bearingarms--2020-12-16--Smith & Wesson Lawsuit Reveals Stealth Attack Against Gun Industry

With the filing of a federal lawsuit on Tuesday , gunmaker Smith & Wesson revealed a new front in the war on your guns ; New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewel has begun a widespread crusade targeting firearms manufacturers ; ostensibly over their advertising practices , but in reality because of their very existance .
As the Wall St. Journal first reported , Grewel has issued a subpoena seeking a range of internal documents relating to how their guns are advertised , including claims of the safety of the company ’ s products , whether they “ make a home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifestyle ; whether an untrained consumer could successfully and effectively use a Smith & Wesson firearm for personal or home defense ; and whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.
” Rather than rolling over for the anti-gun Attorney General , however , Smith & Wesson fired back with litigation challenging the subpoena and maintaining that Grewel ’ s actions are an “ abuse of his position ” undertaken “ to suppress a political viewpoint with which he disagrees.
” The lawsuit argues that Grewel ’ s anti-gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control activists in targeting gun makers through “ lawfare , ” noting , for instance , that Grewel has specifically hired a law firm named Paul , Weiss , Rifkind , Wharton & Garrison , LLP with an eye to target gun manufacturers .
That firm is also counsel for a little-known coalition called FACT , which is comprised of anti-gun litigators from Giffords , Brady , and other gun control groups .
FACT ’ s mission is to “ craft creative legal strategies ” to advance the gun control agenda , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturers for their advertising is seen as a tactic with a lot of potential .
The gun industry had been largely free of legal attacks since a 2005 federal law granted it immunity from liability claims over gun violence .
But in 2019 , the Connecticut Supreme Court said an AR-15 maker could be held legally responsible for marketing practices that allegedly made the semiautomatic gun the weapon of choice for mass shooters .
That court overturned the dismissal of a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by families of victims of 2012 ’ s mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since then , the parents of a woman killed in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the manufacturers of the AR-15 style rifles used by the gunman under a similar theory .
Unlike the two cases mentioned by the Wall St. Journal , it doesn ’ t appear as if Grewel ’ s subpoena is connected to any particular event .
Instead , it looks like a fishing expedition on the part of the Attorney General , as well as an attempt to chill gunmakers ’ speech , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith & Wesson argue in their complaint .
Through the Subpoena , purportedly acting pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act , the Attorney General commands Smith & Wesson to produce a vast collection of documents on a number of topics , most of which are , at bottom , opinions on either legal issues or matters of current public debate .
These statements of opinion should not be subject to review by State officials for “ accuracy , ” and can not form the basis of any investigation sounding in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treats as fraudulent , any alleged position that guns enhance safety .
To the extent Smith & Wesson has ever advocated for such a position , it is an opinion held by many people , many of whom are customers of Smith & Wesson ’ s business .
The search “ do guns make you safer ” in Google returns 248 million results .
Some of those returns reflect the position that guns do not make one safer , while others present the exact opposite position .
The Subpoena also demands that Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal position on the Second Amendment – to wit , the Subpoena demands the company ’ s position on “ [ w ] hether Smith & Wesson [ f ] irearms can be legally carried and concealed by any [ c ] onsumer , [ i ] ncluding by New Jersey [ c ] onsumers , while in New Jersey [ . ]
” This purported legal position can not constitute a statement sounding in fraud .
On and on and on the questions continue , with many of them indeed reflecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incontrovertible fact .
The remainder of the Subpoena constitutes an unconstitutional fishing expedition into virtually all of Smith & Wesson ’ s purported advertisements and marketing materials , going back decades .
Moreover , as evidenced by the Attorney General ’ s close coordination with antiSecond Amendment Activists , this fishing expedition is aimed at obtaining documents for use by those anti-Second Amendment Activists .
To wit , the Subpoena demands : a .
“ copies of all [ a ] dvertisements for [ Smith & Wesson ] [ m ] erchandise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey [ c ] oncerning home safety , concealed carry , personal protection , personal defense , personal safety , or home defense benefits of a [ f ] iream [ ; ] b .
[ a ] ll documents [ c ] oncerning any test , study , analysis , or evaluation considered or undertaken .
.
.
which relates to , addresses , evaluates , proves , disproves , or substantiates any [ c ] laim made in th [ ose a ] dvertisements [ . ]
” The Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Subpoena that “ [ f ] ailure to comply with this Subpoena may render [ Smith & Wesson ] liable for contempt of Court and such other penalties as provided by law.
” As the Second Amendment Foundation ’ s Alan Gottlieb told me in response to the news of Grewel ’ s witch hunt , “ New Jersey may have been the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights , but their Attorney General is the last person to recognize it.
” Grewel ’ s not just going after Smith & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Larry Keane says that he ’ s aware of a number of manufacturers who ’ ve been served with similar subpoenas , and we ’ ll be talking more about that later today on Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co .
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs has sued Grewel several times over the state ’ s gun control laws , and the group ’ s executive director Scott Bach told me in a conversation on Tuesday evening that the “ out-of-touch ” AG can ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of those who set foot or live in the Garden State .
“ Now they want to blame others outside of New Jersey for problems they have been unable to solve , ” Bach continued .
“ Instead of severely punishing criminal behavior inside New Jersey , they have turned to falsely scapegoating those outside New Jersey who have done nothing wrong .
Their efforts will fail.
” It ’ s clear that Grewel and the anti-gun attorneys involved with FACT have decided to pursue an anti-Second Amendment goal of bankrupting gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of corporations like Smith & Wesson to not only advertise their products , but to speak about the right to keep and bear arms itself .
I ’ m glad to see Smith & Wesson pushing back against Grewel and his gun control allies , and I expect we ’ ll see more companies do the same in the coming days .
Let ’ s hope Bach is right and that the AG ’ s efforts fail , because if they succeed the results could be devastating for more than one of our @ @

With the filing of a federal lawsuit on Tuesday, gunmaker Smith & Wesson revealed a new front in the war on your guns; New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewel has begun a widespread crusade targeting firearms manufacturers; ostensibly over their advertising practices, but in reality because of their very existance.
As the Wall St. Journal first reported, Grewel has issued a subpoena seeking a range of internal documents relating to how their guns are advertised, including claims of the safety of the company’s products, whether they “make a home safer, or enhance one’s lifestyle; whether an untrained consumer could successfully and effectively use a Smith & Wesson firearm for personal or home defense; and whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.”
Rather than rolling over for the anti-gun Attorney General, however, Smith & Wesson fired back with litigation challenging the subpoena and maintaining that Grewel’s actions are an “abuse of his position” undertaken “to suppress a political viewpoint with which he disagrees.”
The lawsuit argues that Grewel’s anti-gun ideology has led him to join gun control activists in targeting gun makers through “lawfare,” noting, for instance, that Grewel has specifically hired a law firm named Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP with an eye to target gun manufacturers. That firm is also counsel for a little-known coalition called FACT, which is comprised of anti-gun litigators from Giffords, Brady, and other gun control groups. FACT’s mission is to “craft creative legal strategies” to advance the gun control agenda, and at the moment, going after gun manufacturers for their advertising is seen as a tactic with a lot of potential.
The gun industry had been largely free of legal attacks since a 2005 federal law granted it immunity from liability claims over gun violence. But in 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court said an AR-15 maker could be held legally responsible for marketing practices that allegedly made the semiautomatic gun the weapon of choice for mass shooters. That court overturned the dismissal of a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by families of victims of 2012’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Since then, the parents of a woman killed in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the manufacturers of the AR-15 style rifles used by the gunman under a similar theory.
Unlike the two cases mentioned by the Wall St. Journal, it doesn’t appear as if Grewel’s subpoena is connected to any particular event. Instead, it looks like a fishing expedition on the part of the Attorney General, as well as an attempt to chill gunmakers’ speech, which is exactly what the attorneys for Smith & Wesson argue in their complaint.
Through the Subpoena, purportedly acting pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Attorney General commands Smith & Wesson to produce a vast collection of documents on a number of topics, most of which are, at bottom, opinions on either legal issues or matters of current public debate. These statements of opinion should not be subject to review by State officials for “accuracy,” and cannot form the basis of any investigation sounding in “fraud.” For example, the Subpoena treats as fraudulent, any alleged position that guns enhance safety. To the extent Smith & Wesson has ever advocated for such a position, it is an opinion held by many people, many of whom are customers of Smith & Wesson’s business. The search “do guns make you safer” in Google returns 248 million results. Some of those returns reflect the position that guns do not make one safer, while others present the exact opposite position. The Subpoena also demands that Smith & Wesson defend what appears to be a legal position on the Second Amendment – to wit, the Subpoena demands the company’s position on “[w]hether Smith & Wesson [f]irearms can be legally carried and concealed by any [c]onsumer, [i]ncluding by New Jersey [c]onsumers, while in New Jersey[.]” This purported legal position cannot constitute a statement sounding in fraud.
On and on and on the questions continue, with many of them indeed reflecting a matter of opinion as opposed to incontrovertible fact.
The remainder of the Subpoena constitutes an unconstitutional fishing expedition into virtually all of Smith & Wesson’s purported advertisements and marketing materials, going back decades. Moreover, as evidenced by the Attorney General’s close coordination with antiSecond Amendment Activists, this fishing expedition is aimed at obtaining documents for use by those anti-Second Amendment Activists. To wit, the Subpoena demands: a. “copies of all [a]dvertisements for [Smith & Wesson] [m]erchandise that are or were available or accessible in New Jersey [c]oncerning home safety, concealed carry, personal protection, personal defense, personal safety, or home defense benefits of a [f]iream[;] b. [a]ll documents [c]oncerning any test, study, analysis, or evaluation considered or undertaken . . . which relates to, addresses, evaluates, proves, disproves, or substantiates any [c]laim made in th[ose a]dvertisements[.]” The Attorney General warns Smith & Wesson in the Subpoena that “[f]ailure to comply with this Subpoena may render [Smith & Wesson] liable for contempt of Court and such other penalties as provided by law.”
As the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb told me in response to the news of Grewel’s witch hunt, “New Jersey may have been the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, but their Attorney General is the last person to recognize it.”
Grewel’s not just going after Smith & Wesson. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane says that he’s aware of a number of manufacturers who’ve been served with similar subpoenas, and we’ll be talking more about that later today on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs has sued Grewel several times over the state’s gun control laws, and the group’s executive director Scott Bach told me in a conversation on Tuesday evening that the “out-of-touch” AG can’t be satisfied merely by restricting the Second Amendment rights of those who set foot or live in the Garden State.
“Now they want to blame others outside of New Jersey for problems they have been unable to solve,” Bach continued. “Instead of severely punishing criminal behavior inside New Jersey, they have turned to falsely scapegoating those outside New Jersey who have done nothing wrong. Their efforts will fail.”
It’s clear that Grewel and the anti-gun attorneys involved with FACT have decided to pursue an anti-Second Amendment goal of bankrupting gun manufacturers by targeting the First Amendment rights of corporations like Smith & Wesson to not only advertise their products, but to speak about the right to keep and bear arms itself. I’m glad to see Smith & Wesson pushing back against Grewel and his gun control allies, and I expect we’ll see more companies do the same in the coming days. Let’s hope Bach is right and that the AG’s efforts fail, because if they succeed the results could be devastating for more than one of our rights.


