bearingarms--2020-05-18--Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill Banning Red Flag Laws

Gov .
Kevin Stitt wasted no time in signing a bill approved by Oklahoma ’ s state legislature on Friday that bars cities and towns across the state from adopting red flag firearm seizure ordinances .
SB 1081 was one of the last bills to pass the legislature this year , with the final vote to approve the measure coming just hours before the state legislature adjourned .
Stitt signed the bill on Saturday , ensuring that red flag laws , or Extreme Risk Protection Orders , can ’ t be approved by city councils or anti-gun mayors .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nathan Dahm and Rep. Jay Steagall , say they ’ re hoping to prevent future problems by putting the prohibition into law .
Steagall said this is the nation ’ s first “ anti-red flag ” law .
More than a dozen states have enacted “ red flag ” laws .
Oklahoma is not one of them .
The U.S. Constitution prevents states from nullifying federal laws .
But both Dahm and Steagall said they were concerned about the possibility of the federal government enacting such a law or offering grants to states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” policies .
When Dahm introduced the bill back in September of 2019 , he called it part of a “ bolder , stronger strategy to defend the Second Amendment.
” Red flag laws represent a barefaced attempt to seize property from more law-abiding Americans than ever before .
In summary , these laws allow an individual ’ s firearms to be confiscated following nothing more than an anonymous accusation from either a family member or a law enforcement officer , directly violating at least four amendments to the Constitution .
The unconstitutionality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately , they ’ ve already been passed in 17 states and Washington , D.C. Additionally , several governors ( Republican and Democrat ) have recently jumped on board .
We can not keep playing defense while expecting our constitutional rights to survive for very long with politicians who regard them as an inconvenience or even an obstacle to their schemes .
Simply standing our ground and waiting for the gun control lobby to strike again has not worked — and it never will .
With the passage of SB 1081 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation will become inspired to champion similar legislation in their own states ( and Congress ) that not only safeguards the rights of every American but pre-emptively takes a stand against future efforts to dismantle our constitutional rights .
So far , Oklahoma ’ s the only state to pass legislation banning red flag laws from being implemented at the local level , but Dahm may get his wish that other states will follow suit , particularly if Joe Biden wins election in November and tries to implement his anti-gun agenda .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen or more states might follow Oklahoma ’ s lead in safeguarding against the abuses of Second and Fourth Amendment rights that inherent in the laws .
The new red flag law ban in Oklahoma preempts any local red flag law , and instead places the power to implement any such laws in the hands of the state legislature .
That should end any threat of red flag laws in the state at the moment , but the law could face a court challenge if an anti-gun president or Congress approved grants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

**2nd UPDATE**
Governor Stitt’s office reported late Monday afternoon that the governor has now officially signed SB1081 into law.
**UPDATE**
Governor Stitt’s office says that he has NOT yet signed SB1081. The Oklahoman newspaper says an error on the state legislative website indicated that Stitt had signed the bill over the weekend. The governor has until Thursday, May 21st to veto the bill, sign it, or allow the bill to become law without his signature. Bearing Arms regrets the error.
Gov. Kevin Stitt wasted no time in signing a bill approved by Oklahoma’s state legislature on Friday that bars cities and towns across the state from adopting red flag firearm seizure ordinances. SB 1081 was one of the last bills to pass the legislature this year, with the final vote to approve the measure coming just hours before the state legislature adjourned. Stitt signed the bill on Saturday, ensuring that red flag laws, or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, can’t be approved by city councils or anti-gun mayors. The bill’s primary sponsors, Sen. Nathan Dahm and Rep. Jay Steagall, say they’re hoping to prevent future problems by putting the prohibition into law.
Steagall said this is the nation’s first “anti-red flag” law. More than a dozen states have enacted “red flag” laws. Oklahoma is not one of them. The U.S. Constitution prevents states from nullifying federal laws. But both Dahm and Steagall said they were concerned about the possibility of the federal government enacting such a law or offering grants to states or localities to implement “red flag” policies.
When Dahm introduced the bill back in September of 2019, he called it part of a “bolder, stronger strategy to defend the Second Amendment.”
Red flag laws represent a barefaced attempt to seize property from more law-abiding Americans than ever before. In summary, these laws allow an individual’s firearms to be confiscated following nothing more than an anonymous accusation from either a family member or a law enforcement officer, directly violating at least four amendments to the Constitution. The unconstitutionality of this is absurd, and, unfortunately, they’ve already been passed in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Additionally, several governors (Republican and Democrat) have recently jumped on board. We cannot keep playing defense while expecting our constitutional rights to survive for very long with politicians who regard them as an inconvenience or even an obstacle to their schemes. Simply standing our ground and waiting for the gun control lobby to strike again has not worked — and it never will. With the passage of SB 1081, it is my hope that lawmakers across the nation will become inspired to champion similar legislation in their own states (and Congress) that not only safeguards the rights of every American but pre-emptively takes a stand against future efforts to dismantle our constitutional rights.
So far, Oklahoma’s the only state to pass legislation banning red flag laws from being implemented at the local level, but Dahm may get his wish that other states will follow suit, particularly if Joe Biden wins election in November and tries to implement his anti-gun agenda. If that happens, I suspect that a dozen or more states might follow Oklahoma’s lead in safeguarding against the abuses of Second and Fourth Amendment rights that inherent in the laws.
The proposed red flag law ban in Oklahoma preempts any local red flag law, and instead places the power to implement any such laws in the hands of the state legislature. That should end any threat of red flag laws in the state at the moment, but the law could face a court challenge if an anti-gun president or Congress approved grants to localities that adopt such measures in the future.


bearingarms--2020-05-18--NZ Gun Crime Rates Soar Following Gun Bans

American gun control activists looked at New Zealand ’ s response to the Christchurch massacre with a high degree of awe .
They desperately want the United States to follow that lead after the next mass shooting .
They would love for our government to swoop in after such an event and snatch away all our guns , but particularly those nasty so-called “ assault weapons ” that they don ’ t think we have any business owning .
They applauded Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for her quick response , but what really happened was more of a knee-jerk reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than taking the time to look at the situation rationally , and she ’ s been applauded by gun grabbers for it .
However , one thing we on the pro-gun side said would happen in response seems to have come to pass .
New figures obtained by RNZ show last year had the highest rates of gun crime and deaths involving firearms for nearly 10 years .
But despite that rise , there has not been a corresponding increase in officers taking out or using their guns .
The figures , obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , show the rates of gun crime went up in both 2018 and 2019 .
Last year , there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun .
And in both of the last two years , the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009 .
The number of guns seized by police is also on the rise , up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year .
You mean banning guns doesn ’ t actually reduce gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , isn ’ t that this happened .
It ’ s that this happened yet again and anti-gunners are still able to delude themselves into believing that gun control reduces gun crime .
It doesn ’ t .
While some of our gun controlled states have low crime , it has a low crime in spite of those laws , not because of them .
It seems like a universal truth that in the immediate aftermath of enacting tough gun control laws , gun crime goes up .
That doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realize that the very people not complying with the law include a large number of criminals who aren ’ t going to comply with any law .
Now , though , they know that their potential targets are less likely to be able to defend themselves .
For them , it ’ s time to step up and get busy because no one can stop them .
Note how the police aren ’ t using their guns any more than normal ?
That ’ s not surprising .
After all , the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chalk outline around the body .
They don ’ t prevent crimes so much as respond to them and the criminals know this .
They do what they ’ re going to do and leave before the police show up .
In fact , expect to see still more increases in so-called “ gun crime ” in New Zealand , at least until some degree of sanity returns and the government there goes back to respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms .
It ’ s only too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only nation with that right preserved in our Constitution .
New Zealanders could probably use that right about now .

American gun control activists looked at New Zealand’s response to the Christchurch massacre with a high degree of awe. They desperately want the United States to follow that lead after the next mass shooting. They would love for our government to swoop in after such an event and snatch away all our guns, but particularly those nasty so-called “assault weapons” that they don’t think we have any business owning.
They applauded Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for her quick response, but what really happened was more of a knee-jerk reaction. She responded with liberal reflexes rather than taking the time to look at the situation rationally, and she’s been applauded by gun grabbers for it.
However, one thing we on the pro-gun side said would happen in response seems to have come to pass.
New figures obtained by RNZ show last year had the highest rates of gun crime and deaths involving firearms for nearly 10 years. But despite that rise, there has not been a corresponding increase in officers taking out or using their guns. The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act, show the rates of gun crime went up in both 2018 and 2019. Last year, there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun. And in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009. The number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.
You mean banning guns doesn’t actually reduce gun crime?
I’m shocked.
I’m completely and totally shocked.
No, really.
What’s shocking, though, isn’t that this happened. It’s that this happened yet again and anti-gunners are still able to delude themselves into believing that gun control reduces gun crime. It doesn’t. While some of our gun controlled states have low crime, it has a low crime in spite of those laws, not because of them.
It seems like a universal truth that in the immediate aftermath of enacting tough gun control laws, gun crime goes up. That doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you realize that the very people not complying with the law include a large number of criminals who aren’t going to comply with any law. Now, though, they know that their potential targets are less likely to be able to defend themselves. For them, it’s time to step up and get busy because no one can stop them.
Note how the police aren’t using their guns any more than normal? That’s not surprising. After all, the police show up just in time to draw a chalk outline around the body. They don’t prevent crimes so much as respond to them and the criminals know this. They do what they’re going to do and leave before the police show up.
In fact, expect to see still more increases in so-called “gun crime” in New Zealand, at least until some degree of sanity returns and the government there goes back to respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It’s only too bad that we’re pretty much the only nation with that right preserved in our Constitution. New Zealanders could probably use that right about now.


