bearingarms--2020-06-16--California's Concealed Carry Laws Enable Graft And Corruption

With the Supreme Court ’ s refusal to consider legal challenges to the concealed carry laws in New Jersey , Maryland , and Massachusetts , anti-gun politicians in the handful of states that still have “ good cause ” or “ justifiable need ” requirements for concealed carry permits are breathing a sigh of relief .
For now , anyway , the Court won ’ t take a look at these laws and whether or not they violate the constitutional right of residents to bear arms in self-defense .
That ’ s a particularly disappointing decision by the Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied their right to bear arms , the discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits is also enabling graft and corruption among licensing authorities themselves .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a look at what ’ s been happening in Santa Clara County , California , where Sheriff Laurie Smith ’ s office has been under investigation by the county District Attorney for almost a year now amidst allegations of a “ pay-to-play ” scheme where campaign contributions to the sheriff ’ s re-election efforts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed carry permit .
NBC Bay Area recently did an investigation of their own into the sheriff ’ s office , and found some pretty strong evidence that the allegations of corruption may have merit .
According to the news station , only a handful of concealed carry applications have been approved in recent years , and many of those who received a rare permit to carry had coughed up some serious cash for Sheriff Smith ’ s campaigns .
Permits to carry a concealed weapon [ CCW ] can be difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are in most of the Bay Area .
Between 2014 and 2018 , 749 Santa Clara County residents applied for a new CCW permit , according to records provided by the Sheriff ’ s Department .
Only 62 applicants received a permit , according to the records .
Most of those applicants did not donate to the Sheriff ’ s political campaign over that time period .
Fewer than 6 % of those non-donors were awarded a concealed gun permit , according to Sheriff ’ s office records and publicly available campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plummets even further for applicants who most would consider “ average citizens.
” Among the 40 non-donors to be granted concealed gun permits between 2014 and 2018 are three sitting judges , two current members of the San Jose Sharks hockey team , at least one employee of the sheriff ’ s office , and five people who appear to be Santa Clara County reserve deputies .
But the approval rate skyrockets for the 28 applicants who either gave campaign cash to Sheriff Laurie Smith directly or where a family member or employer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed gun permits to 22 of those 28 applicants , an approval rate of about 79 % .
Donors accounted for fewer than 4 % of all CCW applicants over that time period , but constituted about 35 % of those awarded permits , according to the records .
Those statistics by themselves aren ’ t proof of pay-to-play taking place , but NBC Bay Area also spoke with several locals , including a member of law enforcement , who make it clear that a campaign contribution can be very helpful in receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners who spoke to NBC Bay Area , including a sheriff ’ s deputy who spoke on the condition of anonymity , said the pay-to-play allegations against the Sheriff have persisted for years and are almost an open secret .
Mark Hinkle , who lives at the end of a two-mile dirt in a remote part of the county , owns guns for personal protection , he said .
The small business owner often carries cash and said he worries about being robbed while away from his property .
But Hinkle said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a concealed gun permit after speaking to several sheriff ’ s deputies about what it would take to get one .
“ Every one of them said , ‘ Well , if you make a substantial contribution to Sheriff Smith ’ s re-election campaign , you ’ ll improve your chances.
’ And of course , I don ’ t want to do that , ” Hinkle said .
“ To me , that ’ s corruption , ” Hinkle said .
“ And I ’ m not going to participate in corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney in Santa Clara County will ultimately determine that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the sheriff and senior staff , but at the very least there ’ s certainly the appearance of impropriety here , and that ’ s undoubtably eroded confidence in the sheriff ’ s office among some in the county .
Given the push to reform law enforcement , one easy way for the state to ensure accountability for sheriffs and avoid charges of discrimination or unfair practices would be to adopt a “ shall issue ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of enabling them to pick and choose which citizens are allowed to exercise their right to bear arms in self-defense .
Of course , with an anti-gun supermajority in the California legislature , I ’ m not holding my breath that the necessary reforms will happen any time soon , or without a court order .
Again , it ’ s a travesty that the Supreme Court refused to accept any of the Second Amendment cases it was recently considering , and while we wait for the Court to eventually weigh in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their right to bear arms thanks to a system that allows for discrimination , graft , and corruption among our public officials .

With the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider legal challenges to the concealed carry laws in New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts, anti-gun politicians in the handful of states that still have “good cause” or “justifiable need” requirements for concealed carry permits are breathing a sigh of relief. For now, anyway, the Court won’t take a look at these laws and whether or not they violate the constitutional right of residents to bear arms in self-defense. That’s a particularly disappointing decision by the Court, because not only are countless Americans being denied their right to bear arms, the discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits is also enabling graft and corruption among licensing authorities themselves.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a look at what’s been happening in Santa Clara County, California, where Sheriff Laurie Smith’s office has been under investigation by the county District Attorney for almost a year now amidst allegations of a “pay-to-play” scheme where campaign contributions to the sheriff’s re-election efforts have substantially increased the odds of receiving a concealed carry permit.
NBC Bay Area recently did an investigation of their own into the sheriff’s office, and found some pretty strong evidence that the allegations of corruption may have merit. According to the news station, only a handful of concealed carry applications have been approved in recent years, and many of those who received a rare permit to carry had coughed up some serious cash for Sheriff Smith’s campaigns.
Permits to carry a concealed weapon [CCW] can be difficult to obtain in Santa Clara County, as they are in most of the Bay Area. Between 2014 and 2018, 749 Santa Clara County residents applied for a new CCW permit, according to records provided by the Sheriff’s Department. Only 62 applicants received a permit, according to the records. Most of those applicants did not donate to the Sheriff’s political campaign over that time period. Fewer than 6% of those non-donors were awarded a concealed gun permit, according to Sheriff’s office records and publicly available campaign contribution data. The non-donor approval rate plummets even further for applicants who most would consider “average citizens.” Among the 40 non-donors to be granted concealed gun permits between 2014 and 2018 are three sitting judges, two current members of the San Jose Sharks hockey team, at least one employee of the sheriff’s office, and five people who appear to be Santa Clara County reserve deputies. But the approval rate skyrockets for the 28 applicants who either gave campaign cash to Sheriff Laurie Smith directly or where a family member or employer donated. Smith’s office granted concealed gun permits to 22 of those 28 applicants, an approval rate of about 79%. Donors accounted for fewer than 4% of all CCW applicants over that time period, but constituted about 35% of those awarded permits, according to the records.
Those statistics by themselves aren’t proof of pay-to-play taking place, but NBC Bay Area also spoke with several locals, including a member of law enforcement, who make it clear that a campaign contribution can be very helpful in receiving a concealed carry permit.
South Bay gun owners who spoke to NBC Bay Area, including a sheriff’s deputy who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the pay-to-play allegations against the Sheriff have persisted for years and are almost an open secret. Mark Hinkle, who lives at the end of a two-mile dirt in a remote part of the county, owns guns for personal protection, he said. The small business owner often carries cash and said he worries about being robbed while away from his property. But Hinkle said he didn’t bother applying for a concealed gun permit after speaking to several sheriff’s deputies about what it would take to get one. “Every one of them said, ‘Well, if you make a substantial contribution to Sheriff Smith’s re-election campaign, you’ll improve your chances.’ And of course, I don’t want to do that,” Hinkle said. Hinkle said NBC Bay Area’s findings concerned him. “To me, that’s corruption,” Hinkle said. “And I’m not going to participate in corruption of government officials.”
Perhaps the District Attorney in Santa Clara County will ultimately determine that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the sheriff and senior staff, but at the very least there’s certainly the appearance of impropriety here, and that’s undoubtably eroded confidence in the sheriff’s office among some in the county. Given the push to reform law enforcement, one easy way for the state to ensure accountability for sheriffs and avoid charges of discrimination or unfair practices would be to adopt a “shall issue” system of issuing concealed handgun permits, instead of enabling them to pick and choose which citizens are allowed to exercise their right to bear arms in self-defense.
Of course, with an anti-gun supermajority in the California legislature, I’m not holding my breath that the necessary reforms will happen any time soon, or without a court order. Again, it’s a travesty that the Supreme Court refused to accept any of the Second Amendment cases it was recently considering, and while we wait for the Court to eventually weigh in, there are countless Americans being deprived of their right to bear arms thanks to a system that allows for discrimination, graft, and corruption among our public officials.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--Problems With Study Claiming Gun Control Could Save Lives

