bearingarms--2020-09-11--GOA's Erich Pratt On 5 Key Races For Gun Owners

With Election Day less than two months away , and early voting beginning in many places in just a matter of days , now ’ s the time for gun owners to get involved if they want to keep their Second Amendment rights secure .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt joins me to highlight five races that gun owners should be involved in right now .
* Lauren Boebert ( CO-3 ) : You may remember Boebert for her confrontation of gun-grabber Beto O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Colorado last fall .
Boebert ’ s also the owner of Shooter ’ s Grill in Rifle , Colorado , where all the staff open-carry , and she promises to be a fierce defender of the Second Amendment if she ’ s elected .
Boebert actually defeated 5-time incumbent Rep. Scott Tipton during the Republican primary earlier this year , and is facing former state legislator Diane Mitsch Bush in November .
* Senator Steve Daines ( MT Senate ) : Pratt calls Daines “ a pro-gun leader in the Senate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as he ’ s being challenged by Montana Governor Steve Bullock .
Pratt tells me that for GOA , this is the most important race in the Senate – and it is certainly one of the most contested races in the country .
Bullock has embraced gun bans , red flag laws , magazine bans and more , but he ’ s still running campaign ads in which he claims to “ support the Second Amendment.
” * Nick Freitas ( VA-07 ) : Freitas is taking on first-term incumbent Abigail Spanberger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue wave in part because of the campaign cash thrown her way by Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety .
Spanberger ’ s been nearly silent on the issue of gun control on the campaign trail , and has so far agreed to only one debate with Freitas , but gun owners in the 7th District are highly motivated to send a message to Virginia Democrats when it comes to gun control after the passage of a half-dozen gun laws in the state legislature this year .
* Rep. Chip Roy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only in his first term , but he ’ s already emerged as one of the 2A leaders in the House .
Roy ’ s opponent is former state legislator Wendy Davis , a darling of the Left nationwide because she tried to filibuster a pro-life bill in the Texas state house back in 2018 .
She ’ s been the beneficiary of a huge influx of campaign cash and has the backing of gun control groups like Moms Demand Action thanks to her flip-flop on 2A issues .
It was just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open carry in Texas and earning the ire of Shannon Watts , but now Davis is an out-and-proud “ gunsense ” voter and all has been forgiven as far as anti-gun activists are concerned .
* Martha McSally ( AZ Senate ) .
Sen. McSally is not the strongest pro-gunner compared to the others , and honestly , she ’ s not run a great candidate , but her opponent Mark Kelly would immediately become one of the loudest voices for gun control in Congress if he ’ s elected to the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and one of the co-founders of the gun control group that bears her name .
The polls have Kelly way ahead in this race at the moment , though some recent polls have shown the race tightening up a bit .
In addition to these five incredibly important races , we also highlight one of the many heroes of 9/11 on today ’ s show .
Terry O ’ Hara was a member of the New York Police Department , and like many officers , he spent untold hours at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts in the wake of the 9/11 attacks .
Like far too many first responders , O ’ Hara suffered from severe health problems as a result of his heroic efforts to save lives and recover the remains of those killed in the attacks , and was eventually diagnosed with cancer in May of 2015 .
Terry was one of the first people to reach out to me when my wife received her own cancer diagnosis in September of 2016 .
I ’ d never met him before , but he messaged me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouragement , and we kept up a steady correspondence online in the ensuring months , even as his health grew worse .
In February of 2017 Terry entered the hospital for the last time , and passed away surrounded by his family a few weeks later on March 10th , 2017 .
I still carry the challenge coin that Terry gave me , and I ’ ve adopted his mantra as my own when it comes to encouraging those who facing their own battle with cancer and those folks like me who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : stay in the fight .
Terry O ’ Hara was a fighter , a fierce supporter of the Second Amendment , a loving husband and father , a good friend , and a great man .
He continues to be missed , and those of us whose lives were touched by his courage and valor will never forget him .

With Election Day less than two months away, and early voting beginning in many places in just a matter of days, now’s the time for gun owners to get involved if they want to keep their Second Amendment rights secure. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt joins me to highlight five races that gun owners should be involved in right now.
* Lauren Boebert (CO-3): You may remember Boebert for her confrontation of gun-grabber Beto O’Rourke when he was stumping for votes in Colorado last fall. Boebert’s also the owner of Shooter’s Grill in Rifle, Colorado, where all the staff open-carry, and she promises to be a fierce defender of the Second Amendment if she’s elected. Boebert actually defeated 5-time incumbent Rep. Scott Tipton during the Republican primary earlier this year, and is facing former state legislator Diane Mitsch Bush in November.
* Senator Steve Daines (MT Senate): Pratt calls Daines “a pro-gun leader in the Senate who is in the fight of his life” as he’s being challenged by Montana Governor Steve Bullock. Pratt tells me that for GOA, this is the most important race in the Senate – and it is certainly one of the most contested races in the country. Bullock has embraced gun bans, red flag laws, magazine bans and more, but he’s still running campaign ads in which he claims to “support the Second Amendment.”
* Nick Freitas (VA-07): Freitas is taking on first-term incumbent Abigail Spanberger, who won election in the 2018 blue wave in part because of the campaign cash thrown her way by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Spanberger’s been nearly silent on the issue of gun control on the campaign trail, and has so far agreed to only one debate with Freitas, but gun owners in the 7th District are highly motivated to send a message to Virginia Democrats when it comes to gun control after the passage of a half-dozen gun laws in the state legislature this year.
* Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21): He’s only in his first term, but he’s already emerged as one of the 2A leaders in the House. Roy’s opponent is former state legislator Wendy Davis, a darling of the Left nationwide because she tried to filibuster a pro-life bill in the Texas state house back in 2018. She’s been the beneficiary of a huge influx of campaign cash and has the backing of gun control groups like Moms Demand Action thanks to her flip-flop on 2A issues. It was just a few years ago that Davis was backing open carry in Texas and earning the ire of Shannon Watts, but now Davis is an out-and-proud “gunsense” voter and all has been forgiven as far as anti-gun activists are concerned.
* Martha McSally (AZ Senate). Sen. McSally is not the strongest pro-gunner compared to the others, and honestly, she’s not run a great candidate, but her opponent Mark Kelly would immediately become one of the loudest voices for gun control in Congress if he’s elected to the Senate. Kelly is the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and one of the co-founders of the gun control group that bears her name. The polls have Kelly way ahead in this race at the moment, though some recent polls have shown the race tightening up a bit.
In addition to these five incredibly important races, we also highlight one of the many heroes of 9/11 on today’s show. Terry O’Hara was a member of the New York Police Department, and like many officers, he spent untold hours at Ground Zero assisting in search and recovery efforts in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Like far too many first responders, O’Hara suffered from severe health problems as a result of his heroic efforts to save lives and recover the remains of those killed in the attacks, and was eventually diagnosed with cancer in May of 2015.
Terry was one of the first people to reach out to me when my wife received her own cancer diagnosis in September of 2016. I’d never met him before, but he messaged me on Twitter with words of advice and encouragement, and we kept up a steady correspondence online in the ensuring months, even as his health grew worse. In February of 2017 Terry entered the hospital for the last time, and passed away surrounded by his family a few weeks later on March 10th, 2017.
I still carry the challenge coin that Terry gave me, and I’ve adopted his mantra as my own when it comes to encouraging those who facing their own battle with cancer and those folks like me who are the support system for a loved one: stay in the fight.
Terry O’Hara was a fighter, a fierce supporter of the Second Amendment, a loving husband and father, a good friend, and a great man. He continues to be missed, and those of us whose lives were touched by his courage and valor will never forget him.


bearingarms--2020-09-11--Dear Abby's Gun Advice May Land Person In Jail

When I was a kid , I remember my parents talking about the advice given in the Dear Abby column of our local newspaper .
It almost felt obligatory for a paper to run the advice column every day since it so often seemed to provide fodder for conversations .
It is my long-held belief that some of the stories sent were made up just to see what the columnist would say in response to the bizarre situation .
However , other bits are often too common to believe them to be fabrications .
I never agreed with every bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day it seems most of it was good .
However , the advice given to a recent individual is pretty problematic .
DEAR ABBY : My wife and I have been friends with another couple for more than 50 years .
The four of us have shared lots of good times together .
After recent open heart surgery , the husband became very depressed and talked to his wife about “ ending it all.
” She asked me to take the few handguns ( all legal ) they had in their home to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel I could say no .
I ’ m not interested in guns , but it seemed a simple request .
So she “ snuck ” them out to me during our last visit .
When the husband discovered what his wife had done , she told him about my role in it .
He now demands I return his guns and says he no longer wants anything to do with me .
His wife wants me to hold onto them for now .
What should I do ?
— TORN OVER THIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s a tough situation .
I ’ ve offered to hold onto friends ’ guns in the past when they hit a dark patch .
So far , few have taken me up on it , but none of them have taken their own life .
Thankfully .
Now , I get where “ Torn ” is coming from , but Abby ’ s advice is problematic to some degree .
See , while she does eventually advise Torn to speak to the wife and advise her to talk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the number for the National Suicide Hotline , she also tells him to hold onto the guns .
Here ’ s the problem , though .
At some point , this kind gesture can be construed as theft .
After all , if the man has the serial numbers for the guns , he can report them as stolen and tell the police where to find them .
Sure , Torn took them with good intentions and plans on returning them , but the truth is that he still has property that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t returning them to the proper owner .
Not knowing which state this is , the very act of handing them over could well be criminal in and of itself .
Universal background check states don ’ t necessarily carve out exemptions for doing what you think to be good deeds .
On multiple levels , the advice might look fine , but it ’ s not .
Not by a longshot .
Especially since this is based on the wife claiming the husband supposedly telling his wife he wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that could be suspect depending on the couple .
I ’ ve known more than one family where the wife was less than thrilled about the husband ’ s firearms .
It ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that the claim was made up as an excuse to get them out of the house .
Or , if not fabricated outright , perhaps embellished by a overly-worried wife .
Either way , Torn would do well to hand the guns back and advise the wife that if her husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself or others , she should follow through with the legal options available .
They ’ re already out there and they don ’ t require taking someone ’ s guns from them .

