bearingarms--2020-11-11--2A Groups Sue Anti-Gun State Over Its Slo-Mo Handgun Ban

One of the quirks of California ’ s ridiculous gun control laws is the state ’ s Roster of Certified Handguns .
The only pistols that can legally be sold in the state are those models that have been placed on the roster by the state ’ s Department of Justice , but since California ’ s microstamping law took effect back in 2013 , no new models of handguns have been made available in the state .
Even worse , hundreds of existing models of handguns have been dropped from the roster , which leaves California gun owners unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pistols in the country .
California ’ s handgun roster is actually a slow-motion gun ban that ’ s left gun owners with fewer options for self-defense every year of its existence .
Now a coalition of Second Amendment groups , including the Second Amendment Foundation , Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( full disclosure : I ’ m a board member of the organization ) , Firearms Policy Coalition , and San Diego County Gun Owners have filed a new federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the intent of California ’ s anti-gun lawmakers is to ban more and more protected arms through increasingly restrictive legislation , ” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb .
“ This expanded handgun ban scheme can not go without challenge .
We look forward to prevailing in this case and winning Second Amendment rights one lawsuit at a time.
” “ In Heller the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple test : if an arm is bearable and in common use for lawful purposes , it is prima facie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut added .
“ The handguns California prevents law-abiding people from purchasing and making themselves are protected arms.
” Not only does California ’ s gun ban by another name infringe on the rights of residents to keep and bear arms that are in common use , it also fosters a culture of corruption within law enforcement .
Police officers can buy handguns that are “ off-roster , ” though they ’ re not supposed to turn around and sell them to civilians .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , as the U.S. Attorney for Southern California knows firsthand .
California ’ s handgun roster actually creates an illicit market that wouldn ’ t exist without the regulations that keep many popular handguns out of the reach of legal gun owners .
If Californians could simply buy the same handguns available for sale in the vast majority of the other 49 states , police officers would have no opportunity to act as a straw buyer of off-roster handguns .
The FPC ’ s president Brandon Combs says that with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created a “ regulatory scheme that prevents people from buying handguns that are widely available and popular ” across the rest of the country .
“ California ’ s new and expanded handgun ban is unconstitutional because it prevents law-abiding people from purchasing the common , modern firearms they have a right to under our Constitution .
Just like the State can not prohibit people from buying the political books of their choice , different versions of religious texts , or computers with technological and commercial developments better suited for publishing speech , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-manufacture of these constitutionally protected handguns.
” The new case , called Renna , et.al .
v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra , et.al , offers a great opportunity to being California in line with the Constitution and restore the rights of residents to purchase the same commonly-owned pistols that their neighbors in Arizona , Nevada , and Oregon can own without issue .
It will be a few weeks before the state ’ s attorney general responds , but this is definitely a case to keep an eye on in the months @ @

One of the quirks of California’s ridiculous gun control laws is the state’s Roster of Certified Handguns. The only pistols that can legally be sold in the state are those models that have been placed on the roster by the state’s Department of Justice, but since California’s microstamping law took effect back in 2013, no new models of handguns have been made available in the state.
Even worse, hundreds of existing models of handguns have been dropped from the roster, which leaves California gun owners unable to purchase some of the most popular pistols in the country. California’s handgun roster is actually a slow-motion gun ban that’s left gun owners with fewer options for self-defense every year of its existence.
Now a coalition of Second Amendment groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (full disclosure: I’m a board member of the organization), Firearms Policy Coalition, and San Diego County Gun Owners have filed a new federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the roster itself.
“It is clear that the intent of California’s anti-gun lawmakers is to ban more and more protected arms through increasingly restrictive legislation,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “This expanded handgun ban scheme cannot go without challenge. We look forward to prevailing in this case and winning Second Amendment rights one lawsuit at a time.” “In Heller the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple test: if an arm is bearable and in common use for lawful purposes, it is prima facie protected under the Second Amendment, period,” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut added. “The handguns California prevents law-abiding people from purchasing and making themselves are protected arms.”
Not only does California’s gun ban by another name infringe on the rights of residents to keep and bear arms that are in common use, it also fosters a culture of corruption within law enforcement. Police officers can buy handguns that are “off-roster,” though they’re not supposed to turn around and sell them to civilians. The temptation is too much for some officers, however, as the U.S. Attorney for Southern California knows firsthand.
Former Torrance Police officer agrees to plead guilty to illegally acting as firearms dealer and being ‘straw buyer’ of ‘off roster’ gun https://t.co/5k5c1JpU9M — US Attorney L.A. (@USAO_LosAngeles) November 10, 2020
California’s handgun roster actually creates an illicit market that wouldn’t exist without the regulations that keep many popular handguns out of the reach of legal gun owners. If Californians could simply buy the same handguns available for sale in the vast majority of the other 49 states, police officers would have no opportunity to act as a straw buyer of off-roster handguns.
The FPC’s president Brandon Combs says that with the handgun roster, the state legislature has created a “regulatory scheme that prevents people from buying handguns that are widely available and popular” across the rest of the country.
“California’s new and expanded handgun ban is unconstitutional because it prevents law-abiding people from purchasing the common, modern firearms they have a right to under our Constitution. Just like the State cannot prohibit people from buying the political books of their choice, different versions of religious texts, or computers with technological and commercial developments better suited for publishing speech, it cannot ban the sale and self-manufacture of these constitutionally protected handguns.”
The new case, called Renna, et.al. v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et.al, offers a great opportunity to being California in line with the Constitution and restore the rights of residents to purchase the same commonly-owned pistols that their neighbors in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon can own without issue. It will be a few weeks before the state’s attorney general responds, but this is definitely a case to keep an eye on in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-11-11--Everytown Touts Biden Admin As Most Anti-Gun Administration Ever

We all know that the 2020 Democratic field was the most anti-gun ever .
While Joe Biden wasn ’ t the most anti-gun candidate in the field , he was close .
Yet , during the general election , it seemed as though the media went out of their way to hide it .
The topic never came up during the debates and the press failed to address the issue at all during their many opportunities .
So yeah , they hid it .
Now , the voting is over and the left has accepted that they won fair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden from taking office .
On that last part , they might be right .
They might not .
Regardless , though , it also seems that now they ’ re not even trying to hide what we all knew .
Assuming the “ results ” of the election hold and Joe Biden is sworn in as president on Jan. 20 , 2021 , Everytown for Gun Safety believes that we are headed for a new dawn on the gun-control front .
In a press release dated Nov. 7 , 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mate Kamala Harris , the “ Strongest Gun Safety Administration in American History.
” Everytown expects that the two will get to work in short order pushing a variety of anti-gun bills , including criminalizing private sales and transfers , enacting confiscatory red flag laws , prohibiting the sale of unfinished gun parts ( 80 % lowers ) , banning black rifles and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds , and repealing legislation that prevents gun makers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their products .
“ Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety ticket in American history , and so their victory is the strongest proof yet that gun safety is a winning issue , ” said John Feinblatt , president of Everytown for Gun Safety .
“ Everytown is incredibly proud to count President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris as longtime allies , and we will do everything in our power to help them enact the common-sense gun policies the American people are demanding , ” he continued .
Of course , if Everytown was really that concerned with gun control and think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great champions of “ gun safety , ” then why in the hell did so many of their ads fail to address anything related to firearms ?
Seriously , Joe Biden ’ s stance on gun control was absent from the general election , and it wasn ’ t just the media that tried to hide it .
Even gun control groups–backed by Michael Bloomberg–spent massive sums of money in an attempt to turn multiple states blue and to help get Biden elected , yet remarkably few of those ads ever mentioned gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t a winning issue in the general election , so they hid it as best they could .
Now , they figure that paid off and they no longer have to play pretend .
They ’ re not letting the mask slip , they flat-out ripped that sucker off and are making it clear that your guns will not be safe for the next four years .
No , they don ’ t care about how popular it may be .
Not now , anyway .
They already got people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those people were dead .
Now , they ’ re going to tell you how it ’ s going to be .

