bearingarms--2020-01-24--VA Dems Take Aim At Firearms Preemption Law

A Virginia House committee is set to hear a number of gun bills on Friday , and the worst appears to be HB 421 , which would absolutely gut the state ’ s firearms preemption laws and allow localities to set their own laws regarding the possession , carrying , storing , and transportation of firearms and ammunition .
Right now , the state legislature sets a uniform law across the commonwealth , but if HB 421 becomes law , we would immediately see D.C. suburbs like Alexandria and Arlington adopt restrictive local policies aimed squarely at legal gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one direction .
If a city wants to pass more restrictive local gun laws , that would be allowed under HB 421 .
If , on the other hand , a county decided to become a permitless carry county , you know darn well that the state would try to step in and quash the move .
This attack on firearms preemption laws is nothing new , nor is it limited to Virginia .
Michael Bloomberg ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety has been involved in multiple attempts to undo firearms preemption laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own local gun control ordinances in violation of state law , including in Pittsburgh , where a judge tossed three local laws approved by Mayor Bill Peduto ( the case is now on appeal ) .
The idea here is twofold : first , by removing firearms preemption laws , gun control advocates can work in deep blue cities to pass the most restrictive laws possible ( think New York City-style gun laws ) .
Secondly , the proliferation of gun control laws at the local level becomes very expensive to fight in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be largely backed by billionaires , but the Second Amendment movement doesn ’ t have a Michael Bloomberg to fund endless litigation from his vast fortune .
The Virginia State Senate has already passed its own measure that would gut the state ’ s firearms preemption law , but the House version is even worse .
SB 35 would allow localities to ban firearms at permitted events , as well as on government-owned property , in addition to allowing localities to sue firearms manufacturers .
HB 421 does all that and more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if the House bill emerges from committee without changes to bring it more in line the Senate bill .
One notable bill is not on the agenda for Friday ’ s House Public Safety Committee meeting ; HB 961 , which bans so-called “ assault firearms , ” magazines that can accept more than 10-rounds , and all legally owned suppressors .
The bill has the backing of Governor Ralph Northam , but several Democrat state senators have said that while they support a so-called “ assault weapons ban ” in theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current language .
The fact that the bill is being held back in committee may be a sign that the legislation is in some trouble in the House as well , at least in its current form .
I suspect we ’ ll soon see a re-worded and re-worked bill emerge from the committee in the not-too-distant future , but it won ’ t be on Friday .
I ’ m heading back from SHOT Show today so my posting here on Bearing Arms will likely be fairly light ( unless I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers in-flight WiFi ) , but I ’ ll have more from SHOT over the weekend once I get home .
In the meantime , before I board my flight I ’ m sending an email to my House delegate , urging him to oppose HB 421 and all other bills that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms , and I encourage every Virginia gun owner to do the same .
Even if you think the outcome is already pre-determined , let them know that you ’ re paying attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll remember come 2021 .

A Virginia House committee is set to hear a number of gun bills on Friday, and the worst appears to be HB 421, which would absolutely gut the state’s firearms preemption laws and allow localities to set their own laws regarding the possession, carrying, storing, and transportation of firearms and ammunition.
Right now, the state legislature sets a uniform law across the commonwealth, but if HB 421 becomes law, we would immediately see D.C. suburbs like Alexandria and Arlington adopt restrictive local policies aimed squarely at legal gun owners.
Of course this only works in one direction. If a city wants to pass more restrictive local gun laws, that would be allowed under HB 421. If, on the other hand, a county decided to become a permitless carry county, you know darn well that the state would try to step in and quash the move.
This attack on firearms preemption laws is nothing new, nor is it limited to Virginia. Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has been involved in multiple attempts to undo firearms preemption laws by defending cities that have passed their own local gun control ordinances in violation of state law, including in Pittsburgh, where a judge tossed three local laws approved by Mayor Bill Peduto (the case is now on appeal).
The idea here is twofold: first, by removing firearms preemption laws, gun control advocates can work in deep blue cities to pass the most restrictive laws possible (think New York City-style gun laws). Secondly, the proliferation of gun control laws at the local level becomes very expensive to fight in court. The gun control movement may be largely backed by billionaires, but the Second Amendment movement doesn’t have a Michael Bloomberg to fund endless litigation from his vast fortune.
The Virginia State Senate has already passed its own measure that would gut the state’s firearms preemption law, but the House version is even worse. SB 35 would allow localities to ban firearms at permitted events, as well as on government-owned property, in addition to allowing localities to sue firearms manufacturers. HB 421 does all that and more, and it’ll be interesting to see if the House bill emerges from committee without changes to bring it more in line the Senate bill.
One notable bill is not on the agenda for Friday’s House Public Safety Committee meeting; HB 961, which bans so-called “assault firearms,” magazines that can accept more than 10-rounds, and all legally owned suppressors. The bill has the backing of Governor Ralph Northam, but several Democrat state senators have said that while they support a so-called “assault weapons ban” in theory, they don’t approve of the current language.
The fact that the bill is being held back in committee may be a sign that the legislation is in some trouble in the House as well, at least in its current form. I suspect we’ll soon see a re-worded and re-worked bill emerge from the committee in the not-too-distant future, but it won’t be on Friday.
I’m heading back from SHOT Show today so my posting here on Bearing Arms will likely be fairly light (unless I luck out and get a plane that offers in-flight WiFi), but I’ll have more from SHOT over the weekend once I get home. In the meantime, before I board my flight I’m sending an email to my House delegate, urging him to oppose HB 421 and all other bills that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, and I encourage every Virginia gun owner to do the same. Even if you think the outcome is already pre-determined, let them know that you’re paying attention to how they’re voting and you’ll remember come 2021.


bearingarms--2020-01-24--Whether She Meant To Or Not, GQ Writer Proves Guns Prevent Violence

Ever since it became clear that Donald Trump had a shot at the White House , we ’ ve seen violence pop up all over the place .
Riots abounded , and not just over Trump .
Students a Berkeley famously rioted when Milo Yiannapolis was scheduled to speak .
Another riot popped up in Berkeley over a free speech rally .
Even right-leaning protests have developed a habit of turning violent as leftist counter-protestors descend and begin starting crap .
We ’ ve seen it time and time again , particularly anywhere Patriot Prayer tries to go .
Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in Richmond , Virginia .
Many of them armed and lawfully carrying firearms .
There was no violence .
Yet over at GQ , writer Talia Lavin argued that to call the protest peaceful was a misnomer .
She argued that it was anything but peaceful .
However , she also inadvertently argued that guns actually prevent violence , too .
On Monday , itself the sea of armed men kept the city in a kind of artificial stillness—not safety but fear .
There is a difference between peace that consists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace of being held under threat .
One may be silent when held at gunpoint , but it is not the silence of contentment ; it is the silence of mortal terror .
Reporter friends who planned to attend the event went in with a sense of dread , a war-zone fatalism at what might happen .
Molly Conger , a Virginia-based leftist activist and citizen journalist , told me that she had cautioned other activists to stay far from the capital and avoid counterprotest .
She attended , she told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event , rather than to protest it .
“ I still think it was the right thing to do , ” she told me Tuesday , of her decision to warn other activists away .
“ I would be distraught if I had the power to keep people away and didn ’ t and they died in a mass shooting.
” At the event , she said , “ the crowd was so thick I got knocked in the face and chest with rifle barrels.
” In other words , the left-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t show up to start any violence because their preferred targets had weapons .
Lavin goes to great pains to point out all the people who were actually afraid , and I ’ m going to go on record as saying that ’ s a damn shame .
No one should be afraid of law-abiding people exercising their constitutional rights .
No one at all .
Yet what is the purpose of Antifa showing up to counterprotest ?
Why do they come , with their black clothing and black masks ?
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric and improvised weapons ?
They show up with the intent to intimidate their opponents into silence .
No , people shouldn ’ t feel scared to speak , but in this case , that ’ s on Lavin and her buddies in the mainstream media , not on the protesters in Richmond .
No one who went to Richmond cared anything about silencing the opposition .
They went to make their voices heard .
In fact , they shouted down anyone who espoused violent rhetoric .
Lavin decries the fear that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her fellow mainstream media commentators instilled in these people , and then somehow pretends that our brothers and sisters are somehow responsible for that fear .
Well , maybe we were , but not in the way Lavin describes .
There was no violence .
If the prevalence of guns made violence more likely , the sheer number of firearms openly carried in Richmond should have made violence inevitable .
Yet there wasn ’ t any .
That ’ s because , as noted before , the counterprotesters who typically start the violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t there because they knew they wouldn ’ t find easy prey .
They knew there was finally a group that wouldn ’ t be intimidated by baseball bats and other clubs .
Lavin acknowledges that it was fear of being shot that kept them away .
She won ’ t acknowledge that that was why there wasn ’ t any violence , of course , but what do you expect from a writer for GQ ?

