
All of that is true, but even the original charging documents filed by prosecutors don’t portray Rittenhouse as the initial aggressor in either shooting. According to the evidence filed by prosecutors, Rittenhouse was walking down the street when Rosenbaum began to chase him, with others quickly joining in. The video shared by Carlson on Tuesday night does contain some details that prosecutors left out of their charging documents; most notably the fact that an individual fired at least one shot into the air as he was running after Rittenhouse.
When Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum, he turned and began to raise the barrel of the rifle he was carrying. Witnesses quoted by the prosecution say that Rosenbaum then reached for the gun as Rittenhouse fired. In other words, there was already a strong case for self-defense based on the evidence submitted by prosecutors themselves.
If prosecutors charged Rittenhouse before seeing these videos, they rushed to judgment. If they charged Rittenhouse after seeing these videos, then some other motive than justice is in play here, especially in the second shootings where Rittenhouse was in the middle of an aggravated assault after attempting to retreat. And how they expect a jury to convict after watching these videos is beyond comprehension. In fact, one has to wonder whether these charges will ever see a courtroom. Rittenhouse may have exercised poor judgment in entering a riot zone with a firearm, but that’s not the same thing as initiating a confrontation, nor is attempting to extinguish a fire started by arsonists. At some point, prosecutors are going to have to explain their charging decisions in light of this video evidence, and that will not be a comfortable experience, either in court or among their constituents.
My suspicion is that prosecutors filed charges against Rittenhouse as insurance against further riots and destruction in Kenosha on the part of far-Left agitators. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse wasn’t acting in self-defense was always going to be a stretch, but charging him with murder allowed prosecutors to claim that they were getting tough on the violence in the city, while sending a message to both sides to leave their guns at home if they were going out to protest.
Rittenhouse’s extradition hearing is set for this Friday, but it’s not likely that the hearing will provide either prosecutors or Rittenhouse’s attorneys much of a chance to argue over the evidence in the case. That won’t happen until Rittenhouse’s preliminary hearing, which has yet to be scheduled. During that hearing, however, prosecutors are going to have to convince a judge that there’s probable cause to charge Rittenhouse with murder, and even with the lower standard of proof, I think that there’s a good chance Rittenhouse’s self-defense claims may prevail.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--GA Gun Control Group Already Planning SCOTUS Pick Protest

Four years ago , Democrats were outraged that the Senate opted not to vote on President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nomination .
This time around , things are different and the Senate has signaled they won ’ t do the same thing this time around .
Whether you agree with that move or not is kind of irrelevant .
I bet Harry Reid is kind of regretting going with the nuclear option now , huh ?
Anyway , President Trump is expected to name his nominee by Friday .
In Georgia , though , one gun control group figured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s go ahead and protest now.
” The Georgia chapter of a national gun control activist organization will hold a protest Sept. 23 outside the Buckhead office of U.S. Sen. David Perdue against the controversial move to replace U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Dubbed “ Our Courts , Our Voice : Let the People Decide , ” the protest by March for Our Lives is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Terminus 100 tower at 3280 Peachtree Road at Piedmont Road .
The protest ’ s message is “ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process , ” according to a social media notice .
March for Our Lives did not respond to a comment request .
Perdue has said he supports the nomination process .
However , it ’ s kind of hard to take March for Our Lives seriously at the best of times , but right now it ’ s even funnier .
See , four years ago , these were the same people screaming bloody murder that the Senate had an obligation to vote on Obama ’ s nominee , even though it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of office .
Remember , that was his second term .
There was no third term and we all knew he wouldn ’ t be back .
Regardless of the outcome of the election , there would be a new president .
This time , though , Trump is running for reelection .
While the polls haven ’ t been kind to the president , that ’ s nothing new .
As a result , Senate Republicans have reason to believe the president would be returning to office come January .
Or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they realized their Democratic colleagues were right and are just following through .
I don ’ t think they ’ d believe if they said it , but the meltdowns would be hilarious .
Regardless , March for Our Lives isn ’ t going to accomplish anything except highlight the left ’ s outright hypocrisy .
As noted above , it ’ s a little different this time around for Republicans , but that difference merely makes the Democrats screeching all the more hypocritical .
Now , March for Our Lives wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy .
What it definitely will not do is convinced Sen. Perdue to do anything except support the nominee , whoever that may be .
It just goes to show , though , that the anti-gunners are terrified that any candidate Trump nominates will have long-lasting repercussions for topics like gun rights for generations upon generations to come .
They ’ re scared and they don ’ t know how to not show it .
In fairness , if I were them , I ’ d be scared right about now myself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see how this shakes out .

Four years ago, Democrats were outraged that the Senate opted not to vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. This time around, things are different and the Senate has signaled they won’t do the same thing this time around. Whether you agree with that move or not is kind of irrelevant.
I bet Harry Reid is kind of regretting going with the nuclear option now, huh?
Anyway, President Trump is expected to name his nominee by Friday. In Georgia, though, one gun control group figured, “Why wait? Let’s go ahead and protest now.”
Yes, seriously.
The Georgia chapter of a national gun control activist organization will hold a protest Sept. 23 outside the Buckhead office of U.S. Sen. David Perdue against the controversial move to replace U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dubbed “Our Courts, Our Voice: Let the People Decide,” the protest by March for Our Lives is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Terminus 100 tower at 3280 Peachtree Road at Piedmont Road. The protest’s message is “to tell him to halt the SCOTUS nomination process,” according to a social media notice. March for Our Lives did not respond to a comment request.
Perdue has said he supports the nomination process.
However, it’s kind of hard to take March for Our Lives seriously at the best of times, but right now it’s even funnier. See, four years ago, these were the same people screaming bloody murder that the Senate had an obligation to vote on Obama’s nominee, even though it was a known fact he was heading out of office. Remember, that was his second term. There was no third term and we all knew he wouldn’t be back.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, there would be a new president.
This time, though, Trump is running for reelection. While the polls haven’t been kind to the president, that’s nothing new. As a result, Senate Republicans have reason to believe the president would be returning to office come January.
Or, conversely, Republicans could always just claim they realized their Democratic colleagues were right and are just following through. I don’t think they’d believe if they said it, but the meltdowns would be hilarious.
Regardless, March for Our Lives isn’t going to accomplish anything except highlight the left’s outright hypocrisy. As noted above, it’s a little different this time around for Republicans, but that difference merely makes the Democrats screeching all the more hypocritical. Now, March for Our Lives wants to be a shining neon sign for that hypocrisy.
What it definitely will not do is convinced Sen. Perdue to do anything except support the nominee, whoever that may be.
It just goes to show, though, that the anti-gunners are terrified that any candidate Trump nominates will have long-lasting repercussions for topics like gun rights for generations upon generations to come. They’re scared and they don’t know how to not show it. In fairness, if I were them, I’d be scared right about now myself.
Instead, I’m mostly eager to see how this shakes out.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--NY Hospital System Says It Will Start Asking Patients About Guns