We all know that the 2020 Democratic field was the most anti-gun ever. While Joe Biden wasn’t the most anti-gun candidate in the field, he was close. Yet, during the general election, it seemed as though the media went out of their way to hide it. The topic never came up during the debates and the press failed to address the issue at all during their many opportunities.
So yeah, they hid it.
Now, the voting is over and the left has accepted that they won fair and square and that absolutely nothing will stop Joe Biden from taking office. On that last part, they might be right. They might not. Regardless, though, it also seems that now they’re not even trying to hide what we all knew.
Assuming the “results” of the election hold and Joe Biden is sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2021, Everytown for Gun Safety believes that we are headed for a new dawn on the gun-control front. In a press release dated Nov. 7, 2020, the organization called Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris, the “Strongest Gun Safety Administration in American History.” Everytown expects that the two will get to work in short order pushing a variety of anti-gun bills, including criminalizing private sales and transfers, enacting confiscatory red flag laws, prohibiting the sale of unfinished gun parts (80% lowers), banning black rifles and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and repealing legislation that prevents gun makers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their products. “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the strongest gun safety ticket in American history, and so their victory is the strongest proof yet that gun safety is a winning issue,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Everytown is incredibly proud to count President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris as longtime allies, and we will do everything in our power to help them enact the common-sense gun policies the American people are demanding,” he continued.
Of course, if Everytown was really that concerned with gun control and think that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are such great champions of “gun safety,” then why in the hell did so many of their ads fail to address anything related to firearms?
Seriously, Joe Biden’s stance on gun control was absent from the general election, and it wasn’t just the media that tried to hide it. Even gun control groups–backed by Michael Bloomberg–spent massive sums of money in an attempt to turn multiple states blue and to help get Biden elected, yet remarkably few of those ads ever mentioned gun control.
They knew that gun control wasn’t a winning issue in the general election, so they hid it as best they could. Now, they figure that paid off and they no longer have to play pretend. They’re not letting the mask slip, they flat-out ripped that sucker off and are making it clear that your guns will not be safe for the next four years.
No, they don’t care about how popular it may be. Not now, anyway. They already got people’s votes, even if some of those people were dead. Now, they’re going to tell you how it’s going to be.


bearingarms--2020-11-11--The Battle Of Athens: When WWII Veterans Took Out A Political Machine

The following is adapted by author Chris DeRose from his new book The Fighting Bunch : The Battle of Athens and How WWII Veterans Won the Only Successful Rebellion since the Revolution .
You can also check out my recent conversation with Chris about the new book here .
Bill White and the young men of McMinn County answered their nation ’ s call after Pearl Harbor .
They secured the freedom of the world and returned to find that they had lost it at home .
A corrupt political machine was in charge , funded by racketeering , protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place through stolen elections .
The veterans formed their own political movement—the GI Party—and challenged the machine at the next election .
Throughout the day , veterans found themselves outgunned , assaulted , arrested , and watching helplessly as the ballot boxes were removed to the jail .
Most of the GIs gave up and headed for home .
Only a handful remained at a garage in downtown Athens .
Bill White knew that unless someone lit a fire under them , they too would give up and the election would be lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” Bill said .
“ After three or four years of fighting for your country .
You survived it all .
You came back .
And what did you come back to ?
A free country ?
You came back to Athens , Tennessee , in McMinn County , that ’ s run by a bunch of outlaws .
They ’ ve got hired gunmen all over this county right now at this minute .
What for ?
One purpose .
To scare you so bad you won ’ t dare stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been bleeding and dying for .
Some of your mothers and some of your sisters are afraid to walk down the streets to the polling places .
Lots of men , too !
Because they know what happens .
A car drives by in the night and shoots out your windows .
If that doesn ’ t scare you enough , they ’ ll set fire to your house or your barn .
They ’ ll beat up members of your family and put them in jail .
For no reason !
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to be fighting for ?
Do you know what your rights are supposed to be ?
How many rights have you got left ?
None !
Not even the right to vote in a free election .
When you lose that , you ’ ve lost everything .
And you are damned well going to lose it unless you fight and fight the only way they understand .
Fire with fire !
We ’ ve got to make this an honest election because we promised the people that if they voted it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to be .
But only if we see that it is .
We are going to have to run these organized criminals out of town , and we can do it if we stick together .
Are you afraid of them ?
Why , I could take a banana stalk and run every one of these potbellied draft dodgers across Depot Hill .
Get the hell out of here and get something to shoot with .
And come back as fast as you can.
” 4 They brought back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pistols , squirrel guns , and a war souvenir German Mauser .
“ We need some more firepower , ” said Bill .
And they definitely needed more ammunition .
They knew there was one place to find it .
A number of townspeople offered the veterans their cars .
The caravan pulled up in front of the national guard armory , a white brutish building one mile west of town .
Some of the GIs had served in the guard , while others had attended wrestling matches and magic shows there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The GIs demanded the keys from Sergeant Perly Berger , the armory caretaker .
“ You won ’ t find them in my pocket , ” he said .
The group hurried into the strongroom .
Jimmy Lockmiller took two .45 Colt revolvers to conceal under his Hawaiian shirt .
One lucky GI grabbed a Thompson submachine gun .
There were plenty of .30-caliber M1917 rifles .
And , most important , ammunition .
They draped themselves with bandoliers of bullets , took everything they could carry , and drove back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headquarters with such fanfare—a sign of their political viability a block from the courthouse .
They had passed happy days there , answering encouraging phone calls and greeting enthusiastic supporters .
Now here they were , divvying up guns and ammunition .
A group of GIs came in to tell them that the sheriff ’ s men were converging on the jail , where the ballot boxes from the waterworks and Dixie Café were taken .
Then Bill White and the fighting bunch walked out of headquarters for the last time .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past the First National Bank , and the waterworks with its shattered glass door , on a sidewalk stained with the blood of veterans who wanted nothing more than to witness an honest count .
They crossed Hornsby Street and stopped in front of Tennessee Wesleyan College .
A reporter noted them “ milling around in the center of the street , ” draped in ammunition , carrying guns .
They were waiting for last light to make their move on the jail .
Walt Hurt of The Knoxville News-Sentinel walked up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ?
” he asked .
“ We just want to see an honest election , ” said one .
Hurt roamed the neighborhood interviewing people on the street .
One person after another told him that they had feared violence for years .
He walked up to a house near the jail and talked to two women on the porch , a homemaker and school- teacher .
They fretted about their relatives in the crowd .
“ At least he knows how to use a rifle , ” said one .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson Street , observing “ a group of men who bled and had buddies die for the exercise of their voting privilege .
These men had been taught during their military days that one of the things they were fighting a war for was for the sacred privilege of voting in a free country , and for voting for whom they pleased .
You understood from them all they wanted was a chance to vote and to make certain their votes were counted .
The boardinghouse facing Jackson Street sits on a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embankment , thirteen feet high , covered with trees , vines , bushes , and tall grass , overlooking White Street , roughly even with the second story of the jail .
The GIs moved quickly around both sides of the house through the backyard and to the embankment .
Twenty feet away from them was the jail , a massive brick fortress that looked like a haunted house , headquarters of the McMinn county sheriff .
It seemed out of place among the col- orful storefronts , the grand old courthouse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people had gone out of their way to avoid the building and the people inside .
“ Bring those boxes out and there won ’ t be any trouble , ” someone yelled from the GI side .
An answer came from the jail .
“ You ’ re going to have to come get them.
” “ That ’ s what we ’ re going to do.
” “ Why don ’ t you call the law ?
” someone shouted from the jail .
“ There ain ’ t no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone yelled from the embankment .
Enough talking , Bill thought .
He pulled back the bolt on his rifle .
“ I heard a bolt click , ” came a voice from near the jail .
The deputies outside scrambled to get in .
Chuck Redfern was on the air in his studio across from the courthouse : “ You ’ re listening to WLAR , the friendly voice of the Friendly City.
” Gunfire exploded in the background and was carried on the airwaves to homes across the county .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GIs were in control of the ballot boxes—and the county .
The Battle of Athens , Tennessee , as it would be known , riveted the nation .
Newspapers across the country argued over its merits and meaning .
Were the GIs simply vigilantes who had taken the law into their own hands ?
The Philadelphia Record asked : “ What else could they do ?
The Constitution of the United States says ‘ the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
’ In Tennessee nearly every man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use a pistol , shotgun , and rifle .
Nearly every home has at least ‘ a lawn gun ’ for potting squirrels , rabbits , birds , and other intruders .
It seems reasonable to assume the Founding Fathers were thinking of more important things when they wrote the Constitution—perchance that the time might come when the bullet might be necessary to protect the ballot.
” The final word belonged to Eleanor Roosevelt , perhaps the most respected person in America , who made the battle the subject of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all , ” she wrote .
People must be able to determine their fate at the ballot box in a fair election .
Ultimately , Americans would not accept living under tyranny .
“ The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning , and one which we can not afford to overlook.
” Chris DeRose is the New York Times bestselling author of five books , including The Fighting Bunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WWII Veterans Won the Only Successful Armed Rebellion Since the Revolution .
To learn more or connect , visit www.chrisderosebooks.com

