bearingarms--2020-08-04--Younger Voters No Longer Focused On Guns

Immediately after Parkland , the media heralded the young as the way forward on gun control .
Led by people like David Hogg , the youth vote was going to push guns front and center .
They were going to hold politicians accountable and all that crap .
However , the media ignored some very real problems with that statement .
For one , the youth vote only accounts for a fairly small percentage of the entire electorate .
While high school students may be passionate , most of them can ’ t vote and are thus easily ignored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of students in high school and college who can vote , most of them don ’ t .
The youth vote isn ’ t necessarily something to count on .
Especially since they can also be distracted by other issues .
But now , with the country swept up in protests over racial justice driven largely by young people , the youthful voices that propelled a movement just two years ago find themselves less squarely focused on issues around gun violence .
Polls show that racial justice , the coronavirus pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as top issues of concern for young people .
When asked about gun control measures , it is in fact the oldest Americans who now most often express support , according to some polls .
The activists who organized after the Parkland shooting say they have built up their organizing capacity since then , and they remain committed to making at least as significant a difference in 2020 as they did in 2018 .
But this year , they say , a big part of that will mean building solidarity with organizers confronting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we recognize how gun violence is such an intersectional issue , ” said Kelly Choi , 20 , a member of the executive board at March for Our Lives , the national nonprofit that grew out of the Parkland students ’ organizing .
“ Gun violence is the symptom of other things , like poverty , racism , housing insecurity , domestic violence.
” I ’ d just like to point out that if all of those issues play a factor in “ gun violence , ” then they play a bigger factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we know there ’ s less of such violence in places where the gun ownership rate on a per capita basis is significantly higher .
In other words , the anti-gun youth are still anti-gun , of course , but many of their peers–the people who backed them on guns but weren ’ t the hardline anti-gunners–have moved on to other issues .
And this is how it usually plays out for the gun grabbers , thankfully .
They build up a huge amount of support in the aftermath of a horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhere along the line .
Often , the problem is that people come to recognize that the gun control being pushed won ’ t actually solve the problems .
Then there ’ s the “ shiny object ” effect .
That ’ s not unique to young people , either .
The “ shiny object ” effect is basically a case where people are all about the topic du jour until another topic rolls around .
This isn ’ t unique to one side or another , of course , but is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the “ shiny object ” is so-called racial injustice .
It ’ s now pulling attention away from guns .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong .
Most of these people are still anti-gun .
It ’ s just not a driving force for them anymore .
That means a savvy politician can address racial injustice and win without ever having to say a thing about restricting gun rights .
It also means people on either side of the aisle can step up and garner those votes if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t help but believe that ’ s going to chafe the usual suspects something fierce .

Immediately after Parkland, the media heralded the young as the way forward on gun control. Led by people like David Hogg, the youth vote was going to push guns front and center. They were going to hold politicians accountable and all that crap.
However, the media ignored some very real problems with that statement. For one, the youth vote only accounts for a fairly small percentage of the entire electorate. While high school students may be passionate, most of them can’t vote and are thus easily ignored by politicians and the population as a whole. Of students in high school and college who can vote, most of them don’t.
The youth vote isn’t necessarily something to count on. Especially since they can also be distracted by other issues.
But now, with the country swept up in protests over racial justice driven largely by young people, the youthful voices that propelled a movement just two years ago find themselves less squarely focused on issues around gun violence. Polls show that racial justice, the coronavirus pandemic and the related economic downturn far outpace guns as top issues of concern for young people. When asked about gun control measures, it is in fact the oldest Americans who now most often express support, according to some polls. The activists who organized after the Parkland shooting say they have built up their organizing capacity since then, and they remain committed to making at least as significant a difference in 2020 as they did in 2018. But this year, they say, a big part of that will mean building solidarity with organizers confronting racial injustice. “For us, we recognize how gun violence is such an intersectional issue,” said Kelly Choi, 20, a member of the executive board at March for Our Lives, the national nonprofit that grew out of the Parkland students’ organizing. “Gun violence is the symptom of other things, like poverty, racism, housing insecurity, domestic violence.”
I’d just like to point out that if all of those issues play a factor in “gun violence,” then they play a bigger factor than the guns themselves. After all, we know there’s less of such violence in places where the gun ownership rate on a per capita basis is significantly higher.
In other words, the anti-gun youth are still anti-gun, of course, but many of their peers–the people who backed them on guns but weren’t the hardline anti-gunners–have moved on to other issues.
And this is how it usually plays out for the gun grabbers, thankfully. They build up a huge amount of support in the aftermath of a horrible event, but then they fizzle out somewhere along the line. Often, the problem is that people come to recognize that the gun control being pushed won’t actually solve the problems.
Then there’s the “shiny object” effect. That’s not unique to young people, either. The “shiny object” effect is basically a case where people are all about the topic du jour until another topic rolls around. This isn’t unique to one side or another, of course, but is something we see everywhere. In this case, the “shiny object” is so-called racial injustice. It’s now pulling attention away from guns.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Most of these people are still anti-gun. It’s just not a driving force for them anymore.
That means a savvy politician can address racial injustice and win without ever having to say a thing about restricting gun rights. It also means people on either side of the aisle can step up and garner those votes if they’re clever about it.
I can’t help but believe that’s going to chafe the usual suspects something fierce.


bearingarms--2020-08-04--Conway Dismisses Duckworth's Anti-Gun Rhetoric

While guns are one of those issues that isn ’ t completely cut-and-dried along partisan lines , we do know that most hardline leftists tend to support gun control .
One of those leftists is the supposedly moderate Joe Biden , of course .
He ’ s made his opinions on guns quite clear over the years but has reaffirmed his support for stripping our constitutionally-protected rights during his presidential campaign .
He ’ s far from alone , though .
Sen. Tammy Duckworth recently spouted her own anti-gun rhetoric .
She was promptly smacked down .
In a clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that if President Trump wants to end the violence , he should pressure Senate Republicans to “ close the gun show loophole ” and enact “ universal background checks.
” “ Her evidence of the gun show loopholes having created this wave of violence in these Democratic-controlled cities is what ?
” Conway asked rhetorically .
“ I know she ’ s auditioning for vice president for [ presumptive Democratic nominee ] Joe Biden , she ’ s got stiff competition , so she ’ s going to say things to mollify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s be honest about what ’ s happening … ” Conway went on , turning to protest violence in cities like Portland , Ore. “ They are pointing lasers in cops ’ eyes , in some cases temporarily or permanently damaging their eyesight , throwing rocks and bricks and worse .
Some aren ’ t even using guns .
“ The violence is leading to vandalism and gun shooting and the rest of it , ” she added , “ but some of these cities have the strictest gun control laws in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening.
” Conway isn ’ t wrong .
Not at all .
First , we know that criminals obtain their guns through criminal means .
While some might use face-to-face transfers so they can bypass the NICS check , universal background checks aren ’ t going to stop them .
For one , these private sales are just a fraction of gun sales in total , much less sales resulting in an armed criminal .
For another , most criminals purchase firearms on the black market , not from law-abiding citizens who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal .
Universal background checks aren ’ t going to do anything .
Another important point supporting Conway ’ s assertion is the fact that violent crime is skyrocketing all over the nation , but there has been no liberalization of gun laws .
We also know that despite media claims to the contrary , there ’ s not some massive surge of criminals trying to take advantage of a bogged down NICS .
Yet the violence has been an issue…after the riots that plagued this country .
The truth of the matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riots and media attacks on the police have emboldened a number of criminals and violence is surging .
That ’ s at least part of the issue , though I ’ ll admit that violent crime is far too complex an issue to have a single cause .
What we do know , though , is that criminals aren ’ t buying guns lawfully and , as such , there ’ s no reason to believe that the increase in violent crime has anything to do with guns .
People like Duckworth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Conway suggested that Duckworth ’ s comments come in a bid to raise her profile a bit in an effort to be selected as Joe Biden ’ s vice-presidential nomination .
That ’ s another fact I think she ’ s right about .
While Joe Biden might love that kind of talk , the truth is that blaming guns isn ’ t going to solve a damn thing .

While guns are one of those issues that isn’t completely cut-and-dried along partisan lines, we do know that most hardline leftists tend to support gun control. One of those leftists is the supposedly moderate Joe Biden, of course. He’s made his opinions on guns quite clear over the years but has reaffirmed his support for stripping our constitutionally-protected rights during his presidential campaign.
He’s far from alone, though.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth recently spouted her own anti-gun rhetoric. She was promptly smacked down.
In a clip played by host Julie Banderas, Duckworth said that if President Trump wants to end the violence, he should pressure Senate Republicans to “close the gun show loophole” and enact “universal background checks.” “Her evidence of the gun show loopholes having created this wave of violence in these Democratic-controlled cities is what?” Conway asked rhetorically. “I know she’s auditioning for vice president for [presumptive Democratic nominee] Joe Biden, she’s got stiff competition, so she’s going to say things to mollify the hard left. “Let’s be honest about what’s happening … ” Conway went on, turning to protest violence in cities like Portland, Ore. “They are pointing lasers in cops’ eyes, in some cases temporarily or permanently damaging their eyesight, throwing rocks and bricks and worse. Some aren’t even using guns. “The violence is leading to vandalism and gun shooting and the rest of it,” she added, “but some of these cities have the strictest gun control laws in the country, and this is what is happening.”
Conway isn’t wrong. Not at all.
First, we know that criminals obtain their guns through criminal means. While some might use face-to-face transfers so they can bypass the NICS check, universal background checks aren’t going to stop them. For one, these private sales are just a fraction of gun sales in total, much less sales resulting in an armed criminal.
For another, most criminals purchase firearms on the black market, not from law-abiding citizens who don’t realize their buyer is a criminal.
Universal background checks aren’t going to do anything.
Another important point supporting Conway’s assertion is the fact that violent crime is skyrocketing all over the nation, but there has been no liberalization of gun laws. We also know that despite media claims to the contrary, there’s not some massive surge of criminals trying to take advantage of a bogged down NICS.
Yet the violence has been an issue…after the riots that plagued this country.
The truth of the matter is that lawlessness begets lawlessness. The riots and media attacks on the police have emboldened a number of criminals and violence is surging. That’s at least part of the issue, though I’ll admit that violent crime is far too complex an issue to have a single cause.
What we do know, though, is that criminals aren’t buying guns lawfully and, as such, there’s no reason to believe that the increase in violent crime has anything to do with guns. People like Duckworth, though, don’t care about that.
Conway suggested that Duckworth’s comments come in a bid to raise her profile a bit in an effort to be selected as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential nomination. That’s another fact I think she’s right about.
While Joe Biden might love that kind of talk, the truth is that blaming guns isn’t going to solve a damn thing.


