bearingarms--2020-08-26--Parkland Father Addresses The Nation In Moving RNC Speech

Andrew Pollack doesn ’ t have to speak up .
He could spend his days quietly going about his business , living his life to the fullest and staying out of politics , and nobody would think any less of him , except maybe himself .
No , Andrew Pollack doesn ’ t have to speak up , but he believes its important to tell his story and the story of his daughter ’ s murder in the third floor hallway of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida .
Not because Andrew Pollack wants attention , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pollack addressed the nation in an incredibly moving speech at the RNC on Monday evening , and I ’ m very touched and pleased that he found the time to sit down with me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to discuss why he felt it was so important to speak bluntly with the American people about the attack in Parkland , the policies that enabled his daughter ’ s killer to avoid consequences and treatment for his many issues and red flags , and why he believes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
In our conversation , Pollack pulled no punches in his criticism of Joe Biden and Barack Obama ’ s efforts to implement “ restorative justice ” policies in public schools ; policies that Pollack believes led directly to the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas by failing to treat the threat posed by the shooter seriously , even when the killer made an earlier threat to target students .
As Pollack tells me , Donald Trump has worked to undo those disastrous policies , but Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to end school choice programs that allow for parents in underperforming school districts to move their kids to better schools .
Pollack argues that the combination of those two policy goals will force students to remain in failing schools that aren ’ t safe , but that ’ s not the only reason why he ’ s backing Trump ’ s re-election .
Pollack told me that he doesn ’ t blame the gun that was used to murder his daughter .
He blames the man who pulled the trigger , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who failed to take the threat seriously when they had a chance .
Pollack ’ s been a longtime supporter of the Second Amendment , and declared that he never goes anywhere without his concealed firearm in order to protect himself and his family .
The anti-gun agenda of the Biden/Harris campaign worries Pollack , who says that it ’ s become evident that Democrats would rather just take the easy road of blaming guns for crime , rather than deal with the individuals who are actually responsible for their own actions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation with Andrew Pollack in the video window above , and stick around for more news afterwards , like today ’ s armed citizen story as well as the troubling tale of a 19-year old in Little Rock , Arkansas who ’ s now facing a capital murder charge for the second time in five years .

Andrew Pollack doesn’t have to speak up. He could spend his days quietly going about his business, living his life to the fullest and staying out of politics, and nobody would think any less of him, except maybe himself. No, Andrew Pollack doesn’t have to speak up, but he believes its important to tell his story and the story of his daughter’s murder in the third floor hallway of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Not because Andrew Pollack wants attention, but because he wants to save lives.
Pollack addressed the nation in an incredibly moving speech at the RNC on Monday evening, and I’m very touched and pleased that he found the time to sit down with me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to discuss why he felt it was so important to speak bluntly with the American people about the attack in Parkland, the policies that enabled his daughter’s killer to avoid consequences and treatment for his many issues and red flags, and why he believes a Biden/Harris administration would be truly dangerous for the country.
In our conversation, Pollack pulled no punches in his criticism of Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s efforts to implement “restorative justice” policies in public schools; policies that Pollack believes led directly to the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas by failing to treat the threat posed by the shooter seriously, even when the killer made an earlier threat to target students.
As Pollack tells me, Donald Trump has worked to undo those disastrous policies, but Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to bring them back, as additionally want to end school choice programs that allow for parents in underperforming school districts to move their kids to better schools. Pollack argues that the combination of those two policy goals will force students to remain in failing schools that aren’t safe, but that’s not the only reason why he’s backing Trump’s re-election.
Pollack told me that he doesn’t blame the gun that was used to murder his daughter. He blames the man who pulled the trigger, and the school administrators and law enforcement officers who failed to take the threat seriously when they had a chance. Pollack’s been a longtime supporter of the Second Amendment, and declared that he never goes anywhere without his concealed firearm in order to protect himself and his family. The anti-gun agenda of the Biden/Harris campaign worries Pollack, who says that it’s become evident that Democrats would rather just take the easy road of blaming guns for crime, rather than deal with the individuals who are actually responsible for their own actions.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Andrew Pollack in the video window above, and stick around for more news afterwards, like today’s armed citizen story as well as the troubling tale of a 19-year old in Little Rock, Arkansas who’s now facing a capital murder charge for the second time in five years.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--August Surprise: Dems Suddenly Decide Riots Aren't So Great After All

Wednesday afternoon , President Donald Trump announced that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has had a change of heart , and is now welcoming federal law enforcement into Kenosha , Wisconsin after three nights of increasing violence stemming from the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police officers this past weekend .
Hopefully the presence of federal officers will help keep the peace in Kenosha , though its ridiculous that it ’ s taken this long for Evers to agree to the federal help .
In fact , I can ’ t help but wonder if Evers ’ decision is based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Check out this clip from CNN ’ s Tuesday evening programming , featuring Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo discussing the political impact of the riots .
It seems like as long as Democrats thought that the riots , looting , arson , and unrest could be pinned on Donald Trump , they were happy to let the mob run wild .
Now that voters are pinning the blame on the Democrats in charge of these cities , they ’ ve decided it ’ s time to get serious about the disorder on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who ’ s taken a decidedly hands-off approach to the nightly riots in Portland , issued her own tweet on Tuesday evening calling for a tougher response to those who ’ ve tried to torch the city and kick off a revolution .
Mayor Lori Lightfoot in Chicago seems to suddenly be interested in cracking down on violent protests , and not just those centered around her own home .
Whether or not you like Donald Trump , at least his position has been clear and consistent since the rioting began in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is great , but property destruction and political violence is not .
For many on the Left , however , the unrest was a good thing until they realized it was hurting the Biden/Harris campaign .
Think about that for a second .
It wasn ’ t the burned-out businesses that caused them to change their mind .
It wasn ’ t the assaults and shootings that made them reverse course .
If the polls were showing that the violence and unrest in these Democrat-controlled cities was hurting the Trump campaign , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors would still be calling for understanding and compassion for the looters , arsonists , and agitators creating mayhem in their communities .
It ’ s a craven and calculated political response , and it ’ s so blatant that I suspect many Americans will see right through it .
Your business can go up in flames , your neighborhood can be targeted with midnight marches and demands for you to vacate your homes in the name of racial equality , you can be yelled at and shouted down for refusing to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter or Antifa , and it ’ s all okay .
If Joe Biden ’ s poll numbers take a hit , though , it ’ s time to crack down .
I ’ ll say it again .
While I ’ m glad to see Democrat mayors and governors at least pretend to take an interest in the security of their residents , their new shift in position is a public relations move , not one based on public safety .

Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump announced that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has had a change of heart, and is now welcoming federal law enforcement into Kenosha, Wisconsin after three nights of increasing violence stemming from the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police officers this past weekend.
We will NOT stand for looting, arson, violence, and lawlessness on American streets. My team just got off the phone with Governor Evers who agreed to accept federal assistance (Portland should do the same!)… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2020
Hopefully the presence of federal officers will help keep the peace in Kenosha, though its ridiculous that it’s taken this long for Evers to agree to the federal help. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Evers’ decision is based more on public opinion than public safety.
Check out this clip from CNN’s Tuesday evening programming, featuring Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo discussing the political impact of the riots.
“The rioting has to stop… it’s showing up in the polling, it’s showing up in focus groups.” Don Lemon pic.twitter.com/xiFsowHbhb — JohnWMarxII (@JohnWMarxII) August 26, 2020
It seems like as long as Democrats thought that the riots, looting, arson, and unrest could be pinned on Donald Trump, they were happy to let the mob run wild. Now that voters are pinning the blame on the Democrats in charge of these cities, they’ve decided it’s time to get serious about the disorder on their streets.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown, who’s taken a decidedly hands-off approach to the nightly riots in Portland, issued her own tweet on Tuesday evening calling for a tougher response to those who’ve tried to torch the city and kick off a revolution.
Let me be clear: It’s time for the violence and vandalism to end so Portland can focus on the important work to be done to achieve real change for racial justice. Those who have committed acts of violence will be held accountable. — Governor Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown) August 25, 2020
Mayor Lori Lightfoot in Chicago seems to suddenly be interested in cracking down on violent protests, and not just those centered around her own home.
New barricades are up in the Gold Coast, visible increase in CPD presence #Chicago @chicagosmayor pic.twitter.com/2nHLmYUOqH — Mary Ann Ahern (@MaryAnnAhernNBC) August 26, 2020
Whether or not you like Donald Trump, at least his position has been clear and consistent since the rioting began in Minneapolis in early June; peaceful protest is great, but property destruction and political violence is not. For many on the Left, however, the unrest was a good thing until they realized it was hurting the Biden/Harris campaign.
Think about that for a second. It wasn’t the burned-out businesses that caused them to change their mind. It wasn’t the assaults and shootings that made them reverse course. If the polls were showing that the violence and unrest in these Democrat-controlled cities was hurting the Trump campaign, I truly believe that these mayors and Democratic governors would still be calling for understanding and compassion for the looters, arsonists, and agitators creating mayhem in their communities.
It’s a craven and calculated political response, and it’s so blatant that I suspect many Americans will see right through it. Your business can go up in flames, your neighborhood can be targeted with midnight marches and demands for you to vacate your homes in the name of racial equality, you can be yelled at and shouted down for refusing to raise a fist in solidarity with Black Lives Matter or Antifa, and it’s all okay. If Joe Biden’s poll numbers take a hit, though, it’s time to crack down.
I’ll say it again. While I’m glad to see Democrat mayors and governors at least pretend to take an interest in the security of their residents, their new shift in position is a public relations move, not one based on public safety.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--Some Want California To Keep Fighting On Mag Capacity Ban

The decision by the Ninth Circuit striking down California ’ s magazine ban was a blow that the most anti-gun state in the country is having a hard time dealing with .
Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Governor Gavin Newsom have until August 28th to decide what their next step will be , and many gun control advocates in the state want the AG to continue wasting taxpayer dollars by appealing the ruling and taking it up to the next level .
California ’ s LCM law creates precisely the type of reasonable limitations the 2nd Amendment allows .
Contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Becerra , this law isn ’ t about self-defense at all .
Experts in the Duncan case identified no instance in which any law-abiding Californian has ever needed to use an LCM in self-defense ( the law lets people possess as many 10-round magazines as they want ) .
In brushing off the lack of connection between LCMs and self-defense , the panel majority elevated unsubstantiated fears of gun owners rather than Californians ’ actual safety .
While some gun owners might feel safer with unlimited access to the most lethal firepower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually be safer from the mass shootings , hate crimes and gun violence that have become all too routine .
Evidence tells us that protecting people from this type of violence is exactly what gun safety laws like those in California do .
The panel majority should have acknowledged these realities , as well as the reams of evidence suggesting that gun violence would be less lethal if shooters lacked access to LCMs .
Survivors of the shooting at Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks were able to escape through a window @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using LCMs .
How many more people would have run free if the gunman was forced to change magazines after 10 rounds ?
The Duncan court ignored all this and instead approved a nearly unlimited right to use LCMs in self-defense , so long as the industry has marketed enough of them that they are “ common ” in the nation .
No other federal appeals court has agreed with this extreme vision of the 2nd Amendment , which essentially gives the gun industry veto power over gun legislation .
I desperately want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical safety is prioritized over faulty reasoning about self-defense rights , and I hope California ’ s attorney general will ask the full court to reconsider , and correct , the panel ’ s 2-1 ruling .
But even if this outlier opinion is reversed , judges appointed to the federal bench in the last three years will continue to pose a threat to California ’ s lifesaving gun laws .
The only way to stop this threat moving forward is to appoint judges who know that gun rights , like all other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laws protecting our safety can — and must — coexist with the 2nd Amendment .
The author relies on flawed legal reasoning presented elsewhere but fails to note that those other rulings all failed to apply the Heller Test .
Since these magazines aren ’ t just common but standard on most magazine-fed firearms sold outside of restricted states , the argument and those rulings fail .
Then again , the author , the litigation director at the Giffords Law Center , doesn ’ t actually care about any of that .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public in any way she can to achieve that goal .
Take this paragraph , for example : On the other hand , the risks of using a gun in self-defense are also heightened for Black Americans , as they can find themselves in danger of being shot for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights .
Lawful gun possession played a role in the killings of Philando Castile and Breonna Taylor .
Similar risks are present for women being threatened by their intimate partners : Domestic abusers are five times more likely to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the home .
Breonna Taylor and Philando Castile were both shot by police officers who thought they were dealing with armed criminals rather than law-abiding citizens .
While both cases were tragedies , it ’ s absurd to argue that Americans should not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights because of them .
Honestly , Giffords should be disgusted by this behavior , but they ’ re not .
Anything is fair game so long as it advances their cause , even if they have to blame the victims to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the truth is that banning these magazines doesn ’ t stop criminals from obtaining them , but it does inhibit law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves from the mob .
Giffords doesn ’ t make the case that such magazines aren ’ t necessary , though I kind of wish they had .
It would be comedy gold .