Ever since it became clear that Donald Trump had a shot at the White House, we’ve seen violence pop up all over the place. Riots abounded, and not just over Trump. Students a Berkeley famously rioted when Milo Yiannapolis was scheduled to speak. Another riot popped up in Berkeley over a free speech rally.
Even right-leaning protests have developed a habit of turning violent as leftist counter-protestors descend and begin starting crap. We’ve seen it time and time again, particularly anywhere Patriot Prayer tries to go.
Monday, thousands of gun rights activists showed up in Richmond, Virginia. Many of them armed and lawfully carrying firearms.
There was no violence.
Yet over at GQ, writer Talia Lavin argued that to call the protest peaceful was a misnomer. She argued that it was anything but peaceful.
However, she also inadvertently argued that guns actually prevent violence, too.
On Monday, itself the sea of armed men kept the city in a kind of artificial stillness—not safety but fear. There is a difference between peace that consists of calm and security, and the false peace of being held under threat. One may be silent when held at gunpoint, but it is not the silence of contentment; it is the silence of mortal terror. Reporter friends who planned to attend the event went in with a sense of dread, a war-zone fatalism at what might happen. Molly Conger, a Virginia-based leftist activist and citizen journalist, told me that she had cautioned other activists to stay far from the capital and avoid counterprotest. She attended, she told me, because she felt an obligation to document the event, rather than to protest it. “I still think it was the right thing to do,” she told me Tuesday, of her decision to warn other activists away. “I would be distraught if I had the power to keep people away and didn’t and they died in a mass shooting.” At the event, she said, “the crowd was so thick I got knocked in the face and chest with rifle barrels.”
In other words, the left-leaning counterprotesters that usually start the violence didn’t show up to start any violence because their preferred targets had weapons.
Lavin goes to great pains to point out all the people who were actually afraid, and I’m going to go on record as saying that’s a damn shame. No one should be afraid of law-abiding people exercising their constitutional rights. No one at all.
Yet what is the purpose of Antifa showing up to counterprotest? Why do they come, with their black clothing and black masks? Why do they come with their own violent rhetoric and improvised weapons?
They show up with the intent to intimidate their opponents into silence.
No, people shouldn’t feel scared to speak, but in this case, that’s on Lavin and her buddies in the mainstream media, not on the protesters in Richmond. No one who went to Richmond cared anything about silencing the opposition. They went to make their voices heard. In fact, they shouted down anyone who espoused violent rhetoric.
Lavin decries the fear that these people felt, fear that she and her fellow mainstream media commentators instilled in these people, and then somehow pretends that our brothers and sisters are somehow responsible for that fear.
Well, maybe we were, but not in the way Lavin describes.
There was no violence. If the prevalence of guns made violence more likely, the sheer number of firearms openly carried in Richmond should have made violence inevitable. Yet there wasn’t any.
That’s because, as noted before, the counterprotesters who typically start the violence weren’t there. They weren’t there because they knew they wouldn’t find easy prey. They knew there was finally a group that wouldn’t be intimidated by baseball bats and other clubs.
Lavin acknowledges that it was fear of being shot that kept them away. She won’t acknowledge that that was why there wasn’t any violence, of course, but what do you expect from a writer for GQ?


bearingarms--2020-01-25--Six More Gun Control Measures Advancing In VA House

With little debate and public testimony , the Virginia legislature ’ s House Public Safety Committee approved nearly a dozen gun control bills targeting six specific areas of legal gun ownership on Friday , sending the bills to the floor of the full House for passage .
While HB 961 , a sweeping gun , magazine , and suppressor ban wasn ’ t heard in the committee , Democrats did move forward with bills that would criminalize private transfers of firearms , punish gun owners who fail to report their firearms lost or stolen , gut the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hearing , NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortensen said the committee “ shamefully rubber-stamped the Bloomberg-Northam gun control scheme .
By blocking legislator ’ s questions and preventing constituents from speaking , today ’ s hearing was a disgrace to the democratic process .
Virginians deserve lawmakers who will hear testimony and conduct serious vetting of each bill — as the Senate Judiciary Committee did — before voting on measures that will strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless.
” Here ’ s a full list of the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday .
House Bill 2 and House Bill 335 are both “ universal background check ” bills that criminalize private transfers of firearms , with only a few exceptions .
Most common transfers between friends and neighbors are not exempted .
House Bill 9 is a “ lost or stolen ” bill that turns gun owners into criminals if they don ’ t report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours of discovering them missing by fining them .
Supposedly this is supposed to cut down on “ straw purchases , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been able to explain how , exactly , the bill would work in practice .
House Bill 421 allows local governments to enact their own gun control ordinances , which would likely result in restrictive and unconstitutional policies being adopted in northern Virginia and other Democrat strongholds of the state .
House Bill 72 , House Bill 463 , and House Bill 1083 , according to NRA , “ severely restrict parental decisions about firearms in the home while attaching excessive penalties for violations.
” Under these bills , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow their 16-year old to hunt on the family ’ s property without direct adult supervision , or for parents to allow their 17-year old daughter access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home along , no matter how much training the teens might have .
House Bill 674 is “ red flag ” legislation allowing the seizure of an individual ’ s firearms based on a low standard of review and without any opportunity for the subject of the Extreme Risk Protection Order to be present at the hearing or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story before the temporary order is issued .
House Bill 812 and House Bill 1502 are gun rationing bills that limit an individual ’ s ability to purchase a handgun to one every 30 days .
Unlike the state Senate , which has modified many of the gun bills to make them slightly less awful , the House Public Safety Committee offered up no changes to the bills it approved on Friday .
Meanwhile , Virginia ’ s Secretary of Public Safety , Brian Moran , says there ’ s still plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though clearly the bill is in some trouble in its current form .
It ’ s also clear , however , that Virginia Democrats want to send some form of an “ assault weapons ban ” to Governor Ralph Northam , so expect to see a re-worked or modified version of the bill brought up in committee in the next couple of weeks .

With little debate and public testimony, the Virginia legislature’s House Public Safety Committee approved nearly a dozen gun control bills targeting six specific areas of legal gun ownership on Friday, sending the bills to the floor of the full House for passage.
While HB 961, a sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban wasn’t heard in the committee, Democrats did move forward with bills that would criminalize private transfers of firearms, punish gun owners who fail to report their firearms lost or stolen, gut the state’s firearms preemption law and more.
After the hearing, NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortensen said the committee “shamefully rubber-stamped the Bloomberg-Northam gun control scheme. By blocking legislator’s questions and preventing constituents from speaking, today’s hearing was a disgrace to the democratic process. Virginians deserve lawmakers who will hear testimony and conduct serious vetting of each bill — as the Senate Judiciary Committee did — before voting on measures that will strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless.”
Here’s a full list of the gun control bills approved by the committee on Friday.
House Bill 2 and House Bill 335 are both “universal background check” bills that criminalize private transfers of firearms, with only a few exceptions. Most common transfers between friends and neighbors are not exempted.
House Bill 9 is a “lost or stolen” bill that turns gun owners into criminals if they don’t report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours of discovering them missing by fining them. Supposedly this is supposed to cut down on “straw purchases,” but lawmakers who support the measure haven’t been able to explain how, exactly, the bill would work in practice.
House Bill 421 allows local governments to enact their own gun control ordinances, which would likely result in restrictive and unconstitutional policies being adopted in northern Virginia and other Democrat strongholds of the state.
House Bill 72, House Bill 463, and House Bill 1083, according to NRA, “severely restrict parental decisions about firearms in the home while attaching excessive penalties for violations.” Under these bills, it would be a crime for a parent to allow their 16-year old to hunt on the family’s property without direct adult supervision, or for parents to allow their 17-year old daughter access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home along, no matter how much training the teens might have.
House Bill 674 is “red flag” legislation allowing the seizure of an individual’s firearms based on a low standard of review and without any opportunity for the subject of the Extreme Risk Protection Order to be present at the hearing or to offer their own side of the story before the temporary order is issued.
House Bill 812 and House Bill 1502 are gun rationing bills that limit an individual’s ability to purchase a handgun to one every 30 days.
Unlike the state Senate, which has modified many of the gun bills to make them slightly less awful, the House Public Safety Committee offered up no changes to the bills it approved on Friday.
It’s clear that the House is more interested in ramming through these bills without changes and very little discussion while the Senate is more interested in hearing from opponents and is willing to make some changes. — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) January 24, 2020
Meanwhile, Virginia’s Secretary of Public Safety, Brian Moran, says there’s still plenty of time for lawmakers to approve HB 961, though clearly the bill is in some trouble in its current form. It’s also clear, however, that Virginia Democrats want to send some form of an “assault weapons ban” to Governor Ralph Northam, so expect to see a re-worked or modified version of the bill brought up in committee in the next couple of weeks.


bearingarms--2020-01-25--FL House Speaker: Gun Control Not Welcome

Not just because of the meme of “ Florida Man , ” a meme that keeps being reinforced with a new headline seemingly every week of something bizarre taking place at the hands of someone from Florida .
No , it ’ s an interesting place because despite having a pro-gun reputation and a GOP-controlled government , they can get kind of weird about guns .
The aftermath of Parkland saw several new measures passed and now we have the attorney general making one of the most frightening arguments in defense of one of them possible .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State warns that gun control bills aren ’ t going to be warm in the Florida sun in his chamber .
An effort to close the so-called “ gun-show loophole ” that now allows the sale of firearms without background checks is not likely to win support in the Florida House .
A Senate committee has backed legislation that would require someone purchasing a weapon at a gun show involving a non-licensed dealer to undergo a background check .
The bill ( SB 7028 ) would also require more documentation of private gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The National Rifle Association has condemned the proposal , with the NRA ’ s top lobbyist in Tallahassee , Marion Hammer , calling it “ nothing less than gun control on steroids.
” But House Speaker Jose Oliva , a Miami-Dade County Republican , predicted Wednesday the measure is not likely to win favor in the more conservative-leaning House .
“ That is a proposal like so many others that probably will not move very far here in the House if at all , because that ’ s just the way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ultimately , that ’ s for the best .
First , the “ gun show loophole ” mentioned in the first paragraph is nothing more than a name the media made up to describe face-to-face transfers that have been legal in this country since forever .
All licensed gun dealers–you know , all those guys with booths full of guns at gun shows as well as the people in the stores–are required to conduct a background check prior to all sales .
The idea that gun shows facilitate sales to prohibited people is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background checks have been getting a big push .
It ’ s good to see that it ’ s unlikely that Floridians will get saddled with that particular bit of stupidity , a bit of stupidity that ignores completely how most criminals actually get their guns .
After Parkland , law-abiding gun owners were forced to watch as their state adopted some pretty stupid measures .
There ’ s no way they ’ re remotely interested in treading this ground all over again .
It sounds like the House feels the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll have to go through this all over again .
Maybe , if lawmakers want to do something that will reduce violence , they ’ ll start working on efforts that target the small handful of people who are responsible for violent crime in their state and not the law-abiding citizens who are the only ones who get impacted by gun control .