bearingarms--2020-08-05--NC Sheriff Faces Lawsuit Over Gun Permit Delays

In many states , there are firm limits on how long a county can take to issue a permit .
These limits exist for a reason .
After all , if an anti-gun county isn ’ t forced to comply with a given limit , they can drag their feet indefinitely .
Time limits for permits mean they ’ re supposed to step up and do their jobs , even if they don ’ t want to do it .
However , some counties don ’ t actually care all that much about the law .
They do what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who experience these delays will turn to the courts .
That ’ s precisely what ’ s happening in Wake County , NC .
Another lawsuit has been filed against Wake County and Sheriff Gerald Baker over gun permits .
Grass Roots North Carolina , a gun rights group , said Wake County and Baker are breaking the law by not issuing gun permits within 14 days .
“ Sheriff Baker knows the state specified 14 days for processing those permits and now it ’ s routinely taking two months , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina .
Erickson said they ’ ve been inundated with calls from people frustrated with the amount of time it ’ s taking to process permits .
“ They ’ re not getting much information back .
That ’ s been a problem for a lot of folks as well .
They ’ re calling , sending emails and not getting anything back , ” Kurt Lieberman said .
Lieberman owns Tar River Arms .
He said a cabinet in his Wake Forest store is full of guns people have purchased .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to pick them up .
Baker blames concerns over COVID , which has been a convenient scapegoat for many anti-gun officials .
However , a virus doesn ’ t negate people ’ s civil liberties .
These apparently aren ’ t even carry permits .
These are permits required for possession of a handgun .
In other words , people can ’ t even buy a handgun and have it on hand .
They ’ re literally sitting and waiting to take possession of their gun .
This is during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for firearms .
I get concerns over the virus .
I have family with comorbidities that could make COVID a huge problem .
However , that doesn ’ t negate Baker ’ s responsibilities as sheriff of Wake County .
While many of his constituents in Raleigh , NC may not care all that much , a lot of others do .
How many lives are in jeopardy right now because of him dragging his feet ?
With the lawsuit , it ’ s probably hoped it will be the spur needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I ’ m actually skeptical .
He ’ s being self-righteous about not issuing the permits .
He ’ s using it to virtue signal .
I suspect that he ’ ll keep pushing this for as long as he can .
Ultimately , it ’ s up to the people of Wake County to put a permanent end to Baker ’ s shenanigans .
All it will take is a good butt-whooping in an election and the problems start to go away .
Unless , of course , they elect someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , this is why preemption is such a big deal for so many gun-rights supporters .

In many states, there are firm limits on how long a county can take to issue a permit. These limits exist for a reason. After all, if an anti-gun county isn’t forced to comply with a given limit, they can drag their feet indefinitely. Time limits for permits mean they’re supposed to step up and do their jobs, even if they don’t want to do it.
However, some counties don’t actually care all that much about the law. They do what they want to do.
As such, people who experience these delays will turn to the courts. That’s precisely what’s happening in Wake County, NC.
Another lawsuit has been filed against Wake County and Sheriff Gerald Baker over gun permits. Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun rights group, said Wake County and Baker are breaking the law by not issuing gun permits within 14 days. “Sheriff Baker knows the state specified 14 days for processing those permits and now it’s routinely taking two months,” said Marc Erickson with Grass Roots North Carolina. Erickson said they’ve been inundated with calls from people frustrated with the amount of time it’s taking to process permits. “They’re not getting much information back. That’s been a problem for a lot of folks as well. They’re calling, sending emails and not getting anything back,” Kurt Lieberman said. Lieberman owns Tar River Arms. He said a cabinet in his Wake Forest store is full of guns people have purchased. They’re just waiting on permits to be able to pick them up.
Baker blames concerns over COVID, which has been a convenient scapegoat for many anti-gun officials.
However, a virus doesn’t negate people’s civil liberties. These apparently aren’t even carry permits. These are permits required for possession of a handgun.
In other words, people can’t even buy a handgun and have it on hand. They’re literally sitting and waiting to take possession of their gun. This is during a time when there’s unprecedented demand for firearms.
I get concerns over the virus. I have family with comorbidities that could make COVID a huge problem. However, that doesn’t negate Baker’s responsibilities as sheriff of Wake County. While many of his constituents in Raleigh, NC may not care all that much, a lot of others do. How many lives are in jeopardy right now because of him dragging his feet?
With the lawsuit, it’s probably hoped it will be the spur needed to kick Baker in the proverbial posterior, but I’m actually skeptical. He’s being self-righteous about not issuing the permits. He’s using it to virtue signal. I suspect that he’ll keep pushing this for as long as he can.
Ultimately, it’s up to the people of Wake County to put a permanent end to Baker’s shenanigans. All it will take is a good butt-whooping in an election and the problems start to go away. Unless, of course, they elect someone who cares even less about gun rights.
Of course, this is why preemption is such a big deal for so many gun-rights supporters.
(Edited to add: This is a state law, not a local ordinance, so preemption did nothing to stop it. It’s also a holdover from Jim Crow and needs to die a horrible, fiery death.)


bearingarms--2020-08-05--Wyoming State Supreme Court Won't Hear Preemption Case

Preemption is something we ’ ve spent a fair bit of time talking about here .
After all , it ’ s an important bit of legislation that prevents a patchwork of gun control laws that no one can keep track of .
The state of Wyoming has preemption .
However , the University of Wyoming believes the law doesn ’ t apply to them .
So far , the courts have agreed with the university .
Opponents have argued , unsurprisingly , that the courts are wrong and have continued to press their claims that the school falls under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter how much they argue , they lost the argument .
The Wyoming Supreme Court denied a writ of review on behalf of Uinta County resident Lyle Williams , who challenged the University of Wyoming ’ s ability to regulate firearms on its campus .
The Supreme Court ’ s Tuesday decision , based on a 3-2 vote among justices , denies reconsideration of a ruling by Tori Kricken , the Albany County district court judge , who said earlier in July that the university can regulate and prohibit firearms on campus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun inside the university ’ s convention center during the state Republican party ’ s annual conference .
Williams was one of many attendees who open-carried a gun with the intention of getting a citation and challenging UW ’ s gun policy .
The misdemeanor trespassing charge brought attention to UW ’ s gun policy and the first real challenge to its ability to regulate firearms on campus .
Williams ’ attorneys argued the Supreme Court should review the order because the issues raised garnered media attention and called into question whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case might present important questions , Wyoming ’ s Attorney General argued that those were addressed in a previous ruling from the district court in which Kricken wrote statute provided that only Wyoming firearms were exempt from regulation by local entities .
Honestly , that was the most ridiculous ruling I ’ ve ever heard .
Regardless , though , the courts have ruled as much as they ’ re going to .
That puts the onus for fixing this on the legislature .
They ’ re now the ones who can fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fixed .
Especially the inane argument that the law only applies to Wyoming firearms .
I ’ ve addressed that bit of stupidity before .
Now , though , the legislature needs to step in and make the necessary corrections so that this kind of thing doesn ’ t happen again .
I get that they may have been waiting for the legal situation to settle , but now it has .
Now we see the insane legal reading of the law and it ’ s up to lawmakers to put an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jump in immediately , I was willing to let them wait for the courts .
Now , though , there ’ s no excuse .
Now the legislature needs to step up and act .
It ’ s not even a difficult bit of legislation to work out and I don ’ t see massive opposition to it .
Not in Wyoming , after all .
All it will take it the political will to make it happen .
The question then is , do lawmakers have that will ?