The decision by the Ninth Circuit striking down California’s magazine ban was a blow that the most anti-gun state in the country is having a hard time dealing with. Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Governor Gavin Newsom have until August 28th to decide what their next step will be, and many gun control advocates in the state want the AG to continue wasting taxpayer dollars by appealing the ruling and taking it up to the next level.
California’s LCM law creates precisely the type of reasonable limitations the 2nd Amendment allows. Contrary to what the majority decided in Duncan v. Becerra, this law isn’t about self-defense at all. Experts in the Duncan case identified no instance in which any law-abiding Californian has ever needed to use an LCM in self-defense (the law lets people possess as many 10-round magazines as they want). In brushing off the lack of connection between LCMs and self-defense, the panel majority elevated unsubstantiated fears of gun owners rather than Californians’ actual safety. While some gun owners might feel safer with unlimited access to the most lethal firepower, I think most Californians want to actually be safer from the mass shootings, hate crimes and gun violence that have become all too routine. Evidence tells us that protecting people from this type of violence is exactly what gun safety laws like those in California do. … The panel majority should have acknowledged these realities, as well as the reams of evidence suggesting that gun violence would be less lethal if shooters lacked access to LCMs. Survivors of the shooting at Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks were able to escape through a window while the shooter reloaded; he was using LCMs. How many more people would have run free if the gunman was forced to change magazines after 10 rounds? The Duncan court ignored all this and instead approved a nearly unlimited right to use LCMs in self-defense, so long as the industry has marketed enough of them that they are “common” in the nation. No other federal appeals court has agreed with this extreme vision of the 2nd Amendment, which essentially gives the gun industry veto power over gun legislation. I desperately want to live in a state where my physical safety is prioritized over faulty reasoning about self-defense rights, and I hope California’s attorney general will ask the full court to reconsider, and correct, the panel’s 2-1 ruling. But even if this outlier opinion is reversed, judges appointed to the federal bench in the last three years will continue to pose a threat to California’s lifesaving gun laws. The only way to stop this threat moving forward is to appoint judges who know that gun rights, like all other constitutional rights, are not unlimited. Laws protecting our safety can — and must — coexist with the 2nd Amendment.
The author relies on flawed legal reasoning presented elsewhere but fails to note that those other rulings all failed to apply the Heller Test. Since these magazines aren’t just common but standard on most magazine-fed firearms sold outside of restricted states, the argument and those rulings fail.
Then again, the author, the litigation director at the Giffords Law Center, doesn’t actually care about any of that. She has an agenda and will manipulate the public in any way she can to achieve that goal.
Take this paragraph, for example:
On the other hand, the risks of using a gun in self-defense are also heightened for Black Americans, as they can find themselves in danger of being shot for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Lawful gun possession played a role in the killings of Philando Castile and Breonna Taylor. Similar risks are present for women being threatened by their intimate partners: Domestic abusers are five times more likely to kill their partners if a firearm is present in the home.
Breonna Taylor and Philando Castile were both shot by police officers who thought they were dealing with armed criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. While both cases were tragedies, it’s absurd to argue that Americans should not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights because of them.
Honestly, Giffords should be disgusted by this behavior, but they’re not. Anything is fair game so long as it advances their cause, even if they have to blame the victims to do it.
As for larger-capacity magazines, the truth is that banning these magazines doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining them, but it does inhibit law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves from the mob. Giffords doesn’t make the case that such magazines aren’t necessary, though I kind of wish they had. It would be comedy gold.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--Second Amendment Emerges As Key Issue In This Congressional Race

Rep. Xochitl Torres Small was elected to Congress in 2018 as part of the Democratic Party ’ s blue wave , in large part because she claimed to support the Second Amendment .
Small cut an ad featuring her pretending to hunt in the New Mexico desert , and she pledged that she ’ d protect the right to keep and bear arms as well as serve as a voice of moderation for the 2nd Congressional district .
NM-02 is a sprawling district that is fairly conservative , but Torres Small has been anything but moderate while in office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted with Nancy Pelosi 95 % of the time , including a vote in support of “ universal background checks ” back in 2019 .
Now that vote is emerging as a campaign issue , with the Democrat releasing a new ad that once again features her blasting away with a gun in the New Mexico desert while claiming “ this is how I unwind ” .
Torres Small ’ s Republican challenger , former state legislator Yvette Herrell , is out with a new ad of her own that challenges the freshman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment and features Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace , a pro-2A Democrat who ’ s been a staunch opponent of new gun control measures .
After Herrell ’ s ad hit the airwaves , Albuquerque news station KOB ran a so-called fact check , attempting to provide cover to Torres Small ’ s vote for the background check measure .
To suggest Rep. Torres Small is against the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution based on her vote on HR-8 is misleading .
The bill aimed to close background check loopholes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also supported .
“ The bill doesn ’ t prevent anyone from purchasing guns , it wouldn ’ t prevent anyone from going hunting or going shooting or purchasing bullets , ” said Dr. Lonna Atkeson , a political science professor at the University of New Mexico .
“ I have to say this ad is somewhat misleading.
” The universal background check bill was also backed by every major gun control group in the country , so to claim that voting for it wasn ’ t a vote against the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also inexplicable that KOB wouldn ’ t even mention the fact that New Mexico itself imposed a universal background check bill on gun owners back in 2019 , but over the first year that the law was in effect there were no arrests made for violating the law , and the number of background checks conducted in the state in 2019 was virtually identical to the number performed in 2018 .
In other words , universal background checks are a favorite of the gun control crowd , though they do absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely unenforceable .
They poll well , however , which is why gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and anti-gun Democrats continue to push them at both the state and federal level .
The fact is that Xochitl Torres Small sided with Nancy Pelosi and gun control activists when she cast her vote in favor of universal background checks .
Not only that , but the New Mexico Democrat even hired a former Everytown staffer as her campaign manager .
Second Amendment supporters are right to call out Torres Small for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a defender of the right to keep and bear arms in the district , while palling around with anti-gun activists and backing Nancy Pelosi ’ s gun control agenda when she ’ s in Washington , D.C .

Rep. Xochitl Torres Small was elected to Congress in 2018 as part of the Democratic Party’s blue wave, in large part because she claimed to support the Second Amendment. Small cut an ad featuring her pretending to hunt in the New Mexico desert, and she pledged that she’d protect the right to keep and bear arms as well as serve as a voice of moderation for the 2nd Congressional district. NM-02 is a sprawling district that is fairly conservative, but Torres Small has been anything but moderate while in office.
According to ProPublica, Torres Small has voted with Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time, including a vote in support of “universal background checks” back in 2019. Now that vote is emerging as a campaign issue, with the Democrat releasing a new ad that once again features her blasting away with a gun in the New Mexico desert while claiming “this is how I unwind”.
Torres Small’s Republican challenger, former state legislator Yvette Herrell, is out with a new ad of her own that challenges the freshman Democrat’s claim to support the Second Amendment and features Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace, a pro-2A Democrat who’s been a staunch opponent of new gun control measures.
Sheriff Tony Mace: “I don’t like being lied to. 2 years ago, Xochitl Torres Small promised to protect our #2A rights. But she sold us out & voted for gun control. I’m a Democrat, but Torres Small won’t get my vote. I’m backing Yvette Herrell.” Watch our new ad! #nmpol #nm02 pic.twitter.com/85zFnDkEec — Yvette Herrell (@Yvette4congress) August 22, 2020
After Herrell’s ad hit the airwaves, Albuquerque news station KOB ran a so-called fact check, attempting to provide cover to Torres Small’s vote for the background check measure.
To suggest Rep. Torres Small is against the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution based on her vote on HR-8 is misleading. The bill aimed to close background check loopholes, which the President, at one point, also supported. “The bill doesn’t prevent anyone from purchasing guns, it wouldn’t prevent anyone from going hunting or going shooting or purchasing bullets,” said Dr. Lonna Atkeson, a political science professor at the University of New Mexico. “I have to say this ad is somewhat misleading.”
The universal background check bill was also backed by every major gun control group in the country, so to claim that voting for it wasn’t a vote against the Second Amendment is even more misleading. It’s also inexplicable that KOB wouldn’t even mention the fact that New Mexico itself imposed a universal background check bill on gun owners back in 2019, but over the first year that the law was in effect there were no arrests made for violating the law, and the number of background checks conducted in the state in 2019 was virtually identical to the number performed in 2018.
In other words, universal background checks are a favorite of the gun control crowd, though they do absolutely nothing to prevent violent crime and are largely unenforceable. They poll well, however, which is why gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and anti-gun Democrats continue to push them at both the state and federal level.
The fact is that Xochitl Torres Small sided with Nancy Pelosi and gun control activists when she cast her vote in favor of universal background checks. Not only that, but the New Mexico Democrat even hired a former Everytown staffer as her campaign manager. Second Amendment supporters are right to call out Torres Small for wanting it both ways; appearing to be a defender of the right to keep and bear arms in the district, while palling around with anti-gun activists and backing Nancy Pelosi’s gun control agenda when she’s in Washington, D.C.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--Norfolk, VA Delays Vote On Gun Restrictions

