bearingarms--2020-01-08--LAPD Give Reminder Why Barring Gun Sales To People On Lists Is A Bad Idea

A while back , Republicans floated the idea of barring people on gang lists from buying guns .
It wasn ’ t very different from Democrats who push to bar folks on the no-fly list from exercising their Second Amendment rights , though probably slightly more reality-based .
However , Democrats weren ’ t fond of the idea in the least .
In that post , I pointed out the differences between a gang database and the no-fly list , but also said I didn ’ t favor this kind of thing in the least .
Now , thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of just why I didn ’ t support it .
An internal investigation uncovered several officers within the Los Angeles Police Department ( LAPD ) falsely identified innocent Californians in traffic stops as gang members in an effort to make their police work appear more successful .
A statement released Tuesday by the LAPD says that the investigation began in 2019 when a mother living in San Fernando Valley contacted the department after receiving word from the LAPD that her son was a gang member .
A supervisor at a local station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathered by an officer and found inconsistencies with the information provided .
The department has not disclosed any other details about how the investigation began .
The woman ’ s son ’ s name was cleared and three officers were investigated as a result .
An Internal Affairs investigation found that over a dozen officers assigned to Metropolitan Division crime suppression duties had falsified information on field-interview cards to identify non-gang members as belonging to gangs .
Now , imagine someone of legal age found a threat against their life and went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves , only to find out that a couple of police officers had added them to a list of gang members and couldn ’ t buy a gun .
That ’ s the problem with denying gun purchases to anyone on any kind of list that hasn ’ t undergone the due process of law .
These officers were able to add this individual to the database with impunity because there was absolutely no judicial oversight .
There was apparently no oversight at all .
And yet , some actually think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale of firearms to people on such a list ?
I ’ m sorry , but that ’ s never going to be OK for me .
Law-abiding citizens should never be barred from owning guns for any reason , but especially not because their name shows up on a list they have absolutely no say about .
That includes the no-fly list as well since all that gets lobbed on there are names and little else , thus landing thousands of people on the list who aren ’ t even suspected of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those on the database from buying guns .
For once , they were on the right side of a gun issue , even if it were for the wrong reason .
It wasn ’ t the “ not selling guns ” part that bothered them , but instead , they came at it from an identity politics point of view .
This time , though , that served the Second Amendment .
I ’ m not sure they ’ ll allow themselves to make that mistake again .
Regardless , though , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to why these databases are a horrible way to determine who can and can ’ t exercise a constitutionally-protected right .
It ’ s only too bad that some people will ignore that fact .

A while back, Republicans floated the idea of barring people on gang lists from buying guns. It wasn’t very different from Democrats who push to bar folks on the no-fly list from exercising their Second Amendment rights, though probably slightly more reality-based. However, Democrats weren’t fond of the idea in the least.
In that post, I pointed out the differences between a gang database and the no-fly list, but also said I didn’t favor this kind of thing in the least.
Now, thanks to the LAPD, we have a prime example of just why I didn’t support it.
An internal investigation uncovered several officers within the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) falsely identified innocent Californians in traffic stops as gang members in an effort to make their police work appear more successful. A statement released Tuesday by the LAPD says that the investigation began in 2019 when a mother living in San Fernando Valley contacted the department after receiving word from the LAPD that her son was a gang member. A supervisor at a local station investigated body camera footage and other documentation gathered by an officer and found inconsistencies with the information provided. The department has not disclosed any other details about how the investigation began. The woman’s son’s name was cleared and three officers were investigated as a result. An Internal Affairs investigation found that over a dozen officers assigned to Metropolitan Division crime suppression duties had falsified information on field-interview cards to identify non-gang members as belonging to gangs.
Now, imagine someone of legal age found a threat against their life and went to purchase a firearm so they could protect themselves, only to find out that a couple of police officers had added them to a list of gang members and couldn’t buy a gun.
That’s the problem with denying gun purchases to anyone on any kind of list that hasn’t undergone the due process of law.
These officers were able to add this individual to the database with impunity because there was absolutely no judicial oversight. There was apparently no oversight at all. And yet, some actually think it’s a good idea to bar the sale of firearms to people on such a list?
No.
I’m sorry, but that’s never going to be OK for me. Law-abiding citizens should never be barred from owning guns for any reason, but especially not because their name shows up on a list they have absolutely no say about. That includes the no-fly list as well since all that gets lobbed on there are names and little else, thus landing thousands of people on the list who aren’t even suspected of doing anything wrong.
Democrats opposed barring those on the database from buying guns. For once, they were on the right side of a gun issue, even if it were for the wrong reason. It wasn’t the “not selling guns” part that bothered them, but instead, they came at it from an identity politics point of view. This time, though, that served the Second Amendment.
I’m not sure they’ll allow themselves to make that mistake again.
Regardless, though, this should be a wakeup call for everyone as to why these databases are a horrible way to determine who can and can’t exercise a constitutionally-protected right. It’s only too bad that some people will ignore that fact.


bearingarms--2020-01-08--More Jews Arming Themselves After Anti-Semitic Attacks

Whenever there ’ s a group of people who appear to be targeted for violence , the best advice they can get is to arm themselves .
While we can all talk about how it would be awesome if we didn ’ t need to carry guns and sing “ Kumbaya , ” the real world is a lot messier .
There are always going to be people who hate other groups .
It ’ s like hatred is built into our DNA or something .
Because of that , any group that finds itself being targeted owe it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves .
Historically , American Jews tend to be on the anti-gun side of the coin for some reason .
I ’ ve never understood why , but as I ’ m not Jewish , I ’ ve mostly stayed out of it .
However , it seems a lot of American Jews are now arming themselves , to the point that even the Australian media is noticing .
“ A lot of Jews in America have been brought up , unfortunately , with the attitude : ‘ Guns ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we do ’ , ” trainer Yonatan Stern tells his class .
Mr Stern , a former Israeli Defence Force soldier who runs a tactical training business , says he ’ s been swamped by requests from fellow Jews who ’ ve had enough of the recent attacks against them .
The most recent incident happened a few kilometres down the road .
Just four days prior , a man armed with a machete burst into a rabbi ’ s home and started stabbing people at random .
Mr Stern says any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community not to take up arms has “ blood on their hands ” .
“ Of course , the murderer ’ s responsible .
But just as much , that rabbi who told you not to get a gun because it ’ s not the Jewish way , he ’ s the murderer too.
” It ’ s a debate the Jewish community likely needs , but they shouldn ’ t .
One would think that the Holocaust would be all the evidence Jews would need to know that they have more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should at least consider fighting back .
Millions of their people died in Nazi concentration camps and it ’ s beyond time they recognize that there are way too many people who consider that just a good start .
It ’ s easy to say “ Never Again ” when talking about the Holocaust , but unless you ’ re ready to resist those who would herd you into camps , that phrase is nothing but empty words .
It ’ s nothing but a vague hope rather than a hard and fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not everyone is prepared to take a human life .
Not everyone should be .
It should never be an easy or small thing in someone ’ s mind .
It ’ s something I ponder each and every day of my life , something I try to prepare for should I ever be required to do so .
As such , not everyone is going to be comfortable with a gun in their hands .
What I don ’ t get , though is the idea that none of their people should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see some pushback within the Jewish community on that idea .
While I ’ m more than willing to protect anyone I can , but I can ’ t be everywhere and neither can anyone else .
It ’ s on the individuals to protect themselves and it ’ s good that some in the Jewish community can accept that .

Whenever there’s a group of people who appear to be targeted for violence, the best advice they can get is to arm themselves. While we can all talk about how it would be awesome if we didn’t need to carry guns and sing “Kumbaya,” the real world is a lot messier. There are always going to be people who hate other groups. It’s like hatred is built into our DNA or something.
Because of that, any group that finds itself being targeted owe it to themselves to have some means of protecting themselves.
Historically, American Jews tend to be on the anti-gun side of the coin for some reason. I’ve never understood why, but as I’m not Jewish, I’ve mostly stayed out of it.
However, it seems a lot of American Jews are now arming themselves, to the point that even the Australian media is noticing.
“A lot of Jews in America have been brought up, unfortunately, with the attitude: ‘Guns? That’s not us. That’s not what we do’,” trainer Yonatan Stern tells his class. Mr Stern, a former Israeli Defence Force soldier who runs a tactical training business, says he’s been swamped by requests from fellow Jews who’ve had enough of the recent attacks against them. The most recent incident happened a few kilometres down the road. Just four days prior, a man armed with a machete burst into a rabbi’s home and started stabbing people at random. Mr Stern says any Jewish leader who urges members of their community not to take up arms has “blood on their hands”. “Of course, the murderer’s responsible. But just as much, that rabbi who told you not to get a gun because it’s not the Jewish way, he’s the murderer too.” It’s a debate now raging inside this Jewish community.
It’s a debate the Jewish community likely needs, but they shouldn’t.
One would think that the Holocaust would be all the evidence Jews would need to know that they have more than enough enemies in the world that they should at least consider fighting back. Millions of their people died in Nazi concentration camps and it’s beyond time they recognize that there are way too many people who consider that just a good start.
It’s easy to say “Never Again” when talking about the Holocaust, but unless you’re ready to resist those who would herd you into camps, that phrase is nothing but empty words. It’s nothing but a vague hope rather than a hard and fast declaration.
Look, I get that not everyone is prepared to take a human life. Not everyone should be. It should never be an easy or small thing in someone’s mind. It’s something I ponder each and every day of my life, something I try to prepare for should I ever be required to do so. As such, not everyone is going to be comfortable with a gun in their hands.
I get that.
What I don’t get, though is the idea that none of their people should be armed.
I’m glad to see some pushback within the Jewish community on that idea. While I’m more than willing to protect anyone I can, but I can’t be everywhere and neither can anyone else. It’s on the individuals to protect themselves and it’s good that some in the Jewish community can accept that.