bearingarms--2020-05-17--Law Prof: National Quarantine Would Infringe On Rights, And That's Okay

It ’ s an odd time to argue in favor of a national quarantine , given the fact that most states around the country are now beginning to lift stay-at-home orders and allowing most businesses to re-open , albeit under social distancing measures .
Still , law professor and former assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Wehle isn ’ t just advocating for the Trump administration to impose a national lockdown , she ’ s laying out the case for a constitutional infringement of individual rights ( which sounds like an oxymoron to me ) .
During the next pandemic—which is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate , nationwide program of contact tracing and mandatory quarantine for infected people .
The stunningly low death toll in South Korea ( fewer than 300 people ) , which reported its first coronavirus infection on the same day as the United States , has been credited to the country ’ s policy of aggressively tracing infected individuals ’ recent movements and isolating people they may have come in contact with .
This common-sense approach , if executed properly in the U.S. , would enable many people to go back to their daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time minimizing the spread of the deadly virus by keeping the highest-risk spreaders at home .
A federal order of this magnitude will sound to some like a step toward tyranny .
But the question is whether saving thousands of lives and staving off another Depression are worth the price of finite , albeit substantial , infringements on individual liberties .
The Trump administration has resisted such drastic measures , shunting responsibility onto the states , but the power is nevertheless within the executive branch , and it can be imposed without violating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertions there , including the idea that an even more stringent lockdown in the near future could stave off a depression after the stay-at-home orders over the last couple of months have already gutted our economy , but let ’ s focus on Wehle ’ s legal argument , which simply isn ’ t as strong as she makes it out to be .
By the same token , in 1905 , the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld a mandatory vaccine law under the Constitution .
It held—in a criminal action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination—that a state can constitutionally “ require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof ” notwithstanding the Bill of Rights .
Such a law must be reasonable , not arbitrary , and tailored to the government ’ s interest in preserving public safety .
This category of state power is known as the police power , and it means that states can “ enact quarantine laws and health laws of every description .
.
.
to protect the public health and the public safety.
” Wehle ’ s argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court has recognized some limitations on the exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights , that there ’ s no impediment whatsoever to a president imposing a national quarantine that would impose severe restrictions on virtually all of our rights .
That ’ s absurd .
Even in the Jacobson case cited by Wehle , she quotes the majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan , but leaves out Harlan ’ s admonition that “ ” general terms [ of restrictions on liberty during health emergencies ] should be so limited in their application as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or absurd consequence.
” A national quarantine would lead to all three .
A national one-size-fits-all policy would inevitably lead to injustice and oppression for some .
Trying to enforce such a policy , even if it were upheld by the courts , would also lead to absurd consequences , as Wehle backhandedly acknowledges while promoting the idea of using the military to enforce quarantine measures .
Congress has the constitutional power to raise and support armed forces , without any express limitations , and it can call forth the militia “ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president , in turn , has the power to “ take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
” But Congress has long prohibited the federal government from engaging military forces for law enforcement purposes and , for the most part , that law ’ s exceptions require that there be a specific request or at least cooperation from the states .
( The U.S. Coast Guard is an exception to the exception . )
It ’ s also possible that the current Supreme Court—despite the conservative majority ’ s apparent sympathies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unified federal response to a pandemic .
Constitutional law has evolved substantially since 1905 , and the court has never explicitly addressed the propriety of what was known from the 1870s to the early 1900s as “ shotgun quarantines , ” whereby armed men prevented people infected with yellow fever from entering certain districts .
Nor has the court considered the extent to which the federal government could override state and local quarantines as a matter of federalism if Congress were to amend federal laws to give the president more power to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , as much as Wehle might claim that the Constitution allows for the president to establish a national quarantine , the courts and Congress have said no such thing .
In order for Wehle ’ s thesis to be true , not only would the judicial and legislative branches have to sign off on a dramatic expansion of presidential power , the American people would have to buy in as well .
In the 50-50 nation that we live in today , does that seem likely to you ?
Police departments across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from heavy-handed enforcement of social distancing orders , including mask mandates , in part because every arrest or citation caught on camera becomes a public relations nightmare for the departments .
Gov .
Mike DeWine originally imposed a mask requirement for all Ohioans , but he too reversed course after a few days , stating his mask order “ went too far.
” Ironically , Wehle ’ s written quite a bit over the past few years about her belief that Donald Trump is taking powers that aren ’ t constitutionally reserved for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the professor even wrote a piece about the impeachment at The Bulwark entitled “ King Trump.
” People can fairly debate whether we are in a full-blown “ constitutional crisis , ” a question that hinges on one ’ s subjective take on that term .
But at least one thing is for sure : The Constitution sets up a structure of checks and balances among the branches of government .
Congress—both through its express powers , like impeachment , and its implied powers , like its oversight practices—is legitimately empowered to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his lawyer Cipollone , and various Trump spokespeople have argued that Congress is abusing the president by exercising its impeachment prerogative .
This claim is not routine , politics-as-usual stuff .
It is deeply concerning .
If Team Trump wins its all-out assault on executive branch accountability , the Constitution as we know it will be dead .
Yet by then , it will be too late to wave the constitutional-crisis flag to any avail .
In just a few months Wehle ’ s gone from encouraging Congress to check abuses by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower the president to use the military to enforce a nationwide quarantine , which in itself would be an abuse of the Constitution .
Perhaps I ’ m being a little too cynical , but I can ’ t help but think that Wehle ’ s op/ed was written with a President Biden , not President Trump , in mind .
It certainly didn ’ t give much thought to how the American people would react to any attempt to use military force to impose quarantine measures .

