bearingarms--2020-02-26--NM Gov Tells Sheriffs To Enforce Red Flag Law Or Resign

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed red flag legislation into law on Tuesday , and told sheriffs who oppose the law that they should resign if they won ’ t enforce any gun seizure orders .
The vast majority of the state ’ s sheriffs spoke out in opposition to the legislation before it was narrowly approved by the state legislature , and the head of the state sheriffs association rejected Grisham ’ s call to resign after her remarks during the signing ceremony .
New Mexico Sheriffs ’ Association President Tony Mace of Cibola County said the new law goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any crime is committed and that he and other sheriffs will assert their discretion over its enforcement .
“ We don ’ t work for the governor , we don ’ t work for the Legislature , ” he said .
“ We work for the people that elected us into office.
” Sheriff Mace has told Bearing Arms that he ’ s willing to face contempt charges before he ’ ll seize anyone ’ s firearms under a red flag order , and he and other sheriffs have vowed to challenge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control activists in the state , meanwhile , say they plan on launching a public awareness campaign to let residents know how easy it is to file a red flag petition .
The gun-control advocacy group Moms Demand Action is planning a yearslong campaign to publicize the law and outline how people can petition law enforcement for extreme risk protection orders , said Emelie DeAngelis , a state chapter leader .
She said her group is emphasizing that district attorneys can seek red-flag orders from judges in areas where sheriffs may show reluctance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly with our sheriffs ’ situation — a lot of them saying that they don ’ t want to enforce this — that the DAs had to stay in ” the law , she said .
District Attorneys may be able to petition the courts , but it ’ s still going to be up to the sheriffs to serve the orders and confiscate firearms .
Eventually gun control advocates are going to have to accept that the law enforcement tasked with applying the law are almost uniformly opposed to the law being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gov .
Grisham also used the signing ceremony , attended by several gun control activists in the state , to tout what the red flag law will do for public safety and suicide prevention once it takes effect .
“ New Mexico has balanced individual rights and public safety in a responsible way that will reduce our unacceptable suicide rate and other forms of gun violence , ” Lujan Grisham said in a statement after signing the bill into law .
“ The Legislature had the strength to pass this measure because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we have the power to change the dynamic of gun violence in our communities .
Today we are standing up – we do not accept the status quo ; we do not accept the risk posed by dangerous armed individuals who have articulated their desire to cause harm.
” Grisham says the red flag law will lower the state ’ s suicide rate , which would be a first .
Even in states like Indiana and Connecticut , which have had red flag laws on the books for years , suicides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians like Grisham see red flag legislation as a cheap way of “ doing something ” about suicide , without actually doing something that works .
Last year , the federal government warned that New Mexico ’ s mental health system was in dire need of improvement , but rather than address the lack of care and services available for those in crisis , Democrat lawmakers in New Mexico decided to take the guns and leave the person in crisis alone with their knives , pills , belts , and anything else they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It won ’ t work to save lives , but it did get Gov .
Grisham a photo op .
In my opinion , that ’ s hardly worth the violation of New Mexicans ’ due process and Second Amendment rights .
Thankfully , many sheriffs agree , and I wish them well in their continued opposition to the state ’ s new red flag law .

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed red flag legislation into law on Tuesday, and told sheriffs who oppose the law that they should resign if they won’t enforce any gun seizure orders. The vast majority of the state’s sheriffs spoke out in opposition to the legislation before it was narrowly approved by the state legislature, and the head of the state sheriffs association rejected Grisham’s call to resign after her remarks during the signing ceremony.
New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association President Tony Mace of Cibola County said the new law goes too far by potentially impounding guns before any crime is committed and that he and other sheriffs will assert their discretion over its enforcement. “We don’t work for the governor, we don’t work for the Legislature,” he said. “We work for the people that elected us into office.”
Sheriff Mace has told Bearing Arms that he’s willing to face contempt charges before he’ll seize anyone’s firearms under a red flag order, and he and other sheriffs have vowed to challenge the law in court as well.
Gun control activists in the state, meanwhile, say they plan on launching a public awareness campaign to let residents know how easy it is to file a red flag petition.
The gun-control advocacy group Moms Demand Action is planning a yearslong campaign to publicize the law and outline how people can petition law enforcement for extreme risk protection orders, said Emelie DeAngelis, a state chapter leader. She said her group is emphasizing that district attorneys can seek red-flag orders from judges in areas where sheriffs may show reluctance. “We were really adamant that particularly with our sheriffs’ situation — a lot of them saying that they don’t want to enforce this — that the DAs had to stay in” the law, she said.
District Attorneys may be able to petition the courts, but it’s still going to be up to the sheriffs to serve the orders and confiscate firearms. Eventually gun control advocates are going to have to accept that the law enforcement tasked with applying the law are almost uniformly opposed to the law being on the books in the first place.
Gov. Grisham also used the signing ceremony, attended by several gun control activists in the state, to tout what the red flag law will do for public safety and suicide prevention once it takes effect.
“New Mexico has balanced individual rights and public safety in a responsible way that will reduce our unacceptable suicide rate and other forms of gun violence,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement after signing the bill into law. “The Legislature had the strength to pass this measure because we all recognize: Enough is enough. And we have the power to change the dynamic of gun violence in our communities. Today we are standing up – we do not accept the status quo; we do not accept the risk posed by dangerous armed individuals who have articulated their desire to cause harm.”
Grisham says the red flag law will lower the state’s suicide rate, which would be a first. Even in states like Indiana and Connecticut, which have had red flag laws on the books for years, suicides are increasing.
Unfortunately, too many politicians like Grisham see red flag legislation as a cheap way of “doing something” about suicide, without actually doing something that works. Last year, the federal government warned that New Mexico’s mental health system was in dire need of improvement, but rather than address the lack of care and services available for those in crisis, Democrat lawmakers in New Mexico decided to take the guns and leave the person in crisis alone with their knives, pills, belts, and anything else they can use to harm themselves or others.
It won’t work to save lives, but it did get Gov. Grisham a photo op. In my opinion, that’s hardly worth the violation of New Mexicans’ due process and Second Amendment rights. Thankfully, many sheriffs agree, and I wish them well in their continued opposition to the state’s new red flag law.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Michigan House Approves Pro-Second Amendment Resolution

As gun control continues to infect the nation like some kind of a virus , it ’ s always good to see regional governments make resolutions standing up for their citizens ’ Second Amendment rights .
Even if those stands are little more than symbolic , they can serve as a beacon of gun rights for those who don ’ t live in places that will make that stand .
Now , it seems the Michigan House has joined the ranks of those standing up for our right to keep and bear arms .
The Michigan House voted to affirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stopping short of naming Michigan a gun rights “ sanctuary ” but declaring its intent to protect the Constitutional right to bear arms .
House Resolution 227 states the Michigan legislature “ will not pass laws that would infringe upon the ability of Michigan residents to own and keep firearms ” and “ will ensure that legislation in violation of our constitutional right to bear arms will not be imposed upon the citizens of Michigan by either the federal government or itself.
” Lawmakers voted 75-32 to approve the resolution .
Resolutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct impact on existing laws , but can be used by government bodies as a statement of priorities or to declare intentions .
The vote comes as local governments around the state are adopting or considering “ Second Amendment sanctuary ” resolutions inspired by a national movement signaling opposition to gun control measures .
As a “ sanctuary , ” local governments could signal they don ’ t intend to enforce any gun laws they consider unconstitutional .
While the House resolution stops just shy of making the state a sanctuary state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed one that did .
This is as close as they were apparently likely to get .
Look , I like the idea of sanctuary states as a rebuttal to immigration sanctuaries .
A lot of people are uncomfortable with them while still being pro-Second Amendment .
I get it completely .
Voting for a sanctuary resolution for the entire state was likely a bridge too far for them .
Yet this resolution also tells Second Amendment supporters in Michigan that the House is with them , that they have no intention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward .
That means their state isn ’ t going to infringe on their rights .
They can rest a little easier and focus their attention on the federal government where the U.S. House is looking to do all kinds of infringing if they get half a chance .
A lot of people don ’ t get to rest easy about their home states .
Especially in places like California , Illinois , Rhode Island , New York , New Jersey , Massachusetts , and so on .
The odds of such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspire to reach such lofty ranks as having a “ slim to none ” status .
So good on the Michigan House .
Now , the most important thing is for them to hold themselves to it .
While the resolution may be non-binding , it ’ s still something one should abide by if they have any sense of honor .
Not that most politicians do , mind you , but a guy can dream .