When I was a kid, I remember my parents talking about the advice given in the Dear Abby column of our local newspaper. It almost felt obligatory for a paper to run the advice column every day since it so often seemed to provide fodder for conversations. It is my long-held belief that some of the stories sent were made up just to see what the columnist would say in response to the bizarre situation. However, other bits are often too common to believe them to be fabrications.
I never agreed with every bit of advice, but back in the day it seems most of it was good.
However, the advice given to a recent individual is pretty problematic.
DEAR ABBY: My wife and I have been friends with another couple for more than 50 years. The four of us have shared lots of good times together. After recent open heart surgery, the husband became very depressed and talked to his wife about “ending it all.” She asked me to take the few handguns (all legal) they had in their home to be safe. I didn’t feel I could say no. I’m not interested in guns, but it seemed a simple request. So she “snuck” them out to me during our last visit. When the husband discovered what his wife had done, she told him about my role in it. He now demands I return his guns and says he no longer wants anything to do with me. His wife wants me to hold onto them for now. What should I do? — TORN OVER THIS
I’m not going to lie, that’s a tough situation. I’ve offered to hold onto friends’ guns in the past when they hit a dark patch. So far, few have taken me up on it, but none of them have taken their own life. Thankfully.
Now, I get where “Torn” is coming from, but Abby’s advice is problematic to some degree.
See, while she does eventually advise Torn to speak to the wife and advise her to talk to her husband’s doctors and pass along the number for the National Suicide Hotline, she also tells him to hold onto the guns.
Here’s the problem, though. At some point, this kind gesture can be construed as theft.
After all, if the man has the serial numbers for the guns, he can report them as stolen and tell the police where to find them. Sure, Torn took them with good intentions and plans on returning them, but the truth is that he still has property that doesn’t belong to him and isn’t returning them to the proper owner.
Not knowing which state this is, the very act of handing them over could well be criminal in and of itself. Universal background check states don’t necessarily carve out exemptions for doing what you think to be good deeds.
On multiple levels, the advice might look fine, but it’s not. Not by a longshot.
Especially since this is based on the wife claiming the husband supposedly telling his wife he wanted to “end it all,” a claim that could be suspect depending on the couple. I’ve known more than one family where the wife was less than thrilled about the husband’s firearms.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the claim was made up as an excuse to get them out of the house. Or, if not fabricated outright, perhaps embellished by a overly-worried wife.
Either way, Torn would do well to hand the guns back and advise the wife that if her husband is that much of a danger to himself or others, she should follow through with the legal options available. They’re already out there and they don’t require taking someone’s guns from them.


bearingarms--2020-09-11--Police Group's Billboard Warns Against Entering Austin

When police departments get defunded , even if it ’ s not as extreme a defunding as many would like , there is bound to be some kind of problem .
After all , the theory goes that the money taken from police will go toward efforts to prevent crime in other ways , but those efforts take years to produce results .
At best , you have a dangerous situation in the meantime .
I say “ at best ” because there ’ s no guarantee many of these efforts will actually work .
Defunded police departments will get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better , on top of everything else .
So , it ’ s unsurprising that some police groups may be taking action .
One such group did so in Austin , TX .
The Texas Municipal Police Association launched a billboard campaign on Wednesday in response to Austin City Council cuts to police funding .
Two billboards along I-35 read ‘ Warning !
Austin police defunding – Enter at your own risk !
’ accompanied by the TMPA logo and the social media hashtag # BACKTHEBLUE .
“ The safety of Austin citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk from dangerous policies propagated by their own locally elected officials , ” said Kevin Lawrence , executive director of TMPA .
“ We applaud Governor Abbott ’ s consideration of a legislative proposal that would put the control of the Austin Police Department under state authority.
” In truth , though , the sign ain ’ t wrong .
Look , I ’ ve long been a proponent of trying to find ways to prevent violent crime and violent criminals from ever forming .
I ’ ve looked at this as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m glad to see others taking up the cause as well .
But the problem with the current rhetoric is that it ’ s stupid .
See , all the outreach programs in the world won ’ t produce instantaneous results .
These things take time .
Years , in fact , and that would be after a lot of really in-depth study to determine just what leads to violent crime .
There ’ s been no such studying and instead , places like Austin jump in this haphazardly for political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the criminals are still running around .
The only problem is , there are fewer police watching the criminals .
For the bad guys , you might as well declare open season with no bag limits on the law-abiding citizens of Austin .
It ’ s not that the idea of trying to prevent crime is bad .
That ’ s never a bad thing , in and of itself .
However , it ’ s also not going to solve everything , especially when so many of the things being discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than science .
At the end of the day , the Austin City Council made their community less safe .
A billboard warning people of that fact isn ’ t just a political point but also a stern reminder that actions have consequences , but ordinary people are the ones who will pay those consequences .
Those uninterested in paying them personally might be well advised to bypass the city if at all possible .
If we ’ re going to put warning labels on things , we might as well see them @ @ @ @ @ @ @

When police departments get defunded, even if it’s not as extreme a defunding as many would like, there is bound to be some kind of problem. After all, the theory goes that the money taken from police will go toward efforts to prevent crime in other ways, but those efforts take years to produce results. At best, you have a dangerous situation in the meantime. I say “at best” because there’s no guarantee many of these efforts will actually work.
Defunded police departments will get the blame for not making everything miraculously better, on top of everything else.
So, it’s unsurprising that some police groups may be taking action. One such group did so in Austin, TX.
The Texas Municipal Police Association launched a billboard campaign on Wednesday in response to Austin City Council cuts to police funding. Two billboards along I-35 read ‘Warning! Austin police defunding – Enter at your own risk!’ accompanied by the TMPA logo and the social media hashtag #BACKTHEBLUE. “The safety of Austin citizens and visitors has never been more at risk from dangerous policies propagated by their own locally elected officials,” said Kevin Lawrence, executive director of TMPA. “We applaud Governor Abbott’s consideration of a legislative proposal that would put the control of the Austin Police Department under state authority.”
Ouch.
In truth, though, the sign ain’t wrong.
Look, I’ve long been a proponent of trying to find ways to prevent violent crime and violent criminals from ever forming. I’ve looked at this as a much better solution to gun control and I’m glad to see others taking up the cause as well.
But the problem with the current rhetoric is that it’s stupid.
See, all the outreach programs in the world won’t produce instantaneous results. These things take time. Years, in fact, and that would be after a lot of really in-depth study to determine just what leads to violent crime. There’s been no such studying and instead, places like Austin jump in this haphazardly for political points.
In the meantime, though, the criminals are still running around. The only problem is, there are fewer police watching the criminals. For the bad guys, you might as well declare open season with no bag limits on the law-abiding citizens of Austin.
It’s not that the idea of trying to prevent crime is bad. That’s never a bad thing, in and of itself. However, it’s also not going to solve everything, especially when so many of the things being discussed as alternatives are based on feelings rather than science. At the end of the day, the Austin City Council made their community less safe. A billboard warning people of that fact isn’t just a political point but also a stern reminder that actions have consequences, but ordinary people are the ones who will pay those consequences. Those uninterested in paying them personally might be well advised to bypass the city if at all possible.
If we’re going to put warning labels on things, we might as well see them on cities that act this stupidly.


bearingarms--2020-09-11--Illinois Still Dealing With Massive Background Check Backlog