It’s an odd time to argue in favor of a national quarantine, given the fact that most states around the country are now beginning to lift stay-at-home orders and allowing most businesses to re-open, albeit under social distancing measures. Still, law professor and former assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Wehle isn’t just advocating for the Trump administration to impose a national lockdown, she’s laying out the case for a constitutional infringement of individual rights (which sounds like an oxymoron to me).
During the next pandemic—which is all but inevitable—Washington can and should impose an immediate, nationwide program of contact tracing and mandatory quarantine for infected people. The stunningly low death toll in South Korea (fewer than 300 people), which reported its first coronavirus infection on the same day as the United States, has been credited to the country’s policy of aggressively tracing infected individuals’ recent movements and isolating people they may have come in contact with. This common-sense approach, if executed properly in the U.S., would enable many people to go back to their daily lives—inevitably spurring the economy—while at the same time minimizing the spread of the deadly virus by keeping the highest-risk spreaders at home. A federal order of this magnitude will sound to some like a step toward tyranny. But the question is whether saving thousands of lives and staving off another Depression are worth the price of finite, albeit substantial, infringements on individual liberties. The Trump administration has resisted such drastic measures, shunting responsibility onto the states, but the power is nevertheless within the executive branch, and it can be imposed without violating the Constitution.
There are several bold assertions there, including the idea that an even more stringent lockdown in the near future could stave off a depression after the stay-at-home orders over the last couple of months have already gutted our economy, but let’s focus on Wehle’s legal argument, which simply isn’t as strong as she makes it out to be.
One reason the federal government can constitutionally infringe on all kinds of individual rights is that sometimes protecting the greater public good requires it. Threatening the president is a felony even though the Constitution guarantees free speech, for example. Nor does the Second Amendment give every civilian an unqualified right to own military-grade weapons.
By the same token, in 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld a mandatory vaccine law under the Constitution. It held—in a criminal action against a defendant who refused a smallpox vaccination—that a state can constitutionally “require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof” notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. Such a law must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and tailored to the government’s interest in preserving public safety. This category of state power is known as the police power, and it means that states can “enact quarantine laws and health laws of every description . . . to protect the public health and the public safety.”
Wehle’s argument seems to be that because the Supreme Court has recognized some limitations on the exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights, that there’s no impediment whatsoever to a president imposing a national quarantine that would impose severe restrictions on virtually all of our rights. That’s absurd. Even in the Jacobson case cited by Wehle, she quotes the majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, but leaves out Harlan’s admonition that “”general terms [of restrictions on liberty during health emergencies] should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence.”
A national quarantine would lead to all three. A national one-size-fits-all policy would inevitably lead to injustice and oppression for some. Trying to enforce such a policy, even if it were upheld by the courts, would also lead to absurd consequences, as Wehle backhandedly acknowledges while promoting the idea of using the military to enforce quarantine measures.
Congress has the constitutional power to raise and support armed forces, without any express limitations, and it can call forth the militia “to execute the laws of the union.” The president, in turn, has the power to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” But Congress has long prohibited the federal government from engaging military forces for law enforcement purposes and, for the most part, that law’s exceptions require that there be a specific request or at least cooperation from the states. (The U.S. Coast Guard is an exception to the exception.) It’s also possible that the current Supreme Court—despite the conservative majority’s apparent sympathies for broad presidential power—might not condone a unified federal response to a pandemic. Constitutional law has evolved substantially since 1905, and the court has never explicitly addressed the propriety of what was known from the 1870s to the early 1900s as “shotgun quarantines,” whereby armed men prevented people infected with yellow fever from entering certain districts. Nor has the court considered the extent to which the federal government could override state and local quarantines as a matter of federalism if Congress were to amend federal laws to give the president more power to protect the nation during pandemics.
In other words, as much as Wehle might claim that the Constitution allows for the president to establish a national quarantine, the courts and Congress have said no such thing. In order for Wehle’s thesis to be true, not only would the judicial and legislative branches have to sign off on a dramatic expansion of presidential power, the American people would have to buy in as well. In the 50-50 nation that we live in today, does that seem likely to you?
Police departments across the country are starting to back away from heavy-handed enforcement of social distancing orders, including mask mandates, in part because every arrest or citation caught on camera becomes a public relations nightmare for the departments. Gov. Mike DeWine originally imposed a mask requirement for all Ohioans, but he too reversed course after a few days, stating his mask order “went too far.”
“It became clear to me that that was just a bridge too far. People were not going to accept the government telling them what to do,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” DeWine said getting hung up on the mandatory masks “just wasn’t going to work,” though he highly recommends wearing them. Employees will still wear face masks, and DeWine urged customers to protect “the folks who are stocking shelves in grocery stores.”
A heavy-handed government response is simply going to make things worse, and politicians like DeWine realize that fact even if pundits like Wehle refuse to acknowledge it. Want as many people as possible to voluntary take part in contact tracing and to stay at home if they test positive for the coronavirus? Encourage them to do so with positive reinforcement. Don’t threaten them with a military response.
Ironically, Wehle’s written quite a bit over the past few years about her belief that Donald Trump is taking powers that aren’t constitutionally reserved for the executive branch. Last year, the professor even wrote a piece about the impeachment at The Bulwark entitled “King Trump.”
People can fairly debate whether we are in a full-blown “constitutional crisis,” a question that hinges on one’s subjective take on that term. But at least one thing is for sure: The Constitution sets up a structure of checks and balances among the branches of government. Congress—both through its express powers, like impeachment, and its implied powers, like its oversight practices—is legitimately empowered to check abuses by the president. The president, his lawyer Cipollone, and various Trump spokespeople have argued that Congress is abusing the president by exercising its impeachment prerogative. This claim is not routine, politics-as-usual stuff. It is deeply concerning. If Team Trump wins its all-out assault on executive branch accountability, the Constitution as we know it will be dead. Yet by then, it will be too late to wave the constitutional-crisis flag to any avail.
In just a few months Wehle’s gone from encouraging Congress to check abuses by the president to calling on Congress to empower the president to use the military to enforce a nationwide quarantine, which in itself would be an abuse of the Constitution. Perhaps I’m being a little too cynical, but I can’t help but think that Wehle’s op/ed was written with a President Biden, not President Trump, in mind. It certainly didn’t give much thought to how the American people would react to any attempt to use military force to impose quarantine measures.


bearingarms--2020-05-17--Will The Supreme Court Announce A New 2A Case On Monday?

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court met in conference on Friday to discuss dozens of cases currently under consideration for review by the Court , including ten cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms .
This is the second conference held since the court sidestepped a substantive ruling in in a challenge to a New York city gun law in April , and the justices could announce as early as Monday that they ’ ve agreed to hear one or more of the cases .
NBC News reports that the head of Michael Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is most likely to pick a case dealing with the right to carry .
Eric Tirschwell , the managing director for Everytown Law , an anti-gun violence group , said that it ’ s most likely that the court will take up one of the cases it ’ s considering about public carry permits .
He said he was optimistic that a majority of the court would reject the “ extreme ” positions taken by the NRA and other gun rights groups .
“ From what he current justices have written on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that there is a majority of five votes in favor of this extreme view of the Second Amendment , ” Tirschwell said .
“ Chief Justice John Roberts is certainly a big , if not the biggest , question mark.
” I think Tirschwell ’ s trying to engage in a little preemptive spin here .
If gun control advocates were really optimistic about a Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms , I don ’ t think they would have persuaded officials to change the New York City law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Pistol Association vs. New York City in order to avoid a ruling by SCOTUS .
Tirschwell is right that Chief Justice Roberts is probably the biggest question mark , but given the fact that Roberts was in the majority in the Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down handgun bans in Washington , D.C. and Chicago , I think the odds are still pretty good that Roberts would side with the plaintiffs in cases challenging “ good cause ” requirements for carry licenses .
While the justices have several cases dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from , there are a number of other cases dealing with other attacks on the right to keep and bear arms that justices could also agree to hear .
Here ’ s a quick peek at all of the 2A-related cases the Supreme Court heard in conference on Friday .
I too think it ’ s likely that the Court will accept a case dealing with the right to bear arms , and it ’ s possible that the justices could agree to hear more than one challenge , combining multiple cases into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combine the two cases challenging bans on so-called assault weapons , and unlike the New York City case that was recently declared moot by the Supreme Court , it ’ s highly unlikely that lawmakers in New Jersey , Maryland , Massachusetts , and Illinois would change their carry laws or un-ban modern sporting rifles in an attempt to avoid scrutiny by the High Court .
It ’ s also possible that no new Second Amendment cases will be announced by the Court when its orders are released on Monday morning , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay will only be a temporary one .
We already have four justices who are on the recordin support of hearing a case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms , and that ’ s all that it takes for the Supreme Court to hear a case .
The big issues at the moment appear to be what case or cases the Court will pick , and how soon they ’ ll do so , not whether or not the justices will agree to hear a case at all .

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court met in conference on Friday to discuss dozens of cases currently under consideration for review by the Court, including ten cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. This is the second conference held since the court sidestepped a substantive ruling in in a challenge to a New York city gun law in April, and the justices could announce as early as Monday that they’ve agreed to hear one or more of the cases.
NBC News reports that the head of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun law firm believes that SCOTUS is most likely to pick a case dealing with the right to carry.
Eric Tirschwell, the managing director for Everytown Law, an anti-gun violence group, said that it’s most likely that the court will take up one of the cases it’s considering about public carry permits. He said he was optimistic that a majority of the court would reject the “extreme” positions taken by the NRA and other gun rights groups. “From what he current justices have written on the Second Amendment, it is far from clear that there is a majority of five votes in favor of this extreme view of the Second Amendment,” Tirschwell said. “Chief Justice John Roberts is certainly a big, if not the biggest, question mark.”
I think Tirschwell’s trying to engage in a little preemptive spin here. If gun control advocates were really optimistic about a Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms, I don’t think they would have persuaded officials to change the New York City law in question in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. New York City in order to avoid a ruling by SCOTUS. Tirschwell is right that Chief Justice Roberts is probably the biggest question mark, but given the fact that Roberts was in the majority in the Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down handgun bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, I think the odds are still pretty good that Roberts would side with the plaintiffs in cases challenging “good cause” requirements for carry licenses.
While the justices have several cases dealing with the right to bear arms to choose from, there are a number of other cases dealing with other attacks on the right to keep and bear arms that justices could also agree to hear. Here’s a quick peek at all of the 2A-related cases the Supreme Court heard in conference on Friday.
I too think it’s likely that the Court will accept a case dealing with the right to bear arms, and it’s possible that the justices could agree to hear more than one challenge, combining multiple cases into a single challenge. SCOTUS could also combine the two cases challenging bans on so-called assault weapons, and unlike the New York City case that was recently declared moot by the Supreme Court, it’s highly unlikely that lawmakers in New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois would change their carry laws or un-ban modern sporting rifles in an attempt to avoid scrutiny by the High Court.
It’s also possible that no new Second Amendment cases will be announced by the Court when its orders are released on Monday morning, but if that happens, I suspect the delay will only be a temporary one. We already have four justices who are on the recordin support of hearing a case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, and that’s all that it takes for the Supreme Court to hear a case. The big issues at the moment appear to be what case or cases the Court will pick, and how soon they’ll do so, not whether or not the justices will agree to hear a case at all.


bearingarms--2020-05-17--Los Angeles Raid Nets 30 Illegal Guns Despite Strict Laws