Emergency room patients at three Long Island hospitals will soon be asked whether or not they own a firearm , and your tax dollars are going to help pay to collect the information provided .
Northwell Health says the effort is part of a new screening program that is supposedly going to analyze the risks of gun ownership in patients , and the program ’ s being funded by a $ 1.4-million grant from the National Institutes of Health .
The CEO of the hospital system says while the pilot program will focus on three hospitals to start , eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at every one of their hospitals .
The New Hyde Park-based health system said the grant is part of its “ We Ask Everyone About Guns ” research study , which approaches firearm injury risk similarly to other health risk factors that are part of routine care , like smoking , substance use and motor vehicle accidents .
“ Gun violence is a public health issue , ” said Michael J. Dowling , the president and chief executive at Northwell Health .
“ This is the health industry ’ s responsibility to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The study will initially establish evidence-based screening and intervention strategies within three of Northwell ’ s hospitals : Cohen Children ’ s Medical Center in New Hyde Park , South Shore University Hospital in Bay Shore , and Staten Island University Hospital .
South Shore changed its name from Southside Hospital earlier this month .
Northwell Health has been pushing the idea of declaring gun violence a “ public health epidemic ” like the flu or COVID-19 , only in this case it ’ s a bullet that the company views as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post , Northwell elaborated on their new approach to pushing old gun control ideas .
“ Guns don ’ t kill people ; people kill people , ” is a scientifically inaccurate statement , says Hargarten .
Guns do not , in fact , kill people , but the bullets certainly do .
“ The kinetic energy from the bullet is the ‘ agent , ’ much like the HIV virus is the agent that causes AIDS , ” he explains .
“ The bullet and the kinetic energy it transmits to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , damages organs , breaks bones and leads to disability or death.
” The disease model , Hargarten says , is how researchers and public health and medical professionals studied and addressed the staggering numbers of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities .
“ We scientifically investigated crashes and motor vehicle fatalities and learned that attenuating the kinetic energy release reduced injuries and death.
” In other words , driving at slower speeds , requiring seatbelts and car seats , adding airbags , even redesigning on-ramps and road curves , contributed to a steep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s .
With guns , Hargarten says , maybe interventions can include limiting the rate at which a gun can release bullets .
Or limiting how many bullets it can release—aka restricting access to automatic weapons , “ bump stocks , ” and high-capacity magazines .
This is nothing more than the standard gun control agenda dressed up in a lab coat and stethoscope .
Rather than conducting research into things like why shootings have increased in New York despite the state ’ s sweeping gun control laws , the medical professionals have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners and the Second Amendment .
They could investigate why violent crime and homicides steadily declined for more than 25 years even as the number of privately-owned firearms continued to rise in the United States , but that wouldn ’ t fit their anti-gun agenda .
When Congress approved spending $ 25-million to research “ gun violence as a public health epidemic ” back in 2019 , Second Amendment advocates warned that this would amount to taxpayer-subsidized gun control , and it looks like that ’ s exactly what is happening .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s being conducted , but anti-gun advocacy in the guise of public health .

Emergency room patients at three Long Island hospitals will soon be asked whether or not they own a firearm, and your tax dollars are going to help pay to collect the information provided. Northwell Health says the effort is part of a new screening program that is supposedly going to analyze the risks of gun ownership in patients, and the program’s being funded by a $1.4-million grant from the National Institutes of Health.
The CEO of the hospital system says while the pilot program will focus on three hospitals to start, eventually they plan to start questioning ER patients at every one of their hospitals.
The New Hyde Park-based health system said the grant is part of its “We Ask Everyone About Guns” research study, which approaches firearm injury risk similarly to other health risk factors that are part of routine care, like smoking, substance use and motor vehicle accidents. “Gun violence is a public health issue,” said Michael J. Dowling, the president and chief executive at Northwell Health. “This is the health industry’s responsibility to talk about this and do something about it.” The study will initially establish evidence-based screening and intervention strategies within three of Northwell’s hospitals: Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, South Shore University Hospital in Bay Shore, and Staten Island University Hospital. South Shore changed its name from Southside Hospital earlier this month.
Northwell Health has been pushing the idea of declaring gun violence a “public health epidemic” like the flu or COVID-19, only in this case it’s a bullet that the company views as the virus. In a 2019 blog post, Northwell elaborated on their new approach to pushing old gun control ideas.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a scientifically inaccurate statement, says Hargarten. Guns do not, in fact, kill people, but the bullets certainly do. “The kinetic energy from the bullet is the ‘agent,’ much like the HIV virus is the agent that causes AIDS,” he explains. “The bullet and the kinetic energy it transmits to the body tears and destroy cells and tissue, damages organs, breaks bones and leads to disability or death.” The disease model, Hargarten says, is how researchers and public health and medical professionals studied and addressed the staggering numbers of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. “We scientifically investigated crashes and motor vehicle fatalities and learned that attenuating the kinetic energy release reduced injuries and death.” In other words, driving at slower speeds, requiring seatbelts and car seats, adding airbags, even redesigning on-ramps and road curves, contributed to a steep reduction in motor vehicle fatalities since the 1970s. With guns, Hargarten says, maybe interventions can include limiting the rate at which a gun can release bullets. Or limiting how many bullets it can release—aka restricting access to automatic weapons, “bump stocks,” and high-capacity magazines.
This is nothing more than the standard gun control agenda dressed up in a lab coat and stethoscope. Rather than conducting research into things like why shootings have increased in New York despite the state’s sweeping gun control laws, the medical professionals have already diagnosed the problem: legal gun owners and the Second Amendment. They could investigate why violent crime and homicides steadily declined for more than 25 years even as the number of privately-owned firearms continued to rise in the United States, but that wouldn’t fit their anti-gun agenda.
When Congress approved spending $25-million to research “gun violence as a public health epidemic” back in 2019, Second Amendment advocates warned that this would amount to taxpayer-subsidized gun control, and it looks like that’s exactly what is happening. This isn’t pure scientific research that’s being conducted, but anti-gun advocacy in the guise of public health.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--Do Armed Protests Make Things Tough On Law Enforcement?

It ’ s not an overstatement to say that 2020 has been downright insane .
On Facebook , I saw a meme where God gave the archangel Gabriel a list of things to set up for the 2020s , but Gabriel misunderstood and set them all for this year .
Honestly , while it ’ s a joke , it makes about as much sense out of 2020 as anything else .
One of the more insane aspects has been all the “ protests.
” By that , of course , I typically mean riots .
However , not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular , the armed protests tend to stay quite peaceful .
I don ’ t mean “ mostly peaceful , ” either .
I mean peaceful peaceful .
Of the few that haven ’ t , though , the issues tend to be minor .
No loss of property , for example .
Yet some are asking whether armed protests put police in a tough spot .
Clashes like this one at Stone Mountain – the founding site of the Ku Klux Klan , which features a massive bas relief of Confederate icons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. as armed bands of civilians have roamed sometimes far from home to engage protesters , or protest themselves .
But what happens when First Amendment free speech rights are mixed together with Second Amendment gun rights guarantees in the same space ?
If nothing else this potentially combustible combination poses unprecedented difficulty for law enforcement , even in states such as Georgia where the law explicitly prohibits public gathering of unauthorized “ military bodies.
” When everyone ’ s armed , what ’ s a cop to do ?
In emotional and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only recognize rights , but figure out protest and counter-protest alliances and conflicts as unidentified people – many dressed in paramilitary garb – mill about carrying military-style rifles .
“ You see these kinds of [ armed conflicts ] happen on the news maybe in a different country or even a different state , and you ’ re just , like , ‘ Wow , that ’ s crazy , I can ’ t believe it , ’ ” says a Virginia police officer , who asked that his name not be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak to the press .
“ Then you ’ re put smack dab in the middle of it and you ’ re , like , ‘ Wow , this is real.
’ ” Except , “ armed conflict ” is a bit extreme .
The term itself suggests two sides shooting at one another when nothing at all happened .
What transpired at Stone Mountain was tense , to be sure , and I don ’ t envy the law enforcement officers who had to deal with that .
Trying to keep two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tense situation has got to be nerve-racking , to say the least .
But it ain ’ t exactly “ armed conflict ” as most people understand the term .
That said , if police have an issue with it , they ’ re going to have to learn to get over it .
This is especially true as “ protests ” continue to turn violent .
I mean , Louisville is already bracing for rioting ahead of the Breonna Taylor announcement .
That ’ s precisely what we ’ ve come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left these days .
As a result , some are going to start going armed to their own protests .
Pass a law to stop it–and there ’ s disagreement as to whether anti-militia laws actually apply to armed protesters–and you ’ re going to have problems .
What ’ s worse is that while the reporter found some anonymous cop ( allegedly ) who spouted the preferred narrative , most police officers tend to recognize that the people openly carrying their firearms aren ’ t the problem in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is considered “ mostly peaceful protests , ” especially .