As gun control continues to infect the nation like some kind of a virus, it’s always good to see regional governments make resolutions standing up for their citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Even if those stands are little more than symbolic, they can serve as a beacon of gun rights for those who don’t live in places that will make that stand.
Now, it seems the Michigan House has joined the ranks of those standing up for our right to keep and bear arms.
The Michigan House voted to affirm its support of the Second Amendment Tuesday, stopping short of naming Michigan a gun rights “sanctuary” but declaring its intent to protect the Constitutional right to bear arms. House Resolution 227 states the Michigan legislature “will not pass laws that would infringe upon the ability of Michigan residents to own and keep firearms” and “will ensure that legislation in violation of our constitutional right to bear arms will not be imposed upon the citizens of Michigan by either the federal government or itself.” Lawmakers voted 75-32 to approve the resolution. Resolutions are non-binding and do not have a direct impact on existing laws, but can be used by government bodies as a statement of priorities or to declare intentions. The vote comes as local governments around the state are adopting or considering “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions inspired by a national movement signaling opposition to gun control measures. As a “sanctuary,” local governments could signal they don’t intend to enforce any gun laws they consider unconstitutional.
While the House resolution stops just shy of making the state a sanctuary state, the lawmaker who proposed this resolution also proposed one that did. This is as close as they were apparently likely to get.
However, that’s still pretty good.
Look, I like the idea of sanctuary states as a rebuttal to immigration sanctuaries. A lot of people are uncomfortable with them while still being pro-Second Amendment. I get it completely. Voting for a sanctuary resolution for the entire state was likely a bridge too far for them.
Yet this resolution also tells Second Amendment supporters in Michigan that the House is with them, that they have no intention of voting for any gun control measure going forward. That means their state isn’t going to infringe on their rights.
They can rest a little easier and focus their attention on the federal government where the U.S. House is looking to do all kinds of infringing if they get half a chance.
A lot of people don’t get to rest easy about their home states. Especially in places like California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and so on. The odds of such a resolution passing in any of those places aspire to reach such lofty ranks as having a “slim to none” status.
So good on the Michigan House.
Now, the most important thing is for them to hold themselves to it. While the resolution may be non-binding, it’s still something one should abide by if they have any sense of honor. Not that most politicians do, mind you, but a guy can dream.


bearingarms--2020-02-25--Dems Compete To Out Anti-Gun Each Other In SC Debate

Tuesday night ’ s Democratic debate featured a single question about gun control , but at least we got a chance to hear from all of the candidates .
Unfortunately , every one of them tried to outdo the next in terms of their support for sweeping gun laws that would criminalize the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms .
Joe Biden was first out of the gate , and talked about how he was able to pass the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994 before he took a swipe at Bernie Sanders for voting for the Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s gaffes have been coming fast and furious as of late , and he bizarrely claimed that 150 million Americans have been killed by guns since 2007 .
Biden finished by issuing a threat to gun manufacturers that he will come for them if he ’ s elected .
This has been part of his stump speech for at least the past few days , and every time , he looks into the camera and points his finger .
It ’ s such a scripted line , but the Democrat audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren , on the other hand , completely changed the subject from gun control to her desire to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate , which she said is needed in order to pass gun control .
The thing is , she never got back to the gun control bills she wanted to pass , but spent her entire time rambling about removing the filibuster in order to pass any number of her proposals .
When Bernie Sanders had the opportunity to respond , he swiped back at Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade agreements .
The crowd in South Carolina didn ’ t like that , and booed Sanders for his dodge .
Sanders said the point was that every politician makes a bad vote every now and then , and said his vote in support of the PLCAA was simply that ; a bad vote .
Sanders proudly touted his “ D- ” rating from the NRA .
Right now , he said , we need to expand background checks , close gun show loophole , and do what Americans , not the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the debate slipped and talked about having “ bought ” the congressional seats of dozens of Democrats in the 2018 elections , said that he “ has a 6-million person organization ” that has put background check laws on the books in twenty states ( of course he didn ’ t talk about the fact that those new laws haven ’ t led to fewer crimes .
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar stuck to her theme for the night , that Democrats need a midwesterner to win the nation ’ s midsection in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only one on stage who won in Republican congressional districts while being for the assault weapons ban , hoping to portray herself as a moderate who can bring independents and some Republicans into the Democratic fold , at least on Election Day .
And then she brought up her Uncle Dick in the deer stand , which she has done every single time she ’ s been asked about firearms in a debate setting .
At this point , I ’ m starting to get worried for the guy .
It sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for months , and it also sounds like Amy Klobuchar doesn ’ t know any other gun owners besides her uncle who lives in a tree stand .
Buttigieg also stuck to the same talking points he brings up when he ’ s asked about gun control ; namely that anything that even resembles the weapon of war he carried in Afghanistan shouldn ’ t be sold in this country .
And , as always , none of the moderators bothered to ask him a follow up question : if you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold in the United States , what do you think should happen to the roughly 18-million rifles in private hands ?
The other billionaire on stage , Tom Steyer , was the last to answer , and he said that the real problem is that corporations have bought Washington , D.C. , and that specifically , “ gun manufacturers own the Senate , ” which begs the question : Does Bloomberg then own the House of Representatives ?
Steyer didn ’ t bring up any specific gun control proposals , but said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed on Congress , and Democrats need to win big in November to have the mandate needed to pass gun control laws .
If you notice , there really wasn ’ t much discussion about any of the actual proposals from any of the candidates , which are arguably the most anti-gun campaign platforms in our nation ’ s history .
Some candidates didn ’ t even bother to mention any of their gun control plans , much less attempt a somewhat deep dive in the minute that they had to answer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn anything new in Thursday night ’ s debate , but they definitely got a reminder of what ’ s at stake in the November elections .
No matter which candidate on stage ends up as the eventual nominee , the future of our right to keep and bear arms depends on them losing on Election Day .

Tuesday night’s Democratic debate featured a single question about gun control, but at least we got a chance to hear from all of the candidates. Unfortunately, every one of them tried to outdo the next in terms of their support for sweeping gun laws that would criminalize the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.
Joe Biden was first out of the gate, and talked about how he was able to pass the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994 before he took a swipe at Bernie Sanders for voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. Biden’s gaffes have been coming fast and furious as of late, and he bizarrely claimed that 150 million Americans have been killed by guns since 2007. Biden finished by issuing a threat to gun manufacturers that he will come for them if he’s elected. This has been part of his stump speech for at least the past few days, and every time, he looks into the camera and points his finger. It’s such a scripted line, but the Democrat audience in South Carolina ate it up.
Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, completely changed the subject from gun control to her desire to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate, which she said is needed in order to pass gun control. The thing is, she never got back to the gun control bills she wanted to pass, but spent her entire time rambling about removing the filibuster in order to pass any number of her proposals.
When Bernie Sanders had the opportunity to respond, he swiped back at Joe Biden by noting he had voted for terrible trade agreements. The crowd in South Carolina didn’t like that, and booed Sanders for his dodge. Sanders said the point was that every politician makes a bad vote every now and then, and said his vote in support of the PLCAA was simply that; a bad vote. Sanders proudly touted his “D-” rating from the NRA. Right now, he said, we need to expand background checks, close gun show loophole, and do what Americans, not the NRA, wants.
Bloomberg, who earlier in the debate slipped and talked about having “bought” the congressional seats of dozens of Democrats in the 2018 elections, said that he “has a 6-million person organization” that has put background check laws on the books in twenty states (of course he didn’t talk about the fact that those new laws haven’t led to fewer crimes.
Michael Bloomberg actually just said that he bought 21 seats in Congress for the Democratic Party so that Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House. He really said that out loud. According to him: Democrats BOUGHT their house majority in 2018. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/1IdxV5ifFH — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) February 26, 2020
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar stuck to her theme for the night, that Democrats need a midwesterner to win the nation’s midsection in November. She claimed that she was the only one on stage who won in Republican congressional districts while being for the assault weapons ban, hoping to portray herself as a moderate who can bring independents and some Republicans into the Democratic fold, at least on Election Day. And then she brought up her Uncle Dick in the deer stand, which she has done every single time she’s been asked about firearms in a debate setting. At this point, I’m starting to get worried for the guy. It sounds like he’s been up there for months, and it also sounds like Amy Klobuchar doesn’t know any other gun owners besides her uncle who lives in a tree stand.
Buttigieg also stuck to the same talking points he brings up when he’s asked about gun control; namely that anything that even resembles the weapon of war he carried in Afghanistan shouldn’t be sold in this country. And, as always, none of the moderators bothered to ask him a follow up question: if you don’t think modern sporting rifles should be sold in the United States, what do you think should happen to the roughly 18-million rifles in private hands?
The other billionaire on stage, Tom Steyer, was the last to answer, and he said that the real problem is that corporations have bought Washington, D.C., and that specifically, “gun manufacturers own the Senate,” which begs the question: Does Bloomberg then own the House of Representatives? Steyer didn’t bring up any specific gun control proposals, but said he believes that term limits need to be imposed on Congress, and Democrats need to win big in November to have the mandate needed to pass gun control laws.
If you notice, there really wasn’t much discussion about any of the actual proposals from any of the candidates, which are arguably the most anti-gun campaign platforms in our nation’s history. Some candidates didn’t even bother to mention any of their gun control plans, much less attempt a somewhat deep dive in the minute that they had to answer the question.
Gun owners didn’t learn anything new in Thursday night’s debate, but they definitely got a reminder of what’s at stake in the November elections. No matter which candidate on stage ends up as the eventual nominee, the future of our right to keep and bear arms depends on them losing on Election Day.


bearingarms--2020-02-25--RI Governor To Sign Bill Banning "Ghost Guns"