Recently , a new study was published that claimed three types of gun control laws could reduce firearm-related fatalities by up to 10 percent .
Now , for the anti-gunners , this is big news .
This is something they ’ re likely to jump up and down about and publicize until the cows come home .
After all , many of these regulations are things they ’ ve been pushing for lawmakers to adopt for some time now .
However , there are problems with the study .
Big problems .
In fact , they ’ re big enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just yet .
U.S. gun laws vary considerably by state .
Some , like Kansas , allow citizens to carry firearms in public and make it legal for gun owners to shoot an assailant in self-defense in some situations ( known as the stand your ground doctrine ) .
Others , like California , are more restrictive , limiting not only who is allowed to carry guns in public , but also access to firearms in the home by requiring safety devices such as trigger locks or gun safes .
This patchwork—combined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for scientists to predict the effects of gun laws on gun deaths , says Terry Schell , a senior behavioral scientist at the nonprofit RAND Corporation , which aims to improve public policy through research and analysis .
To limit these problems , Schell and colleagues focused on just three kinds of laws and one outcome : gun deaths per capita .
To understand how laws affect death rates , they screened hundreds of existing and novel statistical approaches , finally zeroing in on a model that reduces statistical noise by paying special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year by year , rather than averaged over long periods of time .
The researchers counted the number of gun deaths from all 50 states for each year from 1980 to 2016 .
They then examined each instance of a new law limiting or allowing right to carry , stand your ground , or child access , state by state , through 2013 .
Finally , they compared that with mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) for the next 6 years .
So what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not accounting for any other changes that may or may not have led to these differences .
There ’ s absolutely no way to control for these factors .
Anyone who has lived in multiple states can tell you that while there are some things that are fairly universal across all American cities , there are also profound differences .
That includes a whole litany of laws , including gun control laws .
As it stands , it ’ s impossible for any study to control for these other factors when looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works .
For example , a reduction in joblessness can reduce violent crime all on its own , all without the first bit of gun control being passed .
Yet if gun control is passed around the same time , studies like this will chalk up that reduction to the gun control law .
That ’ s true even if there were evidence to suggest that the reduction might have been greater had the gun control law not gone into place .
At the end of the day , you just can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story notes , while six of the top ten safest states have gun control policies like the ones espoused by the study , four of those ten don ’ t .
Further , some of the states with the strictest gun control also have some of the most violent communities , such as Illinois and Maryland .
The factors that contribute to firearm fatalities are complicated and no study actually tries to look at other potential causes for any decrease in violent crime .
They , instead , focus on guns .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are biased and don ’ t want taxpayer money going toward such things .

Recently, a new study was published that claimed three types of gun control laws could reduce firearm-related fatalities by up to 10 percent. Now, for the anti-gunners, this is big news. This is something they’re likely to jump up and down about and publicize until the cows come home. After all, many of these regulations are things they’ve been pushing for lawmakers to adopt for some time now.
However, there are problems with the study. Big problems.
In fact, they’re big enough that no one should act on anything just yet.
U.S. gun laws vary considerably by state. Some, like Kansas, allow citizens to carry firearms in public and make it legal for gun owners to shoot an assailant in self-defense in some situations (known as the stand your ground doctrine). Others, like California, are more restrictive, limiting not only who is allowed to carry guns in public, but also access to firearms in the home by requiring safety devices such as trigger locks or gun safes. This patchwork—combined with limited funding for reasearch—has made it hard for scientists to predict the effects of gun laws on gun deaths, says Terry Schell, a senior behavioral scientist at the nonprofit RAND Corporation, which aims to improve public policy through research and analysis. To limit these problems, Schell and colleagues focused on just three kinds of laws and one outcome: gun deaths per capita. To understand how laws affect death rates, they screened hundreds of existing and novel statistical approaches, finally zeroing in on a model that reduces statistical noise by paying special attention to how different variables affect deaths year by year, rather than averaged over long periods of time. The researchers counted the number of gun deaths from all 50 states for each year from 1980 to 2016. They then examined each instance of a new law limiting or allowing right to carry, stand your ground, or child access, state by state, through 2013. Finally, they compared that with mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the next 6 years.
So what’s the big problem? They’re not accounting for any other changes that may or may not have led to these differences. There’s absolutely no way to control for these factors.
Anyone who has lived in multiple states can tell you that while there are some things that are fairly universal across all American cities, there are also profound differences. That includes a whole litany of laws, including gun control laws.
As it stands, it’s impossible for any study to control for these other factors when looking at whether a bit of gun control legislation works. For example, a reduction in joblessness can reduce violent crime all on its own, all without the first bit of gun control being passed. Yet if gun control is passed around the same time, studies like this will chalk up that reduction to the gun control law.
That’s true even if there were evidence to suggest that the reduction might have been greater had the gun control law not gone into place.
At the end of the day, you just can’t compare states. As the above-linked story notes, while six of the top ten safest states have gun control policies like the ones espoused by the study, four of those ten don’t. Further, some of the states with the strictest gun control also have some of the most violent communities, such as Illinois and Maryland.
The factors that contribute to firearm fatalities are complicated and no study actually tries to look at other potential causes for any decrease in violent crime. They, instead, focus on guns.
And they wonder why we think these studies are biased and don’t want taxpayer money going toward such things.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--NYPD Complains Of Continuing Arrests Of Early Release Prisoners

One of the early moves by many governors throughout the nation during the pandemic was to release prisoners .
After all , prisons are choice locales for a rampaging virus .
Social distancing is kind of hard to do when you have several people in a small cell , after all .
Plus , let ’ s face it , every death in prison was going to be blamed on the governor , so , I get why they did it .
However , unsurprisingly , things happened .
In many places , recently released prisoners did what many recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went right back to their criminal ways .
Now , NYPD officials are less than thrilled by how they ’ re still making arrests of prisoners released early for COVID-19 .
Hundreds of prisoners released early from Rikers due to COVID concerns are being enabled to re-offend again and again without consequences , law enforcement leaders say .
“ We ’ re continuing to see people get arrested over and over and let right back out .
And it really defies common sense , ” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said in an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,500 defendants sprung from Rikers early because of COVID safety planning , at least 250 have been arrested again since , according to Michael LiPetri , chief of Crime Control Strategies for the NYPD .
Chief LiPetri tells NBC New York the NYPD did not object to releasing older defendants , nor those with underlying medical conditions .
But he says the consequences of the larger-scale release of prisoners are now showing up in the arrest data , with those 250 re-offenders being arrested 450 times so far during the pandemic .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested again .
And that ’ s just so far .
As time rolls on , that number may well climb significantly higher .
Further , it seems a number of them have been arrested multiple times since the outbreak .
That tells us that not only did they get released once from prison , but they ’ re also continuing to be released from jail enough that they ’ re able to get busted again and again after these new arrests .
Sure , some of these may stem primarily from just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who shouldn ’ t be out on the streets to begin with .
Then again , with New York ’ s bail reform law , they may not have even needed to bother with that .
Honestly , there are questions about many of those who have been released early .
At least one case involved a prisoner released early brutally being a man in Brooklyn .
There have been others as well .
It makes you wonder just what kind of criteria was being used to determine who to release early and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more importantly , whether there were any real criteria followed in the first place .
Regardless , thousands of prisoners who didn ’ t finish their sentences running around the streets of New York .
While some of those are people just wanting to rebuild their lives , many others are going to go right back to what landed them in prison in the first place .
That ’ s going to be a problem because those “ professions ” tend to also lend themselves well to turning violent on a dime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bottle and there ’ s nothing the NYPD can do about it , especially in light of the current anti-police climate .

One of the early moves by many governors throughout the nation during the pandemic was to release prisoners. After all, prisons are choice locales for a rampaging virus. Social distancing is kind of hard to do when you have several people in a small cell, after all.
Plus, let’s face it, every death in prison was going to be blamed on the governor, so, I get why they did it.
However, unsurprisingly, things happened. In many places, recently released prisoners did what many recently released prisoners tend to do. They went right back to their criminal ways.
Now, NYPD officials are less than thrilled by how they’re still making arrests of prisoners released early for COVID-19.
Hundreds of prisoners released early from Rikers due to COVID concerns are being enabled to re-offend again and again without consequences, law enforcement leaders say. “We’re continuing to see people get arrested over and over and let right back out. And it really defies common sense,” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said in an interview with NBC New York. Of approximately 2,500 defendants sprung from Rikers early because of COVID safety planning, at least 250 have been arrested again since, according to Michael LiPetri, chief of Crime Control Strategies for the NYPD. Chief LiPetri tells NBC New York the NYPD did not object to releasing older defendants, nor those with underlying medical conditions. But he says the consequences of the larger-scale release of prisoners are now showing up in the arrest data, with those 250 re-offenders being arrested 450 times so far during the pandemic.
In other words, 10 percent have been arrested again. And that’s just so far. As time rolls on, that number may well climb significantly higher.
Further, it seems a number of them have been arrested multiple times since the outbreak. That tells us that not only did they get released once from prison, but they’re also continuing to be released from jail enough that they’re able to get busted again and again after these new arrests. Sure, some of these may stem primarily from just making bail, but these are people who shouldn’t be out on the streets to begin with. Then again, with New York’s bail reform law, they may not have even needed to bother with that.
Honestly, there are questions about many of those who have been released early.
At least one case involved a prisoner released early brutally being a man in Brooklyn. There have been others as well. It makes you wonder just what kind of criteria was being used to determine who to release early and who not to release.
Or, more importantly, whether there were any real criteria followed in the first place.
Regardless, thousands of prisoners who didn’t finish their sentences running around the streets of New York. While some of those are people just wanting to rebuild their lives, many others are going to go right back to what landed them in prison in the first place. That’s going to be a problem because those “professions” tend to also lend themselves well to turning violent on a dime.
Unfortunately, that particular genie is out of the bottle and there’s nothing the NYPD can do about it, especially in light of the current anti-police climate.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--Is CHOP The Left's Second Amendment Sanctuary?

