bearingarms--2020-06-22--Virginia Cities Adopting New Gun Control Laws As Northam's Agenda Takes Effect

Technically , the half-dozen gun control laws signed by Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam don ’ t take effect until July 1st , but city council members in Alexandria , Virginia aren ’ t waiting for them to kick in before passing some local restrictions of their own .
Empowered by a new law that allows cities to ban guns in government buildings and public spaces , politicians in the D.C. suburb unanimously approved those restrictions during a Saturday session that featured speakers both pro and con weighing in .
A number of people spoke in support and opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council .
Those opposed cited concerns such as Second Amendment rights , personal safety , and police enforcement on minority populations .
A few people brought up the 2017 shooting at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park , which injured Rep. Steve Scalise and others .
Those who supported the ordinance cited their own safety concerns about guns .
Among the speakers was Del .
Mark Levine , who spoke about the gun-wielding man who showed up outside Levine ’ s Alexandria home in opposition to gun control legislation .
The new ordinance in Alexandria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protester from his lone protest outside of Del .
Levine ’ s home , but it will make it illegal to carry a firearm in any city park .
I sincerely doubt that such a ban will prevent any criminal acts of violence like the shooting of Republican congressman , as happened back in 2017 .
Instead , it will be legal gun owners who will either be disarmed or risk jail time if they choose to violate the law and carry for self-defense in parks , City Hall , libraries , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first in the city to pass this local ordinance , but other Democrat-controlled localities will soon be following suit .
In the next few weeks , expect similar measures to be introduced and approved in Arlington , Fairfax County ( as well as Fairfax City ) , the city of Falls Church , and Loudon County in northern Virginia .
College towns like Charlottesville and Blacksburg will also likely adopt similar language , as will the Richmond and Roanoke city councils .
Many of the same politicians pushing these new local gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to policing , which begs the question : if they ’ re so concerned about over-policing , why are they so eager to put new laws on the books that will be enforced by armed agents of the State ?
Over the weekend , Mayor Levar Stoney in Richmond called for a new path for policing in the city , but he ’ s still trodding down the same worn-out road of criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms that he and other Democrats have been following for decades .
Memo to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you really want to “ reimagine public safety , ” then start by imagining a law enforcement agency that isn ’ t empowered to throw people in jail for simply carrying their legally owned gun in a public park or government building .
As it stands , local ordinances like the one approved in Alexandria , Virginia this weekend won ’ t do anything to increase public safety , but they will aid the continued erosion in trust between the People and the people in charge .

Technically, the half-dozen gun control laws signed by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam don’t take effect until July 1st, but city council members in Alexandria, Virginia aren’t waiting for them to kick in before passing some local restrictions of their own. Empowered by a new law that allows cities to ban guns in government buildings and public spaces, politicians in the D.C. suburb unanimously approved those restrictions during a Saturday session that featured speakers both pro and con weighing in.
A number of people spoke in support and opposition to the ordinance in virtual testimony to City Council. Those opposed cited concerns such as Second Amendment rights, personal safety, and police enforcement on minority populations. A few people brought up the 2017 shooting at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park, which injured Rep. Steve Scalise and others. Those who supported the ordinance cited their own safety concerns about guns. Among the speakers was Del. Mark Levine, who spoke about the gun-wielding man who showed up outside Levine’s Alexandria home in opposition to gun control legislation.
The new ordinance in Alexandria wouldn’t have stopped the armed protester from his lone protest outside of Del. Levine’s home, but it will make it illegal to carry a firearm in any city park. I sincerely doubt that such a ban will prevent any criminal acts of violence like the shooting of Republican congressman, as happened back in 2017. Instead, it will be legal gun owners who will either be disarmed or risk jail time if they choose to violate the law and carry for self-defense in parks, City Hall, libraries, or community centers.
The Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine up to $2,500. Exceptions are provided to military personnel acting in the scope of their duties, sworn law enforcement officers, private security personnel hired by the city, Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs at higher education institutions, intercollegiate athletics program involving firearms at higher education institutions, and historical re-enactors using unloaded guns for demonstrations.
Alexandria may be the first in the city to pass this local ordinance, but other Democrat-controlled localities will soon be following suit. In the next few weeks, expect similar measures to be introduced and approved in Arlington, Fairfax County (as well as Fairfax City), the city of Falls Church, and Loudon County in northern Virginia. College towns like Charlottesville and Blacksburg will also likely adopt similar language, as will the Richmond and Roanoke city councils.
Many of the same politicians pushing these new local gun control measures are also pushing for dramatic changes to policing, which begs the question: if they’re so concerned about over-policing, why are they so eager to put new laws on the books that will be enforced by armed agents of the State? Over the weekend, Mayor Levar Stoney in Richmond called for a new path for policing in the city, but he’s still trodding down the same worn-out road of criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms that he and other Democrats have been following for decades.
Memo to Mayor Stoney and other Virginia politicians: if you really want to “reimagine public safety,” then start by imagining a law enforcement agency that isn’t empowered to throw people in jail for simply carrying their legally owned gun in a public park or government building. As it stands, local ordinances like the one approved in Alexandria, Virginia this weekend won’t do anything to increase public safety, but they will aid the continued erosion in trust between the People and the people in charge.


bearingarms--2020-06-22--The CHOP Officially Turns Violent With Second Shooting

Over the weekend , those of us paying attention to Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill Occupy Protest ( CHOP ) saw something we knew we ’ d see sooner or later .
In an era with absolutely no police presence allowed , we ’ d see some pretty serious crimes .
Oh , there ’ s plenty of hippy-dippy feel-good stuff in the CHOP to make fun of , to be sure , but police don ’ t just arrest criminals .
They deter crime .
When you don ’ t have any around , you just encourage the monsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the CHOP .
On Saturday , it was reported that two individuals were shot in the autonomous area of Seattle , one fatally .
One man was reported dead and another person was shot and wounded in an overnight shooting at the Capitol Hill protest zone .
Police have confirmed the shooting but have not released further details .
It was not clear if any suspects were in custody .
UPDATE 10:10 AM : Seattle Police have confirmed CHS ’ s early reports on the shooting and say that a 19-year-old is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests : On June 20th , at approximately 2:30 AM , East Precinct officers responded to a report of shots fired in Cal Anderson Park .
This is inside the area referred to as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest ( CHOP ) .
Officers attempted to locate a shooting victim but were met by a violent crowd that prevented officers safe access to the victims .
Officers were later informed that the victims , both males , had been transported to Harborview Medical Center by CHOP medics .
Officers responded to Harborview and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a 19-year-old male , had died from injuries .
The other victim , also a male , unknown age , remains in the hospital with life-threatening injuries .
The suspect or suspect ( s ) fled and are still at large .
There is no description at this time .
Homicide detectives responded and are conducting a thorough investigation , despite the challenges presented by the circumstances .
Police are asking for the public ’ s assistance in gathering evidence .
Anyone with information about the shooting or who may have video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Seattle Police Department ’ s Violent Crime tip line at ( 206 ) 233-5000 .
District 3 Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant went on the attack , releasing a statement that there was evidence that this was a right-wing attack .
However , that evidence appears to be a couple of people making claims with zero evidence to back them up at this time , and that ’ s a big problem .
You see , these aren ’ t unbiased bystanders .
These are people who have made it clear they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their agenda , which means it wouldn ’ t be surprising if they just made up anything the could to try and paint the entire CHOP as the victims .
White guys with long guns and pickup trucks .
The quintessential version of the right in the minds of many of these folks .
All of that has since been walked back because it appears the shooter may have been an African-American male , thus proving those early reports false .
All of that kind of makes you wonder what will happen now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting in the same weekend .
Unfortunately , they haven ’ t been permitted to investigate the first shooting so far , so it ’ s unlikely they ’ ll get much in the way of an opportunity to investigate this one .
As such , there have been no arrests in either case .
However , this is precisely what many thought would happen within the CHOP .
You see , for all the “ peace and love ” BS being spouted by some in reference to the CHOP–Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second “ Summer of Love ” –the truth is that it ’ s a lawless area of a major American city .
There ’ s no way to catch the people responsible for the shootings unless the police can investigate , yet this is a group of people who view the police as nothing more than jackbooted thugs looking for an opportunity to kill them all .
Which , if it were true , would have already resulted in numerous CHOP residents being killed by law enforcement .
It hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t help but wonder just how many other crimes are taking place in the CHOP right now .
We ’ ve heard of the odd theft here and there , of course , and we have two shootings , but how many assaults are there ?
How many more serious acts of violence ?
This isn ’ t the “ Summer of Love.
” It ’ s shaping up to be the Summer of Anarchy , and that ’ s on Durkan and Governor Jay Inslee for letting this continue .