Preemption is something we’ve spent a fair bit of time talking about here. After all, it’s an important bit of legislation that prevents a patchwork of gun control laws that no one can keep track of.
The state of Wyoming has preemption. However, the University of Wyoming believes the law doesn’t apply to them.
So far, the courts have agreed with the university. Opponents have argued, unsurprisingly, that the courts are wrong and have continued to press their claims that the school falls under the same regulations.
Unfortunately, no matter how much they argue, they lost the argument.
The Wyoming Supreme Court denied a writ of review on behalf of Uinta County resident Lyle Williams, who challenged the University of Wyoming’s ability to regulate firearms on its campus. The Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision, based on a 3-2 vote among justices, denies reconsideration of a ruling by Tori Kricken, the Albany County district court judge, who said earlier in July that the university can regulate and prohibit firearms on campus. Williams was cited in 2018 for open-carrying a gun inside the university’s convention center during the state Republican party’s annual conference. Williams was one of many attendees who open-carried a gun with the intention of getting a citation and challenging UW’s gun policy. The misdemeanor trespassing charge brought attention to UW’s gun policy and the first real challenge to its ability to regulate firearms on campus. Williams’ attorneys argued the Supreme Court should review the order because the issues raised garnered media attention and called into question whether UW can regulate firearms. While the case might present important questions, Wyoming’s Attorney General argued that those were addressed in a previous ruling from the district court in which Kricken wrote statute provided that only Wyoming firearms were exempt from regulation by local entities.
Honestly, that was the most ridiculous ruling I’ve ever heard.
Regardless, though, the courts have ruled as much as they’re going to. That puts the onus for fixing this on the legislature. They’re now the ones who can fix this, and it needs to be fixed.
Especially the inane argument that the law only applies to Wyoming firearms. I’ve addressed that bit of stupidity before.
Now, though, the legislature needs to step in and make the necessary corrections so that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. I get that they may have been waiting for the legal situation to settle, but now it has. Now we see the insane legal reading of the law and it’s up to lawmakers to put an end to it.
While some expected lawmakers to jump in immediately, I was willing to let them wait for the courts. Now, though, there’s no excuse. Now the legislature needs to step up and act. It’s not even a difficult bit of legislation to work out and I don’t see massive opposition to it. Not in Wyoming, after all.
All it will take it the political will to make it happen. The question then is, do lawmakers have that will?


bearingarms--2020-08-05--Black Gun Buyers: Our Ancestors Died For Us To Carry Guns

Right now , millions of African-Americans are buying guns .
They ’ re no different than people of other ethnicities buying guns , for the most part .
In fact , there aren ’ t really as many differences between the races as the media would like for us to believe .
African-Americans buying guns tend to do so for the same reason anyone else does .
They want to protect themselves and their families .
That ’ s a universal concern we can all unite behind .
In fact , those concerns have driven black men and women to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone else .
And while various demographic groups are buying guns in 2020 , African-Americans account for the highest increase in gun purchases of any group .
“ The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women , who show a 58.2 % increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year , ” Jim Curcuruto , NSSF director of research and market development , wrote in his report .
“ Bottom line is that there has never been a sustained surge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of.
” To be sure , the general unrest , particularly in predominantly black neighborhoods , is probably at least somewhat of a factor .
However , according to Michael Cargill , a black man and gun store owner in Texas , there ’ s more to it than that .
In the past few months , Cargill says he ’ s seen triple the amount of people coming into his store wanting to purchase firearms , and he ’ s noticed a surge in Black customers in particular .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns because they are getting more educated on the history of gun control .
“ They ’ re understanding that gun control first started in the 1800s … so people are realizing that every time there ’ s a gun law that ’ s targeting a certain group of people , it ’ s usually the African-American group , ” he said .
“ So they ’ re saying , with everything going on , we ’ ve got to make sure that we ’ re legal with this firearm .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the law is , we want to make sure we know where we can take it , where we can ’ t take it.
” History shows that gun control laws have always been unfavorable to Black Americans .
Even before America was a country , Black people were banned from owning guns .
“ The first gun control law in the territory that is now the United States was passed in Virginia in 1640 , ” journalist Daniel Rivero noted in a 2016 Splinter article .
“ It explicitly banned black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were not slaves.
” Whitney Davis of Houston admits that learning more about Black history is the reason why she recently purchased two guns for herself .
“ I realize in this country a long time ago , Black people weren ’ t even allowed to own guns , ” she said .
Davis ’ s dad grew up on a ranch in rural Texas , where over his lifetime he accrued a lot of guns , but it wasn ’ t until Davis learned more about her Black ancestors that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own .
“ So just like people promote that our ancestors died for us to vote , they also died for us to be able to carry guns as well , ” she said .
“ So I wanted to fulfill what my ancestors weren ’ t able to do in the past.
” Look , I ’ d like to say that race has never played a factor in how this country does things , but that ’ s simply not true .
We have a flawed history , to say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that continually strives to be better .
Those past mistakes are over .
They ’ re history .
Now , I personally embrace the new African-American gun owners .
They have a right to keep and bear arms , same as anyone , and since they ’ re historically more likely to be targeted by racial violence as well as violent crime in general than I am , I applaud their decision .
My only hope is that while we ’ re trying to purge our society of anything that remotely smacks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown on the pyre as well .

Right now, millions of African-Americans are buying guns. They’re no different than people of other ethnicities buying guns, for the most part. In fact, there aren’t really as many differences between the races as the media would like for us to believe.
African-Americans buying guns tend to do so for the same reason anyone else does. They want to protect themselves and their families. That’s a universal concern we can all unite behind.
In fact, those concerns have driven black men and women to purchase guns at a faster rate than anyone else.
And while various demographic groups are buying guns in 2020, African-Americans account for the highest increase in gun purchases of any group. “The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women, who show a 58.2% increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year,” Jim Curcuruto, NSSF director of research and market development, wrote in his report. “Bottom line is that there has never been a sustained surge in firearm sales quite like what we are in the midst of.”
To be sure, the general unrest, particularly in predominantly black neighborhoods, is probably at least somewhat of a factor.
However, according to Michael Cargill, a black man and gun store owner in Texas, there’s more to it than that.
In the past few months, Cargill says he’s seen triple the amount of people coming into his store wanting to purchase firearms, and he’s noticed a surge in Black customers in particular. Cargill believes Black people are buying more guns because they are getting more educated on the history of gun control. “They’re understanding that gun control first started in the 1800s … so people are realizing that every time there’s a gun law that’s targeting a certain group of people, it’s usually the African-American group,” he said. “So they’re saying, with everything going on, we’ve got to make sure that we’re legal with this firearm. We’re going to make sure we know what the law is, we want to make sure we know where we can take it, where we can’t take it.” History shows that gun control laws have always been unfavorable to Black Americans. Even before America was a country, Black people were banned from owning guns. “The first gun control law in the territory that is now the United States was passed in Virginia in 1640,” journalist Daniel Rivero noted in a 2016 Splinter article. “It explicitly banned black people from owning guns, even if they were not slaves.”
He’s not wrong, either.
Whitney Davis of Houston admits that learning more about Black history is the reason why she recently purchased two guns for herself. “I realize in this country a long time ago, Black people weren’t even allowed to own guns,” she said. Davis’s dad grew up on a ranch in rural Texas, where over his lifetime he accrued a lot of guns, but it wasn’t until Davis learned more about her Black ancestors that she felt motivated to buy guns of her own. “So just like people promote that our ancestors died for us to vote, they also died for us to be able to carry guns as well,” she said. “So I wanted to fulfill what my ancestors weren’t able to do in the past.”
It’s the absolute truth, unfortunately.
Look, I’d like to say that race has never played a factor in how this country does things, but that’s simply not true. We have a flawed history, to say the least. Yet America is a country that continually strives to be better. Those past mistakes are over. They’re history.
Now, I personally embrace the new African-American gun owners. They have a right to keep and bear arms, same as anyone, and since they’re historically more likely to be targeted by racial violence as well as violent crime in general than I am, I applaud their decision.
My only hope is that while we’re trying to purge our society of anything that remotely smacks of racism, perhaps gun control can be thrown on the pyre as well.


bearingarms--2020-08-05--San Jose Mayor Pushes "Gun Liability Insurance" Nonsense

It ’ s been a little while since the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting .
In fact , it ’ s been long enough that many of us don ’ t really think much about that incident .
It didn ’ t have a high body count , thankfully , and it was soon eclipsed by other , more horrific shootings .
Yet some of the idiotic ideas that sprung up during the aftermath of that shooting haven ’ t gone away .
In particular , the scheme devised by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo .
A year after a gunman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Festival , killing two San Jose children , little progress has been made on San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo ’ s plan for first-of-its-kind measure to curb gun violence .
The mayor ’ s proposed ordinance , which he unveiled just two weeks after the shooting in late July 2019 , would require gun owners in the nation ’ s 10th largest city to either carry liability insurance or pay a fee to cover taxpayer costs — such as emergency response and medical care — associated with gun violence .
Liccardo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time — from the New York Times to CNN to the Washington Post .
But just as episodes of gun violence can quickly fall from the news cycle and the public eye , in some ways , so has the mayor ’ s proposal .
Over the past year , staff in the mayor ’ s office have been working with representatives from the Giffords Law Center to understand the legal parameters of such an ordinance and acquire funding .
But when the COVID-19 pandemic struck the region five months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a screeching halt .
But that doesn ’ t mean the plan , itself , is dead .
Oh no , it ’ s still very much alive .
However , there are questions that Liccardo needs to answer .
In particular , just how this doesn ’ t become the Second Amendment equivalent of a poll tax ?
See , I remember when the state of Georgia started requiring picture ID to vote .
A lawsuit was filed at it was determined that the law was unconstitutional .
Not because you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , but because people had to pay for the ID .
The court ruled that the fee amounted to a poll tax .
The state then started issuing free photo IDs–not driver ’ s licenses , just identification cards–and all was well with the requirement .
Yet Liccardo trying to force gun owners to pay a fee or purchase a product in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected right is likely to spark significant legal challenges .
In fact , I can guarantee that it will .
While California is pretty anti-gun , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth is that this one doesn ’ t leave a lot of wiggle room .
Sooner or later , it ’ s probably going to be struck down .
I don ’ t think Liccardo cares , though .
In fact , I suspect he knows that ’ s a strong possibility .
Instead , I think he ’ s using this as a springboard for higher office .
San Jose may be the tenth-largest city in the nation , but it ’ s not one of those cities you can jump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national politics .
It ain ’ t New York , after all .
So , Liccardo is pushing this to raise his profile with the national party .
Maybe he wants to translate this into a senatorial campaign or governorship .
It doesn ’ t matter , though , because for it to accomplish these possible goals , he ’ s got to implement it .
Folks in San Jose ?
You might want to start vetting attorneys .

