bearingarms--2020-04-23--Knife Shop Cites Second Amendment As Why He's Reopening

All around the nation , gun shops are open when many other businesses are closed .
The reason is simple .
People have a constitutionally-protected right to protect themselves and gun shops are the place to go to get the tools for that purpose .
However , a Colorado knife store owner has decided that he ’ ll reopen for pretty much the same reason .
Sedalia knife shop owner Hal Van Herke on Tuesday posted a Declaration of Business Independence on Facebook saying he would reopen CastleGate Knife and Tool Tuesday in defiance of Governor Polis ’ stay-at-home order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defying the Governor ’ s order , but believes he has justification for doing so , including the Second Amendment .
Governor Polis excluded firearms retailers from the shutdown order , defining firearms manufacturing and sales as essential .
Van Herke points out that the Second Amendment protects all “ arms ” not just firearms , and believes this means edged weapons as well .
“ We believe that we are an essential business , ” Van Herke said .
“ We believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms but also knives and other means of self defense.
” Van Herke isn ’ t wrong .
The term “ arms ” doesn ’ t just include firearms but pretty much any weapon .
The Supreme Court has determined that to be the case time and time again , so he ’ s not wrong to argue that his business falls under the Second Amendment protects that keep gun stores open .
To be sure , Van Herke isn ’ t oblivious to the risks of COVID-19 .
either .
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we ’ re going to be doing is have our staff wearing masks .
We ’ re going to ask our customers to wear masks .
If they don ’ t have a mask we ’ re going to have masks available they can purchase at a reasonable price .
We ’ re also asking them to use hand sanitizer before they enter the store and then when they leave , ” said Van Herke .
“ We feel along with controlling the number of people in the store and social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission of the virus.
” In other words , he feels he can mitigate the risk while getting back to business .
There ’ s nothing wrong with that either .
The truth is , while gun stores should have remained open , guns aren ’ t the only weapons that can be used for self-defense .
After all , I ’ m rarely without a pocket knife , even in many places I can ’ t carry a firearm .
While it ’ s less than ideal , it ’ s better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry a knife for protection when they can ’ t carry a gun for pretty much the same reason .
As such , knife stores fill a similar niche to gun stores .
Van Herke ’ s point is valid and he should be permitted to reopen .
The question is whether law enforcement in Colorado will agree with him or not .
If they don ’ t , it ’ s my hope that some of the Second Amendment groups come to his defense and take the issue to court .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend themselves because they can ’ t get the tools they ’ re permitted under current law .
That needs to change .

All around the nation, gun shops are open when many other businesses are closed. The reason is simple. People have a constitutionally-protected right to protect themselves and gun shops are the place to go to get the tools for that purpose.
However, a Colorado knife store owner has decided that he’ll reopen for pretty much the same reason.
Sedalia knife shop owner Hal Van Herke on Tuesday posted a Declaration of Business Independence on Facebook saying he would reopen CastleGate Knife and Tool Tuesday in defiance of Governor Polis’ stay-at-home order. … Van Herke acknowledges the risks of defying the Governor’s order, but believes he has justification for doing so, including the Second Amendment. Governor Polis excluded firearms retailers from the shutdown order, defining firearms manufacturing and sales as essential. Van Herke points out that the Second Amendment protects all “arms” not just firearms, and believes this means edged weapons as well. “We believe that we are an essential business,” Van Herke said. “We believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms and that includes not only firearms but also knives and other means of self defense.”
Van Herke isn’t wrong. The term “arms” doesn’t just include firearms but pretty much any weapon. The Supreme Court has determined that to be the case time and time again, so he’s not wrong to argue that his business falls under the Second Amendment protects that keep gun stores open.
To be sure, Van Herke isn’t oblivious to the risks of COVID-19. either. In his proclamation, Van Herke said:
“What we’re going to be doing is have our staff wearing masks. We’re going to ask our customers to wear masks. If they don’t have a mask we’re going to have masks available they can purchase at a reasonable price. We’re also asking them to use hand sanitizer before they enter the store and then when they leave,” said Van Herke. “We feel along with controlling the number of people in the store and social distancing that should provide an adequate guard against transmission of the virus.”
In other words, he feels he can mitigate the risk while getting back to business. There’s nothing wrong with that either.
The truth is, while gun stores should have remained open, guns aren’t the only weapons that can be used for self-defense. After all, I’m rarely without a pocket knife, even in many places I can’t carry a firearm. While it’s less than ideal, it’s better than nothing.
A lot of people carry a knife for protection when they can’t carry a gun for pretty much the same reason. As such, knife stores fill a similar niche to gun stores. Van Herke’s point is valid and he should be permitted to reopen.
The question is whether law enforcement in Colorado will agree with him or not. If they don’t, it’s my hope that some of the Second Amendment groups come to his defense and take the issue to court. Some people are being deprived of their ability to defend themselves because they can’t get the tools they’re permitted under current law.
That needs to change.


bearingarms--2020-04-23--Nova Scotia Shooter Likely Used Illegally Obtained Guns

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police now say that they have a “ good idea ” that the man who killed 22 people in an hours long rampage in Nova Scotia last weekend did not have a firearms acquisition certificate and illegally possessed the guns he used in his attack .
Authorities still haven ’ t said what kind of firearms were used by the killer , but Chief Supt .
Chris Leather says that ’ s a key part of the investigation , as well as trying to figure out how the suspect obtained a RCMP uniform .
While officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details , anti-gun politicians including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are already using the deaths to call for new gun controls , including a ban on “ assault-style weapons.
” Gun control advocates are using the attack to push their agenda as well , with the group Doctors For Protection From Guns echoing Trudeau ’ s call for a gun ban in an open letter to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair .
We understand that prior to the pandemic your government had been preparing to act on election promises to restrict access to firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantive policy changes is difficult at this moment – and acknowledge your government ’ s efforts to respond to the gravity of the COVID-19 crisis and resulting consequences – we implore you to take one decisive , achievable action right now : ban the new sale of military style assault weapons .
As has been well documented , these guns pose an excessive risk to public safety and serve no reasonable purpose .
Again , authorities haven ’ t even said what type of firearm was used in the attack in Nova Scotia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these anti-gun groups from going ahead and demanding a ban on semi-automatic rifles .
The specifics of the attack aren ’ t nearly as important to these activists compared to the opportunity to use these tragic deaths as a way to push their policies .
At this point , we don ’ t even know how many of the 22 individuals who were murdered died from gunshot wounds .
While authorities say the killer stopped random cars and opened fire while in an RCMP uniform , police also believe that some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fires set by the suspect during his nearly 12-hour crime spree .
Authorities in Canada are also facing questions about the lack of an emergency alert letting residents know that the suspect was still on the loose and posed a danger to the community .
The RCMP issued warnings about the attacker on Twitter and Facebook , but no emergency alert was sent out .
These alerts , typically used for Amber Alert child abductions , notify an individual ’ s cell phone to ensure they know of an ongoing emergency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provinces to reinforce the importance of physical distancing amid the COVID-19 pandemic… Officials have been repeatedly pressed on why they didn ’ t use the system at any point during the 12-hour rampage , which left at least 22 dead across at least 15 different crime scenes , in addition to the perpetrator .
During a Monday press conference , RCMP Chief Superintendent Chris Leather seemed to think there had been an emergency alert issued during the attack before a colleague told him only social media channels had been utilized .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleague said , because of the instantaneous manner that we can communicate .
We ’ re aware that we have thousands of followers in Nova Scotia and felt that it was a way , a superior way to communicate this ongoing threat , ” Leather said .
Using a social media platform instead of an emergency alert is a dumb idea , but using Twitter is remarkably stupid .
The platform has just a fraction of the number of users of Facebook , but more importantly , even if every Nova Scotia resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have received any alerts unless they were actively using the site .
If the emergency alert system is already being used for things like Amber Alerts , why on earth wouldn ’ t authorities have used the system to warn residents that there was a man on a rampage in their communities ?
I ’ m sure that Justin Trudeau and government officials would rather talk about banning guns than the failure of authorities to keep residents informed , but I hope that the Canadian people and press continue to question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government to keep residents safe .
A gun ban wouldn ’ t have stopped this horrific crime , but lives could have been saved if the authorities had simply kept people informed about the threat that they faced .