What ’ s going on in these four blocks that shook the world is indeed an occupation , but it @ @ @ @ @ touted on Fox .
It ’ s also the “ block party ” that Mayor @ @ @ @ @ to , to gleeful jeers from Fox commentators .
And it ’ s other things @ @ @ @ @ but conceptually sprawling formative community , at once silly and serious , spontaneous and disciplined @ @ @ @ @ two evenings and an afternoon in the zone ( plus a night observing a police/protest @ @ @ @ @ ) , it seemed by turns like a commune ( as in Paris 1871 ) @ @ @ @ @ libertarian dream , a ’ 60s-style teach-in , a street fair and street market , @ @ @ @ @ , a poetry slam and pilgrimage , a school service day , a mass healing @ @ @ @ @ version of Burning Man , and of course a protest rally .

There’s one phrase that Scigliano chose not to use to describe CHOP, though it may be more apt than a “street fair”: a Second Amendment Sanctuary. There’s plenty of evidence that the protesters occupying the Capitol Hill neighborhood aren’t paying much attention at all to the state’s gun control laws, like this video that captured CHOP leader Raz Simone handing out rifles to defend the zone.
This video appears to show Raz handing out AR-15s inside CapHill pic.twitter.com/vfUOdQMyzR — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 15, 2020
Last time I checked, Washington State has a “universal background check” law requiring the vast majority of gun transfers to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. There are some exemptions to the law, but it would appear that none would apply to the transaction caught on video. According to the state statute, these are the only circumstances in which a firearm can be legally transferred without a background check.
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, parents-in-law, children, siblings, siblings-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift or loan; (b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm; (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (d) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if: (i) The transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm; (ii) the transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm; and (iii) the firearm is not utilized by the transferee for any purpose for the duration of the temporary transfer; (e) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official; (f) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith; (g) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; (v) under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm remain in the presence of the transferor; or (vi) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (h) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws; or (i) A sale or transfer when the purchaser or transferee is a licensed collector and the firearm being sold or transferred is a curio or relic.
Gov. Jay Inslee’s had some pretty harsh words in the past for Second Amendment Sanctuaries that have been declared in Washington State. Last year, when he was still engaged in his brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson penned a letter to firearms dealers in the state reminding them that compliance with the state’s gun laws isn’t optional.
“Despite what some of these sheriffs would have people believe, no one has the ability to pick and choose which laws to follow,” said Inslee, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. Inslee added: “Our state’s voters overwhelmingly approved stronger background checks and gun safety measures, and dealers will be required to comply with those laws.”
Now, of course, Inslee has been silent on the armed protesters and violations of Washington State law. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which has repeatedly called for more gun control laws, hasn’t written a word about the armed protesters flouting existing laws. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s been mum as well.
If the occupiers of CHAZ or CHOP or the People’s Republic of Capitol Hill aren’t going to pay attention to the state’s gun laws, and the state’s law enforcement and politicians aren’t going to pay any attention to the violation of those laws by protesters, why should anyone else pay attention to the laws either?
Personally, I think the state’s background check law is a joke, and I’d be perfectly happy if Inslee came out and said that it was a mistake to put it on the books. I don’t see that happening, however. What I see are politicians who now want to selectively enforce the state’s gun control laws depending on where you live and what your political orientation may be. A conservative in Klickitat County? Better follow that law, you crazy insurrectionist. An anarchist in Seattle? Have fun storming the castle! It’s an egregious and obvious double standard, and the governor really shouldn’t be surprised when it results in more defiance and civil disobedience across the political spectrum.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--Armed Citizen Defends Self, Others From Roadway Attacker

Police in Delta Township , Michigan are investigating after a 22-year old concealed carry holder shot and killed a man who was threatening motorists with a gun and firing shots into the air during the morning rush hour .
The Eaton County Sheriffs office says calls to 911 came pouring in Monday morning with reports of a man in a black hooded sweatshirt standing in the middle of the busy West Saginaw Highway firing a handgun into the air and pointing the weapon at drivers .
Before sheriff ’ s deputies could arrive , dispatch advised officers that the suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delta Township man was driving east and stopped near Brookside Drive when the gunman stepped in front of his vehicle .
The gunman pointed his handgun at the driver , who stepped out of his vehicle , pulled his own handgun , which he is licensed to carry and shot the gunman .
That man , a 26-year-old who is believed to be from suburban Grand Rapids , died at the scene .
When authorities arrived , they found the 26-year old on the roadway with multiple gunshot wounds .
A handgun was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicting media accounts about exactly what happened .
According to WNLS-TV , the concealed carry holder exited his vehicle before firing at the armed man , but the Lansing State Journal is reporting a slightly different version of events .
The Eaton County Sheriff ’ s Office had received several reports that the man , 26 , had been walking and firing his gun on Saginaw Highway at about 8:25 a.m. Monday , Sheriff Tom Reich said .
A Delta Township man , 22 , stopped in the left eastbound lane on Saginaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Grand Rapids-area man walked in front of the vehicle and pointed the handgun at the driver , Reich said .
The driver , who has a concealed pistol license , fired from his vehicle at the man , who died at the scene , Reich said .
Police have not released the 26-year-old ’ s name but said his last known address was in Walker , near Grand Rapids .
The man who was killed is Black and the driver is white , police said .
There are still a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the motivation of the attacker who was threatening motorists .
Was this someone in the midst of a mental crisis ?
Some sort of political act of violence ?
At this point , police have identified the man , though they ’ ve not yet released his identity publicly .
We also don ’ t know much about the concealed carry holder , other than the fact that the 22-year old happened to be in the right place at the right time to stop the threat to his life .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Sheriff hasn ’ t said anything about the concealed carry holder facing charges or whether he ’ s in custody .
Based solely on the descriptions from police and what they say eyewitnesses saw , this would appear to be a pretty clear cut case of self-defense , though I can ’ t help but think that the news media may try to sensationalize this incident to make it more controversial than it appears to be .
We ’ ll keep our eyes on this story and report any updates as they @ @ @

Police in Delta Township, Michigan are investigating after a 22-year old concealed carry holder shot and killed a man who was threatening motorists with a gun and firing shots into the air during the morning rush hour. The Eaton County Sheriffs office says calls to 911 came pouring in Monday morning with reports of a man in a black hooded sweatshirt standing in the middle of the busy West Saginaw Highway firing a handgun into the air and pointing the weapon at drivers.
Before sheriff’s deputies could arrive, dispatch advised officers that the suspect was down.
Investigators say a 22-year-old Delta Township man was driving east and stopped near Brookside Drive when the gunman stepped in front of his vehicle. The gunman pointed his handgun at the driver, who stepped out of his vehicle, pulled his own handgun, which he is licensed to carry and shot the gunman. That man, a 26-year-old who is believed to be from suburban Grand Rapids, died at the scene.
When authorities arrived, they found the 26-year old on the roadway with multiple gunshot wounds. A handgun was found near the suspect.
There are conflicting media accounts about exactly what happened. According to WNLS-TV, the concealed carry holder exited his vehicle before firing at the armed man, but the Lansing State Journal is reporting a slightly different version of events.
The Eaton County Sheriff’s Office had received several reports that the man, 26, had been walking and firing his gun on Saginaw Highway at about 8:25 a.m. Monday, Sheriff Tom Reich said. A Delta Township man, 22, stopped in the left eastbound lane on Saginaw, just west of Creyts Road. The Grand Rapids-area man walked in front of the vehicle and pointed the handgun at the driver, Reich said. The driver, who has a concealed pistol license, fired from his vehicle at the man, who died at the scene, Reich said. Police have not released the 26-year-old’s name but said his last known address was in Walker, near Grand Rapids. The man who was killed is Black and the driver is white, police said.
There are still a number of unanswered questions at the moment, starting with the motivation of the attacker who was threatening motorists. Was this someone in the midst of a mental crisis? Some sort of political act of violence? At this point, police have identified the man, though they’ve not yet released his identity publicly.
We also don’t know much about the concealed carry holder, other than the fact that the 22-year old happened to be in the right place at the right time to stop the threat to his life.
According to local radio station WWJ, the Eaton County Sheriff hasn’t said anything about the concealed carry holder facing charges or whether he’s in custody. Based solely on the descriptions from police and what they say eyewitnesses saw, this would appear to be a pretty clear cut case of self-defense, though I can’t help but think that the news media may try to sensationalize this incident to make it more controversial than it appears to be. We’ll keep our eyes on this story and report any updates as they come in.


bearingarms--2020-06-16--Justice Thomas Furious Over Court's Refusal To Hear 2A Cases