It’s been a little while since the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting. In fact, it’s been long enough that many of us don’t really think much about that incident. It didn’t have a high body count, thankfully, and it was soon eclipsed by other, more horrific shootings.
Yet some of the idiotic ideas that sprung up during the aftermath of that shooting haven’t gone away.
In particular, the scheme devised by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.
A year after a gunman opened fire at the beloved Gilroy Garlic Festival, killing two San Jose children, little progress has been made on San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo’s plan for first-of-its-kind measure to curb gun violence. The mayor’s proposed ordinance, which he unveiled just two weeks after the shooting in late July 2019, would require gun owners in the nation’s 10th largest city to either carry liability insurance or pay a fee to cover taxpayer costs — such as emergency response and medical care — associated with gun violence. Liccardo’s novel idea gained widespread national media attention at the time — from the New York Times to CNN to the Washington Post. But just as episodes of gun violence can quickly fall from the news cycle and the public eye, in some ways, so has the mayor’s proposal. Over the past year, staff in the mayor’s office have been working with representatives from the Giffords Law Center to understand the legal parameters of such an ordinance and acquire funding. But when the COVID-19 pandemic struck the region five months ago, work on the ordinance came to a screeching halt.
But that doesn’t mean the plan, itself, is dead. Oh no, it’s still very much alive.
However, there are questions that Liccardo needs to answer. In particular, just how this doesn’t become the Second Amendment equivalent of a poll tax?
See, I remember when the state of Georgia started requiring picture ID to vote. A lawsuit was filed at it was determined that the law was unconstitutional. Not because you can’t require a state-issued ID for voting, but because people had to pay for the ID. The court ruled that the fee amounted to a poll tax.
The state then started issuing free photo IDs–not driver’s licenses, just identification cards–and all was well with the requirement.
Yet Liccardo trying to force gun owners to pay a fee or purchase a product in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected right is likely to spark significant legal challenges. In fact, I can guarantee that it will.
While California is pretty anti-gun, including most of its federal judges, the truth is that this one doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room. Sooner or later, it’s probably going to be struck down.
I don’t think Liccardo cares, though. In fact, I suspect he knows that’s a strong possibility.
Instead, I think he’s using this as a springboard for higher office. San Jose may be the tenth-largest city in the nation, but it’s not one of those cities you can jump from the mayor’s office to national politics. It ain’t New York, after all.
So, Liccardo is pushing this to raise his profile with the national party. Maybe he wants to translate this into a senatorial campaign or governorship. It doesn’t matter, though, because for it to accomplish these possible goals, he’s got to implement it.
Folks in San Jose? You might want to start vetting attorneys.


bearingarms--2020-08-05--McCloskey Detective Refused To Sign Prosecution Docs Twice

The prosecution of the McCloskeys is , perhaps , one of the biggest travesties of justice in recent months .
While protests continue following the death of George Floyd , many seem to forget that the officers responsible have been fired and are being prosecuted .
Meanwhile , a couple who squared off against an angry mob that had already vandalized their property in order to gain access to it is somehow the targets of prosecution themselves .
And yet , it seems that despite the prosecutor ’ s deeply-driven desire to drag the couple to court , it wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have tried to present to the media .
New information has surfaced revealing a schism between St. Louis police and Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner regarding her attempt to prosecute Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they pointed firearms at armed property invaders on June 28 .
According to Christine Byers , of KSDK , TV 5 : The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted , according to a review of those documents… The documents obtained by 5 On Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley sent to the lead investigator on the case , Sgt .
Curtis Burgdorf .
Hinckley emailed police the day before the McCloskeys were served with a search warrant , stating it needed to happen ‘ now.
’ Couple this with the fact that Hinckley ordered Patricia McCloskey ’ s gun to be made functional and the case looks pretty shaky .
I can ’ t help but think that this is , ultimately , going to work against the prosecution .
Making the weapon functional is , arguably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the prosecution ’ s face .
Especially since our legal standard for criminal cases is that the prosecution has to prove their case .
That means Hinckley needs to prove the weapon was functional at the time of the incident .
I don ’ t think he can .
Meanwhile , prosecutors and the media have presented the McCloskeys as being completely out of line , like there was absolutely no threat to the McCloskeys .
Well , that might not be correct .
Not only has Circuit Attorney Gardner turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has focused a target on the McCloskeys by seizing those firearms .
And this is not an abstract matter .
Observes Byers : In addition , police contend at least one person in the crowd was armed and another was wearing a bullet-resistant vest , after analyzing videos taken June 28 , when the couple confronted protesters with guns .
Evidence shows that the trespassers broke through and ruined the McCloskey ’ s iron gate .
They presented and had already shown that they were a threat to property , and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was ample reason for the McCloskeys to fear for their life .
That ’ s going to make the prosecution ’ s case a whole lot less likely to pan out , especially in Missouri which has a Castle Doctrine law and a Stand Your Ground law .
What ’ s more , by ginning up the outrage here , Gardner has made it so if the McCloskeys get acquitted , there will be an opportunity for still more civil unrest .
All because she had to flex her virtue .

And yet, it seems that despite the prosecutor’s deeply-driven desire to drag the couple to court, it wasn’t the slam dunk she might have tried to present to the media.
New information has surfaced revealing a schism between St. Louis police and Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner regarding her attempt to prosecute Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they pointed firearms at armed property invaders on June 28. According to Christine Byers, of KSDK, TV 5: The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted, according to a review of those documents… Yet Gardner’s office – specifically, Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley — applied pressure. The documents obtained by 5 On Your Side include an email Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley sent to the lead investigator on the case, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf. Hinckley emailed police the day before the McCloskeys were served with a search warrant, stating it needed to happen ‘now.’
Couple this with the fact that Hinckley ordered Patricia McCloskey’s gun to be made functional and the case looks pretty shaky. I can’t help but think that this is, ultimately, going to work against the prosecution. Making the weapon functional is, arguably, evidence tampering and could well blow up in the prosecution’s face.
Especially since our legal standard for criminal cases is that the prosecution has to prove their case. That means Hinckley needs to prove the weapon was functional at the time of the incident. I don’t think he can.
Meanwhile, prosecutors and the media have presented the McCloskeys as being completely out of line, like there was absolutely no threat to the McCloskeys.
Well, that might not be correct.
Not only has Circuit Attorney Gardner turned this into a perceivably unwarranted prosecution, she has focused a target on the McCloskeys by seizing those firearms. And this is not an abstract matter. Observes Byers: In addition, police contend at least one person in the crowd was armed and another was wearing a bullet-resistant vest, after analyzing videos taken June 28, when the couple confronted protesters with guns. Evidence shows that the trespassers broke through and ruined the McCloskey’s iron gate. They presented and had already shown that they were a threat to property, and, potentially, life.
In other words, there was ample reason for the McCloskeys to fear for their life. That’s going to make the prosecution’s case a whole lot less likely to pan out, especially in Missouri which has a Castle Doctrine law and a Stand Your Ground law.
What’s more, by ginning up the outrage here, Gardner has made it so if the McCloskeys get acquitted, there will be an opportunity for still more civil unrest.
All because she had to flex her virtue.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--Flint, MI No Longer Selling Off Seized Firearms

All over the nation , police departments have helped supplement their budgets by selling off seized items .
They ’ ve sold houses , cars , and yes , even firearms .
These guns are often sold to pawn shops or gun dealers to be later sold to the public .
In some cases , they ’ re auctioned directly to that public .
Since no one is buying these guns without going through a NICS check , there ’ s absolutely no harm in the firearms being sold to the public .
However , anti-gunners have long decried the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to be inexpensive , thus allowing law-abiding citizens from the lower-income brackets to have access to firearms for self-defense .
Now , though , those poor folks in Flint , MI are going to have to figure something else out .
I hate to break it to Neeley , but those guns aren ’ t being sold to bad guys .
Bad guys are either stealing weapons or buying them off the black market from people who have .
A small handful use straw purchases , which might include auctioned weapons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s done is cost the city money .
In addition to the money not brought in via the auction , someone ’ s going to have to pay for the destruction of those firearms .
It ain ’ t going to be the state police .
No , that cost will fall on the City of Flint .
Meanwhile , criminals will still get their hands on firearms without too much of a problem .
We ’ ve seen this time and time again .
Neeley has accomplished nothing except to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source for firearms they could use to defend their persons and their homes .
Unfortunately , though , Neeley is just one of the millions who have bought into the idea that if guns are sold , they ’ ll somehow be sold to bad people .
This despite the background checks performed on buyers .
Meanwhile , I suspect she thinks universal background checks will somehow stop the flow of guns to criminals .
I doubt she recognizes this irony in all of this as well .
Look , criminals are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at England .
They ’ ve come up with some pretty creative ways to get guns despite the near-total gun ban in the country .
If the UK can ’ t get rid of guns , we ’ re hosed here .
It just makes more sense to arm law-abiding citizens and let the criminals beware .
Unfortunately , Neeley just made it that much more difficult for her citizens .