bearingarms--2020-12-16--Washington, D.C. To Release Violent Criminals Amid Violent Crime Surge

The purpose of locking up criminals is to remove them from society for a time .
This is both a punishment to the criminal and a bit of protection to society .
After all , a locked-up crook can only break so many laws and almost none of them impact ordinary citizens .
Right now , we ’ re having something of a surge in violent crime .
It seems communities of every size are dealing with a spike in violent crime .
Into this maelstrom , the city of Washington , D.C. has a plan to release a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its last legislative session of the year , the D.C. Council passed legislation to allow some violent felons to seek early release , despite pushback from the mayor and Metropolitan Police .
The Second Amendment Look Act now goes to Mayor Muriel Bowser for approval , but the 12-1 council vote means the bill is veto-proof .
The sole opposer was outgoing council member Brandon Todd , Ward 4 Democrat .
Congress , which has oversight of D.C. laws , must give it final approval .
The measure was introduced last year by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee .
It expands the age limit of the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act , which the council enacted in 2016 .
To qualify for early release , an inmate must have committed the crime before the age of 25 , up from age 18 , and have already served 15 years in prison .
Council member Mary Cheh , Ward 3 Democrat , suggested two amendments that were rejected by her fellow lawmakers .
One would have required a judge to consider the underlying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have given substantial consideration to the victim or family , not just the victim impact statement .
I mean , sure , 15 years in prison is a long time , sure , but for some people , it ’ s simply not long enough .
Many of these are people who hurt others in carrying out their crimes .
Further , these are likely to be very serious crimes .
You don ’ t get more than 15 years for jaywalking , after all .
And this is during a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone think this is a good idea ?
And the group pushing for this ?
Oh , their take is amazing .
“ This new law will not let everyone out of prison , but it will stop us from throwing everyone away , ” said FAMM President Kevin Ring .
“ No one is safer when people who pose no risk to the public remain in prison .
In order to reduce unnecessary incarceration , reunite families , and give people second chances , we have to revisit extreme sentences.
” These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
You don ’ t get these long sentences for petty theft or vandalism .
You get these for some pretty serious crimes , including violent crimes .
Further , while many of these are drug cases not directly tied to violence , you ’ re deluding yourself if you think someone moves up in a drug organization enough to warrant a 15-plus year prison sentence without being part of some violence .
And they ’ re just going to let hundreds of these people back out onto the streets .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some degree of increase in violent crime .
Honestly , is it any wonder the District of Columbia isn ’ t exactly a nice place to raise a family ?
Don ’ t be surprised when violent crime increases in the city and they start screaming about how they need more gun control .
They don ’ t .
They need criminal control .
Plus , it seems they need politician control as well , because that is going to be at least part of the problem .

The purpose of locking up criminals is to remove them from society for a time. This is both a punishment to the criminal and a bit of protection to society. After all, a locked-up crook can only break so many laws and almost none of them impact ordinary citizens.
Right now, we’re having something of a surge in violent crime. It seems communities of every size are dealing with a spike in violent crime.
Into this maelstrom, the city of Washington, D.C. has a plan to release a number of violent felons from prison.
In its last legislative session of the year, the D.C. Council passed legislation to allow some violent felons to seek early release, despite pushback from the mayor and Metropolitan Police. The Second Amendment Look Act now goes to Mayor Muriel Bowser for approval, but the 12-1 council vote means the bill is veto-proof. The sole opposer was outgoing council member Brandon Todd, Ward 4 Democrat. Congress, which has oversight of D.C. laws, must give it final approval. The measure was introduced last year by council member Charles Allen, Ward 6 Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. It expands the age limit of the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act, which the council enacted in 2016. To qualify for early release, an inmate must have committed the crime before the age of 25, up from age 18, and have already served 15 years in prison. Council member Mary Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat, suggested two amendments that were rejected by her fellow lawmakers. One would have required a judge to consider the underlying nature of the crime; the other would have given substantial consideration to the victim or family, not just the victim impact statement.
Wow. Just…wow.
I mean, sure, 15 years in prison is a long time, sure, but for some people, it’s simply not long enough. Many of these are people who hurt others in carrying out their crimes. Further, these are likely to be very serious crimes. You don’t get more than 15 years for jaywalking, after all.
And this is during a massive spike in violent crime? How does anyone think this is a good idea?
And the group pushing for this? Oh, their take is amazing.
“This new law will not let everyone out of prison, but it will stop us from throwing everyone away,” said FAMM President Kevin Ring. “No one is safer when people who pose no risk to the public remain in prison. In order to reduce unnecessary incarceration, reunite families, and give people second chances, we have to revisit extreme sentences.”
These are people who hurt others in many cases. You don’t get these long sentences for petty theft or vandalism. You get these for some pretty serious crimes, including violent crimes. Further, while many of these are drug cases not directly tied to violence, you’re deluding yourself if you think someone moves up in a drug organization enough to warrant a 15-plus year prison sentence without being part of some violence.
And they’re just going to let hundreds of these people back out onto the streets. At a time when every community is seeing some degree of increase in violent crime.
Honestly, is it any wonder the District of Columbia isn’t exactly a nice place to raise a family?
Don’t be surprised when violent crime increases in the city and they start screaming about how they need more gun control. They don’t. They need criminal control. Plus, it seems they need politician control as well, because that is going to be at least part of the problem.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--BA Gift Guide - Get Organized With Gun, Magazine & Ammo Storage

There ’ s something inherently satisfying about a well laid-out gun safe or storage space with a spot for every firearm , magazine , and box of ammo .
Beyond the aesthetics , however , there ’ s a huge practical benefit to being able to find exactly what you need if , God forbid , you ever actually need it .
The last thing you want to do if someone ’ s breaking into your home is fumble around trying to find an extra magazine or even your gun itself .
With that in mind , here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms , magazines , and ammunition squared away while still being readily accessible in case of emergency .
KEEPER MG Magnetic Magazine Holder – This magnetic strip will securely attach to the wall of your gun safe , but can also be screwed in to non-metal surfaces .
The strip is sturdy enough to hold up to seven handgun magazines , and its slim design keeps magazines almost flush with the wall of your safe or gun storage .
Mag Storage Solutions 5.56 .223 MagHolder – While the Keeper MG is great for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something a little bigger for your rifle magazines .
The MagHolder is a great option with the ability to hold six 30-round magazines .
The holder , which can easily be attached to a secure setting in your gun safe or weapons room , uses mounting clips to hold the magazines in place while still allowing for easy retrieval when needed .
Case Club AR15 & Pistol Magazine Box – This mammoth container is large enough to hold fifteen 30-round AR-15 magazines and ten standard pistol magazines , and also features an extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or cleaning supplies .
The case is able to be secured with a padlock ( not included ) , but there ’ s no easy way to anchor it to a gun safe .
Solid Tactical 50 Cal and 30 Cal Metal Ammo Can – The classic ammo can is still ubiquitous for a reason .
It works .
Holds your ammo and keeps your powder dry inside the water and air-proof can .
The ammo can also comes with a desiccant pack to absorb any moisture inside the can , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .
VAULTEK Modular Pistol Racks Universal Protective Handgun Storage Holster – This combined pistol and magazine rack allows you to store your handgun and three magazines in one spot in your gun safe or storage locker .
The high density foam holster allows for a flexible fit for a wide variety of handguns from full size to compact and can be attached to your gun safe with included double-sided tape .
Hold Up Displays – Gun Rack and Rifle Storage – This heavy-duty rifle rack is large enough to secure six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steel construction is performed right here in the United States .
The rack features a bottom basket design that keeps rifles in place with padded cradle hooks to prevent any cosmetic damage to your rifle .
Not for use in a gun safe , but if you ’ ve a gun room or closet that can be independently secured , this is a great choice for rifle storage .