While it seems the Supreme Court is never going to hear another Second Amendment case , many in the Second Amendment community are upset by the court ’ s refusal to hear some of the potential cases before it .
Some of these are important matters of law , direct and obvious infringements on the rights of ordinary citizens .
It seems , though , that not everyone on the Court was oblivious to the importance Justice Clarence Thomas went off on a number of points regarding the Court ’ s refusal .
It also seems that some seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas .
A favorite ( and often unconvincing ) device of both liberals and conservatives is to compare abortion regulations with gun control laws .
The rights at hand are both grounded in the Bill of Rights ; however , abortion is read into the amendments while gun control is enumerated in the text of the document .
Critically , both are legally regulable to some degree .
Remember that phrase “ well regulated ” ?
That neither the right to have an abortion nor the right to bear arms is absolute is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exactly parallel , given the very different practical impacts involved : bearing arms is not quite the same as bearing children .
Clarence Thomas , though , was happy to offer up the willfully obtuse argument that New Jersey ’ s gun law should fail , because the same rules could not be applied to abortions : This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights .
And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion .
Honestly , a legal mind of Thomas ’ s caliber could have done markedly better .
Abortions are not guns .
The history , background , law , and public interest relevant to abortions is completely different to the law relevant to carrying handguns .
Gun rights for self-protection and their unwanted consequences — violence , mass shootings — are not the same as a philosophical idea about when life starts and the burdens borne by those who carry unwanted pregnancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion with the very public possible risk created by carrying firearms is galling in its commitment to thick-headedness .
Ah , the old “ it says ‘ well regulated ’ in there ” canard .
They always seem to forget the part that says “ the people ’ s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed , ” don ’ t they ?
However , Thomas ’ s point is sound , despite the commentator ’ s claim .
Rights are rights , and if you ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rights , it does open the door for others to try and regulate when different rights can be exercised .
A prime example of this is how people justify gun control by claiming that there are limits to freedom of speech .
“ You can ’ t yell fire in a crowded theater , ” is the favorite , go-to example .
So , if rights can be infringed , the question becomes just when can right be infringed upon .
If the Court will forbid abortion regulations , then why is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be crossed and not one of the fundamental , enumerated rights clearly spelled out in the Constitution ?
That wasn ’ t all , though : Clarence Thomas is here to let us know that the lower courts are getting wrong .
Like an exasperated teacher confronting low test scores , Thomas railed against the “ many courts ” that “ have resisted ” precedent on gun control .
“ Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges , ” Thomas wrote , “ it is clearly time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a sample of the kind of clarity needed from SCOTUS , Thomas launched into a pages-long lesson on English history .
He brought up James II , what the right to bear arms meant in 1688 , and English treatises from the founding era .
Look , I get the desire to stay true to the ideals of the founding fathers .
But — come on .
On many issues , including guns , staunch historical interpretations of constitutional language clearly do not work .
I really thought we were all clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t-really-considered-people thing from the days of our nation ’ s birth .
There may be good arguments against certain overly intrusive gun laws , but they ’ d be a hell of a lot more convincing if they were grounded in our current reality , and not in a time when flintlock muskets and cannons constituted “ technology.
” It ’ s worth noting that not even Justice Kavanaugh – who joined in the rest of Thomas ’ dissent – was unconvinced by this lengthy walk down ye olde lane , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , Thomas is right .
While you can argue that the historical arguments are irrelevant–and you ’ d be wrong–the truth of the matter is that the core of Thomas ’ s dissent was that lower courts are essentially ignoring Heller .
We ’ ve seen this time and time again .
After all , Heller ruled that guns that were in common use weren ’ t to be banned .
That would include so-called “ assault weapons , ” yet lower courts have held up those bans as constitutional in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to address that and , honestly , I ’ m disappointed in Justice Kavanaugh over this .
Of course , there ’ s plenty more where that came from , but holy crap .
Justice Thomas made valid points throughout his dissent , but unfortunately , dissents don ’ t create law .
They don ’ t overturn bad laws such as this case from New Jersey where a man with a clear need still couldn ’ t get a permit because the need wasn ’ t against a specific threat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t issuing many permits , thus interfering with people ’ s right to bear arms .
Thomas wanted the Court to overturn that , but they instead refused to even hear the case .
He was right to be upset .
I sure as hell am .

While it seems the Supreme Court is never going to hear another Second Amendment case, many in the Second Amendment community are upset by the court’s refusal to hear some of the potential cases before it. Some of these are important matters of law, direct and obvious infringements on the rights of ordinary citizens.
It seems, though, that not everyone on the Court was oblivious to the importance
Justice Clarence Thomas went off on a number of points regarding the Court’s refusal. It also seems that some seem to think they understand the law better than Thomas.
A favorite (and often unconvincing) device of both liberals and conservatives is to compare abortion regulations with gun control laws. The rights at hand are both grounded in the Bill of Rights; however, abortion is read into the amendments while gun control is enumerated in the text of the document. Critically, both are legally regulable to some degree. Remember that phrase “well regulated”? That neither the right to have an abortion nor the right to bear arms is absolute is common ground. But the two are not exactly parallel, given the very different practical impacts involved: bearing arms is not quite the same as bearing children. Clarence Thomas, though, was happy to offer up the willfully obtuse argument that New Jersey’s gun law should fail, because the same rules could not be applied to abortions: This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. Honestly, a legal mind of Thomas’s caliber could have done markedly better. Abortions are not guns. The history, background, law, and public interest relevant to abortions is completely different to the law relevant to carrying handguns. Gun rights for self-protection and their unwanted consequences — violence, mass shootings — are not the same as a philosophical idea about when life starts and the burdens borne by those who carry unwanted pregnancies. Equating the very private nature of abortion with the very public possible risk created by carrying firearms is galling in its commitment to thick-headedness.
Ah, the old “it says ‘well regulated’ in there” canard. They always seem to forget the part that says “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” don’t they?
However, Thomas’s point is sound, despite the commentator’s claim. Rights are rights, and if you’re going to impose regulations on when someone can exercise their rights, it does open the door for others to try and regulate when different rights can be exercised.
A prime example of this is how people justify gun control by claiming that there are limits to freedom of speech. “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” is the favorite, go-to example.
So, if rights can be infringed, the question becomes just when can right be infringed upon. If the Court will forbid abortion regulations, then why is that the sacrosanct line that cannot be crossed and not one of the fundamental, enumerated rights clearly spelled out in the Constitution?
That wasn’t all, though:
Clarence Thomas is here to let us know that the lower courts are getting Heller wrong. Like an exasperated teacher confronting low test scores, Thomas railed against the “many courts” that “have resisted” precedent on gun control. “Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges,” Thomas wrote, “it is clearly time for us to resolve the issue.” As a sample of the kind of clarity needed from SCOTUS, Thomas launched into a pages-long lesson on English history. He brought up James II, what the right to bear arms meant in 1688, and English treatises from the founding era. Look, I get the desire to stay true to the ideals of the founding fathers. But — come on. On many issues, including guns, staunch historical interpretations of constitutional language clearly do not work. I really thought we were all clear on this, given that whole women-and-blacks-weren’t-really-considered-people thing from the days of our nation’s birth. There may be good arguments against certain overly intrusive gun laws, but they’d be a hell of a lot more convincing if they were grounded in our current reality, and not in a time when flintlock muskets and cannons constituted “technology.” It’s worth noting that not even Justice Kavanaugh – who joined in the rest of Thomas’ dissent – was unconvinced by this lengthy walk down ye olde lane, and opted out of this section.
Except, again, Thomas is right. While you can argue that the historical arguments are irrelevant–and you’d be wrong–the truth of the matter is that the core of Thomas’s dissent was that lower courts are essentially ignoring Heller. We’ve seen this time and time again. After all, Heller ruled that guns that were in common use weren’t to be banned. That would include so-called “assault weapons,” yet lower courts have held up those bans as constitutional in far too many instances.
The author fails to address that and, honestly, I’m disappointed in Justice Kavanaugh over this.
Of course, there’s plenty more where that came from, but holy crap.
Justice Thomas made valid points throughout his dissent, but unfortunately, dissents don’t create law. They don’t overturn bad laws such as this case from New Jersey where a man with a clear need still couldn’t get a permit because the need wasn’t against a specific threat. In other words, New Jersey isn’t issuing many permits, thus interfering with people’s right to bear arms.
Thomas wanted the Court to overturn that, but they instead refused to even hear the case.
He was right to be upset. I sure as hell am.


bearingarms--2020-06-15--CA Man Facing Mag Ban Charges Says "Freedom Week" Purchase Was Legal