Over the weekend, those of us paying attention to Seattle’s Capitol Hill Occupy Protest (CHOP) saw something we knew we’d see sooner or later. In an era with absolutely no police presence allowed, we’d see some pretty serious crimes. Oh, there’s plenty of hippy-dippy feel-good stuff in the CHOP to make fun of, to be sure, but police don’t just arrest criminals. They deter crime.
When you don’t have any around, you just encourage the monsters, and that’s what happened in the CHOP.
On Saturday, it was reported that two individuals were shot in the autonomous area of Seattle, one fatally.
One man was reported dead and another person was shot and wounded in an overnight shooting at the Capitol Hill protest zone. Police have confirmed the shooting but have not released further details. It was not clear if any suspects were in custody. UPDATE 10:10 AM: Seattle Police have confirmed CHS’s early reports on the shooting and say that a 19-year-old is dead and that there have been no arrests: On June 20th, at approximately 2:30 AM, East Precinct officers responded to a report of shots fired in Cal Anderson Park. This is inside the area referred to as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Officers attempted to locate a shooting victim but were met by a violent crowd that prevented officers safe access to the victims. Officers were later informed that the victims, both males, had been transported to Harborview Medical Center by CHOP medics. Officers responded to Harborview and were informed that one of the victims, a 19-year-old male, had died from injuries. The other victim, also a male, unknown age, remains in the hospital with life-threatening injuries. The suspect or suspect(s) fled and are still at large. There is no description at this time. Homicide detectives responded and are conducting a thorough investigation, despite the challenges presented by the circumstances. Police are asking for the public’s assistance in gathering evidence. Anyone with information about the shooting or who may have video from the incident is asked to contact the Seattle Police Department’s Violent Crime tip line at (206) 233-5000.
District 3 Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant went on the attack, releasing a statement that there was evidence that this was a right-wing attack. However, that evidence appears to be a couple of people making claims with zero evidence to back them up at this time, and that’s a big problem.
You see, these aren’t unbiased bystanders. These are people who have made it clear they’d seize any opportunity to advance their agenda, which means it wouldn’t be surprising if they just made up anything the could to try and paint the entire CHOP as the victims.
“Eyewitnesses reported multiple white men with long guns in a pickup truck as doing the shooting,” wrote Geov Parrish of KODX Seattle on Facebook. “White men shooting, and the deceased was an African American male. Reportedly. There’s a lot we don’t know yet.” Though he acknowledged they were just early reports, Parrish went on to point fingers.
White guys with long guns and pickup trucks. The quintessential version of the right in the minds of many of these folks.
All of that has since been walked back because it appears the shooter may have been an African-American male, thus proving those early reports false.
All of that kind of makes you wonder what will happen now that there’s been a second shooting in the same weekend.
Seattle police are investigating a shooting in the area of the Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, also known as CHOP. It’s the second shooting in the CHOP area in two days. A person was taken to Harborview Medical Center with a gunshot wound and is in serious condition, according to hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg.
Seattle police tweeted about the incident.
Police investigating reported shooting inside CHOP zone. One person at HMC with gun shot wound. Hearing reports of a second shooting, but have not be able to verify at this time. Conflicting reports, will update with more information when available. — Seattle Police Dept. (@SeattlePD) June 22, 2020
Unfortunately, they haven’t been permitted to investigate the first shooting so far, so it’s unlikely they’ll get much in the way of an opportunity to investigate this one. As such, there have been no arrests in either case.
However, this is precisely what many thought would happen within the CHOP.
You see, for all the “peace and love” BS being spouted by some in reference to the CHOP–Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan suggested this could be the beginning of a second “Summer of Love”–the truth is that it’s a lawless area of a major American city. There’s no way to catch the people responsible for the shootings unless the police can investigate, yet this is a group of people who view the police as nothing more than jackbooted thugs looking for an opportunity to kill them all.
Which, if it were true, would have already resulted in numerous CHOP residents being killed by law enforcement. It hasn’t.
Regardless, though, we can’t help but wonder just how many other crimes are taking place in the CHOP right now. We’ve heard of the odd theft here and there, of course, and we have two shootings, but how many assaults are there? How many more serious acts of violence?
This isn’t the “Summer of Love.” It’s shaping up to be the Summer of Anarchy, and that’s on Durkan and Governor Jay Inslee for letting this continue.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Gun Control Invading Local PTAs Everywhere

I don ’ t spend a lot of time with the local PTA .
While I still have one kid in grade school and another now in college , I never really could sit through one of the boring PTA meetings .
I respect parents who want to make the school better and I ’ m willing to help where I can , but my ADHD rear can ’ t sit through endless Karens talking about how important it is to understand car pickup etiquette .
However , it seems that another group of folks are more than happy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invitation from my local public school district to attend a “ safety forum.
” It wasn ’ t going to cover the variety of health-and-safety issues relevant to kids today—opioid abuse , underage drinking , reckless driving , online bullying , physical violence and sexual assault or harassment .
Instead , the entire safety forum would focus on one issue : guns .
Speakers were to include a representative from the national PTA , the district ’ s superintendent , a school-safety officer , a mental-health specialist , the city ’ s police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and Be SMART program representative who would speak about gun safety and storage .
To most parents in my neighborhood , this forum looked pretty innocuous—just another routine school event that few would attend .
But I knew it wasn ’ t just your run-of-the-mill meeting .
This promised to be pure political advocacy meant to push the anti-firearms narrative and scare parents about those in the community who own and store guns in their homes .
I knew this because I was well aware that the friendly sounding Be SMART organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Everytown For Gun Safety—the two leading radical anti-gun advocacy groups in the United States , all funded by former New York Mayor , failed presidential candidate and hater of individuals ’ choice to consume sugar or salt , Michael Bloomberg .
See , Be SMART doesn ’ t present itself as anything but an arm of Moms Demand Action and Everytown , but is instead the shield these groups use to pretend they ’ re actually about gun safety .
SMART is an acronym that pushes their ideas , though .
Secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Model responsible behavior around guns .
Ask about the presence of unsecured guns in homes .
Recognize the role of guns in suicides .
Tell your peers to be SMART .
The first two are pretty unobjectionable .
The third , however , is where they start to lose me and by the fourth , they ’ re letting their anti-gun bias shine through plain as day .
Yet PTA groups all over the nation are buying into this nonsense , as if Be SMART were really just some unbiased safety group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PTA isn ’ t going to turn to the NRA for gun safety .
Sure , the NRA has been preaching safety for years and advocates securing weapons as well , but the NRA is tainted as far as many people are concerned .
Some honestly believe the NRA would advocate sending Junior to school with a rocket launcher in his backpack , after all .
They don ’ t , of course , but some people don ’ t care about facts .
Yet Be SMART really is just as biased as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other side of the coin .
Worse than that , though , is the fact that they don ’ t actually understand firearms and gun owners well enough to actually understand how guns are used .
Further , they forget to mention at any point teaching your kids not to go through other people ’ s things , much less teaches them what to do if they come across a gun “ in the wild , ” so to speak .
In the original piece , posted at America ’ s First Freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the police have given these tips .
She never received an answer , but it ’ s an excellent question .
Law enforcement is much more neutral on something like this .
Their advice would include securing your firearms , of course , and even modeling good behavior with guns , but they ’ d also likely tell you to teach your kids not to handle a firearm they find and to notify an adult .
Maybe it ’ s me , but that ’ s so much more productive than bugging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have guns or not .
Of course , Be SMART isn ’ t really about safety .
It ’ s just the thing these groups can point to when they ’ re called out for their pretending to give a damn about gun safety .
What it really is , besides a shield , is a way to start pushing the anti-gun narrative to younger people and terrified parents .