There’s something inherently satisfying about a well laid-out gun safe or storage space with a spot for every firearm, magazine, and box of ammo. Beyond the aesthetics, however, there’s a huge practical benefit to being able to find exactly what you need if, God forbid, you ever actually need it. The last thing you want to do if someone’s breaking into your home is fumble around trying to find an extra magazine or even your gun itself.
With that in mind, here are some great ways to help you get your firearms, magazines, and ammunition squared away while still being readily accessible in case of emergency.
KEEPER MG Magnetic Magazine Holder – This magnetic strip will securely attach to the wall of your gun safe, but can also be screwed in to non-metal surfaces. The strip is sturdy enough to hold up to seven handgun magazines, and its slim design keeps magazines almost flush with the wall of your safe or gun storage.
Mag Storage Solutions 5.56 .223 MagHolder – While the Keeper MG is great for pistol magazines, you’ll need something a little bigger for your rifle magazines. The MagHolder is a great option with the ability to hold six 30-round magazines. The holder, which can easily be attached to a secure setting in your gun safe or weapons room, uses mounting clips to hold the magazines in place while still allowing for easy retrieval when needed.
Case Club AR15 & Pistol Magazine Box – This mammoth container is large enough to hold fifteen 30-round AR-15 magazines and ten standard pistol magazines, and also features an extra compartment on the lid for small tools or cleaning supplies. The case is able to be secured with a padlock (not included), but there’s no easy way to anchor it to a gun safe.
Solid Tactical 50 Cal and 30 Cal Metal Ammo Can – The classic ammo can is still ubiquitous for a reason. It works. Holds your ammo and keeps your powder dry inside the water and air-proof can. The ammo can also comes with a desiccant pack to absorb any moisture inside the can, and the steel construction will ensure use for years to come.
VAULTEK Modular Pistol Racks Universal Protective Handgun Storage Holster – This combined pistol and magazine rack allows you to store your handgun and three magazines in one spot in your gun safe or storage locker. The high density foam holster allows for a flexible fit for a wide variety of handguns from full size to compact and can be attached to your gun safe with included double-sided tape.
Hold Up Displays – Gun Rack and Rifle Storage – This heavy-duty rifle rack is large enough to secure six long guns, and the heavy duty steel construction is performed right here in the United States. The rack features a bottom basket design that keeps rifles in place with padded cradle hooks to prevent any cosmetic damage to your rifle. Not for use in a gun safe, but if you’ve a gun room or closet that can be independently secured, this is a great choice for rifle storage.
When you make a purchase, Townhall Media receives a revenue share from qualifying purchases as an Amazon Associate.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--NRA Asks SCOTUS To Take Challenge To New York Carry Laws

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it ’ s seeking Supreme Court review of a challenge to New York ’ s carry laws ; a case that could soon present the nine justices with an opportunity to weigh in on the right to bear arms , not just to keeping them , as previous SCOTUS decisions have done .
The case is called NYSPRA vs. Corlett , and if you ’ re a Second Amendment legal nerd like me you can read the cert petition written by former Solicitor General Paul Clement along with longtime Second Amendment litigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
If , on the other hand , you want the TL ; DR version , we ’ ve got you covered .
The Court is being asked to directly answer the question of whether the Second Amendment protects the right of the average citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense and resolve the splits in the various appellate courts below .
The case has a good chance of getting the interest of at least four of the court ’ s justices , though there are procedural hurdles .
If you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case , read on .
Otherwise , keep your fingers crossed and look for an update on when the Court schedules NYSPRA vs. Cortlett to be considered in conference .
The Corlett case involves several individual plaintiffs as well as the NYSPRA and the NRA .
Robert Nash , for instance , is a law-abiding resident of the state of New York who applied for a carry license in Rensselaer County .
He was denied his permit even though there had been a string of robberies in his neighborhood and he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what New York state law requires .
That didn ’ t matter , because Judge Richard McNally , who serves as the licensing officer for the county , decided that Nash “ failed to show ‘ proper cause ’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense , because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.
” Most gun owners and Second Amendment supporters would say “ Yeah , but the general public has a right to carry , so he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special need.
” If we have the right to keep , as the Supreme Court has recognized in both Heller and McDonald , then we must also have the right to bear .
The Supreme Court has yet to take a carry case , however , so as plain and simple as it might to most of us , some courts , like the Second Circuit Court of Appeals , have held that the right to bear arms is no burden whatsoever on “ limiting handgun possession in public to those who show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cert petition doesn ’ t have to be granted by the Supreme Court , and in fact most petitions are turned away , there are some factors in favor of this particular case .
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement is a familiar and welcome face for justices , which is not unimportant .
Even more importantly , however , the case involves a fundamental question about a right that the Court has rarely weighed in on and one that has several appellate courts in disagreement with each other .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court is supposed to take , and with Amy Coney Barrett now on the bench , there should be at least five votes to accept the case ( assuming Justice Roberts were to vote no ) .
The biggest hurdle will be overcoming the decisions of the U.S. District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals , which both concluded that the question over New York ’ s carry laws had already been answered in an earlier case called Kachalsky .
Clement ’ s brief asks the justices to in essence set aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facts ; divided appellate courts , tens of millions of Americans unable to exercise their right to bear arms because they live in one of the handful of states that require “ good cause ” or a “ justifiable need ” to obtain a license to carry .
This question has persisted and the Court has ducked the issue repeatedly by refusing cases like Peruta , which challenged California ’ s may-issue carry laws .
Clement ’ s summation starkly reminds the Court of the consequences of inaction .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundamental , individual right to self-defense is confined to the home .
While the vast majority of states have correctly affirmed the individual ’ s right to decide for him or herself whether to carry a handgun for self-defense , a minority of jurisdictions seem determined to control the very people and rights that the Second Amendment promises “ shall not be infringed.
” That minority includes some of the nation ’ s most populous cities and states , located in circuits that have stubbornly resisted the controlling decisions of this Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of decisions that failed to abide by this Court ’ s precedents , tens of millions of citizens are being deprived of individual , fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution .
That is untenable .
The exercise of a fundamental right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution to all “ the people ” can not be made to turn on where someone lives , any more than it can be made to turn on how “ proper ” or “ special ” the state considers the individual ’ s “ cause ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument is a good one , but I worry that the Court may decide not to accept this particular case purely on procedural grounds .
That feels like the kind of resolution that Chief Justice John Roberts would like best , even though it just kicks the constitutional can further down the road .
A right delayed is a right denied , and the Supreme Court ’ s recognition of the clearly enumerated right to bear arms would ensure that the average law-abiding American could actually exercise their right to bear arms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ objections can be overcome by the need for the Court ’ s action and opinion on this fundamental issue .

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it’s seeking Supreme Court review of a challenge to New York’s carry laws; a case that could soon present the nine justices with an opportunity to weigh in on the right to bear arms, not just to keeping them, as previous SCOTUS decisions have done.
The case is called NYSPRA vs. Corlett, and if you’re a Second Amendment legal nerd like me you can read the cert petition written by former Solicitor General Paul Clement along with longtime Second Amendment litigators Erin Murphy and Keven Neylan, Jr. here.
If, on the other hand, you want the TL;DR version, we’ve got you covered.
The Court is being asked to directly answer the question of whether the Second Amendment protects the right of the average citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense and resolve the splits in the various appellate courts below. The case has a good chance of getting the interest of at least four of the court’s justices, though there are procedural hurdles.
If you want to learn more about the details of the case, read on. Otherwise, keep your fingers crossed and look for an update on when the Court schedules NYSPRA vs. Cortlett to be considered in conference.
The Corlett case involves several individual plaintiffs as well as the NYSPRA and the NRA. Robert Nash, for instance, is a law-abiding resident of the state of New York who applied for a carry license in Rensselaer County. He was denied his permit even though there had been a string of robberies in his neighborhood and he’d even undergone training above and beyond what New York state law requires.
That didn’t matter, because Judge Richard McNally, who serves as the licensing officer for the county, decided that Nash “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.”
Most gun owners and Second Amendment supporters would say “Yeah, but the general public has a right to carry, so he shouldn’t have to demonstrate some special need.” If we have the right to keep, as the Supreme Court has recognized in both Heller and McDonald, then we must also have the right to bear. The Supreme Court has yet to take a carry case, however, so as plain and simple as it might to most of us, some courts, like the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, have held that the right to bear arms is no burden whatsoever on “limiting handgun possession in public to those who show a special need for self-protection.”
While the cert petition doesn’t have to be granted by the Supreme Court, and in fact most petitions are turned away, there are some factors in favor of this particular case. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement is a familiar and welcome face for justices, which is not unimportant. Even more importantly, however, the case involves a fundamental question about a right that the Court has rarely weighed in on and one that has several appellate courts in disagreement with each other.
It’s the type of case that the Supreme Court is supposed to take, and with Amy Coney Barrett now on the bench, there should be at least five votes to accept the case (assuming Justice Roberts were to vote no). The biggest hurdle will be overcoming the decisions of the U.S. District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which both concluded that the question over New York’s carry laws had already been answered in an earlier case called Kachalsky.
Clement’s brief asks the justices to in essence set aside the question of standing and look at the facts; divided appellate courts, tens of millions of Americans unable to exercise their right to bear arms because they live in one of the handful of states that require “good cause” or a “justifiable need” to obtain a license to carry. This question has persisted and the Court has ducked the issue repeatedly by refusing cases like Peruta, which challenged California’s may-issue carry laws. Clement’s summation starkly reminds the Court of the consequences of inaction.
There is no Second Amendment issue more pressing than whether the fundamental, individual right to self-defense is confined to the home. While the vast majority of states have correctly affirmed the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to carry a handgun for self-defense, a minority of jurisdictions seem determined to control the very people and rights that the Second Amendment promises “shall not be infringed.” That minority includes some of the nation’s most populous cities and states, located in circuits that have stubbornly resisted the controlling decisions of this Court in Heller and McDonald. As a result of decisions that failed to abide by this Court’s precedents, tens of millions of citizens are being deprived of individual, fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is untenable. The exercise of a fundamental right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution to all “the people” cannot be made to turn on where someone lives, any more than it can be made to turn on how “proper” or “special” the state considers the individual’s “cause” for wanting to exercise that right.
The argument is a good one, but I worry that the Court may decide not to accept this particular case purely on procedural grounds. That feels like the kind of resolution that Chief Justice John Roberts would like best, even though it just kicks the constitutional can further down the road.
A right delayed is a right denied, and the Supreme Court’s recognition of the clearly enumerated right to bear arms would ensure that the average law-abiding American could actually exercise their right to bear arms. Here’s hoping that any procedural objections can be overcome by the need for the Court’s action and opinion on this fundamental issue.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--Why Gun People Don't Trust Politicians Words