Florida is an interesting state.
Not just because of the meme of “Florida Man,” a meme that keeps being reinforced with a new headline seemingly every week of something bizarre taking place at the hands of someone from Florida.
No, it’s an interesting place because despite having a pro-gun reputation and a GOP-controlled government, they can get kind of weird about guns. The aftermath of Parkland saw several new measures passed and now we have the attorney general making one of the most frightening arguments in defense of one of them possible.
However, the speaker of the house in the Sunshine State warns that gun control bills aren’t going to be warm in the Florida sun in his chamber.
An effort to close the so-called “gun-show loophole” that now allows the sale of firearms without background checks is not likely to win support in the Florida House. A Senate committee has backed legislation that would require someone purchasing a weapon at a gun show involving a non-licensed dealer to undergo a background check. The bill (SB 7028) would also require more documentation of private gun sales not made at a gun show. The National Rifle Association has condemned the proposal, with the NRA’s top lobbyist in Tallahassee, Marion Hammer, calling it “nothing less than gun control on steroids.” … But House Speaker Jose Oliva, a Miami-Dade County Republican, predicted Wednesday the measure is not likely to win favor in the more conservative-leaning House. “That is a proposal like so many others that probably will not move very far here in the House if at all, because that’s just the way the chambers are,” Oliva said.
Ultimately, that’s for the best.
First, the “gun show loophole” mentioned in the first paragraph is nothing more than a name the media made up to describe face-to-face transfers that have been legal in this country since forever. All licensed gun dealers–you know, all those guys with booths full of guns at gun shows as well as the people in the stores–are required to conduct a background check prior to all sales. The idea that gun shows facilitate sales to prohibited people is a myth.
That said, universal background checks have been getting a big push. It’s good to see that it’s unlikely that Floridians will get saddled with that particular bit of stupidity, a bit of stupidity that ignores completely how most criminals actually get their guns.
After Parkland, law-abiding gun owners were forced to watch as their state adopted some pretty stupid measures. There’s no way they’re remotely interested in treading this ground all over again. It sounds like the House feels the same way, so it’s unlikely they’ll have to go through this all over again.
Maybe, if lawmakers want to do something that will reduce violence, they’ll start working on efforts that target the small handful of people who are responsible for violent crime in their state and not the law-abiding citizens who are the only ones who get impacted by gun control.


bearingarms--2020-01-26--Armed Citizen A "Hero", Say Victims Of Felony Assault

An armed citizen in Florida was in the right place at the right time to help a group of strangers in desperate need of a Good Samaritan .
According to WINK-TV , the group was hanging out at Rusty ’ s Bar in Cape Coral , Florida last Thursday when a man identified as Henry Lesniak , Jr. began buying them drinks .
Ashley Gallagher was there with her daugher-in-law Emily , and says the encounter turned from harmless to terrifying in the blink of an eye .
“ I think he was trying to hit on my daughter-in-law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , or whatever it was .
And I think when he realized that wasn ’ t going to happen , that ’ s when he said we were taking advantage of him by spending his money , ” Ashley said .
“ All of a sudden , like , ‘ boom , ’ he turned violent , angry , ” Emily said .
The group tried to leave and get in their car and that ’ s when , investigators say , Lesniak chased after them .
“ That ’ s when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honestly , like , he had no choice but to say , like , yes .
We kind of just screamed , ‘ help , ’ begging him to let us into his truck , ” Emily said .
Amir Rossi was the driver of the pickup truck .
He says he wasn ’ t sure what was happening when the women suddenly appeared by his truck shouting for help , but he quickly responded .
“ It just got heated and it got heated so quick , ” Rossi said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they jumped in my truck and they were just like , ‘ Go !
Go !
Go !
” And the next thing I know , this guy ’ s reaching in my car trying to grab me up and that ’ s when I got my firearm and at that point , he realized that I had a gun and he backed off the car and he disappeared.
” But the story doesn ’ t end there .
Police say Lesniak then rammed the good Samaritan ’ s truck several times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out his gun , fired several shots into the back of Lesniak ’ s truck and held him at gunpoint until police arrived .
Rossi says he ’ s no hero , and was just doing what he hopes others would do in the same situation , but the victims of Lesniak ’ s attempted assault beg to differ with Ashley Gallagher calling Rossi an “ amazing person ” and a hero who saved their lives .
Rossi is the “ average American ” who people like Mike Bloomberg think shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg thinks that right should be reserved for people like him who can afford to outsource their right of self-defense to armed security .
Thankfully , the Gallaghers were vacationing in a state where more than a million average Americans possess a concealed carry license and are equipped to help strangers in desperate need of protection .
If Mike Bloomberg and the gun control movement gets their way , however , armed citizens like Amir Rossi will be few and far between , and guys like Henry Lesniak , Jr. will have nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from those wealthy or powerful enough to afford their own private protection .

An armed citizen in Florida was in the right place at the right time to help a group of strangers in desperate need of a Good Samaritan. According to WINK-TV, the group was hanging out at Rusty’s Bar in Cape Coral, Florida last Thursday when a man identified as Henry Lesniak, Jr. began buying them drinks. Ashley Gallagher was there with her daugher-in-law Emily, and says the encounter turned from harmless to terrifying in the blink of an eye.
“I think he was trying to hit on my daughter-in-law and definitely get her to go home with him, or whatever it was. And I think when he realized that wasn’t going to happen, that’s when he said we were taking advantage of him by spending his money,” Ashley said. “All of a sudden, like, ‘boom,’ he turned violent, angry,” Emily said. The group tried to leave and get in their car and that’s when, investigators say, Lesniak chased after them. “That’s when we saw the white pickup truck and honestly, like, he had no choice but to say, like, yes. We kind of just screamed, ‘help,’ begging him to let us into his truck,” Emily said.
Amir Rossi was the driver of the pickup truck. He says he wasn’t sure what was happening when the women suddenly appeared by his truck shouting for help, but he quickly responded.
“It just got heated and it got heated so quick,” Rossi said. “They ran in front of my car, they jumped in my truck and they were just like, ‘Go! Go! Go!” And the next thing I know, this guy’s reaching in my car trying to grab me up and that’s when I got my firearm and at that point, he realized that I had a gun and he backed off the car and he disappeared.” But the story doesn’t end there. Police say Lesniak then rammed the good Samaritan’s truck several times. That’s when Rossi pulled out his gun, fired several shots into the back of Lesniak’s truck and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
Rossi says he’s no hero, and was just doing what he hopes others would do in the same situation, but the victims of Lesniak’s attempted assault beg to differ with Ashley Gallagher calling Rossi an “amazing person” and a hero who saved their lives.
Rossi is the “average American” who people like Mike Bloomberg think shouldn’t be carrying guns in public places. Bloomberg thinks that right should be reserved for people like him who can afford to outsource their right of self-defense to armed security. Thankfully, the Gallaghers were vacationing in a state where more than a million average Americans possess a concealed carry license and are equipped to help strangers in desperate need of protection. If Mike Bloomberg and the gun control movement gets their way, however, armed citizens like Amir Rossi will be few and far between, and guys like Henry Lesniak, Jr. will have nothing to fear as long as they stay away from those wealthy or powerful enough to afford their own private protection.