All over the nation, police departments have helped supplement their budgets by selling off seized items. They’ve sold houses, cars, and yes, even firearms. These guns are often sold to pawn shops or gun dealers to be later sold to the public. In some cases, they’re auctioned directly to that public.
Since no one is buying these guns without going through a NICS check, there’s absolutely no harm in the firearms being sold to the public. However, anti-gunners have long decried the practice. After all, these firearms tend to be inexpensive, thus allowing law-abiding citizens from the lower-income brackets to have access to firearms for self-defense.
Now, though, those poor folks in Flint, MI are going to have to figure something else out.
The city of Flint, Mich. announced last week it would no longer auction off guns seized by police. Mayor Sheldon Neeley said the decision was designed to make sure illegal guns stay off the street permanently and ensuring they don’t fall into the wrong hands again. “You have to ask yourself, ‘How much is a life worth?’” Neeley said at a news conference on July 29. “From this day forward, we will destroy weapons we collect.” … “That revenue to me, is just not good revenue,” Neeley said. “It shows a gross lack of critical thinking when we say we want to fight crime and take weapons off the street to be in the chain of circulating weapons back into activity where bad guys may have a second chance of doing something wrong.”
I hate to break it to Neeley, but those guns aren’t being sold to bad guys. Bad guys are either stealing weapons or buying them off the black market from people who have. A small handful use straw purchases, which might include auctioned weapons, but likely don’t.
All she’s done is cost the city money.
In addition to the money not brought in via the auction, someone’s going to have to pay for the destruction of those firearms. It ain’t going to be the state police. No, that cost will fall on the City of Flint.
Meanwhile, criminals will still get their hands on firearms without too much of a problem. We’ve seen this time and time again. Neeley has accomplished nothing except to deprive law-abiding citizens of a potentially inexpensive source for firearms they could use to defend their persons and their homes.
Nice job.
Unfortunately, though, Neeley is just one of the millions who have bought into the idea that if guns are sold, they’ll somehow be sold to bad people. This despite the background checks performed on buyers.
Meanwhile, I suspect she thinks universal background checks will somehow stop the flow of guns to criminals. I doubt she recognizes this irony in all of this as well.
Look, criminals are going to get guns. Take a look at England. They’ve come up with some pretty creative ways to get guns despite the near-total gun ban in the country. If the UK can’t get rid of guns, we’re hosed here. It just makes more sense to arm law-abiding citizens and let the criminals beware.
Unfortunately, Neeley just made it that much more difficult for her citizens.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--LaPierre: NY AG's Move To Dissolve NRA An "Affront To Democracy"

New York Attorney General Letitia James ’ announcement that she ’ s suing to dissolve the NRA is an “ affront to democracy , ” according to NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre .
In a follow up to his first tweet , LaPierre went on to say that “ the NRA is well governed , financially solvent , and committed to good governance .
We ’ re ready for the fight .
Bring it on.
” Meanwhile , in an email sent to NRA-ILA activist leaders obtained by Bearing Arms , NRA President Carolyn Meadows called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only on the gun group , but the “ Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend.
” “ You could have set your watch by it : the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle .
It ’ s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda .
This has been a power grab by a political opportunist – a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta .
Our members won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense of political and constitutional freedom.
” As evidenced by the lawsuit filed by the NRA today against the NYAG , we not only will not shrink from this fight – we will confront it and prevail.
” The argument that James ’ new lawsuit politically motivated is not without merit , particularly given the simultaneous announcement by Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine that he too is pursuing a civil case of his own , this one against the NRA Foundation .
At the heart of both cases are serious allegations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , starting with Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre .
James also named general counsel John Frazer , former General Operations head Josh Powell , and former treasurer Woody Phillips in her Thursday press conference , alleging that the four oversaw the misuse of more than $ 64-million in organization funds in 2018 and 2019 .
In addition to seeking financial restitution by the four executives , and barring them from serving in the employ of any non-profit chartered in the state of New York , James declared that she wants to dissolve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was actual wrongdoing , there should be actual consequences , but as Allahpundit notes over at Hot Air , it doesn ’ t seem like much of a coincidence that James is filing suit against the organization and its leadership right as we head into the thick of campaign season , and it ’ s even more telling that she ’ s trying to dissolve the NRA rather than “ clean house ” .
I think that ’ s the political angle here .
Lefties are pointing out on Twitter that dissolution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard-of penalty ; why , Trump ’ s own charity agreed to dissolve after James ’ s office accused it of misconduct too .
But the fact that the NRA is facing the same death penalty as Trump ’ s nonprofit in deeply Democratic New York isn ’ t an exoneration from the charge that James is playing politics that liberals seem to think .
The timing of the lawsuit may be designed to turn the NRA from an advocacy group that ’ s on offense against Dems this fall into a de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense in New York .
Maybe the bad publicity and the exasperation among NRA members that so much of their donations have gone to court battles over malfeasance instead of court battles over gun rights will lead to the group being starved of money going forward .
In the end , they might choose to dissolve because fighting on is simply too expensive .
Even those who ’ ve been critical of the NRA say that the push to dissolve the organization is “ heavy-handed.
” The Cato Institute ’ s Walter Olson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among those accusing the Attorney General of playing politics by trying to shut down the organization , rather than simply pursuing actions against individuals in leadership positions .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation , which represents businesses in the firearms and ammunition industries , also released a statement Thursday afternoon calling out the “ politically-driven ” decision to try to dissolve the NRA .
The lawsuit filed today by Attorney General James seeks to punish the over five million members of the National Rifle Association based on mere allegations of possible wrongdoing by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about the apparent political agenda to silence the strongest voice in support of the Second Amendment ahead of the election in November .
This lawsuit , and one filed today by the District of Columbia Attorney General , should concern all Americans who cherish both the First and Second Amendments to our Constitution regardless of their views on what laws and regulations are appropriate to address the criminal misuse of firearms .
Meanwhile , gun control groups are already fundraising off of the decision by the New York AG to pursue litigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Giffords told supporters that “ We won ’ t rest until the organization has been dissolved for good , but we need your help to keep up the pressure , ” before asking donors to contribute anywhere from $ 10-250 to the gun ban group that accepted a six-figure PPP loan from the federal government to help keep its anti-gun law firm up and running over the past few months .
James decision to try to dissolve the NRA , as well as accuse LaPierre and others of breaking state and federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal charges , adds more weight to the allegations that her investigation and civil lawsuit are motivated more by politics than public service .
As Allahpundit noted in his piece at Hot Air , James called the NRA a “ terrorist organization ” back when she was running for AG in New York .
Attacking the NRA has been good politics for James , and with the election just months away anti-gun activists clearly believe her latest salvo is good for the Biden campaign as well .
The allegations against NRA leadership are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own case by making it clear that her ultimate goal is to destroy the NRA , not ensure that its 5,000,000 members are being well-served .

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ announcement that she’s suing to dissolve the NRA is an “affront to democracy,” according to NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre.
(1/2) Statement from NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre: “The NYAG’s actions are an affront to democracy and freedom. This is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the NRA – the fiercest defender of America’s freedom at the ballot box for decades. — NRA (@NRA) August 6, 2020
In a follow up to his first tweet, LaPierre went on to say that “the NRA is well governed, financially solvent, and committed to good governance. We’re ready for the fight. Bring it on.” Meanwhile, in an email sent to NRA-ILA activist leaders obtained by Bearing Arms, NRA President Carolyn Meadows called the lawsuit a “baseless attack” not only on the gun group, but the “Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend.”
“You could have set your watch by it: the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle. It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda. This has been a power grab by a political opportunist – a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members won’t be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.” As evidenced by the lawsuit filed by the NRA today against the NYAG, we not only will not shrink from this fight – we will confront it and prevail.”
The argument that James’ new lawsuit politically motivated is not without merit, particularly given the simultaneous announcement by Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine that he too is pursuing a civil case of his own, this one against the NRA Foundation.
At the heart of both cases are serious allegations of misspending on the part of NRA leadership, starting with Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. James also named general counsel John Frazer, former General Operations head Josh Powell, and former treasurer Woody Phillips in her Thursday press conference, alleging that the four oversaw the misuse of more than $64-million in organization funds in 2018 and 2019. In addition to seeking financial restitution by the four executives, and barring them from serving in the employ of any non-profit chartered in the state of New York, James declared that she wants to dissolve the National Rifle Association entirely.
If there was actual wrongdoing, there should be actual consequences, but as Allahpundit notes over at Hot Air, it doesn’t seem like much of a coincidence that James is filing suit against the organization and its leadership right as we head into the thick of campaign season, and it’s even more telling that she’s trying to dissolve the NRA rather than “clean house”.
I think that’s the political angle here. Lefties are pointing out on Twitter that dissolution of a corrupt charity isn’t some unheard-of penalty; why, Trump’s own charity agreed to dissolve after James’s office accused it of misconduct too. But the fact that the NRA is facing the same death penalty as Trump’s nonprofit in deeply Democratic New York isn’t an exoneration from the charge that James is playing politics that liberals seem to think. The timing of the lawsuit may be designed to turn the NRA from an advocacy group that’s on offense against Dems this fall into a de facto legal fund that’s playing defense in New York. Maybe the bad publicity and the exasperation among NRA members that so much of their donations have gone to court battles over malfeasance instead of court battles over gun rights will lead to the group being starved of money going forward. In the end, they might choose to dissolve because fighting on is simply too expensive.
Even those who’ve been critical of the NRA say that the push to dissolve the organization is “heavy-handed.”
If there’s fraud and self-dealing (and it seems like there is), prosecute the people who did it. I’ve been very critical of the NRA, but dissolution seems really heavy-handed. It’s also an absolute gift to Trump, 3 months before the election.https://t.co/Ym4VWiv92w — Radley Balko (@radleybalko) August 6, 2020
The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson and Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett were among those accusing the Attorney General of playing politics by trying to shut down the organization, rather than simply pursuing actions against individuals in leadership positions.
There's all the difference in the world between dropping a legal anvil on NRA insiders because you want to vindicate the interests of the org's donors, and demanding the group's dissolution precisely because you don't. /5 — Walter Olson 😷 (@walterolson) August 6, 2020
https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1291413453039710209
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents businesses in the firearms and ammunition industries, also released a statement Thursday afternoon calling out the “politically-driven” decision to try to dissolve the NRA.
The lawsuit filed today by Attorney General James seeks to punish the over five million members of the National Rifle Association based on mere allegations of possible wrongdoing by a few individuals. NSSF is deeply concerned about the apparent political agenda to silence the strongest voice in support of the Second Amendment ahead of the election in November. This lawsuit, and one filed today by the District of Columbia Attorney General, should concern all Americans who cherish both the First and Second Amendments to our Constitution regardless of their views on what laws and regulations are appropriate to address the criminal misuse of firearms.
Meanwhile, gun control groups are already fundraising off of the decision by the New York AG to pursue litigation against the NRA. In an email, Giffords told supporters that “We won’t rest until the organization has been dissolved for good, but we need your help to keep up the pressure,” before asking donors to contribute anywhere from $10-250 to the gun ban group that accepted a six-figure PPP loan from the federal government to help keep its anti-gun law firm up and running over the past few months.
James decision to try to dissolve the NRA, as well as accuse LaPierre and others of breaking state and federal law without choosing to file any actual criminal charges, adds more weight to the allegations that her investigation and civil lawsuit are motivated more by politics than public service. As Allahpundit noted in his piece at Hot Air, James called the NRA a “terrorist organization” back when she was running for AG in New York. Attacking the NRA has been good politics for James, and with the election just months away anti-gun activists clearly believe her latest salvo is good for the Biden campaign as well. The allegations against NRA leadership are serious, but James is undercutting her own case by making it clear that her ultimate goal is to destroy the NRA, not ensure that its 5,000,000 members are being well-served.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--FBI Seize Guns From YouTuber Jake Paul's Home