In the course of my day , I read a lot of letters to the editor .
A proverbial ton of the .
Many are pro-gun , many are anti-gun , but most simply restate things we ’ ve seen a thousand times in a thousand different places .
While the editorial page of the local newspaper used to be the place to engage in political debate , the modern era has rendered it to a spot where new facts or ideas are rarely introduced .
However , the reason I still read them is that you sometimes find a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve heard before but never in a place where you could readily address it .
I mean , if I wrote a post addressing an odd opinion without being able to link to someone actually saying that , I run the risk of being accused of presenting a strawman argument .
So , that ’ s what brought me to this one .
It seems the letter writer would like all of us pro-gun people to have some faith in the democratic process .
The last time we heard this hysterical rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 , only then it was Obama and his cohorts taking the guns away .
That hyperventilation amounted to a windfall for the NRA in donations and for sporting goods stores in gun and ammo sales .
But : no guns were taken from lawful gun-owners under the Obama administration , and none will be taken away by Biden .
Indeed , when a heckler made a similar accusation last March , then-candidate Biden shot back with characteristic bluntness , ‘ You ’ re full of s**t. ’ It has often been said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man out of a position he didn ’ t reason himself into .
The extreme right media exploits the fears and prejudices of many anxious citizens .
Mr. Sather may genuinely believe that his Second Amendment rights are in danger .
I would urge him to read more broadly ( not just Breitbart and Fox News ) .
I would further urge him to trust our laws and institutions .
The Second Amendment , for good or ill , is enshrined in the Constitution .
Amending the Constitution is possible , but exceedingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to realize is that people didn ’ t have to “ reason ” themselves into a position because Joe Biden ’ s intentions are very well documented .
Some things are so obvious , they don ’ t require much effort to see them clearly .
First , let ’ s remember Biden ’ s vow to have Beto O ’ Rourke spearhead his anti-gun efforts .
O ’ Rouke famously vowed to come after our guns during one of the televised debates .
“ Hell yeah , ” he said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AR-15s and your AK-47s.
” It ’ s not unreasonable to assume Biden shares that opinion .
Especially when Biden ’ s own assault weapon ban proposal would require millions of Americans to either turn their guns in or risk becoming criminals .
Oh , sure , you can keep your gun if you pay the $ 200 tax , but that tax extends to any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds .
For many of us , just keeping our property would cost thousands of dollars that we simply don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s proposal will result in taking our guns away .
You can rationalize otherwise all you want , but it doesn ’ t change the reality .
Further , bringing up the lack of gun control during the Obama administration really doesn ’ t contribute anything to the discussion .
After all , Obama wanted to enact gun control .
We just didn ’ t let him .
Even during the first two years of his presidency when he had Congress on his side , there was no political will to enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean an end to their majorities .
Now , things are different .
Democrats no longer care what rural voters think .
They will pass gun control if they get half the chance , and much of that includes taking guns from people who have done nothing wrong .
From the assault weapon ban to red flag laws , they involve disarming people who haven ’ t been convicted of any wrongdoing .
Oh , but all that should be ignored because Biden told some guy in an auto plant he was full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full of it in that discussion was Joe Biden .
Politicians lie , and gun rights advocates know that better than most .
We ’ re not interested in trusting the institutions or democracy or anything else when it comes to our rights .
Instead , we dig in and fight because that ’ s the only way we don ’ t end up defenseless against tyranny .
The institutions have let us down far too many times for us to fall for that one again .

In the course of my day, I read a lot of letters to the editor. A proverbial ton of the. Many are pro-gun, many are anti-gun, but most simply restate things we’ve seen a thousand times in a thousand different places. While the editorial page of the local newspaper used to be the place to engage in political debate, the modern era has rendered it to a spot where new facts or ideas are rarely introduced.
However, the reason I still read them is that you sometimes find a letter that voices an opinion that you’ve heard before but never in a place where you could readily address it. I mean, if I wrote a post addressing an odd opinion without being able to link to someone actually saying that, I run the risk of being accused of presenting a strawman argument.
I wouldn’t want that.
So, that’s what brought me to this one. It seems the letter writer would like all of us pro-gun people to have some faith in the democratic process.
The last time we heard this hysterical rhetoric was after the elections of 2008 and 2012, only then it was Obama and his cohorts taking the guns away. That hyperventilation amounted to a windfall for the NRA in donations and for sporting goods stores in gun and ammo sales. But: no guns were taken from lawful gun-owners under the Obama administration, and none will be taken away by Biden. Indeed, when a heckler made a similar accusation last March, then-candidate Biden shot back with characteristic bluntness, ‘You’re full of s**t.’ … It has often been said that you can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into. The extreme right media exploits the fears and prejudices of many anxious citizens. Mr. Sather may genuinely believe that his Second Amendment rights are in danger. I would urge him to read more broadly (not just Breitbart and Fox News). I would further urge him to trust our laws and institutions. The Second Amendment, for good or ill, is enshrined in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is possible, but exceedingly difficult.
What the letter writer fails to realize is that people didn’t have to “reason” themselves into a position because Joe Biden’s intentions are very well documented. Some things are so obvious, they don’t require much effort to see them clearly.
First, let’s remember Biden’s vow to have Beto O’Rourke spearhead his anti-gun efforts. O’Rouke famously vowed to come after our guns during one of the televised debates. “Hell yeah,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15s and your AK-47s.” It’s not unreasonable to assume Biden shares that opinion.
Especially when Biden’s own assault weapon ban proposal would require millions of Americans to either turn their guns in or risk becoming criminals.
Oh, sure, you can keep your gun if you pay the $200 tax, but that tax extends to any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. For many of us, just keeping our property would cost thousands of dollars that we simply don’t have.
So yeah, Biden’s proposal will result in taking our guns away. You can rationalize otherwise all you want, but it doesn’t change the reality.
Further, bringing up the lack of gun control during the Obama administration really doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. After all, Obama wanted to enact gun control. We just didn’t let him. Even during the first two years of his presidency when he had Congress on his side, there was no political will to enact gun control because Democrats knew it would mean an end to their majorities.
Now, things are different. Democrats no longer care what rural voters think. They will pass gun control if they get half the chance, and much of that includes taking guns from people who have done nothing wrong. From the assault weapon ban to red flag laws, they involve disarming people who haven’t been convicted of any wrongdoing.
Oh, but all that should be ignored because Biden told some guy in an auto plant he was full of s**t.
No, the only one full of it in that discussion was Joe Biden.
Politicians lie, and gun rights advocates know that better than most. We’re not interested in trusting the institutions or democracy or anything else when it comes to our rights. Instead, we dig in and fight because that’s the only way we don’t end up defenseless against tyranny. The institutions have let us down far too many times for us to fall for that one again.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--Boebert Blasts Dems' Capitol Gun Ban Plan

A push by nearly two dozen House Democrats to change a long-standing rule that allows members of Congress to carry firearms in the Capitol is being met with with a challenge by Representative-elect Lauren Boebert , the outspoken Second Amendment advocate who declared that she planned to take full advantage of that rule once she arrived in D.C. Boebert joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about Rep. Jared Huffman ’ s demand that congressional leadership revoke the 1967 rule that barred the general public and most employees at the Capitol from carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the representative wrote in his letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ; Boebert says that ’ s nonsense , and pointed to the 2017 attack on Republican members of Congress that left Rep. Steve Scalise gravely injured .
That attack is one reason why Boebert has already gone through the required training to get a concealed carry license in Washington , D.C. Boebert doesn ’ t just plan on carrying at the Capitol .
She plans on carrying everywhere she ’ s allowed to by law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the storage of firearms in Congressional offices , he would have asked Pelosi to include a rule requiring firearms be locked away unless under the direct control of the House or Senate member .
Instead , he demanded the disarming those members of Congress who choose to carry .
Boebert says Huffman ’ s move against “ capitol carry ” is just part of a broader agenda to attack the Second Amendment rights of all Americans .
“ I told Beto O ’ Rourke in Aurora , Colorado ‘ Hell no , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Boebert reminded me during our interview , referring to her confrontation of the then-presidential candidate over his “ Hell yes we ’ re taking your guns ” comment .
“ I meant it , ” she emphazised .
“ If I need to go to Speaker Pelosi herself and tell her the same thing I told Beto , so be it .
I ’ m here to make sure we secure the rights of the American people above all else.
” Boebert says she ’ s circulating a letter of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House leadership , urging them to ignore Huffman ’ s demand for a gun ban .
We ’ ll have to wait to see if Pelosi takes up Huffman ’ s demand when the House convenes on January 3rd , as well as how many other lawmakers sign on to Boebert ’ s letter , but I think we can go out on a limb and predict that regardless of the outcome , Rep. Huffman ’ s likely to give Boebert a wide berth in the halls of the Capitol and in the @ @ @