On Tuesday , I wrote about how the city of Norfolk was considering passing new gun control regulations .
The new regulations would ban the carrying of a firearm on public property such as parks , event centers , and the like .
It ’ s a bad measure , to be sure , but the local media was also reporting that it applied to local roads .
It also seemed that there was a lot of confusion on just what the law would mean .
Because of that , the city has delayed voting on the measure .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarm and needs revision , ” [ City Attorney Bernard ] Pishko wrote .
The section in question read “ The intent of this chapter is to prohibit the possession , carrying , or transportation of any firearms , ammunition , or combination thereof in public buildings ; public parks and outdoor recreational facilities ; public recreation or community center facilities ; and public streets , roads , alleys , or sidewalks or public rights-of-way and other places of whatever nature owned , operated , used , or controlled by the City of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The seeming blanket banning of guns on public streets and sidewalks riled some , but Pishko wrote that the reference to public rights-of-way was tied to a later section — one which would prohibit guns at city-permitted events that would take place on city streets or sidewalks like First Fridays on Granby Street .
The language of the original ordinance would make a bad law even worse .
You see , judges don ’ t look at what people intended when they wrote the law , by and large , because lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the author of a law means it one way , it ’ s not up to the judge to assume that everyone who voted for the law felt the same way .
Instead , they go by the text instead .
And let ’ s be honest , the text of this one was pretty messed up .
While it ’ s good that they delayed voting on this measure , it ’ s far from over for the people of Norfolk .
After all , the plan isn ’ t to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would be great if it were , but it ’ s not .
Instead , the plan is to push this again after the language is sorted out .
In other words , they ’ re still going to push this , they just want to remove the section that is pissing everyone off .
Well , people should be angry about this .
The city ’ s efforts to disarm them won ’ t bear the fruit local lawmakers think .
It won ’ t make Norfolk any safer .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected hunting preserves where they can pray on the law-abiding .
It won ’ t make the city safer , it ’ ll do the precise opposite .
Meanwhile , when their gun control doesn ’ t work , they ’ ll start looking for more gun control to pass without ever realizing that they ’ re the problem in the first place .
Which is , unfortunately , about par for the course with any community that embraces gun control .

On Tuesday, I wrote about how the city of Norfolk was considering passing new gun control regulations. The new regulations would ban the carrying of a firearm on public property such as parks, event centers, and the like. It’s a bad measure, to be sure, but the local media was also reporting that it applied to local roads.
It also seemed that there was a lot of confusion on just what the law would mean.
Because of that, the city has delayed voting on the measure.
“The current language has caused confusion and alarm and needs revision,” [City Attorney Bernard] Pishko wrote. The section in question read “The intent of this chapter is to prohibit the possession, carrying, or transportation of any firearms, ammunition, or combination thereof in public buildings; public parks and outdoor recreational facilities; public recreation or community center facilities; and public streets, roads, alleys, or sidewalks or public rights-of-way and other places of whatever nature owned, operated, used, or controlled by the City of Norfolk as authorized by the General Assembly.” The seeming blanket banning of guns on public streets and sidewalks riled some, but Pishko wrote that the reference to public rights-of-way was tied to a later section — one which would prohibit guns at city-permitted events that would take place on city streets or sidewalks like First Fridays on Granby Street.
The language of the original ordinance would make a bad law even worse. You see, judges don’t look at what people intended when they wrote the law, by and large, because lawmakers vote based on the text. Even if the author of a law means it one way, it’s not up to the judge to assume that everyone who voted for the law felt the same way.
Instead, they go by the text instead.
And let’s be honest, the text of this one was pretty messed up.
While it’s good that they delayed voting on this measure, it’s far from over for the people of Norfolk. After all, the plan isn’t to scrap this and drop the issue. It would be great if it were, but it’s not.
Instead, the plan is to push this again after the language is sorted out. In other words, they’re still going to push this, they just want to remove the section that is pissing everyone off.
Well, people should be angry about this. The city’s efforts to disarm them won’t bear the fruit local lawmakers think. It won’t make Norfolk any safer. Instead, it’ll provide criminals with protected hunting preserves where they can pray on the law-abiding. It won’t make the city safer, it’ll do the precise opposite.
Meanwhile, when their gun control doesn’t work, they’ll start looking for more gun control to pass without ever realizing that they’re the problem in the first place.
Which is, unfortunately, about par for the course with any community that embraces gun control.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--Anti-Gun Mayors, Everytown Sue ATF Over "Ghost Gun" Regulations