bearingarms--2020-01-26--Residents Respond To Mississippi "Red Flag" Bill

The sponsor of a “ red flag ” bill recently filed in Mississippi says his bill “ has no chance ” of becoming law , but many gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in the state aren ’ t taking any chances and are vocally objecting to the proposal .
SB 2055 would allow for a family member or law enforcement to file a request for an extreme risk protection order , and would require that law enforcement seize any firearms once an ex parte hearing has taken place .
Two weeks after that order has been granted , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally gets their day in court , and the individuals or law enforcement agency seeking the order must show by “ clear and convincing evidence ” that the individual poses a “ significant danger ” to themselves or others by possessing firearms .
The order , if granted , would last six months , but could be renewed every six months thereafter .
State Senator Robert Jackson , who filed the measure , says he ’ s been told by the chairman of the committee that will hear the bill that the legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers are already speaking out in opposition .
Shortly after SB-2055 was introduced , Dist .
37 Sen. Melanie Sojourner , R-Natchez , posted her opposition to the bill on social media .
“ Thank you to everyone who has reached out regarding the Democrat-authored Red Flag Law bill that has been introduced in the MS Senate , ” Sojourner wrote in a social media post on Jan. 20 .
“ My thoughts… ‘ From my cold dead hands !
’ Not today .
Not a chance .
This bill will not pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not today .
However , it is up to us to make sure it doesn ’ t become Virginia anytime in the near future.
” One Democrat who supports the idea , at least in theory , claims the bill could be viewed as a mental health measure .
Mississippi District 94 Rep. Robert Johnson , D-Natchez , said SB-2055 could be viewed as a mental health bill .
“ You can look at it as a gun control measure , but it is sort of a short cut to addressing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding he has not yet seen the bill .
“ It would seem to me that it would identify people who clearly have some mental health issues if their family members think you should be alarmed about what they are doing with guns.
” This bill has nothing to do with mental health .
The subject of the order doesn ’ t receive any mental health treatment , or even a screening by a mental health professional .
The words “ mental health ” only appears once in the legislation ; a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Mental Health develop a one page affidavit form that applicants would fill out as part of their red flag request .
The claim by supporters of red flag legislation that it ’ s a mental health measure is a common one , but in truth these bills are pure gun control measures , plain and simple .
They may be narrowly structured to remove the rights of individual gun owners , instead of banning firearms for an entire class of people , but that doesn ’ t make them mental health bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Sen. Sojourner told the Natchez Democrat newspaper .
“ I don ’ t support greater restrictions on the second amendment , ” Sojourner said .
“ I think constantly the mental health discussion is on the table .
What needs to be done there and what should be done there are discussions that will come forward that we will have but just to say that we are going to fix all of the mass crimes in this country and we are going to restrict the second amendment , I think is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed bill has already resulted in at least one county in the state declaring itself a “ safe haven ” for the Second Amendment .
Commissioners in DeSoto County recently approved a resolution after hearing from residents and at least one state representative .
Mississippi Rep. Dana Criswell , who presented a petition to the Desoto County Board of Supervisors asking for a vote on the resolution , said safe haven essentially means the same as sanctuary .
Criswell said several constituents came to him expressing concern after some counties in Virginia approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control measures in that state that some gun-rights advocates feel are unconstitutional .
He said Mississippi ’ s legislature is not considering similar gun-control measures , but that residents wanted to get ahead of the issue .
“ We just want to draw a line in the sand and say we ’ re never going to enforce something like this , ” Criswell said .
Criswell also said that we may soon see a similar effort in Alcorn County , and some efforts are underway in cities .
He said he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The red flag bill may not be going anywhere in Mississippi , but by the looks of things , the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is taking off thanks to the efforts of pro-gun control legislators .

The sponsor of a “red flag” bill recently filed in Mississippi says his bill “has no chance” of becoming law, but many gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in the state aren’t taking any chances and are vocally objecting to the proposal.
SB 2055 would allow for a family member or law enforcement to file a request for an extreme risk protection order, and would require that law enforcement seize any firearms once an ex parte hearing has taken place. Two weeks after that order has been granted, the individual subject to the red flag order finally gets their day in court, and the individuals or law enforcement agency seeking the order must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the individual poses a “significant danger” to themselves or others by possessing firearms. The order, if granted, would last six months, but could be renewed every six months thereafter.
State Senator Robert Jackson, who filed the measure, says he’s been told by the chairman of the committee that will hear the bill that the legislation has no chance, and many Republican lawmakers are already speaking out in opposition.
Shortly after SB-2055 was introduced, Dist. 37 Sen. Melanie Sojourner, R-Natchez, posted her opposition to the bill on social media. “Thank you to everyone who has reached out regarding the Democrat-authored Red Flag Law bill that has been introduced in the MS Senate,” Sojourner wrote in a social media post on Jan. 20. “My thoughts… ‘From my cold dead hands!’ Not today. Not a chance. This bill will not pass in Mississippi. Mississippi is NOT Virginia. Not today. However, it is up to us to make sure it doesn’t become Virginia anytime in the near future.”
One Democrat who supports the idea, at least in theory, claims the bill could be viewed as a mental health measure.
Mississippi District 94 Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Natchez, said SB-2055 could be viewed as a mental health bill. “You can look at it as a gun control measure, but it is sort of a short cut to addressing some mental health issues,” Johnson said, adding he has not yet seen the bill. “It would seem to me that it would identify people who clearly have some mental health issues if their family members think you should be alarmed about what they are doing with guns.”
This bill has nothing to do with mental health. The subject of the order doesn’t receive any mental health treatment, or even a screening by a mental health professional. The words “mental health” only appears once in the legislation; a mandate that the state’s Department of Mental Health develop a one page affidavit form that applicants would fill out as part of their red flag request.
The claim by supporters of red flag legislation that it’s a mental health measure is a common one, but in truth these bills are pure gun control measures, plain and simple. They may be narrowly structured to remove the rights of individual gun owners, instead of banning firearms for an entire class of people, but that doesn’t make them mental health bills.
Mississippi gun owners understand the distinction, as Sen. Sojourner told the Natchez Democrat newspaper.
“I don’t support greater restrictions on the second amendment,” Sojourner said. “I think constantly the mental health discussion is on the table. What needs to be done there and what should be done there are discussions that will come forward that we will have but just to say that we are going to fix all of the mass crimes in this country and we are going to restrict the second amendment, I think is silly and a false premise.”
The proposed bill has already resulted in at least one county in the state declaring itself a “safe haven” for the Second Amendment. Commissioners in DeSoto County recently approved a resolution after hearing from residents and at least one state representative.
Mississippi Rep. Dana Criswell, who presented a petition to the Desoto County Board of Supervisors asking for a vote on the resolution, said safe haven essentially means the same as sanctuary. Criswell said several constituents came to him expressing concern after some counties in Virginia approved Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in response to gun control measures in that state that some gun-rights advocates feel are unconstitutional. He said Mississippi’s legislature is not considering similar gun-control measures, but that residents wanted to get ahead of the issue. “We just want to draw a line in the sand and say we’re never going to enforce something like this,” Criswell said. Criswell also said that we may soon see a similar effort in Alcorn County, and some efforts are underway in cities. He said he has put forth legislation that would apply statewide.
The red flag bill may not be going anywhere in Mississippi, but by the looks of things, the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is taking off thanks to the efforts of pro-gun control legislators.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--AZ Governor Heckled Over Gun Control Support

Perhaps the most pernicious thing about red flag laws is how many Republicans seem to be emboldened enough to back them .
It ’ s part of why I figure we ’ ll eventually be saddled with the measures .
After all , Democrats seem to love anything that restricts our gun rights , so we ’ re left counting on the GOP to protect those rights .
If Republicans cross sides on this , we ’ re screwed .
However , life shouldn ’ t be easy for Republicans who side with gun control , even things like red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doug Ducey is finding that out in a fairly awkward way .
At the 2020 State Committee of the Republican Party of Arizona meeting , pro-gun hecklers interrupted Gov .
Doug Ducey ’ s address , in opposition to the governor ’ s support of so-called ‘ red flag ’ laws .
The meeting , where officials from the Arizona Republican Party conduct official party business , had several hundred attendees from each precinct and district .
The list of speakers included Representatives David Schweikert , Paul Gosar , and Debbie Lesko , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Doug Ducey .
As the Governor began his address , at least a dozen protesters began chanting ‘ no red flags.
’ The Governor , who was visibly flustered , stopped speaking .
State Republican Party Charwoman Kelli Ward banged her gavel repeatedly until the chants subsided .
After Ward threatened to have the heckler ’ s removed if they continued to interrupt , Ducey claimed that Arizona was the most pro-gun state in the nation , and that wasn ’ t going to change .
That should be encouraging news since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to mean that Ducey was done with red flag laws .
However , I ’ m more skeptical than that .
I ’ ve seen too many people commit the mental contortions necessary to convince them that red flag laws don ’ t run afoul of gun rights , that it ’ s not even a gun rights issue , to rest easy .
I can ’ t accept that Ducey ’ s statement was a de facto denunciation of any red flag proposal .
That said , his previous attempt didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unlikely that a new measure would get much further .
It ’ s certainly possible that he won ’ t try again , not if he values his political capital .
The big question is whether this kind of behavior by gun rights proponents is particularly useful .
Sure , it seems to have forced Ducey into addressing gun rights , but does it ultimately help us win ?
That ’ s mostly a rhetorical question because I don ’ t know either way .
I suspect that it may work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Did it pressure Ducey into making a gun rights stand , or did it make it far easier for anti-gunners to dismiss gun rights supporters as , say , “ little kids ” ?
Look , we ’ re doing well by holding ground right now in this current political climate .
We need to evaluate our tactics and the tactics of our opponents so we can renew the fight in the most effective manner possible .
Our gun rights are far too important to go about this half-cocked ( pun fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difference toward the better ?
Toward the worse ?
Or does it make us feel better without accomplishing much of anything ?
These are questions we need to ask and to answer .