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Hot Mic Catches VA Dems Plotting How To Ignore Pro-Gun Testimony

The legislative process really looks kind of arcane to most folks who aren ’ t familiar with it .
In theory , lawmakers simply vote on the issues .
In reality , though , there ’ s more to it .
One of the things that many forget takes place is the testimony and debate surrounding the bills .
In theory , this allows lawmakers to make sure they ’ re fully informed on what ’ s in the bill so they know what they ’ re voting for .
However , what happens when a couple of lawmakers do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in question ?
That ’ s the question that surrounds a couple of Virginia Democrats who were caught on a hot microphone not just scheming to ignore testimony , but also insulting pro-gun witnesses .
From PJ Media ’ s report on the video : In the video below , two Virginia Democrats discuss how to get around the “ gun guys ” at a recent meeting in Fairfax County .
Liberty Nation sorted through the difficult-to-discern tape and determined that the Democrats were scheming on how to get out of hearing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You gon na stick around for the 25 gun guys ?
” one lawmaker is heard saying .
After a mostly inaudible exchange , he appears to say : “ They are… mixed up , little kids.
” Then , the other lawmaker says : “ Yeah , as long as we , ah , just don ’ t respond.
” Good to know these two are open to both the process and hearing alternate viewpoints .
In truth , this is nothing new .
No one sticks around for the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhere else to be because their minds are completely made up from the moment the bill is introduced .
The only things that change their mind are deals for other things or their constituents screaming at them .
What ’ s problematic is the utter disregard they ’ re illustrating for the pro-gun position .
After all , in their mind , we ’ re all just “ mixed up little kids ” who don ’ t actually understand the issue .
It doesn ’ t matter just how much one may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many studies you present showing these policies don ’ t work , or anything else , they ’ re just going to dismiss you as “ mixed up ” when you have a better grasp of the issues than they do .
These are the same people who talk all about how what they want is a debate on guns .
No , they don ’ t want a debate .
That would imply they actually care what people like you or me think on the issue .
They don ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sit down , shut up , and let them run our lives because that ’ s exactly what ’ s on the table .
The problem for this is that there are a lot of Virginians who aren ’ t remotely interested in playing along with the anti-gunners ’ delusions of adequacy .
They ’ re not going to roll over and play dead and they ’ re not going to tolerate just being disrespected by their political opponents who also claim they want a debate .
Instead , they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their BS and drive on with defending their God-given rights .
Frankly , if those couple of Democrats don ’ t get that , maybe they ’ re the “ mixed up little kids .
”

The legislative process really looks kind of arcane to most folks who aren’t familiar with it. In theory, lawmakers simply vote on the issues. In reality, though, there’s more to it. One of the things that many forget takes place is the testimony and debate surrounding the bills. In theory, this allows lawmakers to make sure they’re fully informed on what’s in the bill so they know what they’re voting for.
However, what happens when a couple of lawmakers do their level best to ignore the testimony in question?
That’s the question that surrounds a couple of Virginia Democrats who were caught on a hot microphone not just scheming to ignore testimony, but also insulting pro-gun witnesses.
From PJ Media’s report on the video:
In the video below, two Virginia Democrats discuss how to get around the “gun guys” at a recent meeting in Fairfax County. Liberty Nation sorted through the difficult-to-discern tape and determined that the Democrats were scheming on how to get out of hearing what one dismissed as “gun guys.” “You gonna stick around for the 25 gun guys?” one lawmaker is heard saying. After a mostly inaudible exchange, he appears to say: “They are… mixed up, little kids.” Then, the other lawmaker says: “Yeah, as long as we, ah, just don’t respond.”
Good to know these two are open to both the process and hearing alternate viewpoints.
In truth, this is nothing new. No one sticks around for the other guys’ witnesses. They always have somewhere else to be because their minds are completely made up from the moment the bill is introduced. The only things that change their mind are deals for other things or their constituents screaming at them.
That’s it.
What’s problematic is the utter disregard they’re illustrating for the pro-gun position. After all, in their mind, we’re all just “mixed up little kids” who don’t actually understand the issue. It doesn’t matter just how much one may have studied the bills in question, how many studies you present showing these policies don’t work, or anything else, they’re just going to dismiss you as “mixed up” when you have a better grasp of the issues than they do.
These are the same people who talk all about how what they want is a debate on guns.
No, they don’t want a debate. That would imply they actually care what people like you or me think on the issue. They don’t. What they really want is for us to sit down, shut up, and let them run our lives because that’s exactly what’s on the table.
The problem for this is that there are a lot of Virginians who aren’t remotely interested in playing along with the anti-gunners’ delusions of adequacy. They’re not going to roll over and play dead and they’re not going to tolerate just being disrespected by their political opponents who also claim they want a debate.
Instead, they’ll call the state’s Democrats on their BS and drive on with defending their God-given rights.
Frankly, if those couple of Democrats don’t get that, maybe they’re the “mixed up little kids.”


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Trump Supporter Draws Gun In Self-Defense After Politically Motivated Attack

A Wilkes-Barre , Pennsylvania man drew his firearm in self-defense after a stranger threatened to assault him and knocked his “ Make America Great Again ” hat off his head at a local mall .
The incident sparked rumors of an active shooter at the mall , according to The Citizens Voice , but police say the man was within his rights to draw his gun .
Wilkes-Barre Twp .
police were quick to post on social media that there was no active shooter and the Trump supporter , who holds a concealed carry permit , appeared justified in pulling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will Clark on Tuesday indicated the Trump supporter was the victim and police are still looking for the person who attempted to assault him .
“ The individual was wearing a hat in support of Donald Trump , ” Clark said .
“ Apparently , the man told him to take the hat off .
He refused .
The individual threatened to assault him .
The actor then took a swipe at the hat to knock it off his head .
At that point , the victim backed up and drew his weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The guy took off.
” Clark did say the mall has a “ no-guns ” policy , and that if mall officials knew he had a gun but refused to leave , he could have faced trespassing charges .
As it stands , the armed citizen isn ’ t facing any charges , but police are still looking for his attacker .
The police chief says both men appear to be strangers to one another , and that this looks like a politically-motivated attack .
I ’ m glad that no one was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the concealed carry holder acted lawfully .
Still , this never should have happened to begin with .
How many times have you been in a public place and have seen someone wearing something that bothers you ?
What do you typically do ?
Probably you roll your eyes , or if you ’ re with someone , you make a snarky comment about .
What we don ’ t generally do is decide to pick a fight with someone because they don ’ t support our political ideology .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Bernie bumper sticker , for instance .
Unfortunately , there are some weirdos out there who believe that being exposed to ideas they disagree with is cause for them to get aggressive and even violent .
It ’ s not something that ’ s exclusive to one political ideology or another , though it does seem like we see these stories of Trump supporters being attacked far more than we see stories of people being threatened for wearing Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden campaign swag .
Be vigilant out there , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for some reason , you ’ re one of those loons who would slap the hat off of someone ’ s head because you don ’ t agree with the writing on the ball cap , here ’ s some advice .
Take a deep breath , slowly count to five , and then go get a life .
We live in a country with freedom of speech and the right of self-defense , and committing an act of violence against someone for their political views isn ’ t likely end up @ @ @ @ @ @

A Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania man drew his firearm in self-defense after a stranger threatened to assault him and knocked his “Make America Great Again” hat off his head at a local mall. The incident sparked rumors of an active shooter at the mall, according to The Citizens Voice, but police say the man was within his rights to draw his gun.
Wilkes-Barre Twp. police were quick to post on social media that there was no active shooter and the Trump supporter, who holds a concealed carry permit, appeared justified in pulling his gun in self defense. Chief Will Clark on Tuesday indicated the Trump supporter was the victim and police are still looking for the person who attempted to assault him. “The individual was wearing a hat in support of Donald Trump,” Clark said. “Apparently, the man told him to take the hat off. He refused. The individual threatened to assault him. The actor then took a swipe at the hat to knock it off his head. At that point, the victim backed up and drew his weapon and pointed it at the ground. The guy took off.”
Clark did say the mall has a “no-guns” policy, and that if mall officials knew he had a gun but refused to leave, he could have faced trespassing charges. As it stands, the armed citizen isn’t facing any charges, but police are still looking for his attacker.
The police chief says both men appear to be strangers to one another, and that this looks like a politically-motivated attack.
I’m glad that no one was seriously hurt in this incident, and that the concealed carry holder acted lawfully. Still, this never should have happened to begin with.
How many times have you been in a public place and have seen someone wearing something that bothers you? What do you typically do? Probably you roll your eyes, or if you’re with someone, you make a snarky comment about. What we don’t generally do is decide to pick a fight with someone because they don’t support our political ideology. I’ve never yelled at a person with a Bernie bumper sticker, for instance.
Unfortunately, there are some weirdos out there who believe that being exposed to ideas they disagree with is cause for them to get aggressive and even violent. It’s not something that’s exclusive to one political ideology or another, though it does seem like we see these stories of Trump supporters being attacked far more than we see stories of people being threatened for wearing Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden campaign swag.
Be vigilant out there, and be responsible as well. And if, for some reason, you’re one of those loons who would slap the hat off of someone’s head because you don’t agree with the writing on the ball cap, here’s some advice. Take a deep breath, slowly count to five, and then go get a life. We live in a country with freedom of speech and the right of self-defense, and committing an act of violence against someone for their political views isn’t likely end up like you think it will.