So-called ghost guns are one of the current boogiemen for the anti-gun side .
They ’ re terrified that ordinary Americans can assemble firearms at home without getting government permission first .
Nevermind the bad guys will keep doing so–they ’ ve been able to do so for years–but instead focus on the law-abiding citizens and penalize them for…what ?
Normally , I ’ d argue they ’ re penalizing them for the actions of the criminals , but as I ’ ve noted previously , we have no reason to actually believe these so-called “ ghost guns ” represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
Instead , we get vague reports of a supposedly growing problem without any numbers to provide any context .
Not that it matters to Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo .
Rhode Island ’ s governor said Monday she plans to sign legislation to ban 3D-printed guns and so-called ghost guns that are untraceable .
The General Assembly is expected to soon send the legislation to Democratic Gov .
Gina Raimondo for her consideration .
“ I fully and wholeheartedly support a ban on ghost guns so yes , I do plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Senate passed the bill in January to ban 3D guns .
The House passed similar legislation earlier this month .
Raimondo said she supports the House version .
The Senate plans to amend its bill to match .
The major difference between the two bills appears to be that the Senate bill would go into effect immediately while the House bill goes into effect 30 days after passage .
However , what ’ s missing from either version of the bill is one good reason why a criminal would actually be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
For one thing , the files already exist for all of these parts to be manufactured by anyone with a 3D printer .
That ship has long set sail and nothing is likely to change that anytime soon .
Criminals who want to create untraceable firearms will continue to do so without any interference being presented by laws like this .
Further , it ’ s not like criminals don ’ t know bad guys in other states .
Even if they don ’ t have the files , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts and ship them into Rhode Island .
But for Raimondo , it ’ s not really about stopping criminals .
While I won ’ t be so uncharitable to say she doesn ’ t care about crime , I do believe she has no interest in whether gun control really impacts criminals or not .
This is a state that requires people to undergo a safety class prior to even being able to buy a gun , much less carry one .
She doesn ’ t care whether this impacts criminals or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total number of guns in anyone ’ s hands because she doesn ’ t think you , the law-abiding citizen , deserve to have your rights preserved .
Is it any wonder that Mike Bloomberg is looking at her as a potential running mate ?
They ’ re perfect for one another , a tyrannical match made in hell .
After she jacks up Rhode Islanders ’ constitutional rights , she can team up with Mighty Mouse there and try to do the same for the rest of this great nation .

So-called ghost guns are one of the current boogiemen for the anti-gun side. They’re terrified that ordinary Americans can assemble firearms at home without getting government permission first. Nevermind the bad guys will keep doing so–they’ve been able to do so for years–but instead focus on the law-abiding citizens and penalize them for…what?
Normally, I’d argue they’re penalizing them for the actions of the criminals, but as I’ve noted previously, we have no reason to actually believe these so-called “ghost guns” represent any kind of a real threat or problem. Instead, we get vague reports of a supposedly growing problem without any numbers to provide any context.
Not that it matters to Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo.
Rhode Island’s governor said Monday she plans to sign legislation to ban 3D-printed guns and so-called ghost guns that are untraceable. The General Assembly is expected to soon send the legislation to Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo for her consideration. “I fully and wholeheartedly support a ban on ghost guns so yes, I do plan to sign it,” she said. The Senate passed the bill in January to ban 3D guns. The House passed similar legislation earlier this month. Raimondo said she supports the House version. The Senate plans to amend its bill to match.
The major difference between the two bills appears to be that the Senate bill would go into effect immediately while the House bill goes into effect 30 days after passage.
However, what’s missing from either version of the bill is one good reason why a criminal would actually be inhibited by the law in the first place.
For one thing, the files already exist for all of these parts to be manufactured by anyone with a 3D printer. That ship has long set sail and nothing is likely to change that anytime soon. Criminals who want to create untraceable firearms will continue to do so without any interference being presented by laws like this.
Further, it’s not like criminals don’t know bad guys in other states. Even if they don’t have the files, they’ll just get those friends to buy parts and ship them into Rhode Island.
This isn’t exactly rocket science.
But for Raimondo, it’s not really about stopping criminals. While I won’t be so uncharitable to say she doesn’t care about crime, I do believe she has no interest in whether gun control really impacts criminals or not. This is a state that requires people to undergo a safety class prior to even being able to buy a gun, much less carry one.
She doesn’t care whether this impacts criminals or not. She cares about limiting the total number of guns in anyone’s hands because she doesn’t think you, the law-abiding citizen, deserve to have your rights preserved.
Is it any wonder that Mike Bloomberg is looking at her as a potential running mate? They’re perfect for one another, a tyrannical match made in hell.
After she jacks up Rhode Islanders’ constitutional rights, she can team up with Mighty Mouse there and try to do the same for the rest of this great nation.


bearingarms--2020-02-25--VA Dem Confirms Opposition To Gun Control Killed Pay Raises For Sheriffs

When Virginia state Senator Bill Stanley claimed a few days ago that Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw told him an uncontroversial 3-percent pay increase for sheriffs and deputies was killed by Senate Democrats because of their widespread opposition to Democrats ’ gun control agenda , I had no reason to doubt the story .
After all , we ’ d already seen House Democrats kill another uncontroversial measure in an effort to punish a Democrat state senator who voted against Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban .
Now Saslaw himself has confirmed Stanley ’ s account , though it sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to the press or public about it .
Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw declined to do an interview on Monday but confirmed the post was accurate .
“ There ’ s no need to interview , I said it , ” Saslaw told 8 News .
Of course there ’ s still a reason to interview Saslaw about his comments .
First of all , Saslaw should be asked to explain why he believes its proper to deny what amounts to a cost-of-living increase for sheriffs deputies because of the political positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) of their sheriffs .
He should also be asked why he believes it ’ s proper for the legislature to seek retribution against any citizen or elected official for using their First Amendment rights to petition or protest the government .
But it ’ s not only Saslaw who should be asked these questions .
Every Senate Democrat voted against this measure , which means there are 20 other state senators who should be asked these very same questions .
That includes Chap Petersen , the northern Virginia Democrat who voted against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from gun owners was a good thing .
Sen. Stanley says the proposed pay raise isn ’ t completely dead yet , so there ’ s still a chance for Senate Democrats to quit punishing sheriffs and their deputies for speaking their mind .
Stanley said it ’ s not too late for lawmakers to boost their investment .
“ We have the money , we should do it , we must do it , ” he said .
Democrat Janet Howell , the chair of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .
When asked off-camera if the current budget could accommodate a three percent raise , she said , “ There ’ s a lot of ways to cut a pie.
” I hope every Virginia voter sees this petulant and arrogant display by Virginia Democrats for what it is and contacts their senator .
Even gun control advocates and Democrats should be appalled by this behavior , and they ’ d certainly be calling out any Republican who sought to punish pro-gun control members of law enforcement if they were in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out that Republicans didn ’ t try to punish pro-gun control members of law enforcement when they were in the majority .
Public safety should be a non-partisan issue , but unfortunately Virginia ’ s Democrats are making it all too clear that they ’ re putting party first and public safety second .

When Virginia state Senator Bill Stanley claimed a few days ago that Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw told him an uncontroversial 3-percent pay increase for sheriffs and deputies was killed by Senate Democrats because of their widespread opposition to Democrats’ gun control agenda, I had no reason to doubt the story. After all, we’d already seen House Democrats kill another uncontroversial measure in an effort to punish a Democrat state senator who voted against Ralph Northam’s gun ban.
Now Saslaw himself has confirmed Stanley’s account, though it sounds like he doesn’t want to talk to the press or public about it.
Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw declined to do an interview on Monday but confirmed the post was accurate. “There’s no need to interview, I said it,” Saslaw told 8 News.
Of course there’s still a reason to interview Saslaw about his comments. First of all, Saslaw should be asked to explain why he believes its proper to deny what amounts to a cost-of-living increase for sheriffs deputies because of the political positions taken by many (but not all) of their sheriffs. He should also be asked why he believes it’s proper for the legislature to seek retribution against any citizen or elected official for using their First Amendment rights to petition or protest the government.
But it’s not only Saslaw who should be asked these questions. Every Senate Democrat voted against this measure, which means there are 20 other state senators who should be asked these very same questions. That includes Chap Petersen, the northern Virginia Democrat who voted against HB961, and later said that hearing from gun owners was a good thing.
Sen. Stanley says the proposed pay raise isn’t completely dead yet, so there’s still a chance for Senate Democrats to quit punishing sheriffs and their deputies for speaking their mind.
Stanley said it’s not too late for lawmakers to boost their investment. “We have the money, we should do it, we must do it,” he said. Democrat Janet Howell, the chair of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee, also declined to do an interview on Monday. When asked off-camera if the current budget could accommodate a three percent raise, she said, “There’s a lot of ways to cut a pie.”
I hope every Virginia voter sees this petulant and arrogant display by Virginia Democrats for what it is and contacts their senator. Even gun control advocates and Democrats should be appalled by this behavior, and they’d certainly be calling out any Republican who sought to punish pro-gun control members of law enforcement if they were in the majority. It’s also worth pointing out that Republicans didn’t try to punish pro-gun control members of law enforcement when they were in the majority. Public safety should be a non-partisan issue, but unfortunately Virginia’s Democrats are making it all too clear that they’re putting party first and public safety second.