It’s not an overstatement to say that 2020 has been downright insane. On Facebook, I saw a meme where God gave the archangel Gabriel a list of things to set up for the 2020s, but Gabriel misunderstood and set them all for this year. Honestly, while it’s a joke, it makes about as much sense out of 2020 as anything else.
One of the more insane aspects has been all the “protests.” By that, of course, I typically mean riots.
However, not all of them have been riots. In particular, the armed protests tend to stay quite peaceful. I don’t mean “mostly peaceful,” either. I mean peaceful peaceful. Of the few that haven’t, though, the issues tend to be minor. No loss of property, for example.
Yet some are asking whether armed protests put police in a tough spot.
Clashes like this one at Stone Mountain – the founding site of the Ku Klux Klan, which features a massive bas relief of Confederate icons – have become increasingly common in the U.S. as armed bands of civilians have roamed sometimes far from home to engage protesters, or protest themselves. But what happens when First Amendment free speech rights are mixed together with Second Amendment gun rights guarantees in the same space? If nothing else this potentially combustible combination poses unprecedented difficulty for law enforcement, even in states such as Georgia where the law explicitly prohibits public gathering of unauthorized “military bodies.” When everyone’s armed, what’s a cop to do? In emotional and fluid situations, officers have to not only recognize rights, but figure out protest and counter-protest alliances and conflicts as unidentified people – many dressed in paramilitary garb – mill about carrying military-style rifles. “You see these kinds of [armed conflicts] happen on the news maybe in a different country or even a different state, and you’re just, like, ‘Wow, that’s crazy, I can’t believe it,’” says a Virginia police officer, who asked that his name not be used because he had not been authorized to speak to the press. “Then you’re put smack dab in the middle of it and you’re, like, ‘Wow, this is real.’”
Except, “armed conflict” is a bit extreme. The term itself suggests two sides shooting at one another when nothing at all happened.
What transpired at Stone Mountain was tense, to be sure, and I don’t envy the law enforcement officers who had to deal with that. Trying to keep two armed groups apart, especially in such a tense situation has got to be nerve-racking, to say the least.
But it ain’t exactly “armed conflict” as most people understand the term.
That said, if police have an issue with it, they’re going to have to learn to get over it. This is especially true as “protests” continue to turn violent. I mean, Louisville is already bracing for rioting ahead of the Breonna Taylor announcement. That’s precisely what we’ve come to expect out of a portion of the left these days.
As a result, some are going to start going armed to their own protests. Pass a law to stop it–and there’s disagreement as to whether anti-militia laws actually apply to armed protesters–and you’re going to have problems.
What’s worse is that while the reporter found some anonymous cop (allegedly) who spouted the preferred narrative, most police officers tend to recognize that the people openly carrying their firearms aren’t the problem in the first place.
Not in a world where rioting is considered “mostly peaceful protests,” especially.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--Trump Hits Biden On Guns Ahead Of Next Week's Debate

At a campaign stop in front of a packed crowd in western Pennsylvania , President Donald Trump warned his supporters and any undecided voters who may have been listening that Joe Biden is against “ oil , guns , and God “ .
It ’ s a red-meat message for Trump ’ s base , but it could also be a preview of what to expect when Trump and Biden meet for the first presidential debate next Tuesday .
The Commission on Presidential Debates has already announced the topics for next week ’ s debate , and while gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be plenty of opportunities for moderator Chris Wallace to introduce the topic in the context of some of the issues that are expected to come up .
Trump can use the Supreme Court as well as the violence in our cities to really hammer Biden on his Second Amendment record , starting with the fact that as recently as 2019 Biden said that he believes the Second Amendment doesn ’ t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms .
As NRA-ILA recently pointed out : During a September 2019 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affiliate WMUR , Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect .
During the event , Biden was asked , “ Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes ?
” Biden responded in part , “ If I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have made the same ruling .
OK , that ’ s number one.
” Later , the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted , “ And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers , I taught the Second Amendment .
And the Second Amendment is not absolute .
And we can argue , the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things , I won ’ t get into that .
I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.
” Biden explicitly stated that he thinks the Court came to the wrong conclusion in the Heller case , and he would have upheld Washington , D.C. ’ s ban on handguns because in his view , the Second Amendment is about a right to join a militia .
Biden clearly views the Second Amendment as a historical anachronism that has no relevance in 2020 , and Trump should rightfully call Biden out for his statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Biden ’ s assertion that the Second Amendment was about mustering a militia to fight Great Britain is entirely off-base .
The War of Independence was over by the time the Constitution was ratified in 1787 , and when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 the nation was a decade past the Washington ’ s victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown .
Federalist 46 , authored by James Madison , makes it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was seen by the Founders as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any foreign invaders .
I don ’ t expect Donald Trump to play historian on the debate stage , but it ’ s still worth pointing out that Biden is just as wrong on the reason for the Second Amendment as he is its meaning .
When it comes to the topic of violence in our cities , Trump can once again hit Biden on his plans to ban the most commonly-sold rifles and most commonly-owned ammunition magazines in the country .
Biden ’ s buddies are in charge in places like New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Portland , and other cities where violence has skyrocketed this year , and millions of Americans have responded to the threat to their personal safety by becoming gun owners for the very first time .
Biden ’ s strategy to restore peace to the streets is to disarm those Americans who want to protect themselves and their families , while paying lip service to the idea that there should be consequences for the violent actors intent on kicking off a revolution to tear down the country ’ s institutions in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will undoubtably talk about restoring “ law and order ” in these increasingly lawless cities , he also needs to make it clear to voters that he wants to target violent criminals , while Biden wants to target legal gun owners .

At a campaign stop in front of a packed crowd in western Pennsylvania, President Donald Trump warned his supporters and any undecided voters who may have been listening that Joe Biden is against “oil, guns, and God“. It’s a red-meat message for Trump’s base, but it could also be a preview of what to expect when Trump and Biden meet for the first presidential debate next Tuesday.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has already announced the topics for next week’s debate, and while gun control isn’t specifically mentioned, there will be plenty of opportunities for moderator Chris Wallace to introduce the topic in the context of some of the issues that are expected to come up.
Subject to possible changes because of news developments, the topics for the September 29 debate are as follows, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:
The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
Covid-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
The Integrity of the Election
Trump can use the Supreme Court as well as the violence in our cities to really hammer Biden on his Second Amendment record, starting with the fact that as recently as 2019 Biden said that he believes the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. As NRA-ILA recently pointed out:
During a September 2019 “townhall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect. During the event, Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?” Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.” Later, the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted, “And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.”
Biden explicitly stated that he thinks the Court came to the wrong conclusion in the Heller case, and he would have upheld Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns because in his view, the Second Amendment is about a right to join a militia. Biden clearly views the Second Amendment as a historical anachronism that has no relevance in 2020, and Trump should rightfully call Biden out for his statement.
Not to get too sidetracked, but Biden’s assertion that the Second Amendment was about mustering a militia to fight Great Britain is entirely off-base. The War of Independence was over by the time the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 the nation was a decade past the Washington’s victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown. Federalist 46, authored by James Madison, makes it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was seen by the Founders as a protection against homegrown tyranny as well as any foreign invaders.
I don’t expect Donald Trump to play historian on the debate stage, but it’s still worth pointing out that Biden is just as wrong on the reason for the Second Amendment as he is its meaning.
When it comes to the topic of violence in our cities, Trump can once again hit Biden on his plans to ban the most commonly-sold rifles and most commonly-owned ammunition magazines in the country. Biden’s buddies are in charge in places like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, and other cities where violence has skyrocketed this year, and millions of Americans have responded to the threat to their personal safety by becoming gun owners for the very first time.
Biden’s strategy to restore peace to the streets is to disarm those Americans who want to protect themselves and their families, while paying lip service to the idea that there should be consequences for the violent actors intent on kicking off a revolution to tear down the country’s institutions in order to build on the ashes. While Trump will undoubtably talk about restoring “law and order” in these increasingly lawless cities, he also needs to make it clear to voters that he wants to target violent criminals, while Biden wants to target legal gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--Militia Seeks Formal Recognition From County