I don’t spend a lot of time with the local PTA. While I still have one kid in grade school and another now in college, I never really could sit through one of the boring PTA meetings. I respect parents who want to make the school better and I’m willing to help where I can, but my ADHD rear can’t sit through endless Karens talking about how important it is to understand car pickup etiquette.
However, it seems that another group of folks are more than happy to step in.
I recently received an invitation from my local public school district to attend a “safety forum.” It wasn’t going to cover the variety of health-and-safety issues relevant to kids today—opioid abuse, underage drinking, reckless driving, online bullying, physical violence and sexual assault or harassment. Instead, the entire safety forum would focus on one issue: guns. Speakers were to include a representative from the national PTA, the district’s superintendent, a school-safety officer, a mental-health specialist, the city’s police chief and an “early childhood advocate” and Be SMART program representative who would speak about gun safety and storage. To most parents in my neighborhood, this forum looked pretty innocuous—just another routine school event that few would attend. But I knew it wasn’t just your run-of-the-mill meeting. This promised to be pure political advocacy meant to push the anti-firearms narrative and scare parents about those in the community who own and store guns in their homes. I knew this because I was well aware that the friendly sounding Be SMART organization was an appendage of Moms Demand Action and Everytown For Gun Safety—the two leading radical anti-gun advocacy groups in the United States, all funded by former New York Mayor, failed presidential candidate and hater of individuals’ choice to consume sugar or salt, Michael Bloomberg.
See, Be SMART doesn’t present itself as anything but an arm of Moms Demand Action and Everytown, but is instead the shield these groups use to pretend they’re actually about gun safety.
SMART is an acronym that pushes their ideas, though.
Secure all guns in your home or car.
Model responsible behavior around guns.
Ask about the presence of unsecured guns in homes.
Recognize the role of guns in suicides.
Tell your peers to be SMART.
The first two are pretty unobjectionable. The third, however, is where they start to lose me and by the fourth, they’re letting their anti-gun bias shine through plain as day.
Yet PTA groups all over the nation are buying into this nonsense, as if Be SMART were really just some unbiased safety group.
Look, I get that the PTA isn’t going to turn to the NRA for gun safety. Sure, the NRA has been preaching safety for years and advocates securing weapons as well, but the NRA is tainted as far as many people are concerned. Some honestly believe the NRA would advocate sending Junior to school with a rocket launcher in his backpack, after all.
They don’t, of course, but some people don’t care about facts.
Yet Be SMART really is just as biased as the NRA is, just on the other side of the coin. Worse than that, though, is the fact that they don’t actually understand firearms and gun owners well enough to actually understand how guns are used. Further, they forget to mention at any point teaching your kids not to go through other people’s things, much less teaches them what to do if they come across a gun “in the wild,” so to speak.
In the original piece, posted at America’s First Freedom, the author asks why couldn’t the police have given these tips. She never received an answer, but it’s an excellent question. Law enforcement is much more neutral on something like this. Their advice would include securing your firearms, of course, and even modeling good behavior with guns, but they’d also likely tell you to teach your kids not to handle a firearm they find and to notify an adult.
Maybe it’s me, but that’s so much more productive than bugging their friends’ parents about whether they have guns or not.
Of course, Be SMART isn’t really about safety. It’s just the thing these groups can point to when they’re called out for their pretending to give a damn about gun safety. What it really is, besides a shield, is a way to start pushing the anti-gun narrative to younger people and terrified parents.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--"Abolish Police" Movement Losing Popularity As Violence Soars In Minneapolis?

As members of the Minneapolis City Council continue to push to abolish the city ’ s police department , Mayor Jacob Frey is moving in the opposite direction .
In the wake of a staggering rise in violence and shootings across the city , Frey announced on Monday that the city ’ s police department is going to be working with other law enforcement agencies from the Hennepin County Sheriff ’ s office to the FBI , ATF , and Secret Service in an effort to restore some semblance of peace to city streets .
“ The violence and lawlessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days is not acceptable in any form , ” Frey said .
“ Residents , businesses and all that choose to be in Minneapolis for any reason deserve to feel safe.
” Police Chief Medaria Arradondo declined to reveal how the other agencies will interact with his department , but he said it would include being a visible presence as well as providing intelligence .
Arradondo , the city ’ s first black police chief , made a point to remind the public that many of the gunshot victims “ are members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their lives are not disposable .
This can not become our new normal.
” According to the Star-Tribune newspaper , 111 people have been shot in the city in the past four weeks , including twelve people shot in one incident in the city ’ s Uptown neighborhood over the weekend .
Nine more people were shot on Monday in three separate incidents .
Monday afternoon saw police at three scenes of gunfire .
Shortly after 2:30 p.m. , ShotSpotter technology recorded the sound of 41 rounds at N. 16th and Newton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to the hospital in critical condition , while three others came away with noncritical wounds .
Then shortly after 4 p.m. , four people suffered gunshot wounds in a commercial stretch in the 600 block of W. Broadway .
Another person was injured by gunfire shortly before 7 p.m. at 25th Ave and 4th Street .
Two people were also stabbed , one fatally , in the 500 block of Nicollet downtown Monday afternoon .
WCCO-TV reports that the city ’ s Shot Spotter system has logged 1,600 shots fired over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have been on board with abolishing the city ’ s police department a month ago are speaking up now about the need for a greater response from officers .
[ Dustin ] Sanchez , a father or four , says his family chose the area because of walkability and convenience .
Lately , he says it ’ s been a hotbed of tension and frustration.
” “ There is like zero authority here .
We ’ ve called 911 a couple of times and they told us we were on our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come down and help .
There is no help with city officials or police right now .
There are literally citizens trying to keep people off our block right now , keep people off our street , ” Sanchez said .
“ I just want to have a family and live here and enjoy here in our community , watch it continue to grow.
” “ Have some common sense , ” Harris said .
“ There ’ s no need for the violence , we need to come together.
” City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had bottles and rocks thrown at them .
But at Broadway and Lyndale avenues , community activists urged people to partner with police .
Lisa Clemons and Jamar Nelson are with the group A Mother ’ s Love .
They want to work with law enforcement to end violence and are upset that Minneapolis City Council members want the department disbanded .
Gun sales are still brisk in the Twin Cities , and you ’ ll still find plenty of armed citizens protecting themselves , their families , and even their neighborhoods as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters as they respond to calls .
In order to address the gang members and violent criminals who are no doubt emboldened by the city ’ s response to the looting and rioting in the wake of the killing of George Floyd , however , the city is going to need more than armed citizens acting in self-defense .
They need a law enforcement agency empowered to make arrests , and a criminal justice system that will treat violence seriously .
You can ’ t have that if your police department ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no matter how hard-working and well-meaning they might be .

As members of the Minneapolis City Council continue to push to abolish the city’s police department, Mayor Jacob Frey is moving in the opposite direction. In the wake of a staggering rise in violence and shootings across the city, Frey announced on Monday that the city’s police department is going to be working with other law enforcement agencies from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s office to the FBI, ATF, and Secret Service in an effort to restore some semblance of peace to city streets.
“The violence and lawlessness that we’ve seen the last few days is not acceptable in any form,” Frey said. “Residents, businesses and all that choose to be in Minneapolis for any reason deserve to feel safe.” Police Chief Medaria Arradondo declined to reveal how the other agencies will interact with his department, but he said it would include being a visible presence as well as providing intelligence. Arradondo, the city’s first black police chief, made a point to remind the public that many of the gunshot victims “are members of the African-American community … young men. Their lives are not disposable. This cannot become our new normal.”
According to the Star-Tribune newspaper, 111 people have been shot in the city in the past four weeks, including twelve people shot in one incident in the city’s Uptown neighborhood over the weekend. Nine more people were shot on Monday in three separate incidents.
Monday afternoon saw police at three scenes of gunfire. Shortly after 2:30 p.m., ShotSpotter technology recorded the sound of 41 rounds at N. 16th and Newton avenues, police said. One person went to the hospital in critical condition, while three others came away with noncritical wounds. Then shortly after 4 p.m., four people suffered gunshot wounds in a commercial stretch in the 600 block of W. Broadway. Another person was injured by gunfire shortly before 7 p.m. at 25th Ave and 4th Street. Two people were also stabbed, one fatally, in the 500 block of Nicollet downtown Monday afternoon.
WCCO-TV reports that the city’s Shot Spotter system has logged 1,600 shots fired over the past month, and many residents who may have been on board with abolishing the city’s police department a month ago are speaking up now about the need for a greater response from officers.
[Dustin] Sanchez, a father or four, says his family chose the area because of walkability and convenience. Lately, he says it’s been a hotbed of tension and frustration.” “There is like zero authority here. We’ve called 911 a couple of times and they told us we were on our own because they don’t have people to come down and help. There is no help with city officials or police right now. There are literally citizens trying to keep people off our block right now, keep people off our street,” Sanchez said. “I just want to have a family and live here and enjoy here in our community, watch it continue to grow.” Kory Harris is another concerned neighbor. “Have some common sense,” Harris said. “There’s no need for the violence, we need to come together.” City leaders say officers responding to shootings have had bottles and rocks thrown at them. But at Broadway and Lyndale avenues, community activists urged people to partner with police. Lisa Clemons and Jamar Nelson are with the group A Mother’s Love. They want to work with law enforcement to end violence and are upset that Minneapolis City Council members want the department disbanded.
Gun sales are still brisk in the Twin Cities, and you’ll still find plenty of armed citizens protecting themselves, their families, and even their neighborhoods as police continue to be confronted with violent protesters as they respond to calls. In order to address the gang members and violent criminals who are no doubt emboldened by the city’s response to the looting and rioting in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, however, the city is going to need more than armed citizens acting in self-defense. They need a law enforcement agency empowered to make arrests, and a criminal justice system that will treat violence seriously. You can’t have that if your police department’s been abolished and replaced with social workers, no matter how hard-working and well-meaning they might be.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Albuquerque's Mayor Bans Guns In Parks With An End Run Around State Constitution