The following is adapted by author Chris DeRose from his new book The Fighting Bunch: The Battle of Athens and How WWII Veterans Won the Only Successful Rebellion since the Revolution. You can also check out my recent conversation with Chris about the new book here.
Election Day
August 1, 1946
Bill White and the young men of McMinn County answered their nation’s call after Pearl Harbor. They secured the freedom of the world and returned to find that they had lost it at home. A corrupt political machine was in charge, funded by racketeering, protected by violent deputies, and kept in place through stolen elections. The veterans formed their own political movement—the GI Party—and challenged the machine at the next election. Throughout the day, veterans found themselves outgunned, assaulted, arrested, and watching helplessly as the ballot boxes were removed to the jail. Most of the GIs gave up and headed for home. Only a handful remained at a garage in downtown Athens. Bill White knew that unless someone lit a fire under them, they too would give up and the election would be lost.
“Well! Here you are!” Bill said. “After three or four years of fighting for your country. You survived it all. You came back. And what did you come back to? A free country? You came back to Athens, Tennessee, in McMinn County, that’s run by a bunch of outlaws. They’ve got hired gunmen all over this county right now at this minute. What for? One purpose. To scare you so bad you won’t dare stand up for the rights you’ve been bleeding and dying for. Some of your mothers and some of your sisters are afraid to walk down the streets to the polling places. Lots of men, too! Because they know what happens. A car drives by in the night and shoots out your windows. If that doesn’t scare you enough, they’ll set fire to your house or your barn. They’ll beat up members of your family and put them in jail. For no reason! Is that the kind of freedom you were supposed to be fighting for? Do you know what your rights are supposed to be? How many rights have you got left? None! Not even the right to vote in a free election. When you lose that, you’ve lost everything. And you are damned well going to lose it unless you fight and fight the only way they understand. Fire with fire! We’ve got to make this an honest election because we promised the people that if they voted it would be an honest election. And it’s going to be. But only if we see that it is. We are going to have to run these organized criminals out of town, and we can do it if we stick together. Are you afraid of them? Why, I could take a banana stalk and run every one of these potbellied draft dodgers across Depot Hill. Get the hell out of here and get something to shoot with. And come back as fast as you can.”4
They brought back shotguns, various calibers of rifle, pistols, squirrel guns, and a war souvenir German Mauser.
“We need some more firepower,” said Bill. And they definitely needed more ammunition. They knew there was one place to find it.
A number of townspeople offered the veterans their cars. The caravan pulled up in front of the national guard armory, a white brutish building one mile west of town. Some of the GIs had served in the guard, while others had attended wrestling matches and magic shows there, giving them some familiarity with the layout. The GIs demanded the keys from Sergeant Perly Berger, the armory caretaker. “You won’t find them in my pocket,” he said.
The group hurried into the strongroom. Jimmy Lockmiller took two .45 Colt revolvers to conceal under his Hawaiian shirt. One lucky GI grabbed a Thompson submachine gun. There were plenty of .30-caliber M1917 rifles. And, most important, ammunition. They draped themselves with bandoliers of bullets, took everything they could carry, and drove back to town.
The GIs had opened their headquarters with such fanfare—a sign of their political viability a block from the courthouse. They had passed happy days there, answering encouraging phone calls and greeting enthusiastic supporters. Now here they were, divvying up guns and ammunition. A group of GIs came in to tell them that the sheriff’s men were converging on the jail, where the ballot boxes from the waterworks and Dixie Café were taken.
Then Bill White and the fighting bunch walked out of headquarters for the last time. They made a right on Jackson Street, past the First National Bank, and the waterworks with its shattered glass door, on a sidewalk stained with the blood of veterans who wanted nothing more than to witness an honest count. They crossed Hornsby Street and stopped in front of Tennessee Wesleyan College. A reporter noted them “milling around in the center of the street,” draped in ammunition, carrying guns. They were waiting for last light to make their move on the jail.
Walt Hurt of The Knoxville News-Sentinel walked up to them. “What is your purpose here?” he asked.
“We just want to see an honest election,” said one.
“A fair count,” said another.
Hurt roamed the neighborhood interviewing people on the street. One person after another told him that they had feared violence for years. He walked up to a house near the jail and talked to two women on the porch, a homemaker and school- teacher. They fretted about their relatives in the crowd. “At least he knows how to use a rifle,” said one.
His Journal colleague Ed Harris was also on Jackson Street, observing “a group of men who bled and had buddies die for the exercise of their voting privilege. These men had been taught during their military days that one of the things they were fighting a war for was for the sacred privilege of voting in a free country, and for voting for whom they pleased. You understood from them all they wanted was a chance to vote and to make certain their votes were counted.
The boardinghouse facing Jackson Street sits on a little hill. In the backyard is an embankment, thirteen feet high, covered with trees, vines, bushes, and tall grass, overlooking White Street, roughly even with the second story of the jail. The GIs moved quickly around both sides of the house through the backyard and to the embankment.
Twenty feet away from them was the jail, a massive brick fortress that looked like a haunted house, headquarters of the McMinn county sheriff. It seemed out of place among the col- orful storefronts, the grand old courthouse, and its shady square. For years, people had gone out of their way to avoid the building and the people inside.
“Bring those boxes out and there won’t be any trouble,” someone yelled from the GI side.
An answer came from the jail. “You’re going to have to come get them.”
“That’s what we’re going to do.”
“Why don’t you call the law?” someone shouted from the jail.
“There ain’t no damn law in McMinn County!” someone yelled from the embankment.
Enough talking, Bill thought. He pulled back the bolt on his rifle.
“I heard a bolt click,” came a voice from near the jail. The deputies outside scrambled to get in.
Chuck Redfern was on the air in his studio across from the courthouse: “You’re listening to WLAR, the friendly voice of the Friendly City.” Gunfire exploded in the background and was carried on the airwaves to homes across the county.
– –
When the shooting stopped six hours later, the GIs were in control of the ballot boxes—and the county. The Battle of Athens, Tennessee, as it would be known, riveted the nation. Newspapers across the country argued over its merits and meaning. Were the GIs simply vigilantes who had taken the law into their own hands?
The Philadelphia Record asked: “What else could they do? The Constitution of the United States says ‘the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ In Tennessee nearly every man and boy and many women know how to use a pistol, shotgun, and rifle. Nearly every home has at least ‘a lawn gun’ for potting squirrels, rabbits, birds, and other intruders. It seems reasonable to assume the Founding Fathers were thinking of more important things when they wrote the Constitution—perchance that the time might come when the bullet might be necessary to protect the ballot.”
The final word belonged to Eleanor Roosevelt, perhaps the most respected person in America, who made the battle the subject of one of her regular columns: “We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all,” she wrote. People must be able to determine their fate at the ballot box in a fair election. Ultimately, Americans would not accept living under tyranny. “The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.”
Chris DeRose is the New York Times bestselling author of five books, including The Fighting Bunch: The Battle of Athens and How WWII Veterans Won the Only Successful Armed Rebellion Since the Revolution. To learn more or connect, visit www.chrisderosebooks.com


bearingarms--2020-11-11--ATF Head Reportedly Already Working With Biden

If there is any good news about last week ’ s election it ’ s that the Democrats didn ’ t get the clean sweep they were expecting .
While Nancy Pelosi can prattle on about Biden having a mandate greater than Kennedy ’ s , the truth of the matter is that he squeaked into the White House and she ’ s damn lucky Democrats held onto the House .
They also failed to get a majority in the Senate .
The best they can hope for there is a 50-50 split , which won ’ t be enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote .
That means much of Biden ’ s gun control plan simply can ’ t be put into effect .
That ’ s good .
However , it also appears that the head of the ATF is already working with Biden on a host of measures that can be achieved without the legislative branch ’ s involvement .
While the court battles over control of the Whitehouse continues , the leadership of the ATF has already started working with the Biden transition to restrict American ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially become the president-elect until the election results are certified .
Although the former Vice President has claimed victory , Trump has pointed to widespread voter fraud .
Rudy Giuliani showed that Will Smith ’ s long-dead grandfather and deceased boxer Joe Frazier voted in the election .
November 10th , 2020 , during an ATF conference call , Acting Director Regina Lombardo told those in attendance that the anti-gun Biden transition team has reached out to the ATF to get the agency ’ s “ top priorities ” .
AmmoLand News ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call that her priorities would be pistol braces and 80 % lower receivers .
There are currently multiple millions of pistol braces owned by law-abiding American gun-owners .
This is unsurprising , really , and it won ’ t require a legislative effort .
After all , look at the bump stock ban .
Yet in the process , millions of lawfully-owned firearms will be turned into NFA items overnight .
While I ’ d imagine there will be some grace period when it comes to pistol braces , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if there is , it ’ s important to remember that even if there is , it ’ ll still reclassify thousands of firearms as illegal weapons overnight , thus depriving their owners of lawfully-held property .
At the end of the day , this is an issue .
The same will be true if 80 percent lower receivers are also banned .
What ’ s not clear is how this ban would work .
After all , if they lower the percentage required for an item to not be classified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and offer , say 75 percent lower receivers or what have you .
The problem is that they simply can ’ t lower it enough .
After all , I ’ ve seen a video of a guy who built an AK receiver out of a shovel .
If you can do that , you can do it with any sheet metal that meets specifications .
You can ’ t start requiring background checks for all of that .
Further , anyone who has access to the right milling equipment is capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block of aluminum .
In other words , you can ’ t really prevent people from making their own firearms .
At best , you can make it more of a pain in the butt for some , but that ’ s it .
Meanwhile , criminals will still get guns .
Of course , in fairness , this is from an anonymous source we know nothing about .
It ’ s certainly possible that the ATF has no interest in reclassifying anything .
It ’ s also possible that Biden is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeal the NFA completely so we can all rush out and buy newly-manufactured machine guns right at our local gun store .
Figure the odds of either of those being true .
I suspect they ’ re about the same .