California ’ s ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition is currently being challenged in court , but in the meantime the state is still attempting to enforce the law on legal gun owners in the state .
One Tulare County man is facing charges for possession of a 15-round magazine , but his attorney says the purchase was legal , because it was made during a one-week period when a federal judge had put a hold on enforcement of the state ’ s law .
Back in January , deputies in Tulare County showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While they were there , officers found a magazine in Pheng Yang ’ s bedroom .
Yang is the brother of the individual on parole , and wasn ’ t suspected of any crime himself .
After the magazine was discovered , however , police arrested him and charged him with illegally possessing the magazine , even though Yang told deputies that the magazine was purchased during “ Freedom Week.
” Since the year 2000 in California , it ’ s been illegal to manufacture , import , sell , give , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition .
But on March 29th of 2019 , a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and shouldn ’ t be enforced .
That launched a buying spree across California with gun owners snatching up large-capacity magazines .
About a week later , the same judge decided that the large-capacity magazine ban should continue to be enforced as California ’ s attorney general took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals .
But the judge also said the law could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high capacity magazine during that one-week gap .
And that one week , called Freedom Week , is now the argument in defense of Yang .
Yang ’ s attorney correctly points out that it ’ s up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Yang didn ’ t purchase the 15-round magazine during “ Freedom Week ” , and last week asked for the case against Yang to be dismissed .
Unfortunately , a Tulare County judge rejected the argument by defense attorney Eric Schweitzer , and the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted , Yang could face up to a year in jail for possessing the magazine , but I ’ m very curious to see what evidence the Tulare County prosecutors have that would prove Yang ’ s purchase was illegal .
It ’ s estimated that as many as a million magazines were purchased by California gun owners during “ Freedom Week , ” and Yang could very well have legally acquired the magazine during that one week grace period .
In order for prosecutors to successfully litigate this case , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a receipt or some other proof that Yang ’ s purchase didn ’ t take place in late March or early April of last year .
It ’ s not exactly a shock that a judge is allowing the case to continue , but it remains to be seen just how strong the state ’ s case against Pheng Yang really is .
I ’ ll be curious to see what , if any , plea deal prosecutors may offer Yang in order to avoid a trial , but if he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Week , ” I hope Yang rejects any deal and takes his day in court .
The best way to stop this kind of prosecutorial overreach would be do deal them a defeat at trial , and right now it looks like Yang has a pretty good shot at doing just that .

California’s ban on magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition is currently being challenged in court, but in the meantime the state is still attempting to enforce the law on legal gun owners in the state. One Tulare County man is facing charges for possession of a 15-round magazine, but his attorney says the purchase was legal, because it was made during a one-week period when a federal judge had put a hold on enforcement of the state’s law.
Back in January, deputies in Tulare County showed up a home for a parole check. While they were there, officers found a magazine in Pheng Yang’s bedroom. Yang is the brother of the individual on parole, and wasn’t suspected of any crime himself. After the magazine was discovered, however, police arrested him and charged him with illegally possessing the magazine, even though Yang told deputies that the magazine was purchased during “Freedom Week.”
Since the year 2000 in California, it’s been illegal to manufacture, import, sell, give, lend, buy, or receive magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. But on March 29th of 2019, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. That launched a buying spree across California with gun owners snatching up large-capacity magazines. About a week later, the same judge decided that the large-capacity magazine ban should continue to be enforced as California’s attorney general took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals. But the judge also said the law could not be enforced against those who bought a high capacity magazine during that one-week gap. And that one week, called Freedom Week, is now the argument in defense of Yang.
Yang’s attorney correctly points out that it’s up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Yang didn’t purchase the 15-round magazine during “Freedom Week”, and last week asked for the case against Yang to be dismissed. Unfortunately, a Tulare County judge rejected the argument by defense attorney Eric Schweitzer, and the case is still proceeding to trial.
If convicted, Yang could face up to a year in jail for possessing the magazine, but I’m very curious to see what evidence the Tulare County prosecutors have that would prove Yang’s purchase was illegal. It’s estimated that as many as a million magazines were purchased by California gun owners during “Freedom Week,” and Yang could very well have legally acquired the magazine during that one week grace period. In order for prosecutors to successfully litigate this case, they’re going to have to come up with a receipt or some other proof that Yang’s purchase didn’t take place in late March or early April of last year.
It’s not exactly a shock that a judge is allowing the case to continue, but it remains to be seen just how strong the state’s case against Pheng Yang really is. I’ll be curious to see what, if any, plea deal prosecutors may offer Yang in order to avoid a trial, but if he really did make his purchase during “Freedom Week,” I hope Yang rejects any deal and takes his day in court. The best way to stop this kind of prosecutorial overreach would be do deal them a defeat at trial, and right now it looks like Yang has a pretty good shot at doing just that.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--Armed Citizens And The Baltimore Bank Riot Of 1835

America ’ s currently going through a spasm of political violence the likes of which haven ’ t been seen since the late 1960 ’ s , but our history is one that has regularly witnessed riots and the disastrous effects of the madness of crowds , though these tales rarely appear in the actual history books we read in school .
I ’ m an unabashed history nerd , and I ’ ve been doing quite a bit of reading lately about the periods in American history where the social fabric has frayed ; the tumultous elections of 1800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South in the decades before the Civil War , the violence of the Reconstruction-era South , and labor unrest in the late 1800s and 1930s were all times when many of our American forefathers mobbed up and tried to destroy their enemies , or at least their property .
One such riot took place in Baltimore in August of 1835 .
Almost a year and a half earlier , the Bank of Maryland , a venerable institution that had been around since 1790 , had suddenly failed .
For months there was nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic was hotly debated and blamed thrown around in a series of increasingly vitriolic pamphlets .
On August 6th , three days after a particularly inflammatory missive hit the news stands , several hundred people gathered outside the homes two of the bank directors .
Reverdy Johnson and John Glenn had their windows smashed that evening , but Mayor Jesse Hunt managed to disperse the crowd before any more damage was done .
Friday dawned peaceful , but with rumors of unrest flowing like water through the city ’ s neighborhoods tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature throughout the hot August day .
The Niles Weekly Register reported what happened as evening approached .
Again , so far , mostly so good .
A few broken windows , but a group of people still willing to listen to the voice of reason , if not authority .
Still , all Saturday there were more rumors of a “ serious attack ” on the home of Reverdy Johnson , and Mayor Hunt “ called together a considerable number of citizens ” to station themselves along the streets leading to Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Niles Weekly Register : Since the rioters couldn ’ t get to Reverdy Johnson ’ s fine home , they marched off to tear down the home of his colleague , John Glenn .
Mayor Hunt hadn ’ t provided for any protection for Glenn ’ s home , and by the time several of the mayor ’ s armed citizens showed up , the house was already being cleared out by rioters and looters .
Early Sunday morning , a group of several dozen armed citizens confronted rioters on Charles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cobblestones .
The mayor ’ s guard fired back .
The local press estimated that eight people were killed and seriously wounded .
The response from the mob was one of white-hot fury , and Mayor Hunt , hoping to reduce tensions in the city , didn ’ t call on any armed citizens to defend Reverdy Johnson ’ s home on Sunday evening .
As the Niles Weekly Register emphatically noted in its report , “ there was no no opposition.
” As some of the crowd remained to dismantle the Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , first to the home of bank trustee John Morris .
and then to Mayor Jesse Hunt ’ s own home .
Days earlier he had been able to convince the crowds to go home after breaking just a few windows .
Now they were intent on destroying his own home , and they did .
Another bonfire was built with Hunt ’ s possessions , and the crowd quickly moved on destroy a half-dozen other homes and businesses that in most cases were connected to directors of the bank .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d had enough .
From the Niles Weekly Register : A crowd of Baltimoreans gathered at the city ’ s Merchant Exchange building cheered when Mayor Jesse Hunt resigned his position , and they overwhelmingly named 85-year old retired general Samuel Smith to lead the city .
Smith was one of the most respected members of the community and a former Continental and U.S. soldier , as well as a former mayor of Baltimore and a U.S .
Senator from Maryland .
He told the assembled crowd that the “ time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that for action had arrived.
” Around three thousand citizens gathered arms and mustered at City Hall along with the fire companies , in case rioters decided to start any more bonfires that might lead to homes or businesses burning .
As it turns out , however , there were no riots that evening .
“ The streets were as quiet as the grave , ” reported the Weekly Register , “ except for the heavy tread of detachments of armed men to reconnoiter its different parts.
” Peace was once again at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to why the riots didn ’ t continue on Monday evening .
Was it because the riots had already burned themselves out in their orgy of destruction over the two previous evenings ?
Had the rioters sufficiently targeted the directors of the failed Bank of Maryland and saw no more need of rioting ?
Or did the armed citizens stop rioters from assembling , seeing the overwhelming numbers against them and realizing that any more violence would likely lead to more loss of life ?
What would have happened had the armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fanned out to protect the city ?
Would the streets still have been peaceful , or would there have been more homes destroyed ?
Would the violence have escalated from property damage to pouring boiling tar on the bank directors , or would the rioters have stayed in regardless , their energies spent and their grievances redressed , at least somewhat , by the extrajudicial vengeance they ’ d wrought on the bank directors ?
I suspect that both the sheer number of armed citizens and the fact that the mob ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been focused almost exclusively on the bank directors ( one hardware store was broken into , but the mob left after the owner pointed out he had nothing to do with the bank ) played a role in the sudden end to the growing tumult .
If the rioters had wanted , they certainly could have tried to return to Reverdy Johnson ’ s home , now empty of its possessions , to burn it down , along with the homes of the other directors , but they decided against that .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of armed citizens under the command of the city ’ s most respected citizen would have been a major influence on their decision to stand down .
The anti-bank rioters also decided not to arm themselves and take on their neighbors , and avoided a full scale battle of Baltimore residents fighting each other in the streets .
Calm prevailed , and eventually the story even had a happy ending for most .
Creditors were eventually repaid , and Reverdy Johnson was able to rebuild his possessions and even his career , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senator and Attorney General .
The Baltimore Bank Riot may not bear much resemblance to our current unrest , but it still offers a window into a point in history where local leaders were forced to answer questions about how much force to use to prevent unrest , the loss of property versus the loss of life , an ineffectual response from the mayor , and armed citizens who came together to protect a city besieged by unrest .
In that sense , we can at least hear some echoes of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response when we listen today to armed citizens talk about protecting their neighborhoods in Minneapolis , Mayor Jacob Frey being booed and jeered by a crowd of residents , and the crackle of flames as the city ’ s Third Precinct burned .