Illinois ’ FOID card delays are nothing new , unfortunately , but the problem has grown to mammoth proportions over the past few months , and there are few signs that the Illinois State Police have a handle on the issue .
Back in January , the ISP had a backlog of about 62,000 applications , which was bad enough , but now the state police say they ’ re trying to work through a whopping 135,573 applications .
That includes new FOID card submissions , as well as renewals and things like changes of address .
For folks who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the state police say that your existing card , even if expired , has in essence been extended for another 18 months .
Those hoping to acquire a FOID card for the first time , however , are in for some lengthy delays .
The state of Illinois is required by statute to process FOID card applications within 30 days .
At the moment , however , the ISP says it ’ s taking more than three times that long , with an average wait of 94 days .
As you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well with anyone except gun control advocates .
Dan Dolan , owner of DLD VIP is located at 1405 E Lake Ave , Peoria Heights said maybe the State should just get rid of the FOID card overall .
“ If we could just abolish that and continue using the FTIP and NICS program that are already provided for us federally by the FBI and ATF , there ’ d be a lot less delays that everybody is experiencing , ” Dolan said .
“ You don ’ t hear any other state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a FOID card or a background check because they ’ re using the federal programs that are already designed for this.
” Multiple lawsuits challenging the FOID card system are underway in Illinois , but so far the Illinois State Supreme Court has managed to avoid issuing a definitive ruling in any of the cases .
Earlier this year the court sent one case back to the circuit court on a technicality , though dissenting judges on the state supreme court declared that a “ pointless ” exercise .
For the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect any relief in court or in the Democrat-controlled legislature , which hasn ’ t expressed much interest in dealing with the lengthy delays caused by high demand on the part of gun owners and understaffing on the part of the Illinois State Police .
The ISP says its hiring new employees to work through the growing backlog , but there ’ s a minimum six-month training period before the new hires can actually being processing any applications .
Illinois ’ s lengthy delays are a perfect example of why it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission slip from the government before you can exercise a constitutional right .
Even as violent crime is soaring in cities like Chicago and criminals are acting with impunity , law-abiding residents who want a gun for self-defense are forced to twiddle their thumbs while the bureaucracy plods along at a snail ’ s pace .
We already know that violent criminals don ’ t care about FOID cards and concealed carry licenses , but the state ’ s inability to process applications in a timely manner is likely leading some otherwise law-abiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while their applications are in limbo .
In other words , the state is creating criminals with their lengthy delays .
It ’ s an untenable position , but unfortunately unless lawmakers or the courts act , there ’ s no quick fix .

Illinois’ FOID card delays are nothing new, unfortunately, but the problem has grown to mammoth proportions over the past few months, and there are few signs that the Illinois State Police have a handle on the issue. Back in January, the ISP had a backlog of about 62,000 applications, which was bad enough, but now the state police say they’re trying to work through a whopping 135,573 applications. That includes new FOID card submissions, as well as renewals and things like changes of address.
For folks who are trying to renew their FOID card, the state police say that your existing card, even if expired, has in essence been extended for another 18 months. Those hoping to acquire a FOID card for the first time, however, are in for some lengthy delays.
The state of Illinois is required by statute to process FOID card applications within 30 days. At the moment, however, the ISP says it’s taking more than three times that long, with an average wait of 94 days. As you can imagine, this isn’t sitting well with anyone except gun control advocates.
Dan Dolan, owner of DLD VIP is located at 1405 E Lake Ave, Peoria Heights said maybe the State should just get rid of the FOID card overall. “If we could just abolish that and continue using the FTIP and NICS program that are already provided for us federally by the FBI and ATF, there’d be a lot less delays that everybody is experiencing,” Dolan said. “You don’t hear any other state that they’re having 170 days for a FOID card or a background check because they’re using the federal programs that are already designed for this.”
Multiple lawsuits challenging the FOID card system are underway in Illinois, but so far the Illinois State Supreme Court has managed to avoid issuing a definitive ruling in any of the cases. Earlier this year the court sent one case back to the circuit court on a technicality, though dissenting judges on the state supreme court declared that a “pointless” exercise.
“Neither the parties nor the interests of justice will be served by this unexpected and pointless exercise,” Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in a dissenting opinion. He was joined in his dissent by Justice Mary Jane Theis. “Remand to the circuit court to enter a new order dismissing the case on statutory rather than constitutional grounds is a meaningless and wasteful act.”
For the moment, gun owners can’t really expect any relief in court or in the Democrat-controlled legislature, which hasn’t expressed much interest in dealing with the lengthy delays caused by high demand on the part of gun owners and understaffing on the part of the Illinois State Police. The ISP says its hiring new employees to work through the growing backlog, but there’s a minimum six-month training period before the new hires can actually being processing any applications.
Illinois’s lengthy delays are a perfect example of why it’s such a bad idea to require a permission slip from the government before you can exercise a constitutional right. Even as violent crime is soaring in cities like Chicago and criminals are acting with impunity, law-abiding residents who want a gun for self-defense are forced to twiddle their thumbs while the bureaucracy plods along at a snail’s pace.
We already know that violent criminals don’t care about FOID cards and concealed carry licenses, but the state’s inability to process applications in a timely manner is likely leading some otherwise law-abiding citizens to get or carry a gun while their applications are in limbo. In other words, the state is creating criminals with their lengthy delays. It’s an untenable position, but unfortunately unless lawmakers or the courts act, there’s no quick fix.


bearingarms--2020-09-11--Texas Gun Store Owner Shoots Would-Be Robber

You ’ ve got ta be a special kind of stupid to decide it ’ s a good idea to rob a gun store in broad daylight .
Unfortunately for the rest of us the world is full of stupid people , including four of the dimmest bulbs in the Lone Star State who thought that Mike ’ s Gun Room in Richardson , Texas would be an easy target .
In theory , perhaps they were right .
77-year old Mike Brown runs the gun shop , and he ’ s usually by himself .
4 young guys against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong ?
Plenty , as it turns out , at least for the criminals .
Brown says the four guys who came into his store posed as customers at first , but then pointed a gun at his head and demanded he get down on the ground .
Richardson thought quickly , and acted as if his heart was giving him trouble .
Announcing that he needed to get his pills , he instead went for his gun .
Brown says the men started to leave by the time he grabbed his gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only person still inside .
“ I told him to stop , ” he said .
“ He turned around and I saw he had one handgun in his hand when he turned around.
” Brown shot the man in the shoulder .
He fell to the ground outside while his accomplices drove off .
Police arrived , and he ’ s now in custody at a hospital .
“ I would not say it ’ s very common during the day like the situation here , ” said Sara Able with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m glad Brown is okay , and it ’ s even better that police were able to arrest one of the four robbers .
Unfortunately the other three got away , and they took an estimated 50 stolen guns with them .
“ I ’ m sorry I had to shoot somebody , but — better than Plan B , ” Brown said , referring to the possibility of him being shot .
The marine and Vietnam veteran who says he is used to high-pressure situations has a message for the ones who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back , ” he said .
“ I ’ ve got more ammo.
” With all due respect to Mr. Brown , he might want to get an extra employee as well .
Another set of eyes and ears in the store would be a good thing , especially since local media were quick to report that Brown is usually alone inside the gun shop .
I worry that other criminals may decide that , despite what happened the last time Brown was robbed , they could pull off a heist without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital , or the morgue .
It would be smart for Brown to have some backup just in case more dumb criminals get the not-so-bright idea to pay a visit to to Mike ’ s Gun Room .

You’ve gotta be a special kind of stupid to decide it’s a good idea to rob a gun store in broad daylight. Unfortunately for the rest of us the world is full of stupid people, including four of the dimmest bulbs in the Lone Star State who thought that Mike’s Gun Room in Richardson, Texas would be an easy target.
In theory, perhaps they were right. 77-year old Mike Brown runs the gun shop, and he’s usually by himself. 4 young guys against one old man? What could go wrong?
Plenty, as it turns out, at least for the criminals. Brown says the four guys who came into his store posed as customers at first, but then pointed a gun at his head and demanded he get down on the ground. Richardson thought quickly, and acted as if his heart was giving him trouble. Announcing that he needed to get his pills, he instead went for his gun.
Brown says the men started to leave by the time he grabbed his gun, so he pointed it at the only person still inside. “I told him to stop,” he said. “He turned around and I saw he had one handgun in his hand when he turned around.” Brown shot the man in the shoulder. He fell to the ground outside while his accomplices drove off. Police arrived, and he’s now in custody at a hospital. “I would not say it’s very common during the day like the situation here,” said Sara Able with the ATF Dallas Field Division.
I’m glad Brown is okay, and it’s even better that police were able to arrest one of the four robbers. Unfortunately the other three got away, and they took an estimated 50 stolen guns with them.
“I’m sorry I had to shoot somebody, but — better than Plan B,” Brown said, referring to the possibility of him being shot. The marine and Vietnam veteran who says he is used to high-pressure situations has a message for the ones who got away. “Don’t come back,” he said. “I’ve got more ammo.”
With all due respect to Mr. Brown, he might want to get an extra employee as well. Another set of eyes and ears in the store would be a good thing, especially since local media were quick to report that Brown is usually alone inside the gun shop. I worry that other criminals may decide that, despite what happened the last time Brown was robbed, they could pull off a heist without any of them going to jail, the hospital, or the morgue. It would be smart for Brown to have some backup just in case more dumb criminals get the not-so-bright idea to pay a visit to to Mike’s Gun Room.


bearingarms--2020-09-11--Is Black Lives Matter Responsible For Record Number Of Mass Shootings?