A push by nearly two dozen House Democrats to change a long-standing rule that allows members of Congress to carry firearms in the Capitol is being met with with a challenge by Representative-elect Lauren Boebert, the outspoken Second Amendment advocate who declared that she planned to take full advantage of that rule once she arrived in D.C.
Boebert joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about Rep. Jared Huffman’s demand that congressional leadership revoke the 1967 rule that barred the general public and most employees at the Capitol from carrying, but exempted members of Congress. As the representative wrote in his letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy;
Ultimately, the current regulations create needless risk for Members of Congress, their staff, members of the Capitol Police, and visitors to the Capitol grounds. A provision in the Rules package directing the Capitol Police Board to ensure that Member of Congress may not possess firearms on Capitol grounds would ensure clarity surrounding firearms policy and protect all individuals in and around the Capitol.
Boebert says that’s nonsense, and pointed to the 2017 attack on Republican members of Congress that left Rep. Steve Scalise gravely injured. That attack is one reason why Boebert has already gone through the required training to get a concealed carry license in Washington, D.C. Boebert doesn’t just plan on carrying at the Capitol. She plans on carrying everywhere she’s allowed to by law.
If Huffman’s real concern was about the storage of firearms in Congressional offices, he would have asked Pelosi to include a rule requiring firearms be locked away unless under the direct control of the House or Senate member. Instead, he demanded the disarming those members of Congress who choose to carry. Boebert says Huffman’s move against “capitol carry” is just part of a broader agenda to attack the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
“I told Beto O’Rourke in Aurora, Colorado ‘Hell no, you’re not taking our guns,” Boebert reminded me during our interview, referring to her confrontation of the then-presidential candidate over his “Hell yes we’re taking your guns” comment.
“I meant it,” she emphazised. “If I need to go to Speaker Pelosi herself and tell her the same thing I told Beto, so be it. I’m here to make sure we secure the rights of the American people above all else.”
Boebert says she’s circulating a letter of her own to send to Nancy Pelosi and House leadership, urging them to ignore Huffman’s demand for a gun ban. We’ll have to wait to see if Pelosi takes up Huffman’s demand when the House convenes on January 3rd, as well as how many other lawmakers sign on to Boebert’s letter, but I think we can go out on a limb and predict that regardless of the outcome, Rep. Huffman’s likely to give Boebert a wide berth in the halls of the Capitol and in the House chamber.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--Sheriff Candidate Running On Not Enforcing Unconstitutional Laws

When the Second Amendment sanctuary movement got underway , it was driven a lot by county sheriffs .
Some unilaterally announced they wouldn ’ t be enforcing unconstitutional gun laws while others urged county commissions to codify it in law .
Yet every one of them was a sitting sheriff , someone who had the advantage of incumbency in future elections to help shield them from potential criticism of their actions .
They had a bit of security when they made their stand .
That doesn ’ t discredit their actions , mind you , it only puts it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office candidate makes the same stand .
When Gov .
Andrew M. Cuomo banned Thanksgiving gatherings of more than 10 people last month , Sheriff Timothy B. Howard drew widespread attention by promising to never enforce the state “ mandate.
” Now local gun rights advocate Steve Felano has declared his candidacy for Erie County sheriff next year with an even broader vow : He will not enforce any laws he views as an unconstitutional infringement of personal liberties .
“ First and foremost , the platform will be nonenforcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said Wednesday , citing a new ban on selling Confederate flags on state property – which Cuomo signed into law on Tuesday – as an example .
Felano does not support many of the principles for which the Confederate flag stands , but contends that banning its sale on state property amounts to a violation of free speech .
“ I think we ’ re going to see more laws like that coming down the pike from this governor especially as he continues to hold executive authority power , ” he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting that.
” Founder of a local gun rights advocacy group called 2AWNY , Felano announced Wednesday he will seek the Republican nomination to succeed Howard , who is retiring .
Though he has no law enforcement experience , Felano seeks to turn the office into a platform thwarting “ unconstitutional ” laws and executive orders .
It ’ s safe to say with his pro-Second Amendment background , Felano will also plan on not enforcing many of New York ’ s unconstitutional gun laws , such as the NY SAFE Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the first candidate for sheriff I ’ ve seen campaign on not enforcing laws , including gun laws , but I have a feeling that if he ’ s successful , he won ’ t be the last .
People are quick to follow a winner , especially if it helps you stand out .
New York has done a lot of questionable things in recent years , pretty much since Andrew Cuomo took office , and it would be nice if someone would provide a check on this stupidity .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without New York City , the state of New York would be a pretty red state and perhaps one of the more pro-gun states in the nation .
If sheriffs opt to to not enforce the stupidity , well…what can you do ?
After all , it seems many communities are opting to not enforce all kinds of laws .
Many are calling for giving people a pass because they ’ re poor , addicted to drugs , or mentally unwell , even if those crimes have a distinct victim and the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rights .
If they can get away with that , why can ’ t sheriffs opt to just not enforce a different set of laws that do pertain to people ’ s rights .
I hope Felano is successful .
It should be interesting to watch , that ’ s for sure .

When the Second Amendment sanctuary movement got underway, it was driven a lot by county sheriffs. Some unilaterally announced they wouldn’t be enforcing unconstitutional gun laws while others urged county commissions to codify it in law.
Yet every one of them was a sitting sheriff, someone who had the advantage of incumbency in future elections to help shield them from potential criticism of their actions. They had a bit of security when they made their stand.
That doesn’t discredit their actions, mind you, it only puts it in a bit of perspective when a sheriff’s office candidate makes the same stand.
When Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo banned Thanksgiving gatherings of more than 10 people last month, Sheriff Timothy B. Howard drew widespread attention by promising to never enforce the state “mandate.” Now local gun rights advocate Steve Felano has declared his candidacy for Erie County sheriff next year with an even broader vow: He will not enforce any laws he views as an unconstitutional infringement of personal liberties. “First and foremost, the platform will be nonenforcement of state edicts on various laws,” he said Wednesday, citing a new ban on selling Confederate flags on state property – which Cuomo signed into law on Tuesday – as an example. Felano does not support many of the principles for which the Confederate flag stands, but contends that banning its sale on state property amounts to a violation of free speech. “I think we’re going to see more laws like that coming down the pike from this governor especially as he continues to hold executive authority power,” he added, “and the sheriff should be resisting that.” Founder of a local gun rights advocacy group called 2AWNY, Felano announced Wednesday he will seek the Republican nomination to succeed Howard, who is retiring. Though he has no law enforcement experience, Felano seeks to turn the office into a platform thwarting “unconstitutional” laws and executive orders.
It’s safe to say with his pro-Second Amendment background, Felano will also plan on not enforcing many of New York’s unconstitutional gun laws, such as the NY SAFE Act, among others.
In truth, Felano is the first candidate for sheriff I’ve seen campaign on not enforcing laws, including gun laws, but I have a feeling that if he’s successful, he won’t be the last. People are quick to follow a winner, especially if it helps you stand out.
New York has done a lot of questionable things in recent years, pretty much since Andrew Cuomo took office, and it would be nice if someone would provide a check on this stupidity. That means county sheriffs. After all, without New York City, the state of New York would be a pretty red state and perhaps one of the more pro-gun states in the nation. If sheriffs opt to to not enforce the stupidity, well…what can you do?
After all, it seems many communities are opting to not enforce all kinds of laws. Many are calling for giving people a pass because they’re poor, addicted to drugs, or mentally unwell, even if those crimes have a distinct victim and the law isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights. If they can get away with that, why can’t sheriffs opt to just not enforce a different set of laws that do pertain to people’s rights.
I hope Felano is successful. It should be interesting to watch, that’s for sure.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--New ATF Power Play Could Impact Millions Of Gun Owners