California gun control , we ’ re told , is a great thing and the rest of the country should totally embrace it .
That ’ s what anti-gunners routinely argue .
Why else is it that California is often the only state to get an “ A ” grade from these gun control groups ?
Oh , they want California gun laws for all of us .
The problem , though , is that those laws don ’ t actually work nearly as well as some might like to think .
I mean , if it did , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have amassed an arsenal with so many weapons banned under state law .
Joshua Joffred , 34 , was taken into custody after a month-long multi-agency investigation that began when he applied for a concealed weapons permit , the Ventura County Sheriff ’ s Office reported Wednesday .
Detectives discovered that Joffred owned several weapons while he was also addicted to an opiate-based narcotic .
After obtaining search warrants , deputies pulled Joffred over near his Newbury Park home at around 1:30 p.m. Monday , where they found a loaded handgun concealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office said .
They then raided his home , where they seized 30 guns , including semiautomatic centerfire rifles , AK-47 variant assault rifles , semiautomatic pistols , a semiautomatic shotgun and several handguns .
They also found high-capacity drum-style magazines that hold over 50 rounds off ammo .
Of course , many of these are illegal in and of themselves .
Couple that with the fact that Joffred was addicted to drugs while having those guns and you ’ ve got more criminal activity .
So , how could a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anti-gunners would tell you that Joffred could easily obtain these guns because other states don ’ t have California ’ s strict gun control laws .
If they had similar laws , he wouldn ’ t have been able to get them .
Of course , this is a man who had no trouble getting his hands on opiate-based narcotics which are strictly controlled in every state in the nation .
I mean , he got drugs without a problem , but guns will mystically disappear and become unattainable because they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for a minute .
Joffred got drugs so guns are hardly a stretch for him .
He may well have been involved in the trade of either or both .
Regardless , California ’ s gun control laws were insufficient to keep him from amassing a fairly respectable arsenal of firearms , many of which were expressly banned by state law .
That also includes the larger-capacity magazines also banned by state law .
In fact , pretty much everything Joffred owned was evidence that gun control is nothing but an abysmal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For those of us who actually follow this stuff , though , we know better .
We know that gun control has never stopped a criminal from hurting another person .
We know that plenty of criminals have no trouble getting a gun regardless of whatever laws are on the books .
The only ones prevented from having these things in the state are the law-abiding citizens who are now at a disadvantage to the criminals who simply don ’ t care .

California gun control, we’re told, is a great thing and the rest of the country should totally embrace it. That’s what anti-gunners routinely argue. Why else is it that California is often the only state to get an “A” grade from these gun control groups?
Oh, they want California gun laws for all of us. The problem, though, is that those laws don’t actually work nearly as well as some might like to think.
I mean, if it did, it’s unlikely an individual in California could have amassed an arsenal with so many weapons banned under state law.
Joshua Joffred, 34, was taken into custody after a month-long multi-agency investigation that began when he applied for a concealed weapons permit, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office reported Wednesday. Detectives discovered that Joffred owned several weapons while he was also addicted to an opiate-based narcotic. After obtaining search warrants, deputies pulled Joffred over near his Newbury Park home at around 1:30 p.m. Monday, where they found a loaded handgun concealed in the center console, the sheriff’s office said. They then raided his home, where they seized 30 guns, including semiautomatic centerfire rifles, AK-47 variant assault rifles, semiautomatic pistols, a semiautomatic shotgun and several handguns. They also found high-capacity drum-style magazines that hold over 50 rounds off ammo.
Of course, many of these are illegal in and of themselves. Couple that with the fact that Joffred was addicted to drugs while having those guns and you’ve got more criminal activity.
Whoops.
So, how could a man buy all these illicit weapons? Anti-gunners would tell you that Joffred could easily obtain these guns because other states don’t have California’s strict gun control laws. If they had similar laws, he wouldn’t have been able to get them.
Of course, this is a man who had no trouble getting his hands on opiate-based narcotics which are strictly controlled in every state in the nation.
I mean, he got drugs without a problem, but guns will mystically disappear and become unattainable because they’re tightly controlled. Don’t believe it for a minute.
Joffred got drugs so guns are hardly a stretch for him. He may well have been involved in the trade of either or both.
Regardless, California’s gun control laws were insufficient to keep him from amassing a fairly respectable arsenal of firearms, many of which were expressly banned by state law. That also includes the larger-capacity magazines also banned by state law. In fact, pretty much everything Joffred owned was evidence that gun control is nothing but an abysmal failure with really good public relations.
For those of us who actually follow this stuff, though, we know better. We know that gun control has never stopped a criminal from hurting another person. We know that plenty of criminals have no trouble getting a gun regardless of whatever laws are on the books.
The only ones prevented from having these things in the state are the law-abiding citizens who are now at a disadvantage to the criminals who simply don’t care.


bearingarms--2020-05-17--Two Charged After Trying To Buy Guns Illegally

Do you know those memes about how pro-Second Amendment are you ?
They ask the question , which is then followed by something supposedly over-the-top like a tank parked in some dude ’ s garage or a guy getting something to drink with a rocket launcher on his back ?
See , I look at those and think , “ Still not quite where I am.
” However , we don ’ t live in a world where we can trot on down to the tank or artillery dealer and pick up a new cannon for the front lawn like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We live in one where there are limits to what we can buy .
It seems a recent arrest dealt with a couple of guys who couldn ’ t live with that , and at least one of them had some attitudes that make it so I ’ m not sad to see him behind bars .
Two Bayside neighbors , one of whom allegedly expressed racist , sexist and anti-Semitic sentiments online , were arrested near a LaGuardia Airport hotel after allegedly purchasing several firearms with defaced serial numbers from two undercover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to federal prosecutors .
Joseph Miner , 29 , and Daniel Jou , 40 , allegedly purchased several guns with obliterated serial numbers , including two military-grade assault rifles , from two undercover FBI agents in a hotel room near the airport on May 12 , according to the federal complaint against the two men .
The duo was arrested promptly after leaving the hotel , according to federal prosecutors .
Miner and Jou were arraigned in Brooklyn federal court on Wednesday afternoon .
“ As alleged , after Joseph Miner praised extremist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the internet , he and his co-defendant bought a collection of illegal firearms capable of inflicting mass bloodshed , ” stated United States Attorney Richard Donoghue .
“ What the defendants did not know was that they were buying the guns from an undercover federal agent who had been investigating their plan to buy weapons that would be impossible to trace .
This Office , together with our law enforcement partners , will continue to exercise extreme vigilance to protect our communities by preventing individuals from purchasing illegal weapons.
” Miner also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race war and wanted to “ die a hero ” while shooting police officers .
Seriously , people like this disturb me .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong , his thinking should not constitute grounds for him being arrested .
I ’ ve long held that if you ’ re not free to hold objectionable views , you ’ re not free at all .
However , it takes a particularly warped mind to hate other people because of skin tone or religion to the point that you ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing .
Based on what we ’ re being told , it sounds like Miner wasn ’ t just some guy trying to buy guns , but was a terrorist in the making .
It sounds like it was just a matter of time before he shot up a black church or gunned down a police officer just to spark the race war he ’ s hoping for .
Of course , he could also be a troll who says a lot of crap to get a rise out of people and doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve known folks who were like that , and while I can ’ t condone it , I don ’ t want them penalized for it either .
Either way , I suspect this could be an interesting case to watch .

Do you know those memes about how pro-Second Amendment are you? They ask the question, which is then followed by something supposedly over-the-top like a tank parked in some dude’s garage or a guy getting something to drink with a rocket launcher on his back?
See, I look at those and think, “Still not quite where I am.”
However, we don’t live in a world where we can trot on down to the tank or artillery dealer and pick up a new cannon for the front lawn like we would buy a new lawnmower. We live in one where there are limits to what we can buy.
It seems a recent arrest dealt with a couple of guys who couldn’t live with that, and at least one of them had some attitudes that make it so I’m not sad to see him behind bars.
Two Bayside neighbors, one of whom allegedly expressed racist, sexist and anti-Semitic sentiments online, were arrested near a LaGuardia Airport hotel after allegedly purchasing several firearms with defaced serial numbers from two undercover FBI agents on Tuesday night, according to federal prosecutors. Joseph Miner, 29, and Daniel Jou, 40, allegedly purchased several guns with obliterated serial numbers, including two military-grade assault rifles, from two undercover FBI agents in a hotel room near the airport on May 12, according to the federal complaint against the two men. The duo was arrested promptly after leaving the hotel, according to federal prosecutors. Miner and Jou were arraigned in Brooklyn federal court on Wednesday afternoon. “As alleged, after Joseph Miner praised extremist violence and expressed racist and anti-Semitic hatred on the internet, he and his co-defendant bought a collection of illegal firearms capable of inflicting mass bloodshed,” stated United States Attorney Richard Donoghue. “What the defendants did not know was that they were buying the guns from an undercover federal agent who had been investigating their plan to buy weapons that would be impossible to trace. This Office, together with our law enforcement partners, will continue to exercise extreme vigilance to protect our communities by preventing individuals from purchasing illegal weapons.”
Miner also apparently expressed interest in participating in a race war and wanted to “die a hero” while shooting police officers.
Yep. He sounds nice.
Seriously, people like this disturb me. Now, don’t get me wrong, his thinking should not constitute grounds for him being arrested. I’ve long held that if you’re not free to hold objectionable views, you’re not free at all.
However, it takes a particularly warped mind to hate other people because of skin tone or religion to the point that you’d actually want to kill them just for existing.
Based on what we’re being told, it sounds like Miner wasn’t just some guy trying to buy guns, but was a terrorist in the making. It sounds like it was just a matter of time before he shot up a black church or gunned down a police officer just to spark the race war he’s hoping for.
Of course, he could also be a troll who says a lot of crap to get a rise out of people and doesn’t really believe any of that. I’ve known folks who were like that, and while I can’t condone it, I don’t want them penalized for it either.
Either way, I suspect this could be an interesting case to watch.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--Which Side Really Cares About Gun Safety, Anyway