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police now say that they have a “good idea” that the man who killed 22 people in an hours long rampage in Nova Scotia last weekend did not have a firearms acquisition certificate and illegally possessed the guns he used in his attack.
Authorities still haven’t said what kind of firearms were used by the killer, but Chief Supt. Chris Leather says that’s a key part of the investigation, as well as trying to figure out how the suspect obtained a RCMP uniform.
While officials have remained mum on many of these details, anti-gun politicians including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are already using the deaths to call for new gun controls, including a ban on “assault-style weapons.”
“I can say that we were on the verge of introducing legislation to ban assault-style weapons across this country,” Trudeau told reporters during his daily coronavirus briefing on Monday — a briefing that instead largely focused on the weekend shooting. “It was interrupted when the pandemic caused parliament to be suspended, but we have every intention of moving forward on that measure, and potentially other measures, when parliament returns.”
Gun control advocates are using the attack to push their agenda as well, with the group Doctors For Protection From Guns echoing Trudeau’s call for a gun ban in an open letter to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.
We understand that prior to the pandemic your government had been preparing to act on election promises to restrict access to firearms. While we appreciate the capacity for substantive policy changes is difficult at this moment – and acknowledge your government’s efforts to respond to the gravity of the COVID-19 crisis and resulting consequences – we implore you to take one decisive, achievable action right now: ban the new sale of military style assault weapons. As has been well documented, these guns pose an excessive risk to public safety and serve no reasonable purpose.
Again, authorities haven’t even said what type of firearm was used in the attack in Nova Scotia, but that isn’t stopping these anti-gun groups from going ahead and demanding a ban on semi-automatic rifles. The specifics of the attack aren’t nearly as important to these activists compared to the opportunity to use these tragic deaths as a way to push their policies.
At this point, we don’t even know how many of the 22 individuals who were murdered died from gunshot wounds. While authorities say the killer stopped random cars and opened fire while in an RCMP uniform, police also believe that some of the victims may have died in a series of fires set by the suspect during his nearly 12-hour crime spree.
Authorities in Canada are also facing questions about the lack of an emergency alert letting residents know that the suspect was still on the loose and posed a danger to the community.
The RCMP issued warnings about the attacker on Twitter and Facebook, but no emergency alert was sent out. These alerts, typically used for Amber Alert child abductions, notify an individual’s cell phone to ensure they know of an ongoing emergency. They have also been used in some provinces to reinforce the importance of physical distancing amid the COVID-19 pandemic… Officials have been repeatedly pressed on why they didn’t use the system at any point during the 12-hour rampage, which left at least 22 dead across at least 15 different crime scenes, in addition to the perpetrator. During a Monday press conference, RCMP Chief Superintendent Chris Leather seemed to think there had been an emergency alert issued during the attack before a colleague told him only social media channels had been utilized. “We have relied on Twitter, as my colleague said, because of the instantaneous manner that we can communicate. We’re aware that we have thousands of followers in Nova Scotia and felt that it was a way, a superior way to communicate this ongoing threat,” Leather said.
Using a social media platform instead of an emergency alert is a dumb idea, but using Twitter is remarkably stupid. The platform has just a fraction of the number of users of Facebook, but more importantly, even if every Nova Scotia resident had a Twitter account, they wouldn’t have received any alerts unless they were actively using the site. If the emergency alert system is already being used for things like Amber Alerts, why on earth wouldn’t authorities have used the system to warn residents that there was a man on a rampage in their communities?
I’m sure that Justin Trudeau and government officials would rather talk about banning guns than the failure of authorities to keep residents informed, but I hope that the Canadian people and press continue to question the lack of transparency and the inability of the government to keep residents safe. A gun ban wouldn’t have stopped this horrific crime, but lives could have been saved if the authorities had simply kept people informed about the threat that they faced.


bearingarms--2020-04-23--Chicago Woman Shoots Home Invader

Chicago Woman Shoots Home Invader

Police in Chicago say a woman on the city ’ s south side shot and wounded a home invader Wednesday evening .
The 31-year old , who lives in the Gresham neighborhood , was in her home just before 6:30 p.m. when a stranger forced his way inside the residence .
Authorities say the woman shot the intruder in the foot , and apparently she was able to hold him until Chicago PD arrived on scene .
At last report the suspect was in good condition at a local hospital , and while police are continuing to investigate , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of self-defense .
Virtually every media outlet that ’ s covered the story mentions the fact that the woman has a valid concealed carry license , though that doesn ’ t really matter in this case since she was in her home when she defended herself .
The shooting was one of three in Chicago on Wednesday , though it appears this was the only case involving self-defense .
A man was wounded in a shooting in West Garfield Park .
The 21-year-old was on the sidewalk about 3:15 p.m. in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dark-colored vehicle pulled up and someone inside opened fire , police said .
The man was struck in the waist and taken to Stroger Hospital , where his condition was stabilized , police said .
The city ’ s third shooting involved a man who told police he was walking down the street on the city ’ s northwest side when he heard the sound of gunshots and felt pain in his leg .
According to the Chicago Sun-Times , the victim was taken to a local hospital for a gunshot wound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to recover .
As for the woman who shot the intruder in her home , we ’ ll likely learn more details about the case in the days ahead , but one thing is clear : despite the city ’ s stay-at-home order , some criminals are still intent on getting into homes where they don ’ t belong .
Earlier this month the Chicago police reported that overall crime in the city was down in the month of March , but homicides and shootings increased , and burglaries were only down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are still plenty of good reasons to want a firearm for personal protection in the Windy City , and I ’ m glad that the intended victim of this home invader was willing and able to fight back and defend herself .

Police in Chicago say a woman on the city’s south side shot and wounded a home invader Wednesday evening. The 31-year old, who lives in the Gresham neighborhood, was in her home just before 6:30 p.m. when a stranger forced his way inside the residence. Authorities say the woman shot the intruder in the foot, and apparently she was able to hold him until Chicago PD arrived on scene. At last report the suspect was in good condition at a local hospital, and while police are continuing to investigate, at this point it looks like a clear case of self-defense.
Virtually every media outlet that’s covered the story mentions the fact that the woman has a valid concealed carry license, though that doesn’t really matter in this case since she was in her home when she defended herself.
The shooting was one of three in Chicago on Wednesday, though it appears this was the only case involving self-defense.
A man was wounded in a shooting in West Garfield Park. The 21-year-old was on the sidewalk about 3:15 p.m. in the 4000 block of West Maypole Avenue when a dark-colored vehicle pulled up and someone inside opened fire, police said. The man was struck in the waist and taken to Stroger Hospital, where his condition was stabilized, police said.
The city’s third shooting involved a man who told police he was walking down the street on the city’s northwest side when he heard the sound of gunshots and felt pain in his leg. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the victim was taken to a local hospital for a gunshot wound to the shin, but he is expected to recover.
As for the woman who shot the intruder in her home, we’ll likely learn more details about the case in the days ahead, but one thing is clear: despite the city’s stay-at-home order, some criminals are still intent on getting into homes where they don’t belong. Earlier this month the Chicago police reported that overall crime in the city was down in the month of March, but homicides and shootings increased, and burglaries were only down about 11-percent. In other words, there are still plenty of good reasons to want a firearm for personal protection in the Windy City, and I’m glad that the intended victim of this home invader was willing and able to fight back and defend herself.


bearingarms--2020-04-23--Study: Stand Your Ground Laws Leads To Increase In Homicides

I ’ ve long been a proponent of Stand Your Ground laws .
I don ’ t believe someone should be prosecuted for not trying to run away when faced with a deadly threat .
While there are some cases that might make more sense–a mass shooting in a mall when you ’ re there with your family on the opposite side of the building , for example–there are others when there may not be an opportunity to even look for a way out .
Duty To Retreat laws allow prosecutors to play Monday morning quarterback and penalize people for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat of the moment that the DA ’ s office does days after the fact .
That ’ s just not right .
Yet a new study suggests that the law actually leads to an increase in homicides .
Credible research indicating a link between stand-your-ground laws and an increase in firearm homicides should persuade states that have passed such laws to repeal them , says a RAND study .
More than two-thirds of states now have laws on the books giving individuals the right to use deadly force in self-defense if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which explicitly remove the “ duty to retreat ” when faced with what is perceived as a life-threatening assault at home or place of work , were promoted as a deterrence measure that would save lives .
But there is “ supportive evidence ” from research studies that the laws “ actually make people less safe , and instead more likely to be the victim of a firearm homicide , ” RAND said .
As a result , RAND argued , “ states with stand-your-ground laws should consider repealing them as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation was contained in a review of studies by dozens of researchers investigating the impact of U.S. firearms policies released Wednesday under RAND ’ s Gun Policy of America Initiative .
The study also yielded a couple of bits that might be of interest to the pro-gun side , namely that right-to-carry laws don ’ t seem to increase violent crime and even laws barring those with mental health issues from having guns doesn ’ t seem to accomplish much of anything either .
But the slam against the Stand Your Ground laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , yes and no .
The RAND study is a metastudy , which is typically the highest form of research , which looks at a number of other studies and puts things together based on that .
In fact , this is based on seven studies that RAND picked because they didn ’ t appear to have flawed methodologies .
RAND found “ supportive evidence ” suggesting that Stand Your Ground Laws might lead to an increase in firearm homicides .
They found no evidence that such laws lead to an increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate evidence that it leads to an increase in total homicides .
Which , of course , leads one to ask , “ Why ?
” It ’ s important to understand one big flaw that all of these studies are going to have , and that ’ s the fact that they find correlation , not causation .
While the studies in question recorded an increase in gun homicides during the given period , they generally don ’ t account for other factors that might have also led to an increase in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t account for any potential bias among researchers as a whole , either .
I ’ m not saying that there was any , but based on what we ’ ve seen out of so many other studies , I have to question how vigorous the peer review processes on these studies were in the first place , especially if it told them what they wanted to hear .
Of course , it ’ s also possible that it ’ s dead-on accurate .
I can imagine untrained people deciding that since they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they won ’ t , so they start fumbling with their clothing to get their firearm , only to get shot .
I can also see people without a gun thinking the law means something completely different and getting shot as a result .
After all , all laws have unintended consequences , and Stand Your Ground laws aren ’ t any different .
It ’ s possible that one such consequence is that stupid people are doing new stupid things and are getting shot as a result .
The thing is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your Ground laws are about keeping people from being prosecuted for defending their own life .
Plain and simple .
I refuse to give up that right so that the government can try to cushion me from threats only to make me more vulnerable to others .
They can trot out all the studies they want to claim whatever they want .
It doesn ’ t matter , nor should it .
Freedom isn ’ t safe .
It ’ s messy and scary , which is why so many people don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but without freedom , you ’ re at the mercy of tyrants and history shows us how little mercy tyrants actually have .