The proposed rule change won ’ t be officially published until Friday , but a draft document of the Bureau of Alcohol , Firearms , Tobacco , and Explosives ’ new plans for pistols with stabilizing braces has been published to the Federal Register , and gun owners , Second Amendment activists , and manufacturers of the devices are already crying foul .
In the ATF ’ s proposed rule change , the agency outlines several supposedly objective factors that will determine whether a handgun equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace is considered a pistol or a short-barreled rifle that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
The problem is that while the ATF outlines what those many factors are ( caliber ; weight ; length ; attachment method ; and even after-market accessories like scopes and sights , to name a few ) , the agency doesn ’ t provide gun owners with any specifics that would take the guessing out of whether or not the ATF would consider the gun a pistol or an item that must be registered under the National Firearms Act .
For example : The draft proposal is full of weasel words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and “ likely , ” but fail to provide gun owners with a clear standard and set of rules that can be followed .
In fact , the ATF adds that “ no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive , and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis .
Because of changes in design or configuration of a weapon or attachment , as well as future changes in technology , this list is not exhaustive and other factors may become relevant to a weapon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know if their gun is now considered an NFA item by the ATF ?
They can ’ t , because the ATF makes those determinations on a case-by-case basis .
If , however , the ATF decides that you ’ re in possession of an unregistered NFA item , you could be facing a decade in federal prison .
So , the agency plans “ to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expedite processing of these applications , and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired , prior to the publication of this notice , in good faith .
This separate process may include the following options : registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA ( described above ) , permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it , replacing the barrel of the firearm ( 16 ” or greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or greater for a shotgun ) , surrendering the firearm to ATF , or destroying the firearm.
” Again , there ’ s no way of knowing for sure if your gun with a pistol stabilizing brace should be registered , but if you don ’ t and the ATF ever determines that it should have been , you could be sent to prison .
That ’ s the stick .
The carrot dangled by the ATF is its willing to waive the $ 200 tax stamp that gun owners would ordinarily have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side and register your gun , in other words , or risk the wrath of the Department of Justice and a decade behind bars if the government decides afterwards that your gun is an NFA item .
Alex Bosco , the founder of SB Tactical , has been trying to get clarification from the ATF on his products for years , and he says the draft guidance makes things far worse than the current confusion .
Bosco will join me on Friday ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to talk more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which will impact the owners of millions of AR-style pistols across the country .
It ’ s no coincidence that the ATF ’ s proposed rule change is being released now , because the mandated public comment period is going to take place during the holiday season when many gun owners will be checking in with the news less frequently and may not hear of this at all .
The public comment period will officially begin on Friday , and we ’ ll let you know the easiest way to submit your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop this , and if the Trump brand is going to continue to enjoy the support of most gun owners , he needs to do something as quickly as possible .
While I think Maj is being a little hyperbolic there ( FDR signed the National Firearms Act into existence , Johnson approved the Gun Control Act of 1968 , and Bill Clinton gave us a decade-long gun and magazine ban , for starters ) , Trump ’ s support among gun owners will absolutely take a yuge hit if he allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners .
That would not only hurt a prospective 2024 run , but would hurt son Donald Trump , Jr. ’ s credibility with gun owners as well .
Remember , it was just a couple of weeks ago that the idea of Don Jr. taking over as head of the NRA was being floated around Washington , D.C. , and there ’ s already talk of him running for office in the next couple of years .
The younger Trump has done quite a bit to court pro-Second Amendment support , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even lift a finger to stop the ATF ’ s power play then the courtship is going to end with Don Jr. being left at the altar ( or the ballot box ) .
My hope is that the president will do all he can to reign in the ATF in its attack on pistol stabilizing braces , and if you ’ d like to encourage him to do so you can contact the White House , Department of Justice , and your members of Congress here .
Be polite , be civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the ATF ’ s proposed rules on pistol stabilizing braces need to be reversed ASAP .

The proposed rule change won’t be officially published until Friday, but a draft document of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives’ new plans for pistols with stabilizing braces has been published to the Federal Register, and gun owners, Second Amendment activists, and manufacturers of the devices are already crying foul.
In the ATF’s proposed rule change, the agency outlines several supposedly objective factors that will determine whether a handgun equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace is considered a pistol or a short-barreled rifle that must be registered under the National Firearms Act.
The problem is that while the ATF outlines what those many factors are (caliber; weight; length; attachment method; and even after-market accessories like scopes and sights, to name a few), the agency doesn’t provide gun owners with any specifics that would take the guessing out of whether or not the ATF would consider the gun a pistol or an item that must be registered under the National Firearms Act. For example:
Appropriate aim point when utilizing the attachment as a stabilizing brace. If the aim point when using the arm brace attachment results in an upward or downward trajectory that could not accurately hit a target, this may indicate the attachment was not designed as a stabilizing brace.
The draft proposal is full of weasel words like “may,” “might,” and “likely,” but fail to provide gun owners with a clear standard and set of rules that can be followed. In fact, the ATF adds that “no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis. Because of changes in design or configuration of a weapon or attachment, as well as future changes in technology, this list is not exhaustive and other factors may become relevant to a weapon’s classification.”
How are gun owners supposed to know if their gun is now considered an NFA item by the ATF? They can’t, because the ATF makes those determinations on a case-by-case basis. If, however, the ATF decides that you’re in possession of an unregistered NFA item, you could be facing a decade in federal prison.
So, the agency plans “to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA.”
As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith. This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16” or greater for a rifle, or 18” or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm.”
Again, there’s no way of knowing for sure if your gun with a pistol stabilizing brace should be registered, but if you don’t and the ATF ever determines that it should have been, you could be sent to prison. That’s the stick. The carrot dangled by the ATF is its willing to waive the $200 tax stamp that gun owners would ordinarily have to pay.
Be on the safe side and register your gun, in other words, or risk the wrath of the Department of Justice and a decade behind bars if the government decides afterwards that your gun is an NFA item.
Alex Bosco, the founder of SB Tactical, has been trying to get clarification from the ATF on his products for years, and he says the draft guidance makes things far worse than the current confusion.
“By failing to define the criteria, the ATF is codifying its holistic “we’ll know it when we see it approach” to determinations that create confusion and serve as little more than a power grab. It does nothing other than create uncertainty and confirm that ATF does not want to be held accountable. It claims limitless power to assess products under a holistic approach that gives the agency maximum discretion and Americans minimum protection.”
Bosco will join me on Friday’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk more about the ATF’s proposed guidance, which will impact the owners of millions of AR-style pistols across the country. It’s no coincidence that the ATF’s proposed rule change is being released now, because the mandated public comment period is going to take place during the holiday season when many gun owners will be checking in with the news less frequently and may not hear of this at all.
The public comment period will officially begin on Friday, and we’ll let you know the easiest way to submit your comments.
President Donald Trump can act to stop this, and if the Trump brand is going to continue to enjoy the support of most gun owners, he needs to do something as quickly as possible.
If @realDonaldTrump doesn’t at least ATTEMPT TO stop this current DOJ/ATF brace issue and let’s it slide like he did bump stocks…. He will be marked in history as the WORST president ever for the second amendment. — Maj Toure (@MAJTOURE) December 17, 2020
While I think Maj is being a little hyperbolic there (FDR signed the National Firearms Act into existence, Johnson approved the Gun Control Act of 1968, and Bill Clinton gave us a decade-long gun and magazine ban, for starters), Trump’s support among gun owners will absolutely take a yuge hit if he allows the ATF to impose these rules on gun owners. That would not only hurt a prospective 2024 run, but would hurt son Donald Trump, Jr.’s credibility with gun owners as well.
Remember, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the idea of Don Jr. taking over as head of the NRA was being floated around Washington, D.C., and there’s already talk of him running for office in the next couple of years. The younger Trump has done quite a bit to court pro-Second Amendment support, but if his dad doesn’t even lift a finger to stop the ATF’s power play then the courtship is going to end with Don Jr. being left at the altar (or the ballot box).
My hope is that the president will do all he can to reign in the ATF in its attack on pistol stabilizing braces, and if you’d like to encourage him to do so you can contact the White House, Department of Justice, and your members of Congress here. Be polite, be civil, be encouraging, but be clear: the ATF’s proposed rules on pistol stabilizing braces need to be reversed ASAP.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--DeWine Doesn't Want "Stand Your Ground" Without His Reforms

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is a little odd in this country .
He ’ s a Republican governor who has been beating a gun control drum for a while now .
Granted , that drum started after a mass shooting in his state and is a likely response to the outcry that inevitably follows such an event , but he ’ s continued to beat it none the less .
Meanwhile , lawmakers in his state have expressed zero interest in passing the STRONG Ohio package DeWine has pushed for .
In fairness , it ’ s about useless in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask–it ’ s too little for the anti-gunners , too much for the pro-Second Amendment crowd–so that ’ s not overly surprising .
Instead , lawmakers are considering changing the state law to remove the duty to retreat , making Ohio a Stand Your Ground state .
It seems that DeWine has an issue with that .
Gov .
Mike DeWine said Wednesday that state lawmakers should not send him bills loosening restrictions on guns at a time when they ’ ve refused to pass reforms he proposed in the wake of last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he stopped short of using the word “ veto.
” “ I ’ ve made it very clear that we can ’ t be looking at other gun bills until we take some action on some of the things I ’ ve proposed , ” the Republican governor said in an interview with The Blade .
He said he still holds out hope that proposed “ stand your ground ” legislation and other bills sought by gun-rights supporters might include some of what he has proposed , particularly increased penalties for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they are legally forbidden to have one .
“ I ’ ve set the priorities , ” Mr. DeWine said .
“ My experience in any lame-duck session is that stuff does happen at the last minute sometimes… .
We ’ ll see .
Got to remain optimistic.
” Both the House of Representatives and Senate have variations on “ stand your ground ” bills positioned for potential votes Thursday , possibly the lame-duck session ’ s last day .
They would expand scenarios in which a person could use a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first try to retreat from the situation .
Except , DeWine needs to remember that lawmakers don ’ t answer to him .
They answer to their constituents .
If those constituents want a Stand Your Ground law , then the lawmakers are going to pass it .
Since many of those constituents also elected DeWine , he might want to think about that .
Then again , I suspect he has .
That ’ s why he didn ’ t outright threaten a veto of a Stand Your Ground measure .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
Assuming , of course , he hasn ’ t already committed it with this Quixotic quest to pass a gun control package pretty much no one wants .
Of course , then the question becomes what will he do if the legislature does pass Stand Your Ground without his gun control proposals .
Will DeWine veto it ?
Does he see his push as a futile gesture and accept that ?
Is he making public noises when privately he ’ s a little relieved that STRONG Ohio hasn ’ t passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals will accomplish all that he promises ?
Honestly , I don ’ t know , but it ’ s something that bears watching .
I guess we ’ ll find out soon enough .