If there is any good news about last week’s election it’s that the Democrats didn’t get the clean sweep they were expecting. While Nancy Pelosi can prattle on about Biden having a mandate greater than Kennedy’s, the truth of the matter is that he squeaked into the White House and she’s damn lucky Democrats held onto the House. They also failed to get a majority in the Senate. The best they can hope for there is a 50-50 split, which won’t be enough to override the filibuster, even with Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote.
That means much of Biden’s gun control plan simply can’t be put into effect. That’s good.
However, it also appears that the head of the ATF is already working with Biden on a host of measures that can be achieved without the legislative branch’s involvement.
While the court battles over control of the Whitehouse continues, the leadership of the ATF has already started working with the Biden transition to restrict American’s gun rights further. Behind the Trump Admins’ Back Biden will not officially become the president-elect until the election results are certified. Although the former Vice President has claimed victory, Trump has pointed to widespread voter fraud. Rudy Giuliani showed that Will Smith’s long-dead grandfather and deceased boxer Joe Frazier voted in the election. November 10th, 2020, during an ATF conference call, Acting Director Regina Lombardo told those in attendance that the anti-gun Biden transition team has reached out to the ATF to get the agency’s “top priorities”. AmmoLand News’ anonymous source said Lombardo told those on the call that her priorities would be pistol braces and 80% lower receivers. There are currently multiple millions of pistol braces owned by law-abiding American gun-owners.
This is unsurprising, really, and it won’t require a legislative effort. After all, look at the bump stock ban.
Yet in the process, millions of lawfully-owned firearms will be turned into NFA items overnight. While I’d imagine there will be some grace period when it comes to pistol braces, there’s no guarantee of that. Still, even if there is, it’s important to remember that even if there is, it’ll still reclassify thousands of firearms as illegal weapons overnight, thus depriving their owners of lawfully-held property.
At the end of the day, this is an issue.
The same will be true if 80 percent lower receivers are also banned.
What’s not clear is how this ban would work. After all, if they lower the percentage required for an item to not be classified as a firearm, vendors will simply adapt and offer, say 75 percent lower receivers or what have you. The problem is that they simply can’t lower it enough. After all, I’ve seen a video of a guy who built an AK receiver out of a shovel. If you can do that, you can do it with any sheet metal that meets specifications. You can’t start requiring background checks for all of that.
Further, anyone who has access to the right milling equipment is capable of making an AR-15 receiver out of a block of aluminum.
In other words, you can’t really prevent people from making their own firearms. At best, you can make it more of a pain in the butt for some, but that’s it.
Meanwhile, criminals will still get guns.
Of course, in fairness, this is from an anonymous source we know nothing about. It’s certainly possible that the ATF has no interest in reclassifying anything. It’s also possible that Biden is really pro-gun and can’t wait to repeal the NFA completely so we can all rush out and buy newly-manufactured machine guns right at our local gun store.
Figure the odds of either of those being true. I suspect they’re about the same.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--NC's Mark Robinson Is The Warrior We Need

I still vividly remember watching Mark Robinson speak to the Raleigh City Council on gun rights .
The now Lt. Governor-elect was then just a private citizen , a virtual nobody , but he spoke with such passion that it was impossible not to listen .
Make no mistake , it was clear that Robinson spoke from the heart .
He said things that gun rights advocates had been saying for decades , but he said them his way , made them his , and that raised his profile .
Many people get a brush with stardom and then never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one guy who became something of a meme after an appearance on the show Scared Straight .
A smart remark , but it went somewhat viral .
He never found a way to capitalize on that , but Robinson did .
He embraced politics and became North Carolina ’ s first black Lt .
Governor .
Over at The Federalist , they argue that Robinson is the culture warrior the GOP needs .
It was a long time coming .
Robinson , who is 52 , made a stunning political debut in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Carolina where the members were considering prohibiting a gun show at city-controlled facilities .
Robinson claims to have made his oration off-the-cuff .
The impromptu speech went viral and ended up on Fox News .
It ’ s now been viewed more than 1 million times .
Robinson comes from a poor background .
He is the second youngest of ten children who were frequently separated in his early years .
He worked two factory jobs ( the loss of both of which he blames on the North American Free Trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a restaurant manager .
He ’ s also a former Army Reservist .
North Carolina lieutenant governors of the past 100 years have been decidedly pale in complexion .
Robinson thinks it is important that the first black lieutenant governor be a Republican .
“ It sets the standard for this party , ” said Robinson .
“ Being a student of history , it ’ s extremely exciting for me to make history .
But I think when you get right down to the political side of it , to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of freedom and equality—which is what I call the Republican Party—it lets people know that this party doesn ’ t have just one face .
Also , it gets people who normally would not pay any attention to this party to take a look at us .
And we hope to do some things that when they do take a look at us , they ’ ll say ‘ Hey , I agree with that.
’ ” Robinson ’ s deeply socially conservative positions animate his political direction .
Beyond Robinson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story is a script seemingly written with a new Republican Party realignment in mind .
Honestly , I don ’ t know one way or the other about that .
I ’ m not going to get into the deeper culture wars .
What I will say , though , is that Robinson is vital in restructuring the narrative about gun rights .
For years , anti-gunners have ignored black gun owners and instead pushed a narrative that gun rights are inherently racist .
They ignore the fact that gun control laws originated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women and instead pretend that we who support the Second Amendment are somehow interested in seeing people like Robinson in chains or something .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
Men and women like Robinson , Maj Toure , and Colion Noir are extremely important , not because they can serve as some kind of token , but because all three are true believers in the Second Amendment and inspire loyalty not because of the melanin content of their skin but because they speak from the heart and that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Robinson may be the culture warrior the GOP needs , but he ’ s definitely the gun rights warrior we all need .

I still vividly remember watching Mark Robinson speak to the Raleigh City Council on gun rights. The now Lt. Governor-elect was then just a private citizen, a virtual nobody, but he spoke with such passion that it was impossible not to listen.
Make no mistake, it was clear that Robinson spoke from the heart. He said things that gun rights advocates had been saying for decades, but he said them his way, made them his, and that raised his profile.
Many people get a brush with stardom and then never do anything with it. I know one guy who became something of a meme after an appearance on the show Scared Straight. A smart remark, but it went somewhat viral. He never found a way to capitalize on that, but Robinson did. He embraced politics and became North Carolina’s first black Lt. Governor.
Over at The Federalist, they argue that Robinson is the culture warrior the GOP needs.
It was a long time coming. Robinson, who is 52, made a stunning political debut in 2018 at a city council meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina where the members were considering prohibiting a gun show at city-controlled facilities. Robinson claims to have made his oration off-the-cuff. The impromptu speech went viral and ended up on Fox News. It’s now been viewed more than 1 million times. Robinson comes from a poor background. He is the second youngest of ten children who were frequently separated in his early years. He worked two factory jobs (the loss of both of which he blames on the North American Free Trade Agreement stifling American industry) and was a restaurant manager. He’s also a former Army Reservist. North Carolina lieutenant governors of the past 100 years have been decidedly pale in complexion. Robinson thinks it is important that the first black lieutenant governor be a Republican. “It sets the standard for this party,” said Robinson. “Being a student of history, it’s extremely exciting for me to make history. But I think when you get right down to the political side of it, to be able to make this statement for the party of freedom and equality—which is what I call the Republican Party—it lets people know that this party doesn’t have just one face. Also, it gets people who normally would not pay any attention to this party to take a look at us. And we hope to do some things that when they do take a look at us, they’ll say ‘Hey, I agree with that.’” Robinson’s deeply socially conservative positions animate his political direction. Beyond Robinson’s victory in North Carolina, his personal story is a script seemingly written with a new Republican Party realignment in mind.
Honestly, I don’t know one way or the other about that. I’m not going to get into the deeper culture wars.
What I will say, though, is that Robinson is vital in restructuring the narrative about gun rights.
For years, anti-gunners have ignored black gun owners and instead pushed a narrative that gun rights are inherently racist. They ignore the fact that gun control laws originated as a way to disarm black men and women and instead pretend that we who support the Second Amendment are somehow interested in seeing people like Robinson in chains or something.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Men and women like Robinson, Maj Toure, and Colion Noir are extremely important, not because they can serve as some kind of token, but because all three are true believers in the Second Amendment and inspire loyalty not because of the melanin content of their skin but because they speak from the heart and that is what resonates with gun rights advocates.
Mark Robinson may be the culture warrior the GOP needs, but he’s definitely the gun rights warrior we all need.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--ACB Gets Her First Crack At The Second Amendment On Friday