Anytime there ’ s a high-profile shooting , the usual suspects turn to groups like the National Rifle Association and tries to place the blame on them .
It ’ s the NRA ’ s fault because they won ’ t bow down and support the infringements on our liberty that these people actually want .
If they ’ d just supported universal background checks , this mass shooting committed by an individual who passed a background check would have been stopped .
Yet right now , we ’ re seeing a lot of shootings .
In fact , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are technically classified as mass shootings .
And this time , someone else is getting blamed .
Even as gun violence breaks records in New York City , Chicago and Philly , the Democrats don ’ t have much to say about the epidemic of shootings or their pet cause , gun control .
While activist Democrat prosecutors like Attorney General Letitia James have neglected to deal with the violence and are instead targeting the NRA , they aren ’ t really talking about gun control .
Mass shootings are rarely mentioned anymore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever .
A Washington , D.C. , mass shooting at a cookout last month that wounded 20 people was treated as another local crime story .
And there are a lot of these local crime stories as shootings rise .
New York City has blown past 1,000 shootings , of all kinds , individual and mass , Philly hit 1,300 and Chicago is approaching 3,000 shootings .
Three Democrat cities alone will soon account for some 5,000 shootings .
These are the kinds of numbers we used to see out of Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Gun Violence Archive recently tweeted that it “ had never totaled more than 60 mass shootings in a single month—it has now eclipsed that number for four straight months , and September is on pace to do the same.
” In just the first eight days of September , there were 21 mass shootings .
And these mass shootings are inescapably tied to the Black Lives Matter violence that crippled police , wrecked public safety and led Democrats to call for an end to cops .
Every full month in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded more mass shootings than the first three months of the year combined .
The big question is whether Black Lives Matter is really responsible , and that ’ s a stickier issue than many of us would like to think .
( Let ’ s not get into the idiotic way the Gun Violence Archive counts “ mass shootings ” for the moment . )
On one hand , there ’ s no doubt in my mind that their anti-police rhetoric and the push to defund police departments has emboldened many criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacob Blake be celebrated as a hero for getting himself shot .
In that regard , yes , Black Lives Matter is responsible .
But those are also second-order effects .
They ’ re not directly encouraging people to go out and shoot one another .
At the end of the day , I don ’ t think this kind of rhetoric is productive .
Yes , I disagree with a lot of what BLM has to say .
If they say something that ’ s not stupid or vile , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll also say that this kind of language is only going to encourage more shootings .
Where I draw the line , however , is in blaming anyone for the actions of another with a clear line proving they somehow made that person act .
Just as the NRA isn ’ t responsible for shootings like Parkland or El Paso , BLM isn ’ t responsible for what lawless criminals do .
If we ’ re going to say the bad guys are responsible for their actions , that has to hold true @ @ @ @

Anytime there’s a high-profile shooting, the usual suspects turn to groups like the National Rifle Association and tries to place the blame on them. It’s the NRA’s fault because they won’t bow down and support the infringements on our liberty that these people actually want. If they’d just supported universal background checks, this mass shooting committed by an individual who passed a background check would have been stopped.
Yet right now, we’re seeing a lot of shootings. In fact, we’re seeing a lot of what are technically classified as mass shootings.
And this time, someone else is getting blamed.
Even as gun violence breaks records in New York City, Chicago and Philly, the Democrats don’t have much to say about the epidemic of shootings or their pet cause, gun control. While activist Democrat prosecutors like Attorney General Letitia James have neglected to deal with the violence and are instead targeting the NRA, they aren’t really talking about gun control. Mass shootings are rarely mentioned anymore even though there are more of them than ever. A Washington, D.C., mass shooting at a cookout last month that wounded 20 people was treated as another local crime story. And there are a lot of these local crime stories as shootings rise. New York City has blown past 1,000 shootings, of all kinds, individual and mass, Philly hit 1,300 and Chicago is approaching 3,000 shootings. Three Democrat cities alone will soon account for some 5,000 shootings. These are the kinds of numbers we used to see out of Iraq. Now we see them in America. The Gun Violence Archive recently tweeted that it “had never totaled more than 60 mass shootings in a single month—it has now eclipsed that number for four straight months, and September is on pace to do the same.” … In just the first eight days of September, there were 21 mass shootings. And these mass shootings are inescapably tied to the Black Lives Matter violence that crippled police, wrecked public safety and led Democrats to call for an end to cops. Every full month in which BLM riots and rallies took place has recorded more mass shootings than the first three months of the year combined.
The big question is whether Black Lives Matter is really responsible, and that’s a stickier issue than many of us would like to think. (Let’s not get into the idiotic way the Gun Violence Archive counts “mass shootings” for the moment.)
On one hand, there’s no doubt in my mind that their anti-police rhetoric and the push to defund police departments has emboldened many criminals, especially as they see accused rapist Jacob Blake be celebrated as a hero for getting himself shot. In that regard, yes, Black Lives Matter is responsible.
But those are also second-order effects. They’re not directly encouraging people to go out and shoot one another.
At the end of the day, I don’t think this kind of rhetoric is productive. Yes, I disagree with a lot of what BLM has to say. If they say something that’s not stupid or vile, it’s usually by accident. I’ll also say that this kind of language is only going to encourage more shootings.
Where I draw the line, however, is in blaming anyone for the actions of another with a clear line proving they somehow made that person act. Just as the NRA isn’t responsible for shootings like Parkland or El Paso, BLM isn’t responsible for what lawless criminals do.
If we’re going to say the bad guys are responsible for their actions, that has to hold true across the board.


bearingarms--2020-09-12--Ohio AG Backs Armed Teachers In Legal Fight With Everytown

The Ohio Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could force thousands of staffers in dozens of school districts to quit carrying firearms on the job unless they undergo hundreds of hours of law-enforcement training , and now the state ’ s attorney general has weighed in on the side of the armed school staff and the districts that have made the decision to have trained and vetted school staff carry in schools as a first line of defense against armed assailants .
Attorney General Dave Yost argues in his brief that the school districts who ’ ve adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffers to be “ armed while on duty.
” Attorneys for Everytown for Gun Safety disagree .
They ’ re backing a couple of parents in the Madison School District who filed suit over the armed school staff , and they managed to get a state appeals court to buy into their argument that if teachers and staff are carrying , they need to undergo more than 700 hours of peace officer training before they can legally do so .
Legislators in Ohio have noted that they ’ ve funded training programs like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of training over three days to school staff who ’ ve volunteered to carry on the job .
If the legislature really intended for armed school staff to undergo peace officer training , why would they allocate any money towards a program like FASTER ?
Hopefully the state supreme court makes the right decision here and reverses the appellate court ’ s decision .
If not , the legislature may have to go back to work and pass a bill that specifically declares that volunteer school staff do not have to become police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job .
That ’ s probably doable in the Republican-controlled legislature , but Gov .
Mike DeWine could play politics and refuse to sign the bill unless lawmakers also approve his Ohio STRONG gun control package , which to date hasn ’ t received much support from his fellow Republicans in the statehouse .
For the sake of student safety , it would be an easier and faster fix if the courts handle this instead of the legislature , but I suspect that one way or another , Everytown for Gun Safety is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep Ohio ’ s teachers disarmed while on the job .

The Ohio Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could force thousands of staffers in dozens of school districts to quit carrying firearms on the job unless they undergo hundreds of hours of law-enforcement training, and now the state’s attorney general has weighed in on the side of the armed school staff and the districts that have made the decision to have trained and vetted school staff carry in schools as a first line of defense against armed assailants.
Attorney General Dave Yost argues in his brief that the school districts who’ve adopted the policies didn’t hire their staffers to be “armed while on duty.”
“They just voluntarily choose to carry a weapon,” Yost’s brief states. “No one would describe a salesman or a valet who carries a concealed weapon as being ‘employed in a position in which such person goes armed while on duty.’”
Attorneys for Everytown for Gun Safety disagree. They’re backing a couple of parents in the Madison School District who filed suit over the armed school staff, and they managed to get a state appeals court to buy into their argument that if teachers and staff are carrying, they need to undergo more than 700 hours of peace officer training before they can legally do so.
The law they cite states that no school “shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty,” unless that person has completed either peace-officer training or served at least 20 years as an active-duty officer.
Legislators in Ohio have noted that they’ve funded training programs like FASTER Ohio, which provides 26 hours of training over three days to school staff who’ve volunteered to carry on the job. If the legislature really intended for armed school staff to undergo peace officer training, why would they allocate any money towards a program like FASTER?
Hopefully the state supreme court makes the right decision here and reverses the appellate court’s decision. If not, the legislature may have to go back to work and pass a bill that specifically declares that volunteer school staff do not have to become police officers in order to carry on the job. That’s probably doable in the Republican-controlled legislature, but Gov. Mike DeWine could play politics and refuse to sign the bill unless lawmakers also approve his Ohio STRONG gun control package, which to date hasn’t received much support from his fellow Republicans in the statehouse.
For the sake of student safety, it would be an easier and faster fix if the courts handle this instead of the legislature, but I suspect that one way or another, Everytown for Gun Safety is going to eventually lose their battle to keep Ohio’s teachers disarmed while on the job.