Perhaps the most pernicious thing about red flag laws is how many Republicans seem to be emboldened enough to back them. It’s part of why I figure we’ll eventually be saddled with the measures. After all, Democrats seem to love anything that restricts our gun rights, so we’re left counting on the GOP to protect those rights. If Republicans cross sides on this, we’re screwed.
However, life shouldn’t be easy for Republicans who side with gun control, even things like red flag laws.
It seems Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is finding that out in a fairly awkward way.
At the 2020 State Committee of the Republican Party of Arizona meeting, pro-gun hecklers interrupted Gov. Doug Ducey’s address, in opposition to the governor’s support of so-called ‘red flag’ laws. The meeting, where officials from the Arizona Republican Party conduct official party business, had several hundred attendees from each precinct and district. The list of speakers included Representatives David Schweikert, Paul Gosar, and Debbie Lesko, as well as Sen. Martha McSally and Governor Doug Ducey. As the Governor began his address, at least a dozen protesters began chanting ‘no red flags.’ The Governor, who was visibly flustered, stopped speaking. State Republican Party Charwoman Kelli Ward banged her gavel repeatedly until the chants subsided.
After Ward threatened to have the heckler’s removed if they continued to interrupt, Ducey claimed that Arizona was the most pro-gun state in the nation, and that wasn’t going to change.
That should be encouraging news since someone like you or me might interpret that to mean that Ducey was done with red flag laws.
However, I’m more skeptical than that.
I’ve seen too many people commit the mental contortions necessary to convince them that red flag laws don’t run afoul of gun rights, that it’s not even a gun rights issue, to rest easy. I can’t accept that Ducey’s statement was a de facto denunciation of any red flag proposal.
That said, his previous attempt didn’t go anywhere, and it’s unlikely that a new measure would get much further. It’s certainly possible that he won’t try again, not if he values his political capital.
The big question is whether this kind of behavior by gun rights proponents is particularly useful.
Sure, it seems to have forced Ducey into addressing gun rights, but does it ultimately help us win? That’s mostly a rhetorical question because I don’t know either way. I suspect that it may work in some cases, but not others. Did it pressure Ducey into making a gun rights stand, or did it make it far easier for anti-gunners to dismiss gun rights supporters as, say, “little kids”?
Look, we’re doing well by holding ground right now in this current political climate. We need to evaluate our tactics and the tactics of our opponents so we can renew the fight in the most effective manner possible. Our gun rights are far too important to go about this half-cocked (pun fully intended). Does heckling lawmakers make a difference toward the better? Toward the worse? Or does it make us feel better without accomplishing much of anything?
These are questions we need to ask and to answer.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Everytown Discovers The NRA Isn't Behind 2A Sanctuaries

Everytown for Gun Safety has been busy submitting Freedom of Information Act requests to dozens of Virginia counties over the past couple of months , hoping to find evidence that the National Rifle Association is behind the push for Second Amendment Sanctuaries .
The group specifically asked county administrators for any emails between county officials and the NRA , as well as the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other gun groups .
Clearly , Everytown and the gun control movement were hoping to prove that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is just a gimmick by “ the gun lobby ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconstitutional gun control bills proposed by Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam .
Well , guess what ?
As gun owners have been saying all along , the movement isn ’ t being directed by the NRA , and even the Washington Post can ’ t claim otherwise .
The paper , which received scores of emails obtained by Everytown , is now trying out a new narrative since the “ it ’ s just a ploy by the gun lobby ” argument can ’ t be sustained .
The movement may be organic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean that every official supports the movement .
Nobody has ever claimed that these resolutions somehow have the force of law .
They are resolutions , after all ( though a few counties have gone a step further and passed actual ordinances ) .
We ’ ve also known all along that there was some reluctance on the part of some county officials to get involved .
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is something new , and frankly , I know of quite a few county and local officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place to take a stand or were afraid of the repercussions from lawmakers .
So now the knock on the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is that it breeds confusion ?
I ’ d argue that it doesn ’ t come close to the confusion sown by Northam and his anti-gun allies in the legislature , who ’ ve proposed banning possession of all firearms deemed to be “ assault weapons ” ( before backing off in favor of a slightly modified bill that allows continued possession once you and your guns are registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned magazines and ammunition , and a host of other restrictions that have been modified and in some cases completely rewritten in committee hearings and on the floor of the House and Senate .
The Washington Post also enlists the help of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to try to rebut the argument that , because Virginia prosecutors have decided on their own not to enforce some of the state ’ s drug laws , prosecutors and sheriffs in Second Amendment Sanctuaries can use that same discretion not to enforce any unconstitutional gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure what bill Gomer ’ s referring to , but if Northam gets his way , we ’ re not going to be talking about “ unlicensed gun dealers ” ( which , by the way , are already illegal under federal law ) , but otherwise law-abiding gun owners getting prosecuted for possessing a 20-round magazine they bought back in 2002 , or parents prosecuted for allowing their 17-year old daughter to have access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone .
Note as well that Gomer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between refusing to prosecute drug cases and refusing to prosecute any of Northam ’ s new gun control laws .
That ’ s because , legally speaking , there simply is no difference .
If a prosecutor in Fairfax County can decide he ’ s not going to enforce some drug laws , a prosecutor in Wise County can do the same with gun control laws .
In fact , I ’ m guessing that next year there are going to be plenty of county sheriff and commonwealth attorney candidates who run on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam ’ s new gun control laws .
Despite their best attempts to prove that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is something manufactured by national gun organizations , Everytown and the Washington Post proved instead that this truly is a citizen-driven movement with no national or even state leadership .
As I ’ ve been saying all along , for better and worse , this is an incredibly localized movement that can hopefully come together and harness its collective power in the months ahead .

Everytown for Gun Safety has been busy submitting Freedom of Information Act requests to dozens of Virginia counties over the past couple of months, hoping to find evidence that the National Rifle Association is behind the push for Second Amendment Sanctuaries. The group specifically asked county administrators for any emails between county officials and the NRA, as well as the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other gun groups. Clearly, Everytown and the gun control movement were hoping to prove that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is just a gimmick by “the gun lobby” and not an organic response to the unconstitutional gun control bills proposed by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.
Well, guess what? As gun owners have been saying all along, the movement isn’t being directed by the NRA, and even the Washington Post can’t claim otherwise. The paper, which received scores of emails obtained by Everytown, is now trying out a new narrative since the “it’s just a ploy by the gun lobby” argument can’t be sustained. The movement may be organic, the paper now opines, but that doesn’t mean that every official supports the movement.
Tighter gun laws aren’t the only thing rural Virginia counties have resisted as they’ve declared themselves Second Amendment ‘sanctuaries.’ They’ve also defied legal advice in some cases, ignoring warnings from county attorneys and administrators that the sanctuary resolutions are legally meaningless and dangerously confusing.
Nobody has ever claimed that these resolutions somehow have the force of law. They are resolutions, after all (though a few counties have gone a step further and passed actual ordinances). We’ve also known all along that there was some reluctance on the part of some county officials to get involved. The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is something new, and frankly, I know of quite a few county and local officials who felt it wasn’t their place to take a stand or were afraid of the repercussions from lawmakers.
‘We are getting calls from people who believe this resolution has swept away ALL gun laws in the County,’ Tazewell County administrator Eric Young, a lawyer, warned in a Nov. 26 email to Eric Whitesell, a private attorney then leading the sanctuary effort. One email, he wrote, came from a couple who ‘were denied licenses to sell guns and now want to sell them.’ In a Nov. 20 email to some supervisors, Young described sanctuary declarations as ‘unconstitutional and worthless.’ The emails were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that supports gun control. The organization provided copies to The Washington Post, which independently confirmed their authenticity. The messages show local officials questioning the validity of sanctuary resolutions that were being rapidly adopted by Virginia counties, cities and towns as the new Democratic majorities in the state legislature prepared to pass sweeping gun control measures. The emails also describe confusion among residents about whether living in a so-called gun sanctuary would remove limits on how guns could be bought and sold.
So now the knock on the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is that it breeds confusion? I’d argue that it doesn’t come close to the confusion sown by Northam and his anti-gun allies in the legislature, who’ve proposed banning possession of all firearms deemed to be “assault weapons” (before backing off in favor of a slightly modified bill that allows continued possession once you and your guns are registered with the state), banning commonly owned magazines and ammunition, and a host of other restrictions that have been modified and in some cases completely rewritten in committee hearings and on the floor of the House and Senate.
The Washington Post also enlists the help of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to try to rebut the argument that, because Virginia prosecutors have decided on their own not to enforce some of the state’s drug laws, prosecutors and sheriffs in Second Amendment Sanctuaries can use that same discretion not to enforce any unconstitutional gun control measures.
Charlotte Gomer, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), dismissed the comparison. ‘I don’t think any prosecutor wants to be the one who allows an unlicensed gun dealer to flood their community with deadly weapons or sell guns to dangerous felons or domestic abusers,’ she said. Herring issued a legal opinion in December that said the sanctuary resolutions have no legal weight.
I’m not sure what bill Gomer’s referring to, but if Northam gets his way, we’re not going to be talking about “unlicensed gun dealers” (which, by the way, are already illegal under federal law), but otherwise law-abiding gun owners getting prosecuted for possessing a 20-round magazine they bought back in 2002, or parents prosecuted for allowing their 17-year old daughter to have access to a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone.
Note as well that Gomer’s response said nothing about any legal differences between refusing to prosecute drug cases and refusing to prosecute any of Northam’s new gun control laws. That’s because, legally speaking, there simply is no difference. If a prosecutor in Fairfax County can decide he’s not going to enforce some drug laws, a prosecutor in Wise County can do the same with gun control laws. In fact, I’m guessing that next year there are going to be plenty of county sheriff and commonwealth attorney candidates who run on a platform of not enforcing any of Northam’s new gun control laws.
Despite their best attempts to prove that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is something manufactured by national gun organizations, Everytown and the Washington Post proved instead that this truly is a citizen-driven movement with no national or even state leadership. As I’ve been saying all along, for better and worse, this is an incredibly localized movement that can hopefully come together and harness its collective power in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Seattle Leaders Begging For Still More Gun Control