For most folks , the name Jake Paul means absolutely nothing .
For the rest of us who have been subjected to knowing about this individual , though , Jake Paul is a prime-time trainwreck .
Maybe not as much as this brother , Logan Paul , but pretty close .
After all , Logan had enough sense not to film himself at a riot .
However , both have been knee-deep in the aftermath of George Floyd .
In fact , his actions following that death have led to an FBI investigation , an investigation that also led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , it seems the investigation came as a result of video evidence showing Jake Paul taking part in an Arizona riot , one of many that followed the death of George Floyd while being arrested by Minneapolis police .
The evidence clearly shows Paul at the riot , including him taking a looted bottle of vodka .
Since Paul crossed state lines to take part in a riot , that makes it a federal case , hence the FBI ’ s involvement .
Now , we don ’ t know precisely why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s firearms .
Some are suggesting the weapons are illegal , which is possible .
Maybe even probable since Paul tends to think the rules don ’ t , or shouldn ’ t , apply to him .
After all , despite openly displaying his firearm collection on his YouTube channel , he ’ s also advocated for gun control .
He also took a brief pause from daily vlogging to film a documentary after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Fla .
In the film , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence , but some criticized the YouTube star for flaunting firearms in previous videos .
While he was in Parkland , Paul kept an elaborate tattoo of a large rifle firing a bullet on his thigh covered .
So , I ’ m less than supportive .
That said , if Paul ’ s firearms aren ’ t breaking the law , the FBI is out of line to have seized them .
He has Second Amendment rights , the same as anyone else .
As such , the FBI needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially since they weren ’ t used in the riot Paul is being investigated over .

For most folks, the name Jake Paul means absolutely nothing.
Consider yourself lucky.
For the rest of us who have been subjected to knowing about this individual, though, Jake Paul is a prime-time trainwreck. Maybe not as much as this brother, Logan Paul, but pretty close. After all, Logan had enough sense not to film himself at a riot. However, both have been knee-deep in the aftermath of George Floyd.
In fact, his actions following that death have led to an FBI investigation, an investigation that also led to guns being seized from his home.
When federal agents executed a warrant to search YouTube personality Jake Paul’s home in Calabasas, Calif., early Wednesday morning, they found a long gun left leaning against a hot tub in the backyard. Over several hours, FBI agents confiscated multiple other guns from Paul’s property in a scene captured on film by KABC-TV Los Angeles . Federal officials say the raid is part of an investigation linked to a riot at a shopping mall in Scottsdale, Ariz., during protests in May. Paul and his production crew filmed the riot. “The FBI is investigating allegations of criminal acts surrounding the incident at Scottsdale Fashion Square in May 2020,” Jill McCabe, a spokeswoman for the FBI Phoenix field office, told The Washington Post in an email. “This morning the FBI executed federal search warrants in California and Las Vegas, Nevada in connection with this investigation.” What appeared to be multiple firearms were found scattered throughout the property, including what looked like a long gun propped up against a hot tub in the backyard. https://t.co/oOkiwY7kSz pic.twitter.com/ZeCXhPI5Aa — ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) August 5, 2020 The search warrants and affidavit filed in the case have been sealed and the FBI declined to provide further details about the nature of the investigation.
However, it seems the investigation came as a result of video evidence showing Jake Paul taking part in an Arizona riot, one of many that followed the death of George Floyd while being arrested by Minneapolis police. The evidence clearly shows Paul at the riot, including him taking a looted bottle of vodka.
Since Paul crossed state lines to take part in a riot, that makes it a federal case, hence the FBI’s involvement.
Now, we don’t know precisely why the FBI was interested in Paul’s firearms. Some are suggesting the weapons are illegal, which is possible. Maybe even probable since Paul tends to think the rules don’t, or shouldn’t, apply to him.
After all, despite openly displaying his firearm collection on his YouTube channel, he’s also advocated for gun control.
He also took a brief pause from daily vlogging to film a documentary after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. In the film, Paul advocated for some measures to reduce gun violence, but some criticized the YouTube star for flaunting firearms in previous videos. While he was in Parkland, Paul kept an elaborate tattoo of a large rifle firing a bullet on his thigh covered.
So, I’m less than supportive.
That said, if Paul’s firearms aren’t breaking the law, the FBI is out of line to have seized them. He has Second Amendment rights, the same as anyone else. As such, the FBI needs to explain why the firearms were taken, especially since they weren’t used in the riot Paul is being investigated over.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--Gun Rights Advocates Aren't To Blame From Breonna Taylor

Breonna Taylor ’ s death is an absolute tragedy .
Perhaps even more of a tragedy is how there hasn ’ t been anything that looks like a real investigation into what happened to her .
For those who don ’ t remember , Taylor was shot during a police raid .
Officers executed a no-knock warrant on Taylor ’ s home because of a prior relationship with a suspected drug dealer .
However , Taylor ’ s boyfriend was someone else .
He had a firearm and used it to repel what he thought was a home invasion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight times .
She died shortly afterward .
The suspected drug dealer lived 10 miles away from Taylor .
Now , though , it seems Taylor ’ s death is our fault .
The tragic death of Breonna Taylor is a result of the faulty assertion by gun advocates that having a firearm in the house makes one safer .
I fully acknowledge the part that law enforcement and the judicial system played in Breonna ’ s unfortunate death .
There is no excuse for their failures .
They must be held accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think he means it .
After all , just wait a little while and you ’ ll see what I mean .
The United States has approximately 5 % of the world ’ s population and , according to a recent Small Arms Survey , 46 % of the world ’ s civilian firearms .
The Brookings Institution writes in July that there are more guns than people in the United States ( 400 million are in circulation for a population of 330 million ) .
That is more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , woman and child to tuck under their pillows at night .
Yet 80,000 to 100,000 more are sold every day .
By this logic , we should all be safer .
But that is not the case .
The Giffords Law Center writes that deaths by firearm are reaching almost 40,000 per year in the U.S. America accounts for nearly 51 % of global yearly firearm deaths , and 1.3 % of these deaths and 18 % of all gun injuries were preventable , accidental or related to self-defense .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 % were homicides .
Only 2.7 % of all firearm deaths in this country were related to legal intervention or were of undetermined origin .
We are less safe than they want us to believe .
You see , the problem here is looking at the wrong numbers .
Yes , more people are murdered than are killed in self-defense .
That ’ s absolutely true and I won ’ t dispute it .
Where the argument breaks down , though , is that many orders of magnitude more cases exist where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs off the moment they ’ re met with armed resistance .
The lowest estimated counts of defensive gun uses is around 100,000 .
This is an incredibly low-ball estimate , but for the sake of argument , let ’ s run with it .
Now , 100,000 defensive gun uses works out to 2.5 times the 40,000 gun deaths per year cited above .
Further , since more than 60 percent of those deaths are suicides , they really shouldn ’ t be counted at all .
After all , suicide can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pretty much as effective as a gun .
So , that leaves us with somewhere around 14,000 homicides .
Even with that low-ball estimate of defensive gun uses , we see a huge difference .
Yet , again , that 100,000 is a low estimate .
The more likely estimate is somewhere around a million defensive gun uses every single year .
There ’ s nowhere near that many homicides , which suggests that gun ownership works .
In other words , the writer doesn ’ t know what the hell he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finishes up with : Uh uh , no .
You don ’ t get to make that claim .
You don ’ t get to make that claim .
Yeah , it ’ s easy to plan Monday morning quarterback now , but Breonna Taylor ’ s death was the result of police executing a no-knock warrant on a house where they had little reason to be .
No-knock raids often mimic home invasions by criminals .
That ’ s where the problem is and it ’ s why several places have moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get to pretend that someone acting in self-defense–and a law-abiding citizen trying to fight back against a home invasion is self-defense–is somehow responsible for what happens .
I thought victim-blaming was out of fashion .
I guess not .
Yet even if you made that case , what about the myriad of other people who have managed to defend themselves and their families ?
Should they have been left to die because it somehow offends your sensibilities that they had guns ?
Breonna Taylor ’ s death is a tragedy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by causing more tragedies in response .