bearingarms--2020-02-28--Milwaukee Shooting Further Divides Lawmakers On Guns

Milwaukee is a divided state in many ways .
A swing state in 2016 , it ’ s one the Democrats have their sights set on for 2020 .
President Trump narrowly claimed the state last time around and Democrats are convinced they can take it back .
One issue they ’ ve figured would work in their favor is gun control .
Then again , they ’ ve been figuring that all along and so far , that doesn ’ t seem to be panning out like they believed it would .
However , following the shooting in Milwaukee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are trying to use the incident as a cudgel on pro-gun legislators .
[ Gov .
Tony ] Evers said in an interview Thursday that he ’ s pessimistic the latest shooting will cause Republicans to reconsider their position against stricter gun laws .
“ As leaders , we have to pray and give our heartfelt condolences to people that pass away , but , at the same time , we have an obligation as leaders to think about what solutions exist , ” Evers said in a telephone interview .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too.
” Just before the shooting , Evers had renewed his call for the state Legislature to take up bills that would enact a universal background check for gun purchases and institute a “ red-flag ” law allowing judges to confiscate guns from people determined to be a risk to themselves and others .
Seventeen states have passed red flag laws and 21 have similar universal background check laws .
Both the state Senate and Assembly in November quickly adjourned a special session on Evers ’ bills with no debate .
Roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the leader in the state Senate reiterated that Republicans had no intention of taking up the bills .
“ They ’ ve dug in their heels and it ’ s unfortunate , ” Evers said .
“ The people of Wisconsin expect better and I ’ m hopeful they ’ ll change their mind but I ’ m a pessimist .
On big votes the people of Wisconsin lose out because they don ’ t know where their legislators stand.
” In other words , the typical nonsense we see from Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one wants to see another mass shooting .
The problem is , anti-gun Democrats are being thick-headed and acting as if there ’ s only one potential solution to such a thing .
Even if we believed that gun control would stop a mass shooting , at this point we can ’ t even tell just what gun control measures might have even played a factor .
So far as we know , the killer had nothing in his criminal history that would bar him from purchasing a firearm .
No one has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have signaled something like this could happen .
He didn ’ t use one of the dreaded “ assault rifles.
” Nothing .
So far as anyone can tell , nothing being talked about would have made a difference anyway .
But people like Evers don ’ t actually care about the slain .
They just want to use their bodies as a soapbox in order to curtail our civil liberties .
Meanwhile , I can ’ t help but think about how everyone in that building was essentially barred from carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns might have been pointing back at the gunman had the rules been just a little different ?
Somehow , I don ’ t think Evers wants to have that discussion .

Milwaukee is a divided state in many ways. A swing state in 2016, it’s one the Democrats have their sights set on for 2020. President Trump narrowly claimed the state last time around and Democrats are convinced they can take it back.
One issue they’ve figured would work in their favor is gun control. Then again, they’ve been figuring that all along and so far, that doesn’t seem to be panning out like they believed it would.
However, following the shooting in Milwaukee on Wednesday, it seems the Democrats are trying to use the incident as a cudgel on pro-gun legislators.
[Gov. Tony] Evers said in an interview Thursday that he’s pessimistic the latest shooting will cause Republicans to reconsider their position against stricter gun laws. “As leaders, we have to pray and give our heartfelt condolences to people that pass away, but, at the same time, we have an obligation as leaders to think about what solutions exist,” Evers said in a telephone interview. “I think the people of Wisconsin deserve that, too.” Just before the shooting, Evers had renewed his call for the state Legislature to take up bills that would enact a universal background check for gun purchases and institute a “red-flag” law allowing judges to confiscate guns from people determined to be a risk to themselves and others. Seventeen states have passed red flag laws and 21 have similar universal background check laws. Both the state Senate and Assembly in November quickly adjourned a special session on Evers’ bills with no debate. Roughly an hour before Wednesday’s shooting, the leader in the state Senate reiterated that Republicans had no intention of taking up the bills. “They’ve dug in their heels and it’s unfortunate,” Evers said. “The people of Wisconsin expect better and I’m hopeful they’ll change their mind but I’m a pessimist. On big votes the people of Wisconsin lose out because they don’t know where their legislators stand.”
In other words, the typical nonsense we see from Democrats following a shooting.
Look, no one wants to see another mass shooting. The problem is, anti-gun Democrats are being thick-headed and acting as if there’s only one potential solution to such a thing.
Even if we believed that gun control would stop a mass shooting, at this point we can’t even tell just what gun control measures might have even played a factor. So far as we know, the killer had nothing in his criminal history that would bar him from purchasing a firearm. No one has spoken of red flags popping up that would have signaled something like this could happen. He didn’t use one of the dreaded “assault rifles.” Nothing.
So far as anyone can tell, nothing being talked about would have made a difference anyway.
But people like Evers don’t actually care about the slain. They just want to use their bodies as a soapbox in order to curtail our civil liberties.
Meanwhile, I can’t help but think about how everyone in that building was essentially barred from carrying a firearm to work. How many guns might have been pointing back at the gunman had the rules been just a little different?
Somehow, I don’t think Evers wants to have that discussion.


bearingarms--2020-02-28--Democrats Push Gun Control On Anniversary Of House Passage

Ever since the 2018 elections , Democrats have been chomping on the bit to pass some gun control .
They only had the House , though , which isn ’ t enough to force the issue , but they keep trying .
In fact , they passed a bit of gun control a year ago .
The celebrated by trying to make Republicans act like anti-gun Democrats .
Democrats on Thursday renewed their demands for the Senate to take up background check legislation , ramping up the pressure on a key election issue as the 2020 elections approach .
House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charles E. Schumer and a handful of other Democratic lawmakers held a press conference to condemn Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for ignoring the two House-passed background check bills .
“ Sen .
McConnell , we have a question for you .
Why do you think your political survival is more important than the survival of our children ?
Give us a vote , ” said Mrs. Pelosi , California Democrat .
Thursday marked exactly one year since the two bills passed .
One would expand the background check system , which covers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include nearly all trades , sales or gifts .
The other would extend the time federal agencies have to process a background check before the sale goes through .
It ’ s interesting that Pelosi seems to understand that McConnell would suffer politically for siding with Democrats on such a bill .
What isn ’ t interesting is how she regurgitates that tired old line about the “ survival of our children.
” The problem with that bit from anti-gunners is that it ’ s prejudicial .
It frames things so there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept their premise , that is .
The problem is , their premise is male bovine excrement .
It is actually possible to combat violence without restricting the rights of Americans who have done nothing wrong .
However , let ’ s also remember that this is the same House that voted against an amendment to a bill that would combat illegal immigrants trying to conduct illegal gun purchases .
That tells me Pelosi isn ’ t that broken up about dead kids .
The truth of the matter is that Sen. McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on certain positions of his .
Since this is the same state that also elected Rand Paul as Senator , it ’ s safe to say they want their liberties protected to some degree , especially the right to keep and bear arms .
McConnell would be politically dead if he sided with Democrats on something like his .
Not that he ’ d be inclined to anyway .
McConnell doesn ’ t strike me as the time to agree with the Democrats that gun control would work in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something else people like Pelosi and her fellow anti-gun Democrats fail to acknowledge .
They forget that while we understand they think they ’ re saving lives with this nonsense , they don ’ t do us the courtesy of trying to assume a legitimate reason why we disagree with them .
They don ’ t want debate , they want to bully McConnell into capitulation .
Well , if he hasn ’ t been bullied by now , I just don ’ t see it happening .

Ever since the 2018 elections, Democrats have been chomping on the bit to pass some gun control. They only had the House, though, which isn’t enough to force the issue, but they keep trying.
In fact, they passed a bit of gun control a year ago. The celebrated by trying to make Republicans act like anti-gun Democrats.
Democrats on Thursday renewed their demands for the Senate to take up background check legislation, ramping up the pressure on a key election issue as the 2020 elections approach. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and a handful of other Democratic lawmakers held a press conference to condemn Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for ignoring the two House-passed background check bills. “Sen. McConnell, we have a question for you. Why do you think your political survival is more important than the survival of our children? Give us a vote,” said Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat. Thursday marked exactly one year since the two bills passed. One would expand the background check system, which covers gun transactions involving licensed dealers, to include nearly all trades, sales or gifts. The other would extend the time federal agencies have to process a background check before the sale goes through.
It’s interesting that Pelosi seems to understand that McConnell would suffer politically for siding with Democrats on such a bill. What isn’t interesting is how she regurgitates that tired old line about the “survival of our children.”
The problem with that bit from anti-gunners is that it’s prejudicial. It frames things so there’s no way you can win…if you accept their premise, that is.
The problem is, their premise is male bovine excrement.
It is actually possible to combat violence without restricting the rights of Americans who have done nothing wrong. However, let’s also remember that this is the same House that voted against an amendment to a bill that would combat illegal immigrants trying to conduct illegal gun purchases. That tells me Pelosi isn’t that broken up about dead kids.
The truth of the matter is that Sen. McConnell was elected by the people of Kentucky based on certain positions of his. Since this is the same state that also elected Rand Paul as Senator, it’s safe to say they want their liberties protected to some degree, especially the right to keep and bear arms. McConnell would be politically dead if he sided with Democrats on something like his.
Not that he’d be inclined to anyway. McConnell doesn’t strike me as the time to agree with the Democrats that gun control would work in the first place. After all, that’s something else people like Pelosi and her fellow anti-gun Democrats fail to acknowledge. They forget that while we understand they think they’re saving lives with this nonsense, they don’t do us the courtesy of trying to assume a legitimate reason why we disagree with them.
They don’t want debate, they want to bully McConnell into capitulation.
Well, if he hasn’t been bullied by now, I just don’t see it happening.