bearingarms--2020-09-12--Trump-Appointed Judges Issue Blistering Dissent In 9th Circuit Gun Case

A pair of judges appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals absolutely torched a decision by their colleagues to declare that even spending a single day in a mental institutional as the result of an involuntary commitment can leave someone permanently barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights .
The case , known as Mai vs. U.S. , was brought by a man named Duy Mai , who was born in an refugee camp in Thailand before moving to the United States with his family when he was two .
By all accounts Mai has been a “ productive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades , but when he was 17 he was involuntarily committed to a hospital after a court determined that he posed a danger to himself and others .
Mai spent nine months in the institution , but over the last 20 years he ’ s gone on to earn his GED , a bachelor ’ s degree , and a master ’ s degree .
He ’ s now a husband and a father of two , hasn ’ t been in any trouble with the law , and hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mai sought to purchase a firearm , however , he was denied because of the involuntary commitment from 1999 .
Mai filed suit seeking to relief , and even the federal court system has noted that , despite the fact that federal law allows for the resumption of Second Amendment rights , Congress has prohibited the use of funds “ to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities , ” which leaves Mai and others without a way to reestablish their rights .
A trial court judge in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim for relief , and earlier this week a panel on the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision , in essence ruling that a lifetime prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms for those who ’ ve been involuntarily committed doesn ’ t infringe on their Second Amendment rights .
Two judges on the Ninth Circuit , however , vehemently disagreed with their colleagues , torching the twisted logic used by the majority in a blistering dissent .
Judges Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke , both appointed to the bench by President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that someone who ’ s spent as little as a single day involuntarily committed can lose their Second Amendment rights forever .
The pair write that the Ninth Circuit only adopted “ this view for the Second Amendment .
For other , more fashionable constitutional rights , we would not countenance such an abridgment.
” That ’ s absolutely right , and it ’ s just another piece of evidence that too many judges view the Second Amendment as a second-class right .
In any other context , laws that burden the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyzed under heightened scrutiny—e.g.
, restrictions on the “ content ” of speech rarely survive strict scrutiny , nor do laws that restrict “ core ” political speech .
We should not treat the Second Amendment any different… .
[ The panel ] evaded any form of strict scrutiny , despite admitting that § 922 ( g ) ( 4 ) ’ s “ lifetime ban ” on Mai ’ s Second Amendment right was “ quite substantial , ” by minimizing the law ’ s burden as falling on only a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so , the court seemingly pulls new doctrine out of its hat and magically transforms a fundamental right that belongs to an individual , into one that is class-based .
Rather than face the total and permanent deprivation of the core Second Amendment right for Mai ( and the class of people like him ) , the court refocused the inquiry on the size of the class .
And ta-da !
, the court holds , intermediate scrutiny applies .
Like most magicians , the court refused to explain its act .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow class ” of individuals their Second Amendment right , ipse dixit , it is analyzed only under intermediate scrutiny .
Such reasoning is even more perplexing given that heightened scrutiny was originally announced as a method to protect the rights of “ discrete and insular minorities.
” Today , according to the court , the fact that Mai belongs to a “ narrow class ” is , paradoxically , the very reason to lower the level of scrutiny applied to him .
We should have corrected this jurisprudential sleight of hand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t .
As Judge Bumatay argues , the Ninth Circuit ’ s decision hearkens back to some of the ugliest jurisprudence in our nation ’ s history .
There ’ s one step left for Duy Mai in his quest to have his rights restored ; the Supreme Court .
Unfortunately , SCOTUS hasn ’ t heard a Second Amendment-related case in ten years , and there ’ s a lot of speculation among court watchers that Chief Justice John Roberts has gone soft and squishy when it comes to striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds may be long that the highest court in the land will hear Mai ’ s case , but if they don ’ t it will set a precedent that really shouldn ’ t stand .
Those convicted of felony offenses have a way to get their rights restored , but those who have been found to be suffering from mental illness do not , even if doctors determine that the individual in question is no longer a danger to themselves or others .
I ’ m not an attorney , but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a mechanism for those adjudicated as mentally defective to have their rights restored , but refused to fund the program several years later rather than repealing the mechanism entirely .
If the federal government has established a way for these individuals to have their rights restored , then it needs to live up to its promise and actually allow that process to be used .
If the government wants to end that program , it should repeal it completely instead ( which , of course , would be subject to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that “ We emphatically do not subscribe to the notion that ‘ once mentally ill , always so , ’ ” but the ruling sets up a system that even those who are no longer mentally ill can not legally exercise their constitutional rights .
This is not only an infringement of the Second Amendment , in my opinion , it ’ s an unjust exercise of power on the part of the legislative branch , and it should be overturned by the Supreme Court .

A pair of judges appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals absolutely torched a decision by their colleagues to declare that even spending a single day in a mental institutional as the result of an involuntary commitment can leave someone permanently barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The case, known as Mai vs. U.S., was brought by a man named Duy Mai, who was born in an refugee camp in Thailand before moving to the United States with his family when he was two. By all accounts Mai has been a “productive member of society” for the past two decades, but when he was 17 he was involuntarily committed to a hospital after a court determined that he posed a danger to himself and others.
Mai spent nine months in the institution, but over the last 20 years he’s gone on to earn his GED, a bachelor’s degree, and a master’s degree. He’s now a husband and a father of two, hasn’t been in any trouble with the law, and hasn’t suffered any additional mental issues. When Mai sought to purchase a firearm, however, he was denied because of the involuntary commitment from 1999.
Mai filed suit seeking to relief, and even the federal court system has noted that, despite the fact that federal law allows for the resumption of Second Amendment rights, Congress has prohibited the use of funds “to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities,” which leaves Mai and others without a way to reestablish their rights.
A trial court judge in the Ninth Circuit ruled that Mai had no claim for relief, and earlier this week a panel on the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision, in essence ruling that a lifetime prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms for those who’ve been involuntarily committed doesn’t infringe on their Second Amendment rights.
Two judges on the Ninth Circuit, however, vehemently disagreed with their colleagues, torching the twisted logic used by the majority in a blistering dissent. Judges Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, both appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, argue that the decision means that someone who’s spent as little as a single day involuntarily committed can lose their Second Amendment rights forever.
The pair write that the Ninth Circuit only adopted “this view for the Second Amendment. For other, more fashionable constitutional rights, we would not countenance such an abridgment.” That’s absolutely right, and it’s just another piece of evidence that too many judges view the Second Amendment as a second-class right.
In any other context, laws that burden the core of a fundamental right are invariably analyzed under heightened scrutiny—e.g., restrictions on the “content” of speech rarely survive strict scrutiny, nor do laws that restrict “core” political speech. We should not treat the Second Amendment any different…. [The panel] evaded any form of strict scrutiny, despite admitting that § 922(g)(4)’s “lifetime ban” on Mai’s Second Amendment right was “quite substantial,” by minimizing the law’s burden as falling on only a “narrow class” of individuals. In doing so, the court seemingly pulls new doctrine out of its hat and magically transforms a fundamental right that belongs to an individual, into one that is class-based. Rather than face the total and permanent deprivation of the core Second Amendment right for Mai (and the class of people like him), the court refocused the inquiry on the size of the class. And ta-da!, the court holds, intermediate scrutiny applies. Like most magicians, the court refused to explain its act. Because the law deprives only a “narrow class” of individuals their Second Amendment right, ipse dixit, it is analyzed only under intermediate scrutiny. Such reasoning is even more perplexing given that heightened scrutiny was originally announced as a method to protect the rights of “discrete and insular minorities.” Today, according to the court, the fact that Mai belongs to a “narrow class” is, paradoxically, the very reason to lower the level of scrutiny applied to him. We should have corrected this jurisprudential sleight of hand.
The court should have, but it didn’t. As Judge Bumatay argues, the Ninth Circuit’s decision hearkens back to some of the ugliest jurisprudence in our nation’s history.
Many years ago, judges took a turn as pseudo- psychologists and waded into whether a woman’s mental health may be balanced against her constitutional rights. That case is generally not treated kindly today. I fear the court goes down the same path. Heller‘s endorsement of text, history, and tradition as the proper lens for evaluating the scope of the Second Amendment was not accidental. There, the Court emphatically disapproved of courts determining on an ad hoc basis whether certain individuals were undeserving of the full complement of fundamental rights. Duy Mai deserves better. Our Constitution deserves better.
There’s one step left for Duy Mai in his quest to have his rights restored; the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, SCOTUS hasn’t heard a Second Amendment-related case in ten years, and there’s a lot of speculation among court watchers that Chief Justice John Roberts has gone soft and squishy when it comes to striking down gun laws as unconstitutional.
The odds may be long that the highest court in the land will hear Mai’s case, but if they don’t it will set a precedent that really shouldn’t stand. Those convicted of felony offenses have a way to get their rights restored, but those who have been found to be suffering from mental illness do not, even if doctors determine that the individual in question is no longer a danger to themselves or others.
I’m not an attorney, but to me the argument is simple. Congress set up a mechanism for those adjudicated as mentally defective to have their rights restored, but refused to fund the program several years later rather than repealing the mechanism entirely. If the federal government has established a way for these individuals to have their rights restored, then it needs to live up to its promise and actually allow that process to be used. If the government wants to end that program, it should repeal it completely instead (which, of course, would be subject to another legal challenge).
The majority opinion states that “We emphatically do not subscribe to the notion that ‘once mentally ill, always so,’” but the ruling sets up a system that even those who are no longer mentally ill cannot legally exercise their constitutional rights. This is not only an infringement of the Second Amendment, in my opinion, it’s an unjust exercise of power on the part of the legislative branch, and it should be overturned by the Supreme Court.