bearingarms--2020-01-08--An Open Letter To Virginia's Democrat Lawmakers

Dear Delegates , Senators Governor Northam ( and what the heck , let ’ s throw Attorney General Mark Herring in too ) , This is actually the second version of my letter to you .
I had almost finished my first draft when I got word about Del .
Mark Levine ’ s sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban , and I was reminded that , no matter how many olive branches might be extended , as you begin the 2020 legislative session I know that there is little to no hope when it comes to changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re pursuing with your gun control agenda .
I also know how little many of you care for the opinion of a Second Amendment supporter and conservative , especially if they ’ re a 40-something straight white dude with a belly and a beard who lives on a farm in a rural part of the state .
However , since I wrote an open letter to Virginia ’ s Republican lawmakers , it ’ s only fair that I be non-partisan and pen an open letter to y ’ all as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that there is some division within your ranks .
Not all of you truly believe that we can ban our way to safety .
Some of you really do believe you ’ re just supporting “ commonsense ” measures that will make Virginia a safer place , while still respecting the rights of Virginians .
I think you ’ re wrong , but I understand where you ’ re coming from .
There are even be a few of you who know you weren ’ t elected to pass a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment Sanctuary counties .
You ’ re getting 30 or 40 calls telling you to oppose gun control for every call telling you to support Northam ’ s gun control package , but you don ’ t want to tick off leadership .
Or maybe ( hello Del .
Carter ) you even support the right of the proletariat to be armed for the inevitable revolution , but you ’ re cool with background checks .
Then there are those of you who really don ’ t like guns , or most gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got it wrong in Heller , and that the Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that needs to be curtailed .
You despise the NRA , and you believe the gun lobby is responsible for fomenting the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that ’ s swept across the state since the November elections .
You believe gun owners and these recalcitrant “ sanctuaries ” need to be taught a lesson .
Your hubris is likely going to lead to disastrous results .
What all of you have in common is that you have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to focus your attention and efforts on policies that actually and effectively target those who are driving violent crime , instead of focusing on the state ’ s legal gun owners .
You have the opportunity to address the state ’ s mental health crisis , and not with a red flag law that simply takes people ’ s guns away .
You are in a position to talk to and with gun owners , instead of trying to turn them into felons overnight .
Though we only need a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to this misguided and malicious effort to target legal gun owners , I ’ m not optimistic that any of you will oblige .
But as you tout your support for things like criminal justice reform , ask yourself if your new gun control laws aren ’ t going to have the same sort of disproportionate impact that the state ’ s marijuana laws have had ?
Before you vote for “ universal background checks , ” ask yourself why Colorado ’ s crime rate increased but background checks stayed flat after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , or why Baltimore , Maryland had a record high murder rate with a universal background check law in place .
Ask yourself if doing something that works is better than just “ doing something.
” Before you vote for a red flag bill , ask yourself why you would allow someone deemed to be a substantial risk to themselves or others with knives , pills , car keys , and gasoline .
Ask yourself why you wouldn ’ t get that person help for their state of mind , instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seizing any legally owned firearms they might possess , and then leaving them to their own devices .
Ask yourself what other constitutional rights can someone be deprived of for weeks at a time before having their day in court .
And ask yourself why , if “ red flag ” laws supposedly reduce suicide , both Indiana and Connecticut saw their suicide rates increased after their red flag laws were put in place .
Before you vote for HB 961 , ” ask yourself what enforcement of this law is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nearly 80,000 Virginians who legally possess these firearms , and the hundreds of thousands of Virginians who lawfully possess “ large capacity magazines.
” As you ’ re ending the War on Drugs , ask yourself if a War on Guns will be any more successful .
I suspect the vast majority of you won ’ t do any of that , unfortunately .
You ’ ll pass gun control laws that will be challenged in court , largely ignored in most of the state , and will place thousands of otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime ” of exercising their constitutional rights , a disproportionate number of which will be young men of color .
You will be responsible for the biggest deprivation of civil rights in the state since Democrats in the 1950s pushed Massive Resistance to keep Virginia schools segregated .
Even as a growing body of academics are saying that broad gun control bills like the ones you ’ re pushing aren ’ t effective in stopping violent crime , I suspect you ’ re going to blindly follow the lead of gun control activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg .
And when these policies don ’ t lead to a decrease in violent crime , you ’ ll say the answer lies in even more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms .
In closing , you ’ re making a terrible mistake and I pray at least some of you have the courage and the wisdom to take another direction before these bad bills become atrocious laws .

Dear Delegates, Senators Governor Northam (and what the heck, let’s throw Attorney General Mark Herring in too),
This is actually the second version of my letter to you. I had almost finished my first draft when I got word about Del. Mark Levine’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban, and I was reminded that, no matter how many olive branches might be extended, as you begin the 2020 legislative session I know that there is little to no hope when it comes to changing your minds about the disastrous course you’re pursuing with your gun control agenda. I also know how little many of you care for the opinion of a Second Amendment supporter and conservative, especially if they’re a 40-something straight white dude with a belly and a beard who lives on a farm in a rural part of the state. However, since I wrote an open letter to Virginia’s Republican lawmakers, it’s only fair that I be non-partisan and pen an open letter to y’all as well.
First of all, I do know that there is some division within your ranks. Not all of you truly believe that we can ban our way to safety. Some of you really do believe you’re just supporting “commonsense” measures that will make Virginia a safer place, while still respecting the rights of Virginians. I think you’re wrong, but I understand where you’re coming from.
There are even be a few of you who know you weren’t elected to pass a bunch of gun control laws and who represent Second Amendment Sanctuary counties. You’re getting 30 or 40 calls telling you to oppose gun control for every call telling you to support Northam’s gun control package, but you don’t want to tick off leadership. Or maybe (hello Del. Carter) you even support the right of the proletariat to be armed for the inevitable revolution, but you’re cool with background checks.
Then there are those of you who really don’t like guns, or most gun owners. You think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller, and that the Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that needs to be curtailed. You despise the NRA, and you believe the gun lobby is responsible for fomenting the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that’s swept across the state since the November elections. You believe gun owners and these recalcitrant “sanctuaries” need to be taught a lesson. Your hubris is likely going to lead to disastrous results.
What all of you have in common is that you have the power to stop this. You have the power to focus your attention and efforts on policies that actually and effectively target those who are driving violent crime, instead of focusing on the state’s legal gun owners. You have the opportunity to address the state’s mental health crisis, and not with a red flag law that simply takes people’s guns away. You are in a position to talk to and with gun owners, instead of trying to turn them into felons overnight.
Though we only need a few of you to raise your voices in opposition to this misguided and malicious effort to target legal gun owners, I’m not optimistic that any of you will oblige. But as you tout your support for things like criminal justice reform, ask yourself if your new gun control laws aren’t going to have the same sort of disproportionate impact that the state’s marijuana laws have had?
Before you vote for “universal background checks,” ask yourself why Colorado’s crime rate increased but background checks stayed flat after the state passed their universal background check law, or why Baltimore, Maryland had a record high murder rate with a universal background check law in place. Ask yourself if doing something that works is better than just “doing something.”
Before you vote for a red flag bill, ask yourself why you would allow someone deemed to be a substantial risk to themselves or others with knives, pills, car keys, and gasoline. Ask yourself why you wouldn’t get that person help for their state of mind, instead of simply serving them with a search warrant, seizing any legally owned firearms they might possess, and then leaving them to their own devices. Ask yourself what other constitutional rights can someone be deprived of for weeks at a time before having their day in court. And ask yourself why, if “red flag” laws supposedly reduce suicide, both Indiana and Connecticut saw their suicide rates increased after their red flag laws were put in place.
Before you vote for HB 961,” ask yourself what enforcement of this law is going to look like, given the estimates of nearly 80,000 Virginians who legally possess these firearms, and the hundreds of thousands of Virginians who lawfully possess “large capacity magazines.” As you’re ending the War on Drugs, ask yourself if a War on Guns will be any more successful.
I suspect the vast majority of you won’t do any of that, unfortunately. You’ll pass gun control laws that will be challenged in court, largely ignored in most of the state, and will place thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens in prison for the “crime” of exercising their constitutional rights, a disproportionate number of which will be young men of color. You will be responsible for the biggest deprivation of civil rights in the state since Democrats in the 1950s pushed Massive Resistance to keep Virginia schools segregated.
Even as a growing body of academics are saying that broad gun control bills like the ones you’re pushing aren’t effective in stopping violent crime, I suspect you’re going to blindly follow the lead of gun control activists and campaign cash from anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg. And when these policies don’t lead to a decrease in violent crime, you’ll say the answer lies in even more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
In closing, you’re making a terrible mistake and I pray at least some of you have the courage and the wisdom to take another direction before these bad bills become atrocious laws.
Sincerely,
Cam Edwards