The phrases “ Seattle shooting ” or “ shooting in Seattle ” brings up bad memories for me .
I still remember the morning that I learned a dear friend of mine was gunned down in a Seattle coffee shop .
Kim was a wonderful person who…look , she was great , and if I start writing about all the ways she was wonderful , I ’ ll sit here bawling like a baby instead of writing .
So , I ’ m sensitive to the idea of gun violence in Seattle .
However , I ’ m also realistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s something the city leaders in Seattle are more than a little oblivious to .
Following the third shooting in Seattle in as many days , Mayor Jenny Durkan said on Thursday , “ We will not allow this to be the new normal .
We know gun violence is preventable and are taking urgent action.
” A similar statement was issued by Representative Democrat Pramila Jayapal , who pointed to the need for stronger gun control .
The shooting Wednesday night in front of a McDonald ’ s located @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gang-related .
One of the three thugs was wounded , while the other two bolted but were later apprehended by police .
Seven bystanders caught in the crossfire following an argument were either killed or wounded .
The thug who was wounded , 21-year-old Jamel Jackson , was booked into jail for unlawful possession of a firearm following being treated at a local hospital .
The other two who bolted from the scene were captured shortly afterwards .
Between the three of them , they have a history of more than 65 arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite Seattle ’ s strict gun controls , they were able to obtain the firearms they used in the gang war .
The problem for Mayor Durkan and Jayapal is the fact that Seattle is in Washington state , a state that has adopted a whole lot of gun control over the last year , including a huge set of new regulations in the way of I-1639 last year .
If gun control were the solution Durkan claims it is , wouldn ’ t there be fewer shootings than an increase ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has adopted are universal background checks that should have kept these shooters from getting their grubby little paws on guns .
That ’ s what it ’ s there for , right ?
Isn ’ t that what we ’ re told when we object to having to undergo background checks for even taking possession of a family heirloom ; that it will keep criminals from buying guns ?
Yeah .
That worked out well .
Look , any city with nearly three-quarters of a million people in it is bound to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Three shootings in three days are going to happen , but it ’ s especially likely to happen when you ’ ve done everything you can to disarm the people of your city and state .
Those who are most inclined to carry out these kinds of shootings , particularly gang-related shootings , aren ’ t going to be dissuaded by gun control .
Yet the law-abiding people who only want to protect themselves or their families will be .
They ’ re going to be disarmed , and these two human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law failed here .
Then again , the thing anti-gunners are best at is ignoring the failures of gun control .

The phrases “Seattle shooting” or “shooting in Seattle” brings up bad memories for me. I still remember the morning that I learned a dear friend of mine was gunned down in a Seattle coffee shop. Kim was a wonderful person who…look, she was great, and if I start writing about all the ways she was wonderful, I’ll sit here bawling like a baby instead of writing.
So, I’m sensitive to the idea of gun violence in Seattle.
However, I’m also realistic. I understand that bad things happen.
That’s something the city leaders in Seattle are more than a little oblivious to.
Following the third shooting in Seattle in as many days, Mayor Jenny Durkan said on Thursday, “We will not allow this to be the new normal. We know gun violence is preventable and are taking urgent action.” A similar statement was issued by Representative Democrat Pramila Jayapal, who pointed to the need for stronger gun control. The shooting Wednesday night in front of a McDonald’s located in Seattle’s high-crime area was gang-related. One of the three thugs was wounded, while the other two bolted but were later apprehended by police. Seven bystanders caught in the crossfire following an argument were either killed or wounded. The thug who was wounded, 21-year-old Jamel Jackson, was booked into jail for unlawful possession of a firearm following being treated at a local hospital. The other two who bolted from the scene were captured shortly afterwards. Between the three of them, they have a history of more than 65 arrests for numerous felonies and misdemeanors and yet, despite Seattle’s strict gun controls, they were able to obtain the firearms they used in the gang war.
The problem for Mayor Durkan and Jayapal is the fact that Seattle is in Washington state, a state that has adopted a whole lot of gun control over the last year, including a huge set of new regulations in the way of I-1639 last year.
If gun control were the solution Durkan claims it is, wouldn’t there be fewer shootings than an increase?
After all, among the measures Washington has adopted are universal background checks that should have kept these shooters from getting their grubby little paws on guns. That’s what it’s there for, right? Isn’t that what we’re told when we object to having to undergo background checks for even taking possession of a family heirloom; that it will keep criminals from buying guns?
Yeah. That worked out well.
Look, any city with nearly three-quarters of a million people in it is bound to have some patches where violence stacks upon itself. Three shootings in three days are going to happen, but it’s especially likely to happen when you’ve done everything you can to disarm the people of your city and state. Those who are most inclined to carry out these kinds of shootings, particularly gang-related shootings, aren’t going to be dissuaded by gun control.
Yet the law-abiding people who only want to protect themselves or their families will be. They’re going to be disarmed, and these two human fruit baskets are ignoring the fact that the law failed here.
Then again, the thing anti-gunners are best at is ignoring the failures of gun control.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Virginia Gun Owners Have Just Begun Their Fight

On today ’ s program , I ’ m back in Farmville , Virginia ( and hopefully coronavirus free after spending a few days at SHOT Show last week ) and joined by Townall.com ’ s Kurt Schlichter to talk about his recent column , “ Peaceful Insurgency Tips For Virginia Patriots.
” Now that the tens of thousands of Virginia gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have returned home from the incredible Lobby Day rally on January 20 , what do we do now ?
Kurt has some pretty good answers .
What now is that you continue with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is an insurgency – a peaceful one , despite the “ de-escalate ” crap your Jazz Singing ’ chief executive is shoveling – and you need to keep up the pressure .
This is about guns , which are the backstop of freedom but the liars and losers of the media want to pretend you don ’ t think so .
They want to pretend you are looking for a chance to commit violence .
They want to pretend you want to hurt people .
That ’ s how they plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolve that these garbage people , whether liberal pols , the media , Twitter blue checks , or Fredocon sissies who would have been all in with the Redcoats in 1776 , can kiss your sweet Northam .
When you don ’ t ignore them , mock them .
They want to shame you into the shame of submission .
They have zero moral authority .
They are lying trash and worthy only of your contempt .
Treat them accordingly .
Note here that Kurt is talking specifically about those pushing laws that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a felon , not the Virginia voter who went to the polls believing they were voting for “ common sense gun safety ” that would have no impact on legal gun owners .
The politicians who ran on a “ gunsense ” platform lied about what their proposed laws would do , and who would be impacted .
Now , these same politicians are claiming that the vote in November was a mandate to restrict the rights of gun owners while ignoring violent criminals .
These bills aren ’ t aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Kurt points out in our interview and his column , gun owners in the state need to be organizing now to vote these anti-gun politicians out of office and take back the state legislature ( and the governor ’ s office ) come 2021 .
Make sure you check out the entire interview above , as well as today ’ s recidivism report , our armed citizen story , and our good deed of the day .
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts as well as Google Podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Townhall.com podcast page .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word .

On today’s program, I’m back in Farmville, Virginia (and hopefully coronavirus free after spending a few days at SHOT Show last week) and joined by Townall.com’s Kurt Schlichter to talk about his recent column, “Peaceful Insurgency Tips For Virginia Patriots.”
Now that the tens of thousands of Virginia gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have returned home from the incredible Lobby Day rally on January 20, what do we do now? Kurt has some pretty good answers.
What now is that you continue with the momentum from the rally and before. This is an insurgency – a peaceful one, despite the “de-escalate” crap your Jazz Singing’ chief executive is shoveling – and you need to keep up the pressure. This is about guns, which are the backstop of freedom but the liars and losers of the media want to pretend you don’t think so. They want to pretend you are looking for a chance to commit violence. They want to pretend you want to hurt people. That’s how they plan to delegitimize you. Don’t fall for it. First step: resolve that these garbage people, whether liberal pols, the media, Twitter blue checks, or Fredocon sissies who would have been all in with the Redcoats in 1776, can kiss your sweet Northam. When you don’t ignore them, mock them. They want to shame you into the shame of submission. They have zero moral authority. They are lying trash and worthy only of your contempt. Treat them accordingly.
Note here that Kurt is talking specifically about those pushing laws that would turn the average Virginia gun owner into a felon, not the Virginia voter who went to the polls believing they were voting for “common sense gun safety” that would have no impact on legal gun owners. The politicians who ran on a “gunsense” platform lied about what their proposed laws would do, and who would be impacted. Now, these same politicians are claiming that the vote in November was a mandate to restrict the rights of gun owners while ignoring violent criminals.
Virginians spoke clearly in November. They have seen too many family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers affected by by gun violence. Today we delivered on their demand for action by moving forward with bills that will save lives. pic.twitter.com/V7y0Txhi3D — Eileen Filler-Corn (@EFillerCorn) January 24, 2020
These bills aren’t aimed at preventing gun violence but restricting gun ownership. As Kurt points out in our interview and his column, gun owners in the state need to be organizing now to vote these anti-gun politicians out of office and take back the state legislature (and the governor’s office) come 2021.
Make sure you check out the entire interview above, as well as today’s recidivism report, our armed citizen story, and our good deed of the day.
You can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts as well as Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and the Townhall.com podcast page. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Tennessee And Wyoming: Two Different Takes On 'Red Flag Laws'