There ’ s a lot of anti-militia sentiment flowing through the media these days .
Whether or not armed citizens who stand opposed to rioters are a formal militia or not is a topic for debate , but we all know where the media is going to come down on the matter .
These are people with guns , and thus inherently evil .
At least in their mind .
However , something interesting is happening in Halifax County , Virginia .
A locally-based militia there is seeking to be formally recognized by the county government .
An unofficial organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is seeking official recognition .
The Halifax County Board of Supervisors discussed adopting a resolution formally recognizing the militia at its Sept. 8 meeting .
The vote on the resolution was tabled .
Mitzi Thompson , commander of the Halifax County Militia , told The Gazette in a follow-up interview that she would like for the militia to have official recognition from the county government .
“ That way , they could notify us if they need our help , because we are a voluntary organization , ” Thompson said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something to the table that ’ s beneficial to our community.
” The proposed resolution under consideration by the county ’ s board of supervisors supports opportunities for citizens to “ assemble for recreational and civic purposes to train to arms to include , but not limited to , firearms safety training , marksmanship , first aid training and other training and activities that enhance the individual ’ s ability to defend himself , his family , his community ; and the Militia ’ s ability to respond effectively to a crisis.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Militia ’ s role in the community in the follow-up interview .
She explained the militia is designed to “ supplement , ” not take the place or do the job of , local law enforcement agencies , and respond to emergencies in the community such as natural disasters .
“ We ’ re not trying to be law enforcement officers .
What we ’ re trying to do is create that supplement .
We ’ re an extra pair of eyes .
We ’ re extra bodies , ” Thompson explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did happen and the law enforcement were overwhelmed in some kind of way , we do have the training to come out and assist them.
” A militia that ’ s formally organized and trained has a lot of useful skills that a local government can call upon in time of need .
If nothing else , the communications capability of a well-funding militia can be useful while trying to find a missing child , for example .
However , there ’ s another aspect to this that makes me giggle a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms , but a collective right .
In other words , it empowers governments , not individuals .
If the Halifax Militia becomes formally recognized , do they become exempt from gun control laws so far as those folks go ?
Of course , they ’ ll try and wiggle around to it doesn ’ t apply , but it ’ s still amusing .
While many are bashing militias , I ’ d actually love to see every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia that can be called upon at a local level to help with civic disruptions up to and including violence .
Imagine how some of these riots would have gone if a locally-recognized militia had rolled up when things started getting sporty .
I somehow suspect that Antifa would have found somewhere else to be quick , fast , and in a hurry .
That says nothing about what happens if a government–either federal or state–goes full-on jackboot and tries to get rowdy in a county with a formally-recognized militia .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other counties throughout the nation follow suit .

There’s a lot of anti-militia sentiment flowing through the media these days. Whether or not armed citizens who stand opposed to rioters are a formal militia or not is a topic for debate, but we all know where the media is going to come down on the matter. These are people with guns, and thus inherently evil.
At least in their mind.
However, something interesting is happening in Halifax County, Virginia. A locally-based militia there is seeking to be formally recognized by the county government.
An unofficial organization in Halifax County — the Halifax Militia — is seeking official recognition. The Halifax County Board of Supervisors discussed adopting a resolution formally recognizing the militia at its Sept. 8 meeting. The vote on the resolution was tabled. Mitzi Thompson, commander of the Halifax County Militia, told The Gazette in a follow-up interview that she would like for the militia to have official recognition from the county government. “That way, they could notify us if they need our help, because we are a voluntary organization,” Thompson said. “We want to be able to bring something to the table that’s beneficial to our community.” The proposed resolution under consideration by the county’s board of supervisors supports opportunities for citizens to “assemble for recreational and civic purposes to train to arms to include, but not limited to, firearms safety training, marksmanship, first aid training and other training and activities that enhance the individual’s ability to defend himself, his family, his community; and the Militia’s ability to respond effectively to a crisis.” Thompson also answered questions about the Halifax County Militia’s role in the community in the follow-up interview. She explained the militia is designed to “supplement,” not take the place or do the job of, local law enforcement agencies, and respond to emergencies in the community such as natural disasters. “We’re not trying to be law enforcement officers. What we’re trying to do is create that supplement. We’re an extra pair of eyes. We’re extra bodies,” Thompson explained. “If something in the future did happen and the law enforcement were overwhelmed in some kind of way, we do have the training to come out and assist them.”
Honestly, it’s not an awful idea.
A militia that’s formally organized and trained has a lot of useful skills that a local government can call upon in time of need. If nothing else, the communications capability of a well-funding militia can be useful while trying to find a missing child, for example.
However, there’s another aspect to this that makes me giggle a little bit.
See, some don’t believe that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms, but a collective right. In other words, it empowers governments, not individuals. If the Halifax Militia becomes formally recognized, do they become exempt from gun control laws so far as those folks go?
Of course, they’ll try and wiggle around to it doesn’t apply, but it’s still amusing.
While many are bashing militias, I’d actually love to see every county in the nation recognize a local militia that can be called upon at a local level to help with civic disruptions up to and including violence. Imagine how some of these riots would have gone if a locally-recognized militia had rolled up when things started getting sporty.
I somehow suspect that Antifa would have found somewhere else to be quick, fast, and in a hurry.
That says nothing about what happens if a government–either federal or state–goes full-on jackboot and tries to get rowdy in a county with a formally-recognized militia.
Let’s hope Halifax County jumps on this and other counties throughout the nation follow suit.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--Dems Admit Portland Is a Problem They Can't Solve

The nightly violence from the far Left in Portland , Oregon has become campaign fodder for Republicans from Donald Trump on down , and in a new piece at Politico Magazine , several Democrats are reluctantly admitting that they don ’ t have a good answer to the accusations that politicians like Mayor Ted Wheeler are soft in their response to the ongoing unrest .
Of course the Politico piece is sure to try to lay some of the blame for the disorder in Portland on the Right as well , noting that as agitators have continued with destructive acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative groups have responded by coming to the city to counter the protests .
Portland ’ s homegrown clash of extremists on both sides has become so entrenched it is creating a gravitational pull on others from around the country .
Left-wing forces , including antifa and others , insist that “ Riots and looting ” are “ a legitimate and profound form of protest , ” as a post on one of the popular far-left regional Facebook pages encouraging violence recently read .
Meanwhile , the pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer , headquartered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confront the opposition .
“ They go there to provoke physical confrontation , to try to bait people into street fighting , ” Daryl Johnson , a former Department of Homeland Security official focused on domestic extremism , said .
“ Now people are transiting the country , learning from people in Portland .
People may have traveled from Portland to get some battle experience , so to speak.
” What ’ s a Democratic mayor like Ted Wheeler to do ?
Unsurprisingly , gun control activist Chelsea Parsons from the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer lies in going after gun owners .
The solution , such as it is , rests largely on being proactive , rather than simply reacting to the latest convoy of would-be Minutemen facing off with masked antifa crowds .
“ In the absence of leadership federally , it is incumbent on state and local leaders to get in front of it and at least start educating the community , ” Parsons said .
Part of that solution stems not from new policies , necessarily , but from local leaders familiarizing themselves with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prohibitarmed crowds massing near polling places , or that limit open-carry rights .
There are still “ widespread misunderstandings of the scope of the Second Amendment , and the scope of the abilities to openly carry firearms in the community , and where lines are around the ability to do this , ” Parsons said .
Or as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court ’ s 2008 Heller decision expanding the rights of private citizens to wield firearms , the “ Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
” No matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ police violence is gun violence , ” they always come back to the idea that armed agents of the State targeting gun owners is the way to make our society safer .
Parsons is actually correct when she says that officials in Portland need to be proactive in their approach to stopping the violence , but she ’ s off-target by focusing on gun owners .
People have a right to keep and bear arms .
They don ’ t have a right to try to burn down a federal courthouse or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every business they can break into .
Every window that ’ s been broken in Portland , every fire that ’ s been set , and every threat to burn down the homes flying American flags is another example of the unwillingness of supposed leaders like Wheeler to keep the peace and restore order .
Even Biden supporters are forced to admit that the deteriorating situation in Portland isn ’ t likely to get better anytime soon .
Confrontations—and escalation—will almost certainly continue in Portland and its environs , from the steps of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few miles north of the city .
“ I thought some of the recent killings might cause some people to pause for a moment , take a breath , ” Pitcavage said .
“ But that doesn ’ t seem to have happened , and I don ’ t see any reason for it to go away in the conceivable future.
” “ We ’ re in for a long six to eight months , ” Johnson said , “ and maybe even longer than that.
” It didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wheeler and Gov .
Kate Brown have had years to let the far-Left in Portland know that violence wouldn ’ t be tolerated .
Instead , he gave them space to riot and excused their violence by blaming Trump and conservatives for the destructive actions of Antifa , allowing the unrest to grow exponentially worse .
How do you solve a problem like Portland ?
Thanks to the continued cowardice of Wheeler and Brown , all of the easy options are now off the table .