bearingarms--2020-02-28--Details Of Milwaukee Shooter Appear To Emerge

The killer in the Milwaukee shooting wasn ’ t a mystery for long , but it took some time for us to learn about the details of his life and what may have contributed to his deadly rampage .
Now , unfortunately , we know more .
The 51-year-old disgruntle Coors employee had worked in the plant for 15 years before slipping off a ladder and hurting his shoulder , forcing him to miss work , said [ next door neighbor Erna ] Roenspies , 82 .
After the fall , he told her that “ spies ” from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhood to watch his movements and make sure he wasn ’ t faking the injury .
He once pointed to a “ spy ” in a car and griped that he “ irritated ” him , she said .
Of course , this appears to make him look paranoid , but it should be noted that he might not have been wrong .
It ’ s not unusual for workers comp insurers to hire private investigators to check up on people who aren ’ t supposed to be working .
A friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases make up a fair bit of his business .
It ’ s entirely likely that the killer made the PIs and , perhaps not understanding what it was about , simply interpreted it a way that sounds paranoid .
Or he was paranoid and was just seeing things .
That said , the killer apparently wasn ’ t an employee at the brewery any longer .
That would give us a motive .
People filled with rage often flip out over something like being terminated .
Especially if he believed he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the killer had a hobby of assembling guns at home .
Whether or not that means so-called “ ghost guns ” or not remains to be seen .
Many people buy completed lower receivers , then assemble firearms rather than trying to complete a lower first .
As per usual after a mass shooting , we don ’ t have enough information .
We also don ’ t know if such firearms were the weapons he used to carry out his deadly attack .
Regardless , though , expect this to spark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as well as renewed debate on suppressors for the general public .
While it ’ s unlikely any kind of new law would have prevented this deadly rampage , that hasn ’ t exactly stopped politicians from trying to legislate in the immediate aftermath of a senseless tragedy like what happened Wednesday in Milwaukee .
The killer ’ s neighbor described him as a “ gentleman , ” a description that seems a world apart from the Parkland killer .
It seems to me that it ’ s a better time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killers have in common as well as any factors they have that are unique to them .
If you want to stop mass killings , don ’ t focus on the tools , focus on the tools using them .
You know , the killers themselves .

The killer in the Milwaukee shooting wasn’t a mystery for long, but it took some time for us to learn about the details of his life and what may have contributed to his deadly rampage.
Now, unfortunately, we know more.
From a NY Post article earlier today:
The 51-year-old disgruntle Coors employee had worked in the plant for 15 years before slipping off a ladder and hurting his shoulder, forcing him to miss work, said [next door neighbor Erna] Roenspies, 82. After the fall, he told her that “spies” from the beer company had been sent to the neighborhood to watch his movements and make sure he wasn’t faking the injury. He once pointed to a “spy” in a car and griped that he “irritated” him, she said.
Of course, this appears to make him look paranoid, but it should be noted that he might not have been wrong. It’s not unusual for workers comp insurers to hire private investigators to check up on people who aren’t supposed to be working. A friend of mine is a private investigator and such cases make up a fair bit of his business.
It’s entirely likely that the killer made the PIs and, perhaps not understanding what it was about, simply interpreted it a way that sounds paranoid.
Or he was paranoid and was just seeing things.
That said, the killer apparently wasn’t an employee at the brewery any longer.
On Wednesday, [the killer] was reportedly fired from the firm before returning to the 82-acre beer facility to enact the bloody massacre with a silenced gun while wearing a stolen name tag.
That would give us a motive. People filled with rage often flip out over something like being terminated. Especially if he believed he was wrongfully let go.
It also seems that the killer had a hobby of assembling guns at home. Whether or not that means so-called “ghost guns” or not remains to be seen. Many people buy completed lower receivers, then assemble firearms rather than trying to complete a lower first. As per usual after a mass shooting, we don’t have enough information.
We also don’t know if such firearms were the weapons he used to carry out his deadly attack.
Regardless, though, expect this to spark further debate about so-called “ghost guns” as well as renewed debate on suppressors for the general public. While it’s unlikely any kind of new law would have prevented this deadly rampage, that hasn’t exactly stopped politicians from trying to legislate in the immediate aftermath of a senseless tragedy like what happened Wednesday in Milwaukee.
The killer’s neighbor described him as a “gentleman,” a description that seems a world apart from the Parkland killer. It seems to me that it’s a better time to take a look at what all these killers have in common as well as any factors they have that are unique to them. If you want to stop mass killings, don’t focus on the tools, focus on the tools using them.
You know, the killers themselves.


bearingarms--2020-02-28--Massie Corrects Anti-Gunner Who Says No One Died From Lack Of 2A Rights

The Second Amendment affords each and every one of us the right to keep and bear arms as a means to defend ourselves against tyranny , but also against criminals .
The Founding Fathers weren ’ t exactly removed from the era of Indian attacks on frontier families , after all .
They knew that guns were about more than just shooting enemy soldiers .
Some forget that .
Others see it as a racial thing rather than recognizing that the founders were worried about any attacks , not just those perpetrated by people of a certain skin color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ even think about it .
To them , it ’ s just a non-issue .
While testifying before Congress , Timothy Jenkins , a board member for Teaching for Change , made an extraordinary claim .
He argued that no one had ever died because their Second Amendment rights had been deprived .
Unfortunately for Mr. Jenkins , Rep. Thomas Massie was present .
We ’ ve written about Nikki Goeser before , and her story is incredibly tragic .
What it ’ s not , however , is unique .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cafeteria in Texas .
Suzanna Hupp testified that she had a gun in her car , but left it there because concealed carry wasn ’ t allowed in Texas at the time .
As a result , she watched her own parents be gunned down by a maniac .
The fact is , we only know about these cases because the person deprived also happened to not be dead when the dust settled .
It ’ s impossible to calculate how many hundreds of people have been killed because they weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a certain time .
For Jenkins to make such an extraordinary assertion , he clearly hasn ’ t bothered to look beyond his own echo chamber for the experiences on this side of the aisle .
Honestly , to say no one has ever died from anything is a presumption one should be very careful of making anyway .
All it takes is one example to discredit someone ’ s entire argument .
Then again , Jenkins is a gun grabber .
By now , he ’ s probably quite used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t change the fact that someone could possibly continue to labor under the delusion that no one deprived of their Second Amendment rights died as a result .
The only possible way is to add to the delusion by pretending that even if they ’ d had their firearms , they still wouldn ’ t have been able to prevent the attack .
Frankly , that ’ s a leap that one shouldn ’ t encourage , but it does sound about right for this particular crowd .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific case with which to hammer Jenkins over .
Maybe that will shatter the bubble he ’ s been living in .

The Second Amendment affords each and every one of us the right to keep and bear arms as a means to defend ourselves against tyranny, but also against criminals. The Founding Fathers weren’t exactly removed from the era of Indian attacks on frontier families, after all. They knew that guns were about more than just shooting enemy soldiers.
Some forget that. Others see it as a racial thing rather than recognizing that the founders were worried about any attacks, not just those perpetrated by people of a certain skin color.
Most, however, don’t even think about it. To them, it’s just a non-issue.
While testifying before Congress, Timothy Jenkins, a board member for Teaching for Change, made an extraordinary claim. He argued that no one had ever died because their Second Amendment rights had been deprived.
Unfortunately for Mr. Jenkins, Rep. Thomas Massie was present.
Here was Massie’s retort: What you’re saying Mr. Jenkins is absolutely incorrect. I had a staffer, Nikki Goeser, who worked for me. She watched her husband be gunned down in front of her in a “gun-free” zone because her firearm, she followed the law, and left her firearm in the vehicle. So do not tell me, and do not tell her that nobody has ever died because they were deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.
We’ve written about Nikki Goeser before, and her story is incredibly tragic. What it’s not, however, is unique. There’s the story of Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas. Suzanna Hupp testified that she had a gun in her car, but left it there because concealed carry wasn’t allowed in Texas at the time. As a result, she watched her own parents be gunned down by a maniac.
The fact is, we only know about these cases because the person deprived also happened to not be dead when the dust settled. It’s impossible to calculate how many hundreds of people have been killed because they weren’t allowed to have a gun on them at a certain time.
For Jenkins to make such an extraordinary assertion, he clearly hasn’t bothered to look beyond his own echo chamber for the experiences on this side of the aisle.
Honestly, to say no one has ever died from anything is a presumption one should be very careful of making anyway. All it takes is one example to discredit someone’s entire argument.
Then again, Jenkins is a gun grabber. By now, he’s probably quite used to having his arguments completely discredited.
That doesn’t change the fact that someone could possibly continue to labor under the delusion that no one deprived of their Second Amendment rights died as a result. The only possible way is to add to the delusion by pretending that even if they’d had their firearms, they still wouldn’t have been able to prevent the attack.
Frankly, that’s a leap that one shouldn’t encourage, but it does sound about right for this particular crowd.
I’m just glad Massie was handy with a specific case with which to hammer Jenkins over. Maybe that will shatter the bubble he’s been living in.