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has blamed everyone and everything but her own failed leadership for the rise in violent crime .
First it was Indiana ’ s gun laws that were to blame .
Then it was Mississippi .
Now Lightfoot , along with Everytown for Gun Safety and the mayors of Syracuse , New York and Columbia , South Carolina , are blaming the ATF , alleging that the federal agency isn ’ t following the law when it comes to regulating so-called ghost guns ; homemade firearms that don ’ t have a serial number or other identifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Southern District of New York , claims that until 2006 or so , the ATF mandated that unfinished receivers ( the part of a firearm which houses components like the hammer or breechlock ) had to carry a serial number , and anyone purchasing those components had to undergo a background check .
Currently , the ATF says that a receiver that is 80 % finished is not considered a firearm , and therefore doesn ’ t have to have any sort of identifying markers .
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence , demanded the ATF close the ghost gun loophole and regulate the sale of gun parts that are marketed to easily be used to build guns .
“ Individuals with dangerous histories shouldn ’ t be able to order lethal weapons on the internet with a few quick clicks , ” Lightfoot said .
But Rick Vasquez , a Virginia-based firearms consultant and former ATF technical expert who evaluated guns and gun products to help the bureau determine if they were legal , said anyone wanting to address the proliferation of kit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The continued rapid advancement of tools and technology widely available to the public meant it was getting to the point where even rudimentary “ chunks of metal ” can be turned into firearms , Vasquez said .
“ How do you regulate that ?
The ATF can ’ t do it .
This situation is uncontrollable because of technology , and I ’ m not sure what anyone can do about it.
” Vasquez is right .
Heck , given the advancements in 3D printing , it ’ s possible to print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plastic polymer .
How is the ATF supposed to require an identifying serial number on a spool of plastic that could be used to produce a receiver ?
There ’ s another big problem for the anti-gun advocates that are demanding the ATF strictly interpret their regulations on homemade firearms .
As CNN reported earlier this year , former ATF agent Dan O ’ Kelly says the agency is already twisting the law in order to classify certain parts as receivers even though they don ’ t actually meet the federal definition- “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing for the hammer , bolt or breechblock , and firing mechanism , and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.
” The problem — and this is where O ’ Kelly comes in — is that he says roughly 60 % of the guns in America do not have a single part that falls under that definition .
The AR-15 , for example , has a split receiver — one upper and one lower .
Neither meets the requirement on its own .
“ For 50 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peg fit in the round hole , ” O ’ Kelly told CNN , “ when , in fact , it doesn ’ t. ” O ’ Kelly ’ s testimony in at least four cases over the past decade has led to charges being dismissed against several individuals and companies charged with illegally producing unserialized receivers for sale , including a 2014 lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against South Carolina-based Ares Arms .
The company ’ s owner at the time , Dimitri Karras , was never charged with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil lawsuit against the ATF seeking the return of his property .
O ’ Kelly submitted a declaration in support of Karras ’ lawsuit , stating that the lower receivers “ had only two of the four features listed by the ATF in their own definition of a ‘ receiver.
’ ” He also noted that the definition failed to cover a long list of semi-automatic rifles and handguns , including the very popular Ruger .22 caliber pistol and Uzi-style rifles .
The regulation , O ’ Kelly wrote , pertained mainly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as revolvers and pump action shotguns .
He said the ATF ’ s attempt to classify the items seized from Ares Armor as receivers , as well as similar rulings in other cases , displayed “ a lack of logic and consistency , which has created a climate in the firearm industry wherein it is nearly impossible for the reasonable man to be able to operate in good faith within the law.
” The ATF returned 5,786 lower receivers to Karras two months after O ’ Kelly ’ s declaration was filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Everytown for Gun Safety and the anti-gun mayors want the ATF to strictly enforce the letter of the law , they ’ re going to actually empower companies and individuals to make more unserialized receivers , not less .
I doubt that ’ s their intention , but it would be the most likely result .
Instead of engaging in junk lawsuits like this , Mayor Lori Lightfoot and fellow mayors need to get serious about violent crime .
Going after “ ghost guns ” is an exercise in futility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their actions is not .

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has blamed everyone and everything but her own failed leadership for the rise in violent crime. First it was Indiana’s gun laws that were to blame. Then it was Mississippi. Now Lightfoot, along with Everytown for Gun Safety and the mayors of Syracuse, New York and Columbia, South Carolina, are blaming the ATF, alleging that the federal agency isn’t following the law when it comes to regulating so-called ghost guns; homemade firearms that don’t have a serial number or other identifying markers.
The federal lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, claims that until 2006 or so, the ATF mandated that unfinished receivers (the part of a firearm which houses components like the hammer or breechlock) had to carry a serial number, and anyone purchasing those components had to undergo a background check. Currently, the ATF says that a receiver that is 80% finished is not considered a firearm, and therefore doesn’t have to have any sort of identifying markers.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, whose city has been beset by gun violence, demanded the ATF close the ghost gun loophole and regulate the sale of gun parts that are marketed to easily be used to build guns. “Individuals with dangerous histories shouldn’t be able to order lethal weapons on the internet with a few quick clicks,” Lightfoot said. But Rick Vasquez, a Virginia-based firearms consultant and former ATF technical expert who evaluated guns and gun products to help the bureau determine if they were legal, said anyone wanting to address the proliferation of kit guns should pass new laws in Congress. The continued rapid advancement of tools and technology widely available to the public meant it was getting to the point where even rudimentary “chunks of metal” can be turned into firearms, Vasquez said. “How do you regulate that? The ATF can’t do it. This situation is uncontrollable because of technology, and I’m not sure what anyone can do about it.”
Vasquez is right. Heck, given the advancements in 3D printing, it’s possible to print a lower receiver from nothing more than plastic polymer. How is the ATF supposed to require an identifying serial number on a spool of plastic that could be used to produce a receiver?
There’s another big problem for the anti-gun advocates that are demanding the ATF strictly interpret their regulations on homemade firearms. As CNN reported earlier this year, former ATF agent Dan O’Kelly says the agency is already twisting the law in order to classify certain parts as receivers even though they don’t actually meet the federal definition- “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”
The problem — and this is where O’Kelly comes in — is that he says roughly 60% of the guns in America do not have a single part that falls under that definition. The AR-15, for example, has a split receiver — one upper and one lower. Neither meets the requirement on its own. “For 50 years, ATF has been making this square peg fit in the round hole,” O’Kelly told CNN, “when, in fact, it doesn’t.”
O’Kelly’s testimony in at least four cases over the past decade has led to charges being dismissed against several individuals and companies charged with illegally producing unserialized receivers for sale, including a 2014 lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against South Carolina-based Ares Arms.
The company’s owner at the time, Dimitri Karras , was never charged with a crime. His company later filed a civil lawsuit against the ATF seeking the return of his property. O’Kelly submitted a declaration in support of Karras’ lawsuit, stating that the lower receivers “had only two of the four features listed by the ATF in their own definition of a ‘receiver.’” He also noted that the definition failed to cover a long list of semi-automatic rifles and handguns, including the very popular Ruger .22 caliber pistol and Uzi-style rifles. The regulation, O’Kelly wrote, pertained mainly to a part found in manually operated weapons such as revolvers and pump action shotguns. He said the ATF’s attempt to classify the items seized from Ares Armor as receivers, as well as similar rulings in other cases, displayed “a lack of logic and consistency, which has created a climate in the firearm industry wherein it is nearly impossible for the reasonable man to be able to operate in good faith within the law.” The ATF returned 5,786 lower receivers to Karras two months after O’Kelly’s declaration was filed. The civil case was later dismissed.
If Everytown for Gun Safety and the anti-gun mayors want the ATF to strictly enforce the letter of the law, they’re going to actually empower companies and individuals to make more unserialized receivers, not less. I doubt that’s their intention, but it would be the most likely result.
Instead of engaging in junk lawsuits like this, Mayor Lori Lightfoot and fellow mayors need to get serious about violent crime. Going after “ghost guns” is an exercise in futility. Ensuring that violent criminals face consequences for their actions is not.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--Tuesday Shooting Not First Appearance Of Gun In Kenosha Riots