For some time , anti-gunners have tried their damnedest to rebrand .
They know the term “ gun control ” is problematic , so they ’ ve tried to pivot .
They want to be thought of as “ anti-gun violence advocates ” or , as in most of the cases , as “ gun safety advocates.
” And , well , people are more likely to listen .
Absolutely no one in their right mind opposes gun safety , especially gun owners .
The vast majority of us take safety very seriously , after all .
The problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun safety .
Over at Guns Magazine , Dave Workman addresses this issue quite well .
Earlier this year , there were two occasions when this correspondent wound up in broadcast discussions with gun prohibitionists trying to pass themselves off as “ gun safety advocates.
” In one of those encounters , it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn ’ t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group .
Take this as a learning experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “ gun safety ” organization .
This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it .
NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such .
Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover .
A friend who used to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habitually pulled out his instructor ’ s card to ask opponents , “ Do you have one of these ?
If you don ’ t , you probably shouldn ’ t be here talking about gun safety.
” Workman goes on to note that if you ’ re not a certified instructor , the next best thing is to be able to quote Col. Jeff Coopers Four Laws .
There may be a moment of silence , possibly a blank stare as your opponent ’ s try to figure out who Cooper was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not being the point ” before they scramble to change the subject .
This is when you ’ ve got them .
They can ’ t answer directly since they don ’ t know .
Whatever else is said after this point , just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn ’ t answered .
These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don ’ t really know anything about guns or safety , other than they don ’ t like them and don ’ t want anyone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to you to set it in concrete so people remember it .
You ’ re the expert , not them .
And , of course , he ’ s absolutely correct .
They call themselves “ gun safety advocates ” because they ’ re trying to market themselves to the American public , a public that ’ s not necessarily trusting of anything labeling itself as “ control.
” By saying they ’ re about safety , they can try and redirect any criticism as somehow “ anti-safety.
” No one wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Workman notes , they don ’ t know anything about guns , much less about actual firearms safety .
Their entire idea of gun safety is to regulate the hell out of guns until no one can have them , then everything would be safe from guns .
This would be akin to Mothers Against Drunk Driving talking about curbing DUIs be reinstituting Prohibition .
If they were seriously interested in firearm safety , they ’ d be reaching out to folks on this side of the debate about the issues we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d support gun safety education in our schools so kids know what to do if they find a gun .
They ’ d support gun rights groups ’ efforts to push safety to gun owners .
Where are those efforts ?
Nowhere to be seen , that ’ s where .

For some time, anti-gunners have tried their damnedest to rebrand. They know the term “gun control” is problematic, so they’ve tried to pivot. They want to be thought of as “anti-gun violence advocates” or, as in most of the cases, as “gun safety advocates.”
And, well, people are more likely to listen. Absolutely no one in their right mind opposes gun safety, especially gun owners. The vast majority of us take safety very seriously, after all.
The problem is, they’re not really about gun safety.
Over at Guns Magazine, Dave Workman addresses this issue quite well.
Earlier this year, there were two occasions when this correspondent wound up in broadcast discussions with gun prohibitionists trying to pass themselves off as “gun safety advocates.” In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “gun safety” organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it. NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to be a lobbyist was also an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety.”
Workman goes on to note that if you’re not a certified instructor, the next best thing is to be able to quote Col. Jeff Coopers Four Laws.
He’s not wrong.
He adds:
There may be a moment of silence, possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and maybe offer a remark about “not being the point” before they scramble to change the subject. This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn’t answered. These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t really know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert, not them.
And, of course, he’s absolutely correct.
They call themselves “gun safety advocates” because they’re trying to market themselves to the American public, a public that’s not necessarily trusting of anything labeling itself as “control.” By saying they’re about safety, they can try and redirect any criticism as somehow “anti-safety.” No one wants to be unsafe, right?
Yet as Workman notes, they don’t know anything about guns, much less about actual firearms safety. Their entire idea of gun safety is to regulate the hell out of guns until no one can have them, then everything would be safe from guns.
This would be akin to Mothers Against Drunk Driving talking about curbing DUIs be reinstituting Prohibition.
If they were seriously interested in firearm safety, they’d be reaching out to folks on this side of the debate about the issues we can supposedly find common ground on. They’d support gun safety education in our schools so kids know what to do if they find a gun. They’d support gun rights groups’ efforts to push safety to gun owners.
Where are those efforts? Nowhere to be seen, that’s where.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--In NYC, Carry Permits Might As Well Be Fiction

I ’ ve described New York City as being one of the most gun controlled cities in the world .
In fairness , it ’ s not as gun controlled as a lot of other places , but the level of regulation on firearms is ridiculous by American standards .
For many of us , we know how bad it can actually be to try and own a gun in the Big Apple .
Fox News just laid out some of it for the average American to take a look at .
So , how hard is it for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry permit ( CCW ) ?
Next to impossible .
“ New York City is one of the most restrictive CCW jurisdictions in the country , and it is very hard to get .
On average it takes between six and nine months .
It ’ s recommended that one use an attorney who is experienced in the process , ” Nino Bosaz , the New York-based editorial director of Athlon Outdoors , told Fox News .
“ The initial application usually results in a denial that must then be appealed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to carry outside the home , and tie the carry license to a business , where the applicant must prove a ‘ justifiable need ’ to carry concealed.
” And what exactly constitutes a “ justifiable need ?
” There are really only three ways for a law-abiding New York City resident to obtain a CCW handgun license , experts note .
“ No .
1 is proof that you regularly carry a significant amount of cash or jewelry as part of your business and can document it to the NYPD ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ No .
2 is a recent , documented death threat that NYPD deems credible .
The death-threat justification seems to be a completely subjective decision that many observers would make different conclusions on.
” No .
3 , Bosaz says , is to be what the governing authority classified as a celebrity .
In other words , you normal folks shouldn ’ t even bother asking .
New York City is the epitome of why “ may issue ” permitting laws are so incredibly problematic .
In fact , the problem isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey gun owners have a similar problem .
Folks there can ’ t get their hands on gun permits either .
Hell , I ’ ve had some who say they carry a large amount of cash and they can ’ t get a permit .
While anti-gunners routinely argue that “ shall issue ” laws are all kinds of problematic , the truth is that the right to bear arms means that everyone has the right until and unless they show they don ’ t deserve it .
Shall issue laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equitable way .
In places like New York City , those laws turn the right to bear arms into a privilege , something you must ask the government for their permission before you can do it .
Of course , this can lead to corruption .
In fact , it has .
Once bureaucrats can decide who gets to exercise a right and who doesn ’ t , there is an increased risk for someone offering a little something for making sure an application is approved .
Bureaucrats are often known for arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money , so is it hard to imagine this being a thing ?
It ’ s time to really end the whole “ may issue ” thing once and for all .
As it stands , permits in New York City and other such places might as well be fiction for all the good they do the average citizen .

I’ve described New York City as being one of the most gun controlled cities in the world. In fairness, it’s not as gun controlled as a lot of other places, but the level of regulation on firearms is ridiculous by American standards.
For many of us, we know how bad it can actually be to try and own a gun in the Big Apple.
Fox News just laid out some of it for the average American to take a look at.
So, how hard is it for a regular New Yorker to obtain a concealed carry permit (CCW)? Next to impossible. “New York City is one of the most restrictive CCW jurisdictions in the country, and it is very hard to get. On average it takes between six and nine months. It’s recommended that one use an attorney who is experienced in the process,” Nino Bosaz, the New York-based editorial director of Athlon Outdoors, told Fox News. “The initial application usually results in a denial that must then be appealed. The city does not generally recognize an individual right to carry outside the home, and tie the carry license to a business, where the applicant must prove a ‘justifiable need’ to carry concealed.” And what exactly constitutes a “justifiable need?” There are really only three ways for a law-abiding New York City resident to obtain a CCW handgun license, experts note. “No. 1 is proof that you regularly carry a significant amount of cash or jewelry as part of your business and can document it to the NYPD’s satisfaction,” Bosaz explained. “No. 2 is a recent, documented death threat that NYPD deems credible. The death-threat justification seems to be a completely subjective decision that many observers would make different conclusions on.” No. 3, Bosaz says, is to be what the governing authority classified as a celebrity.
In other words, you normal folks shouldn’t even bother asking.
New York City is the epitome of why “may issue” permitting laws are so incredibly problematic. In fact, the problem isn’t unique to New York. New Jersey gun owners have a similar problem. Folks there can’t get their hands on gun permits either. Hell, I’ve had some who say they carry a large amount of cash and they can’t get a permit.
While anti-gunners routinely argue that “shall issue” laws are all kinds of problematic, the truth is that the right to bear arms means that everyone has the right until and unless they show they don’t deserve it. Shall issue laws try to address this in the most equitable way.
In places like New York City, those laws turn the right to bear arms into a privilege, something you must ask the government for their permission before you can do it.
Of course, this can lead to corruption. In fact, it has.
Once bureaucrats can decide who gets to exercise a right and who doesn’t, there is an increased risk for someone offering a little something for making sure an application is approved. Bureaucrats are often known for arguing they don’t make nearly enough money, so is it hard to imagine this being a thing?
It’s time to really end the whole “may issue” thing once and for all. As it stands, permits in New York City and other such places might as well be fiction for all the good they do the average citizen.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--WaPo Columnist Claims Open Carry Is A Threat to Democracy