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is a little odd in this country. He’s a Republican governor who has been beating a gun control drum for a while now. Granted, that drum started after a mass shooting in his state and is a likely response to the outcry that inevitably follows such an event, but he’s continued to beat it none the less.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in his state have expressed zero interest in passing the STRONG Ohio package DeWine has pushed for. In fairness, it’s about useless in any appreciable way regardless of who you ask–it’s too little for the anti-gunners, too much for the pro-Second Amendment crowd–so that’s not overly surprising.
Instead, lawmakers are considering changing the state law to remove the duty to retreat, making Ohio a Stand Your Ground state.
It seems that DeWine has an issue with that.
Gov. Mike DeWine said Wednesday that state lawmakers should not send him bills loosening restrictions on guns at a time when they’ve refused to pass reforms he proposed in the wake of last year’s mass shooting in Dayton. But he stopped short of using the word “veto.” “I’ve made it very clear that we can’t be looking at other gun bills until we take some action on some of the things I’ve proposed,” the Republican governor said in an interview with The Blade. He said he still holds out hope that proposed “stand your ground” legislation and other bills sought by gun-rights supporters might include some of what he has proposed, particularly increased penalties for those who use or possess a gun when they are legally forbidden to have one. “I’ve set the priorities,” Mr. DeWine said. “My experience in any lame-duck session is that stuff does happen at the last minute sometimes…. We’ll see. Got to remain optimistic.” Both the House of Representatives and Senate have variations on “stand your ground” bills positioned for potential votes Thursday, possibly the lame-duck session’s last day. They would expand scenarios in which a person could use a gun in self-defense without a legal duty to first try to retreat from the situation.
Except, DeWine needs to remember that lawmakers don’t answer to him. They answer to their constituents. If those constituents want a Stand Your Ground law, then the lawmakers are going to pass it.
Since many of those constituents also elected DeWine, he might want to think about that.
Then again, I suspect he has. That’s why he didn’t outright threaten a veto of a Stand Your Ground measure. That might just mean political suicide, after all. Assuming, of course, he hasn’t already committed it with this Quixotic quest to pass a gun control package pretty much no one wants.
Of course, then the question becomes what will he do if the legislature does pass Stand Your Ground without his gun control proposals. Will DeWine veto it? Does he see his push as a futile gesture and accept that? Is he making public noises when privately he’s a little relieved that STRONG Ohio hasn’t passed? Or does he really think his proposals will accomplish all that he promises?
Honestly, I don’t know, but it’s something that bears watching. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--Lobbying Firm With Ties To GOP Hired By Bloomberg's Anti-Gun Group

A South Carolina lobbying firm with extensive ties to the GOP has a new client that ’ s raising some eyebrows .
The Southern Group has signed Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety as a client , leading some conservatives in the state to cry foul .
As local website FITSNews reports , the lobbying firm employs several individuals with extensive ties to the Republican party , including a former special assistant to then-Senator Rick Santorum , a former Republican state representative , and a former advisor to George H.W .
Bush , George W. Bush , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would appear to be an odd client for the firm to take on , given the conservative leanings of several staffers and the fact that South Carolina has a strong pro-2A majority in both chambers of the state legislature .
FITS suggests that the Southern Group may be engaged in an effort to undermine or undo the state ’ s firearm preemption laws that prohibit localities from passing and enforcing their own gun control ordinances .
Regular readers of this news outlet will recall this group – founded by failed presidential candidate Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts by politicians like liberal Columbia , S.C. mayor Steve Benjamin to impose unconstitutional firearm restrictions on residents of the Palmetto State capital .
And to flout legislative authority in the process … n passing these unconstitutional anti-gun ordinances , Benjamin is not only attempting to usurp Americans ’ Second Amendment right to “ keep and bear arms ” – he is defying a state law that reserves unto the S.C. General Assembly the right to regulate firearms in South Carolina .
S.C. Code of Laws ( § 23-31-510 ) explicitly prohibits municipalities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate … the transfer , ownership , possession , carrying , or transportation of firearms , ammunition , components of firearms , or any combination of these things.
” Cut and dried , right ?
Not to Benjamin and the gun-grabbers , apparently … Benjamin ’ s repeated attempts circumvent this law forced S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson to sue Benjamin earlier this year .
Will he win that case ?
Absolutely … Unless , of course , Southern ’ s lobbyists are able to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case is heard .
That would appear to be an unlikely proposition , given the gains that Republicans made in both the state House and Senate in November .
Still , if you ’ re Michael Bloomberg and you ’ ve got an unlimited amount of money to spend on your anti-gun zealotry , why not throw a few bucks into lobbying Republicans in South Carolina to change the state ’ s preemption law ?
I can ’ t help but wonder , however , if the Southern Group ’ s willingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will hurt the firm ’ s reputation among conservatives in the state .
It ’ s one thing to take corporate cash from entities like Verizon and Duke Energy .
It ’ s another to pocket cash from the country ’ s biggest gun control advocate .
My guess is that any attempts to undo the state ’ s preemption language is dead on arrival in the state legislature , but we ’ ll be keeping a close eye on the upcoming legislative session and any inroads Bloomberg might make with South Carolina @ @

A South Carolina lobbying firm with extensive ties to the GOP has a new client that’s raising some eyebrows. The Southern Group has signed Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety as a client, leading some conservatives in the state to cry foul.
As local website FITSNews reports, the lobbying firm employs several individuals with extensive ties to the Republican party, including a former special assistant to then-Senator Rick Santorum, a former Republican state representative, and a former advisor to George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
Everytown for Gun Safety would appear to be an odd client for the firm to take on, given the conservative leanings of several staffers and the fact that South Carolina has a strong pro-2A majority in both chambers of the state legislature. FITS suggests that the Southern Group may be engaged in an effort to undermine or undo the state’s firearm preemption laws that prohibit localities from passing and enforcing their own gun control ordinances.
Regular readers of this news outlet will recall this group – founded by failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg – is the driving force behind attempts by politicians like liberal Columbia, S.C. mayor Steve Benjamin to impose unconstitutional firearm restrictions on residents of the Palmetto State capital. And to flout legislative authority in the process … n passing these unconstitutional anti-gun ordinances, Benjamin is not only attempting to usurp Americans’ Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” – he is defying a state law that reserves unto the S.C. General Assembly the right to regulate firearms in South Carolina. S.C. Code of Laws (§ 23-31-510) explicitly prohibits municipalities in the Palmetto State from passing “any ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate … the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things.” Cut and dried, right? Not to Benjamin and the gun-grabbers, apparently … Benjamin’s repeated attempts circumvent this law forced S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson to sue Benjamin earlier this year. Will he win that case? Absolutely … Unless, of course, Southern’s lobbyists are able to convince state lawmakers to change this law before the case is heard.
That would appear to be an unlikely proposition, given the gains that Republicans made in both the state House and Senate in November. Still, if you’re Michael Bloomberg and you’ve got an unlimited amount of money to spend on your anti-gun zealotry, why not throw a few bucks into lobbying Republicans in South Carolina to change the state’s preemption law?
I can’t help but wonder, however, if the Southern Group’s willingness to work with anti-gun groups like Everytown will hurt the firm’s reputation among conservatives in the state. It’s one thing to take corporate cash from entities like Verizon and Duke Energy. It’s another to pocket cash from the country’s biggest gun control advocate.
My guess is that any attempts to undo the state’s preemption language is dead on arrival in the state legislature, but we’ll be keeping a close eye on the upcoming legislative session and any inroads Bloomberg might make with South Carolina lawmakers.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--Anti-Gunners Spend Big For Warnock In GA Senate Runoff