bearingarms--2020-03-01--Inmate Files Red Flag Firearms Petition Against CO Sheriff

Colorado ’ s red flag is back in the news after an inmate in the Weld County jail attempted to file a red flag extreme risk protection order against Sheriff Steve Reams and staff , claiming that the fact that deputies carry shotguns while patrolling the jail is intimidating , and an abuse of inmates ’ rights .
Leo Crispin had his request tossed out by a judge before a hearing was granted , but the case is another demonstration of how the new law is being used to try to game the system and harrass others .
Judge James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week , writing that his complaint does not “ even warrant a hearing ” under the state ’ s new extreme risk protection order law , which can allow a judge to temporarily remove a person ’ s guns if they are found to be a danger to themselves or others .
Hartman also noted that the shotguns carried by the jail deputies contain less-than-lethal projectiles .
Crispin had argued that the jail is his household , and that Reams , as sheriff , posed a significant risk of injury to himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jail .
Sheriff Reams , meanwhile , was no fan of the state ’ s new red flag law to begin with , and according to ABC 7 in Denver , the frivolous filing has done nothing to change his mind .
While Reams has previously said his office has no plans to use the Extreme Risk Protection Orders , others sheriffs in the state are embracing the new law .
9News in Denver reported just a few days ago on the first red flag petition in Adams County , where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizure of firearms in a hearing where only one side was able to present evidence .
What kind of trial only allows one side to present their case ?
Technically , of course , what took place in Adams County was a hearing , not a trial .
The bottom line , however , remains the same .
It will be several weeks before the subject of the order actually receives their day in court , and in the meantime , the judge in the case has already allowed the respondents firearms to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given a chance to actually respond .
Investigators presented the judge with an affidavit explaining the threat and a search warrant identifying the firearm and its location .
Moss also indicated the respondent was also found to be in possession of other firearms that belonged to another person ineligible to have them under Colorado law .
“ The burden of proof in this case is by a preponderance of the evidence and the court does find that the required findings have been proven by the preponderance of the evidence , ” Moss said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police can seize the weapon on a temporary basis .
Moss set a hearing for March 11 , where the respondent can argue against a more permanent order that could last up to a year .
Details of the case remain unclear , but Westminster Police told 9News that the subject of the order is suspected of attempting to harass , intimidate , and retaliate against prosecutors and other public officials .
It may be that the subject of the order turns out to be a not-so-great guy , but the question remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger to himself or others , why aren ’ t police and prosecutors actually arresting and charging the suspect instead of seizing any legally owned firearms and leaving him to his own devices ?

Colorado’s red flag is back in the news after an inmate in the Weld County jail attempted to file a red flag extreme risk protection order against Sheriff Steve Reams and staff, claiming that the fact that deputies carry shotguns while patrolling the jail is intimidating, and an abuse of inmates’ rights.
Leo Crispin had his request tossed out by a judge before a hearing was granted, but the case is another demonstration of how the new law is being used to try to game the system and harrass others.
Judge James F. Hartman dismissed Crispin’s petition this week, writing that his complaint does not “even warrant a hearing” under the state’s new extreme risk protection order law, which can allow a judge to temporarily remove a person’s guns if they are found to be a danger to themselves or others. Hartman also noted that the shotguns carried by the jail deputies contain less-than-lethal projectiles. Crispin had argued that the jail is his household, and that Reams, as sheriff, posed a significant risk of injury to himself or others by having a gun at the jail.
Sheriff Reams, meanwhile, was no fan of the state’s new red flag law to begin with, and according to ABC 7 in Denver, the frivolous filing has done nothing to change his mind.
“I would argue the system failed because this inmate was able to exploit the legislation’s loose definition of a ‘household’ to levy the petition in the first place,” Reams said.
While Reams has previously said his office has no plans to use the Extreme Risk Protection Orders, others sheriffs in the state are embracing the new law. 9News in Denver reported just a few days ago on the first red flag petition in Adams County, where a judge granted the temporary order allowing the seizure of firearms in a hearing where only one side was able to present evidence.
Inside the brief hearing, only police detectives appeared on the petitioner’s side. Neither the respondent nor an attorney for the respondent were present. Also there were a handful of judges, there to witness a first-of-its-kind trial in the county.
What kind of trial only allows one side to present their case?
Technically, of course, what took place in Adams County was a hearing, not a trial. The bottom line, however, remains the same. It will be several weeks before the subject of the order actually receives their day in court, and in the meantime, the judge in the case has already allowed the respondents firearms to be seized before they’ve been given a chance to actually respond.
Investigators presented the judge with an affidavit explaining the threat and a search warrant identifying the firearm and its location. Moss also indicated the respondent was also found to be in possession of other firearms that belonged to another person ineligible to have them under Colorado law. “The burden of proof in this case is by a preponderance of the evidence and the court does find that the required findings have been proven by the preponderance of the evidence,” Moss said. With the petition granted, Westminster Police can seize the weapon on a temporary basis. Moss set a hearing for March 11, where the respondent can argue against a more permanent order that could last up to a year.
Details of the case remain unclear, but Westminster Police told 9News that the subject of the order is suspected of attempting to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against prosecutors and other public officials. It may be that the subject of the order turns out to be a not-so-great guy, but the question remains: if he’s truly a danger to himself or others, why aren’t police and prosecutors actually arresting and charging the suspect instead of seizing any legally owned firearms and leaving him to his own devices?


bearingarms--2020-03-01--Minnesota House Passes Red Flag Bill, Universal Background Checks

After over four hours of floor debate , the Minnesota House of Representatives on Thursday , Feb. 27 , advanced a pair of gun control proposals for the second year in a row .
The first of the package , House File 8 , passed the House 69-61 and would boost background check requirements before sales and transfers of guns , with some exceptions .
The second , often dubbed the “ red-flag ” bill , passed 68-62 and would allow law enforcement to confiscate firearms if someone poses a danger to themselves or others .
Thursday ’ s tally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pushed the measures since winning the House ’ s majority in November 2018 — an electoral victory they say was largely driven by voters ’ eagerness for action on guns .
The House passed the same two bills last year as part of a public safety omnibus , but they were not taken up by the Republican-majority Senate .
This year , the bills again face an immediate wall in the Senate .
Advocates and opponents for the bills on Thursday crowded the House galleries and held up signs outside the doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
A sea of protesters in orange T-shirts chanted , “ What do we want ?
Background checks .
When do we want them ?
Now.
” Republicans , on the other hand , say bills like HF 8 and 9 won ’ t prevent senseless gun violence .
Minority Leader Rep. Kurt Daudt , R-Crown , argued that people who want to do harm will break the law to obtain guns anyway , and all that HF 8 and 9 would do is penalize law-abiding gun owners .
Instead , Daudt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a talking point for an election.
” “ Democrats , you are failing the people in your cities who are worried about violent gun crime and that will be in your hands , ” he said .
Those for and against the bills have bemoaned the heated partisan divide on guns , with supporters saying that lives are at stake , and detractors saying Constitutional rights are — both should be nonpartisan issues , they have argued .

After over four hours of floor debate, the Minnesota House of Representatives on Thursday, Feb. 27, advanced a pair of gun control proposals for the second year in a row.
The first of the package, House File 8, passed the House 69-61 and would boost background check requirements before sales and transfers of guns, with some exceptions. The second, often dubbed the “red-flag” bill, passed 68-62 and would allow law enforcement to confiscate firearms if someone poses a danger to themselves or others.
Thursday’s tally wasn’t a surprise as Democrats have pushed the measures since winning the House’s majority in November 2018 — an electoral victory they say was largely driven by voters’ eagerness for action on guns. The House passed the same two bills last year as part of a public safety omnibus, but they were not taken up by the Republican-majority Senate. This year, the bills again face an immediate wall in the Senate.
Advocates and opponents for the bills on Thursday crowded the House galleries and held up signs outside the doors of the House chamber as lawmakers walked in. A sea of protesters in orange T-shirts chanted, “What do we want? Background checks. When do we want them? Now.”
…
Republicans, on the other hand, say bills like HF 8 and 9 won’t prevent senseless gun violence. Minority Leader Rep. Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, argued that people who want to do harm will break the law to obtain guns anyway, and all that HF 8 and 9 would do is penalize law-abiding gun owners.
Instead, Daudt accused Democrats of using the bills as “a talking point for an election.”
“Democrats, you are failing the people in your cities who are worried about violent gun crime and that will be in your hands,” he said.
Those for and against the bills have bemoaned the heated partisan divide on guns, with supporters saying that lives are at stake, and detractors saying Constitutional rights are — both should be nonpartisan issues, they have argued.