I’ve long been a proponent of Stand Your Ground laws. I don’t believe someone should be prosecuted for not trying to run away when faced with a deadly threat. While there are some cases that might make more sense–a mass shooting in a mall when you’re there with your family on the opposite side of the building, for example–there are others when there may not be an opportunity to even look for a way out.
Duty To Retreat laws allow prosecutors to play Monday morning quarterback and penalize people for not making the same assessment in the heat of the moment that the DA’s office does days after the fact.
That’s just not right.
Yet a new study suggests that the law actually leads to an increase in homicides.
Credible research indicating a link between stand-your-ground laws and an increase in firearm homicides should persuade states that have passed such laws to repeal them, says a RAND study. More than two-thirds of states now have laws on the books giving individuals the right to use deadly force in self-defense if they feel threatened. The measures, some of which explicitly remove the “duty to retreat” when faced with what is perceived as a life-threatening assault at home or place of work, were promoted as a deterrence measure that would save lives. But there is “supportive evidence” from research studies that the laws “actually make people less safe, and instead more likely to be the victim of a firearm homicide,” RAND said. As a result, RAND argued, “states with stand-your-ground laws should consider repealing them as a strategy for reducing firearm homicides.” The recommendation was contained in a review of studies by dozens of researchers investigating the impact of U.S. firearms policies released Wednesday under RAND’s Gun Policy of America Initiative.
The study also yielded a couple of bits that might be of interest to the pro-gun side, namely that right-to-carry laws don’t seem to increase violent crime and even laws barring those with mental health issues from having guns doesn’t seem to accomplish much of anything either.
But the slam against the Stand Your Ground laws are a big deal, right?
Well, yes and no.
The RAND study is a metastudy, which is typically the highest form of research, which looks at a number of other studies and puts things together based on that. In fact, this is based on seven studies that RAND picked because they didn’t appear to have flawed methodologies.
RAND found “supportive evidence” suggesting that Stand Your Ground Laws might lead to an increase in firearm homicides. They found no evidence that such laws lead to an increase in violent crime in general and only moderate evidence that it leads to an increase in total homicides.
Which, of course, leads one to ask, “Why?”
It’s important to understand one big flaw that all of these studies are going to have, and that’s the fact that they find correlation, not causation. While the studies in question recorded an increase in gun homicides during the given period, they generally don’t account for other factors that might have also led to an increase in homicides.
The metastudy also didn’t account for any potential bias among researchers as a whole, either. I’m not saying that there was any, but based on what we’ve seen out of so many other studies, I have to question how vigorous the peer review processes on these studies were in the first place, especially if it told them what they wanted to hear.
Of course, it’s also possible that it’s dead-on accurate. I can imagine untrained people deciding that since they don’t have to retreat, they won’t, so they start fumbling with their clothing to get their firearm, only to get shot. I can also see people without a gun thinking the law means something completely different and getting shot as a result.
After all, all laws have unintended consequences, and Stand Your Ground laws aren’t any different. It’s possible that one such consequence is that stupid people are doing new stupid things and are getting shot as a result.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Stand Your Ground laws are about keeping people from being prosecuted for defending their own life. Plain and simple. I refuse to give up that right so that the government can try to cushion me from threats only to make me more vulnerable to others. They can trot out all the studies they want to claim whatever they want. It doesn’t matter, nor should it.
Freedom isn’t safe. It’s messy and scary, which is why so many people don’t want anything to do with it, but without freedom, you’re at the mercy of tyrants and history shows us how little mercy tyrants actually have.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--CRPA President Weighs In On Huge 2A Victory In California

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ’ s decision on Thursday to order a halt to the enforcement of California ’ s law requiring background checks on ammunition purchases is a huge win for gun owners in the state and around the country , and the judge ’ s 120-page decision is a “ constitutional work of art ” according to California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Michel sits down with me to discuss some of the highlights of the opinion , as well as what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important takeaway from Judge Benitez ’ s opinion is the fact that , for now , anyway , it ’ s perfectly legal for Californians to purchase ammunition online and have it shipped to their home , drive across state lines to purchase ammunition for their firearms , or purchase ammunition without having to go through a background check system responsible for tens of thousands of false denials over the past seven months .
As Michael notes , the state of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra will almost certainly appeal Benitez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against enforcement of the law , either directly to the judge or to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals .
Hearings and a decision on any appeal could take place within a week , and it ’ s possible that the injunction could be stayed or overturned , but for now Michel says Californians are once again free to purchase ammunition just like every other American ( if , of course , they can find any for sale ) .
In his opinion , Benitez made it clear that the ammunition background checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withstand judicial scrutiny at trial .
Ultimately , this case asks two questions .
Is an untried , untested , sweeping ammunition background check system , that returns an unusually high percentage of rejections , a constitutionally-permissible burden to impose on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible citizens who desire to defend themselves with whatever common ammunition suits their situation ?
Does a law which discriminates against ammunition sales in interstate commerce with alternative means to achieve its ends violate the dormant Commerce Clause ?
Because a final decision on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ yes , ” but a final decision will take too long to offer relief , and because the statutes visit irrevocable harm on plaintiffs and those similarly situated , a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo ante .
Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated , on this preliminary record , a likelihood of success on the merits , a likelihood of irreparable harm , a balance of equities that tips in their favor , and that an injunction would be in the public interest , a preliminary injunction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plaintiffs likely to prevail , according to Benitez ?
Because California ’ s ammunition laws aren ’ t simply regulating a right .
They ’ re actually preventing law-abiding Californians from exercising their rights at all .
This isn ’ t some narrowly tailored bit of legislation to try to keep criminals from acquiring ammunition .
This law treats everyone who wants to purchase ammunition as guilty until proven innocent , but the right to purchase ammunition is just as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This right was respected in California until July 1 , 2019 .
Once a citizen ’ s right , purchasing ammunition has now become a matter of government license and largesse .
As a result , California ’ s gun laws have become even more complicated .
In California , the State has enacted incrementally a burdensome web of restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible gun owners .
The ammunition background check system and antiimportation laws add even more complexity , and there are more laws on the way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Governor has signed a raft of new “ gun violence prevention ” laws into existence ( including a firearm precursor part background check ) .
California already has an universal background check for firearms , an “ assault weapon ” ban , a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds , a gun registry , firearm confiscation orders , a minimum gun purchase age of 21 years , a limit of one firearm purchase per month , a requirement that would-be gun buyers first earn a safety certificate , a 10-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persons who already own a firearm , a ban on campus carry for self-defense , a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for self-defense , a ban on openly carrying a firearm , a highly restrictive concealed carry law , and a moribund roster of handguns permitted for retail sale , among others .
With its newest over-arching and sweeping background check system , the State completely chokes off many law-abiding responsible gun owners while burdening all citizens who want to buy ammunition .
Another pesky loophole closed .
I love the sarcasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire opinion is worth reading .
Chuck Michel says that Benitez wrote an incredibly thorough opinion , and one that ’ s meant to stand up to the expected arguments of both the state of California and Benitez ’ s colleagues in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals .
Check out the entire interview with Chuck Michel above , but stick around afterwards for a brief conversation with David Adams , legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association , who joined me to talk about the official end of the Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the final status of some of the gun bills brought up yesterday .
Also , if you want to read Judge Benitez ’ s opinion in its entirety ( and I think you should ) , you can find it here .