Breonna Taylor’s death is an absolute tragedy. Perhaps even more of a tragedy is how there hasn’t been anything that looks like a real investigation into what happened to her.
For those who don’t remember, Taylor was shot during a police raid. Officers executed a no-knock warrant on Taylor’s home because of a prior relationship with a suspected drug dealer.
However, Taylor’s boyfriend was someone else. He had a firearm and used it to repel what he thought was a home invasion. During the firefight, Taylor was shot eight times. She died shortly afterward.
The suspected drug dealer lived 10 miles away from Taylor.
Now, though, it seems Taylor’s death is our fault.
The tragic death of Breonna Taylor is a result of the faulty assertion by gun advocates that having a firearm in the house makes one safer. I fully acknowledge the part that law enforcement and the judicial system played in Breonna’s unfortunate death. There is no excuse for their failures. They must be held accountable and punished for their actions.
I don’t think he means it.
After all, just wait a little while and you’ll see what I mean.
The United States has approximately 5% of the world’s population and, according to a recent Small Arms Survey, 46% of the world’s civilian firearms. The Brookings Institution writes in July that there are more guns than people in the United States (400 million are in circulation for a population of 330 million). That is more than enough weapons in this country for every man, woman and child to tuck under their pillows at night. Yet 80,000 to 100,000 more are sold every day. By this logic, we should all be safer. But that is not the case. The Giffords Law Center writes that deaths by firearm are reaching almost 40,000 per year in the U.S. America accounts for nearly 51% of global yearly firearm deaths, and 1.3% of these deaths and 18% of all gun injuries were preventable, accidental or related to self-defense. Other numbers: 61% were suicides and 35% were homicides. Only 2.7% of all firearm deaths in this country were related to legal intervention or were of undetermined origin. We are less safe than they want us to believe.
Not actually true.
You see, the problem here is looking at the wrong numbers. Yes, more people are murdered than are killed in self-defense. That’s absolutely true and I won’t dispute it.
Where the argument breaks down, though, is that many orders of magnitude more cases exist where the attacker is merely wounded or simply runs off the moment they’re met with armed resistance. The lowest estimated counts of defensive gun uses is around 100,000. This is an incredibly low-ball estimate, but for the sake of argument, let’s run with it.
Now, 100,000 defensive gun uses works out to 2.5 times the 40,000 gun deaths per year cited above. Further, since more than 60 percent of those deaths are suicides, they really shouldn’t be counted at all. After all, suicide can be committed with other methods and some are pretty much as effective as a gun. So, that leaves us with somewhere around 14,000 homicides.
Even with that low-ball estimate of defensive gun uses, we see a huge difference.
Yet, again, that 100,000 is a low estimate. The more likely estimate is somewhere around a million defensive gun uses every single year. There’s nowhere near that many homicides, which suggests that gun ownership works.
In other words, the writer doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Yet he finishes up with:
I can imagine a different outcome for Breonna Taylor. I can envision a house without a gun. I can picture Breonna being “scared to death” by intruders. But that is seldom fatal in itself.
No.
Uh uh, no. You don’t get to make that claim. You don’t get to make that claim.
Yeah, it’s easy to plan Monday morning quarterback now, but Breonna Taylor’s death was the result of police executing a no-knock warrant on a house where they had little reason to be. No-knock raids often mimic home invasions by criminals. That’s where the problem is and it’s why several places have moved to ban the practice.
You don’t get to pretend that someone acting in self-defense–and a law-abiding citizen trying to fight back against a home invasion is self-defense–is somehow responsible for what happens. I thought victim-blaming was out of fashion. I guess not.
Yet even if you made that case, what about the myriad of other people who have managed to defend themselves and their families? Should they have been left to die because it somehow offends your sensibilities that they had guns?
No, they shouldn’t.
Breonna Taylor’s death is a tragedy, but don’t make it worse by causing more tragedies in response.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--Federal Court Revives Second Amendment Lawsuit

The state of Maryland passed some pretty hinky gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook .
There ’ s no doubt about it , to be sure .
The law in question , the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 required that anyone who wanted to buy a handgun had to attend a 4-hour safety training session .
The law also raised the minimum age for handgun sales to 21 , which is in compliance with federal law , and required universal background checks for handguns .
Unsurprisingly , though , a lawsuit was filed in an attempt to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time because the judge said the plaintiffs didn ’ t have sufficient standing .
Well , if that lawsuit was truly dead , then zombies are real .
On Monday the appellate court partially vacated the District Court ’ s dismissal of the case and reinstated it for further deliberations .
The Circuit Court determined that the trial court had erred because Atlantic Guns had suffered a concrete injury because the additional cost to potential customers who wished to purchase a handgun had possibly depressed sales following the enactment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the appellate court determined that Atlantic Guns could pursue the Second Amendment claim on behalf of itself and the other parties to the litigation .
But the appellate court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claims , finding that the District Court correctly dismissed those claims .
Now , this doesn ’ t mean the lawsuit will be victorious .
They ’ re just saying the District Court dismissed it for the wrong reasons , that Atlantic Guns had standing .
To be fair , the appellate court is correct .
Standing does exist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not going to speculate on what the courts will do because I ’ m not a lawyer and it ’ s Maryland , a land where the anti-gun sensibility runs pretty damn deep .
That likely influences the federal courts in that neck of the woods .
In other words , it ’ s still an uphill slog .
However , there ’ s now a chance to overturn a particularly bad law .
These requirements are vile and they ’ ve done nothing to curb violence in cities like Baltimore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify still more regulations on law-abiding citizens that criminals will promptly ignore .
Such is the way of criminals and all that crap .
Make no mistake , though , this is a big win either way .
It ’ s a step forward , a reminder that not everyone is willing to roll over and play along with their anti-gun , anti-constitution nonsense .
Laws like this make no one safer–quite the opposite , really–and yet they expect everyone to play along .
Well , we won ’ t , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we refuse to just roll over because the narrative demands it of us .
No , we ’ re going to fight .
We ’ ll fight in the courts to start with , but we ’ ll continue that fight no matter where it may take us .
We ’ re not going anywhere .
Even if that fight involves zombie lawsuits or taking to the streets , they ’ re not going to win this without a fight , that ’ s for damn sure .

The state of Maryland passed some pretty hinky gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook. There’s no doubt about it, to be sure.
The law in question, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 required that anyone who wanted to buy a handgun had to attend a 4-hour safety training session. The law also raised the minimum age for handgun sales to 21, which is in compliance with federal law, and required universal background checks for handguns.
Unsurprisingly, though, a lawsuit was filed in an attempt to combat the law. It was effectively killed at the time because the judge said the plaintiffs didn’t have sufficient standing.
Well, if that lawsuit was truly dead, then zombies are real.
On Monday the appellate court partially vacated the District Court’s dismissal of the case and reinstated it for further deliberations. The Circuit Court determined that the trial court had erred because Atlantic Guns had suffered a concrete injury because the additional cost to potential customers who wished to purchase a handgun had possibly depressed sales following the enactment of the FSA. Because of this injury, the appellate court determined that Atlantic Guns could pursue the Second Amendment claim on behalf of itself and the other parties to the litigation. But the appellate court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that the District Court correctly dismissed those claims.
Now, this doesn’t mean the lawsuit will be victorious. They’re just saying the District Court dismissed it for the wrong reasons, that Atlantic Guns had standing.
To be fair, the appellate court is correct. Standing does exist and now the lawsuit can continue.
I’m not going to speculate on what the courts will do because I’m not a lawyer and it’s Maryland, a land where the anti-gun sensibility runs pretty damn deep. That likely influences the federal courts in that neck of the woods. In other words, it’s still an uphill slog.
However, there’s now a chance to overturn a particularly bad law. These requirements are vile and they’ve done nothing to curb violence in cities like Baltimore, yet their failure is often used to justify still more regulations on law-abiding citizens that criminals will promptly ignore. Such is the way of criminals and all that crap.
Make no mistake, though, this is a big win either way. It’s a step forward, a reminder that not everyone is willing to roll over and play along with their anti-gun, anti-constitution nonsense. Laws like this make no one safer–quite the opposite, really–and yet they expect everyone to play along.
Well, we won’t, and this lawsuit is just another reminder that we refuse to just roll over because the narrative demands it of us. No, we’re going to fight. We’ll fight in the courts to start with, but we’ll continue that fight no matter where it may take us. We’re not going anywhere.
Even if that fight involves zombie lawsuits or taking to the streets, they’re not going to win this without a fight, that’s for damn sure.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--St. Louis Circuit Attorney Wins Primary After Charging McCloskeys