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller issued a new administrative order on Monday barring the possession of firearms from all city-owned parks and recreation facilities , though the order would appear to directly conflict with language in the New Mexico state constitution .
The new order comes days after a shooting at an Albuquerque protest in the city ’ s Old Town , where a man shot a protester who was attacking him .
31-year old Steven Ray Baca is facing charges of carrying a firearm without a license , but for now anyway he ’ s not facing any charges over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues , Mayor Keller is citing the incident as reason to issue the ban , though his take on the legality of the new order leaves a lot to be desired .
The order references the shooting near Tiguex Park .
“ With the Albuquerque Police Department recovering a large number of firearms and ammunition , that incident had the potential to be much more violent than it was , ” it reads .
“ The City of Albuquerque has the police power to protect its inhabitants and preserve peace and order under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exercise this authority to prevent future incidents like the shooting on June 15 , 2020.
” “ In declaring the Second Amendment ’ s individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller , ” the order goes on , “ the United States Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of prohibitions on carrying firearms in ‘ sensitive places.
’ ” It says the high court in that case specifically noted schools and government buildings as sensitive places , but didn ’ t provide an exhaustive list .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that municipalities may “ protect generally the property of its municipality and its inhabitants ” as well as “ preserve peace and order within the municipality , ” but that doesn ’ t give cities carte blanche to do whatever mayors want in order to preserve the peace or protect property .
They still have to remain within the bounds of both the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions .
Keller ’ s order references Heller in trying to claim that parks and recreation centers are now suddenly “ sensitive places ” in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only briefly mentions Article II , Section 6 of the New Mexico constitution , which clearly contradicts Keller ’ s authority to issue any such order at all .
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense , for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes , but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons .
No municipality or county shall regulate , in any way , an incident of the right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his order is lawful doesn ’ t violate the preemption language in the state constitution , but he ’ s relying on a misreading of the state statute barring the carrying of firearms on school grounds in order to make his legal case .
The mayor claims that , because parks and recreation centers are used for some public school activities , that means that they ’ re considered school grounds for the purposes of banning firearms .
The mayor ’ s problem is biggest problem is that the state statutes actually proscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be off limits to legal firearms carrying .
The statutes says that the ban on carrying firearms can take place at “ any other public buildings or grounds , including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property , in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed ” ( emphasis mine ) .
Are being performed , not “ can be performed.
” Keller ’ s order bars firearm possession at parks and recreation centers , the city ’ s Convention Center ( because graduations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because there ’ s playground equipment there and sometimes a nearby school uses the playground for P.E . )
, and “ any other City of Albuquerque property public school-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
” Notice the difference ?
In this case , one word makes a big difference .
State law does not allow Albuquerque to ban guns from the Civic Center just because it hosts graduations a few days a year .
Similarly , they can ’ t ban guns from local parks or recreation areas unless they are actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As soon as the soccer practice ends , so does the prohibition on carrying .
I ’ m not even an attorney and I can see how bad the mayor ’ s legal claim to authority is here .
Keller ’ s order is in clear violation of the state constitution , and he ’ s completely misreading the state statutes about possession of firearms on school premises .
I ’ ve spoken with representatives from several Second Amendment groups that are already looking at filing a lawsuit over the city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a slam dunk victory .
Mayor Keller may not be able to keep his city under control , but that ’ s no excuse for his attempt to circumvent the state ’ s constitution and the rights of Albuquerque gun owners .

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller issued a new administrative order on Monday barring the possession of firearms from all city-owned parks and recreation facilities, though the order would appear to directly conflict with language in the New Mexico state constitution.
The new order comes days after a shooting at an Albuquerque protest in the city’s Old Town, where a man shot a protester who was attacking him. 31-year old Steven Ray Baca is facing charges of carrying a firearm without a license, but for now anyway he’s not facing any charges over the shooting itself. While that investigation continues, Mayor Keller is citing the incident as reason to issue the ban, though his take on the legality of the new order leaves a lot to be desired.
The order references the shooting near Tiguex Park. “With the Albuquerque Police Department recovering a large number of firearms and ammunition, that incident had the potential to be much more violent than it was,” it reads. “The City of Albuquerque has the police power to protect its inhabitants and preserve peace and order under NMSA 1978, 3-18-1, and desires to exercise this authority to prevent future incidents like the shooting on June 15, 2020.” “In declaring the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller,” the order goes on, “the United States Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of prohibitions on carrying firearms in ‘sensitive places.’” It says the high court in that case specifically noted schools and government buildings as sensitive places, but didn’t provide an exhaustive list.
It’s true that the New Mexico statutes say that municipalities may “protect generally the property of its municipality and its inhabitants” as well as “preserve peace and order within the municipality,” but that doesn’t give cities carte blanche to do whatever mayors want in order to preserve the peace or protect property. They still have to remain within the bounds of both the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions.
Keller’s order references Heller in trying to claim that parks and recreation centers are now suddenly “sensitive places” in the eyes of city officials, but it only briefly mentions Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico constitution, which clearly contradicts Keller’s authority to issue any such order at all.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Keller is claiming that his order is lawful doesn’t violate the preemption language in the state constitution, but he’s relying on a misreading of the state statute barring the carrying of firearms on school grounds in order to make his legal case. The mayor claims that, because parks and recreation centers are used for some public school activities, that means that they’re considered school grounds for the purposes of banning firearms. The mayor’s problem is biggest problem is that the state statutes actually proscribe specific limits on when those places may be off limits to legal firearms carrying.
The statutes says that the ban on carrying firearms can take place at “any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property, in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed” (emphasis mine).
Are being performed, not “can be performed.” Keller’s order bars firearm possession at parks and recreation centers, the city’s Convention Center (because graduations are performed there), Civic Plaza (because there’s playground equipment there and sometimes a nearby school uses the playground for P.E.), and “any other City of Albuquerque property public school-related and sanctioned activities are performed.”
Notice the difference? In this case, one word makes a big difference. State law does not allow Albuquerque to ban guns from the Civic Center just because it hosts graduations a few days a year. Similarly, they can’t ban guns from local parks or recreation areas unless they are actually in use by a local school. As soon as the soccer practice ends, so does the prohibition on carrying.
I’m not even an attorney and I can see how bad the mayor’s legal claim to authority is here. Keller’s order is in clear violation of the state constitution, and he’s completely misreading the state statutes about possession of firearms on school premises. I’ve spoken with representatives from several Second Amendment groups that are already looking at filing a lawsuit over the city’s new gun ordinance, and it should be a slam dunk victory. Mayor Keller may not be able to keep his city under control, but that’s no excuse for his attempt to circumvent the state’s constitution and the rights of Albuquerque gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--For CHOP, The End Is Nigh