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision on Thursday to order a halt to the enforcement of California’s law requiring background checks on ammunition purchases is a huge win for gun owners in the state and around the country, and the judge’s 120-page decision is a “constitutional work of art” according to California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Michel sits down with me to discuss some of the highlights of the opinion, as well as what happens next in Rhode vs. Becerra.
The most important takeaway from Judge Benitez’s opinion is the fact that, for now, anyway, it’s perfectly legal for Californians to purchase ammunition online and have it shipped to their home, drive across state lines to purchase ammunition for their firearms, or purchase ammunition without having to go through a background check system responsible for tens of thousands of false denials over the past seven months. As Michael notes, the state of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra will almost certainly appeal Benitez’s decision to grant an injunction against enforcement of the law, either directly to the judge or to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hearings and a decision on any appeal could take place within a week, and it’s possible that the injunction could be stayed or overturned, but for now Michel says Californians are once again free to purchase ammunition just like every other American (if, of course, they can find any for sale).
In his opinion, Benitez made it clear that the ammunition background checks imposed on Californians aren’t likely to withstand judicial scrutiny at trial.
Ultimately, this case asks two questions. Is an untried, untested, sweeping ammunition background check system, that returns an unusually high percentage of rejections, a constitutionally-permissible burden to impose on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible citizens who desire to defend themselves with whatever common ammunition suits their situation? Does a law which discriminates against ammunition sales in interstate commerce with alternative means to achieve its ends violate the dormant Commerce Clause? Because a final decision on the merits is likely to answer both questions “yes,” but a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statutes visit irrevocable harm on plaintiffs and those similarly situated, a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo ante. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated, on this preliminary record, a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of equities that tips in their favor, and that an injunction would be in the public interest, a preliminary injunction is justified.
And why are the plaintiffs likely to prevail, according to Benitez? Because California’s ammunition laws aren’t simply regulating a right. They’re actually preventing law-abiding Californians from exercising their rights at all. This isn’t some narrowly tailored bit of legislation to try to keep criminals from acquiring ammunition. This law treats everyone who wants to purchase ammunition as guilty until proven innocent, but the right to purchase ammunition is just as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms, argues the judge.
This right was respected in California until July 1, 2019. Once a citizen’s right, purchasing ammunition has now become a matter of government license and largesse. As a result, California’s gun laws have become even more complicated. In California, the State has enacted incrementally a burdensome web of restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible gun owners. The ammunition background check system and antiimportation laws add even more complexity, and there are more laws on the way. While this motion has been pending, the Governor has signed a raft of new “gun violence prevention” laws into existence (including a firearm precursor part background check). California already has an universal background check for firearms, an “assault weapon” ban, a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, a gun registry, firearm confiscation orders, a minimum gun purchase age of 21 years, a limit of one firearm purchase per month, a requirement that would-be gun buyers first earn a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases even for persons who already own a firearm, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for self-defense, a ban on openly carrying a firearm, a highly restrictive concealed carry law, and a moribund roster of handguns permitted for retail sale, among others. With its newest over-arching and sweeping background check system, the State completely chokes off many law-abiding responsible gun owners while burdening all citizens who want to buy ammunition. Another pesky loophole closed.
I love the sarcasm in that last line, but the entire opinion is worth reading. Chuck Michel says that Benitez wrote an incredibly thorough opinion, and one that’s meant to stand up to the expected arguments of both the state of California and Benitez’s colleagues in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Check out the entire interview with Chuck Michel above, but stick around afterwards for a brief conversation with David Adams, legislative affairs director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, who joined me to talk about the official end of the Virginia legislative session on Thursday and a look at the final status of some of the gun bills brought up yesterday. Also, if you want to read Judge Benitez’s opinion in its entirety (and I think you should), you can find it here.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--Texas Man Livestreams Hunt For Cops To "Ambush And Kill"

A Texas man seems to have decided that he didn ’ t enjoy life as a free man and instead either wanted to die or live a large portion of his remaining days locked in a prison cell .
Oh , he may not have consciously decided that but unless he ’ s even dumber than he appears , he had to know that was the eventuality he faced .
You see , this Texas man not only decided to seek out a law enforcement officer to attack and kill , but he decided to do so on Facebook Live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmed himself on Facebook Live trying to hunt down a lone police officer to kill .
Texarkana man Aaron Swenson , 36 , was arrested on April 11 and charged with terroristic threats against an officer , evading detention with a vehicle and unlawfully carrying a weapon .
He posted a video on Facebook Live saying he was searching for a cop to ‘ ambush and execute ’ as he was driving through the Texarkana area around 10.30pm .
Officers saw the live video feed and figured out he was driving a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Drive west of the I-369 highway .
Swenson said in the video that he just passed a cop on the road and was going back to attack him .
When officers found him , Swenson sped away in his vehicle , launching a police chase .
Swenson then refused to exit the vehicle and spent allegedly spent 25 minutes listening to music before surrendering himself to police .
It seems Swenson is one of those calling for the boogaloo to kick-off and , apparently , this semi-functional moron figured “ why wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target law enforcement officers , apparently citing the killing of Duncan Lemp as justification for it .
Nevermind that the Texarkana police had nothing to do with Lemp ’ s death .
After all , that was in Maryland .
Not just a different city but a completely different state .
Police officers in one place aren ’ t the same as police in another .
Holding one agency accountable for the actions of another is beyond stupid .
Then again , so is deciding this is the moment to start killing people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the righteousness of your cause that it excuses any action you take .
Congrats , if you think that .
You sound just like Antifa .
Good freaking job .
Look , we may have to boogaloo at some point .
I ’ m inclined to think it will happen , and probably much sooner than any of us should be comfortable with .
Yet unless you want to lose the moral high ground , you ’ d damn well better understand that any killing you do needs to be defensive in nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers who did nothing wrong just so you can score some points .
Then again , Swenson may have helped “ the cause ” out more than he realizes right about now .
By getting himself locked up , the average IQ of everyone else on his side jumped up by a few points at a minimum .
This wasn ’ t about Duncan Lemp .
It wasn ’ t about gun rights , liberty , or anything else .
Not really .
Swenson simply ( allegedly ) used all those trappings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplish .
He wanted attention .
Well , he got it .
Good job , you tool .

A Texas man seems to have decided that he didn’t enjoy life as a free man and instead either wanted to die or live a large portion of his remaining days locked in a prison cell.
Oh, he may not have consciously decided that but unless he’s even dumber than he appears, he had to know that was the eventuality he faced.
You see, this Texas man not only decided to seek out a law enforcement officer to attack and kill, but he decided to do so on Facebook Live.
A Texas man was arrested after filmed himself on Facebook Live trying to hunt down a lone police officer to kill. Texarkana man Aaron Swenson, 36, was arrested on April 11 and charged with terroristic threats against an officer, evading detention with a vehicle and unlawfully carrying a weapon. He posted a video on Facebook Live saying he was searching for a cop to ‘ambush and execute’ as he was driving through the Texarkana area around 10.30pm. Officers saw the live video feed and figured out he was driving a black Chevrolet truck in the area of St. Michael Drive west of the I-369 highway. Swenson said in the video that he just passed a cop on the road and was going back to attack him. When officers found him, Swenson sped away in his vehicle, launching a police chase.
Swenson then refused to exit the vehicle and spent allegedly spent 25 minutes listening to music before surrendering himself to police.
It seems Swenson is one of those calling for the boogaloo to kick-off and, apparently, this semi-functional moron figured “why wait?” Instead, he decided to target law enforcement officers, apparently citing the killing of Duncan Lemp as justification for it.
Nevermind that the Texarkana police had nothing to do with Lemp’s death. After all, that was in Maryland. Not just a different city but a completely different state. Police officers in one place aren’t the same as police in another. Holding one agency accountable for the actions of another is beyond stupid.
Then again, so is deciding this is the moment to start killing people because you’re so convinced in the righteousness of your cause that it excuses any action you take. Congrats, if you think that. You sound just like Antifa. Good freaking job.
Look, we may have to boogaloo at some point. I’m inclined to think it will happen, and probably much sooner than any of us should be comfortable with. Yet unless you want to lose the moral high ground, you’d damn well better understand that any killing you do needs to be defensive in nature. You don’t hunt down police officers who did nothing wrong just so you can score some points.
Then again, Swenson may have helped “the cause” out more than he realizes right about now. By getting himself locked up, the average IQ of everyone else on his side jumped up by a few points at a minimum.
This wasn’t about Duncan Lemp. It wasn’t about gun rights, liberty, or anything else. Not really. Swenson simply (allegedly) used all those trappings to justify what he really wanted to accomplish. He wanted attention.
Well, he got it. Good job, you tool.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--Coronavirus Concerns Cancel National Matches At Camp Perry