America’s currently going through a spasm of political violence the likes of which haven’t been seen since the late 1960’s, but our history is one that has regularly witnessed riots and the disastrous effects of the madness of crowds, though these tales rarely appear in the actual history books we read in school. I’m an unabashed history nerd, and I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading lately about the periods in American history where the social fabric has frayed; the tumultous elections of 1800, growing antagonism between the North and South in the decades before the Civil War, the violence of the Reconstruction-era South, and labor unrest in the late 1800s and 1930s were all times when many of our American forefathers mobbed up and tried to destroy their enemies, or at least their property.
One such riot took place in Baltimore in August of 1835. Almost a year and a half earlier, the Bank of Maryland, a venerable institution that had been around since 1790, had suddenly failed. For months there was nothing but silence from bank officials, but the topic was hotly debated and blamed thrown around in a series of increasingly vitriolic pamphlets. On August 6th, three days after a particularly inflammatory missive hit the news stands, several hundred people gathered outside the homes two of the bank directors.
Reverdy Johnson and John Glenn had their windows smashed that evening, but Mayor Jesse Hunt managed to disperse the crowd before any more damage was done. Friday dawned peaceful, but with rumors of unrest flowing like water through the city’s neighborhoods tensions in the city climbed along with the temperature throughout the hot August day. The Niles Weekly Register reported what happened as evening approached.
The crowd was much larger than the proceeding night, and more panes of glass were broken. They were addressed by the mayor, and by General W. Jones, of Washington, who happened to be in the city. They were respectfully listened to, and the crowd dispersed around 11 o’clock.
Again, so far, mostly so good. A few broken windows, but a group of people still willing to listen to the voice of reason, if not authority. Still, all Saturday there were more rumors of a “serious attack” on the home of Reverdy Johnson, and Mayor Hunt “called together a considerable number of citizens” to station themselves along the streets leading to Johnson’s home. Once again, from the Niles Weekly Register:
By dark, multitudes of people had assembled. The principal point of concentration, at this time, was Baltimore Street at the intersection of North Calvert, which leads to [Monument Square]. Here the crowds make frequent rushes upon the guard. Brickbats and stones were showered upon the guard like hail, and ultimately by the guard returned. A number of the latter were severely bruised and wounded. They however kept their posts.
Since the rioters couldn’t get to Reverdy Johnson’s fine home, they marched off to tear down the home of his colleague, John Glenn. Mayor Hunt hadn’t provided for any protection for Glenn’s home, and by the time several of the mayor’s armed citizens showed up, the house was already being cleared out by rioters and looters.
Early Sunday morning, a group of several dozen armed citizens confronted rioters on Charles Street. The rioters threw bricks and cobblestones. The mayor’s guard fired back. The local press estimated that eight people were killed and seriously wounded. The response from the mob was one of white-hot fury, and Mayor Hunt, hoping to reduce tensions in the city, didn’t call on any armed citizens to defend Reverdy Johnson’s home on Sunday evening. As the Niles Weekly Register emphatically noted in its report, “there was no no opposition.”
It was supposed that several thousand people were spectators of the scene. The house was soon entered, and its furniture, a very extensive law library, and all its contents were cast forth, and a bonfire made of them in front of the house. The whole interior of the house was torn out and cast upon the burning pile.
As some of the crowd remained to dismantle the Johnson home brick by brick, others moved on, first to the home of bank trustee John Morris. and then to Mayor Jesse Hunt’s own home. Days earlier he had been able to convince the crowds to go home after breaking just a few windows. Now they were intent on destroying his own home, and they did. Another bonfire was built with Hunt’s possessions, and the crowd quickly moved on destroy a half-dozen other homes and businesses that in most cases were connected to directors of the bank.
On Monday, the citizens of Baltimore decided they’d had enough. From the Niles Weekly Register:
It now appeared that the people were called upon to defend, not only their property, butt also their lives- and it was manifest that there was a general, but gloomy resolution entertained to do both. Things had reverted to their original elements- there was no law, and a head was wanted to to bring order out of confusion.
A crowd of Baltimoreans gathered at the city’s Merchant Exchange building cheered when Mayor Jesse Hunt resigned his position, and they overwhelmingly named 85-year old retired general Samuel Smith to lead the city. Smith was one of the most respected members of the community and a former Continental and U.S. soldier, as well as a former mayor of Baltimore and a U.S. Senator from Maryland. He told the assembled crowd that the “time for resolving had passed away, and that for action had arrived.”
Around three thousand citizens gathered arms and mustered at City Hall along with the fire companies, in case rioters decided to start any more bonfires that might lead to homes or businesses burning. As it turns out, however, there were no riots that evening. “The streets were as quiet as the grave,” reported the Weekly Register, “except for the heavy tread of detachments of armed men to reconnoiter its different parts.”
Peace was once again at hand, but there are two theories as to why the riots didn’t continue on Monday evening. Was it because the riots had already burned themselves out in their orgy of destruction over the two previous evenings? Had the rioters sufficiently targeted the directors of the failed Bank of Maryland and saw no more need of rioting? Or did the armed citizens stop rioters from assembling, seeing the overwhelming numbers against them and realizing that any more violence would likely lead to more loss of life?
What would have happened had the armed citizens not assembled under General Smith and fanned out to protect the city? Would the streets still have been peaceful, or would there have been more homes destroyed? Would the violence have escalated from property damage to pouring boiling tar on the bank directors, or would the rioters have stayed in regardless, their energies spent and their grievances redressed, at least somewhat, by the extrajudicial vengeance they’d wrought on the bank directors?
I suspect that both the sheer number of armed citizens and the fact that the mob’s violence had, to that point, been focused almost exclusively on the bank directors (one hardware store was broken into, but the mob left after the owner pointed out he had nothing to do with the bank) played a role in the sudden end to the growing tumult. If the rioters had wanted, they certainly could have tried to return to Reverdy Johnson’s home, now empty of its possessions, to burn it down, along with the homes of the other directors, but they decided against that. It stands to reason that the presence of thousands of armed citizens under the command of the city’s most respected citizen would have been a major influence on their decision to stand down.
The anti-bank rioters also decided not to arm themselves and take on their neighbors, and avoided a full scale battle of Baltimore residents fighting each other in the streets. Calm prevailed, and eventually the story even had a happy ending for most. Creditors were eventually repaid, and Reverdy Johnson was able to rebuild his possessions and even his career, going on to serve as a U.S. Senator and Attorney General.
The Baltimore Bank Riot may not bear much resemblance to our current unrest, but it still offers a window into a point in history where local leaders were forced to answer questions about how much force to use to prevent unrest, the loss of property versus the loss of life, an ineffectual response from the mayor, and armed citizens who came together to protect a city besieged by unrest. In that sense, we can at least hear some echoes of the Baltimore riots and the public’s response when we listen today to armed citizens talk about protecting their neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey being booed and jeered by a crowd of residents, and the crackle of flames as the city’s Third Precinct burned.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--Why Nebraska Dems Pulled Away From Their Senate Candidate