As the Georgia runoff election continues to chug along , a lot of eyes are turning to my home state to take a gander .
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic , the runoff election is one of the most important elections in history .
After all , the fate of the Senate hangs in the balance .
Let ’ s be honest here , gun control groups as well as gun rights groups are going to be paying close attention to this race .
After all , while President-elect Biden may want to pass gun control , he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All the GOP needs is a single win in Georgia to hold on to that chamber .
And some anti-gunners are willing to spend big in at least one of those two races .
One of the country ’ s leading gun-control groups has entered the Georgia Senate runoffs with a six-figure buy against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler .
Brady PAC is running a 30-second ad on television in the state after making a $ 100,000 purchase , according to Federal Election Commission filings .
The ad attacks Sen. Loeffler ’ s record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the first significant spending by any gun-control group in the runoffs .
Its focus on Second Amendment issues represents a turnaround from the non-gun ads Brady had run in the 2020 general election .
The groups have remained largely absent from the Georgia races even though the outcome will decide which party controls the Senate for the next two years .
If Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff defeat both Republican incumbents and take control of the legislative body , the gun bans and other measures favored by President-elect Joe Biden ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law than if Republicans retain control .
Now , for most Bearing Arms readers , we already knew the stakes of these races .
You follow Second Amendment-related politics and didn ’ t need to be reminded .
These two races are absolutely vital for the defense of gun rights .
Yet , for Brady to spend this money , it must be confident that going back to its anti-gun roots will work .
Is Brady right ?
Well , it doesn ’ t look that way .
Political observers in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priority for many GOP voters .
“ Gun rights and gun control are perennially at the top of the political agenda in the state of Georgia , ” Timothy Lytton , a Georgia State University professor who has written about gun politics in the state , told the Washington Free Beacon .
“ Gun rights is as strong a motivator issue in Georgia as there is.
” David Mustard , a University of Georgia professor whose research on gun issues has been published in academic journals , told the Free Beacon the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact it has one of the highest percentages of adults with gun-carry permits in the nation .
“ I would think that the gun-control issue would , to the extent that it ’ s discussed , help generate Republican turnout more than Democrat , ” he said .
As a Georgia resident , that ’ s my observation as well .
We ’ re a very pro-gun state and have been for quite some time .
That doesn ’ t seem to have changed very much , regardless of what the election outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run such an ad when it hasn ’ t pretty much anywhere else during this election cycle ?
That ’ s a good question , but my guess is that it believes since the state went for Biden , the organization can motivate anti-gunners in the state to get out to vote and that it would make a difference .
The thing is , Atlanta ’ s already going to vote for Warnock , and that ’ s where you ’ re going to find most of your anti-gun voters in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it being a big winner .
But , on the same token , if it ’ ll motivate pro-gun voters to get out there , then I hope Brady spends even more money between now and when voting ends .

As the Georgia runoff election continues to chug along, a lot of eyes are turning to my home state to take a gander. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, the runoff election is one of the most important elections in history. After all, the fate of the Senate hangs in the balance.
Let’s be honest here, gun control groups as well as gun rights groups are going to be paying close attention to this race. After all, while President-elect Biden may want to pass gun control, he can’t without a complicit Senate. All the GOP needs is a single win in Georgia to hold on to that chamber.
And some anti-gunners are willing to spend big in at least one of those two races.
One of the country’s leading gun-control groups has entered the Georgia Senate runoffs with a six-figure buy against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Brady PAC is running a 30-second ad on television in the state after making a $100,000 purchase, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The ad attacks Sen. Loeffler’s record of supporting pro-gun legislation. … The ad is the first significant spending by any gun-control group in the runoffs. Its focus on Second Amendment issues represents a turnaround from the non-gun ads Brady had run in the 2020 general election. The groups have remained largely absent from the Georgia races even though the outcome will decide which party controls the Senate for the next two years. If Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff defeat both Republican incumbents and take control of the legislative body, the gun bans and other measures favored by President-elect Joe Biden (D.) are more likely to become law than if Republicans retain control.
Now, for most Bearing Arms readers, we already knew the stakes of these races. You follow Second Amendment-related politics and didn’t need to be reminded. These two races are absolutely vital for the defense of gun rights.
Yet, for Brady to spend this money, it must be confident that going back to its anti-gun roots will work.
Is Brady right? Well, it doesn’t look that way.
Political observers in the state say Second Amendment issues are a high priority for many GOP voters. “Gun rights and gun control are perennially at the top of the political agenda in the state of Georgia,” Timothy Lytton, a Georgia State University professor who has written about gun politics in the state, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Gun rights is as strong a motivator issue in Georgia as there is.” David Mustard, a University of Georgia professor whose research on gun issues has been published in academic journals, told the Free Beacon the state is very gun-friendly and pointed to the fact it has one of the highest percentages of adults with gun-carry permits in the nation. “I would think that the gun-control issue would, to the extent that it’s discussed, help generate Republican turnout more than Democrat,” he said.
As a Georgia resident, that’s my observation as well. We’re a very pro-gun state and have been for quite some time. That doesn’t seem to have changed very much, regardless of what the election outcome might suggest.
So why would Brady run such an ad when it hasn’t pretty much anywhere else during this election cycle?
That’s a good question, but my guess is that it believes since the state went for Biden, the organization can motivate anti-gunners in the state to get out to vote and that it would make a difference.
The thing is, Atlanta’s already going to vote for Warnock, and that’s where you’re going to find most of your anti-gun voters in the state anyway, so I don’t see it being a big winner.
But, on the same token, if it’ll motivate pro-gun voters to get out there, then I hope Brady spends even more money between now and when voting ends.


bearingarms--2020-12-17--No Charges For Protester Who Pointed Gun At Motorist

A 34-year old woman who pointed a gun at a motorist during a Louisville protest back in September will not face any charges in the incident after a grand jury declined to indict the demonstrator .
Robin Ash had claimed that she pulled her gun in self-defense when the driver flashed his own gun , and the grand jurors couldn ’ t find enough evidence to contradict her story .
Louisville police spokesperson Lamont Washington said at the time the motorist was the victim , and the driver wasn ’ t taken into custody .
But others at the scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several people .
A silent aerial video released on the LMPD ’ s Facebook page showed a car stop in the street by the protesters , and several people walk up to the vehicle .
After several seconds , a woman ran toward the car and points what appears to be a handgun three times at the vehicle .
Members of the crowd ushered her away , and several seconds later she appeared to hand the object to someone else walking on the street .
Another person in the crowd was seen kicking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to create distance between the driver and the people in the street .
As we reported at the time , another video taken by a protester at the scene showed the man get out of his car after the kick to his vehicle and briefly display a handgun at the protesters crowding around him before he got back in his vehicle and drove away .
According to Commonwealth Attorney Tom Wine , who presented the case to the grand jury , he recommended that Ash not be charged with wanton endangerment because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims of self-protection and protection of others beyond a reasonable doubt.
” Ash was also originally facing charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon , but Wine says that the woman received a full pardon from then-governor Steve Beshear in 2015 , despite previous reports that Beshear ’ s pardon didn ’ t restore her right to keep and bear arms .
According to local TV station WDRB , Wine on Wednesday released documents showing that Beshear had issued a full pardon to Ash , contradicting those earlier reports about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to keep and bear arms .
I ’ m curious why this information is just now coming out , given that Ash was arrested back in September and her pardon was reported by the media a short time later .
Ultimately , this was a case about self-defense ; both for the motorist ( who was never facing charges ) as well as for Ash .
Could prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either individual drew their firearm in self-defense as opposed to brandishing their weapons offensively ?
Based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The outcome of the case may not satisfy protesters who wanted to see the driver charged or those who wanted to see Ash hauled into court , but if nothing else Second Amendment supporters can take some solace in the fact that Kentucky ’ s laws regarding self-defense aren ’ t being ignored by prosecutors in Louisville .

A 34-year old woman who pointed a gun at a motorist during a Louisville protest back in September will not face any charges in the incident after a grand jury declined to indict the demonstrator. Robin Ash had claimed that she pulled her gun in self-defense when the driver flashed his own gun, and the grand jurors couldn’t find enough evidence to contradict her story.
Louisville police spokesperson Lamont Washington said at the time the motorist was the victim, and the driver wasn’t taken into custody. But others at the scene reported he pointed his gun toward at several people. A silent aerial video released on the LMPD’s Facebook page showed a car stop in the street by the protesters, and several people walk up to the vehicle. After several seconds, a woman ran toward the car and points what appears to be a handgun three times at the vehicle. Members of the crowd ushered her away, and several seconds later she appeared to hand the object to someone else walking on the street. Another person in the crowd was seen kicking the rear of the car as others try to create distance between the driver and the people in the street.
As we reported at the time, another video taken by a protester at the scene showed the man get out of his car after the kick to his vehicle and briefly display a handgun at the protesters crowding around him before he got back in his vehicle and drove away. According to Commonwealth Attorney Tom Wine, who presented the case to the grand jury, he recommended that Ash not be charged with wanton endangerment because “there was insufficient evidence to rebut claims of self-protection and protection of others beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Ash was also originally facing charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but Wine says that the woman received a full pardon from then-governor Steve Beshear in 2015, despite previous reports that Beshear’s pardon didn’t restore her right to keep and bear arms.
Robin Ash, the woman arrested by the Louisville Metro Police Department and charged with wanton endangerment, criminal mischief and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, was previously charged with burglary in the third degree and unlawful taking over $500 but less than $10,000 according to state records. She served two years at the Bullitt County Detention Center, according to the documents. Beshear signed the pardon restoring her civil rights to vote and hold public office in November of 2015. The pardon document states the order does not allow Ash, whose last name is stated as Crandal in the documents, to possess a gun.
According to local TV station WDRB, Wine on Wednesday released documents showing that Beshear had issued a full pardon to Ash, contradicting those earlier reports about the pardon document and Ash’s right to keep and bear arms. I’m curious why this information is just now coming out, given that Ash was arrested back in September and her pardon was reported by the media a short time later.
Ultimately, this was a case about self-defense; both for the motorist (who was never facing charges) as well as for Ash. Could prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either individual drew their firearm in self-defense as opposed to brandishing their weapons offensively? Based on the evidence, that seems highly unlikely. The outcome of the case may not satisfy protesters who wanted to see the driver charged or those who wanted to see Ash hauled into court, but if nothing else Second Amendment supporters can take some solace in the fact that Kentucky’s laws regarding self-defense aren’t being ignored by prosecutors in Louisville.