The Civilian Marksmanship Program has announced that the annual national matches held at Ohio ’ s Camp Perry have been cancelled this year over concerns about the spread of the coronavirus among the thousands of competitors expected to attend .
It ’ s believed that this is only the second time that the annual shooting competition has been cancelled since it began in 1906 ( the first was in 1918 , though it ’ s unclear if the Spanish Flu was the reason no matches took place that year ) .
“ It was a very difficult decision , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Thursday of Wednesday ’ s announcement canceling the events .
Legerski said the board of directors made the decision to cancel the event after discussing options to hold the competition .
It would not have been possible to move the event to another date due to Camp Perry ’ s jam-packed schedule and the inability to maintain social distancing with 5,000 people expected to attend .
Many of the competitors stay in groups of four in a 12-by-12 hut on Camp Perry ’ s grounds , and when targets are pulled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other , making social distancing a challenge .
“ It ’ s just one situation after another came up and it was blindingly obvious to us that we couldn ’ t do this and keep our competitors , the military folks there providing support , our staff and the family and coaches safe , ” Legerski said .
The cancellation of the event won ’ t just have an impact on thousands of competitive shooters from across the county , many of whom return to shores of Lake Erie on a yearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matches .
The local economy is going to be dealt another blow , and the nearby towns of Port Clinton and Sandusky are already reeling from the temporary but indefinite closure of the Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky , which draws over 3-million visitors each year .
As we head into the summer months , there may be more cancellations of competitive shooting events .
Last week , United States Practical Shooting Association president Mike Foley released a statement announcing that some of this year ’ s USPSA National Championship matches have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local and regional events may be forced to cancel .
Over 99.9 % of all USPSA and Steel Challenge matches are operated by affiliated clubs , including non-profit and for-profit businesses , and individuals .
USPSA and Steel Challenge affiliates , members , and match directors are encouraged to use the information available from CDC , the federal government , state governments , and local governments , coupled with their own risk tolerance levels and good judgement to guide them in what is best for matches at all levels .
USPSA realizes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others may not .
The National Rifle Association has moved its Bianchi Cup competition from May to September of this year , but was forced to cancel the National Junior Air Gun Championships that were scheduled to take place at the end of April in Illinois .
At the moment , all of the NRA ’ s scheduled competitions that take place in June or later in the year are still on , as is the National Muzzleloading Rifle Association ’ s spring shoot , which is scheduled to take place over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana .
All of that is subject to change , of course , so make sure you keep a close eye on any shooting events that you ’ re hoping to compete in over the next few months .

The Civilian Marksmanship Program has announced that the annual national matches held at Ohio’s Camp Perry have been cancelled this year over concerns about the spread of the coronavirus among the thousands of competitors expected to attend. It’s believed that this is only the second time that the annual shooting competition has been cancelled since it began in 1906 (the first was in 1918, though it’s unclear if the Spanish Flu was the reason no matches took place that year).
“It was a very difficult decision,” Judith Legerski, CMP board chairman, said Thursday of Wednesday’s announcement canceling the events. Legerski said the board of directors made the decision to cancel the event after discussing options to hold the competition. It would not have been possible to move the event to another date due to Camp Perry’s jam-packed schedule and the inability to maintain social distancing with 5,000 people expected to attend. Many of the competitors stay in groups of four in a 12-by-12 hut on Camp Perry’s grounds, and when targets are pulled, often people would be within feet of each other, making social distancing a challenge. “It’s just one situation after another came up and it was blindingly obvious to us that we couldn’t do this and keep our competitors, the military folks there providing support, our staff and the family and coaches safe,” Legerski said.
The cancellation of the event won’t just have an impact on thousands of competitive shooters from across the county, many of whom return to shores of Lake Erie on a yearly basis to take part in the national matches. The local economy is going to be dealt another blow, and the nearby towns of Port Clinton and Sandusky are already reeling from the temporary but indefinite closure of the Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, which draws over 3-million visitors each year.
As we head into the summer months, there may be more cancellations of competitive shooting events. Last week, United States Practical Shooting Association president Mike Foley released a statement announcing that some of this year’s USPSA National Championship matches have been rescheduled, and warned that some local and regional events may be forced to cancel.
Over 99.9% of all USPSA and Steel Challenge matches are operated by affiliated clubs, including non-profit and for-profit businesses, and individuals. USPSA and Steel Challenge affiliates, members, and match directors are encouraged to use the information available from CDC, the federal government, state governments, and local governments, coupled with their own risk tolerance levels and good judgement to guide them in what is best for matches at all levels. USPSA realizes that some matches will decide to cancel, while others may not.
The National Rifle Association has moved its Bianchi Cup competition from May to September of this year, but was forced to cancel the National Junior Air Gun Championships that were scheduled to take place at the end of April in Illinois. At the moment, all of the NRA’s scheduled competitions that take place in June or later in the year are still on, as is the National Muzzleloading Rifle Association’s spring shoot, which is scheduled to take place over 10 days in June in Friendship, Indiana. All of that is subject to change, of course, so make sure you keep a close eye on any shooting events that you’re hoping to compete in over the next few months.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--Northam Signs Still More Gun Control Bills Into Law

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has never been a friend to the Second Amendment .
That was true even before he used gun control to deflect from his blackface scandal .
Of course , the media didn ’ t really love him until the deflection started .
When Democrats got control of the legislature in 2018 , though , the state began dismantling all the positive steps forward toward gun rights the state had achieved in recent years .
Of course , that might make a lot of them one-term legislators , but they did it anyway .
And , apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this month , Northam signed several bills into law requiring universal background checks , a 30-day waiting period between handgun purchases and more severe punishment for allowing a child access to loaded and unsecured firearms .
The governor proposed amendments to two bills that were sent back to the General Assembly .
One of the bills will give localities the authority to regulate firearms in public buildings , parks , recreation centers and during permitted events .
The amendment clarifies an exemption for colleges and universities .
An amendment to the senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence requires that anyone subject to a protective order will be prohibited from possessing a firearm and requires the individual to turn their guns over within 24 hours of being served .
Failure to comply will result in contempt of court charges .
With the exception of an all-out ban on assault style weapons and high capacity magazines , the final passage of these policies completes the group of eight public safety bills Northam proposed during the 2019 special legislative session .
The General Assembly will revisit an assault rifle ban in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t content with the massive infringement he and his allies in the legislature have already made on Virginian ’ s gun rights , but they ’ re still going to push for even more next year .
I guess he really enjoyed all the attention from the Lobby Day protests in Richmond earlier this year because that ’ s what he ’ s about to get once again .
And he should .
It should be remembered that protective orders aren ’ t findings of guilt .
Further , those who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the ones anyone needs to worry about with a gun .
They ’ re the ones that never planned on using a gun to hurt anyone in the first place .
The ones you need to worry about aren ’ t going to comply .
To be fair , some won ’ t comply because they just don ’ t want to for whatever reason .
Those aren ’ t really a threat either .
No , the threat comes from those who are holding onto their guns because they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took out the order .
Then , of course , there ’ s the fact that many of the people we ’ re talking about are physically stronger than the women who took out a protective order against them .
They don ’ t actually need a gun to kill them .
Of course , let ’ s not also forget the clusterflop the state just made of concealed carry .
If you ’ re traveling and will be at any publicly-owned facility in the state , check and make sure you won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You shouldn ’ t have to , but that ’ s Northam ’ s Virginia .

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has never been a friend to the Second Amendment. That was true even before he used gun control to deflect from his blackface scandal. Of course, the media didn’t really love him until the deflection started.
When Democrats got control of the legislature in 2018, though, the state began dismantling all the positive steps forward toward gun rights the state had achieved in recent years. Of course, that might make a lot of them one-term legislators, but they did it anyway.
And, apparently, they weren’t done.
Earlier this month, Northam signed several bills into law requiring universal background checks, a 30-day waiting period between handgun purchases and more severe punishment for allowing a child access to loaded and unsecured firearms. The governor proposed amendments to two bills that were sent back to the General Assembly. One of the bills will give localities the authority to regulate firearms in public buildings, parks, recreation centers and during permitted events. The amendment clarifies an exemption for colleges and universities. An amendment to the senate bill addressing safety for victims of domestic violence requires that anyone subject to a protective order will be prohibited from possessing a firearm and requires the individual to turn their guns over within 24 hours of being served. Failure to comply will result in contempt of court charges. With the exception of an all-out ban on assault style weapons and high capacity magazines, the final passage of these policies completes the group of eight public safety bills Northam proposed during the 2019 special legislative session. The General Assembly will revisit an assault rifle ban in 2021.
In other words, Northam isn’t content with the massive infringement he and his allies in the legislature have already made on Virginian’s gun rights, but they’re still going to push for even more next year.
I guess he really enjoyed all the attention from the Lobby Day protests in Richmond earlier this year because that’s what he’s about to get once again. And he should.
It should be remembered that protective orders aren’t findings of guilt. Further, those who will comply with such a law aren’t the ones anyone needs to worry about with a gun. They’re the ones that never planned on using a gun to hurt anyone in the first place. The ones you need to worry about aren’t going to comply.
To be fair, some won’t comply because they just don’t want to for whatever reason. Those aren’t really a threat either. No, the threat comes from those who are holding onto their guns because they’re planning to use them to hurt whoever took out the order.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that many of the people we’re talking about are physically stronger than the women who took out a protective order against them. They don’t actually need a gun to kill them.
Of course, let’s not also forget the clusterflop the state just made of concealed carry. If you’re traveling and will be at any publicly-owned facility in the state, check and make sure you won’t be breaking the law there. You shouldn’t have to, but that’s Northam’s Virginia.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--Robbers In Medical Masks Targeting NYC Residents