By most understandings of the law , Mark and Patricia McCloskey did nothing illegal .
We can talk about their weapons handling all day long , but it doesn ’ t look to anyone who isn ’ t a partisan hack that they did anything wrong .
A mob vandalized their property to gain access to the house and then issued threats to the couple .
That ’ s plenty of reason to be in fear of their life .
And yet , they ’ re being prosecuted anyway .
Why ?
Well , Missouri ’ s primary election returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who charged a now-infamous St. Louis couple for pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their mansion last month has won her primary election for a second term .
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner — who President Trump accused of “ extreme abuse of power ” — triumphed over her challenger in the Democratic primary on Tuesday evening by a 61-39 margin .
Gardner said her victory was “ about people who sent a message that they want reform in the city of St. Louis.
” Now , it seems clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it wouldn ’ t .
St. Louis is heavily Democratic , even if the rest of Missouri isn ’ t .
That means her constituents are more likely to approve of this absolute nonsense than elsewhere .
In fact , they almost demanded it .
You see , Gardner can talk about reforms all she wants , but she ’ s just a marionette and the mob is the puppeteer .
She ’ s just dancing at their command , and that includes prosecuted two innocent people who were in full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her office ordering people to tamper with evidence so they can try and get a conviction .
In most sane jurisdiction , Gardner would have been trounced over the actions of her office .
Meanwhile , the circuit attorney ’ s office–the equivalent to a district attorney ’ s office most other places–can ’ t seem to do anything to deal with the massive amount of violent crime in the city , crime that was prevalent even before COVID-19 locked us all indoors .
Why , it looks from here like Gardner is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she signaled the right virtue and the mob applauded her for it .
She doesn ’ t care that she ’ s trying to destroy two innocent lives .
She only cares that the mob loves her for it , and they do .
Let ’ s be clear , the mob absolutely adores her for what she ’ s doing .
That should be absolutely chilling , but it ’ s par for the course in most of our cities , I ’ m afraid .
At the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win in court , and I don ’ t think she ’ s up to the task .
The facts simply aren ’ t on her side in this one , not when you look at Missouri state law .
As an attorney and a prosecutor , Gardner has to know there ’ s no chance in hell of getting a conviction .
Then again , that court case isn ’ t likely to happen until after November ’ s election , so maybe she simply doesn ’ t care ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I maintain that she ’ s prosecuting the McCloskeys not because she believes they did anything wrong , but because she sees it as an opportunity to solidify her position with the mob .

And yet, they’re being prosecuted anyway. Why?
Well, Missouri’s primary election returns tell us precisely why.
The prosecutor who charged a now-infamous St. Louis couple for pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their mansion last month has won her primary election for a second term. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner — who President Trump accused of “extreme abuse of power” — triumphed over her challenger in the Democratic primary on Tuesday evening by a 61-39 margin. Gardner said her victory was “about people who sent a message that they want reform in the city of St. Louis.”
Now, it seems clear the controversy didn’t hurt Gardner, but it wouldn’t. St. Louis is heavily Democratic, even if the rest of Missouri isn’t. That means her constituents are more likely to approve of this absolute nonsense than elsewhere.
In fact, they almost demanded it.
You see, Gardner can talk about reforms all she wants, but she’s just a marionette and the mob is the puppeteer. She’s just dancing at their command, and that includes prosecuted two innocent people who were in full compliance with the law. It means her office ordering people to tamper with evidence so they can try and get a conviction.
In most sane jurisdiction, Gardner would have been trounced over the actions of her office.
Meanwhile, the circuit attorney’s office–the equivalent to a district attorney’s office most other places–can’t seem to do anything to deal with the massive amount of violent crime in the city, crime that was prevalent even before COVID-19 locked us all indoors. Why, it looks from here like Gardner is completely incompetent at her job.
But, she signaled the right virtue and the mob applauded her for it.
She doesn’t care that she’s trying to destroy two innocent lives. She only cares that the mob loves her for it, and they do. Let’s be clear, the mob absolutely adores her for what she’s doing. That should be absolutely chilling, but it’s par for the course in most of our cities, I’m afraid.
At the end of the day, though, Gardner still has to win in court, and I don’t think she’s up to the task. The facts simply aren’t on her side in this one, not when you look at Missouri state law. As an attorney and a prosecutor, Gardner has to know there’s no chance in hell of getting a conviction. Then again, that court case isn’t likely to happen until after November’s election, so maybe she simply doesn’t care?
That, though, is the problem.
I maintain that she’s prosecuting the McCloskeys not because she believes they did anything wrong, but because she sees it as an opportunity to solidify her position with the mob.


bearingarms--2020-08-06--Potential Biden VP Lets Real Anti-Gun Agenda Slip

The debate over firearms and gun rights isn ’ t going anywhere for the foreseeable future .
While there are more gun owners today and there are reasons to believe that many are going to poke holes in the anti-gun narrative , the truth is that the gun control crowd isn ’ t going anywhere .
Further , we have an avowed anti-gunner set to officially be crowned as the Democratic nominee , which has set of debate over just who Biden ’ s running mate will be .
One potential candidate let her real agenda slip in a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) joined the Everytown for Gun Safety ’ s Veepstakes and just might have let slip what her gun control goals would be should she join presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the ticket as his running mate .
Speaking with Shannon Watts , Rep. Bass decried gun control ’ s slow progress in Congress .
“ I mean we ’ ve passed universal registra… uh , universal background checks out of the House !
It ’ s one of the 400 bills languishing in the Senate.
” Now , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of de facto gun registration .
I ’ m one of them .
Even though it ’ s not a formal registry , paperwork would exist on every single firearm I buy and sell .
After a time , it would serve the same purpose as a gun registry , especially if the government decided to confiscate firearms from people .
However , no one on the left has dared say that .
For most , they simply don ’ t see it that way .
They don ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t meant to be used that way doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t .
But Bass ’ s slip suggests that she knows otherwise .
Oh , I ’ m sure that will be dismissed as a simple slip of the tongue , that she means no such thing .
However , that ’ s kind of hard to swallow .
Especially since slips like this usually come because something like that is on your mind in the first place .
Bass wants gun registration on a federal level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from us .
I ’ m sure the “ fact-checkers ” will make a big deal about how she didn ’ t say it and how people slip up from time to time and that ’ s all this is , but these are the same fact-checkers that label parody stories as false .
I ’ m sorry , but I ’ m less than trusting of what they say when it comes to politics .
Bass screwed up .
Anti-gunners aren ’ t supposed to acknowledge what they really want .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next Thing .
It ’ s never supposed to be about the end game or even the things they want on down the road–things like gun registration .
They ’ re supposed to keep going on about the Next Thing simply so they can say , “ No , we ’ re not trying to take your guns away or anything we only want this Next Thing.
” Of course , the Next Thing then becomes something else and so on until they ’ re precisely where they wanted to be and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more , people like Bass think we can ’ t see it .
They think we ’ re unable to see what they ’ re working toward .
Instead , they just complain about how we won ’ t compromise with them .
Well , they ’ re right .
We won ’ t .
But , in fairness , it ’ s hard to compromise with people who only want to take from you and won ’ t offer anything in return .

The debate over firearms and gun rights isn’t going anywhere for the foreseeable future. While there are more gun owners today and there are reasons to believe that many are going to poke holes in the anti-gun narrative, the truth is that the gun control crowd isn’t going anywhere.
Further, we have an avowed anti-gunner set to officially be crowned as the Democratic nominee, which has set of debate over just who Biden’s running mate will be.
One potential candidate let her real agenda slip in a recent comment.
Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.) joined the Everytown for Gun Safety’s Veepstakes and just might have let slip what her gun control goals would be should she join presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the ticket as his running mate. Speaking with Shannon Watts, Rep. Bass decried gun control’s slow progress in Congress. “I mean we’ve passed universal registra… uh, universal background checks out of the House! It’s one of the 400 bills languishing in the Senate.”
Now, there are some who view universal background checks as some kind of de facto gun registration. I’m one of them. Even though it’s not a formal registry, paperwork would exist on every single firearm I buy and sell. After a time, it would serve the same purpose as a gun registry, especially if the government decided to confiscate firearms from people.
However, no one on the left has dared say that.
For most, they simply don’t see it that way. They don’t seem to realize that just because a thing isn’t meant to be used that way doesn’t mean it won’t.
But Bass’s slip suggests that she knows otherwise.
Oh, I’m sure that will be dismissed as a simple slip of the tongue, that she means no such thing. However, that’s kind of hard to swallow. Especially since slips like this usually come because something like that is on your mind in the first place. Bass wants gun registration on a federal level and she couldn’t hide it from us.
I’m sure the “fact-checkers” will make a big deal about how she didn’t say it and how people slip up from time to time and that’s all this is, but these are the same fact-checkers that label parody stories as false. I’m sorry, but I’m less than trusting of what they say when it comes to politics.
Bass screwed up. Anti-gunners aren’t supposed to acknowledge what they really want. They’re only supposed to push the Next Thing. It’s never supposed to be about the end game or even the things they want on down the road–things like gun registration. They’re supposed to keep going on about the Next Thing simply so they can say, “No, we’re not trying to take your guns away or anything we only want this Next Thing.”
Of course, the Next Thing then becomes something else and so on until they’re precisely where they wanted to be and we’re completely disarmed.
What’s more, people like Bass think we can’t see it. They think we’re unable to see what they’re working toward. Instead, they just complain about how we won’t compromise with them.
Well, they’re right. We won’t.
But, in fairness, it’s hard to compromise with people who only want to take from you and won’t offer anything in return.