For the first time since Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as an Associate Justice , the Supreme Court will be considering two gun-related cases in its Friday conference .
One case deals with a local gun ban in Boulder , Colorado , while the other challenges the seizure of two firearms from a Rhode Island man , and has huge implications not only for our Second Amendment rights , but our Fourth Amendment rights as well .
Back in 2018 , the uber-liberal enclave of Boulder , Colorado passed a ban on the possession and sale of so-called assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned by residents , who were forced to register their guns with the local government or else commit a criminal offense .
The city council also decided to infringe on the rights of residents even more by raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21 , as opposed to the state and federal limitation of being 18 to purchase long guns and 21 to purchase handguns .
Shortly after the city council ’ s anti-gun move , the Mountain States Legal Foundation filed suit on behalf of several plaintiffs , including Independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , challenging both new gun laws in federal court .
Not long after that , another challenge was filed , but this time in state court , and attorneys for the city of Boulder argued that the federal case should be put on hold until the state-level challenge had been resolved .
A U.S. District Judge agreed and issued a stay in Caldara v. Boulder , putting a halt to the proceedings .
It ’ s been more than two years since both cases were filed , but the Colorado State Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state-level challenge , called Chambers v. City of Boulder .
Meanwhile , the MSLF has continued to try to get the federal case going , but they ’ ve been turned away by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals .
Back in October , the organization asked the Supreme Court to give the green light to the Caldara case , arguing that “ the rights involved in this case , namely Boulder residents ’ natural right to self-defense , are too important for a federal court to stay its hand , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in conference among the nine justices .
You can read the petition to the Supreme Court in its entirety here , but I ’ m not going to quote from it because the legal arguments at this point have little to do with Boulder ’ s gun ban itself and much more to do with when federal courts can hear a challenge to a state law .
Most of the briefs are taken up with an in-depth exploration of the issue and a 1941 case called Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people but makes my eyes glaze over .
Suffice it to say that the Mountain States Legal Foundation is arguing that the federal lawsuit shouldn ’ t be put on ice while the state case is still proceeding , given the fundamental rights that are at stake in the meantime .
Don ’ t expect the Supreme Court to come out and strike down Boulder ’ s gun ban an age restriction .
In fact , that ’ s not even what the MSLF is asking for at this point .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courts while a fundamental right is being denied , and whether or not the federal courts are bound by precedent to stay the proceedings while the Chambers case inches its way through the state courts .
Obviously , I ’ m rooting for the Court to allow the lawsuit to proceed .
We know that this case is ultimately going to be litigated in federal courts , and every day that the issues at hand go unresolved people ’ s rights are being put into question ( and I believe , infringed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t the only gun-related case that the justices will consider in conference tomorrow .
In Caniglia v. Strom , though , the primary issue is related to our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.. in this case the seizure of two handguns from a 68-year old Rhode Island man .
Edward Caniglia and his wife got into an argument one afternoon in 2015 , and in a moment of melodrama , he put an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and said , “ why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and get me out of my misery.
” Caniglia ’ s wife of 22-years left the house instead , but when her husband didn ’ t answer her phone call the next day she asked police to make a wellness check .
They found that Caniglia was just fine , and he explained to police what had happened .
Even though the officers said he “ seemed normal , ” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated .
The police specifically told Caniglia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handguns if he voluntarily went with them , so he did .
He was checked out , pronounced no danger to himself or others , billed $ 1,000 for the privilege of being told what he already knew , and was sent home , only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home .
Not only that , they did so without a warrant .
Edward Caniglia ’ s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston , Rhode Island police department ever since .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments of Caniglia ’ s attorneys and the defense attorneys for the Cranston police department .
The defendants maintain that an exception to the Fourth Amendment ’ s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in the search of Caniglia ’ s home , though even the First Circuit Court of Appeals realized it was treading in uncharted waters when they agreed with the defense .
The court explained that the community caretaking exception derives from Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 ( 1973 ) .
In Cady , the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicle when the police reasonably believed that the vehicle ’ s trunk contained a gun and the vehicle was vulnerable to vandals .
The Cady Court stated that police officers frequently engage in “ community caretaking functions , totally divorced from detection , investigation , or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.
” The First Circuit stated that since the Court ’ s 1973 decision , the community caretaking doctrine has become a “ catchall ” for the responsibilities officers must discharge .
The court has held that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ satisfied ” under the doctrine when police officers perform “ noninvestigatory duties.
” The court noted that officers enjoy a “ wide latitude ” in deciding how to best execute their community caretaking duties .
Until this appeal , the First Circuit only applied the community caretaking exception to the motor vehicle context .
The court described the doctrine ’ s reach outside of the motor vehicle context as “ ill-defined , ” describing that several circuits have indicated that the community caretaking exception can not justify a warrantless entry into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the doctrine allows warrantless entries onto private premises .
As a case of first impression , the First Circuit agreed with those courts that extended the community caretaking exception beyond the motor vehicle context .
The court explained that because the core principle of the doctrine is to give police “ elbow room ” to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present a hazard requiring immediate attention , the doctrine should not be limited to the motor vehicle context .
The court of appeals next considered whether the community caretaking exception extends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this appeal – the seizure of an individual whom officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe poses an imminent risk of harm to himself or others , and the seizure of firearms that the officers have an objectively reasonable basis for thinking an individual may use to harm himself or others .
The court found that the police activities at issue are a “ natural fit ” for the doctrine .
The court explained that these activities are distinct from normal criminal investigation , stating that when police respond to individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others , they do so to “ preserve and protect community safety.
” This could be a hugely important Fourth Amendment case if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it , and it could serve as a check on the ever-expanding powers of the government if they rule that the police ’ s desire for “ elbow room ” doesn ’ t take precedence over the individual citizen ’ s right to privacy and security in their own home .
We could know as early as Monday what the Supreme Court plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so look for an update after the conference orders come out Monday morning .

For the first time since Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as an Associate Justice, the Supreme Court will be considering two gun-related cases in its Friday conference. One case deals with a local gun ban in Boulder, Colorado, while the other challenges the seizure of two firearms from a Rhode Island man, and has huge implications not only for our Second Amendment rights, but our Fourth Amendment rights as well.
Back in 2018, the uber-liberal enclave of Boulder, Colorado passed a ban on the possession and sale of so-called assault weapons, including those that were currently owned by residents, who were forced to register their guns with the local government or else commit a criminal offense. The city council also decided to infringe on the rights of residents even more by raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21, as opposed to the state and federal limitation of being 18 to purchase long guns and 21 to purchase handguns.
Shortly after the city council’s anti-gun move, the Mountain States Legal Foundation filed suit on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Independence Institute president and Boulder resident Jon Caldara, challenging both new gun laws in federal court. Not long after that, another challenge was filed, but this time in state court, and attorneys for the city of Boulder argued that the federal case should be put on hold until the state-level challenge had been resolved. A U.S. District Judge agreed and issued a stay in Caldara v. Boulder, putting a halt to the proceedings.
It’s been more than two years since both cases were filed, but the Colorado State Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in the state-level challenge, called Chambers v. City of Boulder. Meanwhile, the MSLF has continued to try to get the federal case going, but they’ve been turned away by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Back in October, the organization asked the Supreme Court to give the green light to the Caldara case, arguing that “the rights involved in this case, namely Boulder residents’ natural right to self-defense, are too important for a federal court to stay its hand,” and tomorrow the case will be heard in conference among the nine justices.
You can read the petition to the Supreme Court in its entirety here, but I’m not going to quote from it because the legal arguments at this point have little to do with Boulder’s gun ban itself and much more to do with when federal courts can hear a challenge to a state law. Most of the briefs are taken up with an in-depth exploration of the issue and a 1941 case called Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., which I’m sure is fascinating to some people but makes my eyes glaze over.
Suffice it to say that the Mountain States Legal Foundation is arguing that the federal lawsuit shouldn’t be put on ice while the state case is still proceeding, given the fundamental rights that are at stake in the meantime.
Don’t expect the Supreme Court to come out and strike down Boulder’s gun ban an age restriction. In fact, that’s not even what the MSLF is asking for at this point. Right now this is about access to the federal courts while a fundamental right is being denied, and whether or not the federal courts are bound by precedent to stay the proceedings while the Chambers case inches its way through the state courts.
Obviously, I’m rooting for the Court to allow the lawsuit to proceed. We know that this case is ultimately going to be litigated in federal courts, and every day that the issues at hand go unresolved people’s rights are being put into question (and I believe, infringed).
As I mentioned, Caldara isn’t the only gun-related case that the justices will consider in conference tomorrow. In Caniglia v. Strom, though, the primary issue is related to our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.. in this case the seizure of two handguns from a 68-year old Rhode Island man.
Edward Caniglia and his wife got into an argument one afternoon in 2015, and in a moment of melodrama, he put an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and said, “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.” Caniglia’s wife of 22-years left the house instead, but when her husband didn’t answer her phone call the next day she asked police to make a wellness check.
They found that Caniglia was just fine, and he explained to police what had happened. Even though the officers said he “seemed normal,” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated. The police specifically told Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he voluntarily went with them, so he did. He was checked out, pronounced no danger to himself or others, billed $1,000 for the privilege of being told what he already knew, and was sent home, only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home. Not only that, they did so without a warrant.
Edward Caniglia’s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston, Rhode Island police department ever since. Tomorrow, the justices will consider the arguments of Caniglia’s attorneys and the defense attorneys for the Cranston police department. The defendants maintain that an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in the search of Caniglia’s home, though even the First Circuit Court of Appeals realized it was treading in uncharted waters when they agreed with the defense.
The court explained that the community caretaking exception derives from Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). In Cady, the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a disabled vehicle when the police reasonably believed that the vehicle’s trunk contained a gun and the vehicle was vulnerable to vandals. The Cady Court stated that police officers frequently engage in “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” The First Circuit stated that since the Court’s 1973 decision, the community caretaking doctrine has become a “catchall” for the responsibilities officers must discharge. The court has held that the Fourth Amendment’s imperatives are “satisfied” under the doctrine when police officers perform “noninvestigatory duties.” The court noted that officers enjoy a “wide latitude” in deciding how to best execute their community caretaking duties. Until this appeal, the First Circuit only applied the community caretaking exception to the motor vehicle context. The court described the doctrine’s reach outside of the motor vehicle context as “ill-defined,” describing that several circuits have indicated that the community caretaking exception cannot justify a warrantless entry into a home, while other circuits have recognized that the doctrine allows warrantless entries onto private premises. As a case of first impression, the First Circuit agreed with those courts that extended the community caretaking exception beyond the motor vehicle context. The court explained that because the core principle of the doctrine is to give police “elbow room” to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present a hazard requiring immediate attention, the doctrine should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. The court of appeals next considered whether the community caretaking exception extends to the police activity at issue in this appeal – the seizure of an individual whom officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe poses an imminent risk of harm to himself or others, and the seizure of firearms that the officers have an objectively reasonable basis for thinking an individual may use to harm himself or others. The court found that the police activities at issue are a “natural fit” for the doctrine. The court explained that these activities are distinct from normal criminal investigation, stating that when police respond to individuals who present an imminent threat to themselves or others, they do so to “preserve and protect community safety.”
This could be a hugely important Fourth Amendment case if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it, and it could serve as a check on the ever-expanding powers of the government if they rule that the police’s desire for “elbow room” doesn’t take precedence over the individual citizen’s right to privacy and security in their own home.
We could know as early as Monday what the Supreme Court plans to do with the Caldara and Caniglia cases, so look for an update after the conference orders come out Monday morning.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--The Looming Legal Fights Over Our 2A Rights