For CHOP, The End Is Nigh

The Capitol Hill Occupy Protest was bound and determined to build their own Utopia in the middle of Seattle .
They pushed out the police and set up what was , for all intents and purposes , their own government .
Of sorts , anyway .
The City of Seattle was happy to have them .
Even though they demanded the resignation of Mayor Jenny Durkan , she encouraged them .
She even set up concrete barriers to keep them safe , giving them a kind of endorsement .
We don ’ t know how long the CHOP would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had , but when there are two shootings in as many days in an area that isn ’ t allowing the police to enter , there ’ s a problem .
Even Durkan was forced to walk back some of her support .
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan continues to be lambasted for a June 11 interview with CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo , during which she suggested the occupied protest around the city ’ s east police precinct could simply be a “ summer of love.
” The remark has not aged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her comments on CNN , the zone referred to as CHOP ( Capitol Hill Occupied Protest ) has seen several serious and violent crimes , including an attempted arson , multiple assaults captured on video , and the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old .
In an interview Thursday , prior to the deadly shooting in CHOP , Mayor Durkan acknowledged her poor choice of words .
“ I clearly said that in jest , it probably was not the smart thing to do , ” she said .
No , it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really anything to suggest it was a joke .
Honestly , if that was all Durkan had to do , it would be enough .
The CHOP is a blight not just on Seattle , but on her tenure as mayor of the city .
It ’ s something that will be brought up again and again if her political career continues .
However , it ’ s not all she has to do .
Luckily , it seems things have progressed to the point that even Durkan has to acknowledge more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s doing it .
aced with growing pressure to crack down on an “ occupied ” protest zone following two weekend shootings , Seattle ’ s mayor said Monday that officials will move to wind down the blocks-long span of city streets taken over two weeks ago that President Donald Trump asserted is run by “ anarchists.
” Mayor Jenny Durkan said the violence was distracting from changes sought by thousands of peaceful protesters opposing racial inequity and police brutality .
She said at a news conference that the city is working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill Occupied Protest ” zone , or CHOP , to an end and that police soon would move back into a precinct building they had largely abandoned in the area .
The mayor did not give an immediate timeline for clearing out the occupation but said “ additional steps ” would be examined if people don ’ t leave voluntarily .
With scores of people camping in a park in the protest zone , Durkan said peaceful demonstrations could continue , but nighttime disorder had to stop .
“ The cumulative impacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nighttime atmosphere and violence has led to increasingly difficult circumstances for our businesses and residents , ” Durkan said .
“ The impacts have increased and the safety has decreased.
” That ’ s great .
However , Durkan should have seen this coming from a mile away .
When you create an area without law enforcement , you create an area without law .
Without sufficient enforcement , laws are nothing but words on a page .
They have no authority in and of themselves .
Create a law and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing .
Take away the enforcement of all laws in a given space and you create anarchy .
Oh , the CHOP wasn ’ t as bad as it could have been .
It was filled with people sharing a common goal ; a goal of a Utopian society they could build on that precise spot .
It kept some of the stupid at bay for slightly longer than it otherwise would have .
But that stupid was coming one way or another .
Once it did , Durkan suddenly had a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with it .
The problem is , it should have already been dealt with well before now .
The police didn ’ t just abandon their station in the district .
They were pushed out .
Oh , they could have fought back , but it would have been ugly and deadly , something no one really needed at that moment , so they left .
As such , this wasn ’ t some spontaneously generated version of love and peace that just happened to take place in that spot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
And Durkan treated them like the greatest thing to ever hit Seattle .
I suppose we should applaud her for figuring out that the CHOP was a blight eventually .
It ’ s only too bad someone had to die for her to recognize that little tidbit .

The Capitol Hill Occupy Protest was bound and determined to build their own Utopia in the middle of Seattle. They pushed out the police and set up what was, for all intents and purposes, their own government. Of sorts, anyway.
The City of Seattle was happy to have them. Even though they demanded the resignation of Mayor Jenny Durkan, she encouraged them. She even set up concrete barriers to keep them safe, giving them a kind of endorsement.
We don’t know how long the CHOP would have been tolerated had things continued on as they had, but when there are two shootings in as many days in an area that isn’t allowing the police to enter, there’s a problem. Even Durkan was forced to walk back some of her support.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan continues to be lambasted for a June 11 interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, during which she suggested the occupied protest around the city’s east police precinct could simply be a “summer of love.” The remark has not aged well. In the ten days since her comments on CNN, the zone referred to as CHOP (Capitol Hill Occupied Protest) has seen several serious and violent crimes, including an attempted arson, multiple assaults captured on video, and the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old. … In an interview Thursday, prior to the deadly shooting in CHOP, Mayor Durkan acknowledged her poor choice of words. “I clearly said that in jest, it probably was not the smart thing to do,” she said.
No, it wasn’t. Especially since there wasn’t really anything to suggest it was a joke.
Honestly, if that was all Durkan had to do, it would be enough. The CHOP is a blight not just on Seattle, but on her tenure as mayor of the city. It’s something that will be brought up again and again if her political career continues.
However, it’s not all she has to do. Luckily, it seems things have progressed to the point that even Durkan has to acknowledge more is needed. More importantly, she’s doing it.
aced with growing pressure to crack down on an “occupied” protest zone following two weekend shootings, Seattle’s mayor said Monday that officials will move to wind down the blocks-long span of city streets taken over two weeks ago that President Donald Trump asserted is run by “anarchists.” Mayor Jenny Durkan said the violence was distracting from changes sought by thousands of peaceful protesters opposing racial inequity and police brutality. She said at a news conference that the city is working with the community to bring the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” zone, or CHOP, to an end and that police soon would move back into a precinct building they had largely abandoned in the area. … The mayor did not give an immediate timeline for clearing out the occupation but said “additional steps” would be examined if people don’t leave voluntarily. With scores of people camping in a park in the protest zone, Durkan said peaceful demonstrations could continue, but nighttime disorder had to stop. “The cumulative impacts of the gatherings and protests and the nighttime atmosphere and violence has led to increasingly difficult circumstances for our businesses and residents,” Durkan said. “The impacts have increased and the safety has decreased.”
That’s great. However, Durkan should have seen this coming from a mile away.
When you create an area without law enforcement, you create an area without law. Without sufficient enforcement, laws are nothing but words on a page. They have no authority in and of themselves. Create a law and don’t enforce it and you have created nothing. Take away the enforcement of all laws in a given space and you create anarchy.
Oh, the CHOP wasn’t as bad as it could have been. It was filled with people sharing a common goal; a goal of a Utopian society they could build on that precise spot. It kept some of the stupid at bay for slightly longer than it otherwise would have.
But that stupid was coming one way or another.
Once it did, Durkan suddenly had a problem on her hands and is now having to deal with it. The problem is, it should have already been dealt with well before now. The police didn’t just abandon their station in the district. They were pushed out. Oh, they could have fought back, but it would have been ugly and deadly, something no one really needed at that moment, so they left. As such, this wasn’t some spontaneously generated version of love and peace that just happened to take place in that spot. It was built on the threat of violence.
And Durkan treated them like the greatest thing to ever hit Seattle.
I suppose we should applaud her for figuring out that the CHOP was a blight eventually. It’s only too bad someone had to die for her to recognize that little tidbit.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Anti-Gunners Try To Blame Police Violence On Gun Rights

Gun rights are amazing things , apparently .
It seems that while most of us use them for protection because we all know that the police are unable to protect us , even if they wanted to , some argue something very different .
You see , gun rights are why we have so much awful police violence in this country .
No , really .
That ’ s what we ’ re being told .
In fact , Breonna Taylor ’ s murder ?
That ’ s only because of gun rights .
More than three months after Louisville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor and fired multiple shots , striking her at least eight times , the officers involved still have not faced charges .
Without video evidence , like there was for the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks , there ’ s no “ indisputable proof of wrongdoing , ” the city ’ s deputy general counsel said ( though one officer is being fired , Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher recently announced . )
The police have continued to defend their use of force in the case , asserting that they only fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kenneth Walker , initially shot at them .
Taylor ’ s killing has played a large part in spurring calls for police reform , but unfortunately , police shootings are not an uncommon event : nationally , police have consistently shot and killed about 1,000 people every year since 2015 .
And multiple studies have shown that a higher prevalence of guns owned by citizens leads to a higher local rate of shooting deaths by police , suggesting that America ’ s gun violence epidemic is a large part of police killings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism is at the heart of police violence , experts say the role of guns—and the police ’ s fear of guns—is not to be ignored .
A holistic solution to police violence , they say , must include the tightening gun laws .
“ It ’ s a mixed issue , ” says Kris Brown , president of Brady : United Against Gun Violence , a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence .
“ But there ’ s no question that the role of more guns in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to have a real impact [ on police violence ] .
” MORE GUNS , AND MORE POLICE SHOOTINGS Crime is more likely to be lethal in the U.S. than in other developed countries because of the high presence of guns here , and that plays into interactions with police , as well .
It ’ s a recurrent story that a police officer reaches for their firearm because of the fear that the civilian might have a gun.The Washington Post has been tracking police shootings since 2015 , and found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed by police in the past five years were armed .
That fear is more likely in places where guns ownership rates are higher .
Now , here ’ s the problem with this whole line of crap : Criminals don ’ t obey gun laws .
Our supposedly lax gun laws already prohibit those with criminal histories from obtaining firearms .
We have a plethora of rules already in place designed to prevent them from getting guns .
We have rules in place to punish them if they get them anyway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep criminals from getting guns , and yet , they continue to do so .
The problem has nothing to do with lax gun laws , but with a criminal culture that continues to expand and is perpetually painted as the victim when they do get shot by police .
While I mourn Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and people like that , people who are killed by police who shouldn ’ t have , I don ’ t mourn one iota for those who pull guns on law enforcement and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I just don ’ t .
Neither should anyone else .
If anything should be troubling , it ’ s the number of people trying to shoot it out with the police .
What the author here wants is to use a movement that ’ s getting a lot of positive press to advance his own personal agenda .
He wants to use the anti-police brutality bias permeating the country right now to push gun control , despite millions starting to recognize just how stupid gun control is in light of numerous pushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No matter what gun laws we put in place , criminals will continue to obtain firearms because those are what they want to carry out their criminal activity .
Yet , something the author forgets , is that even if guns were to vanish from all non-police or military hands is that lethal force would still be needed .
Knives , clubs , tire irons , and a whole host of other weapons would still require lethal force to stop , meaning police are still going to have to kill people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve yet seen , and in this line of work , that ’ s saying something .
That ’ s especially true when so many people want to defund police departments and outright abolish them .
At that point , we ’ d not only not have police , but no guns with which to defend ourselves from the criminal who , I assure you , will still be quite armed .