bearingarms--2020-02-29--Tennessee Governor Pushes For Constitutional Carry

On gun rights , one of the most important efforts out there is constitutional carry .
The idea of requiring a permit in order to bear arms lawfully is an anathema to the Second Amendment , something none of us should be forced to tolerate .
In a way , constitutional carry is the current Holy Grail of gun rights .
Unfortunately , in the last couple of years , far too few states seem interested in pursuing it .
One state that may not have much of an issue seems to be Tennesee .
After all , when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s usually a good sign .
Republican Gov .
Bill Lee on Thursday went public with his plans to bring a constitutional carry law to the Volunteer State .
The proposal would recognize the right for those 21 or older in Tennessee to carry a handgun without a permit except for currently restricted areas .
The move has the backing of Lt .
Governor Randy McNally , state Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson , and state House Majority Leader William Lamberth , support which would appear to guarantee clear sailing .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms , ” said Lee in a press conference .
While the text of the proposal was not made available on Thursday , Lee said the move would put Tennessee in the same club as 16 other states who generally recognize the right to carry a concealed handgun without first having to get a permit .
When a governor makes a push on this , it ’ s usually a sign that the bill will get some traction .
Even though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch , governors have a great deal of power and can affect legislation a great deal .
That means there ’ s a good chance constitutional carry will become a thing in Tennessee .
The big winner will actually be the more economically disadvantaged citizens of the state .
They won ’ t have to fork out money for a gun , then follow it up by forking out money for a permit , all so they can carry a gun for self-defense as the Founding Fathers intended .
While Democrats often claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they keep trying to jack up the cost for self-defense .
By making constitutional carry the law , anyone who can legally carry a firearm–laws like this tend to only remove the permit requirement while all other requirements remain the same–is allowed to do so under the law without paying fees for a piece of paper .
That means the poorer members of society in that state can take up a firearm and carry it to defend themselves in rough neighborhoods without having to worry about breaking the law themselves .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should all be able to celebrate .
Unfortunately , there are some who think Big Nanny Government is the way to go and that people shouldn ’ t be empowered to act in their own self-interest on things like self-defense .
They want people beholden to the state for protection ; a state that actually has no duty to protect them per the courts time and time again .
So yeah , this is a good thing .
May it pass swiftly .

On gun rights, one of the most important efforts out there is constitutional carry. The idea of requiring a permit in order to bear arms lawfully is an anathema to the Second Amendment, something none of us should be forced to tolerate. In a way, constitutional carry is the current Holy Grail of gun rights.
Unfortunately, in the last couple of years, far too few states seem interested in pursuing it.
One state that may not have much of an issue seems to be Tennesee. After all, when the governor is leading the charge, that’s usually a good sign.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee on Thursday went public with his plans to bring a constitutional carry law to the Volunteer State. The proposal would recognize the right for those 21 or older in Tennessee to carry a handgun without a permit except for currently restricted areas. The move has the backing of Lt. Governor Randy McNally, state Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, and state House Majority Leader William Lamberth, support which would appear to guarantee clear sailing. “The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,” said Lee in a press conference. While the text of the proposal was not made available on Thursday, Lee said the move would put Tennessee in the same club as 16 other states who generally recognize the right to carry a concealed handgun without first having to get a permit.
When a governor makes a push on this, it’s usually a sign that the bill will get some traction. Even though they’re not part of the legislative branch, governors have a great deal of power and can affect legislation a great deal. That means there’s a good chance constitutional carry will become a thing in Tennessee.
The big winner will actually be the more economically disadvantaged citizens of the state. They won’t have to fork out money for a gun, then follow it up by forking out money for a permit, all so they can carry a gun for self-defense as the Founding Fathers intended. While Democrats often claim to be for the little guy, they keep trying to jack up the cost for self-defense.
By making constitutional carry the law, anyone who can legally carry a firearm–laws like this tend to only remove the permit requirement while all other requirements remain the same–is allowed to do so under the law without paying fees for a piece of paper. That means the poorer members of society in that state can take up a firearm and carry it to defend themselves in rough neighborhoods without having to worry about breaking the law themselves.
That’s a big win, one we should all be able to celebrate.
Unfortunately, there are some who think Big Nanny Government is the way to go and that people shouldn’t be empowered to act in their own self-interest on things like self-defense. They want people beholden to the state for protection; a state that actually has no duty to protect them per the courts time and time again.
So yeah, this is a good thing. May it pass swiftly.


bearingarms--2020-03-01--CA City Council Aims To De-Normalize Gun Ownership

Alameda , California is home to some of the most anti-gun politicians in the entire state , which is saying something .
A few years ago , Alameda County changed its zoning laws to prevent any new gun shops from opening ( in a case that , frustratingly , the Supreme Court declined to review ) , and now council members in the city of Alameda itself are set to approve a number of new local laws aimed at legal gun owners and the city ’ s sole gun store when the City Council meets on Tuesday .
The mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make domestic violence even more dangerous and how someone in a mental health crisis or struggling with substance abuse may be more likely to contemplate suicide if a firearm is nearby .
The proposed ordinance also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock .
In addition , the ordinance would require all gun sales to be videotaped .
“ These proposals are a great start in ensuring that legally owned firearms are secured from minors , criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor John Knox White said Friday .
“ The proposals also provide law enforcement with a new tool to ensure gun sales in Alameda meet all legal requirements.
” These proposed ordinances are nothing more than attempts at harassment of those residents who actually attempt to exercise a constitutionally-protected right .
In fact , one city council member tacitly admitted as much when he complained that one of the measures doesn ’ t go far enough for his liking .
There ’ s only one store in town that sells firearms : Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center .
The weapons are displayed behind the sales counter .
Councilman Tony Daysog said he was disappointed the proposed ordinance doesn ’ t mandate that guns within a store be placed away from other merchandise .
“ The issue is that , when Big 5 at the South Shore shopping center displays rows and rows of firearms right next to the check-out area in clear view by people of all ages , it sends the wrong message that the brute force that guns represent is normal , or as normal as soccer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Big 5 , ” Daysog said Friday .
“ Even if Big 5 isn ’ t selling military assault-style weapons , it ’ s the normalization of the brute force of guns that worries me.
” Got that ?
A city council member doesn ’ t like the way the one legal firearms retailer in the city displays their firearms , so he wants to actually pass a law to force them to change the design of their layout to meet his approval .
And why doesn ’ t he like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That worries him .
Well , Daysog ’ s worry disgusts me .
If you ’ re actually a supporter of the Second Amendment , guns are and should be normal .
Gun ownership is normal .
What ’ s abnormal are the people like Councilman Daysog who want to make a right protected by the Constitution into something shameful .
I think a politician who attempts to denormalize any our individual rights is violating their oath of office , and that ’ s exactly what Daysog says he wants to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of his constituents are fully on board with his agenda .
As for the language of the ordinance itself , gun owners would be required to keep all firearms locked up at all times , unless they are carrying the firearm on their person .
This is an attempt to make it difficult as possible to use a firearm for self-defense in the home in the hopes that fewer people will choose to exercise their rights as a result .
The Supreme Court in the Heller case not only struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handguns , but its storage law as well .
The only difference between that law and this proposed ordinance is that in Washington , D.C. , the firearms ammunition had to be stored separately from the firearm as well .
If this passes the city council on Tuesday , I ’ d expect a lawsuit to follow soon after .
The video surveillance ordinance places a huge burden on the one gun store in town as well .
It would be required to maintain a year ’ s worth of video , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide how many cameras must be used .
That ’ s a pretty incredible amount of data that the gun store owner is going to be responsible for maintaining , and that will come at a substantial financial cost .
If I were the gun store , I ’ d argue that if the city wants this data so much , it should be the one to pay for it and maintain the system .
I don ’ t know if the owners of Big 5 would choose to challenge this in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they absolutely should .
Again , these measures aren ’ t about public safety , but using the power of government to inhibit the exercise of a fundamental right .
This is a perfect example of the “ gun safety ” movement ’ s agenda , and it should serve as a stark reminder to gun owners in free states to get involved and politically engaged in this election year .
Don ’ t let them Californize your state .
Don ’ t let them Californize our country .