It ’ s going to be a busy couple of years for Second Amendment groups , as they not only take on gun control activists in state legislatures and Congress , but do battle in defense of our right to keep and bear arms in courtrooms across the country .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. Adam Kraut , the Firearms Policy Coalition ’ s director of legal strategy , joins me to talk about some of the gun rights cases making their way through the courts , as well as what he anticipates will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
Kraut says that he ’ s gearing up for the ATF to launch a regulatory assault on pistol braces and 80 % receivers and frames if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are sworn in as president and vice-president in January , acknowledging reports that members of the Biden transition team have already begun talking with officials at the agency even before the Electoral College has cast its votes .
The FPC and other 2A groups aren ’ t just going to be playing defense against the anticipated onslaught of regulatory and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commonly owned firearms .
They ’ re also going on offense , energized by the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , which will hopefully end the reluctance of the Court to hear Second Amendment-related cases that we ’ ve seen for a decade now .
New challenges are being filed almost daily , and they don ’ t always involve gun control laws .
In fact , just this week FPC began litigation against Sacramento County , California sheriff Scott Jones over his department ’ s withholding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies .
The group wants to know what guns the department has confiscated , including from Andrew Richard Casarez of Orangevale , who was served a gun violence restraining order in July .
Deputies say Casarez is the leader of a neo-nazi hate group called the “ Bowl Patrol.
” The Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Office used social media posts to convince a judge to allow them to search Casarez ’ s home .
It ’ s an unprecedented move that may have prevented Casarez from carrying out serious crimes , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FPC says people have a right to know how the government is enforcing its laws and policies .
“ The defendants ’ denial of our requests is particularly concerning in light of it being a significant matter of great public interest , and we look forward to finding out what they ’ re hiding from us and all Californians , ” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut said .
Kraut and I actually didn ’ t get into this case during today ’ s conversation , but check out the entire interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FPC cases , including a case that might be of great interest to Justice Amy Coney Barrett , given her views on the Second Amendment rights of those convicted of some criminal offenses .
And after the legal discussion is through , stick around for more stories , including a legal slap on the wrist for a former Michigan state senator who shot up his ex-wife ’ s car .

It’s going to be a busy couple of years for Second Amendment groups, as they not only take on gun control activists in state legislatures and Congress, but do battle in defense of our right to keep and bear arms in courtrooms across the country. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. Adam Kraut, the Firearms Policy Coalition’s director of legal strategy, joins me to talk about some of the gun rights cases making their way through the courts, as well as what he anticipates will be the biggest threats in a potential Biden administration.
Kraut says that he’s gearing up for the ATF to launch a regulatory assault on pistol braces and 80% receivers and frames if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are sworn in as president and vice-president in January, acknowledging reports that members of the Biden transition team have already begun talking with officials at the agency even before the Electoral College has cast its votes.
The FPC and other 2A groups aren’t just going to be playing defense against the anticipated onslaught of regulatory and administrative schemes to restrict Americans’ access to commonly owned firearms. They’re also going on offense, energized by the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, which will hopefully end the reluctance of the Court to hear Second Amendment-related cases that we’ve seen for a decade now.
New challenges are being filed almost daily, and they don’t always involve gun control laws. In fact, just this week FPC began litigation against Sacramento County, California sheriff Scott Jones over his department’s withholding of information about firearms confiscations and departmental policies.
The group wants to know what guns the department has confiscated, including from Andrew Richard Casarez of Orangevale, who was served a gun violence restraining order in July. Deputies say Casarez is the leader of a neo-nazi hate group called the “Bowl Patrol.” The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office used social media posts to convince a judge to allow them to search Casarez’s home. It’s an unprecedented move that may have prevented Casarez from carrying out serious crimes, the sheriff’s office said. The FPC says people have a right to know how the government is enforcing its laws and policies. “The defendants’ denial of our requests is particularly concerning in light of it being a significant matter of great public interest, and we look forward to finding out what they’re hiding from us and all Californians,” FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut said.
Kraut and I actually didn’t get into this case during today’s conversation, but check out the entire interview above for details on a few other FPC cases, including a case that might be of great interest to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, given her views on the Second Amendment rights of those convicted of some criminal offenses. And after the legal discussion is through, stick around for more stories, including a legal slap on the wrist for a former Michigan state senator who shot up his ex-wife’s car.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--Politics And Health Should Be Separated

Politics And Health Should Be Separated

For a long time , I trusted the healthcare profession .
Part of that was my time as a Navy corpsman , of course , but part of that was simply the fact that doctors and other healthcare professionals have spent a lot of time learning about the topic and it generally pays to listen to experts .
Unfortunately , though , I can ’ t actually advise that , and I don ’ t like having to say that .
It seems that these days , far too many doctors are more interested in pushing political opinions as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in sticking to their area of expertise .
In fact , they ’ re pretty bad about pretending everything is part of their expertise .
In Spokane , Washington , one physician is in hot water after spouting about politics over and over again .
The trove of documents supporting Spokane Regional Health District Administrative Officer Amelia Clark ’ s push to fire Dr. Bob Lutz as health officer illuminates tensions that had been building for months .
Some of the emails and documents also appear to show behind-the-scenes political pressure from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Health , who didn ’ t appreciate Lutz writing about systemic racism , attending a Black Lives Matter rally , or his encouraging gun control as it relates to reducing suicides and domestic violence .
It ’ s also clear from the documentation that Lutz butted heads with Clark , health district staff , and some members of the health board over the years for his stance on gun control , specifically as it relates to his efforts on suicide prevention .
Clark ’ s notes state that in October , Lutz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counselled — on three separate occasions — not to contact legislators and board members in his capacity as Health Officer regarding SRHD operations without first consulting administrator.
” On Oct. 12 , Lutz emailed a link to an academic article on gun access and its role in gun deaths in the home to state Sen. Andy Billig and Rep. Marcus Riccelli , who represent Spokane .
The article ’ s findings note , “ In this state-level , cross-sectional study throughout the United States , negligence-specific child access prevention firearm laws were associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm fatalities , a 15 % reduction in firearm homicides , a 12 % reduction in firearm suicides , and a 13 % reduction in unintentional firearm fatalities among children aged 0 to 14 years .
Absence of the most stringent negligence laws accounted for 29 % of pediatric firearm fatalities.
” Lutz did not quote from the article in his email to the lawmakers , but stated , “ While not a surprise any laws around firearms would be seen as controversial , common sense public health measures have an impact.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his official position funded by the taxpayers to push his own political positions .
Of course , Lutz has the same right to his opinions as any other American .
He also has a right to share them , even if they ’ re idiotic .
Where he runs into a problem is when he takes taxpayer money and uses that position to advocate for those opinions .
At that point , he ’ s not just an ordinary American , he ’ s a public official pushing for political change .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in listening to what health officials have to say about much of anything else .
Their trust in these officials has been eroded by years of people hiding behind their office and pushing their personal opinions as if they ’ re simple facts .
It ’ s one thing when an elected official does it–people elect them because of those opinions–but it ’ s quite another when a bureaucrat does it .
Lutz may well feel completely justified by his actions , but has he thought about the damage such advocacy can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
“ Wear a mask to prevent the spread of a virus , ” Lutz would say , yet how many might have been interested in listening to someone like him , but won ’ t because we now know he ’ s more interested in pushing politics than public health ?
The thing is , Lutz isn ’ t unique .
Doctors like him fill public health roles all over the nation .
They ’ re people who let their politics drive their thinking , thus making every move they make questionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more damage than they can ever imagine to the trust required for them to do their jobs .
Frankly , people like this need to be fired , if for no other reason than to restore that trust .
If it can be restored .