The nightly violence from the far Left in Portland, Oregon has become campaign fodder for Republicans from Donald Trump on down, and in a new piece at Politico Magazine, several Democrats are reluctantly admitting that they don’t have a good answer to the accusations that politicians like Mayor Ted Wheeler are soft in their response to the ongoing unrest.
Of course the Politico piece is sure to try to lay some of the blame for the disorder in Portland on the Right as well, noting that as agitators have continued with destructive acts of violence on a nightly basis, conservative groups have responded by coming to the city to counter the protests.
Portland’s homegrown clash of extremists on both sides has become so entrenched it is creating a gravitational pull on others from around the country. Left-wing forces, including antifa and others, insist that “Riots and looting” are “a legitimate and profound form of protest,” as a post on one of the popular far-left regional Facebook pages encouraging violence recently read. Meanwhile, the pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer, headquartered north of the city, are eager to confront the opposition. “They go there to provoke physical confrontation, to try to bait people into street fighting,” Daryl Johnson, a former Department of Homeland Security official focused on domestic extremism, said. “Now people are transiting the country, learning from people in Portland. People may have traveled from Portland to get some battle experience, so to speak.”
What’s a Democratic mayor like Ted Wheeler to do? Unsurprisingly, gun control activist Chelsea Parsons from the Center for American Progress tells Politico that the answer lies in going after gun owners.
The solution, such as it is, rests largely on being proactive, rather than simply reacting to the latest convoy of would-be Minutemen facing off with masked antifa crowds. “In the absence of leadership federally, it is incumbent on state and local leaders to get in front of it and at least start educating the community,” Parsons said. Part of that solution stems not from new policies, necessarily, but from local leaders familiarizing themselves with the laws as they exist—especially those laws that prohibitarmed crowds massing near polling places, or that limit open-carry rights. There are still “widespread misunderstandings of the scope of the Second Amendment, and the scope of the abilities to openly carry firearms in the community, and where lines are around the ability to do this,” Parsons said. Or as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision expanding the rights of private citizens to wield firearms, the “Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
No matter how much gun control activists claim that “police violence is gun violence,” they always come back to the idea that armed agents of the State targeting gun owners is the way to make our society safer.
Parsons is actually correct when she says that officials in Portland need to be proactive in their approach to stopping the violence, but she’s off-target by focusing on gun owners. People have a right to keep and bear arms. They don’t have a right to try to burn down a federal courthouse or go rampaging through the downtown streets destroying every business they can break into.
Every window that’s been broken in Portland, every fire that’s been set, and every threat to burn down the homes flying American flags is another example of the unwillingness of supposed leaders like Wheeler to keep the peace and restore order. Even Biden supporters are forced to admit that the deteriorating situation in Portland isn’t likely to get better anytime soon.
Confrontations—and escalation—will almost certainly continue in Portland and its environs, from the steps of the Oregon capitol to the Confederate memorial just a few miles north of the city. “I thought some of the recent killings might cause some people to pause for a moment, take a breath,” Pitcavage said. “But that doesn’t seem to have happened, and I don’t see any reason for it to go away in the conceivable future.” “We’re in for a long six to eight months,” Johnson said, “and maybe even longer than that.”
It didn’t have to be that way. Ted Wheeler and Gov. Kate Brown have had years to let the far-Left in Portland know that violence wouldn’t be tolerated. Instead, he gave them space to riot and excused their violence by blaming Trump and conservatives for the destructive actions of Antifa, allowing the unrest to grow exponentially worse. How do you solve a problem like Portland? Thanks to the continued cowardice of Wheeler and Brown, all of the easy options are now off the table.


bearingarms--2020-09-23--Why Court Packing Would Be A Disaster...For Everyone

President Trump has made it clear that he ’ s intending to nominate someone to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg .
This has caused a great deal of consternation by the people who responded with a great deal of consternation four years ago when the Senate refused to consider an outgoing president ’ s nomination .
The truth is , there ’ s nothing Democrats can do to stop it .
However , they ’ re talking about something that has been brought up before as a response , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain the power to do so .
Some Democrats are considering the idea of court packing—adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court—as President Donald Trump moves quickly to fill the seat vacated with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
The Constitution doesn ’ t specify how many judges should sit on the Supreme Court .
Instead , the number is set by statute .
If the Democrats gain control of the Senate after the election , they could make the change .
The Washington Post , NPR , BuzzFeed News and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports the idea .
Among the opponents ?
Oddly enough , Joe Biden .
Many candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary previously told the Washington Post that they would be open to the idea of adding justices to the court .
They include current Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris , a U.S. senator from California .
But Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden told the Washington Post that he is opposed to the idea .
He made the same point in an interview with Iowa Starting Line last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to go on and try to pack the court because we ’ ll live to rue that day , ” he said .
“ We add three justices .
Next time around , we lose control , they add three justices .
We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.
” I ’ m about to say something I never thought I ’ d say : Biden is right .
I know , it ’ s shocking to me too , but he ’ s not wrong .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will just follow along and pack it themselves .
But packing the court would be a complete disaster for gun rights , as we can all tell .
Particularly when you consider one of the plans for packing the court would call for 10 partisan justices , five from each party and then five from among the lower courts picked by the partisan justices .
If the justices can ’ t agree on five , then there ’ s no quorum and they can ’ t hear cases .
The problem there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no guarantee that lack of a quorum won ’ t be the default for partisan justices .
If the Court can ’ t hear cases , then a key check and balance on the legislative and executive branches is essentially gone .
With regard to gun control , that would mean any city or state can pass whatever gun laws they want knowing full well that the Supreme Court can ’ t hear the case .
While lower courts could strike the laws down , we ’ re not seeing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s a problem .
So yeah , packing the court would be a disaster , at least in the short term , when it comes to gun rights .
The easiest solution to prevent it , of course , is to make damn sure as voters that they don ’ t get the power to do any such thing .

President Trump has made it clear that he’s intending to nominate someone to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This has caused a great deal of consternation by the people who responded with a great deal of consternation four years ago when the Senate refused to consider an outgoing president’s nomination.
The truth is, there’s nothing Democrats can do to stop it.
However, they’re talking about something that has been brought up before as a response, and that’s packing the court if/when they gain the power to do so.
Some Democrats are considering the idea of court packing—adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court—as President Donald Trump moves quickly to fill the seat vacated with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Constitution doesn’t specify how many judges should sit on the Supreme Court. Instead, the number is set by statute. If the Democrats gain control of the Senate after the election, they could make the change. The Washington Post, NPR, BuzzFeed News and Politico have coverage.
Not every Democrat supports the idea. Among the opponents? Oddly enough, Joe Biden.
Many candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary previously told the Washington Post that they would be open to the idea of adding justices to the court. They include current Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris, a U.S. senator from California. But Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden told the Washington Post that he is opposed to the idea. He made the same point in an interview with Iowa Starting Line last year. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court because we’ll live to rue that day,” he said. “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”
I’m about to say something I never thought I’d say: Biden is right.
I know, it’s shocking to me too, but he’s not wrong. If the Democrats pack the court, Republicans will just follow along and pack it themselves.
But packing the court would be a complete disaster for gun rights, as we can all tell. Particularly when you consider one of the plans for packing the court would call for 10 partisan justices, five from each party and then five from among the lower courts picked by the partisan justices. If the justices can’t agree on five, then there’s no quorum and they can’t hear cases.
The problem there is that in these divided times, there’s no guarantee that lack of a quorum won’t be the default for partisan justices. If the Court can’t hear cases, then a key check and balance on the legislative and executive branches is essentially gone.
With regard to gun control, that would mean any city or state can pass whatever gun laws they want knowing full well that the Supreme Court can’t hear the case. While lower courts could strike the laws down, we’re not seeing that in a lot of anti-gun areas, and that’s a problem.
So yeah, packing the court would be a disaster, at least in the short term, when it comes to gun rights.
The easiest solution to prevent it, of course, is to make damn sure as voters that they don’t get the power to do any such thing.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Judge Rules  Zoning Rule Doesn't Violate Second Amendment