Alameda, California is home to some of the most anti-gun politicians in the entire state, which is saying something. A few years ago, Alameda County changed its zoning laws to prevent any new gun shops from opening (in a case that, frustratingly, the Supreme Court declined to review), and now council members in the city of Alameda itself are set to approve a number of new local laws aimed at legal gun owners and the city’s sole gun store when the City Council meets on Tuesday.
The mandatory training could include lessons about how firearms can make domestic violence even more dangerous and how someone in a mental health crisis or struggling with substance abuse may be more likely to contemplate suicide if a firearm is nearby. The proposed ordinance also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock. In addition, the ordinance would require all gun sales to be videotaped. “These proposals are a great start in ensuring that legally owned firearms are secured from minors, criminals and people in crisis,” Vice Mayor John Knox White said Friday. “The proposals also provide law enforcement with a new tool to ensure gun sales in Alameda meet all legal requirements.” Violators could face fines or criminal prosecution.
These proposed ordinances are nothing more than attempts at harassment of those residents who actually attempt to exercise a constitutionally-protected right. In fact, one city council member tacitly admitted as much when he complained that one of the measures doesn’t go far enough for his liking.
There’s only one store in town that sells firearms: Big 5 Sporting Goods at Alameda South Shore Center. The weapons are displayed behind the sales counter. Councilman Tony Daysog said he was disappointed the proposed ordinance doesn’t mandate that guns within a store be placed away from other merchandise. “The issue is that, when Big 5 at the South Shore shopping center displays rows and rows of firearms right next to the check-out area in clear view by people of all ages, it sends the wrong message that the brute force that guns represent is normal, or as normal as soccer balls, tennis rackets and running shoes at Big 5,” Daysog said Friday. “Even if Big 5 isn’t selling military assault-style weapons, it’s the normalization of the brute force of guns that worries me.”
Got that? A city council member doesn’t like the way the one legal firearms retailer in the city displays their firearms, so he wants to actually pass a law to force them to change the design of their layout to meet his approval. And why doesn’t he like the display? Because it normalizes gun ownership. That worries him. Well, Daysog’s worry disgusts me.
If you’re actually a supporter of the Second Amendment, guns are and should be normal. Gun ownership is normal. What’s abnormal are the people like Councilman Daysog who want to make a right protected by the Constitution into something shameful. I think a politician who attempts to denormalize any our individual rights is violating their oath of office, and that’s exactly what Daysog says he wants to do. Sadly, I’m guessing a lot of his constituents are fully on board with his agenda.
As for the language of the ordinance itself, gun owners would be required to keep all firearms locked up at all times, unless they are carrying the firearm on their person. This is an attempt to make it difficult as possible to use a firearm for self-defense in the home in the hopes that fewer people will choose to exercise their rights as a result.
The Supreme Court in the Heller case not only struck down Washington, D.C..’s ban on handguns, but its storage law as well. The only difference between that law and this proposed ordinance is that in Washington, D.C., the firearms ammunition had to be stored separately from the firearm as well. If this passes the city council on Tuesday, I’d expect a lawsuit to follow soon after.
The video surveillance ordinance places a huge burden on the one gun store in town as well. It would be required to maintain a year’s worth of video, as well as allow the chief of police to decide how many cameras must be used. That’s a pretty incredible amount of data that the gun store owner is going to be responsible for maintaining, and that will come at a substantial financial cost. If I were the gun store, I’d argue that if the city wants this data so much, it should be the one to pay for it and maintain the system. I don’t know if the owners of Big 5 would choose to challenge this in court if it passes on Tuesday, but they absolutely should.
Again, these measures aren’t about public safety, but using the power of government to inhibit the exercise of a fundamental right. This is a perfect example of the “gun safety” movement’s agenda, and it should serve as a stark reminder to gun owners in free states to get involved and politically engaged in this election year. Don’t let them Californize your state. Don’t let them Californize our country.


bearingarms--2020-03-01--NJ AG Slams Growing 2A Sanctuary Movement In The State

As you might imagine , New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Gerwal isn ’ t a fan of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that ’ s now taken hold in the state .
He ’ s in charge of ensuring that all of the state ’ s draconian gun control laws are being enforced , and to that end he ’ s now sent a letter to all of the prosecutors in the state warning them of the supposed dangers Grewal claims are inherent in the pro-2A resolutions .
“ My primary concern is not that law enforcement officers in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Grewal , who was appointed , said in a letter to all 21 county prosecutors provided to NJ Advance Media .
“ My real concern is that these so-called ‘ sanctuary ’ resolutions will confuse otherwise law-abiding residents , who may incorrectly believe that they no longer have to comply with firearm safety laws , including carry laws and prohibitions on assault weapons , ghost guns , or large-capacity magazines , ” he added .
“ This confusion can create serious risks for law enforcement and the public at large , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to end gun violence across New Jersey , it is especially important that we make clear that our state ’ s firearm laws remain fully in effect , ” Grewal continued .
Despite the growing number of towns and counties that have passed resolutions , there ’ s no evidence that any of them are choosing to ignore existing state law .
As Scott Bach , executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs told NJ Advance Media , Grewal is simply objecting to towns “ vocalizing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolutions passed by various local governments in the state aren ’ t uniform .
Some of them specifically reference the state ’ s new red flag firearms seizure law , while others are more vague in their vocal opposition to unconstitutional gun control laws .
When the Sussex County freeholder board voted 5-0 to declare Sussex a “ Second Amendment / lawful gun owner county , ” following 80 minutes of discussion , supporters in the audience gave elected officials a rare standing ovation .
However , unlike pro-gun resolutions adopted elsewhere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board ’ s resolution did not condemn “ red flags laws ” allowing a judge to order the removal of weapons from someone judged a threat to themselves or others .
New Jersey ’ s red flag law took effect in September , with nearly 200 guns seized as of Jan. 22 , and has been a rallying cry for gun control opponents .
NJ Advance Media ’ s Rob Jennings recently wrote that , despite the symbolic nature of the resolutions , “ the large crowds at public meetings and lengthy debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is happening.
” I would argue that something big is indeed happening in New Jersey ; gun owners are starting to find their voice and are recognizing that while lawmakers in Trenton may ignore them , their local officials are more inclined to listen .
What we ’ re witnessing in places like New Jersey , upstate New York , and Illinois ( where the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement began back in 2018 ) is the beginning of a movement , not the culmination of one .
Just as Attorney General Grewal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to lead to lawlessness , Jennings is off base in assuming the large crowds and citizen activism driving the movement will amount to nothing at all .
It ’ s possible , of course , that the movement fizzles out before it ’ s able to effect any real change .
It ’ s also possible that the movement will continue to grow and expand , and the networking and grassroots activism at the local level can lead to new opportunities to change and expand the debate around the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far too early to write off the movement , especially with anti-gun politicians like New Jersey ’ s attorney general criticizing the movement and its members .
That only adds fuel to the fire in the hearts and minds of Garden State gun owners .

As you might imagine, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Gerwal isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that’s now taken hold in the state. He’s in charge of ensuring that all of the state’s draconian gun control laws are being enforced, and to that end he’s now sent a letter to all of the prosecutors in the state warning them of the supposed dangers Grewal claims are inherent in the pro-2A resolutions.
“My primary concern is not that law enforcement officers in New Jersey will stop enforcing firearm safety laws,” Grewal, who was appointed, said in a letter to all 21 county prosecutors provided to NJ Advance Media. “My real concern is that these so-called ‘sanctuary’ resolutions will confuse otherwise law-abiding residents, who may incorrectly believe that they no longer have to comply with firearm safety laws, including carry laws and prohibitions on assault weapons, ghost guns, or large-capacity magazines,” he added. “This confusion can create serious risks for law enforcement and the public at large, with potentially deadly consequences. As we work to end gun violence across New Jersey, it is especially important that we make clear that our state’s firearm laws remain fully in effect,” Grewal continued.
Despite the growing number of towns and counties that have passed resolutions, there’s no evidence that any of them are choosing to ignore existing state law. As Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs told NJ Advance Media, Grewal is simply objecting to towns “vocalizing their support for the Second Amendment.”
The resolutions passed by various local governments in the state aren’t uniform. Some of them specifically reference the state’s new red flag firearms seizure law, while others are more vague in their vocal opposition to unconstitutional gun control laws.
When the Sussex County freeholder board voted 5-0 to declare Sussex a “Second Amendment / lawful gun owner county,” following 80 minutes of discussion, supporters in the audience gave elected officials a rare standing ovation. However, unlike pro-gun resolutions adopted elsewhere in New Jersey, the text of the board’s resolution did not condemn “red flags laws” allowing a judge to order the removal of weapons from someone judged a threat to themselves or others. New Jersey’s red flag law took effect in September, with nearly 200 guns seized as of Jan. 22, and has been a rallying cry for gun control opponents.
NJ Advance Media’s Rob Jennings recently wrote that, despite the symbolic nature of the resolutions, “the large crowds at public meetings and lengthy debates can make it look like something big is happening.”
I would argue that something big is indeed happening in New Jersey; gun owners are starting to find their voice and are recognizing that while lawmakers in Trenton may ignore them, their local officials are more inclined to listen. What we’re witnessing in places like New Jersey, upstate New York, and Illinois (where the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement began back in 2018) is the beginning of a movement, not the culmination of one.
Just as Attorney General Grewal is wrong to claim that these resolutions are going to lead to lawlessness, Jennings is off base in assuming the large crowds and citizen activism driving the movement will amount to nothing at all. It’s possible, of course, that the movement fizzles out before it’s able to effect any real change. It’s also possible that the movement will continue to grow and expand, and the networking and grassroots activism at the local level can lead to new opportunities to change and expand the debate around the state’s restrictive gun laws. It’s far too early to write off the movement, especially with anti-gun politicians like New Jersey’s attorney general criticizing the movement and its members. That only adds fuel to the fire in the hearts and minds of Garden State gun owners.