bearingarms--2020-01-08--An Open Letter To The Georgia GOP Leadership

A full week of 2020 has gone by and I realized I had yet to write much about my hopes and dreams for gun rights here at Bearing Arms .
Federally , I don ’ t expect anything .
We all know the House won ’ t expand gun rights and the Senate won ’ t restrict them , so the status quo is as good as we ’ re going to get .
But in my home state of Georgia , where you folks hold the authority to pass laws , I have actual hopes .
You see , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s little reason to doubt that , I don ’ t understand why there ’ s been so much reticence by the General Assembly in recent years to expand those gun rights , particularly since there ’ s plenty of room to grow on this front .
First and foremost , I know I ’ m not alone in my desire to see the state of Georgia join the almost 20 states with some form of constitutional carry laws .
With nearly half of the states in this country having some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve had ample opportunity to see if such a measure is a recipe for disaster or not .
So far , there ’ s been no such indication .
In other words , all is well with permitless carry and it ’ s well beyond time for the great state of Georgia to join their ranks .
Permits can still be issued , of course , as reciprocity is still important to a lot of people , myself included , but there ’ s absolutely no reason we should continue to be required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right in our home state .
Especially since there ’ s a constitutional carry bill waiting in committee .
If that ’ s a bridge too far for you , then at least lift the restrictions on open carry .
While I ’ m not personally a fan of it , it would at least give law-abiding citizens the means to carry a firearm while waiting for their permit .
It ’ s not an ideal solution like constitutional carry , but it would still be better than nothing .
Then there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , when you look at a map of Second Amendment sanctuary counties throughout the nation , you ’ ll find that there ’ s not a single one in the state of Georgia .
I understand why .
We ’ re not overly worried about you boys and girls in Atlanta swooping down tomorrow to take our AR-15s or magazines that carry more than X amount of ammo .
But you know who else has that ?
Kansas .
Yet their entire state is marked as a sanctuary .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up-front .
They decided that unconstitutional gun laws held no sway in the state of Kansas .
Wyoming is the same way .
These states have made it clear to their residents that they won ’ t be party to unconstitutional gun laws being enforced .
Again , there have been no negative ramifications from these actions .
Why would there be ?
Yet Georgia has remained on the sidelines of the sanctuary movement .
While you good men and women can ’ t and shouldn ’ t force individual counties to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so via the General Assembly .
More importantly , you should .
Look , you guys have a strong hold on the state , but you also had a close call in 2018 .
Stacey Abrams put up a challenge that probably put the fear of God into every Republican in the state .
I get the trepidation you might feel following through on these measures .
However , understand that some of us voted for Governor Brian Kemp based on his position as a gun rights advocate .
We voted for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is , we want to see some evidence that you ’ re really gun rights supporters and not just supporters of the status quo .
Georgia is a lot more gun-friendly than it was a decade ago , and I ’ m proud to see that .
Yet that doesn ’ t mean there ’ s nowhere left to go .
It ’ s time to step up and finish the job on expanding gun rights as much as possible .
It ’ s part of what we elected you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it .
If not , remember that it is possible to replace you with someone other than a Democrat .
Primaries are a thing , after all .
Granted , no one wants that .
Especially since I believe you all want what I want , a freer Georgia .
I ’ m just saying it ’ s time to prove it .

A full week of 2020 has gone by and I realized I had yet to write much about my hopes and dreams for gun rights here at Bearing Arms. Federally, I don’t expect anything. We all know the House won’t expand gun rights and the Senate won’t restrict them, so the status quo is as good as we’re going to get.
But in my home state of Georgia, where you folks hold the authority to pass laws, I have actual hopes.
You see, while Georgia is a pro-gun state and there’s little reason to doubt that, I don’t understand why there’s been so much reticence by the General Assembly in recent years to expand those gun rights, particularly since there’s plenty of room to grow on this front.
First and foremost, I know I’m not alone in my desire to see the state of Georgia join the almost 20 states with some form of constitutional carry laws. With nearly half of the states in this country having some form of permitless carry, we’ve had ample opportunity to see if such a measure is a recipe for disaster or not.
So far, there’s been no such indication. In other words, all is well with permitless carry and it’s well beyond time for the great state of Georgia to join their ranks. Permits can still be issued, of course, as reciprocity is still important to a lot of people, myself included, but there’s absolutely no reason we should continue to be required to ask permission to exercise a constitutional right in our home state.
Especially since there’s a constitutional carry bill waiting in committee.
If that’s a bridge too far for you, then at least lift the restrictions on open carry. While I’m not personally a fan of it, it would at least give law-abiding citizens the means to carry a firearm while waiting for their permit. It’s not an ideal solution like constitutional carry, but it would still be better than nothing.
Then there’s the matter of sanctuary counties.
Now, when you look at a map of Second Amendment sanctuary counties throughout the nation, you’ll find that there’s not a single one in the state of Georgia. I understand why. We’re not overly worried about you boys and girls in Atlanta swooping down tomorrow to take our AR-15s or magazines that carry more than X amount of ammo.
But you know who else has that? Kansas. Yet their entire state is marked as a sanctuary.
That’s because the state legislature made that decision up-front. They decided that unconstitutional gun laws held no sway in the state of Kansas. Wyoming is the same way. These states have made it clear to their residents that they won’t be party to unconstitutional gun laws being enforced.
Again, there have been no negative ramifications from these actions. Why would there be?
Yet Georgia has remained on the sidelines of the sanctuary movement. While you good men and women can’t and shouldn’t force individual counties to take up sanctuary statutes, you can do so via the General Assembly. More importantly, you should.
Look, you guys have a strong hold on the state, but you also had a close call in 2018. Stacey Abrams put up a challenge that probably put the fear of God into every Republican in the state. I get the trepidation you might feel following through on these measures.
However, understand that some of us voted for Governor Brian Kemp based on his position as a gun rights advocate. We voted for a lot of you for the same reason.
The problem is, we want to see some evidence that you’re really gun rights supporters and not just supporters of the status quo.
Georgia is a lot more gun-friendly than it was a decade ago, and I’m proud to see that. Yet that doesn’t mean there’s nowhere left to go. It’s time to step up and finish the job on expanding gun rights as much as possible. It’s part of what we elected you to do, so step up and do it.
If not, remember that it is possible to replace you with someone other than a Democrat. Primaries are a thing, after all.
Granted, no one wants that. Especially since I believe you all want what I want, a freer Georgia. I’m just saying it’s time to prove it.
Sincerely,
Tom Knighton
Resident
Albany, GA


bearingarms--2020-01-08--Pro-Gun Activists Rally Against Proposed Kentucky Gun Control Bills

Among the changes in various states , one of the more interesting is Kentucky .
While the state legislature remained very , very red , the governor ’ s mansion ended up going to a Democrat , Andy Beshear .
This , of course , has a lot of people worried .
After all , if Republicans want to get anything done , they ’ re going to have to play ball with the Democrat in the governor ’ s mansion .
What does this mean for gun rights ?
Democrats in the legislature wasted no time at all in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they might somehow make it through the wheeling and dealing bound to take place .
In response , though , gun rights activists swarmed the capital in an effort to make sure their voices were heard .
More than a hundred pro-gun demonstrators greeted lawmakers as they returned to Frankfort Tuesday for the start of the 2020 legislative session .
Kentucky United , a group dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment , organized the rally to protest half-dozen proposed gun control bills that have already been filed .
“ They ’ re filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding citizens , ” said Mark Shumaker , a member of Kentucky United .
Shumaker said he believes any law that restricts a person ’ s ability to own firearms is an infringement on their constitutional rights .
Kentucky United is also spearheading a movement to declare dozens of the state ’ s counties as “ Second Amendment sanctuaries.
” State Rep. Jeff Donohue , a Democrat , is sponsoring one of the bills the group is protesting .
The legislation would define “ assault weapons ” and “ large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Tuesday , Donohue said he withdrew that particular bill , but was filing a similar one .
“ That bill ’ s not going to pass .
It ’ s not going to pass .
But what the good thing is it ’ s going to generate the conversation , ” Donohue said .
Except it ’ s unlikely that any of those bills are going to pass .
While Beshear is a Democrat , he ran on a lot of different issues , issues that are likely a much higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bill isn ’ t going anywhere and it ’ s unlikely that Beshear will use his political capital to get that bill ’ s passage .
Frankly , I ’ m not sure he has that much capital .
Even if he did , though , any kind of assault weapon ban would deplete it so completely that nothing else would get done .
That ’ s including him wheeling and dealing .
Since he ran on education and Medicaid expansion as primary issues , those are likely to be bigger priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control bills , I don ’ t think he ’ s going to risk his entire agenda on those policies .
The fact that a hundred activists showed up in the middle of the week is also likely to not be lost on Beshear .
It ’ s a reminder that he may have won the governorship , but he did it in a red state and had best watch how progressive he leans with his own policy positions lest he find himself out of work in four years .
Hopefully , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control is a losing issue for him and his fellow Democrats .
Then again , Democrats seem to never grasp that gun control is a losing issue , so why should he be different ?