bearingarms--2020-09-12--Boise Suburb Declares Itself Second Amendment Sanctuary

For a while , it seemed like counties were embracing the status of Second Amendment sanctuaries at a breathtaking rate .
No matter where we looked , it seemed counties and cities were declaring themselves to be places where the Second Amendment would be respected no matter what the state or federal governments decided to do .
It was pretty damn awesome , really , especially in answer to those who declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants .
Yet , over time , momentum slowed down .
In fairness , many places were a little preoccupied .
You might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Yeah , that kind of sucked all the air out of the room for a lot of things .
Now , though , things have been settling down more or less and we ’ re starting to see more sanctuary communities .
The city of Eagle has declared itself a Second Amendment sanctuary city , making it the second Treasure Valley city to do so , after Star passed a similar resolution in July .
The City Council voted unanimously for the measure , igniting a round of applause from residents attending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary status ” is largely symbolic .
In its resolution , Eagle declared that it would opposed the enactment of legislation that would “ infringe upon the rights of people to keep and bear arms.
” But Idaho ’ s Legislature has rarely pushed for measures to increase gun control — and , in fact , in recent years has passed measures that would reduce restrictions .
In 2019 , for example , the Legislature lowered the age at which one could carry a concealed weapon to 18 from 21 .
That could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A former Washington resident , he watched with frustration as the state passed legislation that increased gun control .
“ The time to make a statement about where we stand is now , not when things have changed and the laws are infringing upon those rights , ” he said at Tuesday ’ s meeting .
The sanctuary city movement gained popularity among liberal cities , which used them to restrict the use of city police officers in enforcing federal immigration laws .
Almon isn ’ t wrong , either .
Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , but that ’ s gone into the toilet in recent years .
It ’ s only a matter of time before they decide to repeal their “ Shall Issue ” permitting law , among other things , just to become even more ridiculous .
To assume that Idaho won ’ t go that way would be ill-advised .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong .
I think it ’ s pretty unlikely that Idaho will shift blue anytime soon , much less become outright anti-gun .
It lacks a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , that can dwarf all the accumulation of sane people in the state .
However , that doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t happen anyway , and measures like this provide something of a bulwark against that contingency .
Frankly , it ’ s why every county and city should at least consider such a measure .
If they ’ re voted down , they ’ re voted down but at least put them up for a vote .
The fact that it will also show who the anti-gunners are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just be a happy bonus .

For a while, it seemed like counties were embracing the status of Second Amendment sanctuaries at a breathtaking rate. No matter where we looked, it seemed counties and cities were declaring themselves to be places where the Second Amendment would be respected no matter what the state or federal governments decided to do.
It was pretty damn awesome, really, especially in answer to those who declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.
Yet, over time, momentum slowed down. In fairness, many places were a little preoccupied. You might have heard of that whole global pandemic thing? Yeah, that kind of sucked all the air out of the room for a lot of things.
Now, though, things have been settling down more or less and we’re starting to see more sanctuary communities.
The city of Eagle has declared itself a Second Amendment sanctuary city, making it the second Treasure Valley city to do so, after Star passed a similar resolution in July. The City Council voted unanimously for the measure, igniting a round of applause from residents attending Tuesday’s meeting. The “sanctuary status” is largely symbolic. In its resolution, Eagle declared that it would opposed the enactment of legislation that would “infringe upon the rights of people to keep and bear arms.” But Idaho’s Legislature has rarely pushed for measures to increase gun control — and, in fact, in recent years has passed measures that would reduce restrictions. In 2019, for example, the Legislature lowered the age at which one could carry a concealed weapon to 18 from 21. That could change, argued Eagle resident Brian Almon. A former Washington resident, he watched with frustration as the state passed legislation that increased gun control. “The time to make a statement about where we stand is now, not when things have changed and the laws are infringing upon those rights,” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. The sanctuary city movement gained popularity among liberal cities, which used them to restrict the use of city police officers in enforcing federal immigration laws.
Almon isn’t wrong, either. Washington state used to be a pretty pro-gun place, but that’s gone into the toilet in recent years. It’s only a matter of time before they decide to repeal their “Shall Issue” permitting law, among other things, just to become even more ridiculous.
To assume that Idaho won’t go that way would be ill-advised.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s pretty unlikely that Idaho will shift blue anytime soon, much less become outright anti-gun. It lacks a city quite like Seattle, for one thing, that can dwarf all the accumulation of sane people in the state.
However, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen anyway, and measures like this provide something of a bulwark against that contingency. Frankly, it’s why every county and city should at least consider such a measure. If they’re voted down, they’re voted down but at least put them up for a vote.
The fact that it will also show who the anti-gunners are in even supposedly non-partisan local races might just be a happy bonus.


bearingarms--2020-09-13--Illinois Sentencing Proves State's Gun Laws Don't Work

While the state of Illinois isn ’ t the most gun controlled state in the country–California holds that tile and isn ’ t likely to be challenged in the near future–it ’ s still a state with a lot of gun control .
In theory , at least according to anti-gunners throughout the nation , gun control prevents bad people from getting guns .
Especially things like gun permitting , which Illinois requires , as well as universal background checks .
Of course , if all those work so well , then why did this 19-year-old get sentenced for having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loaded gun in a residential neighborhood of Urbana last spring has been sentenced to six years in prison .
Kamarion Busby , 19 , who listed an address in the 300 block of Edgebrook Drive , told Judge Tom Difanis he wanted to be a better role model for his child and his siblings and that “ part of me becoming a man is knowing that I was wrong and taking responsibility.
” When Busby pleaded guilty in July to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon , other charges alleging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apartment on East Colorado Avenue on April 10 were dismissed .
Busby , under the influence of some substance , cooperated with Urbana police who were investigating the shot that was fired into an apartment at 1102 E. Colorado Ave. , a three-story , densely populated building with several families .
His companion , Aleyah Lewis , 22 , resisted the efforts of Urbana police to arrest her .
The force used by officers to get her into a squad car became the subject of three separate reviews — the first by Urbana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attorney and a third by an independent firm paid $ 20,000 for its work by the city of Urbana .
All three reviews concluded the officers acted within departmental policy but that there was room for improvement in how they handled Lewis .
So a 19-year-old convicted felon who was under the influence of something illegal–after all , even if it were alcohol , he ’ s only 19 and can ’ t drink legally–got his hands on a firearm and fired into an apartment building .
Now , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to his actions and taking responsibility .
Frankly , the kid deserves some credit for that because it ’ s all too rare in this day and age .
However , let ’ s not forget that all those gun laws were supposed to prevent Busby from getting a gun in the first place .
They failed .
Busby got a firearm despite being both a convicted felon and underage .
That ’ s a complete failure of gun control , now isn ’ t it ?
Of course , some will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of lax gun laws in other states .
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is notorious for that line of “ reasoning.
” Yet here ’ s the problem with that .
These guns are black market guns .
They ’ re not lawfully sold in other states , they ’ re bought under false pretenses and then shipped into Illinois .
That makes them black market guns .
Trying to change the laws in ever other state won ’ t change a thing .
By definition , black market guns are illegal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being sold to those who would use them for nefarious purposes .
They ’ ll be sold to people like Busby .
You ’ re not going to stop that from happening .
All Illinois has done is make it a pain in the posterior for anyone trying to do anything lawfully .