Police in New York City say a pair of armed robbers have been on a coronavirus crime spree over the past several weeks , targeting at least four individuals in brutal robberies that have left several victims with injuries .
Authorities believe the pair ’ s first robbery took place in mid-March , when a gas station in Queens was targeted .
The clerk in the station was able to close a plexiglass window and the suspects fled without getting any cash or harming anyone .
That changed in the second robbery police have connected to the suspects .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman at an ATM .
One of the suspects , wearing a “ Star Wars ” cap and blue surgical mask , pistol-whipped the 44-year-old victim as his partner — in a black mask — snatched her purse and fled with a cellphone , a debit card and $ 900 in cash , cops said .
On the way out , the gunman punched a man rushing to help the victim .
Three days later , the bandits followed 83-year-old Joseph Greene into the elevator of his Brooklyn building just after 2 p.m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white gloves , with one knocking the octogenarian to the floor and putting a gun to his head as they made off with two money orders worth $ 150 , his IDs and his Electronic Benefits Transfer card .
The New York Daily News reports that the pair ’ s violence escalated with an an attack on Guillermo Martinez , a 63-year old delivery driver who was on his early morning route delivering bread when he was targeted .
Martinez was ambushed while walking back to his parked van arounf 4:30 a.m. after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police said .
One of the gunmen was waiting inside the gray 1997 Chevrolet van on E. 167th St. in Morrisania — and he ordered Martinez to get in with him .
When Martinez refused , the robber pumped a bullet into Martinez and sped away in the van , police said .
The bullet tore through Martinez ’ s hand and ripped into his pancreas , sending him to Lincoln Hospital in serious condition .
While in the hospital , Martinez contracted the COVID-19 virus , and his family says they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even talk to him over the phone in the days since his diagnosis .
None of the robbers ’ victims were armed and able to protect themselves , thanks to New York City ’ s draconian gun laws that make it almost impossible for the average citizen to obtain a license to carry .
Of course the armed robbers don ’ t seem too worried about violating the city ’ s laws against carrying without a license .
If they are eventually caught , they ’ ll be facing far more serious charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested , well , they won ’ t be facing any charges at all .
New York City ’ s gun laws didn ’ t stop a single one of these attacks , but only prevented good people from being able to protect themselves when violent criminals targeted them .

Police in New York City say a pair of armed robbers have been on a coronavirus crime spree over the past several weeks, targeting at least four individuals in brutal robberies that have left several victims with injuries.
Authorities believe the pair’s first robbery took place in mid-March, when a gas station in Queens was targeted. The clerk in the station was able to close a plexiglass window and the suspects fled without getting any cash or harming anyone. That changed in the second robbery police have connected to the suspects. On April 8th, the robbers targeted a woman at an ATM.
One of the suspects, wearing a “Star Wars” cap and blue surgical mask, pistol-whipped the 44-year-old victim as his partner — in a black mask — snatched her purse and fled with a cellphone, a debit card and $900 in cash, cops said. On the way out, the gunman punched a man rushing to help the victim. Three days later, the bandits followed 83-year-old Joseph Greene into the elevator of his Brooklyn building just after 2 p.m. Both wore blue surgical masks and white gloves, with one knocking the octogenarian to the floor and putting a gun to his head as they made off with two money orders worth $150, his IDs and his Electronic Benefits Transfer card.
The New York Daily News reports that the pair’s violence escalated with an an attack on Guillermo Martinez, a 63-year old delivery driver who was on his early morning route delivering bread when he was targeted.
Martinez was ambushed while walking back to his parked van arounf 4:30 a.m. after delivering bread to a Bronx bodega, police said. One of the gunmen was waiting inside the gray 1997 Chevrolet van on E. 167th St. in Morrisania — and he ordered Martinez to get in with him. When Martinez refused, the robber pumped a bullet into Martinez and sped away in the van, police said. The bullet tore through Martinez’s hand and ripped into his pancreas, sending him to Lincoln Hospital in serious condition.
While in the hospital, Martinez contracted the COVID-19 virus, and his family says they’ve been unable to see him or even talk to him over the phone in the days since his diagnosis.
None of the robbers’ victims were armed and able to protect themselves, thanks to New York City’s draconian gun laws that make it almost impossible for the average citizen to obtain a license to carry. Of course the armed robbers don’t seem too worried about violating the city’s laws against carrying without a license. If they are eventually caught, they’ll be facing far more serious charges, and if they aren’t arrested, well, they won’t be facing any charges at all.
New York City’s gun laws didn’t stop a single one of these attacks, but only prevented good people from being able to protect themselves when violent criminals targeted them.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--Charlotte, N.C. Officials Mull Gun Ban During GOP Convention

The Republican National Convention is still scheduled to take place in Charlotte , North Carolina this August , and some city officials are considering a ban on carrying firearms around the convention site when thousands of delegates descend on the city .
The Charlotte Observer spoke to city councilman Malcolm Graham , who says he ’ s “ open ” to the idea of a local restriction , which would be allowed under North Carolina law .
During the 2016 RNC , no weapons were allowed inside a security perimeter established by the Secret Service , and the same ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perimeter set in Charlotte .
Any areas outside of that zone , however , are under the city ’ s jurisdiction .
As it turns out , Charlotte has an option that Cleveland did not .
In North Carolina , unlike Ohio , state law permits a municipal government to impose firearms restrictions on public property for clearly defined reasons .
That property includes streets , sidewalks , parks and government buildings .
Bikers for Trump Director [ Dale ] Herndon said his group would “ respect any ruling of temporary firearms restriction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked to several law professors who believe that if the city does pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms during the RNC , the ordinance would be upheld .
Jon Guze , director of legal studies at the John Locke Foundation , didn ’ t disagree .
The foundation is a conservative-leaning think tank based in Raleigh .
Guze said the Charlotte City Council can restrict the display of firearms in areas where demonstrators are allowed .
However , the state has not delegated to the city the power to forbid firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment can be restricted only in ways that both serve an important public purpose and are also narrowly tailored to serve that purpose , he said .
“ The fact that the president and a lot of major political figures will be in Charlotte would almost certainly provide a sufficiently important public purpose to justify some special restrictions to the right to bear arms at the time of the Republican Convention , ” Guze said .
I don ’ t know about that , to be honest .
A few years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep its ban on carrying firearms in place , one of the arguments used by city officials was that D.C. was a special place where the right to bear arms should be curtailed because of the number of major political figures and other important people who could be a potential target .
The D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in its opinion , noting that residents of big cities , even Washington , D.C. , don ’ t simply forfeit their right to bear arms .
Charlotte officials would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying firearms is not the same as a permanent ban , and that public safety trumps the right to keep and bear arms in special circumstances .
Perhaps a court would allow it , but I suspect that Guze is correct when he says that the restrictions would likely only be able to be imposed in certain areas around the convention site , and not throughout the entire city .
At the moment it sounds like this is something city officials are weighing , and that they haven ’ t actually decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun ban .
My hope is that officials will decide to err on the side of the Constitution , but given the political ideology of the majority of city council members , my expectation is that we ’ ll likely see some restrictions put in place .

The Republican National Convention is still scheduled to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina this August, and some city officials are considering a ban on carrying firearms around the convention site when thousands of delegates descend on the city. The Charlotte Observer spoke to city councilman Malcolm Graham, who says he’s “open” to the idea of a local restriction, which would be allowed under North Carolina law.
During the 2016 RNC, no weapons were allowed inside a security perimeter established by the Secret Service, and the same ban is expected to be enforced inside the perimeter set in Charlotte. Any areas outside of that zone, however, are under the city’s jurisdiction. As it turns out, Charlotte has an option that Cleveland did not. In North Carolina, unlike Ohio, state law permits a municipal government to impose firearms restrictions on public property for clearly defined reasons. That property includes streets, sidewalks, parks and government buildings. Bikers for Trump Director [Dale] Herndon said his group would “respect any ruling of temporary firearms restriction during the RNC.”
The Observer also talked to several law professors who believe that if the city does pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms during the RNC, the ordinance would be upheld.
Jon Guze, director of legal studies at the John Locke Foundation, didn’t disagree. The foundation is a conservative-leaning think tank based in Raleigh. Guze said the Charlotte City Council can restrict the display of firearms in areas where demonstrators are allowed. However, the state has not delegated to the city the power to forbid firearms possession altogether, Guze said. The Second Amendment can be restricted only in ways that both serve an important public purpose and are also narrowly tailored to serve that purpose, he said. “The fact that the president and a lot of major political figures will be in Charlotte would almost certainly provide a sufficiently important public purpose to justify some special restrictions to the right to bear arms at the time of the Republican Convention,” Guze said.
I don’t know about that, to be honest. A few years ago, when Washington, D.C. was fighting to keep its ban on carrying firearms in place, one of the arguments used by city officials was that D.C. was a special place where the right to bear arms should be curtailed because of the number of major political figures and other important people who could be a potential target. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in its opinion, noting that residents of big cities, even Washington, D.C., don’t simply forfeit their right to bear arms.
Common-law rights developed over time, and American commentaries spell out what early cases imply: the mature right captured by the Amendment was not hemmed in by longstanding bans on carrying in densely populated areas. Its protections today don’t give out inside the Beltway.
Charlotte officials would argue that that a temporary ban on carrying firearms is not the same as a permanent ban, and that public safety trumps the right to keep and bear arms in special circumstances. Perhaps a court would allow it, but I suspect that Guze is correct when he says that the restrictions would likely only be able to be imposed in certain areas around the convention site, and not throughout the entire city.
At the moment it sounds like this is something city officials are weighing, and that they haven’t actually decided to take the step of trying to impose a gun ban. My hope is that officials will decide to err on the side of the Constitution, but given the political ideology of the majority of city council members, my expectation is that we’ll likely see some restrictions put in place.