The state of Nebraska isn ’ t really a Democrat stronghold .
No one is deluding themselves into believing otherwise .
However , state Democrats still field candidates because , well , stranger things have happened .
Chris Janicek , the party ’ s Senate candidate , wasn ’ t likely to unseat incumbent Ben Sasse , but he was a fairly moderate Democrat which gave him a better chance than , say , an Antifa sympathizer .
Now , though , the party has withdrawn all support from Janicek…and then some .
The Nebraska Democratic Party called on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race Tuesday after he made sexually repugnant comments about a campaign staffer in a group text with her and other staffers .
The party said its state executive committee voted unanimously on Monday evening to withdraw all of its resources from Chris Janicek ’ s campaign .
Janicek , the owner of an Omaha cupcake bakery , is challenging Republican Sen. Ben Sasse , who is seeking a second term .
Janicek accepted the Democratic nomination a little more than a month ago after winning a seven-candidate primary race , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in Republican-dominated Nebraska even before his party withdrew its support .
“ Our Democratic Party has no tolerance for sexual harassment , ” state Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb said in a statement .
“ Our party will not extend resources or any type of support to any candidate that violates our code of conduct and doesn ’ t treat men and women with the dignity and respect they deserve.
” The text messages , which were obtained by The Associated Press , were from a group chat involving Janicek and five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At one point , he wrote that he had argued with her and then asked whether the campaign should spend money on “ getting her laid.
” State party officials have asked Janicek to step down as the party ’ s candidate , which he ’ s refused to do .
For his part , Janicek admits the incident took place , but says he apologized for it and thought it was over and done with .
Instead , he thinks the party ’ s opposition to him comes from a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview , Janicek said he doesn ’ t plan to drop out of the race .
He alleged that the party was targeting him because he disagreed with its more liberal activists on issues such as abortion rights and gun control .
“ They ’ re using this as a crutch , ” he said .
Janicek didn ’ t deny that he made offensive comments , but he said he apologized for them and assumed the matter would be kept private .
As much as it pains me to say it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong and that his position on gun rights had absolutely nothing to do with them asking him to step down .
Look , I get that he felt what he said was a joke and many of us may have made a similar joke about people who were pains in the posterior .
However , when that person works for you , that ’ s a different situation entirely .
That makes it sexual harassment and puts it way out of line .
What he said was pretty damn terrible , especially since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than one partner to take care of her .
I ’ d love to argue that it ’ s about his position on gun rights .
It would serve my purposes quite nicely , actually .
But , I have to look at myself in the mirror and I just can ’ t lie like that .
Not to you and not to myself .
Janicek ’ s gun stance was probably not the issue .
After all , it ’ s Nebraska , for crying out loud .
Anyone with half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to go for a hard-left Democrat anyway .
You need someone who is more moderate .
That means some conservative positions on a few issues .
I doubt anyone was bothered all that much by his stances on these issues .
His comments , though ?
That ’ s a whole other ballgame .
The winner in all this ?
Sasse .
Whether Janicek steps down as candidate or not , the trainwreck that is the Democratic campaign in Nebraska right now only makes his job just that much easier .

The state of Nebraska isn’t really a Democrat stronghold. No one is deluding themselves into believing otherwise. However, state Democrats still field candidates because, well, stranger things have happened.
Chris Janicek, the party’s Senate candidate, wasn’t likely to unseat incumbent Ben Sasse, but he was a fairly moderate Democrat which gave him a better chance than, say, an Antifa sympathizer.
Now, though, the party has withdrawn all support from Janicek…and then some.
The Nebraska Democratic Party called on its U.S. Senate nominee to drop out of the race Tuesday after he made sexually repugnant comments about a campaign staffer in a group text with her and other staffers. The party said its state executive committee voted unanimously on Monday evening to withdraw all of its resources from Chris Janicek’s campaign. Janicek, the owner of an Omaha cupcake bakery, is challenging Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who is seeking a second term. Janicek accepted the Democratic nomination a little more than a month ago after winning a seven-candidate primary race, but the odds of winning in November were against him in Republican-dominated Nebraska even before his party withdrew its support. “Our Democratic Party has no tolerance for sexual harassment,” state Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb said in a statement. “Our party will not extend resources or any type of support to any candidate that violates our code of conduct and doesn’t treat men and women with the dignity and respect they deserve.” The text messages, which were obtained by The Associated Press, were from a group chat involving Janicek and five other people, including the female staffer. At one point, he wrote that he had argued with her and then asked whether the campaign should spend money on “getting her laid.”
State party officials have asked Janicek to step down as the party’s candidate, which he’s refused to do.
For his part, Janicek admits the incident took place, but says he apologized for it and thought it was over and done with. Instead, he thinks the party’s opposition to him comes from a different place entirely.
In a brief phone interview, Janicek said he doesn’t plan to drop out of the race. He alleged that the party was targeting him because he disagreed with its more liberal activists on issues such as abortion rights and gun control. “They’re using this as a crutch,” he said. Janicek didn’t deny that he made offensive comments, but he said he apologized for them and assumed the matter would be kept private.
As much as it pains me to say it, I’m pretty sure Janicek is wrong and that his position on gun rights had absolutely nothing to do with them asking him to step down.
Look, I get that he felt what he said was a joke and many of us may have made a similar joke about people who were pains in the posterior. However, when that person works for you, that’s a different situation entirely. That makes it sexual harassment and puts it way out of line. What he said was pretty damn terrible, especially since he figured the staffer would need more than one partner to take care of her.
Yes, it’s bad.
I’d love to argue that it’s about his position on gun rights. It would serve my purposes quite nicely, actually. But, I have to look at myself in the mirror and I just can’t lie like that. Not to you and not to myself.
Janicek’s gun stance was probably not the issue. After all, it’s Nebraska, for crying out loud. Anyone with half a brain knows that Nebraska isn’t likely to go for a hard-left Democrat anyway. You need someone who is more moderate. That means some conservative positions on a few issues. I doubt anyone was bothered all that much by his stances on these issues.
His comments, though? That’s a whole other ballgame.
The winner in all this? Sasse. Whether Janicek steps down as candidate or not, the trainwreck that is the Democratic campaign in Nebraska right now only makes his job just that much easier.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--The Media's Double Standard On Armed Americans

The anti-gun bias in the media is nothing new , but we are seeing a new twist from some reporters these days .
Guns are still bad , unless they ’ re in the hands of the Left ’ s new heroes at CHAZ in Seattle , or perhaps wielded by self-proclaimed antifascists .
In that case , while gun ownership isn ’ t exactly praised , the guns and gun owners aren ’ t vilified either .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. we dive deep into the double standard , starting with a recent story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteer security ” popping up in what it euphemistically describes as the “ Seattle protest zone.
” The Post paints a glowing portrayal of a police-free environment .
The zone was formed last week amid the Black Lives Matter protests .
Activists had gathered at a neighborhood police precinct to call for accountability and an end to police violence .
In response , on June 8 , police officers left that area .
A spontaneous protest encampment has since sprung up outside the building , run by volunteer activists .
Core to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community with no formal policing .
Instead , volunteers , many of them avowed police abolitionists , have begun to organize their own safety force .
Among other incidents , these volunteers have confronted a man throwing apples and threatening punches , a car driving toward a large crowd of pedestrians and a vehicle circling the block repeatedly and taking photos .
Volunteers say they have engaged with armed visitors from outside the city who came to the zone convinced that Seattle needed saving from left-wing agitators .
They have defused fights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental-health crises .
Protesters rushed to douse the flames when a lone arsonist attempted to set fire to the precinct early Friday .
The director of an LGBTQ resource center publicly thanked sentinels from the protest zone Sunday for their assistance watching over a broken window until plywood arrived , attributing the incident to a mental-health or drug-addiction issue with a person who regularly sleeps in the center ’ s doorway .
Ignored by the Washington Post is the story of John McDermott , whose business in the CHAZ was broken into over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security at the CHAZ didn ’ t stop the burglary , and despite more than dozen calls to 911 , Seattle police never responded .
Other protesters soon arrived at McDermott ’ s business to demand the arsonist be freed .
A huge mob just attacked `` Small Tender '' business demanding a release of man who went into the business and started a fire , the business is located inside the 6 blocks of # CHAZ a 'no-cop zone ' .
Reporting on the ground in # Seattle pic.twitter.com/GeTRheQXFo The McDermotts say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have to use their firearms in self-defense .
Meanwhile , this is what the Washington Post has to say about the armed protesters guarding the CHAZ .
Firearms present a different challenge .
Many of the volunteers are licensed gun owners , but bringing a weapon changes the dynamic .
“ If you are open-carrying , de-escalation is more challenging because at that point you are also a threat to anyone that you come up to , ” [ protester Mark ] Markinson said .
But that can leave volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about right-wing groups such as the far-rjght Three Percenters and the Proud Boys , a group that has made headlines for its part in violent clashes in Portland , Ore. , and New York .
An uneasy compromise could be seen early Sunday , when a sentinel who gave his name as James Madison stood at the southern barricade with an AR-15 draped over his chest , as he has done on other nights .
Madison said he was standing guard because of reports of a “ known threatening vehicle ” circling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found the owner of that threatening vehicle ’ s Twitter , and he clearly intended to do harm to the protesters based on his tweets , ” he said in a text message .
“ There are a few of us who are armed.
” I believe this marks the first time in history that the Washington Post has written about someone holding an AR-15 without condemning them for their behavior .
“ James Madison ” is described simply as a “ sentinel , ” not an “ extremist , ” “ gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun lobby.
” Apparently you just need to be armed for the right reasons in order to get the tacit approval of the Post .
Protecting CHAZ gets you a green light , but protecting businesses ?
That ’ s still a red flag .
as the website Crosscut recently made clear in a story headlined “ AR-15 ’ s complicate anti-racism protests across Washington.
” The increased presence of armed individuals and groups at protests are just part of a broader trend the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary ” movements , said Hannah Friedman , a litigation attorney at the national public interest law center .
The zenith of the trend was early this year in Virginia , Friedman said , when the newly Democratic Legislature was poised to pass several gun safety laws and thousands of gun rights activists protested .
But the presence of semi-automatic guns at a protest , like the commonly seen AR-15 , is less about the Second Amendment and more about the message it communicates , Friedman said .
“ [ They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represented over history as a symbol of white supremacy , and as a symbol of white power and the threat of violence over nonwhite people in public spaces , ” Friedman said .
“ That is the message they ’ re sending to the rest of the country .
It ’ s a reminder of this country ’ s history .
It ’ s a reminder of this country ’ s racialized violence that really has nothing to do with anyone ’ s lives , except for the people whose lives they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons into public spaces.
” I spoke at the Lobby Day rally in Virginia back in January , and the thousands of firearms that were lawfully carried by the throng of attendees was hardly a statement about white power or white supremacy .
In fact , that rally was about as big a tent as you can find in American politics these days , with people of every ethnicity , race , and political persuasion in attendance .
Black gun owners hung out with white gun owners beneath a rainbow Gadsden flag .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club chatted with Trump-supporting gun owners , and the event was loud , boisterous , and completely peaceful .
One woman was arrested for violating the state ’ s anti-mask ordinance ( ironic in retrospect ) , but even those charges were dismissed .
Yet that gatherings is still being portrayed by the media as something dangerous and disturbing , while they blithely ignore similarly armed protesters ( admittedly in far smaller numbers ) who are protecting their self-proclaimed autonomous zone , which is itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary where gun laws are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement .
It won ’ t be long before the Washington Post once again calls for a ban on AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles .
When they do , be sure to remind them that they ’ re demanding “ James Madison ” be disarmed as well .
In a police-free place like the CHAZ , who exactly does the Post envision enforcing the gun control laws they ’ re demanding ?
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