While the state of Illinois isn’t the most gun controlled state in the country–California holds that tile and isn’t likely to be challenged in the near future–it’s still a state with a lot of gun control.
In theory, at least according to anti-gunners throughout the nation, gun control prevents bad people from getting guns. Especially things like gun permitting, which Illinois requires, as well as universal background checks.
Of course, if all those work so well, then why did this 19-year-old get sentenced for having a gun?
Champaign teen who possessed a loaded gun in a residential neighborhood of Urbana last spring has been sentenced to six years in prison. Kamarion Busby, 19, who listed an address in the 300 block of Edgebrook Drive, told Judge Tom Difanis he wanted to be a better role model for his child and his siblings and that “part of me becoming a man is knowing that I was wrong and taking responsibility.” When Busby pleaded guilty in July to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, other charges alleging that he fired a gun into an apartment on East Colorado Avenue on April 10 were dismissed. Busby, under the influence of some substance, cooperated with Urbana police who were investigating the shot that was fired into an apartment at 1102 E. Colorado Ave., a three-story, densely populated building with several families. His companion, Aleyah Lewis, 22, resisted the efforts of Urbana police to arrest her. The force used by officers to get her into a squad car became the subject of three separate reviews — the first by Urbana police, a second by the state’s attorney and a third by an independent firm paid $20,000 for its work by the city of Urbana. All three reviews concluded the officers acted within departmental policy but that there was room for improvement in how they handled Lewis.
So a 19-year-old convicted felon who was under the influence of something illegal–after all, even if it were alcohol, he’s only 19 and can’t drink legally–got his hands on a firearm and fired into an apartment building.
Now, I’ll give credit to Busby for owning up to his actions and taking responsibility. Frankly, the kid deserves some credit for that because it’s all too rare in this day and age.
However, let’s not forget that all those gun laws were supposed to prevent Busby from getting a gun in the first place. They failed.
Busby got a firearm despite being both a convicted felon and underage. That’s a complete failure of gun control, now isn’t it?
Of course, some will argue that he only got his guns because of lax gun laws in other states. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is notorious for that line of “reasoning.”
Yet here’s the problem with that. These guns are black market guns. They’re not lawfully sold in other states, they’re bought under false pretenses and then shipped into Illinois. That makes them black market guns.
Trying to change the laws in ever other state won’t change a thing. By definition, black market guns are illegal. They’ll continue being illegal and being sold to those who would use them for nefarious purposes. They’ll be sold to people like Busby.
You’re not going to stop that from happening. All Illinois has done is make it a pain in the posterior for anyone trying to do anything lawfully.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Pasadena Media's "Concern" Over Ghost Guns Misplaced

Time and time again , I keep coming across news stories talking about the “ growing concern ” that so-called ghost guns represent .
They ’ re unserialized firearms that anyone can make in their garage , which scares the ever-loving crap out of some people , apparently .
With most of these stories , they fail to quantify the threat .
When they do , it turns out to be much ado about nothing .
However , the media sure does love them some ghost gun stories , let me tell you .
In fairness , I see more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than most folks do , but it ’ s almost hilarious how they shake out .
Yet Pasadena Now has decided to become the latest to raise the alarm over ghost guns .
Police have noted encountering a rising number of guns on the streets of Pasadena this year , and a growing proportion of them have been unserialized , unregistered firearms commonly known as “ ghost guns , ” which can be easily and cheaply obtained without a background check , even in a state with some of the nation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 212 guns seized by officers this year , 23 of them — or just over 10 % — have been the unserialized variety , which are often sold as incomplete kits that can be quickly and easily completed by the buyers .
“ These types of guns are becoming more and more popular and more and more accessible , ” Pasadena police Lt. William Grisafe said .
While the department has no interest in infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners , “ It is a concern of ours that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone ’ s hands , ” he said .
And that includes those prohibited from possessing guns , such as convicted felons .
So all this is about 23 guns in a city of just under 140,000 people .
Let ’ s keep in mind that while you can lawfully build a firearm in California , you ’ re legally required to obtain a serial number from the state and pass a criminal background check .
Clearly , that ’ s not stopping the bad guys from building guns .
Yet let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit over 10 percent of the total firearms seized by Pasadena police .
It looks to me like the bigger problem are all the non-ghost guns that are getting into criminal hands .
That represents almost 90 percent of the total firearms seized by police there , yet where ’ s the “ growing concern ” about that ?
Oh , right .
Those aren ’ t the boogieman right now , only this minute potential threat that amounts to a tiny fraction of the guns taken but you ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Look , part of the problem with criminals is that they want instant gratification .
They ’ re not interested in waiting to build a firearm .
They don ’ t have the patience or skill to build them .
Right now , there ’ s also not enough demand for most of those who have the patience and skill to risk prison time to build them for criminals .
Further , we don ’ t know how these guns were obtained in the first place .
Could they have been stolen from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then shipped into California ?
We simply don ’ t know .
Even then , it ’ s a non-issue and anyone with half a brain can see that .
Well , except for the media , apparently .
Then again , some argue they don ’ t have that required “ half a brain .
”

Time and time again, I keep coming across news stories talking about the “growing concern” that so-called ghost guns represent. They’re unserialized firearms that anyone can make in their garage, which scares the ever-loving crap out of some people, apparently.
With most of these stories, they fail to quantify the threat. When they do, it turns out to be much ado about nothing.
However, the media sure does love them some ghost gun stories, let me tell you. In fairness, I see more news about such things from more places than most folks do, but it’s almost hilarious how they shake out.
Yet Pasadena Now has decided to become the latest to raise the alarm over ghost guns.
Police have noted encountering a rising number of guns on the streets of Pasadena this year, and a growing proportion of them have been unserialized, unregistered firearms commonly known as “ghost guns,” which can be easily and cheaply obtained without a background check, even in a state with some of the nation’s most restrictive gun control legislation. Of 212 guns seized by officers this year, 23 of them — or just over 10% — have been the unserialized variety, which are often sold as incomplete kits that can be quickly and easily completed by the buyers. “These types of guns are becoming more and more popular and more and more accessible,” Pasadena police Lt. William Grisafe said. While the department has no interest in infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, “It is a concern of ours that these guns can’t get into anyone’s hands,” he said. And that includes those prohibited from possessing guns, such as convicted felons.
So all this is about 23 guns in a city of just under 140,000 people.
Wow.
I mean, seriously?
Let’s keep in mind that while you can lawfully build a firearm in California, you’re legally required to obtain a serial number from the state and pass a criminal background check. Clearly, that’s not stopping the bad guys from building guns.
Yet let’s also note that this is just a bit over 10 percent of the total firearms seized by Pasadena police. It looks to me like the bigger problem are all the non-ghost guns that are getting into criminal hands. That represents almost 90 percent of the total firearms seized by police there, yet where’s the “growing concern” about that?
Oh, right. Those aren’t the boogieman right now, only this minute potential threat that amounts to a tiny fraction of the guns taken but you’re still supposed to be wetting yourself over.
Sorry, my mistake.
Look, part of the problem with criminals is that they want instant gratification. They’re not interested in waiting to build a firearm. They don’t have the patience or skill to build them. Right now, there’s also not enough demand for most of those who have the patience and skill to risk prison time to build them for criminals.
Further, we don’t know how these guns were obtained in the first place. Could they have been stolen from states where such things are lawful, then shipped into California? We simply don’t know.
Even then, it’s a non-issue and anyone with half a brain can see that.
Well, except for the media, apparently. Then again, some argue they don’t have that required “half a brain.”


bearingarms--2020-09-14--NY Video Shows A Problem With Mask Requirements

Mask requirements are controversial , to say the least .
Many argue that requiring the face coverings interferes with their personal freedom .
Others thing it ’ s a common-sense requirement and anyone who doesn ’ t want to wear one is a selfish jerk who just wants to kill grandma .
No , honestly , those are the arguments I ’ ve seen .
Wherever you fall on the spectrum when it comes to masks , though , let ’ s understand that mask requirements don ’ t come without problems that have nothing to do with personal freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially bigger issues .
Shocking surveillance footage shows a gunman fire at point blank range at a crawling 17-year-old teen , fatally blasting him in the head during a running gun battle in the Bronx .
Footage released by the NYPD shows civilians standing unaware Thursday afternoon outside 1705 Hoe Avenue in Crotona as two men in black hoodies engage with a group of teens across the street .
As some of those involved start to cross the street , they are shown darting away at the apparent start of gunfire — with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kether Werts , 17 , was shown trying to race away — but falling to the ground after getting shot in the foot , police said .
His killer then ran up and held his gun right up to his head as he fired the fatal shot as the teen tried to crawl away .
You ’ d think that if there ’ s video , IDing the suspect should be fairly easy , but you ’ d be wrong .
See , they ’ re wearing masks in compliance with COVID-inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wore masks , which obscures their identity .
That requirement also makes it so any video of the neighborhood shows people still wearing masks as they leave the scene of the crime .
There ’ s not going to be any video of them without the mask because they don ’ t have to remove it to avoid suspicion .
Instead , the mask-wearers look like law-abiding citizens to the police .
And that made to wonder just how much of the spike in violent crime is because of anti-police sentiment and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement in many places for people to wear masks .
Here in Georgia , we have a law banning the wearing of masks .
It ’ s an anti-Klan law designed to make it so people couldn ’ t obscure their identity , but now that ’ s gone out the window with COVID .
The same is true many other places .
Even those where masks aren ’ t required tend to encourage them .
As a result , those who are looking to settle some scores have to believe that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their faces and potentially avoid repercussions .
The police aren ’ t going to stop people wearing masks anymore , so why not ?
Because of the masks , the risks are mitigated in ways that wouldn ’ t have been permissible prior to the coronavirus arriving on American shores .
Now , you can wear a mask and not have to fear arrest anymore .
My personal thoughts are that while this isn ’ t likely the sole driver of the violence , it likely is a contributing factor , one we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At that point , the discussion needs to be whether more lives are saved or cost due to the masks and go from there .
Unfortunately , masks are bordering on the sacred for many right now and so they ’ re not interested in having that discussion .
That ’ s a shame , too , because I can ’ t help but believe that violent crime is at least somewhat tied to those requirements .