The masthead of the Washington Post has read “ Democracy dies in darkness ” ever since President Trump was elected , but perhaps its time that the paper change their motto to read “ Democracy dies with the exercise of the Second Amendment ” instead .
After all , columnist Charles Lane is out with a column that claims open carry laws are endangering democracy , so why not go all-in and swap out the masthead to make it clear that the paper only supports those constitutional rights it doesn ’ t consider icky .
On today ’ s Bearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a deep dive into the flawed arguments presented by Lane , which were prompted by recent armed demonstrators at the Michigan state capitol building and in downtown Raleigh , North Carolina .
North Carolina bans such displays in its legislature ( and other public buildings ) .
It also forbids carrying weapons at political demonstrations .
Otherwise , though , “ open carry ” is generally the law .
And so one of the men in paramilitary garb who have paraded through downtown Raleigh on three occasions since May 1 armed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently inoperable rocket-launcher — claimed he was just out getting “ some exercise , ” and police backed off .
Thus do right-wing extremists exploit America ’ s lax gun laws for political gain .
Of course , the open carrying of rifles or handguns is a recipe for intimidation and potentially deadly confusion , even when not politically motivated .
If shots ring out on a street full of armed pedestrians , how are the police supposed to identify the culprit ?
Whoo-boy .
First off , it ’ s not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been carrying guns at the state capitol in Lansing , Michigan .
I ’ m also not sure you can really say that these armed protesters have actually gained anything politically as a result of their lawful carrying .
Finally , it ’ s telling that Lane relies on a hypothetical scary situation , instead of acknowledging reality ; virtually every one of these armed protests have been non-violent , and there ’ ve been no arrests made .
How else should one interpret “ the right of the people to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
Oh , that ’ s right .
Under Lane ’ s interpretation , the right is actually a privilege , and can be denied to anyone , at any time , as long it makes Lane and other anti-gun advocates feel better .
Sorry , but that ’ s not how our individual liberties work .
Lane notes that the Supreme Court is currently weighing whether or not to hear challenges to the carry laws in New Jersey and Maryland , and hopes that justices could use one of those cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of arms .
Ironically , while Lane complains about “ right wing extremists ” carrying guns , the Education and Defense Society was actually comprised of socialists who had armed themselves in defense against their capitalist overlords who had hired their own private security forces .
The Presser decision may have allowed states to ban the parade and drilling of “ unauthorized military organizations , ” but it didn ’ t address the issue of protesting while armed at all .
Lane says it ’ s ironic that “ today ’ s conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radicals , ” while failing to note the irony of his taking the side of an undemocratic Supreme Court decision that limited the Second Amendment rights of socialist immigrants .
Instead , the columnist says his takeaway from Presser is “ that armed political movements of any ideology can endanger democracy , and that a consistent , rational reading of the Constitution would empower states to rein them in.
” Unfortunately for Lane , there ’ s no rational reading of the Constitution that would strip the American people of their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exercise more than one right at a time , after all .
You don ’ t lose your Fourth Amendment rights because you ’ re exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms , and you don ’ t lose your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because you ’ re exercising your First Amendment right at the same time .
There ’ s a much bigger threat to democracy and our republic than a few armed protesters ; Americans who would sacrifice our individual rights in exchange for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the method and message of protesters .

The masthead of the Washington Post has read “Democracy dies in darkness” ever since President Trump was elected, but perhaps its time that the paper change their motto to read “Democracy dies with the exercise of the Second Amendment” instead. After all, columnist Charles Lane is out with a column that claims open carry laws are endangering democracy, so why not go all-in and swap out the masthead to make it clear that the paper only supports those constitutional rights it doesn’t consider icky.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I take a deep dive into the flawed arguments presented by Lane, which were prompted by recent armed demonstrators at the Michigan state capitol building and in downtown Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina bans such displays in its legislature (and other public buildings). It also forbids carrying weapons at political demonstrations. Otherwise, though, “open carry” is generally the law. And so one of the men in paramilitary garb who have paraded through downtown Raleigh on three occasions since May 1 armed with various weapons — including a menacing but apparently inoperable rocket-launcher — claimed he was just out getting “some exercise,” and police backed off. Thus do right-wing extremists exploit America’s lax gun laws for political gain. Of course, the open carrying of rifles or handguns is a recipe for intimidation and potentially deadly confusion, even when not politically motivated. If shots ring out on a street full of armed pedestrians, how are the police supposed to identify the culprit?
Whoo-boy. First off, it’s not just “right wing extremists” who’ve been carrying guns at the state capitol in Lansing, Michigan. I’m also not sure you can really say that these armed protesters have actually gained anything politically as a result of their lawful carrying. Finally, it’s telling that Lane relies on a hypothetical scary situation, instead of acknowledging reality; virtually every one of these armed protests have been non-violent, and there’ve been no arrests made.
Open carry may be benign, even necessary, in limited situations: hunters carrying their weapons home from a day’s shooting, for example. On the whole, though, no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force like those in Michigan or North Carolina. Surely no sensible interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would say a state must tolerate them.
How else should one interpret “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Oh, that’s right. Under Lane’s interpretation, the right is actually a privilege, and can be denied to anyone, at any time, as long it makes Lane and other anti-gun advocates feel better. Sorry, but that’s not how our individual liberties work.
Lane notes that the Supreme Court is currently weighing whether or not to hear challenges to the carry laws in New Jersey and Maryland, and hopes that justices could use one of those cases to impose new limits on the bearing of arms.
Certainly the court could undermine bans on open carry of handguns that still do exist in jurisdictions containing 30 percent of the U.S. population — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and the District. Gun-rights advocates portray themselves as heirs to the Founders, protecting individual freedom from George III-like tyranny. Yet a parallel, equally strong, U.S. legal tradition recognizes that the Constitution is also a shield against anarchy. In 1886, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law prohibiting a self-styled “Education and Defense Society” from parading with arms in Chicago, despite the German immigrant socialist group’s claims of benign intent. “To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state . . . to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine,” the court noted. The ruling in that case, Illinois v. Presser, has never been overturned, and in his 2008 opinion for the court establishing an individual right to firearm possession, Justice Antonin Scalia disavowed any intention to do so.
Ironically, while Lane complains about “right wing extremists” carrying guns, the Education and Defense Society was actually comprised of socialists who had armed themselves in defense against their capitalist overlords who had hired their own private security forces. The Presser decision may have allowed states to ban the parade and drilling of “unauthorized military organizations,” but it didn’t address the issue of protesting while armed at all.
Lane says it’s ironic that “today’s conservatives should be adopting the arguments of past radicals,” while failing to note the irony of his taking the side of an undemocratic Supreme Court decision that limited the Second Amendment rights of socialist immigrants. Instead, the columnist says his takeaway from Presser is “that armed political movements of any ideology can endanger democracy, and that a consistent, rational reading of the Constitution would empower states to rein them in.”
Unfortunately for Lane, there’s no rational reading of the Constitution that would strip the American people of their right to protest while armed. Americans can multitask and exercise more than one right at a time, after all. You don’t lose your Fourth Amendment rights because you’re exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms, and you don’t lose your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because you’re exercising your First Amendment right at the same time. There’s a much bigger threat to democracy and our republic than a few armed protesters; Americans who would sacrifice our individual rights in exchange for more government power simply because they disagree with the method and message of protesters.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--NJ Gov Allowing Outdoor Ranges To Reopen Under Ridiculous Conditions

Just a few days after the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol clubs filed a federal lawsuit challenging the closure of outdoor ranges in the state , Governor Phil Murphy has issued new executive orders allowing outdoor ranges to reopen this Friday .
Murphy is no friend of gun owners and no fan of the Second Amendment , but he may have realized that he was likely to suffer a legal defeat if he attempted to reopen portions of the state ’ s economy while keeping ranges on lockdown .
Under the governor ’ s new order “ outdoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 22nd , as long as they adhere to some pretty restrictive social distancing guidelines , including a limit of ten people at the range at any given time .
It seems silly to limit the use of outdoor ranges to a handful of people , especially if the range is set up to handle far more .
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs range , for example , has 47 firing stations at the handgun range , 70 stations at the rifle range , 25 spots on the firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as a long distance rifle range and a shotgun range that can hold dozens of more shooters .
Murphy ’ s new rule means that the ANJRPC range will be forced to open at less than 10-percent of its capacity , despite the fact that it ’ s an outdoor facility and the risk of coronavirus transmission is very small .
In fact , the state ’ s parks and beaches are reopening , and there ’ ll be a lot more than ten people in the sand at any given time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely no scientific justification for Murphy to demand that outdoor ranges allow only a handful of gun owners to head to the firing line , but the ANJRPC says over the past few months the governor has made it clear that his executive orders closing gun stores and ranges have had far more to do with his anti-gun mentality than trying to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
What ’ s more , Governor Murphy ’ s overt hatred for the Second Amendment is laid bare in his executive order , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores , marijuana dispensaries , and cell phone stores are “ essential ” and therefore can stay open , while ranges are not “ essential ” and must close .
Governor Murphy has even admitted that his assault on the Second Amendment was motivated by his hatred of guns , not by safety concerns about Coronavirus .
When recently asked by a reporter why he didn ’ t deem Second Amendment facilities to be “ essential , ” he stated “ a safer society for my taste has fewer guns and not more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is apparently just his pretext for shutting down the Second Amendment .
I ’ ll be speaking with ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach about the reopening of outdoor ranges on tomorrow ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , as well as the possibility of a separate lawsuit challenging the closure of indoor ranges , which have not been allowed to reopen under Murphy ’ s latest order .