The anti-gun bias in the media is nothing new, but we are seeing a new twist from some reporters these days. Guns are still bad, unless they’re in the hands of the Left’s new heroes at CHAZ in Seattle, or perhaps wielded by self-proclaimed antifascists. In that case, while gun ownership isn’t exactly praised, the guns and gun owners aren’t vilified either.
On today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. we dive deep into the double standard, starting with a recent story in the Washington Post on the “volunteer security” popping up in what it euphemistically describes as the “Seattle protest zone.” The Post paints a glowing portrayal of a police-free environment.
The zone was formed last week amid the Black Lives Matter protests. Activists had gathered at a neighborhood police precinct to call for accountability and an end to police violence. In response, on June 8, police officers left that area. A spontaneous protest encampment has since sprung up outside the building, run by volunteer activists. Core to the zone is a vision of a self-governed community with no formal policing. Instead, volunteers, many of them avowed police abolitionists, have begun to organize their own safety force. Among other incidents, these volunteers have confronted a man throwing apples and threatening punches, a car driving toward a large crowd of pedestrians and a vehicle circling the block repeatedly and taking photos. Volunteers say they have engaged with armed visitors from outside the city who came to the zone convinced that Seattle needed saving from left-wing agitators. They have defused fights, protected store windows from vandals and handled mental-health crises. Protesters rushed to douse the flames when a lone arsonist attempted to set fire to the precinct early Friday. The director of an LGBTQ resource center publicly thanked sentinels from the protest zone Sunday for their assistance watching over a broken window until plywood arrived, attributing the incident to a mental-health or drug-addiction issue with a person who regularly sleeps in the center’s doorway.
Ignored by the Washington Post is the story of John McDermott, whose business in the CHAZ was broken into over the weekend by protesters. The volunteer security at the CHAZ didn’t stop the burglary, and despite more than dozen calls to 911, Seattle police never responded.
McDermott said he got a call Sunday after the suspect smashed a window and got inside his business. He and his son said the suspect put hand sanitizer all over a cassette tape, pulled out the film, and put hand sanitizer all over it as well as the counter – then lit it all on fire. McDermott said they walked in right after the fire was lit and managed to quickly snuff it out. His son, Mason McDermott, said he saw the suspect taking off from the south side of the building. “I chased him down and a s soon as I came face to face, he came at me so I put him on the ground,” Mason McDermott said. He said he had the suspect pinned while his dad repeatedly called 911. “At some point he tried to cut me with a box cutter,” Mason said. He pointed to a large rip on his jeans from where the knife cut just his pants. McDermott said he kept trying to call 911 “I’m told 19 times,” he said. “They alluded they were sending someone… finally said they weren’t going to send somebody,” McDermott said. “I don’t know what to expect next. If you can’t call the police department, you can’t call the fire department to respond, what do you have?” McDermott said. “Heartbroken. I mean, they are the cavalry,” he said.


bearingarms--2020-06-17--MN Group Bailing Out "Protestors" Faces Questions About Finances

Many people were outright furious to find out that many on the left were donating money in an effort to bail out so-called “ protestors ” who had been arrested during the riots that swept the nation recently .
These weren ’ t people walking peacefully down the street with all applicable permits .
These were people taking parts in riots .
But , hey , what can you do ?
These are the same people who think harsh words with a weapon in your possession in tantamount to violence , but throwing bricks and burning buildings is just free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group that was bailing out many of the “ protestors ” is now facing tough questions about their own finances .
The Minnesota Freedom Fund ( MFF ) faced a social media backlash after it revealed on Twitter that it has spent around $ 200,000 to bail out protesters—despite receiving millions in donations in recent weeks .
“ Appreciate all those calling for transparency .
We see y ’ all .
Our values and mission have not changed since 2016 .
Be on the lookout for things coming on our end .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which works to bail out those who couldn ’ t otherwise afford it , posted on Twitter .
“ Without jeopardizing the safety of the folks we bailed out we paid well over $ 200k in the weeks since the uprising alone .
We are working on doing more.
” The tweet sparked an outcry with critics calling out MFF for not using more of the funds to bail out protesters who were arrested during demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody on May 25 .
Many said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in donations in recent weeks and spent only a small fraction , prompting “ 35 MILLION ” and “ only 200k ” to start trending on Twitter .
Now , in fairness , it ’ s possible that they only needed to spend $ 200,000 or so to bail everyone out that was arrested .
It ’ s also possible that they just got bogged down and couldn ’ t keep up with everything coming up .
After all , the Minnesota Freedom Fund was pretty small before all of this , paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now suddenly is being inundated with demand .
Of course , it ’ s also possible that they found an opportunity to scam people out of money they could use for other things .
At least some on the race-baiting side of the aisle seem to think so .
Of course , Nasheed has never had a good thing to say about anything a white person has done , so take anything he says with a gallon of salt .
Still , he has a large following and not everyone does it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
All that really matters , though , is that all is not well in the pro-riot camp .
In fact , this may make some less likely to donate money to bail out additional rioters should we see more of that kind of nonsense .
While MFF has plenty of money for the time being for such things–in fact , it would likely help them moving forward–Minnesota isn ’ t the only place where riots may happen .

Many people were outright furious to find out that many on the left were donating money in an effort to bail out so-called “protestors” who had been arrested during the riots that swept the nation recently. These weren’t people walking peacefully down the street with all applicable permits. These were people taking parts in riots.
But, hey, what can you do? These are the same people who think harsh words with a weapon in your possession in tantamount to violence, but throwing bricks and burning buildings is just free speech, after all.
However, a group that was bailing out many of the “protestors” is now facing tough questions about their own finances.
The Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) faced a social media backlash after it revealed on Twitter that it has spent around $200,000 to bail out protesters—despite receiving millions in donations in recent weeks. “Appreciate all those calling for transparency. We see y’all. Our values and mission have not changed since 2016. Be on the lookout for things coming on our end. Be well,” the nonprofit, which works to bail out those who couldn’t otherwise afford it, posted on Twitter. “Without jeopardizing the safety of the folks we bailed out we paid well over $200k in the weeks since the uprising alone. We are working on doing more.” The tweet sparked an outcry with critics calling out MFF for not using more of the funds to bail out protesters who were arrested during demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody on May 25. Many said that MFF had collected $35 million in donations in recent weeks and spent only a small fraction, prompting “35 MILLION” and “only 200k” to start trending on Twitter.
Whoops.
Now, in fairness, it’s possible that they only needed to spend $200,000 or so to bail everyone out that was arrested. It’s also possible that they just got bogged down and couldn’t keep up with everything coming up. After all, the Minnesota Freedom Fund was pretty small before all of this, paying out $1,000 a day, and now suddenly is being inundated with demand.
Of course, it’s also possible that they found an opportunity to scam people out of money they could use for other things.
At least some on the race-baiting side of the aisle seem to think so.
This white run organization allegedly collected $35 million, and only used $200k to actually bail out protesters. Those of us in the real Black grassroots have been getting folks out of jail on our own. This is why we have to stop the coopt#NoAntiBlackRacism https://t.co/UPOxDaCI4O — Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) June 16, 2020
Of course, Nasheed has never had a good thing to say about anything a white person has done, so take anything he says with a gallon of salt. Still, he has a large following and not everyone does it to point and laugh at the things he says.
All that really matters, though, is that all is not well in the pro-riot camp. In fact, this may make some less likely to donate money to bail out additional rioters should we see more of that kind of nonsense. While MFF has plenty of money for the time being for such things–in fact, it would likely help them moving forward–Minnesota isn’t the only place where riots may happen.