Mask requirements are controversial, to say the least. Many argue that requiring the face coverings interferes with their personal freedom. Others thing it’s a common-sense requirement and anyone who doesn’t want to wear one is a selfish jerk who just wants to kill grandma.
No, honestly, those are the arguments I’ve seen.
Wherever you fall on the spectrum when it comes to masks, though, let’s understand that mask requirements don’t come without problems that have nothing to do with personal freedom or COVID-19. No, there are potentially bigger issues.
Shocking surveillance footage shows a gunman fire at point blank range at a crawling 17-year-old teen, fatally blasting him in the head during a running gun battle in the Bronx. Footage released by the NYPD shows civilians standing unaware Thursday afternoon outside 1705 Hoe Avenue in Crotona as two men in black hoodies engage with a group of teens across the street. As some of those involved start to cross the street, they are shown darting away at the apparent start of gunfire — with some of those fleeing also holding weapons. Kether Werts, 17, was shown trying to race away — but falling to the ground after getting shot in the foot, police said. His killer then ran up and held his gun right up to his head as he fired the fatal shot as the teen tried to crawl away.
You’d think that if there’s video, IDing the suspect should be fairly easy, but you’d be wrong. See, they’re wearing masks in compliance with COVID-inspired rules.
The suspect and an accomplice wore masks, which obscures their identity.
That requirement also makes it so any video of the neighborhood shows people still wearing masks as they leave the scene of the crime. There’s not going to be any video of them without the mask because they don’t have to remove it to avoid suspicion. Instead, the mask-wearers look like law-abiding citizens to the police.
And that made to wonder just how much of the spike in violent crime is because of anti-police sentiment and just how much may be tied to the requirement in many places for people to wear masks.
Here in Georgia, we have a law banning the wearing of masks. It’s an anti-Klan law designed to make it so people couldn’t obscure their identity, but now that’s gone out the window with COVID. The same is true many other places.
Even those where masks aren’t required tend to encourage them.
As a result, those who are looking to settle some scores have to believe that, to some extent, they can hide their faces and potentially avoid repercussions. The police aren’t going to stop people wearing masks anymore, so why not? Because of the masks, the risks are mitigated in ways that wouldn’t have been permissible prior to the coronavirus arriving on American shores. Now, you can wear a mask and not have to fear arrest anymore.
My personal thoughts are that while this isn’t likely the sole driver of the violence, it likely is a contributing factor, one we would do well to at least acknowledge.
At that point, the discussion needs to be whether more lives are saved or cost due to the masks and go from there.
Unfortunately, masks are bordering on the sacred for many right now and so they’re not interested in having that discussion. That’s a shame, too, because I can’t help but believe that violent crime is at least somewhat tied to those requirements.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Bloomberg Goes All In With $100-Million Bet On Biden

The gun control movement ” s favorite sugar daddy is spending big in Florida trying to get Joe Biden into the White House .
Michael Bloomberg is dropping $ 100-million on television and digital ads targeting Florida voters in support of the Biden campaign as Democrats grow increasingly freaked out about the distinct possibility that Biden ’ s appeal to voters in the Sunshine State is slipping .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we take a look at the damage that the Bloomberg Bucks could do in the swing state , as well as offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter Bloomberg ’ s spending spree .
The Trump campaign feels pretty good about where they are in Florida at the moment , though they ’ re not resting on their laurels .
The GOP get-out-the-vote effort is already in full gear in the days before early voting begins on September 24th , but President Trump has already taken one shot at Bloomberg ’ s spending spree , and he ’ ll likely keep hitting the diminutive Democrat as long as votes are being cast .
In a sign that Bloomberg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the president tweeted out his disdain for Bloomberg on Sunday morning , referencing the attacks the businessman received at a Democratic primary debate in February from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
“ I thought Mini Mike was through with Democrat politics after spending almost 2 Billion Dollars , and then giving the worst and most inept Debate Performance in the history of Presidential Politics .
Pocahontas ended his political career on first question , OVER !
Save NYC instead , ” he tweeted .
The billionaire Bloomberg launched his own campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid worries about Biden ’ s strengths .
Despite spending $ 1 billion on his campaign , Bloomberg struggled and dropped out in March , quickly endorsing Biden .
As ABC News points out , Bloomberg ’ s big spending didn ’ t win him the Democratic nomination , and I suspect that the onslaught of attack ads that will soon be inundating Florida voters isn ’ t going to be a difference maker for Biden ’ s campaign in the the state either .
Just as the heavy spending by Bloomberg couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe Biden ’ s campaign struggles aren ’ t based on a lack of campaign cash .
Instead , it ’ s the fundamentals that are hurting the Democratic candidate , particularly among the state ’ s Hispanic voters .
Hillary Clinton won the Hispanic vote in Florida in 2016 by more than twenty points , but a new NBC News/Marist poll last week showed Trump and Biden tied among Hispanic voters .
That poll may be an outlier , but with Bloomberg ’ s cash infusion , the Biden campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Money isn ’ t everything in politics , as Bloomberg himself has shown us , but that doesn ’ t mean that gun owners in Florida should be unconcerned .
It ’ s vitally important for every gun owner around the country to be engaged and involved in the next 50 days , and on today ’ s show we highlight a couple of places where Second Amendment supporters can sign up to volunteer in support of their right to keep and bear arms .
Two good places to start : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Second Amendment Foundation ’ s new 2A First Responders program .
Real grassroots volunteerism beats a television attack ad in terms of swaying voters , and while we can ’ t match Bloomberg ’ s bank account , we can beat the anti-gun billionaire and his favorite candidate if we ’ re actively working in defense of our Second Amendment rights between now and November 3rd .
Be sure to check out the entire show above , including a look at one Houston-area criminal who ’ s now facing sexual assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison , a Montana delivery driver who shot an alleged robber while on the job , and an Arizona police officer in the right place at the right time to do the right thing when it came to protecting an American flag .

The gun control movement”s favorite sugar daddy is spending big in Florida trying to get Joe Biden into the White House. Michael Bloomberg is dropping $100-million on television and digital ads targeting Florida voters in support of the Biden campaign as Democrats grow increasingly freaked out about the distinct possibility that Biden’s appeal to voters in the Sunshine State is slipping.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we take a look at the damage that the Bloomberg Bucks could do in the swing state, as well as offering some tips on how gun owners can counter Bloomberg’s spending spree.
The Trump campaign feels pretty good about where they are in Florida at the moment, though they’re not resting on their laurels. The GOP get-out-the-vote effort is already in full gear in the days before early voting begins on September 24th, but President Trump has already taken one shot at Bloomberg’s spending spree, and he’ll likely keep hitting the diminutive Democrat as long as votes are being cast.
In a sign that Bloomberg’s planned investment put Trump on alert, however, the president tweeted out his disdain for Bloomberg on Sunday morning, referencing the attacks the businessman received at a Democratic primary debate in February from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “I thought Mini Mike was through with Democrat politics after spending almost 2 Billion Dollars, and then giving the worst and most inept Debate Performance in the history of Presidential Politics. Pocahontas ended his political career on first question, OVER! Save NYC instead,” he tweeted. The billionaire Bloomberg launched his own campaign for the Democratic nomination late last year amid worries about Biden’s strengths. Despite spending $1 billion on his campaign, Bloomberg struggled and dropped out in March, quickly endorsing Biden.
As ABC News points out, Bloomberg’s big spending didn’t win him the Democratic nomination, and I suspect that the onslaught of attack ads that will soon be inundating Florida voters isn’t going to be a difference maker for Biden’s campaign in the the state either. Just as the heavy spending by Bloomberg couldn’t make him a better candidate, Joe Biden’s campaign struggles aren’t based on a lack of campaign cash. Instead, it’s the fundamentals that are hurting the Democratic candidate, particularly among the state’s Hispanic voters.
Hillary Clinton won the Hispanic vote in Florida in 2016 by more than twenty points, but a new NBC News/Marist poll last week showed Trump and Biden tied among Hispanic voters. That poll may be an outlier, but with Bloomberg’s cash infusion, the Biden campaign is clearly seeing signs of trouble in the state.
Money isn’t everything in politics, as Bloomberg himself has shown us, but that doesn’t mean that gun owners in Florida should be unconcerned. It’s vitally important for every gun owner around the country to be engaged and involved in the next 50 days, and on today’s show we highlight a couple of places where Second Amendment supporters can sign up to volunteer in support of their right to keep and bear arms. Two good places to start: the NRA’s Political Victory Fund and the Second Amendment Foundation’s new 2A First Responders program.
Real grassroots volunteerism beats a television attack ad in terms of swaying voters, and while we can’t match Bloomberg’s bank account, we can beat the anti-gun billionaire and his favorite candidate if we’re actively working in defense of our Second Amendment rights between now and November 3rd.
Be sure to check out the entire show above, including a look at one Houston-area criminal who’s now facing sexual assault charges when he should have been in prison, a Montana delivery driver who shot an alleged robber while on the job, and an Arizona police officer in the right place at the right time to do the right thing when it came to protecting an American flag.