Just a few days after the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol clubs filed a federal lawsuit challenging the closure of outdoor ranges in the state, Governor Phil Murphy has issued new executive orders allowing outdoor ranges to reopen this Friday. Murphy is no friend of gun owners and no fan of the Second Amendment, but he may have realized that he was likely to suffer a legal defeat if he attempted to reopen portions of the state’s economy while keeping ranges on lockdown.
Under the governor’s new order “outdoor recreational businesses” can reopen beginning on May 22nd, as long as they adhere to some pretty restrictive social distancing guidelines, including a limit of ten people at the range at any given time.
Using electronic or telephone reservation and payment systems;
Prohibiting impermissible gatherings;
Installing physical barriers between employees and customers;
Limiting the use of equipment to one person;
Implementing social distancing measures in commonly used areas, including demarcation and signage;
Infection control and hygiene practices;
Providing sanitization materials to employees;
Frequent sanitization of high-touch areas; and
Limiting occupancy of restrooms.
It seems silly to limit the use of outdoor ranges to a handful of people, especially if the range is set up to handle far more. The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs range, for example, has 47 firing stations at the handgun range, 70 stations at the rifle range, 25 spots on the firing line at the rimfire range, as well as a long distance rifle range and a shotgun range that can hold dozens of more shooters. Murphy’s new rule means that the ANJRPC range will be forced to open at less than 10-percent of its capacity, despite the fact that it’s an outdoor facility and the risk of coronavirus transmission is very small. In fact, the state’s parks and beaches are reopening, and there’ll be a lot more than ten people in the sand at any given time this coming weekend.
There’s absolutely no scientific justification for Murphy to demand that outdoor ranges allow only a handful of gun owners to head to the firing line, but the ANJRPC says over the past few months the governor has made it clear that his executive orders closing gun stores and ranges have had far more to do with his anti-gun mentality than trying to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
What’s more, Governor Murphy’s overt hatred for the Second Amendment is laid bare in his executive order, which ironically declares that non-vital retailers like liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and cell phone stores are “essential” and therefore can stay open, while ranges are not “essential” and must close. Governor Murphy has even admitted that his assault on the Second Amendment was motivated by his hatred of guns, not by safety concerns about Coronavirus. When recently asked by a reporter why he didn’t deem Second Amendment facilities to be “essential,” he stated “a safer society for my taste has fewer guns and not more guns.”He said nothing about Coronavirus, which is apparently just his pretext for shutting down the Second Amendment.
I’ll be speaking with ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach about the reopening of outdoor ranges on tomorrow’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, as well as the possibility of a separate lawsuit challenging the closure of indoor ranges, which have not been allowed to reopen under Murphy’s latest order.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--VIP Gold Chat- Ed Morrissey, Sam J, and Cam Edwards - 5/20 1:30 PM EST

We have another great live chat coming up for our Townhall Media VIP Gold members on Wednesday of this week .
I ’ ll be joined by Hot Air ’ s Ed Morrissey and the one and only Sam J from Twitchy as we take your questions and comments on any topic under the sun and in the news .
Want to talk about the Supreme Court and whether or not it will soon hear a Second Amendment case , or the latest with President Trump ’ s battles with the WHO ?
Maybe you just want to ask Sam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corgi ?
Whatever ’ s on your mind , you ’ ll get the chance on Wednesday to share it with us .
The live chat will take place here , and will be available as a replay for those who can ’ t tune in live and take part in the chat with us .
Also , if you ’ re not yet a VIP Gold member of Townhall Media , you can sign up right here , and you can use the code WUHAN to get 25 % off of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the work we do here at Townhall Media , and I ’ m looking forward to another fun discussion with some of my favorite people on Wednesday afternoon .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

We have another great live chat coming up for our Townhall Media VIP Gold members on Wednesday of this week. I’ll be joined by Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey and the one and only Sam J from Twitchy as we take your questions and comments on any topic under the sun and in the news. Want to talk about the Supreme Court and whether or not it will soon hear a Second Amendment case, or the latest with President Trump’s battles with the WHO? Maybe you just want to ask Sam about the joys of owning an adorable Corgi? Whatever’s on your mind, you’ll get the chance on Wednesday to share it with us.
The live chat will take place here, and will be available as a replay for those who can’t tune in live and take part in the chat with us.
Also, if you’re not yet a VIP Gold member of Townhall Media, you can sign up right here, and you can use the code WUHAN to get 25% off of your membership.
Thanks for all your support for the work we do here at Townhall Media, and I’m looking forward to another fun discussion with some of my favorite people on Wednesday afternoon.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--Pensacola Gunman's Ties To Al-Quida Render Gun Control Argument Moot

In the wake of Pensacola , there were a lot of people who took issue with the fact the shooter could get a gun at all .
Of course , that ’ s what happens in the wake of any high-profile shooting .
By now , we should be used to it .
With Pensacola , though , there ’ s another wrinkle in matters that muddies those waters .
You see , while much was made of the fact that he was a foreign national and could have been legally barred from having a gun , new information suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything .
The gunman in a deadly rampage late last year at a military base in Florida communicated with al-Qaida operatives about the attacks in the months leading up to it , U.S. officials said Monday as they laid out new details of a shooting that killed three American sailors .
The FBI learned of the contacts between Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani and operatives of al-Qaida after breaking the encryption on cellphones that had previously been locked and that the shooter , a Saudi Air Force officer , had tried to destroy before being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now have a clearer understanding of Alshamrani ’ s associations in the years , months and days leading up to his attack , ” Attorney General William Barr said at a news conference in which he sharply chastised Apple for not providing help in unlocking the phones .
Once unlocked by the FBI , the phones revealed contact between Alshamrani and “ dangerous ” operatives from al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula , or AQAP , and also showed how he had been radicalized overseas for at least the last five years , officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his planning , including saving a will on his phone that sought to explain himself — the same document AQAP later released in taking responsibility for the attack .
“ It is certainly more than just inspired , ” FBI Director Chris Wray said of Alshamrani ’ s contacts with al-Qaida .
“ We know , for example , that he was sharing plans and tactics with them .
We know that he was coordinating with them and providing an opportunity for them to take credit for the attack.
” Now , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think would have happened if he couldn ’ t get a gun domestically ?
That ’ s right , al-Quida would have gotten him a gun .
Jihadists were probably salivating over their chance to hit the American military on one of their bases .
They had to be downright giddy over the possibility .
They ’ d have tripped over themselves getting him a firearm if he needed it .
What ’ s more , anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows this to be a fact .
As such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of indignation over how this shooter got his gun need to be reconsidered in light of this new information .
This wasn ’ t a mass shooting as we typically think of these things , this was a terrorist attack on an American military based on U.S. soil .
It wasn ’ t a failure of the Second Amendment but , at worst , a failure of our intelligence apparatus .
There ’ s no need for new gun laws when we already know that terrorists move freely enough around the country as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to also smuggle guns into various nations–see their activities in heavily gun-controlled Europe for an example–in order to carry out these kinds of attacks .
Let ’ s not punish the average American for the act of a terrorist .