Tuesday night ’ s shooting during the Kenosha riots will be on the news all day today .
You ’ ll see it on NBC , CBS , CNN , ABC , MSNBC , and even Fox .
There will be no escaping it long term .
While it may not be the only story today , it ’ ll be a big one .
You can also be sure the media will spin it as violent right-wingers gunning down innocent , “ mostly peaceful ” protestors in cold blood .
That despite the evidence suggesting something very different .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be silent about another fact .
You see , while I expect them to spin Tuesday night ’ s shooting as an act of evil that took a peaceful march and turned it into something ugly , I also expect them to ignore that the gun used in that shooting is far from the first weapon pulled during these “ protests.
” The Blaze reporter Elijah Schaffer told Fox News Tuesday he thanks God for being alive after a person he described as a Black Lives Matter “ rioter ” pointed a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmed rioting in Kenosha , Wis. following the shooting of Jacob Blake .
“ While interviewing this # BLM rioter in Kinosha [ sic ] he pulls out a real pistol and points it at my camera while explaining what we would do to cops if they rolled up on us right now , ” Schaffer tweeted late Monday .
“ It ’ s been a while since I had a gun pointed at me even if it was just to make a point.
” HOLY SH* # : while interviewing this # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real pistol and points it at my camera while explaining what we would do to cops if they rolled up on us right now It ’ s been a while since I had a gun pointed at me even if it was just to make a point pic.twitter.com/hjQqO9Ccbb “ This man had a firearm , there were multiple firearms amongst the protestors and rioters , ” Schaffer told Fox News .
“ It was a very unruly situation that could have gone south , thank God it didn ’ t. ” Schaffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he was heard threatening police officers but the reporter did not expect a firsthand demonstration .
Schaffer said he didn ’ t think the man was trying to shoot him or anything .
“ I don ’ t think he pointed the gun at me to try to kill me , I think he was one of the stupidest people in the world , ” Schaffer told Fox News .
He also speculated that the individual in question probably didn ’ t even have a legal right to own a firearm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to note is that while we ’ re dealing with the aftermath of the shooting , we ’ re going to hear an awful lot about how these are peaceful protestors , how they didn ’ t deserve what happened to them .
However , let ’ s also remember Schaffer ’ s experience on Monday night when he had a gun in his face and the person holding it pulled the trigger .
This was someone who had already threatened the police .
That makes it much easier to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well have been acting in self-defense .
Folks , these aren ’ t peaceful protests .
They ’ re riots , and if you live in the area , please make sure you ’ re safe .
Have supplies on hand so you won ’ t have to venture out at night .
Be armed and prepared to defend yourself and your home .
We ’ ve seen “ protestors ” in other places venture into residential neighborhoods already , so don ’ t believe for an instant that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what we see in Schaffer ’ s video from Monday , they might even start shooting without even meaning too , so be ready .

Tuesday night’s shooting during the Kenosha riots will be on the news all day today. You’ll see it on NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox. There will be no escaping it long term. While it may not be the only story today, it’ll be a big one.
You can also be sure the media will spin it as violent right-wingers gunning down innocent, “mostly peaceful” protestors in cold blood. That despite the evidence suggesting something very different.
Meanwhile, much of the media will be silent about another fact. You see, while I expect them to spin Tuesday night’s shooting as an act of evil that took a peaceful march and turned it into something ugly, I also expect them to ignore that the gun used in that shooting is far from the first weapon pulled during these “protests.”
The Blaze reporter Elijah Schaffer told Fox News Tuesday he thanks God for being alive after a person he described as a Black Lives Matter “rioter” pointed a gun at Schaffer’s face as he filmed rioting in Kenosha, Wis. following the shooting of Jacob Blake. “While interviewing this #BLM rioter in Kinosha [sic] he pulls out a real pistol and points it at my camera while explaining what we would do to cops if they rolled up on us right now,” Schaffer tweeted late Monday. “It’s been a while since I had a gun pointed at me even if it was just to make a point.” HOLY SH*#: while interviewing this #BLM rioter in Kinosha he pulls out a real pistol and points it at my camera while explaining what we would do to cops if they rolled up on us right now It’s been a while since I had a gun pointed at me even if it was just to make a point pic.twitter.com/hjQqO9Ccbb — ELIJAH RIOT (@ElijahSchaffer) August 25, 2020 … “This man had a firearm, there were multiple firearms amongst the protestors and rioters,” Schaffer told Fox News. “It was a very unruly situation that could have gone south, thank God it didn’t.” Schaffer said he attempted to interview the man after he was heard threatening police officers but the reporter did not expect a firsthand demonstration.
Schaffer said he didn’t think the man was trying to shoot him or anything. “I don’t think he pointed the gun at me to try to kill me, I think he was one of the stupidest people in the world,” Schaffer told Fox News. He also speculated that the individual in question probably didn’t even have a legal right to own a firearm, which is possible.
What’s important to note is that while we’re dealing with the aftermath of the shooting, we’re going to hear an awful lot about how these are peaceful protestors, how they didn’t deserve what happened to them. However, let’s also remember Schaffer’s experience on Monday night when he had a gun in his face and the person holding it pulled the trigger.
This was someone who had already threatened the police.
That makes it much easier to believe that the shooter in Tuesday’s incident may well have been acting in self-defense.
Folks, these aren’t peaceful protests. They’re riots, and if you live in the area, please make sure you’re safe. Have supplies on hand so you won’t have to venture out at night. Be armed and prepared to defend yourself and your home. We’ve seen “protestors” in other places venture into residential neighborhoods already, so don’t believe for an instant that there’s no chance of it happening. Based on what we see in Schaffer’s video from Monday, they might even start shooting without even meaning too, so be ready.


bearingarms--2020-08-26--NJ Governor Targets The Second Amendment With Tax Hike On Gun Owners

Exercising your right to keep and bear arms could soon be more expensive in New Jersey , at least if Gov .
Phil Murphy gets his way .
The anti-gun governor unveiled a new budget proposal on Tuesday that ’ s ostensibly meant to plug some of the holes in the state budget caused by coronavirus closures , but looks an awful lot like an attack on the Second Amendment rights of residents .
Under Murphy ’ s plan , the cost of a Firearms ID card , which is necessary to own a long gun in the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 .
Pistol purchase permits , which are required for every handgun purchase in the state , would also increase from the $ 2 it currently costs to $ 50 .
Murphy has long sought an increase in the amount of money would-be gun owners have to fork over to the state before they can keep arms , but his fellow Democrat and state Senate president Steve Sweeney has previously been opposed to the tax hike .
Talking to reporters on Tuesday , Sweeney again sounded a note of resistance to the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Paul Munshine reported .
Only a small portion of Murphy ’ s rhetoric dealt with the actual budget .
He began with a long peroration on the pandemic .
Then we were treated to a mention of “ the senseless murder of George Floyd ” and a repetition of the sentiment that “ black lives matter.
” That got him a standing ovation from the audience , which seemed to be made up mainly of loyal Democrats .
But what did it have to do with the budget ?
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal say with the governor in determining the document that must be signed into law by Sept. 30 .
That ’ s Senate President Steve Sweeney .
Sweeney did not sound pleased by the prospect .
The budget for the new fiscal year was supposed to be enacted by July 1 , but the Legislature extended that deadline by three months because of the pandemic .
“ We made a mistake , ” said Sweeney .
“ No other state delayed its budget.
” But for that delay , the budget would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , Sweeney said , the Legislature has only about three weeks to craft a budget bill that usually takes three months .
Murphy ’ s move to make it more expensive to exercise a constitutional right comes as a record number of residents have applied for permission to own a gun in recent months , and if enacted , would make it much more difficult for lower-income residents to legally purchase a firearm for self-defense .
That may not be Murphy ’ s stated intent , but the governor doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought of good people in bad neighborhoods being unable to afford to protect themselves and their families .
Democrats are in firm control of both chambers of the state legislature , as well as the governor ’ s mansion , so the budget battle largely be a blue-on-blue affair , with most Republicans almost certain to vote against Murphy ’ s proposal .
New Jersey gun owners will hopefully be inundating their lawmakers with phone calls , emails , and letters in opposition to any attempt to impose a financial burden on gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question now is whether or not those lawmakers will listen to the voices of those most affected by the governor ’ s anti-gun budget proposal .