In this day and age , it seems like everyone is out after the Second Amendment .
Local , state , and federal officials all seem to be gunning for our right to keep and bear arms .
No pun intended .
OK , maybe a little bit intended .
Anyway , it seems like everyone is after the Second Amendment and those who believe in it .
Which is likely what sparked the lawsuit against Howell Township after their vote scuttled a planned gun range .
A federal judge ruled Howell Township did not violate gun owners ’ constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to amend a local ordinance that could have allowed a new outdoor gun range on property in the township .
Oakland Tactical Supply and five gun owners filed a federal lawsuit against the township in November 2018 .
In 2017 , Oakland Tactical Supply owner Mike Paige filed an application to amend the township ’ s zoning ordinance to allow a 1,000-yard outdoor shooting range and other amenities on about 350 acres on Fleming Road .
It would have been called Premier Precision Park .
The land , an abandoned gravel pit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses .
Paige planned to build an outdoor range , conference center , restaurant , trout fishery and swimming beach on the land , which he is leasing .
Connecticut Second Amendment attorney Martha Dean , who is representing Paige and five others in the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan , argued the zoning ordinance creates an effective ban on outdoor shooting ranges and violates the Second Amendment .
The judge , as noted , saw things quite differently .
Friedman concluded local governments are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular zoning district , and the township is not banning ranges because they are allowed on land zoned for highway service commercial uses .
“ In the present case , the requested amendment was so expansive that it would have applied not only to Oakland Tactical ’ s 352-acre parcel but to the entire ( agricultural and residential ) district , which comprises 13,500 acres ( 21 square miles ) or 65 % or more of the township ’ s land , ” Friedman wrote in his order dismissing the suit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a Second Amendment violation .
I hate to say it , but the judge has a point .
Plus , I can see legitimate safety reasons to restrict zoning on an outdoor gun range .
I ’ ve seen some real stupidity on ranges .
I ’ ve damn near been shot due to other people ’ s stupidity on ranges .
It ’ s not difficult to understand why a city wouldn ’ t want ranges in certain parts of town .
Oh , you can criticize zoning laws all day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ d likely join in with you .
I hate the idea of someone not being able to do what they want with their own property .
Property rights should be respected .
But that doesn ’ t make this a Second Amendment issue .
The judge got this one right , which I ’ m sure a lot of people won ’ t agree with , but I ’ m used to that by this point in my life .

In this day and age, it seems like everyone is out after the Second Amendment. Local, state, and federal officials all seem to be gunning for our right to keep and bear arms. No pun intended. OK, maybe a little bit intended.
Anyway, it seems like everyone is after the Second Amendment and those who believe in it.
Which is likely what sparked the lawsuit against Howell Township after their vote scuttled a planned gun range.
However, a federal judge saw things a bit differently.
A federal judge ruled Howell Township did not violate gun owners’ constitutional rights when township planners denied a request to amend a local ordinance that could have allowed a new outdoor gun range on property in the township. Oakland Tactical Supply and five gun owners filed a federal lawsuit against the township in November 2018. In 2017, Oakland Tactical Supply owner Mike Paige filed an application to amend the township’s zoning ordinance to allow a 1,000-yard outdoor shooting range and other amenities on about 350 acres on Fleming Road. It would have been called Premier Precision Park. The land, an abandoned gravel pit, is currently zoned for agricultural and residential uses. Paige planned to build an outdoor range, conference center, restaurant, trout fishery and swimming beach on the land, which he is leasing. Connecticut Second Amendment attorney Martha Dean, who is representing Paige and five others in the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, argued the zoning ordinance creates an effective ban on outdoor shooting ranges and violates the Second Amendment.
The judge, as noted, saw things quite differently.
U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman dismissed the lawsuit Sept. 10. Friedman concluded local governments are not required to permit shooting ranges anywhere within a particular zoning district, and the township is not banning ranges because they are allowed on land zoned for highway service commercial uses. “In the present case, the requested amendment was so expansive that it would have applied not only to Oakland Tactical’s 352-acre parcel but to the entire (agricultural and residential) district, which comprises 13,500 acres (21 square miles) or 65% or more of the township’s land,” Friedman wrote in his order dismissing the suit.
In other words, it’s not a Second Amendment violation.
I hate to say it, but the judge has a point. Plus, I can see legitimate safety reasons to restrict zoning on an outdoor gun range. I’ve seen some real stupidity on ranges. I’ve damn near been shot due to other people’s stupidity on ranges. It’s not difficult to understand why a city wouldn’t want ranges in certain parts of town.
That’s not a Second Amendment issue.
Oh, you can criticize zoning laws all day long if you’re so inclined and I’d likely join in with you. I hate the idea of someone not being able to do what they want with their own property. Property rights should be respected.
But that doesn’t make this a Second Amendment issue. The judge got this one right, which I’m sure a lot of people won’t agree with, but I’m used to that by this point in my life.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Congressman Calls For Australia-Style Gun Confiscation

We ’ re forty days away from Election Day , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we ’ re zeroing in on a House race in Illinois that features one of the more outspoken , if not well-informed , gun control advocates in Congress .
I don ’ t know if Illinois Congressman Sean Casten has missed the news , but Americans have been purchasing firearms in record numbers for months now , and there are millions of Americans who ’ ve become new gun owners since the start of 2020 .
Demand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever been at the moment , but the first-term Democrat says there are “ too many guns , ” and he ’ s pushing an Australia-style compensated confiscation to remove guns from the hands of legal gun owners .
Casten made the comments in an interview with the editorial board of the Daily Herald newspaper in Illinois , though the paper itself had to correct some of Casten ’ s erroneous assertions in its news report .
Casten , who has touted the success of gun buyback programs before , suggested the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They took a whole bunch of guns out of circulation , and they haven ’ t had a mass shooting since , ” Casten said .
“ Why don ’ t we do that ?
” There have been shootings with multiple deaths in Australia since those laws were enacted , however , including at least one last year .
But none were as deadly as the 1996 attack .
Casten said Australian leaders used money as an incentive because they recognized reducing the number of privately owned guns would be “ extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way , adapted to U.S. culture ?
I don ’ t know , ” Casten said .
“ My interest right now is less about how to do that particular policy ( and more about ) let ’ s start having the conversation.
” I hope that Casten was serious about having the conversation , because I ’ ve extended an invitation for him to join me on an upcoming episode of Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to talk about his ideas in greater detail .
I ’ m glad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there have , in fact , been additional mass shootings in Australia since their compensated confiscation program , but neither the paper ’ s editors nor Casten himself seem to be aware of the fact that the number of guns in Australia is now higher than before the ban took effect in the late 1990s .
In fact , gun control activists in Australia have been demanding a second round of gun confiscations .
It ’ s also worth pointing out that Australia had about 3.2-million firearms before the ban , which took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ordinary citizens .
The United States , on the other hand , has about 400-million privately owned firearms .
Even if Casten wanted to focus a compensated confiscation effort solely on the guns he and other anti-gun advocates call “ assault weapons , ” we ’ re looking at close to 20-million legally owned firearms .
An Australian-style gun ban on commonly-owned firearms , in other words , is as impractical as it would be unconstitutional here in the United States .
Given the fact that Casten ’ s recent commentary on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taunting gun owners about the size of their genitals , I don ’ t think Casten ’ s really interested in a serious discussion about the merits of his proposal , but I do hope he takes me up on the offer to appear on a future episode of the show .
In addition to delving into Casten ’ s claims about how easy it would be to ban guns , we ’ re covering several other stories on today ’ s program , including an armed grandmother in Washington State who held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Massachusetts man sentenced to probation last year for trafficking in fentanyl who ’ s now accused of shooting his pregnant girlfriend in the head , and a police officer in Lisle , Illinois in the right place at the right time to save a teenager trapped inside of a burning home .
Be sure to check out the entire show in the video window above , or listen to the podcast version on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or Stitcher .