In the wake of Pensacola, there were a lot of people who took issue with the fact the shooter could get a gun at all. Of course, that’s what happens in the wake of any high-profile shooting. By now, we should be used to it.
With Pensacola, though, there’s another wrinkle in matters that muddies those waters.
You see, while much was made of the fact that he was a foreign national and could have been legally barred from having a gun, new information suggests that might not have accomplished much of anything.
The gunman in a deadly rampage late last year at a military base in Florida communicated with al-Qaida operatives about the attacks in the months leading up to it, U.S. officials said Monday as they laid out new details of a shooting that killed three American sailors. The FBI learned of the contacts between Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani and operatives of al-Qaida after breaking the encryption on cellphones that had previously been locked and that the shooter, a Saudi Air Force officer, had tried to destroy before being killed by law enforcement. “We now have a clearer understanding of Alshamrani’s associations in the years, months and days leading up to his attack,” Attorney General William Barr said at a news conference in which he sharply chastised Apple for not providing help in unlocking the phones. Once unlocked by the , the phones revealed contact between Alshamrani and “dangerous” operatives from al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula, or AQAP, and also showed how he had been radicalized overseas for at least the last five years, officials said. He also was meticulous in his planning, including saving a will on his phone that sought to explain himself — the same document AQAP later released in taking responsibility for the attack. “It is certainly more than just inspired,” FBI Director Chris Wray said of Alshamrani’s contacts with al-Qaida. “We know, for example, that he was sharing plans and tactics with them. We know that he was coordinating with them and providing an opportunity for them to take credit for the attack.”
Now, with that level of coordination, what do you think would have happened if he couldn’t get a gun domestically?
That’s right, al-Quida would have gotten him a gun. Jihadists were probably salivating over their chance to hit the American military on one of their bases. They had to be downright giddy over the possibility. They’d have tripped over themselves getting him a firearm if he needed it.
What’s more, anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows this to be a fact.
As such, all the gun control crowds howls of indignation over how this shooter got his gun need to be reconsidered in light of this new information. This wasn’t a mass shooting as we typically think of these things, this was a terrorist attack on an American military based on U.S. soil. It wasn’t a failure of the Second Amendment but, at worst, a failure of our intelligence apparatus.
There’s no need for new gun laws when we already know that terrorists move freely enough around the country as it is and are more than willing to also smuggle guns into various nations–see their activities in heavily gun-controlled Europe for an example–in order to carry out these kinds of attacks. Let’s not punish the average American for the act of a terrorist.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--Anti-Gunners Pressure Subway To Ban Open-Carry In Stores

Anti-gun jihadists like to try and apply pressure to any business that doesn ’ t completely and totally toe the line .
They figure out long ago that they ’ ll never completely win in this country .
They ’ ll never be able to ban guns .
Some states , at a minimum , will resist that to the end .
Hell , the Heller decision alone makes their dreams impossible , which is why they hate it so vehemently .
However , they figure that by applying pressure to businesses to conform to their policies , they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually impossible to bear arms to any real degree , thus amounting to the same thing .
Businesses typically fear backlash , so they ’ re far more likely to capitulate than politicians .
Which is probably what they ’ re banking on by trying to pressure Subway .
Anti-gun violence advocates penned an open letter Monday to Subway ’ s CEO John Chidsey , urging him to do more to keep customers safe from the threat of gun violence .
The request comes after nearly a dozen mostly-armed demonstrators protesting North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Subway in Raleigh on May 9 .
“ We are certain that public safety is a key concern for you and your managers .
Many prominent American businesses , including Walmart , Target , Starbucks , Kroger , CVS , Walgreens , Wegmans , and others , have established clear policies that ask individuals to leave their guns at home , ” the letter to Subway ’ s CEO reads .
“ And Subway , a company headquartered in Connecticut , that prides itself on ‘ provid [ ing ] workers with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and publicly proclaims that , ‘ We are committed to supporting our community , being responsible partners , and giving back , ’ must follow suit.
” The recent images of armed demonstrators ordering food from Subway were taken by Travis Long , a photojournalist with The News & Observer .
Since posting the photos to Twitter , they have been shared nearly 8,000 times and liked by more than 22,000 people .
Of course , notice how the story is now about guns and not the stay-at-home order ?
Funny how that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Anyway , back to Subway , the letter was signed by 153 people who claim their lives were negatively impacted in some way by gun violence .
As if that somehow makes them experts on the subject .
The whole thing is an attempt to pressure Subway into complying with the wishes laid out by Newtown Action Alliance , obviously .
However , it should be noted that absolutely nothing happened in that North Carolina Subway .
While I ’ d have rather they didn ’ t bring guns with them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well have the right to do so .
Especially since , again , no one was hurt .
In fact , no one gets hurt at these armed protests .
Funny how that is , right ?
I mean , if guns supposedly cause so many problems just because they ’ re present , then how come it just doesn ’ t happen .
About the only example you could stretch to include is the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville , but she was hit by a car .
She wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alliance would rather you not think about that fact .
They ’ d rather fearmonger and pressure Subway to ban guns in their stores .
Nevermind that these are franchises and that makes the decision really up to the franchise holder .
Then again , it ’ s not like gun grabbers actually grasp these concepts .

Anti-gun jihadists like to try and apply pressure to any business that doesn’t completely and totally toe the line. They figure out long ago that they’ll never completely win in this country. They’ll never be able to ban guns. Some states, at a minimum, will resist that to the end. Hell, the Heller decision alone makes their dreams impossible, which is why they hate it so vehemently.
However, they figure that by applying pressure to businesses to conform to their policies, they can create a nation where it’s virtually impossible to bear arms to any real degree, thus amounting to the same thing.
Businesses typically fear backlash, so they’re far more likely to capitulate than politicians.
Which is probably what they’re banking on by trying to pressure Subway.
Anti-gun violence advocates penned an open letter Monday to Subway’s CEO John Chidsey, urging him to do more to keep customers safe from the threat of gun violence. The request comes after nearly a dozen mostly-armed demonstrators protesting North Carolina’s stay-at-home order purchased sandwiches at a Subway in Raleigh on May 9. “We are certain that public safety is a key concern for you and your managers. Many prominent American businesses, including Walmart, Target, Starbucks, Kroger, CVS, Walgreens, Wegmans, and others, have established clear policies that ask individuals to leave their guns at home,” the letter to Subway’s CEO reads. “And Subway, a company headquartered in Connecticut, that prides itself on ‘provid[ing] workers with a safe and healthy work environment’ and publicly proclaims that, ‘We are committed to supporting our community, being responsible partners, and giving back,’ must follow suit.” The recent images of armed demonstrators ordering food from Subway were taken by Travis Long, a photojournalist with The News & Observer. Since posting the photos to Twitter, they have been shared nearly 8,000 times and liked by more than 22,000 people.
Of course, notice how the story is now about guns and not the stay-at-home order? Funny how that shakes out, isn’t it?
Anyway, back to Subway, the letter was signed by 153 people who claim their lives were negatively impacted in some way by gun violence. As if that somehow makes them experts on the subject.
The whole thing is an attempt to pressure Subway into complying with the wishes laid out by Newtown Action Alliance, obviously.
However, it should be noted that absolutely nothing happened in that North Carolina Subway. While I’d have rather they didn’t bring guns with them, the truth is that they should damn well have the right to do so. Especially since, again, no one was hurt.
In fact, no one gets hurt at these armed protests. Funny how that is, right? I mean, if guns supposedly cause so many problems just because they’re present, then how come it just doesn’t happen. About the only example you could stretch to include is the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, but she was hit by a car. She wasn’t shot.
Yet the Newtown Action Alliance would rather you not think about that fact. They’d rather fearmonger and pressure Subway to ban guns in their stores. Nevermind that these are franchises and that makes the decision really up to the franchise holder.
Then again, it’s not like gun grabbers actually grasp these concepts.


bearingarms--2020-05-19--MA Gun Ranges Back In Business As Governor Releases Reopen Plan

Almost two weeks ago , gun stores in Massachusetts were given the green light to reopen when a federal judge @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Charlie Baker ’ s emergency orders declaring gun stores non-essential .
Now gun @ @ @ @ @ the state that they can reopen as well , and this time it didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baker released his Reopen Massachusetts plan on Monday , and the National Shooting Sports @ @ @ @ @ includes both indoor and outdoor ranges in the businesses that are allowed to immediately reopen @ @ @ @ @ distancing measures in place .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than @ @ @ @ @ and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow @ @ @ @ @ , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He @ @ @ @ @ Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Establish and maintain cleaning protocols specific to the business
When an active employee is diagnosed with COVID19, cleaning and disinfecting must be performed
Disinfection of all common surfaces must take place at intervals appropriate to said workplace
That’s a pretty long list of requirements, though I suspect that it’s doable for most ranges in the state, which have been closed for nearly two months now.
Back on May 7th, U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock granted a temporary injunction against Gov. Baker’s order to close gun stores, but didn’t include ranges in his decision because he said there wasn’t enough evidence presented regarding range closures during emergency hearings. Still, the judge made it clear that under Baker’s order, the Second Amendment rights of Massachusetts residents were being violated.
Woodlock, during a hearing held remotely by videoconference because of the pandemic, said he understood “this is a small corner of a large issue that the governor is grappling with and undoubtedly has not been at focus of his attention.” “But that individuals who have rights under the Constitution find those rights burdened and without explanation means that they have a day in court,” he said. He cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to own guns for self-defense inside the home.
Baker has yet to appeal Woodlock’s decision, and now that the state is beginning to reopen I suspect he’ll take the loss rather than risk another loss at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The good news for gun owners (and those who want to purchase a firearm for the first time) is that, for now anyway, they can now purchase a firearm and train with it as well.