Among the changes in various states, one of the more interesting is Kentucky. While the state legislature remained very, very red, the governor’s mansion ended up going to a Democrat, Andy Beshear.
This, of course, has a lot of people worried. After all, if Republicans want to get anything done, they’re going to have to play ball with the Democrat in the governor’s mansion. What does this mean for gun rights?
Democrats in the legislature wasted no time at all in filing gun control bills in hopes that they might somehow make it through the wheeling and dealing bound to take place.
In response, though, gun rights activists swarmed the capitol in an effort to make sure their voices were heard.
More than a hundred pro-gun demonstrators greeted lawmakers as they returned to Frankfort Tuesday for the start of the 2020 legislative session. Kentucky United, a group dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment, organized the rally to protest half-dozen proposed gun control bills that have already been filed. “They’re filing bills that take away gun ownership from law-abiding citizens,” said Mark Shumaker, a member of Kentucky United. Shumaker said he believes any law that restricts a person’s ability to own firearms is an infringement on their constitutional rights. Kentucky United is also spearheading a movement to declare dozens of the state’s counties as “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” … State Rep. Jeff Donohue, a Democrat, is sponsoring one of the bills the group is protesting. The legislation would define “assault weapons” and “large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices” and require gun owners to register both. On Tuesday, Donohue said he withdrew that particular bill, but was filing a similar one. “That bill’s not going to pass. It’s not going to pass. But what the good thing is it’s going to generate the conversation,” Donohue said.
Except it’s unlikely that any of those bills are going to pass.
While Beshear is a Democrat, he ran on a lot of different issues, issues that are likely a much higher priority than gun control. Donohue’s bill isn’t going anywhere and it’s unlikely that Beshear will use his political capital to get that bill’s passage. Frankly, I’m not sure he has that much capital. Even if he did, though, any kind of assault weapon ban would deplete it so completely that nothing else would get done. That’s including him wheeling and dealing.
Since he ran on education and Medicaid expansion as primary issues, those are likely to be bigger priorities. While he’s supported some gun control bills, I don’t think he’s going to risk his entire agenda on those policies.
The fact that a hundred activists showed up in the middle of the week is also likely to not be lost on Beshear. It’s a reminder that he may have won the governorship, but he did it in a red state and had best watch how progressive he leans with his own policy positions lest he find himself out of work in four years.
Hopefully, Beshear will understand this and recognize that gun control is a losing issue for him and his fellow Democrats.
Then again, Democrats seem to never grasp that gun control is a losing issue, so why should he be different?


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Cleveland Cops, ATF Offer Reward For Gun Store Burglary Info

One thing we should all be concerned with is gun store robberies .
These never take place during the hours of operation , mostly because the staff is generally armed , but instead at night when they can operate with impunity .
They steal these guns and then sell them on the streets , feeding them into the black market .
Now , the ATF and the Cleveland Police Department are asking for help and offering a nice reward for information on a gun store burglary .
A Cleveland Gun Store on Georgetown Road was burglarized on Tuesday morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the front wall .
They stole several guns and made their get-away .
Cleveland Police responded to the business burglar alarm at 3:19 am , Tuesday morning .
When they arrived at American Defense Company—-a gun store– they found extensive damage to the front of the building .
Surveillance footage showed a Silver Dodge Ram had backed through the front wall of the store , and several suspects had taken guns before driving away .
Later , investigators also found that .
.
.
“ The Dodge Ram truck was actually stolen earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off Blackburn Road .
They did find the stolen truck , with some merchandise in it , on Westside Drive , which is probably less than a half – a quarter mile from the scene , ” said Evie West , Cleveland Police Department Public Relations Officer .
The Cleveland Police Department is asking for the community ’ s help in tracking down the suspects .
Police say there ’ s at least three suspects based on surveillance camera footage .
Further , it seems the criminals failed to fill out a Form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving with their stolen guns .
Damned inconsiderate of them , right ?
I mean , if they had , the 4473 would have had their addresses and everything , but nope .
On a serious note , though , this is a problem none of us should tolerate .
These are stolen property and need to be returned to their lawful owner ; in this case , the gun store .
If you know anything please contact the Cleveland Police Department .
Tell them Tom sent you .
It won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would amuse me greatly .
In the meantime , though , we need to remember that no amount of universal background checks , gun rationing schemes , or much of anything else proposed by anti-gun activists can really stop something like this .
This is a criminal act and no , they don ’ t fill out Form 4473s .
We all know it , too .
Yes , even the anti-gunners know it .
Of course , that doesn ’ t tell me why they keep insisting on pushing for more laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I guess everyone needs a hobby .
Rather than restricting the lawful trade of firearms in this country , we really need to be focused on the criminals who steal guns in the first place , thus negating anything anyone tries to do to keep criminals disarmed .
Especially since it only impacts the law-abiding gun buyer and not the criminals in question .
How many more incidents like this will it take before they start to get a clue ?

One thing we should all be concerned with is gun store robberies. These never take place during the hours of operation, mostly because the staff is generally armed, but instead at night when they can operate with impunity. They steal these guns and then sell them on the streets, feeding them into the black market.
Now, the ATF and the Cleveland Police Department are asking for help and offering a nice reward for information on a gun store burglary.
A Cleveland Gun Store on Georgetown Road was burglarized on Tuesday morning, when thieves smashed a stolen pickup through the front wall. They stole several guns and made their get-away. Cleveland Police responded to the business burglar alarm at 3:19 am, Tuesday morning. When they arrived at American Defense Company—-a gun store– they found extensive damage to the front of the building. Surveillance footage showed a Silver Dodge Ram had backed through the front wall of the store, and several suspects had taken guns before driving away. Later, investigators also found that . . . “The Dodge Ram truck was actually stolen earlier that night from a local apartment complex off Blackburn Road. They did find the stolen truck, with some merchandise in it, on Westside Drive, which is probably less than a half – a quarter mile from the scene,” said Evie West, Cleveland Police Department Public Relations Officer. The Cleveland Police Department is asking for the community’s help in tracking down the suspects.
Police say there’s at least three suspects based on surveillance camera footage.
Further, it seems the criminals failed to fill out a Form 4473 and get a background check before leaving with their stolen guns. Damned inconsiderate of them, right? I mean, if they had, the 4473 would have had their addresses and everything, but nope.
On a serious note, though, this is a problem none of us should tolerate. These are stolen property and need to be returned to their lawful owner; in this case, the gun store.
If you know anything please contact the Cleveland Police Department. Tell them Tom sent you. It won’t mean anything to them, but it would amuse me greatly.
In the meantime, though, we need to remember that no amount of universal background checks, gun rationing schemes, or much of anything else proposed by anti-gun activists can really stop something like this. This is a criminal act and no, they don’t fill out Form 4473s. We all know it, too. Yes, even the anti-gunners know it.
Of course, that doesn’t tell me why they keep insisting on pushing for more laws that they know criminals will just workaround, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Rather than restricting the lawful trade of firearms in this country, we really need to be focused on the criminals who steal guns in the first place, thus negating anything anyone tries to do to keep criminals disarmed. Especially since it only impacts the law-abiding gun buyer and not the criminals in question.
How many more incidents like this will it take before they start to get a clue?


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Vermont Democrat Proposes Banning Cell Phones For Under-21s

A Democrat legislator in Vermont is offering legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 21 to possess or use a cell phone , but there ’ s a catch .
State Senator John Rodgers says he knows his bill isn ’ t going to pass , and has no intention of voting for it himself .
As he explained to the Times Argus newspaper , he ’ s using the bill to make a point about newly enacted laws that prevent adults under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms .
Again , Rodgers isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the age of 21 from using a cell phone .
He just doesn ’ t think they should be prohibited from owning a firearm either .
What ’ s interesting is that there is research out there showing that the increase in teen suicides began right around the time the percentage of teenagers with smartphones surpassed the 50 % mark .
Psychologist Jean Twenge written extensively about what smartphones have done to what she dubs iGen , including fascinating piece in The Atlantic back in 2017 .
Rates of teen depression and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades .
Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones .
Even when a seismic event—a war , a technological leap , a free concert in the mud—plays an outsize role in shaping a group of young people , no single factor ever defines a generation .
Parenting styles continue to change , as do school curricula and culture , and these things matter .
But the twin rise of the smartphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a magnitude we ’ ve not seen in a very long time , if ever .
There is compelling evidence that the devices we ’ ve placed in young people ’ s hands are having profound effects on their lives—and making them seriously unhappy .
The answer , of course , lies not in banning smart phones or trying to limit their usage to those over the age of 21 , but in parents teaching their kids responsible habits with their smartphones .
Of course , many parents aren ’ t so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own screen time and online behavior .
Still , you ’ ll never hear Michael Bloomberg or Beto O ’ Rourke demand that cell phones are taken away , no matter how much damage they might be doing and how ban-happy they might be .
They ’ d never be taken seriously .
Why then should we take them seriously when they demand that you be 21 to smoke , or drink , or own a firearm ?
That ’ s the point that Senator Rodgers is trying to make .
Treating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to go , and where does it actually end ?
The senator is right that we can ’ t ban our way to safety , but we can educate our way to a safer society .
Part of that is treating adults like grown ups , since , you know , that ’ s what they are .