Exercising your right to keep and bear arms could soon be more expensive in New Jersey, at least if Gov. Phil Murphy gets his way. The anti-gun governor unveiled a new budget proposal on Tuesday that’s ostensibly meant to plug some of the holes in the state budget caused by coronavirus closures, but looks an awful lot like an attack on the Second Amendment rights of residents.
Under Murphy’s plan, the cost of a Firearms ID card, which is necessary to own a long gun in the state, would rise from $5 to $100. Pistol purchase permits, which are required for every handgun purchase in the state, would also increase from the $2 it currently costs to $50.
Murphy has long sought an increase in the amount of money would-be gun owners have to fork over to the state before they can keep arms, but his fellow Democrat and state Senate president Steve Sweeney has previously been opposed to the tax hike. Talking to reporters on Tuesday, Sweeney again sounded a note of resistance to the governor’s budget plans, as NJ.com’s Paul Munshine reported.
Only a small portion of Murphy’s rhetoric dealt with the actual budget. He began with a long peroration on the pandemic. Then we were treated to a mention of “the senseless murder of George Floyd” and a repetition of the sentiment that “black lives matter.” That got him a standing ovation from the audience, which seemed to be made up mainly of loyal Democrats. But what did it have to do with the budget? There was one Democrat present who will have an equal say with the governor in determining the document that must be signed into law by Sept. 30. That’s Senate President Steve Sweeney. Sweeney did not sound pleased by the prospect. The budget for the new fiscal year was supposed to be enacted by July 1, but the Legislature extended that deadline by three months because of the pandemic. “We made a mistake,” said Sweeney. “No other state delayed its budget.” But for that delay, the budget would have been settled for the 2021 Fiscal Year. Now, Sweeney said, the Legislature has only about three weeks to craft a budget bill that usually takes three months.
Murphy’s move to make it more expensive to exercise a constitutional right comes as a record number of residents have applied for permission to own a gun in recent months, and if enacted, would make it much more difficult for lower-income residents to legally purchase a firearm for self-defense. That may not be Murphy’s stated intent, but the governor doesn’t seem to be bothered by the thought of good people in bad neighborhoods being unable to afford to protect themselves and their families.
Democrats are in firm control of both chambers of the state legislature, as well as the governor’s mansion, so the budget battle largely be a blue-on-blue affair, with most Republicans almost certain to vote against Murphy’s proposal. New Jersey gun owners will hopefully be inundating their lawmakers with phone calls, emails, and letters in opposition to any attempt to impose a financial burden on gun owners in the state. The biggest question now is whether or not those lawmakers will listen to the voices of those most affected by the governor’s anti-gun budget proposal.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--2A Activist Has Front Row Seat For DC Protests

There were a few familiar faces for Second Amendment supporters among the crowd of invitees at the White House on Thursday evening as Donald Trump delivered his speech accepting the nomination of the Republican Party , including the Second Amendment Foundation ’ s founder and executive director Alan Gottlieb .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Alan joins me from Washington , D.C. to talk about what it was like to watch history being made , as well as the chaos and unrest that ensued as the invitees were subjected to harassment and abuse ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agitators who accosted the RNC guests as they left the White House after the president ’ s acceptance speech .
“ On the way out , the gate that we left by had significant Secret Service personnel and D.C. riot police , but also a number of protesters , ” explained Gottlieb , who said one of the demonstrators followed him and his wife for several blocks as they tried to make their way back to their hotel .
“ On some of those streets it was a little scary , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being licensed to carry concealed , this is one place where I would have liked to have been able to do it , but of course the law doesn ’ t let you.
” Washington , D.C. does allow for concealed carry , but not on federal property , so even if Gottlieb had been able to acquire a non-resident concealed carry license in time for his trip to our nation ’ s capital , he still would have been left unarmed on his journey back to his hotel .
As for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was thrilled to hear the president bring up the Second Amendment several times during his acceptance speech .
That led to a discussion about the impact that new gun owners might have on this year ’ s election , and with more than 5-million Americans purchasing firearms for the very first time since January , the head of the Second Amendment Foundation believes that they could play a key role in this year ’ s elections , particularly in swing states and battleground districts .
One of those races where new gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon ’ s 4th Congressional District , which has been represented by Democrat Peter DeFazio for more than 30 years .
While DeFazio has regularly won re-election handily , the district itself is split almost evenly between registered Republicans and Democrats , and this year the GOP has nominated a fresh face with a great story .
Alek Skarlatos made international headlines back in 2015 when he and two friends were on a Paris-bound train when a gunman pulled out a rifle and prepared to open fire in the crowded car .
Skarlatos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadler helped to take down and disarm the would-be terrorist .
Now Skarlatos is running for Congress against DeFazio , and he also joins me on today ’ s show to talk about why he decided to run for office , his long-held support for the Second Amendment , and why he believes that Oregon ’ s 4th Congressional District is ripe for a Republican takeover .
Be sure to check out both interview in the video window above , and as always , thanks for watching , listening , and spreading the @ @

There were a few familiar faces for Second Amendment supporters among the crowd of invitees at the White House on Thursday evening as Donald Trump delivered his speech accepting the nomination of the Republican Party, including the Second Amendment Foundation’s founder and executive director Alan Gottlieb.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Alan joins me from Washington, D.C. to talk about what it was like to watch history being made, as well as the chaos and unrest that ensued as the invitees were subjected to harassment and abuse (both verbal and physical) from demonstrators and agitators who accosted the RNC guests as they left the White House after the president’s acceptance speech.
“On the way out, the gate that we left by had significant Secret Service personnel and D.C. riot police, but also a number of protesters,” explained Gottlieb, who said one of the demonstrators followed him and his wife for several blocks as they tried to make their way back to their hotel.
“On some of those streets it was a little scary,” he continued, “and frankly, being licensed to carry concealed, this is one place where I would have liked to have been able to do it, but of course the law doesn’t let you.”
Washington, D.C. does allow for concealed carry, but not on federal property, so even if Gottlieb had been able to acquire a non-resident concealed carry license in time for his trip to our nation’s capital, he still would have been left unarmed on his journey back to his hotel.
As for the president’s speech, Gottlieb said he was thrilled to hear the president bring up the Second Amendment several times during his acceptance speech. That led to a discussion about the impact that new gun owners might have on this year’s election, and with more than 5-million Americans purchasing firearms for the very first time since January, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation believes that they could play a key role in this year’s elections, particularly in swing states and battleground districts.
One of those races where new gun owners could have an outsized impact is Oregon’s 4th Congressional District, which has been represented by Democrat Peter DeFazio for more than 30 years. While DeFazio has regularly won re-election handily, the district itself is split almost evenly between registered Republicans and Democrats, and this year the GOP has nominated a fresh face with a great story.
Alek Skarlatos made international headlines back in 2015 when he and two friends were on a Paris-bound train when a gunman pulled out a rifle and prepared to open fire in the crowded car. Skarlatos and his pals Spencer Stone and Anthony Sadler helped to take down and disarm the would-be terrorist. Now Skarlatos is running for Congress against DeFazio, and he also joins me on today’s show to talk about why he decided to run for office, his long-held support for the Second Amendment, and why he believes that Oregon’s 4th Congressional District is ripe for a Republican takeover.
Be sure to check out both interview in the video window above, and as always, thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Democrat Gun Ban In NH State House Will Be Challenged In Court