bearingarms--2020-04-24--CA Judge Bounces Background Checks For Ammo

With millions of new gun owners and pretty much everyone wanting ammo , now is probably a bad time to have to undergo a background check to purchase ammunition .
Of course , the state of California has never really cared all that much for the convenience of gun owners .
Quite the opposite , in fact .
I personally have thought that was a feature , not a bug .
At least in California lawmakers ’ minds .
Not that it matters anymore .
You see , on Thursday , a judge gave the old heave-ho to the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California ruled that a law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition violates the Second Amendment .
Voters approved toughening California firearms laws to include background checks on ammo purchases in 2016 , and the restrictions took effect last July .
The California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against the state shortly after .
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the law “ onerous and convoluted ” and “ constitutionally defective.
” “ The experiment has been tried .
The casualties have been counted .
California ’ s new ammunition background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of California citizens have been gravely injured , ” Benitez , a Bush appointee , wrote in the ruling .
California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra , of course , isn ’ t a fan of the ruling .
He argues that the law prevented some 750 criminals from obtaining ammunition .
In a state of almost 40 million people and nearly 170,000 square miles , it stopped 750 .
That ’ s a bit over one per 1,000 square miles .
Yeah , that law did all kinds of stopping of bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were shot in Los Angeles alone than that .
The problem with the law was two-fold .
First , there were the constitutional arguments , which are what went to court and got the law tossed .
The second was that the law was just a complete clusterflop in general .
On one hand , it made things virtually impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy ammunition .
On the other , the most it did was send bad guys out of state to buy ammo , with some undoubtedly stocking up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill the demand in the newly created black market for ammunition .
But hey , they stopped a whopping 750 bad guys in the entire freaking state .
Judge Benitez is the same judge who overturned California ’ s magazine restrictions , so I ’ d say it ’ s safe to say he understands the Second Amendment quite well .
Bacerra will undoubtedly file an appeal and try to take this to a higher court .
With luck , this will end up before the Supreme Court where it can be smacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pass this kind of foolishness again .
Law-abiding Americans shouldn ’ t be treated like criminals just because they ’ re trying to buy ammunition for their firearms .
Especially when we know that the law is so damn well ineffective as to be practically meaningless .
While the state can tout a few bad guys who didn ’ t get to buy ammo in a gun store , he can ’ t point to a corresponding drop in crime that can be attributed to such stupidity .
Even if he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edited to add : Cam will be touching on this on today ’ s Cam & Company , so be sure to check it out !

With millions of new gun owners and pretty much everyone wanting ammo, now is probably a bad time to have to undergo a background check to purchase ammunition. Of course, the state of California has never really cared all that much for the convenience of gun owners. Quite the opposite, in fact. I personally have thought that was a feature, not a bug. At least in California lawmakers’ minds.
Not that it matters anymore.
You see, on Thursday, a judge gave the old heave-ho to the law requiring such stupidity.
A federal judge in California ruled that a law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition violates the Second Amendment. Voters approved toughening California firearms laws to include background checks on ammo purchases in 2016, and the restrictions took effect last July. The California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against the state shortly after. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the law “onerous and convoluted” and “constitutionally defective.” “The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez, a Bush appointee, wrote in the ruling.
California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra, of course, isn’t a fan of the ruling. He argues that the law prevented some 750 criminals from obtaining ammunition. In a state of almost 40 million people and nearly 170,000 square miles, it stopped 750.
That’s a bit over one per 1,000 square miles.
Yeah, that law did all kinds of stopping of bad guys. For the record, more people were shot in Los Angeles alone than that.
The problem with the law was two-fold. First, there were the constitutional arguments, which are what went to court and got the law tossed. The second was that the law was just a complete clusterflop in general.
On one hand, it made things virtually impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy ammunition. On the other, the most it did was send bad guys out of state to buy ammo, with some undoubtedly stocking up in nearby Nevada and bringing it back to fill the demand in the newly created black market for ammunition.
But hey, they stopped a whopping 750 bad guys in the entire freaking state.
Judge Benitez is the same judge who overturned California’s magazine restrictions, so I’d say it’s safe to say he understands the Second Amendment quite well.
Bacerra will undoubtedly file an appeal and try to take this to a higher court. With luck, this will end up before the Supreme Court where it can be smacked down so hard no one ever tries to pass this kind of foolishness again. Law-abiding Americans shouldn’t be treated like criminals just because they’re trying to buy ammunition for their firearms.
Especially when we know that the law is so damn well ineffective as to be practically meaningless. While the state can tout a few bad guys who didn’t get to buy ammo in a gun store, he can’t point to a corresponding drop in crime that can be attributed to such stupidity. Even if he could, it wouldn’t matter.
Good job, Judge Benitez.
Edited to add: Cam will be touching on this on today’s Cam & Company, so be sure to check it out!


bearingarms--2020-04-25--California's Ammo Background Checks Reinstated For Now

California ’ s background checks on ammunition purchases are back in place , at least for now after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted an emergency request by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra .
The background checks had been put on hold by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez on Thursday , when he issued an injunction preventing the laws from being enforced while the Rhode vs. Becerra case continues to be litigated .
Becerra fired back on Friday , first filing for a stay with Judge Benitez on Friday morning , and then appealing to the 9th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Becerra didn ’ t get Benitez to back off his injunction , the attorney general was more successful at the 9th Circuit .
In his appeal to Judge Benitez , Becerra had argued that public safety would be jeopardized by preventing ammunition background checks .
As Judge Benitez noted in his opinion granting the injunction , the state ’ s background checks on ammunition purchases had led to far more denials of law-abiding citizens than denials of prohibited persons since the checks began in July of 2019 .
In his filing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others prohibited by law from possessing ammunition have been thwarted by the background check requirement .
The preliminarily enjoined background check provisions.. have been in effect for almost 10 months , and have resulted in over 750 prohibited people from purchasing ammunition from licensed ammunition vendors .
The preliminarily enjoined restrictions on direct shipping and importation of ammunition.. have been in effect over two years .
In addition , the order will almost certainly result in prohibited persons purchasing ammunition .
By contrast , no plaintiff has said he or she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had plaintiffs ’ motion for preliminary injunction under consideration for eight months .
Temporarily staying the order for a short time longer will cause no significant harm to plaintiffs , who have been living with the status quo for 10 months ( or over two years in the case of the restrictions on importation and direct shipping ) .
And a stay will promote public safety by preventing prohibited persons from easily purchasing ammunition over the internet or from their local vendor .
By contrast , in his order granting the injunction Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Californians have been denied their ability to purchase ammunition thanks to the flawed database used by the state .
In August , the Attorney General touted the system as a success because out of 62,000 would-be purchasers in the first month , 103 were denied because they were listed on California ’ s prohibited-persons list ( the APPS list ) .
Based on all types of background checks through January 2020 , a total of 770 out of 635,856 have been denied as prohibited ( 0.12 % ) .
Of 590 re-examined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erroneously categorized .
Success to date measures 754 persons with felony convictions , mental health holds , certain misdemeanor convictions , or illegally present in the United States , prevented from buying new ammunition .
Considering the heavy burdens of proving citizenship saddled onto American ammunition purchasers , it is noteworthy that the State ’ s data are silent on the number prohibited because of unlawful alien status .
Beyond the 101,047 residents who are not prohibited persons but who still failed a background check , an untold additional number of ammunition purchasers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even start a background check .
To use the metaphor , they did not have a Real ID or a U.S. Passport or certified birth certificate to go through the main gate and simply gave up .
How many gave up ?
If it is any indication , early on at two California stores , approximately one-half of the potential ammunition customers were turned away without a background check .
I ’ m disappointed that the 9th Circuit has , temporarily at least , restored California ’ s ammunition background check laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchases .
Contrary to Becerra ’ s claims , there ’ s every reason to believe that law-abiding Californians are far more likely to be denied their ability to purchase ammunition than criminals will be , but for now the idiotic and unconstitutional laws are once again being enforced .