For a long time, I trusted the healthcare profession. Part of that was my time as a Navy corpsman, of course, but part of that was simply the fact that doctors and other healthcare professionals have spent a lot of time learning about the topic and it generally pays to listen to experts.
Unfortunately, though, I can’t actually advise that, and I don’t like having to say that. It seems that these days, far too many doctors are more interested in pushing political opinions as if they’re gospel truths than they are in sticking to their area of expertise. In fact, they’re pretty bad about pretending everything is part of their expertise.
In Spokane, Washington, one physician is in hot water after spouting about politics over and over again.
The trove of documents supporting Spokane Regional Health District Administrative Officer Amelia Clark’s push to fire Dr. Bob Lutz as health officer illuminates tensions that had been building for months. Some of the emails and documents also appear to show behind-the-scenes political pressure from members of the district’s Board of Health, who didn’t appreciate Lutz writing about systemic racism, attending a Black Lives Matter rally, or his encouraging gun control as it relates to reducing suicides and domestic violence. … It’s also clear from the documentation that Lutz butted heads with Clark, health district staff, and some members of the health board over the years for his stance on gun control, specifically as it relates to his efforts on suicide prevention. Clark’s notes state that in October, Lutz “directly contacted local officials despite being counselled — on three separate occasions — not to contact legislators and board members in his capacity as Health Officer regarding SRHD operations without first consulting administrator.” On Oct. 12, Lutz emailed a link to an academic article on gun access and its role in gun deaths in the home to state Sen. Andy Billig and Rep. Marcus Riccelli, who represent Spokane. The article’s findings note, “In this state-level, cross-sectional study throughout the United States, negligence-specific child access prevention firearm laws were associated with a 13% reduction in all-intent firearm fatalities, a 15% reduction in firearm homicides, a 12% reduction in firearm suicides, and a 13% reduction in unintentional firearm fatalities among children aged 0 to 14 years. Absence of the most stringent negligence laws accounted for 29% of pediatric firearm fatalities.” Lutz did not quote from the article in his email to the lawmakers, but stated, “While not a surprise any laws around firearms would be seen as controversial, common sense public health measures have an impact.”
In other words, Lutz was using his official position funded by the taxpayers to push his own political positions.
Of course, Lutz has the same right to his opinions as any other American. He also has a right to share them, even if they’re idiotic. Where he runs into a problem is when he takes taxpayer money and uses that position to advocate for those opinions. At that point, he’s not just an ordinary American, he’s a public official pushing for political change.
This is why so many people have no interest in listening to what health officials have to say about much of anything else. Their trust in these officials has been eroded by years of people hiding behind their office and pushing their personal opinions as if they’re simple facts. It’s one thing when an elected official does it–people elect them because of those opinions–but it’s quite another when a bureaucrat does it.
Lutz may well feel completely justified by his actions, but has he thought about the damage such advocacy can do to the trust his position requires? “Wear a mask to prevent the spread of a virus,” Lutz would say, yet how many might have been interested in listening to someone like him, but won’t because we now know he’s more interested in pushing politics than public health?
The thing is, Lutz isn’t unique. Doctors like him fill public health roles all over the nation. They’re people who let their politics drive their thinking, thus making every move they make questionable.
In the process, they do more damage than they can ever imagine to the trust required for them to do their jobs. Frankly, people like this need to be fired, if for no other reason than to restore that trust.
If it can be restored.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--"The Squad" Grows, But That's An Opportunity

Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is probably the best-known member of “ The Squad , ” a group of far-left progressive socialists who have infected Congress in recent years .
None of the members of the group are known for giving a damn what the Constitution says , just what they can milk out of the American people .
Over the last two years , the four members have been an annoyance .
Unfortunately , it seems their numbers may have grown after the election .
While congressional Democrats are prematurely declaring victory after the elections , some of the newest members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A handful of progressives defeated some of the more moderate incumbent Democrats this week and are in line to join the group known as the “ Squad.
” One such addition , the newly-elected Cori Bush of Missouri ’ s First District , led the group of Black Lives Matter protesters who broke into a St. Louis gated community in June .
The last possible new member , Mondaire Jones , beat out a 30 year veteran congresswoman in New York ’ s 17th District after running on a pro-abortion , pro-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we assume all these new potential members become included–something we probably should simply because they ’ re going to vote the same , even if they don ’ t hang out–then the Squad will damn near double in size .
Yet there is an opportunity in there for gun rights proponents .
It ’ s important to recognize that while the number of these radical progressives/socialists are growing in Congress , they still only represent a handful of people , like maybe 10 percent .
Sure , it ’ s a vocal 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , they ’ re alienating a lot of moderates and centrist independents who want nothing to do with their socialistic tendencies .
These people represent a large chunk of the American population , enough to sway elections , but only if you can convince them it ’ s for the best .
Now is the time to start engaging in outreach with these people , especially on guns .
See , a lot of these people support things like universal background checks and red flag laws but don ’ t actually support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control the far left does .
It ’ s important to start talking to them about things like how red flag laws don ’ t solve the problem and how universal background checks make things difficult for law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to interfere with criminals .
And by “ outreach , ” I don ’ t mean yelling at them about how the Second Amendment says “ shall not be infringed.
” Yes , it does , but do you really think that matters ?
Seriously , how many times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universal background checks , assault weapon bans , and red flag laws and said “ shall not be infringed ” and had them reply with , “ Oh , crap !
You ’ re right .
I ’ ll completely change all my opinions on guns immediately ” and not be sarcastic as hell ?
No , we need to engage them and talk to them about why these measures are bad ideas .
We need to reach out and convince them that gun rights are good for America and that they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll start seeing our gun rights become much more secure…as well as the rest of our rights .

Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is probably the best-known member of “The Squad,” a group of far-left progressive socialists who have infected Congress in recent years. None of the members of the group are known for giving a damn what the Constitution says, just what they can milk out of the American people.
Over the last two years, the four members have been an annoyance.
Unfortunately, it seems their numbers may have grown after the election.
While congressional Democrats are prematurely declaring victory after the elections, some of the newest members of the House may split the party. A handful of progressives defeated some of the more moderate incumbent Democrats this week and are in line to join the group known as the “Squad.” One such addition, the newly-elected Cori Bush of Missouri’s First District, led the group of Black Lives Matter protesters who broke into a St. Louis gated community in June. … The last possible new member, Mondaire Jones, beat out a 30 year veteran congresswoman in New York’s 17th District after running on a pro-abortion, pro-gun control and open borders platform.
If we assume all these new potential members become included–something we probably should simply because they’re going to vote the same, even if they don’t hang out–then the Squad will damn near double in size.
That’s not good.
Yet there is an opportunity in there for gun rights proponents.
It’s important to recognize that while the number of these radical progressives/socialists are growing in Congress, they still only represent a handful of people, like maybe 10 percent. Sure, it’s a vocal 10 percent, but only 10 percent.
Meanwhile, they’re alienating a lot of moderates and centrist independents who want nothing to do with their socialistic tendencies. These people represent a large chunk of the American population, enough to sway elections, but only if you can convince them it’s for the best.
Now is the time to start engaging in outreach with these people, especially on guns.
See, a lot of these people support things like universal background checks and red flag laws but don’t actually support some of the more extreme types of gun control the far left does. It’s important to start talking to them about things like how red flag laws don’t solve the problem and how universal background checks make things difficult for law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to interfere with criminals.
And by “outreach,” I don’t mean yelling at them about how the Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” Yes, it does, but do you really think that matters?
Seriously, how many times have you looked at someone who supported universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and red flag laws and said “shall not be infringed” and had them reply with, “Oh, crap! You’re right. I’ll completely change all my opinions on guns immediately” and not be sarcastic as hell?
No, we need to engage them and talk to them about why these measures are bad ideas. We need to reach out and convince them that gun rights are good for America and that they should support them.
Do that and you’ll start seeing our gun rights become much more secure…as well as the rest of our rights.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--Burn, Baby, Burn: Arsons Up 58% In Chicago This Year

We ’ ve regularly reported on the increase in gunfire in Chicago this year , where homicides are up by almost 50 % compared to 2019 and non-fatal shootings have increased by 58 % as well .
As it turns out , these aren ’ t the only crimes that are surging in the Windy City .
The website Block Club Chicago reports that arson cases are surging as well , with 477 cases reported in 2020 compared to 302 cases in all of 2019 .
Even worse , the Chicago police may be underreporting the actual number of arsons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was the case for Derrick and Vicki Fleming , who watched their cars go up in flames on October 24th after a neighbor alerted them by banging on their apartment door early that morning .
The Flemings rushed to the back of their Logan Square building , where both of their cars were parked , and were greeted by flames .
A neighbor would later tell the Flemings he saw a man holding a gas can nearby before the fire erupted .
“ You see your vehicle in a big ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t imagine it .
It ’ s like , ‘ Am I dreaming ?
’ ” Vicky Fleming said .
Despite the fact that a neighbor saw a man with a gas can standing near the Flemings ’ vehicles and surveillance footage showed a car pulling into the alley shortly before the fire started and leaving shortly after the flames became visible , police ultimately decided that they would investigate the case as an accidental fire .
“ If they can pass this off as something else , they probably will do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , ” Vicky Fleming said .
“ We pay all of these taxes to live in the city … .
It ’ s frustrating to me.
” Block Club ’ s data analysis shows police have only made 26 arrests this year out of the 477 arsons reported in city data .
Police officials disputed that number and said they ’ ve made 43 arrests .
That ’ s a 59 percent increase in arrests compared to last year , but it still means about 91 percent of arson cases this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Block Club Chicago , about a third of the cases that are being investigated as arson involve vehicles being set ablaze , which is far higher than in previous years .
Add in cases like the Flemings , whose cars were destroyed but in an “ accident , ” and the problem is even worse .
Many Chicago residents don ’ t feel safe in their city , and for good reason .
Despite all of the gun control laws in place in Chicago , Cook County , and the state of Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being made , and city leaders like Mayor Lori Lightfoot are more interested in making viral videos than putting out the figurative and literal fires raging across Chicago .
Vicky Fleming said they ’ ve been talking about leaving Logan Square for a while , but losing their cars was the final straw : They ’ re either going to move Downtown or to the suburbs .
“ It ’ s time to go .
You have to feel safe where you live , ” Vicky Fleming said .
The Flemings aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they won ’ t be the last .
Chicago ’ s actually been losing residents for the past four years , and expect that trend to accelerate given the feckless response to the increasing lawlessness by anti-gun and soft-on-crime politicians who don ’ t want you to be able to protect yourself or your property and refuse to commit the resources necessary to ensure the safety of the public .