We’re forty days away from Election Day, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we’re zeroing in on a House race in Illinois that features one of the more outspoken, if not well-informed, gun control advocates in Congress.
I don’t know if Illinois Congressman Sean Casten has missed the news, but Americans have been purchasing firearms in record numbers for months now, and there are millions of Americans who’ve become new gun owners since the start of 2020. Demand for firearms is higher than it’s ever been at the moment, but the first-term Democrat says there are “too many guns,” and he’s pushing an Australia-style compensated confiscation to remove guns from the hands of legal gun owners.
Casten made the comments in an interview with the editorial board of the Daily Herald newspaper in Illinois, though the paper itself had to correct some of Casten’s erroneous assertions in its news report.
Casten, who has touted the success of gun buyback programs before, suggested the U.S. follow Australia’s lead. “They took a whole bunch of guns out of circulation, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since,” Casten said. “Why don’t we do that?” There have been shootings with multiple deaths in Australia since those laws were enacted, however, including at least one last year. But none were as deadly as the 1996 attack. Casten said Australian leaders used money as an incentive because they recognized reducing the number of privately owned guns would be “extremely difficult.” “Would it work exactly the same way, adapted to U.S. culture? I don’t know,” Casten said. “My interest right now is less about how to do that particular policy (and more about) let’s start having the conversation.”
I hope that Casten was serious about having the conversation, because I’ve extended an invitation for him to join me on an upcoming episode of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about his ideas in greater detail.
I’m glad that the Daily Herald pointed out that there have, in fact, been additional mass shootings in Australia since their compensated confiscation program, but neither the paper’s editors nor Casten himself seem to be aware of the fact that the number of guns in Australia is now higher than before the ban took effect in the late 1990s. In fact, gun control activists in Australia have been demanding a second round of gun confiscations.
It’s also worth pointing out that Australia had about 3.2-million firearms before the ban, which took about 700,000 firearms out of the hands of ordinary citizens. The United States, on the other hand, has about 400-million privately owned firearms. Even if Casten wanted to focus a compensated confiscation effort solely on the guns he and other anti-gun advocates call “assault weapons,” we’re looking at close to 20-million legally owned firearms.
An Australian-style gun ban on commonly-owned firearms, in other words, is as impractical as it would be unconstitutional here in the United States. Given the fact that Casten’s recent commentary on gun control has largely consisted of him taunting gun owners about the size of their genitals, I don’t think Casten’s really interested in a serious discussion about the merits of his proposal, but I do hope he takes me up on the offer to appear on a future episode of the show.
In addition to delving into Casten’s claims about how easy it would be to ban guns, we’re covering several other stories on today’s program, including an armed grandmother in Washington State who held a burglar at bay with her shotgun, a Massachusetts man sentenced to probation last year for trafficking in fentanyl who’s now accused of shooting his pregnant girlfriend in the head, and a police officer in Lisle, Illinois in the right place at the right time to save a teenager trapped inside of a burning home. Be sure to check out the entire show in the video window above, or listen to the podcast version on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--CA City Councilman Uses Gun To Stop Brawl

I ’ ve been places when fights break out .
Usually , it was a bar , though I saw one break out at the gym one time ( the dude had it coming , though ) .
Fights happen .
However , some people can ’ t handle the idea of a fight .
They want to ramp things up , and if that happens , people can die .
That didn ’ t happen in one California grocery store because of a local city councilman .
Well , that and his handy firearm .
Meanwhile , City Councilmember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former law enforcement officer , was with his wife at the store at the time of the incident .
Echevarria told the Sun-Star he was in the pet food area with his wife when he heard the commotion , which involved people hitting each other , screaming , yelling and breaking glass .
He ran to the front of the store and saw the melee , which he described as an “ all out brawl.
” Echevarria said there appeared to be four different fights all happening at the same time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ between four and seven people involved in the fracas , which lasted about five to seven minutes .
All of those involved in the fight were males , with the exception of one female , Echevarra said .
The fight participants blocked the entrance and exit to the store , Echevarria said .
At one point , he said one of the individuals ran outside and made a comment about going to “ get my piece ” and made threats to shoot people inside the store .
Echevarria said he saw this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door .
He told his wife to stay back as he ran out to his car and retrieved a Smith & Wesson 9 mm semi-automatic handgun from the trunk of his vehicle .
He described taking a stance holding people involved in the brawl at gunpoint , including the person he claimed made the threats and was reaching in his pants when he returned from the parking lot .
Echevarria ordered everyone involved to lay on the ground and held them there until the police arrived .
When police arrived , they took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is under investigation , but unless he ’ s lying about what transpired , I don ’ t see how the investigation could result in charges .
It looks pretty straight forward from here .
Especially when you consider that a brawl like this can easily get out of hand .
People get killed in these kinds of altercations , so even without the threat of a firearm , it seems likely that Echevarria had grounds to intervene as he did .
Unfortunately , this is California .
While it ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that state , they don ’ t make it easy on you if you do .
Here ’ s hoping that this is resolved quickly and that Echevarria is allowed to move on with his life .
The last thing anyone wants is a criminal investigation hanging over your head , especially for using a firearm in the most anti-gun state in the entire nation .
The sooner it ’ s over , the better for all involved .

I’ve been places when fights break out. Usually, it was a bar, though I saw one break out at the gym one time (the dude had it coming, though). Fights happen.
However, some people can’t handle the idea of a fight. They want to ramp things up, and if that happens, people can die.
That didn’t happen in one California grocery store because of a local city councilman. Well, that and his handy firearm.
Meanwhile, City Councilmember Fernando Echevarria, who said he is a former law enforcement officer, was with his wife at the store at the time of the incident. Echevarria told the Sun-Star he was in the pet food area with his wife when he heard the commotion, which involved people hitting each other, screaming, yelling and breaking glass. He ran to the front of the store and saw the melee, which he described as an “all out brawl.” Echevarria said there appeared to be four different fights all happening at the same time. All told, he said there were between four and seven people involved in the fracas, which lasted about five to seven minutes. All of those involved in the fight were males, with the exception of one female, Echevarra said. The fight participants blocked the entrance and exit to the store, Echevarria said. At one point, he said one of the individuals ran outside and made a comment about going to “get my piece” and made threats to shoot people inside the store. Echevarria said he saw this as his only chance to get out the door. He told his wife to stay back as he ran out to his car and retrieved a Smith & Wesson 9 mm semi-automatic handgun from the trunk of his vehicle. He described taking a stance holding people involved in the brawl at gunpoint, including the person he claimed made the threats and was reaching in his pants when he returned from the parking lot.
Echevarria ordered everyone involved to lay on the ground and held them there until the police arrived.
When police arrived, they took over the scene. Currently, Echevarria is under investigation, but unless he’s lying about what transpired, I don’t see how the investigation could result in charges. It looks pretty straight forward from here.
Especially when you consider that a brawl like this can easily get out of hand. People get killed in these kinds of altercations, so even without the threat of a firearm, it seems likely that Echevarria had grounds to intervene as he did.
Unfortunately, this is California. While it’s still technically legal to defend yourself or others in that state, they don’t make it easy on you if you do.
Here’s hoping that this is resolved quickly and that Echevarria is allowed to move on with his life. The last thing anyone wants is a criminal investigation hanging over your head, especially for using a firearm in the most anti-gun state in the entire nation. The sooner it’s over, the better for all involved.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Prosecutors Disagree Over Grand Jury Findings In Scurlock Case

The sad , strange saga of James Scurlock and Jake Gardner took another bizarre turn this week as the special prosecutor who brought charges against Gardner in Scurlock ’ s shooting death and the district attorney who originally determined that Gardner had acted in self-defense held dueling press conferences where each disputed the other ’ s findings .
There ’ s no doubt that Gardner killed Scurlock during riots and looting that rocked Omaha in late May of this year .
Instead , the question was whether or not Gardner acted in self-defense .
Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed that Gardner was in reasonable fear of his life when he fired the fatal shot , but after days of protest , Kleine agreed to let a special prosecutor take another look at the case .
Fred Franklin , a recently retired federal prosecutor , ultimately brought the case to a grand jury , which returned indictments against Gardner for manslaughter , terroristic threats , attempted first-degree assault and weapon use .
Instead of turning himself in to authorities in Omaha , Gardner took his own life in Oregon this past Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s court case , but it clearly didn ’ t put an end to the controversy over the shooting of Scurlock , as both Kleine and Franklin separately addressed reporters on Wednesday .
In dueling press conferences , Kleine criticized Franklin by saying he seemed to have his mind set and took the tack of an old adage , that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a “ ham sandwich , if he wants.
” Franklin addressed that last week , saying he initially watched Kleine ’ s June 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agreed with it .
He changed his mind after further Omaha police investigation ; Franklin alleged that Gardner had incriminated himself with his words and actions that night… That weekend , Gardner had written on Facebook : “ Just when you think , ‘ What else could 2020 throw at me ?
’ Then you have to pull 48 hours of military style firewatch.
” Franklin said Gardner and his 69-year-old father , David Gardner , sat inside his bars The Hive and The Gatsby near 12th and Harney Streets .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three handguns and a shotgun were visible .
A day before , Franklin noted , President Donald Trump had tweeted a statement that said , in part , “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” The tweet came after protesters had burned a Minneapolis police station during protests over the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody .
So Jake Gardner was a Trump supporter .
That doesn ’ t mean that he set out to shoot someone .
Even Kleine , who ’ s a Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a motive for shooting beyond self-defense .
If Gardner really did set out that night to shoot or kill a looter , it seems strange that he would have waited until he was knocked to the ground and then had Scurlock jump on his back before he decided that was his chance .
The entire story from the Omaha World-Herald worth a read , and it ’ s far too lengthy to excerpt all of the relevant details here , though I do want to highlight one more piece from the report .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kleine had his mind made up as well , and is objecting to the grand jury ’ s decision because it casts doubt on his original conclusions .
Unfortunately , with Gardner ’ s death by suicide , the case will never go to trial and we ’ ll never learn if a jury would have convicted him or exonerated him in Scurlock ’ s death .
The criminal justice system may be through with the case , but some unanswered questions will never be resolved .