A Democrat legislator in Vermont is offering legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 21 to possess or use a cell phone, but there’s a catch. State Senator John Rodgers says he knows his bill isn’t going to pass, and has no intention of voting for it himself. As he explained to the Times Argus newspaper, he’s using the bill to make a point about newly enacted laws that prevent adults under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms.
Again, Rodgers isn’t really trying to ban those under the age of 21 from using a cell phone. He just doesn’t think they should be prohibited from owning a firearm either.
What’s interesting is that there is research out there showing that the increase in teen suicides began right around the time the percentage of teenagers with smartphones surpassed the 50% mark. Psychologist Jean Twenge written extensively about what smartphones have done to what she dubs iGen, including fascinating piece in The Atlantic back in 2017.
Rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones. Even when a seismic event—a war, a technological leap, a free concert in the mud—plays an outsize role in shaping a group of young people, no single factor ever defines a generation. Parenting styles continue to change, as do school curricula and culture, and these things matter. But the twin rise of the smartphone and social media has caused an earthquake of a magnitude we’ve not seen in a very long time, if ever. There is compelling evidence that the devices we’ve placed in young people’s hands are having profound effects on their lives—and making them seriously unhappy.
The answer, of course, lies not in banning smart phones or trying to limit their usage to those over the age of 21, but in parents teaching their kids responsible habits with their smartphones. Of course, many parents aren’t so great about that when it comes to their own screen time and online behavior.
Still, you’ll never hear Michael Bloomberg or Beto O’Rourke demand that cell phones are taken away, no matter how much damage they might be doing and how ban-happy they might be. They’d never be taken seriously.
Why then should we take them seriously when they demand that you be 21 to smoke, or drink, or own a firearm? That’s the point that Senator Rodgers is trying to make. Treating adults as infants isn’t the way to go, and where does it actually end? The senator is right that we can’t ban our way to safety, but we can educate our way to a safer society. Part of that is treating adults like grown ups, since, you know, that’s what they are.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Biased Media Continues To Present Gun Control As Mass Shooting Answer

Mass shootings aren ’ t a uniquely American problem .
That ’ s something I touched on earlier today .
Instead , though , it ’ s a complicated problem that we really don ’ t understand all that well .
We don ’ t know what makes people into mass shooters .
We have no clue if there are socioeconomic triggers or whether there ’ s an undiagnosed psychological disorder at play .
We simply don ’ t have enough information .
Yet anti-gunners and their allies in the media continue to push the idea that gun control is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shootings .
Honestly , I ’ m not surprised anymore by the media ’ s corruption on this topic .
I just hate it when they ’ re so damn transparent about it , like this report from Florida .
All of this for a story about how there ’ s a legislative divide in the state on the topic of guns .
What do those mass shootings really have to do with the divide in Florida ’ s legislature ?
Nothing .
Nothing at all .
Then why include it ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is nothing more than a transparent effort to list all these mass shootings to create an emotional outrage leading into the rest of the article .
We all know damn good and well that people remember how they felt after things like Parkland .
They remember the outrage they felt after the Pulse shooting .
So , one includes such a list to bring those feelings back up to the surface , which can then be used to predispose you to be outraged over lawmakers not feeling gun control needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure the writer will claim it was nothing more than a bit of a flourish , a way to make the article sound less mechanical , but I ’ m calling BS on that in advance .
No , this is a blatant attempt at propaganda and nothing else , a writer trying to embrace the role of an activist rather than a journalist .
Look , I have no problem with biased reporting , in and of itself .
Frankly , I think all people are ultimately biased so it just makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infect journalism the same as anything else .
What I hate , though , is the media acting like they ’ re unbiased while writing crap like the quote above .
Those who are unwary can easily fall into these traps and find their opinion formed not by facts , but by manipulation .
If the media wants to be biased , then fine .
Embrace it .
MSNBC did .
So did Fox News and One America .
I know when I read a report from MSNBC that it ’ s coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OANN or Fox .
I know where they ’ re coming from , so I can filter it .
Pretending to be unbiased , though , is nothing more than dishonesty when we all know you ’ re anything but .

Mass shootings aren’t a uniquely American problem. That’s something I touched on earlier today. Instead, though, it’s a complicated problem that we really don’t understand all that well. We don’t know what makes people into mass shooters. We have no clue if there are socioeconomic triggers or whether there’s an undiagnosed psychological disorder at play. We simply don’t have enough information.
Yet anti-gunners and their allies in the media continue to push the idea that gun control is the One True Way to end mass shootings.
Honestly, I’m not surprised anymore by the media’s corruption on this topic. I just hate it when they’re so damn transparent about it, like this report from Florida.
Orlando’s Pulse nightclub. The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. A Sebring bank. A yoga studio in Tallahassee. A naval air base in Pensacola. At least 81 people have been killed in mass shootings scattered throughout Florida since 2016, and the death toll keeps rising from other gun violence that, in some pockets of the state, has become almost the norm.
All of this for a story about how there’s a legislative divide in the state on the topic of guns.
What do those mass shootings really have to do with the divide in Florida’s legislature? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Then why include it?
That’s easy. You see, this is nothing more than a transparent effort to list all these mass shootings to create an emotional outrage leading into the rest of the article. We all know damn good and well that people remember how they felt after things like Parkland. They remember the outrage they felt after the Pulse shooting.
So, one includes such a list to bring those feelings back up to the surface, which can then be used to predispose you to be outraged over lawmakers not feeling gun control needs to be addressed.
Oh, I’m sure the writer will claim it was nothing more than a bit of a flourish, a way to make the article sound less mechanical, but I’m calling BS on that in advance.
No, this is a blatant attempt at propaganda and nothing else, a writer trying to embrace the role of an activist rather than a journalist.
Look, I have no problem with biased reporting, in and of itself. Frankly, I think all people are ultimately biased so it just makes sense that it’s going to infect journalism the same as anything else.
What I hate, though, is the media acting like they’re unbiased while writing crap like the quote above. Those who are unwary can easily fall into these traps and find their opinion formed not by facts, but by manipulation.
If the media wants to be biased, then fine. Embrace it. MSNBC did. So did Fox News and One America. I know when I read a report from MSNBC that it’s coming from a particular slant. Same with OANN or Fox. I know where they’re coming from, so I can filter it.
Pretending to be unbiased, though, is nothing more than dishonesty when we all know you’re anything but.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--An Invitation For Governor Ralph Northam

During Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ’ s State of the Commonwealth speech on Wednesday evening , he gave a talked about the need for fact-based , civil discussions about his proposed gun control laws .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , I take the governor up on his request for civil dialogue and extend and invite for him to appear on the show in the very near future for a frank and honest discussion about his gun control proposals and why so many Virginians stand opposed .
I highly doubt that Governor Northam will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t really think the governor is interested in a real give-and-take with someone who opposes his efforts on both constitutional and common sense grounds .
Still , I would love to be proven wrong , and I think the governor owes it to the people of Virginia to face some real questions about his proposals and how they ’ d be enforced .
Northam ’ s ban on so-called “ assault firearms , ” for example , is supposed to be enforced with the help of 18 new positions within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the governor ’ s spokeswoman gave a few details about what those positions would entail in an interview with the Virginia Mercury , but her statement raises a few questions of its own .
According to the governor ’ s office , the funding is for administrative workers who would oversee the registration/permitting process Democrats are proposing to allow gun owners to keep firearms they already have .
The 18 jobs mentioned in the budget are not trooper positions , said Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky .
“ These 18 positions are for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks for Virginians who apply for a permit to retain assault firearms they currently own , ” Yarmosky said .
“ Funding will also support the development of an IT system to manage applications and permits.
” I ’ m a little confused .
Under Northam ’ s proposed gun ban , after July 1st , 2020 , it would be illegal to purchase any so-called “ assault firearm , ” but existing owners would have until January 1st , 2021 to register themselves and their firearms with the State Police .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed and no new permits will be issued .
However , the governor ’ s public safety budget doesn ’ t just fund these 18 positions in FY2021 , but in FY2022 as well ( page 23 ) .
Why does the state need 18 people to maintain a registry that won ’ t be accepting any new permit applications after an initial six-month window ?
It doesn ’ t make sense to me , though frankly that ’ s the case with the entirety of Governor Northam ’ s gun control package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about .
I am , however , willing to listen to what the governor has to say if he ’ s willing to hear my questions .
Speaking of questions , we also get to a few of yours on today ’ s program , as well as an on-the-ground report from Hampton , Virginia where Wednesday night the original sponsor of a resolution ended up pulling it after hours of testimony by supportive gun owners .
From WTKR-TV : In other words , it sounds like she wanted to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but wasn ’ t willing to go so far as to say the city would push back against unconstitutional gun laws using every legal tool available to them .
That ’ s a good thing to know the next time she ’ s up for reelection .
Finally , we have today ’ s armed citizen story , our Recidivist Report , and our Good Deed of the Day .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , Soundcloud , and Townhall.com ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Townhall Media on YouTube .
On tomorrow ’ s show Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League will join me , and I ’ ll be responding to more of your emails as well .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

During Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s State of the Commonwealth speech on Wednesday evening, he gave a talked about the need for fact-based, civil discussions about his proposed gun control laws.
We’ve got a lot to do for the people of Virginia. And when we do it right, treating each other with respect and decency, our Commonwealth will once again show the country how to lead. Let’s make Virginia proud. #SOTC pic.twitter.com/KZV5Pse5m8 — Ralph Northam (@GovernorVA) January 9, 2020
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., I take the governor up on his request for civil dialogue and extend and invite for him to appear on the show in the very near future for a frank and honest discussion about his gun control proposals and why so many Virginians stand opposed. I highly doubt that Governor Northam will take me up on the offer, because I don’t really think the governor is interested in a real give-and-take with someone who opposes his efforts on both constitutional and common sense grounds.
Still, I would love to be proven wrong, and I think the governor owes it to the people of Virginia to face some real questions about his proposals and how they’d be enforced. Northam’s ban on so-called “assault firearms,” for example, is supposed to be enforced with the help of 18 new positions within the Virginia State Police. On Wednesday, the governor’s spokeswoman gave a few details about what those positions would entail in an interview with the Virginia Mercury, but her statement raises a few questions of its own.
According to the governor’s office, the funding is for administrative workers who would oversee the registration/permitting process Democrats are proposing to allow gun owners to keep firearms they already have. The 18 jobs mentioned in the budget are not trooper positions, said Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky. “These 18 positions are for administrative staff to process applications and background checks for Virginians who apply for a permit to retain assault firearms they currently own,” Yarmosky said. “Funding will also support the development of an IT system to manage applications and permits.”
I’m a little confused. Under Northam’s proposed gun ban, after July 1st, 2020, it would be illegal to purchase any so-called “assault firearm,” but existing owners would have until January 1st, 2021 to register themselves and their firearms with the State Police. After January 1st, 2021 the registry is closed and no new permits will be issued. However, the governor’s public safety budget doesn’t just fund these 18 positions in FY2021, but in FY2022 as well (page 23).
Why does the state need 18 people to maintain a registry that won’t be accepting any new permit applications after an initial six-month window? It doesn’t make sense to me, though frankly that’s the case with the entirety of Governor Northam’s gun control package. Believe me, we have lots to talk about.
I am, however, willing to listen to what the governor has to say if he’s willing to hear my questions.
Speaking of questions, we also get to a few of yours on today’s program, as well as an on-the-ground report from Hampton, Virginia where Wednesday night the original sponsor of a resolution ended up pulling it after hours of testimony by supportive gun owners. From WTKR-TV:
Supporters of proposed new gun laws cheered the move, while gun rights advocates walked out of the meeting after the decision. Hampton City Councilwoman Eleanor Weston Brown withdrew the resolution after hearing from people on both sides. She told News 3, “Regrettably, many misinterpreted the fact that our resolution said that we supported the Second Amendment… that it meant we supported creating a Second Amendment sanctuary. We don’t support that.”
In other words, it sounds like she wanted to pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but wasn’t willing to go so far as to say the city would push back against unconstitutional gun laws using every legal tool available to them. That’s a good thing to know the next time she’s up for reelection.
Finally, we have today’s armed citizen story, our Recidivist Report, and our Good Deed of the Day. Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Soundcloud, and Townhall.com’s podcast page, as well as Townhall Media on YouTube. On tomorrow’s show Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League will join me, and I’ll be responding to more of your emails as well. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Is Gun Deregulation Coming? Don't Hold Your Breath

A lot of bills get proposed that never seem to go anywhere .
It ’ s a shame , too , because some of those can and should have become federal law .
National reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act both should have already been enacted and signed by the president , thus making it so those with a carry permit could carry in any state in the nation as well as being able to buy a suppressor over the counter at a gun store .
That should have happened , but it didn ’ t .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun law that really should be passed .
Kansas Congressman Roger Marshall ’ s introduction of the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019 could move well-established federal gun control laws in a pro-gun direction .
This bill would amend provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 ( NFA ) that impose extra restrictions on short-barreled rifle ownership .
Short-barreled rifles constitute those with barrels shorter than 16″ long or those with a total length less than 26″ .
The NFA mandates that short-barreled rifle owners register their firearms with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 200 excise tax for each short-barreled firearm they register .
If the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019 is signed into law , these additional requirements would be eliminated and short-barreled rifles would be subject to the same rules as semi-automatic rifles .
Further , the legislation would have the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives destroy all current short-barreled rifle records within 365 days of the law going into effect .
Consequently , information about short-barreled rifle owners would be wiped off the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like something that really should be law… The Advocates note that the current congressional makeup , this bill has an uphill battle at best .
They also note that even if it made it out of the House , the Senate isn ’ t a lock either since Republicans have been doing a lot of lip service toward the Second Amendment in recent years , but done little to expand gun rights when they had the chance .
All of that is true .
It ’ s also very unfortunate .
You see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also tell us that we need to adopt the kind of gun control laws they have in other places .
Yet what they fail to understand is that suppressors are mandatory in some parts of Europe and short-barreled rifles are legal in Canada .
In other words , the only part of the NFA that seems to be universal is the restriction on fully-automatic weapons .
Yet despite that , they won ’ t take a step back and think , “ Hmmm , maybe it ’ s a good idea to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , we get fearmongering about how suppressors somehow make it impossible to hear the shots coming from a mass shooter–this despite Virginia Beach telling us explicitly that you actually can hear the shots from a suppressed firearm–and vilifying anything to do with guns in general .
The Advocates asked if gun deregulation was coming to Washington .
Frankly , that ’ s a dumb question we all already know the answer to .
Especially without some significant changes in the House come November .

A lot of bills get proposed that never seem to go anywhere. It’s a shame, too, because some of those can and should have become federal law. National reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act both should have already been enacted and signed by the president, thus making it so those with a carry permit could carry in any state in the nation as well as being able to buy a suppressor over the counter at a gun store.
That should have happened, but it didn’t.
However, the Advocates for Self Government posted about another gun law that really should be passed.
Kansas Congressman Roger Marshall’s introduction of the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019 could move well-established federal gun control laws in a pro-gun direction. This bill would amend provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) that impose extra restrictions on short-barreled rifle ownership. Short-barreled rifles constitute those with barrels shorter than 16″ long or those with a total length less than 26″. The NFA mandates that short-barreled rifle owners register their firearms with the federal government, as well as pay a $200 excise tax for each short-barreled firearm they register. If the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019 is signed into law, these additional requirements would be eliminated and short-barreled rifles would be subject to the same rules as semi-automatic rifles. Further, the legislation would have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives destroy all current short-barreled rifle records within 365 days of the law going into effect. Consequently, information about short-barreled rifle owners would be wiped off the federal firearms database.
Yep. This looks like something that really should be law…
…but won’t be.
The Advocates note that the current congressional makeup, this bill has an uphill battle at best. They also note that even if it made it out of the House, the Senate isn’t a lock either since Republicans have been doing a lot of lip service toward the Second Amendment in recent years, but done little to expand gun rights when they had the chance.
All of that is true.
It’s also very unfortunate. You see, the anti-gunners who will block this will also tell us that we need to adopt the kind of gun control laws they have in other places. Yet what they fail to understand is that suppressors are mandatory in some parts of Europe and short-barreled rifles are legal in Canada. In other words, the only part of the NFA that seems to be universal is the restriction on fully-automatic weapons.
Yet despite that, they won’t take a step back and think, “Hmmm, maybe it’s a good idea to retract some of this NFA nonsense.”
Instead, we get fearmongering about how suppressors somehow make it impossible to hear the shots coming from a mass shooter–this despite Virginia Beach telling us explicitly that you actually can hear the shots from a suppressed firearm–and vilifying anything to do with guns in general.
The Advocates asked if gun deregulation was coming to Washington. Frankly, that’s a dumb question we all already know the answer to. Especially without some significant changes in the House come November.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--Fresno Mayor Wants City Hall To Be A Gun-Free Zone