California’s background checks on ammunition purchases are back in place, at least for now after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted an emergency request by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The background checks had been put on hold by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez on Thursday, when he issued an injunction preventing the laws from being enforced while the Rhode vs. Becerra case continues to be litigated.
Becerra fired back on Friday, first filing for a stay with Judge Benitez on Friday morning, and then appealing to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Friday afternoon. While Becerra didn’t get Benitez to back off his injunction, the attorney general was more successful at the 9th Circuit.
BREAKING: Rhode v Becerra (9th Circuit): The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted. The district court’s 4/23/20 preliminary injunction order is temporarily stayed pending further court order. The court will address the emergency stay motion by separate order. pic.twitter.com/jlGXifKAIi — Rob (@2Aupdates) April 25, 2020
In his appeal to Judge Benitez, Becerra had argued that public safety would be jeopardized by preventing ammunition background checks.
Immediate action on this motion is necessary because the Attorney General is informed and believes that ammunition vendors have already started selling ammunition without background checks, creating the near certainty that prohibited persons—convicted felons, violent misdemeanants, and others prohibited by law from possessing firearms and ammunition—will have easy access to ammunition.
As Judge Benitez noted in his opinion granting the injunction, the state’s background checks on ammunition purchases had led to far more denials of law-abiding citizens than denials of prohibited persons since the checks began in July of 2019. In his filing, Becerra claims that hundreds of convicted felons and others prohibited by law from possessing ammunition have been thwarted by the background check requirement.
The preliminarily enjoined background check provisions.. have been in effect for almost 10 months, and have resulted in over 750 prohibited people from purchasing ammunition from licensed ammunition vendors. The preliminarily enjoined restrictions on direct shipping and importation of ammunition.. have been in effect over two years. In addition, the order will almost certainly result in prohibited persons purchasing ammunition. By contrast, no plaintiff has said he or she is unable to purchase ammunition. The Court had plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction under consideration for eight months. Temporarily staying the order for a short time longer will cause no significant harm to plaintiffs, who have been living with the status quo for 10 months (or over two years in the case of the restrictions on importation and direct shipping). And a stay will promote public safety by preventing prohibited persons from easily purchasing ammunition over the internet or from their local vendor.
By contrast, in his order granting the injunction Judge Benitez said tens of thousands of law-abiding Californians have been denied their ability to purchase ammunition thanks to the flawed database used by the state.
In August, the Attorney General touted the system as a success because out of 62,000 would-be purchasers in the first month, 103 were denied because they were listed on California’s prohibited-persons list (the APPS list). Based on all types of background checks through January 2020, a total of 770 out of 635,856 have been denied as prohibited (0.12%). Of 590 re-examined by the State so far, 16 were erroneously categorized. Success to date measures 754 persons with felony convictions, mental health holds, certain misdemeanor convictions, or illegally present in the United States, prevented from buying new ammunition. Considering the heavy burdens of proving citizenship saddled onto American ammunition purchasers, it is noteworthy that the State’s data are silent on the number prohibited because of unlawful alien status. Beyond the 101,047 residents who are not prohibited persons but who still failed a background check, an untold additional number of ammunition purchasers were turned away or deterred and did not even start a background check. To use the metaphor, they did not have a Real ID or a U.S. Passport or certified birth certificate to go through the main gate and simply gave up. How many gave up? If it is any indication, early on at two California stores, approximately one-half of the potential ammunition customers were turned away without a background check.
I’m disappointed that the 9th Circuit has, temporarily at least, restored California’s ammunition background check laws and prohibitions on online and out-of-state ammo purchases. Contrary to Becerra’s claims, there’s every reason to believe that law-abiding Californians are far more likely to be denied their ability to purchase ammunition than criminals will be, but for now the idiotic and unconstitutional laws are once again being enforced.


bearingarms--2020-04-25--Study On Immigration Views Betrays Anti-Gun Bias In Research

Immigration and guns don ’ t really have a lot in common .
Not particularly , anyway .
Sure , we can find links .
We can point out how if people are able to be smuggled into the country , something smaller like guns wouldn ’ t be difficult to get in regardless of gun control laws , but that ’ s not really a link .
Yet , to be fair , people who share the same views on guns tend to share the same views on immigration .
A recent study funded in part by the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-gun and pro-death penalty actually dehumanize immigrants , thus making it easier to mistreat them .
An online study that pulled equally from people who identify as Democrats or Republicans has found subtle new clues that underlie views about immigrants .
The words people use and their beliefs about social harms , such as the death penalty and gun rights , can predict attitudes favoring harsh treatment and the dehumanization of illegal immigrants , report University of Oregon researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
The study , conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and UO psychologist Paul Slovic , appeared online April 16 ahead of print .
In the study , the pair dug deeper into the characteristics of those who dehumanize immigrants—beyond often-discussed factors such as hatred toward outside groups and extreme racism .
I wouldn ’ t make such a big deal out of it .
After all , the study was designed with explicit bias in it from the beginning .
You see , like so many other sociological studies , the researchers ’ implicit bias colors the entire proceedings from the design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ?
Markowitz and Slovic concluded , however , that “ a substantial number of Americans can be classified as dehumanizers.
” “ The support for social harms , particularly about guns and the death penalty , are seemingly unrelated to how one should treat an immigrant , but they matter in a large way , ” Markowitz said .
“ We can move forward by acknowledging our blind spots as individuals.
” So from the beginning , the researchers decided that gun rights and the death penalty were “ social harms.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups of people into a negative classification , then built their entire study around that .
And worse , it seems that during the peer review process , no one called them on that .
Nevermind that those who support gun rights and the death penalty tend to believe that not supporting those are social harms .
Gun rights supporters routinely argue that gun control only benefits criminals .
Death penalty supporters argue that executing killers serves as a deterrent to further murders and even if it doesn ’ t , it removes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position to murder again .
In all cases , these folks are motivated by a sincere belief that the policies they support are for society ’ s benefit .
Yet Markowitz and Slovic have decided they don ’ t , then structured their research about that .
Is it any wonder so many of us are concerned about the increased funding for CDC gun research ?
They ’ ve never been barred from researching guns at the CDC , only from advocating for gun control .
The fact that the interpreted gun research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Markowitz and Slovic have just illustrated why they might believe that and why we are completely justified in our concerns .
It also illustrates why so few of us take any of this research seriously .
This wasn ’ t a bit of unbiased research .
This was propaganda from the start .
The only thing worse than the bias is that our tax dollars that paid for this .

Immigration and guns don’t really have a lot in common. Not particularly, anyway. Sure, we can find links. We can point out how if people are able to be smuggled into the country, something smaller like guns wouldn’t be difficult to get in regardless of gun control laws, but that’s not really a link.
Yet, to be fair, people who share the same views on guns tend to share the same views on immigration.
A recent study funded in part by the National Science Foundation argues that those who are pro-gun and pro-death penalty actually dehumanize immigrants, thus making it easier to mistreat them.
An online study that pulled equally from people who identify as Democrats or Republicans has found subtle new clues that underlie views about immigrants. The words people use and their beliefs about social harms, such as the death penalty and gun rights, can predict attitudes favoring harsh treatment and the dehumanization of illegal immigrants, report University of Oregon researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted by UO communication professor David M. Markowitz and UO psychologist Paul Slovic, appeared online April 16 ahead of print. In the study, the pair dug deeper into the characteristics of those who dehumanize immigrants—beyond often-discussed factors such as hatred toward outside groups and extreme racism.
That’s pretty troubling, right?
I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it. After all, the study was designed with explicit bias in it from the beginning.
You see, like so many other sociological studies, the researchers’ implicit bias colors the entire proceedings from the design phase onward. What am I talking about?
This:
Markowitz and Slovic concluded, however, that “a substantial number of Americans can be classified as dehumanizers.” “The support for social harms, particularly about guns and the death penalty, are seemingly unrelated to how one should treat an immigrant, but they matter in a large way,” Markowitz said. “We can move forward by acknowledging our blind spots as individuals.”
So from the beginning, the researchers decided that gun rights and the death penalty were “social harms.” From the start, they placed entire groups of people into a negative classification, then built their entire study around that. And worse, it seems that during the peer review process, no one called them on that.
Nevermind that those who support gun rights and the death penalty tend to believe that not supporting those are social harms. Gun rights supporters routinely argue that gun control only benefits criminals. Death penalty supporters argue that executing killers serves as a deterrent to further murders and even if it doesn’t, it removes those killers from ever being in a position to murder again.
In all cases, these folks are motivated by a sincere belief that the policies they support are for society’s benefit.
Yet Markowitz and Slovic have decided they don’t, then structured their research about that.
Is it any wonder so many of us are concerned about the increased funding for CDC gun research? They’ve never been barred from researching guns at the CDC, only from advocating for gun control. The fact that the interpreted gun research as pro-gun control research is on them. Markowitz and Slovic have just illustrated why they might believe that and why we are completely justified in our concerns.
It also illustrates why so few of us take any of this research seriously. This wasn’t a bit of unbiased research. This was propaganda from the start.
The only thing worse than the bias is that our tax dollars that paid for this.