Gun rights are amazing things, apparently. It seems that while most of us use them for protection because we all know that the police are unable to protect us, even if they wanted to, some argue something very different. You see, gun rights are why we have so much awful police violence in this country.
No, really. That’s what we’re being told.
In fact, Breonna Taylor’s murder? That’s only because of gun rights.
More than three months after Louisville police forcefully entered the home of Breonna Taylor and fired multiple shots, striking her at least eight times, the officers involved still have not faced charges. Without video evidence, like there was for the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks, there’s no “indisputable proof of wrongdoing,” the city’s deputy general counsel said (though one officer is being fired, Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher recently announced.) The police have continued to defend their use of force in the case, asserting that they only fired their guns after Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, initially shot at them. Taylor’s killing has played a large part in spurring calls for police reform, but unfortunately, police shootings are not an uncommon event: nationally, police have consistently shot and killed about 1,000 people every year since 2015. And multiple studies have shown that a higher prevalence of guns owned by citizens leads to a higher local rate of shooting deaths by police, suggesting that America’s gun violence epidemic is a large part of police killings, and vice versa. While systemic racism is at the heart of police violence, experts say the role of guns—and the police’s fear of guns—is not to be ignored. A holistic solution to police violence, they say, must include the tightening gun laws. “It’s a mixed issue,” says Kris Brown, president of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence. “But there’s no question that the role of more guns in our society has had, and will continue, to have a real impact [on police violence].” MORE GUNS, AND MORE POLICE SHOOTINGS Crime is more likely to be lethal in the U.S. than in other developed countries because of the high presence of guns here, and that plays into interactions with police, as well. It’s a recurrent story that a police officer reaches for their firearm because of the fear that the civilian might have a gun.The Washington Post has been tracking police shootings since 2015, and found that more than half the people shot and killed by police in the past five years were armed. That fear is more likely in places where guns ownership rates are higher.
Now, here’s the problem with this whole line of crap: Criminals don’t obey gun laws.
Our supposedly lax gun laws already prohibit those with criminal histories from obtaining firearms. We have a plethora of rules already in place designed to prevent them from getting guns. We have rules in place to punish them if they get them anyway.
We’ve done what we can to keep criminals from getting guns, and yet, they continue to do so.
The problem has nothing to do with lax gun laws, but with a criminal culture that continues to expand and is perpetually painted as the victim when they do get shot by police.
While I mourn Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and people like that, people who are killed by police who shouldn’t have, I don’t mourn one iota for those who pull guns on law enforcement and get a dirt nap for their troubles. I just don’t. Neither should anyone else.
If anything should be troubling, it’s the number of people trying to shoot it out with the police.
What the author here wants is to use a movement that’s getting a lot of positive press to advance his own personal agenda. He wants to use the anti-police brutality bias permeating the country right now to push gun control, despite millions starting to recognize just how stupid gun control is in light of numerous pushes to defund police departments throughout the nation.
No matter what gun laws we put in place, criminals will continue to obtain firearms because those are what they want to carry out their criminal activity.
Yet, something the author forgets, is that even if guns were to vanish from all non-police or military hands is that lethal force would still be needed. Knives, clubs, tire irons, and a whole host of other weapons would still require lethal force to stop, meaning police are still going to have to kill people.
Honestly, this is the dumbest argument I’ve yet seen, and in this line of work, that’s saying something.
That’s especially true when so many people want to defund police departments and outright abolish them. At that point, we’d not only not have police, but no guns with which to defend ourselves from the criminal who, I assure you, will still be quite armed.
Again, an idiotic argument.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Jon Stewart's "Irresistible" Cheap Shot At Gun Owners

The former host of The Daily Show has a new political-themed movie coming out called “ Irresistable , ” starring Steve Carrell as a Democrat campaign operative who convinces a military veteran and farmer to run for the mayor of his small Wisconsin town in the hopes of creating a politician who could turn around the Democrats diminishing appeal among rural voters .
I confess , the set-up seems a little weak , but the trailer provides a few laughs at the expense of both the Left and the Right .
Fim critic Christian Toto reports , however , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stewart , who loves to pose on occasion as some sort of elder statesman of non-partisanship , lets his ideological freak flag fly at the expense of gun owners .
Mild spoilers ahead : The sequence in question shows activists trying to persuade last-minute voters .
We see several special interest groups greeting passers by with their pitches .
• Tiki torch bearers talking up “ white power ” ( you have to strain to hear those words ) There ’ s zero chance the latter group would assemble in such a family-friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stewart frames all the activists in a neutral manner .
Then the camera zooms in on a gun rights table .
We see several gun owners , all white , inviting strangers to grab a free pen and hear their sales pitch .
Again , nothing unusual there .
Pro-Second Amendment groups are part of the political fabric .
We then see a group of Black Lives Matter activists approach the table .
The white gun owners suddenly pull back the pens as if they don ’ t want to even share them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black activists approach , with one extending a hand for a shake .
You can probably guess what happens next ; The rural , white , gun owners end up talking about the best caliber for the AR platform with the Black Lives Matter activists , while a Shannon Watts-esque gun control advocate looks on in horror .
Actually , that would have been far more amusing that the cheap and predictable joke Stewart offers instead : the white gun owner refuses to shake the hand of the black activist .
As Toto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Stewart ’ s Comedy Central reign set the template for the late night ’ s current , sorry state , ” but more than that , it ’ s also a reminder that to Stewart and The Daily Show , conservative gun owners were always the butt of the joke .
I ’ ve got a pretty thick skin , and as a rural white dude with a bit of a belly and a lot of beard , I ’ m used to the whole “ dumb redneck ” stereotype .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy wealthy men !
I can also take a joke , so my issue isn ’ t with Stewart predictably trying to make guys like me out to be a racist buffoon .
I just find it sad that Stewart is so uninterested in portraying American gun owners as they actually are ; a cross section of society .
Stewart will make fun of NRA members , but what about the National African American Gun Association ?
He ’ ll mock “ right wing gun nuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the socialist John Brown Rifle Club the target of one of his jokes ?
I suppose it ’ s possible , but Stewart was apparently able to resist the temptation while filming “ Irresistible.
” In fact , Stewart is content to pretend that the lives of gun owners who don ’ t fit his stereotype simply don ’ t exist , much less matter .
I ’ d say if that interaction between Black Lives Matter activists and rural gun owners played out in real life , there ’ s as good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two groups would end up having a good time talking about guns than getting into a political argument or gun owners giving them the cold shoulder .
I don ’ t think Jon Stewart will ever be a fan of the Second Amendment , but does he have to be so lazy in pushing his point of view ?
It ’ s bad enough to rely on a stereotype for a cheap laugh , but by refusing to acknowledge that Americans across the political spectrum ( as well as those who ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their right to keep and bear arms , Stewart ’ s guilty of the same kind of political manipulation he ’ s targeting with his latest movie .