Fresno , California Mayor Lee Brand thinks that legal gun owners should be disarmed before entering City Hall , and is proposing an ordinance that would make the building a gun-free zone .
As the Fresno Bee reports , Brand ’ s proposal is getting pushback from some city council members and Second Amendment supporters .
New security measures including metal detectors went up at the entrance of City Hall in December , but state law still allows CCW holders to carry guns in the building .
The proposed ordinance would add the legally concealed guns to the items not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes pepper spray , pocket knives , multi-tools and stun guns , among others .
The proposed measure is ill-conceived , according to Councilmember Garry Bredefeld .
“ It creates an illusion that the building is secure .
It is not , ” he said on Wednesday .
“ It erodes the constitutional , God-given right for people to protect themselves.
” He ’ s got that right .
I ’ m not aware of a single case where someone intent on doing harm was thwarted by a sign that said “ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re all aware of cases where individuals have brought firearms into a gun-free zone and murdered innocent victims .
Bredefeld said the proposed rule would create a “ gun-free zone ” inside City Hall , making the building less safe .
“ Law enforcement can ’ t be everywhere , ” he said .
“ They know that .
We know that .
Maniacs who want to cause harm know that.
” Brand said City Hall will be anything but a “ gun-free zone ” because security guards are armed , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed officers to be on-site during business .
The council paid for a study last year .
The mayor stressed he is a supporter of CCWs and introduced legislation in 2011 to allow more people in the city to legally carry guns .
He said his new proposed law and other recent changes would help secure the building .
I appreciate the fact that Mayor Brand wrote the change to the city code back in 2011 that moved the city to more of a “ shall issue ” process for concealed carry licenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the mayor wants concealed carry holders to be disarmed before entering City Hall when he himself has carried his concealed firearm while on the job , as the Fresno Bee noted in a 2017 editorial .
Brand , like Dyer , is a strong Second Amendment supporter .
In fact , Brand , as a city councilman , wrote the 2011 change to the municipal code that loosened the rules for concealed weapons permits that had been in place for 16 years .
The new requirements gave the police chief the latitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their safety to get permits as long as they are over 21 years old , reside in the city and have no criminal record .
These rules also enabled the city to mirror Fresno County ’ s longstanding policy .
For the record , Brand , a concealed-weapon permit holder , on occasion carries his gun while conducting city business .
He does so legally , having received permission from then City Manager Mark Scott in 2008 .
The city council will meet on January 16th to discuss Brand ’ s proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners and Second Amendment supporters , as well as opposition from at least two of the city ’ s council members .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Fresno, California Mayor Lee Brand thinks that legal gun owners should be disarmed before entering City Hall, and is proposing an ordinance that would make the building a gun-free zone. As the Fresno Bee reports, Brand’s proposal is getting pushback from some city council members and Second Amendment supporters.
New security measures including metal detectors went up at the entrance of City Hall in December, but state law still allows CCW holders to carry guns in the building. The proposed ordinance would add the legally concealed guns to the items not allowed through the front door, which includes pepper spray, pocket knives, multi-tools and stun guns, among others. The proposed measure is ill-conceived, according to Councilmember Garry Bredefeld. “It creates an illusion that the building is secure. It is not,” he said on Wednesday. “It erodes the constitutional, God-given right for people to protect themselves.”
He’s got that right. I’m not aware of a single case where someone intent on doing harm was thwarted by a sign that said “no guns allowed.” Unfortunately, we’re all aware of cases where individuals have brought firearms into a gun-free zone and murdered innocent victims.
Bredefeld said the proposed rule would create a “gun-free zone” inside City Hall, making the building less safe. “Law enforcement can’t be everywhere,” he said. “They know that. We know that. Maniacs who want to cause harm know that.” Brand said City Hall will be anything but a “gun-free zone” because security guards are armed, and the proposed plan calls for a number of armed officers to be on-site during business. The council paid for a study last year. The mayor stressed he is a supporter of CCWs and introduced legislation in 2011 to allow more people in the city to legally carry guns. He said his new proposed law and other recent changes would help secure the building.
I appreciate the fact that Mayor Brand wrote the change to the city code back in 2011 that moved the city to more of a “shall issue” process for concealed carry licenses. It just seems odd to me that the mayor wants concealed carry holders to be disarmed before entering City Hall when he himself has carried his concealed firearm while on the job, as the Fresno Bee noted in a 2017 editorial.
Brand, like Dyer, is a strong Second Amendment supporter. In fact, Brand, as a city councilman, wrote the 2011 change to the municipal code that loosened the rules for concealed weapons permits that had been in place for 16 years. The new requirements gave the police chief the latitude to allow any citizens who are concerned about their safety to get permits as long as they are over 21 years old, reside in the city and have no criminal record. These rules also enabled the city to mirror Fresno County’s longstanding policy. For the record, Brand, a concealed-weapon permit holder, on occasion carries his gun while conducting city business. He does so legally, having received permission from then City Manager Mark Scott in 2008.
The city council will meet on January 16th to discuss Brand’s proposal. Expect a huge turnout by gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, as well as opposition from at least two of the city’s council members.


bearingarms--2020-01-09--CO Op-Ed Dismantles Mandatory Storage Laws

Mandatory storage laws are one of those things that sounds really , really good to those who really don ’ t know anything about guns or personal defense .
After all , if most guns on the black market are stolen and if so many kids killed in accidental shootings were killed with unsecured firearms , then surely there ’ s a need for a law to mandate locking guns up when not in use .
The problem with that is that it ’ s a one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that ’ s anything but .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of different things to different people .
The Glock 19 sitting right next to me is “ in use.
” It ’ s handy in case anyone tries to bust into the house while I ’ m working .
Others , however , would argue that it ’ s not in use because I ’ m not actively targeting someone with it .
However , a recent op-ed out of Colorado does what I can only describe as a fantastic job dismantling mandatory storage laws .
Among the measures being considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session is a so-called “ safe storage ” law requiring that firearms be locked in a safe when not in use .
Like many gun control laws , “ safe storage ” requirements may sound reasonable at first blush , but in practice are unnecessary , counterproductive , and unconstitutional .
“ Safe storage ” laws are unnecessary because the firearms community has already accomplished the objective of reducing firearm accidents on its own volition—without burdensome government restrictions .
Through safety programs like the National Shooting Sports Foundation ’ s Project ChildSafe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GunSafe initiative , the firearms community has successfully raised awareness of safe practices and dramatically reduced firearm accidents .
While the number of firearms in America has skyrocketed to an all-time high , the number of accidents has plummeted to an all-time low .
Federal data show that the estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in America is 423,000,000 .
Yet , the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that only 486 deaths were caused by accidental discharges in 2017 .
These 486 firearm deaths made up only 0.3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison , there were 64,795 accidental fatal poisonings , 40,231 deaths from motor vehicle accidents , 36,338 deaths from accidental falls , 6,946 deaths from accidental hanging , strangulation , and suffocation , and 3,709 accidental drownings .
The whole thing is excellent , though it doesn ’ t hit on every single issue with these laws .
Then again , space alone would explain why it doesn ’ t .
You can ’ t post an entire book on a webpage and expect people to read the whole thing .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument writer Joseph Greenlee makes regarding the constitutionality of such a measure .
Now , I normally argue that if all you can muster in defense of gun rights is the constitutionality of it , you ’ re in trouble .
Anti-gunners don ’ t care and a surprising number of people in the middle simply won ’ t buy that argument .
“ Safe storage ” laws are unconstitutional because they prohibit immediate self-defense in the home .
In 2008 , the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring that firearms be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
” A “ safe storage ” law is another “ prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense , ” and is unconstitutional for the same reason .
There ’ s more to his argument than a single paragraph , but you need to go over there and read the rest .
Frankly , I ’ m rather impressed , and I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d like to be .
Greenlee nails more than enough salient points to completely dismantle the arguments in favor of mandatory storage laws .
In fact , the only criticism I could make is in calling them “ safe storage laws ” itself , since the name is nothing more than a tool to invoke emotion into the debate .
After all , how could anyone oppose safety , right ?
Besides , there ’ s nothing “ safe ” about requiring people to inhibit their ability to defend themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws .
But , that ’ s a minor quibble .
The meat of the arguments Greenlee presents are sound and it ’ s well worth keeping these things in mind should your own state–or , God forbid , the federal government–decide to put something like this into play .

Mandatory storage laws are one of those things that sounds really, really good to those who really don’t know anything about guns or personal defense. After all, if most guns on the black market are stolen and if so many kids killed in accidental shootings were killed with unsecured firearms, then surely there’s a need for a law to mandate locking guns up when not in use.
The problem with that is that it’s a one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that’s anything but.
After all, the phrase “in use” means a lot of different things to different people. The Glock 19 sitting right next to me is “in use.” It’s handy in case anyone tries to bust into the house while I’m working. Others, however, would argue that it’s not in use because I’m not actively targeting someone with it.
Hence the dilemma.
However, a recent op-ed out of Colorado does what I can only describe as a fantastic job dismantling mandatory storage laws.
Among the measures being considered by Colorado Democrats for the 2020 legislative session is a so-called “safe storage” law requiring that firearms be locked in a safe when not in use. Like many gun control laws, “safe storage” requirements may sound reasonable at first blush, but in practice are unnecessary, counterproductive, and unconstitutional. Unnecessary “Safe storage” laws are unnecessary because the firearms community has already accomplished the objective of reducing firearm accidents on its own volition—without burdensome government restrictions. Through safety programs like the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Project ChildSafe and the NRA’s award-winning Eddie Eagle GunSafe initiative, the firearms community has successfully raised awareness of safe practices and dramatically reduced firearm accidents. While the number of firearms in America has skyrocketed to an all-time high, the number of accidents has plummeted to an all-time low. Federal data show that the estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in America is 423,000,000. Yet, the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that only 486 deaths were caused by accidental discharges in 2017. These 486 firearm deaths made up only 0.3 percent of all 169,936 accidental deaths. By comparison, there were 64,795 accidental fatal poisonings, 40,231 deaths from motor vehicle accidents, 36,338 deaths from accidental falls, 6,946 deaths from accidental hanging, strangulation, and suffocation, and 3,709 accidental drownings.
The whole thing is excellent, though it doesn’t hit on every single issue with these laws. Then again, space alone would explain why it doesn’t. You can’t post an entire book on a webpage and expect people to read the whole thing.
However, perhaps the best argument made is the argument writer Joseph Greenlee makes regarding the constitutionality of such a measure.
Now, I normally argue that if all you can muster in defense of gun rights is the constitutionality of it, you’re in trouble. Anti-gunners don’t care and a surprising number of people in the middle simply won’t buy that argument.
However, Greenlee makes the case a bit differently.
“Safe storage” laws are unconstitutional because they prohibit immediate self-defense in the home. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring that firearms be kept inoperable in the home, because it “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” A “safe storage” law is another “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” and is unconstitutional for the same reason.
There’s more to his argument than a single paragraph, but you need to go over there and read the rest.
Frankly, I’m rather impressed, and I don’t get impressed nearly as often as I’d like to be. Greenlee nails more than enough salient points to completely dismantle the arguments in favor of mandatory storage laws.
In fact, the only criticism I could make is in calling them “safe storage laws” itself, since the name is nothing more than a tool to invoke emotion into the debate. After all, how could anyone oppose safety, right? Besides, there’s nothing “safe” about requiring people to inhibit their ability to defend themselves.
Hence why I call them mandatory storage laws.
But, that’s a minor quibble. The meat of the arguments Greenlee presents are sound and it’s well worth keeping these things in mind should your own state–or, God forbid, the federal government–decide to put something like this into play.