The sad, strange saga of James Scurlock and Jake Gardner took another bizarre turn this week as the special prosecutor who brought charges against Gardner in Scurlock’s shooting death and the district attorney who originally determined that Gardner had acted in self-defense held dueling press conferences where each disputed the other’s findings.
There’s no doubt that Gardner killed Scurlock during riots and looting that rocked Omaha in late May of this year. Instead, the question was whether or not Gardner acted in self-defense. Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine said days after the shooting that his investigation showed that Gardner was in reasonable fear of his life when he fired the fatal shot, but after days of protest, Kleine agreed to let a special prosecutor take another look at the case. Fred Franklin, a recently retired federal prosecutor, ultimately brought the case to a grand jury, which returned indictments against Gardner for manslaughter, terroristic threats, attempted first-degree assault and weapon use.
Instead of turning himself in to authorities in Omaha, Gardner took his own life in Oregon this past Sunday. That may have ended Gardner’s court case, but it clearly didn’t put an end to the controversy over the shooting of Scurlock, as both Kleine and Franklin separately addressed reporters on Wednesday.
In dueling press conferences, Kleine criticized Franklin by saying he seemed to have his mind set and took the tack of an old adage, that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a “ham sandwich, if he wants.” Franklin addressed that last week, saying he initially watched Kleine’s June 1 declaration that Gardner had acted in self-defense and agreed with it. He changed his mind after further Omaha police investigation; Franklin alleged that Gardner had incriminated himself with his words and actions that night… That weekend, Gardner had written on Facebook: “Just when you think, ‘What else could 2020 throw at me?’ Then you have to pull 48 hours of military style firewatch.” Franklin said Gardner and his 69-year-old father, David Gardner, sat inside his bars The Hive and The Gatsby near 12th and Harney Streets. The lights were out. On surveillance video, three handguns and a shotgun were visible. A day before, Franklin noted, President Donald Trump had tweeted a statement that said, in part, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” The tweet came after protesters had burned a Minneapolis police station during protests over the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody.
So Jake Gardner was a Trump supporter. That doesn’t mean that he set out to shoot someone. Even Kleine, who’s a Democrat, says that Franklin failed to establish a motive for shooting beyond self-defense. If Gardner really did set out that night to shoot or kill a looter, it seems strange that he would have waited until he was knocked to the ground and then had Scurlock jump on his back before he decided that was his chance.
The entire story from the Omaha World-Herald worth a read, and it’s far too lengthy to excerpt all of the relevant details here, though I do want to highlight one more piece from the report.
Said Kleine: “I know Fred Franklin — he’s a good man. But he really seemed to have his mind made up before he went in there as to what his theory of the case was.”
Of course it could be argued that Kleine had his mind made up as well, and is objecting to the grand jury’s decision because it casts doubt on his original conclusions. Unfortunately, with Gardner’s death by suicide, the case will never go to trial and we’ll never learn if a jury would have convicted him or exonerated him in Scurlock’s death. The criminal justice system may be through with the case, but some unanswered questions will never be resolved.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Medical Community Continues To Treat Guns Like Disease

Imagine you live in a rough neighborhood for a moment .
For some of us , it doesn ’ t take much .
We ’ ve been there .
Now , living in this rough neighborhood , you ’ ve decided you need protection .
You purchase a firearm so that you can defend yourself from the nasty elements running around your neck of the woods .
Sure , you live there , but that doesn ’ t make you immune to their predations .
Decent people need to look out for themselves .
Yet something happens .
Nothing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , maybe just an injury or a late-night fever that you figure is a little more than something that can wait until morning .
You head to the nearest emergency room…only to find yourself quizzed about guns .
That ’ s not a hypothetical , either .
Not in New York anymore , apparently .
Previous efforts to screen patients for firearm injury risk have mostly focused on more targeted approaches .
But those may have missed opportunities to identify people at risk who were in the emergency department for other issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a screening process for all patients who come to the emergency department .
Clinicians will ask patients specific questions about having firearms in their homes and assess their level of risk .
Data collected from each interview will be included in the patient ’ s electronic health record .
Northwell established a similar program in 2018 to universally screen patients for their risk of substance use disorder .
Since its launch , the health system ’ s Screening , Brief Intervention , and Referral to Treatment program has completed 1.5 million patient screens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief interventions and 8,000 referrals to treatment services .
“ As we have seen with SBIRT , we can make a difference for our communities by asking the right questions and providing the right education and connections to treatment , ” said Dr. Sandeep Kapoor , assistant vice president of addiction services for the Northwell Health Emergency Medicine Services and director of the SBIRT program , in a statement .
Treatment ?
Are you kidding me with this “ treatment ” crap ?
Owning a firearm isn ’ t a disease .
Guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm is a constitutionally protected right .
That ’ s not something you treat , it ’ s something you should damn well celebrate because you live in a country that recognizes the individual right for people to have the arms to help secure their own freedom .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong .
I get asking that question to people who may be suicidal or be expressing symptoms of other psychological issues .
It also makes sense to talk about guns to someone who presents with an accidental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it makes sense .
In other case ?
No .
Look , I ’ m going to suggest people respond to these questions in a way that makes my inner Navy Corpsman cringe .
I ’ m going to tell you to lie to them .
It ’ s none of their business if you ’ re a lawful gun owner or not .
I doubt the criminals are admitting to having guns , either .
At some point , there needs to be some kind of pushback against the medical community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ownership is some kind of risk factor for disease .

Imagine you live in a rough neighborhood for a moment. For some of us, it doesn’t take much. We’ve been there.
Now, living in this rough neighborhood, you’ve decided you need protection. You purchase a firearm so that you can defend yourself from the nasty elements running around your neck of the woods. Sure, you live there, but that doesn’t make you immune to their predations. Decent people need to look out for themselves.
Yet something happens. Nothing that out of the ordinary, of course, maybe just an injury or a late-night fever that you figure is a little more than something that can wait until morning. You head to the nearest emergency room…only to find yourself quizzed about guns.
That’s not a hypothetical, either. Not in New York anymore, apparently.
Previous efforts to screen patients for firearm injury risk have mostly focused on more targeted approaches. But those may have missed opportunities to identify people at risk who were in the emergency department for other issues. The project will largely focus on developing a screening process for all patients who come to the emergency department. Clinicians will ask patients specific questions about having firearms in their homes and assess their level of risk. Data collected from each interview will be included in the patient’s electronic health record. Northwell established a similar program in 2018 to universally screen patients for their risk of substance use disorder. Since its launch, the health system’s Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment program has completed 1.5 million patient screens across 18 emergency departments resulting in 23,000 brief interventions and 8,000 referrals to treatment services. “As we have seen with SBIRT, we can make a difference for our communities by asking the right questions and providing the right education and connections to treatment,” said Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, assistant vice president of addiction services for the Northwell Health Emergency Medicine Services and director of the SBIRT program, in a statement.
Treatment? Are you kidding me with this “treatment” crap?
Owning a firearm isn’t a disease. Guns aren’t a virus. Having a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. That’s not something you treat, it’s something you should damn well celebrate because you live in a country that recognizes the individual right for people to have the arms to help secure their own freedom.
It’s not a medical condition.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I get asking that question to people who may be suicidal or be expressing symptoms of other psychological issues. It also makes sense to talk about guns to someone who presents with an accidental gunshot wound. In cases like that, it makes sense.
In other case? No.
Look, I’m going to suggest people respond to these questions in a way that makes my inner Navy Corpsman cringe. I’m going to tell you to lie to them. It’s none of their business if you’re a lawful gun owner or not. I doubt the criminals are admitting to having guns, either. At some point, there needs to be some kind of pushback against the medical community that seems to think that lawful gun ownership is some kind of risk factor for disease.
It ain’t.