We’ve regularly reported on the increase in gunfire in Chicago this year, where homicides are up by almost 50% compared to 2019 and non-fatal shootings have increased by 58% as well. As it turns out, these aren’t the only crimes that are surging in the Windy City. The website Block Club Chicago reports that arson cases are surging as well, with 477 cases reported in 2020 compared to 302 cases in all of 2019.
Even worse, the Chicago police may be underreporting the actual number of arsons by classifying some cases as accidental fires. That was the case for Derrick and Vicki Fleming, who watched their cars go up in flames on October 24th after a neighbor alerted them by banging on their apartment door early that morning.
The Flemings rushed to the back of their Logan Square building, where both of their cars were parked, and were greeted by flames. A neighbor would later tell the Flemings he saw a man holding a gas can nearby before the fire erupted. “You see your vehicle in a big ball of fire and you just can’t imagine it. It’s like, ‘Am I dreaming?’” Vicky Fleming said.
Despite the fact that a neighbor saw a man with a gas can standing near the Flemings’ vehicles and surveillance footage showed a car pulling into the alley shortly before the fire started and leaving shortly after the flames became visible, police ultimately decided that they would investigate the case as an accidental fire.
“If they can pass this off as something else, they probably will do that because it’s less work for them,” Vicky Fleming said. “We pay all of these taxes to live in the city … . It’s frustrating to me.” Block Club’s data analysis shows police have only made 26 arrests this year out of the 477 arsons reported in city data. Police officials disputed that number and said they’ve made 43 arrests. That’s a 59 percent increase in arrests compared to last year, but it still means about 91 percent of arson cases this year are so far unsolved.
According to Block Club Chicago, about a third of the cases that are being investigated as arson involve vehicles being set ablaze, which is far higher than in previous years. Add in cases like the Flemings, whose cars were destroyed but in an “accident,” and the problem is even worse.
Many Chicago residents don’t feel safe in their city, and for good reason. Despite all of the gun control laws in place in Chicago, Cook County, and the state of Illinois, crime is soaring, few arrests are being made, and city leaders like Mayor Lori Lightfoot are more interested in making viral videos than putting out the figurative and literal fires raging across Chicago.
Vicky Fleming said they’ve been talking about leaving Logan Square for a while, but losing their cars was the final straw: They’re either going to move Downtown or to the suburbs. “It’s time to go. You have to feel safe where you live,” Vicky Fleming said.
The Flemings aren’t the first to leave, and they won’t be the last. Chicago’s actually been losing residents for the past four years, and expect that trend to accelerate given the feckless response to the increasing lawlessness by anti-gun and soft-on-crime politicians who don’t want you to be able to protect yourself or your property and refuse to commit the resources necessary to ensure the safety of the public.


bearingarms--2020-11-12--The Slippery Slope On Our Civil Liberties

When I grew up , learning logic wasn ’ t part of any school curriculum I was part of .
Classical education wasn ’ t much of a thing around these parts and so learning formal logic just wasn ’ t an option .
As such , I didn ’ t learn about things like logical fallacies until well into adulthood .
Once I did , though , I became fascinated with them , particularly informal fallacies .
Those are the fallacies we can most easily recognize in our day to day life .
They make it easier to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory , make them a little more criticism-proof .
However , there ’ s one fallacy called the Slippery Slope Fallacy that is kind of tricky .
See , it argues that it ’ s a fallacy to claim something will lead to a slippery slope…unless it actually will lead to a slippery slope .
In other words , it ’ s wrong unless it ’ s not wrong .
I hope that clears everything up for you all .
Anyway , slippery slopes do exist .
We in the gun rights community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s more , it ’ s not restricted to gun rights , either .
I ’ ve often heard gun rights supporters object to restrictions on gun ownership by various people ( including felons , people subject to domestic restraining orders , and the like ) by analogy to speech restrictions : We wouldn ’ t ban a person from public speaking just because he had once been convicted of a crime ( assume he ’ s out of prison now , and no longer on probation ) ; why should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Conversely , the argument goes , if courts accept the gun restrictions , those restrictions would end up being used as analogy to restrict other rights , too .
I don ’ t think this is an open-and-shut argument ; different constitutional rights involve different kinds of risks , and are therefore often treated differently .
It may well be that the dangers posed by gun ownership by people with a criminal record ( especially a record of violent crime ) may justify a ban , but the different dangers posed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is indeed more of a tradition—though only dating back about a century or less—of restrictions on gun ownership by felons .
Nonetheless , here ’ s one data point in favor of this argument , a case that I had read before but hadn ’ t focused on until now .
( I ’ m finishing up an argument on overbroad injunctions against speech , and I ’ ll be discussing the case in detail . )
The case is Best v. Marino , decided 2017 by the New Mexico Court of Appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news blog post [ Helen Shen ] ) : In this case , a restriction on gun rights is used to justify infringing on someone ’ s freedom of speech .
The case involved a reported stalker who continued to talk about her subject via internet posts .
Now , understand that I don ’ t want to delve into freedom of speech with regard to stalkers because , well , I don ’ t want to .
However , it ’ s important to understand that any infringement in one right is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , how many times have you heard people claim that gun control is acceptable because you can ’ t yell “ fire ” in a crowded theater ?
That claim is a gross oversimplification of what that case was actually about–it was about the harm caused by doing so and doesn ’ t forbid anyone else from doing it so long as there ’ s no attempt to convince people of a non-existent fire–but it ’ s still used to justify gun control .
Further , gun control can well be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s why so many of us refuse to budge on our stands against further gun control .
Not just are our gun rights vital , but so are our other civil liberties .
Those same liberties could be threatened and those threats justified by infringement of our Second Amendment rights .
No right exists in a vacuum .
All of our rights exist or all of them are threatened .
It ’ s just that simple .

When I grew up, learning logic wasn’t part of any school curriculum I was part of. Classical education wasn’t much of a thing around these parts and so learning formal logic just wasn’t an option. As such, I didn’t learn about things like logical fallacies until well into adulthood. Once I did, though, I became fascinated with them, particularly informal fallacies.
Those are the fallacies we can most easily recognize in our day to day life. They make it easier to check your arguments and, at least in theory, make them a little more criticism-proof.
However, there’s one fallacy called the Slippery Slope Fallacy that is kind of tricky. See, it argues that it’s a fallacy to claim something will lead to a slippery slope…unless it actually will lead to a slippery slope.
In other words, it’s wrong unless it’s not wrong. I hope that clears everything up for you all.
Anyway, slippery slopes do exist. We in the gun rights community have watched it first-hand for years. What’s more, it’s not restricted to gun rights, either.
I’ve often heard gun rights supporters object to restrictions on gun ownership by various people (including felons, people subject to domestic restraining orders, and the like) by analogy to speech restrictions: We wouldn’t ban a person from public speaking just because he had once been convicted of a crime (assume he’s out of prison now, and no longer on probation); why should we do the same as to guns? Conversely, the argument goes, if courts accept the gun restrictions, those restrictions would end up being used as analogy to restrict other rights, too. I don’t think this is an open-and-shut argument; different constitutional rights involve different kinds of risks, and are therefore often treated differently. It may well be that the dangers posed by gun ownership by people with a criminal record (especially a record of violent crime) may justify a ban, but the different dangers posed by speech wouldn’t; and there is indeed more of a tradition—though only dating back about a century or less—of restrictions on gun ownership by felons. Nonetheless, here’s one data point in favor of this argument, a case that I had read before but hadn’t focused on until now. (I’m finishing up an argument on overbroad injunctions against speech, and I’ll be discussing the case in detail.) The case is Best v. Marino, decided 2017 by the New Mexico Court of Appeals (for background, see this Nature news blog post [Helen Shen]):
In this case, a restriction on gun rights is used to justify infringing on someone’s freedom of speech. The case involved a reported stalker who continued to talk about her subject via internet posts.
Now, understand that I don’t want to delve into freedom of speech with regard to stalkers because, well, I don’t want to.
However, it’s important to understand that any infringement in one right is used to justify restrictions in another. For example, how many times have you heard people claim that gun control is acceptable because you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater? That claim is a gross oversimplification of what that case was actually about–it was about the harm caused by doing so and doesn’t forbid anyone else from doing it so long as there’s no attempt to convince people of a non-existent fire–but it’s still used to justify gun control.
Further, gun control can well be used to justify restricting other rights.
That’s why so many of us refuse to budge on our stands against further gun control. Not just are our gun rights vital, but so are our other civil liberties. Those same liberties could be threatened and those threats justified by infringement of our Second Amendment rights.
No right exists in a vacuum. All of our rights exist or all of them are threatened. It’s just that simple.