Perhaps the most troubling proposal floating around various states , as well as the halls of Congress , are so-called “ red flag laws.
” What makes them troubling is that it ’ s easy for a reasonable person to buy into the nonsense .
Taking guns from potentially violent people makes a lot of sense to them .
It ’ s not until you get into the nuts and bolts and really start thinking critically–something the media soundly discourages on these measures–that you start to see the flaws .
However , lawmakers in two different states are taking two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mental illness .
First , let ’ s take a look at a Tennessee proposal .
A Tennessee lawmaker wants to allow residents to petition the courts to temporarily remove firearms from relatives who may pose a threat .
Sen. Sara Kyle , D-Memphis , is sponsoring a bill that would allow family members , household members , intimate partners or law enforcement to petition to temporarily confiscate guns from an individual who shows an immediate risk of harming themselves or others .
This type of law , commonly known as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection orders , is being introduced nationwide in response to gun violence .
Under the proposed Senate Bill 1807 , the petitioner would sign a sworn affidavit for the emergency protection order .
If a judge grants the order , the person in question will be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm during the period the order is in effect .
This isn ’ t an unusual proposal .
In fact , it ’ s the standard-issue red flag law complete with lack of due process , no mental health treatment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still walking around .
It ’ s similar to a measure that recently went into effect in Colorado , one that ’ s already had people attempt to misuse it .
People lie , and infringing on the rights of someone based on another ’ s word alone is nothing more than asking for people to lie in order to attack people they dislike…just like in Colorado .
Meanwhile , in Wyoming , legislators are taking a different route .
The first paragraph of any Wyoming bill must detail the intention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the federal government , nothing else can be attached to the bill .
AN ACT relating to public safety ; providing that certain mental health information that evidences federal firearms disqualification may be reported as specified ; creating a procedure for persons disqualified for mental health reasons to challenge their disqualification ; requiring the division of criminal investigation to collect and report specified mental health information ; requiring state and local agencies to report specified mental health information and designate persons to receive notice ; providing for limited liability as specified ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This bill does provide “ due process , ” meaning that a person ’ s gun rights can not be taken from them for mental health reasons unless and until they have had their day in court .
Now , I ’ m still not crazy about the idea of taking guns away from disturbed individuals .
If they ’ re that big of a risk , then maybe involuntary confinement should be explored first and foremost .
Not only would that get them off the streets , but it could also keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
If they ’ re that dangerous , it ’ s something that should be discussed , but more on that in a moment .
However , Wyoming at least follows due process of law first .
In other words , someone can ’ t do what the woman in Colorado tried to do and pretend they ’ re family when they ’ re not , all to punish someone .
Instead , the accused gets to defend themselves in court .
Further , this isn ’ t really a red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that facilitates the adjudication of people as “ mentally defective ” and thus ineligible to purchase a firearm .
In other words , if someone is that big of a threat , they ’ re treated as if they ’ re a real threat .
I ’ m not saying I support the Wyoming measure , but I ’ m a damn sight closer to backing that than the bill in Tennessee .

Perhaps the most troubling proposal floating around various states, as well as the halls of Congress, are so-called “red flag laws.” What makes them troubling is that it’s easy for a reasonable person to buy into the nonsense. Taking guns from potentially violent people makes a lot of sense to them.
It’s not until you get into the nuts and bolts and really start thinking critically–something the media soundly discourages on these measures–that you start to see the flaws.
However, lawmakers in two different states are taking two different approaches to the topic of guns and mental illness.
First, let’s take a look at a Tennessee proposal.
A Tennessee lawmaker wants to allow residents to petition the courts to temporarily remove firearms from relatives who may pose a threat. Sen. Sara Kyle, D-Memphis, is sponsoring a bill that would allow family members, household members, intimate partners or law enforcement to petition to temporarily confiscate guns from an individual who shows an immediate risk of harming themselves or others. This type of law, commonly known as “red flag” laws or extreme risk protection orders, is being introduced nationwide in response to gun violence. Under the proposed Senate Bill 1807, the petitioner would sign a sworn affidavit for the emergency protection order. If a judge grants the order, the person in question will be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm during the period the order is in effect.
This isn’t an unusual proposal. In fact, it’s the standard-issue red flag law complete with lack of due process, no mental health treatment, and making sure the potentially dangerous person is still walking around.
It’s similar to a measure that recently went into effect in Colorado, one that’s already had people attempt to misuse it.
People lie, and infringing on the rights of someone based on another’s word alone is nothing more than asking for people to lie in order to attack people they dislike…just like in Colorado.
Meanwhile, in Wyoming, legislators are taking a different route.
The first paragraph of any Wyoming bill must detail the intention of the proposed law. Unlike other states and the federal government, nothing else can be attached to the bill. AN ACT relating to public safety; providing that certain mental health information that evidences federal firearms disqualification may be reported as specified; creating a procedure for persons disqualified for mental health reasons to challenge their disqualification; requiring the division of criminal investigation to collect and report specified mental health information; requiring state and local agencies to report specified mental health information and designate persons to receive notice; providing for limited liability as specified; and providing for an effective date. This bill does provide “due process,” meaning that a person’s gun rights cannot be taken from them for mental health reasons unless and until they have had their day in court.
Now, I’m still not crazy about the idea of taking guns away from disturbed individuals. If they’re that big of a risk, then maybe involuntary confinement should be explored first and foremost. Not only would that get them off the streets, but it could also keep them from buying guns when they get out. If they’re that dangerous, it’s something that should be discussed, but more on that in a moment.
However, Wyoming at least follows due process of law first. In other words, someone can’t do what the woman in Colorado tried to do and pretend they’re family when they’re not, all to punish someone. Instead, the accused gets to defend themselves in court.
Further, this isn’t really a red flag law. It’s a measure that facilitates the adjudication of people as “mentally defective” and thus ineligible to purchase a firearm. In other words, if someone is that big of a threat, they’re treated as if they’re a real threat.
I’m not saying I support the Wyoming measure, but I’m a damn sight closer to backing that than the bill in Tennessee.
Due process matters, after all.


bearingarms--2020-01-27--Virginia Doc Says Gun Control Is Bad Medicine

Dennis Petrocelli , MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia .
He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense , and is in the fight for Virginians ’ gun rights .
He is a regular contributing member of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership .
Dr. Patrick Neustatter recently penned an op-ed for the Fredricksburg Star supporting typical “ common sense ” gun control legislation .
I feel for my colleague because I too once believed the medical mythology that guns were bad and needed to be “ eradicated.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ first guniversary next week-I ’ ve opened my Hippocratic eyes to actual facts and figures and have reached the conclusion that “ guns save lives.
” Here ’ s my rebuttal to Dr. Neustatter ’ s piece .
“ Gun violence ” isn ’ t a public health problem , it isn ’ t even an actual thing .
Like “ gun sense ” and “ assault weapon ” it is a made-up phrase designed to do one thing : facilitate disarmament .
“ Gun violence ” consists of two parts suicide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter largely limited to inner-city gang and drug-related warfare , and , according Giffords , is perpetrated by 1 % of the population .
Unsurprisingly , it doesn ’ t even make the CDC ’ s top ten list , and Virginia is the fourth safest state in the Union .
Here are some additional facts to disarm the disarmamentarians .
Human cause death , and nothing makes this clearer than research that shows that confiscation reduces gun-related suicide , but the suicide rates climbs nonetheless .
Why ?
Because people kill themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when people are literally left to their own devices , they find another way .
This is why red flag laws are terrible ideas .
Now , deaths per 100,000 in Australia , Canada and the U.K. are 0.9 , 2.0 and 0.23 , respectively , compared with 12.21 per 100,000 in the U.S. Cherry-picked numbers do not advance the discussion .
The U.S. ranks 30th worldwide for gun-related homicide , and the rate of gun violence per gun , since that ’ s what others want to focus on , is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a rate of less than 0.01 % .
This means that Americans are astonishingly “ well-regulated , ” or “ in good working order , ” with their guns .
I doubt the U.S. government is ever going to get so authoritarian that guns will be needed to fight off its agents .
I ’ m sure Venezuelans thought the same thing when they disarmed in 2012 , but I bet they changed their minds when armored personnel carriers ran over their own people in 2019 , and their doctors were hauled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of basic medical supplies in their hospitals .
Guns are about deterrence , and an armed population provides a necessary reminder to the government that its officials govern with the consent of the governed .
Human nature hasn ’ t changed much since the Bill of Rights was written , and history proves over and over what happens to unarmed civilians .
The Washington Post reported the percentage of people who have used a gun in self-defense “ is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Public Health said , “ The National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
” I wouldn ’ t trust my life to The Washington Post or the Harvard School of Public Health .
I ’ m not a fan of the CDC either , but when it reports , begrudgingly , that guns are used defensively 1,000,000 times per year , I ’ ll believe it .
I don ’ t have Bloomberg ’ s armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t work for the Virginia Legislature on the other side of metal detectors and armed Capitol Police , so I ’ m concerned about criminal humans , not aliens .
The gun industry provides “ We the People ” with one means of self-defense .
Those of us that carry guns do so not based upon fear , but concern .
I ’ m don ’ t tremble when I holster my gun , but I ’ m fully conscious of the need to handle the gun safely and I ’ m aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might face and how the gun I ’ m carrying may or may not play a role , based upon many hours of ongoing training and practice .
My opinion is that when confronted with the carnage that guns and their users are associated with , and which have no purpose other than shooting people/animals/targets , unlike other things we regulate , then it ’ s not unreasonable to take some precautions .
I agree with precautions , just very different precautions .
If you ’ ve read this far and follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun sense ” : • None Fewer gun free zones .
Those retained must have armed perimeter defense and compensation for any injuries to those inside ; • None Free concealed carry training for any victim of any violent crime ; • None Expansion of concealed carry by law into places of worship ; • None Send “ gun sense ” legislation to the dustbin of history .

Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights. He is a regular contributing member of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.
Dr. Patrick Neustatter recently penned an op-ed for the Fredricksburg Star supporting typical “common sense” gun control legislation. I feel for my colleague because I too once believed the medical mythology that guns were bad and needed to be “eradicated.” Over the past year-I celebrate my first guniversary next week-I’ve opened my Hippocratic eyes to actual facts and figures and have reached the conclusion that “guns save lives.” Here’s my rebuttal to Dr. Neustatter’s piece.
“Gun violence” isn’t a public health problem, it isn’t even an actual thing. Like “gun sense” and “assault weapon” it is a made-up phrase designed to do one thing: facilitate disarmament. “Gun violence” consists of two parts suicide, and one part criminal homicide, the latter largely limited to inner-city gang and drug-related warfare, and, according Giffords, is perpetrated by 1% of the population. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t even make the CDC’s top ten list, and Virginia is the fourth safest state in the Union. Here are some additional facts to disarm the disarmamentarians.
Shootings cause 100 deaths per day.
Human cause death, and nothing makes this clearer than research that shows that confiscation reduces gun-related suicide, but the suicide rates climbs nonetheless. Why? Because people kill themselves and others, not guns, and when people are literally left to their own devices, they find another way. This is why red flag laws are terrible ideas.
Now, deaths per 100,000 in Australia, Canada and the U.K. are 0.9 , 2.0 and 0.23, respectively, compared with 12.21 per 100,000 in the U.S.
Cherry-picked numbers do not advance the discussion. The U.S. ranks 30th worldwide for gun-related homicide, and the rate of gun violence per gun, since that’s what others want to focus on, is about 37,000 gun-deaths divided by roughly 420,000,000 guns for a rate of less than 0.01%. This means that Americans are astonishingly “well-regulated,” or “in good working order,” with their guns.
I doubt the U.S. government is ever going to get so authoritarian that guns will be needed to fight off its agents.
I’m sure Venezuelans thought the same thing when they disarmed in 2012, but I bet they changed their minds when armored personnel carriers ran over their own people in 2019, and their doctors were hauled off by thugs for protesting the lack of basic medical supplies in their hospitals. Guns are about deterrence, and an armed population provides a necessary reminder to the government that its officials govern with the consent of the governed. Human nature hasn’t changed much since the Bill of Rights was written, and history proves over and over what happens to unarmed civilians.
The Washington Post reported the percentage of people who have used a gun in self-defense “is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.” And a survey by the Harvard School of Public Health said, “The National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.”
I wouldn’t trust my life to The Washington Post or the Harvard School of Public Health. I’m not a fan of the CDC either, but when it reports, begrudgingly, that guns are used defensively 1,000,000 times per year, I’ll believe it. I don’t have Bloomberg’s armed security detail, and I don’t work for the Virginia Legislature on the other side of metal detectors and armed Capitol Police, so I’m concerned about criminal humans, not aliens.
…the firearms industry supports this fear
The gun industry provides “We the People” with one means of self-defense. Those of us that carry guns do so not based upon fear, but concern. I’m don’t tremble when I holster my gun, but I’m fully conscious of the need to handle the gun safely and I’m aware of the types of situations that I might face and how the gun I’m carrying may or may not play a role, based upon many hours of ongoing training and practice.
My opinion is that when confronted with the carnage that guns and their users are associated with, and which have no purpose other than shooting people/animals/targets, unlike other things we regulate, then it’s not unreasonable to take some precautions.
I agree with precautions, just very different precautions. If you’ve read this far and follow the numbers, these suggestions make perfect “gun sense”:


bearingarms--2020-01-27--What The Trace Misses On Gun Industry Protections

Of all the anti-gun media out there , the one place I respect most is The Trace .
Don ’ t get me wrong , they ’ re horribly biased and focused completely on gun control , the antithesis of my personal existence .
The difference is , they ’ re open about their biases , which I can respect .
However , that doesn ’ t mean they get things right .
They ’ re just as likely as any of the rest of the anti-gun media to omit key bits of information that don ’ t reflect well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , take this bit about the history of the Protect of Lawful Commerce in Arms act .
In the late 1990s , more than 40 cities filed suit against the gun industry , naming dozens of gun manufacturers , distributors , and dealers as defendants .
American cities had seen incredible violence in the previous decades , much of it involving handguns and connected to drug crime .
City governments wanted redress , and legal victories in suits against the tobacco industry signalled that an avenue to reform might pass through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases were aggressive , arguing that the entire industry should acknowledge responsibility for thousands of deaths each year .
Fearing widespread reform , the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the industry ’ s chief lobbying forces — launched an aggressive campaign to convince gun-friendly legislators to do something .
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida , both Republicans , responded by proposing a piece of legislation that would end all pending litigation and prevent any future attempts .
The NRA called it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 20 years.
” It moved from introduction to President George W. Bush ’ s desk in eight months .
Invoking the tobacco industry is nothing more than an attempt to link one of the all-time most hated industries with another industry not enjoying a great deal of popularity at the moment .
There ’ s just one problem here : The tobacco industry lawsuits and the lawsuits against the firearm industry are nothing alike .
The problem with the tobacco industry was information surfacing that suggested the companies knew tobacco use was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for as long as they could .
They continued to pretend cigarettes weren ’ t unhealthy for years later , all to protect their bottom line .
Meanwhile , nothing of the sort is even alleged to be the case with gun companies .
You see , tobacco companies were sued because they took specific actions that resulted in people simply not knowing the products were harmful .
No one on the planet things guns aren ’ t dangerous…if misused .
That ’ s another key difference between the gun industry and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impossible to use a tobacco product without the associated health risks .
By contrast , millions upon millions of people use their guns without anyone being hurt on a regular basis .
So there really aren ’ t any parallels between the tobacco and firearm industries .
Yet those lawsuits did take place .
They were real things .
Gun companies were blamed for people using their products illegally , something absolutely no other industry–including the tobacco industry–has been forced to endure .
Companies that complied completely with all legal requirements–something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly faced with lawsuits designed to do nothing more than punish them for selling a product that , while legal , some people didn ’ t like .
Yes , they rolled out the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to stop the stupid .
Gun companies were being blamed for the blatant misuse of their products in an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment by driving the entire industry out of business .
Had this just been about gun companies failing to disclose that they knew their products were harmful to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trace might have had a point , much like the anti-gunners who started this stupidity .
That wasn ’ t the case , though .
And it ’ s disingenuous to pretend that connection exists and is sound reasoning for the flurry of frivolous lawsuits that erupted .

Of all the anti-gun media out there, the one place I respect most is The Trace.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re horribly biased and focused completely on gun control, the antithesis of my personal existence. The difference is, they’re open about their biases, which I can respect.
However, that doesn’t mean they get things right. They’re just as likely as any of the rest of the anti-gun media to omit key bits of information that don’t reflect well on the gun control crowd. For example, take this bit about the history of the Protect of Lawful Commerce in Arms act.
In the late 1990s, more than 40 cities filed suit against the gun industry, naming dozens of gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers as defendants. American cities had seen incredible violence in the previous decades, much of it involving handguns and connected to drug crime. City governments wanted redress, and legal victories in suits against the tobacco industry signalled that an avenue to reform might pass through the courts. So they sued. The cases were aggressive, arguing that the entire industry should acknowledge responsibility for thousands of deaths each year. Fearing widespread reform, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the industry’s chief lobbying forces — launched an aggressive campaign to convince gun-friendly legislators to do something. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, both Republicans, responded by proposing a piece of legislation that would end all pending litigation and prevent any future attempts. The NRA called it “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.” It moved from introduction to President George W. Bush’s desk in eight months.
Invoking the tobacco industry is nothing more than an attempt to link one of the all-time most hated industries with another industry not enjoying a great deal of popularity at the moment.
There’s just one problem here: The tobacco industry lawsuits and the lawsuits against the firearm industry are nothing alike.
The problem with the tobacco industry was information surfacing that suggested the companies knew tobacco use was harmful, but actively suppressed that information for as long as they could. They continued to pretend cigarettes weren’t unhealthy for years later, all to protect their bottom line.
Meanwhile, nothing of the sort is even alleged to be the case with gun companies.
You see, tobacco companies were sued because they took specific actions that resulted in people simply not knowing the products were harmful. No one on the planet things guns aren’t dangerous…if misused.
That’s another key difference between the gun industry and the tobacco industry, of course. It’s impossible to use a tobacco product without the associated health risks. By contrast, millions upon millions of people use their guns without anyone being hurt on a regular basis.
So there really aren’t any parallels between the tobacco and firearm industries.
Yet those lawsuits did take place. They were real things. Gun companies were blamed for people using their products illegally, something absolutely no other industry–including the tobacco industry–has been forced to endure. Companies that complied completely with all legal requirements–something the tobacco industry didn’t do–were suddenly faced with lawsuits designed to do nothing more than punish them for selling a product that, while legal, some people didn’t like.
So, Congress stepped in.
Yes, they rolled out the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to stop the stupid. Gun companies were being blamed for the blatant misuse of their products in an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment by driving the entire industry out of business. Had this just been about gun companies failing to disclose that they knew their products were harmful to the users, the folks over at The Trace might have had a point, much like the anti-gunners who started this stupidity.
That wasn’t the case, though.
And it’s disingenuous to pretend that connection exists and is sound reasoning for the flurry of frivolous lawsuits that erupted.