The former host of The Daily Show has a new political-themed movie coming out called “Irresistable,” starring Steve Carrell as a Democrat campaign operative who convinces a military veteran and farmer to run for the mayor of his small Wisconsin town in the hopes of creating a politician who could turn around the Democrats diminishing appeal among rural voters. I confess, the set-up seems a little weak, but the trailer provides a few laughs at the expense of both the Left and the Right.
Fim critic Christian Toto reports, however, that towards the end of the film, Stewart, who loves to pose on occasion as some sort of elder statesman of non-partisanship, lets his ideological freak flag fly at the expense of gun owners. Mild spoilers ahead:
The sequence in question shows activists trying to persuade last-minute voters. We see several special interest groups greeting passers by with their pitches. That includes: “Build a Wall” voices
Pro-coal activists
A group of Antifa-like anarchists
Tiki torch bearers talking up “white power” (you have to strain to hear those words) There’s zero chance the latter group would assemble in such a family-friendly setting. Still, one could argue Stewart frames all the activists in a neutral manner. Then the camera zooms in on a gun rights table. We see several gun owners, all white, inviting strangers to grab a free pen and hear their sales pitch. Again, nothing unusual there. Pro-Second Amendment groups are part of the political fabric. We then see a group of Black Lives Matter activists approach the table. The white gun owners suddenly pull back the pens as if they don’t want to even share them with the men. Next, the black activists approach, with one extending a hand for a shake.
You can probably guess what happens next; The rural, white, gun owners end up talking about the best caliber for the AR platform with the Black Lives Matter activists, while a Shannon Watts-esque gun control advocate looks on in horror.
Actually, that would have been far more amusing that the cheap and predictable joke Stewart offers instead: the white gun owner refuses to shake the hand of the black activist. As Toto says, the scene is a reminder that “Stewart’s Comedy Central reign set the template for the late night’s current, sorry state,” but more than that, it’s also a reminder that to Stewart and The Daily Show, conservative gun owners were always the butt of the joke.
I’ve got a pretty thick skin, and as a rural white dude with a bit of a belly and a lot of beard, I’m used to the whole “dumb redneck” stereotype. Heck, it’s made comedians like Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy wealthy men! I can also take a joke, so my issue isn’t with Stewart predictably trying to make guys like me out to be a racist buffoon.
I just find it sad that Stewart is so uninterested in portraying American gun owners as they actually are; a cross section of society. Stewart will make fun of NRA members, but what about the National African American Gun Association? He’ll mock “right wing gun nuts,” but would he ever make the socialist John Brown Rifle Club the target of one of his jokes? I suppose it’s possible, but Stewart was apparently able to resist the temptation while filming “Irresistible.” In fact, Stewart is content to pretend that the lives of gun owners who don’t fit his stereotype simply don’t exist, much less matter.
I’d say if that interaction between Black Lives Matter activists and rural gun owners played out in real life, there’s as good a chance that the members of the two groups would end up having a good time talking about guns than getting into a political argument or gun owners giving them the cold shoulder.
I don’t think Jon Stewart will ever be a fan of the Second Amendment, but does he have to be so lazy in pushing his point of view? It’s bad enough to rely on a stereotype for a cheap laugh, but by refusing to acknowledge that Americans across the political spectrum (as well as those who’ve tuned out of politics completely) exercise their right to keep and bear arms, Stewart’s guilty of the same kind of political manipulation he’s targeting with his latest movie.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Playing The Long Game: A Conversation With Kurt Schlichter

My pal Kurt Schlichter joined me ( along with his four-legged friend Bitey ) on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co for a deep dive into the current state of the union and what the conservative response should be to the unrest in the streets and the toppling of statues in cities like Washington , D.C. , San Francisco , and Raleigh , North Carolina .
Kurt ’ s been making some excellent points on Twitter about the need for conservatives and those on the Right to think strategically and tactically about the angry Left ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As he points out on today ’ s program , the Left is hoping to get conservatives angry and demoralized at the lack of a heavy-handed response from the federal government .
Rather than tanks in the streets , Schlichter says the Trump administration is using attorneys in federal courtrooms .
There have already been dozens of federal charges filed against rioters and looters , and Trump said today that those trying to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square on Monday evening will be facing federal charges as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another strategy at work on the far Left as well ; get conservatives so riled up about the destruction of statues and war memorials that someone lashes out and does something stupid that the media can then pounce on .
We almost saw something like that take place this weekend in Lake County , Illinois , when an armed citizen confronted two people he suspected were planning to deface a local memorial to those who died in the Korean War .
In theory , this armed citizen could have been charged with harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in question declined to press charges .
The local police reminded the gentleman that if he was suspicious of activity at the war memorial to call the authorities instead of drawing his gun out of his holster and confronting the strangers .
It ’ s a sad fact , but the news media is much more interested in covering stories of legal gun owners behaving badly than in documenting the surge in violent crime that ’ s taking place in Chicago , New York , Minneapolis , and other cities .
As gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a level playing field when it comes to gun ownership .
We see that same bias when it comes to angry Americans trying to tear down statues and angry Americans wanting to protect them .
Kurt ’ s advice : let the Left own their violence and destruction .
Unless the president wants to invoke the Insurrection Act and send troops into cities where unrest is taking place , it ’ s generally up to local authorities to respond .
The fact that they ’ re doing a poor job of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some on the Right to demand some sort of military response from the Trump administration , but both politically and constitutionally , it makes more sense for the administration to use federal laws instead of federal firepower to ensure real consequences for those responsible for acts of destruction whenever possible .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Kurt above , and stick around afterwards for more news , including a Wisconsin man sentenced to probation for a violent attack on his girlfriend , an armed citizen in Ohio who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dog , and a police officer in Astoria , Oregon who was in the right place at the right time to save a baby from a burning home .

My pal Kurt Schlichter joined me (along with his four-legged friend Bitey) on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co for a deep dive into the current state of the union and what the conservative response should be to the unrest in the streets and the toppling of statues in cities like Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Kurt’s been making some excellent points on Twitter about the need for conservatives and those on the Right to think strategically and tactically about the angry Left’s trashing of deep-blue, Democrat-controlled downtowns. As he points out on today’s program, the Left is hoping to get conservatives angry and demoralized at the lack of a heavy-handed response from the federal government. Rather than tanks in the streets, Schlichter says the Trump administration is using attorneys in federal courtrooms.
Strategic patience does not mean treading water. A key weapon system is federal law.@realDonaldTrump needs to have Wray and the US attorney for DC in the Oval Office every morning explaining exactly what the status is of the continuing operation against leftist organized crime. — Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 23, 2020
There have already been dozens of federal charges filed against rioters and looters, and Trump said today that those trying to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square on Monday evening will be facing federal charges as well.
I believe there’s also another strategy at work on the far Left as well; get conservatives so riled up about the destruction of statues and war memorials that someone lashes out and does something stupid that the media can then pounce on. We almost saw something like that take place this weekend in Lake County, Illinois, when an armed citizen confronted two people he suspected were planning to deface a local memorial to those who died in the Korean War.
Officers responded about 10:35 p.m. to a memorial site which commemorates Vietnam and Korean War veterans at U.S. 231 and 145th Avenue in Leroy, according to a police report. The man who called 911 claimed he was driving in the area when he thought he saw a male and female vandalizing the property, police said. So the man pulled out his pistol and kept it at a “low ready” stance as he approached the individuals, the police report states. After officers responded to the scene, a man and woman told police they were in an argument and left their house to “have a civil discussion to work things out,” the report states. Police said nothing appeared to be vandalized, and the individuals denied defacing or damaging anything at the site, the report states.
In theory, this armed citizen could have been charged with harassment or intimidation, but thankfully the couple in question declined to press charges. The local police reminded the gentleman that if he was suspicious of activity at the war memorial to call the authorities instead of drawing his gun out of his holster and confronting the strangers.
It’s a sad fact, but the news media is much more interested in covering stories of legal gun owners behaving badly than in documenting the surge in violent crime that’s taking place in Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, and other cities. As gun owners, we know that the media is not a level playing field when it comes to gun ownership. We see that same bias when it comes to angry Americans trying to tear down statues and angry Americans wanting to protect them.
Kurt’s advice: let the Left own their violence and destruction. Unless the president wants to invoke the Insurrection Act and send troops into cities where unrest is taking place, it’s generally up to local authorities to respond. The fact that they’re doing a poor job of it in many cities may be reason for some on the Right to demand some sort of military response from the Trump administration, but both politically and constitutionally, it makes more sense for the administration to use federal laws instead of federal firepower to ensure real consequences for those responsible for acts of destruction whenever possible.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Kurt above, and stick around afterwards for more news, including a Wisconsin man sentenced to probation for a violent attack on his girlfriend, an armed citizen in Ohio who defended a young girl being attacked by a dog, and a police officer in Astoria, Oregon who was in the right place at the right time to save a baby from a burning home.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--SAF's Gottlieb Still Hopeful On SCOTUS Case

The Supreme Court has upset a lot of Second Amendment advocates , and for understandable reasons .
After a long , drawn-out fight to get conservative , pro-gun justices appointed , we kind of expected a little something to show for the effort .
Instead , the Court has blown off every since Second Amendment case that ’ s been presented to them However , the Second Amendment Foundation ’ s Alan Gottlieb is still hopeful the Court will hear at least one gun case .
when they turned down 10 Second Amendment-related cases .
The last time the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision .
Although the decision felt like a blow , Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President , Alan Gottlieb , said there is still hope .
“ The Second Amendment Foundation still has one case pending Cert before the Supreme Court .
I think there is a very good chance that they will hear this one , ” Gottlieb told Townhall .
The Court has yet to decide whether or not they will hear Lori Rodriguez , et al .
vs. City of San Jose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Fourth Amendment implications .
Rodriguez is legally qualified to own firearms in the State of California .
Her firearms , however , were confiscated seven years ago after her husband was hospitalized for mental health issues .
A San Jose police officer told Rodriguez he had the authority to seize all firearms at the premise , even those that belong solely to her .
She followed the law requiring her to store her firearms in a California-approved safe .
Despite that , the firearms were taken without a warrant and with Rodriguez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rodriguez is absolve male bovine excrement and we all know it .
She ’ s been unable to get her guns back , including one that was brought back from World War II .
As someone with a war souvenir firearm myself–an SKS from Vietnam my father came home with–I have a great deal of sympathy with her plight .
Yet even without that particular weapon , her cause is still just .
Rodriguez apparently has sole access to the safe .
Her husband , who had profound mental health issues , didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the guns inside .
It didn ’ t matter .
Now , she can ’ t get them back , even though San Jose authorities argue she ’ s free to buy new guns all day long .
My thing is , if she can buy new ones , why can ’ t she have her old ones back ?
Regardless , Gottlieb argues that the findings of this case , should the Court hear it , could have ramifications on red flag laws in general .
That ’ s an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close attention to .
However , that only matters if the Court actually hears the cases in the first place .
My sincere hope is that Rodriguez gets her guns back and that red flag laws are , at a minimum , severely limited so that people don ’ t lose their guns over the mental status of a third party .
That should never happen and the city of San Jose knows damn good and well they ’ re in the wrong .
Like so many other anti-gun states , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Supreme Court has upset a lot of Second Amendment advocates, and for understandable reasons. After a long, drawn-out fight to get conservative, pro-gun justices appointed, we kind of expected a little something to show for the effort.
Instead, the Court has blown off every since Second Amendment case that’s been presented to them
However, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb is still hopeful the Court will hear at least one gun case.
when they turned down 10 Second Amendment-related cases. The last time the Court heard a gun-related case was in 2010 with the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision. Although the decision felt like a blow, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb, said there is still hope. “The Second Amendment Foundation still has one case pending Cert before the Supreme Court. I think there is a very good chance that they will hear this one,” Gottlieb told Townhall. The Court has yet to decide whether or not they will hear Lori Rodriguez, et al. vs. City of San Jose, which Gottlieb said has Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment implications. Rodriguez is legally qualified to own firearms in the State of California. Her firearms, however, were confiscated seven years ago after her husband was hospitalized for mental health issues. A San Jose police officer told Rodriguez he had the authority to seize all firearms at the premise, even those that belong solely to her. She followed the law requiring her to store her firearms in a California-approved safe. Despite that, the firearms were taken without a warrant and with Rodriguez’s objection.
What happened to Rodriguez is absolve male bovine excrement and we all know it. She’s been unable to get her guns back, including one that was brought back from World War II. As someone with a war souvenir firearm myself–an SKS from Vietnam my father came home with–I have a great deal of sympathy with her plight.
Yet even without that particular weapon, her cause is still just.
Rodriguez apparently has sole access to the safe. Her husband, who had profound mental health issues, didn’t have any way to get to the guns inside. It didn’t matter.
Now, she can’t get them back, even though San Jose authorities argue she’s free to buy new guns all day long.
My thing is, if she can buy new ones, why can’t she have her old ones back?
Regardless, Gottlieb argues that the findings of this case, should the Court hear it, could have ramifications on red flag laws in general. That’s an important point and one we should all pay close attention to. However, that only matters if the Court actually hears the cases in the first place.
My sincere hope is that Rodriguez gets her guns back and that red flag laws are, at a minimum, severely limited so that people don’t lose their guns over the mental status of a third party. That should never happen and the city of San Jose knows damn good and well they’re in the wrong.
Like so many other anti-gun states, though, they just don’t care.


bearingarms--2020-06-23--Example Case Shows Why Red Flag Laws AREN'T Needed

We ’ ve spilled a lot of digital ink over red flag laws in the last couple of years , and for good reason .
They ’ re the kind of law that looks reasonable if you aren ’ t careful enough to recognize the problem .
After all , few are comfortable with the idea of troubled people having guns .
In the aftermath of Parkland , a lot of people–myself included–asked how the shooter could buy a gun legally when there were so many red flags .
In response , red flag laws were pushed by many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Red flags take away due process for many Americans who end up stripped of their Second Amendment rights yet have done nothing wrong .
Perhaps worse than that , though , is the fact that it ’ s not needed .
In a story intended to support red flag laws and perhaps expand them , their example illustrates one of the biggest issues I have with such laws .
Under oath in a sterile , wood-paneled courtroom , Babylon Schools Superintendent Linda Rozzi implored a judge to prevent every educator ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she testified , one of her students could become the next school shooter .
The Black student , a rail-thin 17-year-old at Babylon Junior-Senior High School , watched silently .
But to Rozzi , a message he posted on Snapchat in late November spoke volumes .
“ When I kill everyone , know it ’ s my dad ’ s fault , ” the teenager allegedly wrote on the social media website , accompanied by an irate selfie with a “ crazy face , ” in the words of the judge .
Rozzi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courtroom began with a new law approved amid heightened anxiety over mass school shootings .
New York ’ s controversial law , championed by Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , went into effect last August and allows judges to confiscate — or restrict access to — guns from people they believe may harm themselves or others .
Except , I ’ d argue the law wasn ’ t necessary .
The student in question essentially issued a terroristic threat , a crime in and of itself but also probable cause to launch an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry out his threat .
All over the nation , we ’ ve seen numerous cases of mass shootings thwarted by authorities without a red flag law being needed .
Arguably , there ’ s no evidence that a red flag law has ever stopped a mass shooting , but we do have evidence that mass shootings have been stopped without them .
It ’ s important to remember that planning a mass shooting is considered a criminal act .
People can be arrested for just that .
They have , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how those mass shootings were averted in the first place .
What red flag laws do , particularly when dealing with school-age kids , is potentially punish law-abiding citizens for the fears of another person .
The student in question in the example above wasn ’ t old enough to own firearms on his own .
How would a red flag law keep him disarmed when he couldn ’ t lawfully buy a gun in the first place ?
Well , it wouldn ’ t .
It would go after any firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disarm them for the actions of their son , someone who may well have just been talking smack on social media .
The truth of the matter is , though , that the red flag law wasn ’ t needed here either .
There ’ s plenty of evidence for law enforcement to handle the threat without potentially punishing blameless parents .
Then again , such laws aren ’ t really about that kind of thing , now are they ?

We’ve spilled a lot of digital ink over red flag laws in the last couple of years, and for good reason. They’re the kind of law that looks reasonable if you aren’t careful enough to recognize the problem. After all, few are comfortable with the idea of troubled people having guns.
In the aftermath of Parkland, a lot of people–myself included–asked how the shooter could buy a gun legally when there were so many red flags. In response, red flag laws were pushed by many as the answer.
Yet there are problems. Red flags take away due process for many Americans who end up stripped of their Second Amendment rights yet have done nothing wrong. Perhaps worse than that, though, is the fact that it’s not needed.
In a story intended to support red flag laws and perhaps expand them, their example illustrates one of the biggest issues I have with such laws.
Under oath in a sterile, wood-paneled courtroom, Babylon Schools Superintendent Linda Rozzi implored a judge to prevent every educator’s worst nightmare: Barring immediate action, she testified, one of her students could become the next school shooter. The Black student, a rail-thin 17-year-old at Babylon Junior-Senior High School, watched silently. But to Rozzi, a message he posted on Snapchat in late November spoke volumes. “When I kill everyone, know it’s my dad’s fault,” the teenager allegedly wrote on the social media website, accompanied by an irate selfie with a “crazy face,” in the words of the judge. Rozzi’s journey to the Long Island courtroom began with a new law approved amid heightened anxiety over mass school shootings. New York’s controversial law, championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, went into effect last August and allows judges to confiscate — or restrict access to — guns from people they believe may harm themselves or others.
Except, I’d argue the law wasn’t necessary.
The student in question essentially issued a terroristic threat, a crime in and of itself but also probable cause to launch an investigation to determine if he had the means to carry out his threat.
All over the nation, we’ve seen numerous cases of mass shootings thwarted by authorities without a red flag law being needed. Arguably, there’s no evidence that a red flag law has ever stopped a mass shooting, but we do have evidence that mass shootings have been stopped without them.
It’s important to remember that planning a mass shooting is considered a criminal act. People can be arrested for just that. They have, as a matter of fact. That’s how those mass shootings were averted in the first place.
What red flag laws do, particularly when dealing with school-age kids, is potentially punish law-abiding citizens for the fears of another person. The student in question in the example above wasn’t old enough to own firearms on his own. How would a red flag law keep him disarmed when he couldn’t lawfully buy a gun in the first place?
Well, it wouldn’t. It would go after any firearms owned by his parents. It would disarm them for the actions of their son, someone who may well have just been talking smack on social media.
The truth of the matter is, though, that the red flag law wasn’t needed here either. There’s plenty of evidence for law enforcement to handle the threat without potentially punishing blameless parents.
Then again, such laws aren’t really about that kind of thing, now are they?