Good news from the Live Free or Die State , where the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a state lawmaker hoping to sue over a ban on guns at the State House imposed by Democrat lawmakers can bring a legal challenge against the prohibition .
Democrats imposed the gun ban in Representatives Hall when they took control of the state House in January of 2019 , and State Rep. John Burt filed suit shortly thereafter .
A superior court judge , however , initially ruled that Burt couldn ’ t sue over the gun ban , citing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state constitution and declaring that the courts had no place to second-guess rules imposed by the legislative body .
In a unanimous decision , the state Supreme Court rejected the decision by the lower court , and ruled that Burt can indeed bring his legal challenge forward .
The court recognized that the state legislature has the power to set its own rules , but that lawmakers don ’ t have a green light to pass unconstitutional measures .
However , “ [ o ] ur conclusion that the constitution commits to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
does not end the inquiry into justiciability.
” “ The court system [ remains ] available for adjudication of issues of constitutional or other fundamental rights.
” “ While it is appropriate to give due deference to a co-equal 4 branch of government as long as it is functioning within constitutional constraints , it would be a serious dereliction on our part to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation.
” The Democrat House Speaker had argued that there was already a precedent on the books in New Hampshire that allowed lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the justices on the state Supreme Court didn ’ t buy the argument .
Instead , the justices sent Rep. Burt ’ s case back to the lower court for a full and complete hearing , but not before issuing a little reminder of their own about the fundamental importance of the right to keep and bear arms .
Today ’ s decision is no guarantee that the gun ban imposed by the Democratic majority will be tossed out by a judge , but at the very least it opens the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves Democrats in a tough spot politically , because the state Supreme Court has acknowledged in its opinion that the state house gun ban deals with the exercise of a fundamental right .
Democrats in the state legislature have been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right ever since they took control of the state House in the 2018 elections , and the state Supreme Court ’ s opinion is another reminder that the Democratic majority doesn ’ t see the U.S. or New Hampshire constitutions as providing any real protection against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with .
House Speaker Stephen Shurtleff has already been accused of trying to retaliate against Rep. Burt over the lawsuit by removing him from the legislative committee that hears all gun-related bills in the House , and that was before today ’ s decision by the state Supreme Court .
I have no idea what kind of stunt Shurtleff might pull as a result of today ’ s decision , but if I were Rep. Burt , I ’ d start checking my seat in the state House for whoopie cushions or thumbtacks @ @ @ @ @

Good news from the Live Free or Die State, where the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a state lawmaker hoping to sue over a ban on guns at the State House imposed by Democrat lawmakers can bring a legal challenge against the prohibition.
Democrats imposed the gun ban in Representatives Hall when they took control of the state House in January of 2019, and State Rep. John Burt filed suit shortly thereafter. A superior court judge, however, initially ruled that Burt couldn’t sue over the gun ban, citing the separation of powers clause in the state constitution and declaring that the courts had no place to second-guess rules imposed by the legislative body.
In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the decision by the lower court, and ruled that Burt can indeed bring his legal challenge forward. The court recognized that the state legislature has the power to set its own rules, but that lawmakers don’t have a green light to pass unconstitutional measures.
However, “[o]ur conclusion that the constitution commits to the legislature [such] exclusive authority . . . does not end the inquiry into justiciability.” “The court system [remains] available for adjudication of issues of constitutional or other fundamental rights.” “While it is appropriate to give due deference to a co-equal 4 branch of government as long as it is functioning within constitutional constraints, it would be a serious dereliction on our part to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation.”
The Democrat House Speaker had argued that there was already a precedent on the books in New Hampshire that allowed lawmakers to impose the state house gun ban, but the justices on the state Supreme Court didn’t buy the argument. Instead, the justices sent Rep. Burt’s case back to the lower court for a full and complete hearing, but not before issuing a little reminder of their own about the fundamental importance of the right to keep and bear arms.
Today’s decision is no guarantee that the gun ban imposed by the Democratic majority will be tossed out by a judge, but at the very least it opens the door to that possibility. It also leaves Democrats in a tough spot politically, because the state Supreme Court has acknowledged in its opinion that the state house gun ban deals with the exercise of a fundamental right. Democrats in the state legislature have been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right ever since they took control of the state House in the 2018 elections, and the state Supreme Court’s opinion is another reminder that the Democratic majority doesn’t see the U.S. or New Hampshire constitutions as providing any real protection against whatever gun control proposals they come up with.
House Speaker Stephen Shurtleff has already been accused of trying to retaliate against Rep. Burt over the lawsuit by removing him from the legislative committee that hears all gun-related bills in the House, and that was before today’s decision by the state Supreme Court. I have no idea what kind of stunt Shurtleff might pull as a result of today’s decision, but if I were Rep. Burt, I’d start checking my seat in the state House for whoopie cushions or thumbtacks before I sat down.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Phoenix Family Paid After Cops Pointed Guns At Them

While tensions are extremely high and have been for quite some time , especially with regard to police and the black community , it ’ s important to recognize that no side is pure as snow .
Each has bad actors that do things no one should be doing .
While we may lack the hard numbers on just what percentage of which group are really bad actors , we know there are some in both .
However , one hallmark of a just society is the ability for the state to admit they screwed up .
When the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fertile ground for tyranny to take hold .
When the government can say , “ We made a mistake ” then try to make it right , we ’ ve got something else entirely .
In Phoenix , the government admitted his officers screwed up , and now the city is paying .
Meyer was fired over the incident and the former Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed a $ 10 million lawsuit on the couple ’ s behalf .
What they ’ re getting is a mere fraction of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which assumes the couple is good with the amount .
Frankly , though , I think Meyer needs more than to be fired .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I understand that a vehicle counts as a deadly weapon .
However , Harper and Ames weren ’ t acting aggressively .
Hell , they didn ’ t even realize there was a problem , apparently .
Hell , even if they ’ d known about the doll the whole time , this is not an appropriate response to such a low-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As such , I ’ d argue this constitutes aggravated assault and he should be charged accordingly .
Then again , maybe Harper and Ames declined that , just wanting to put this whole thing behind them .
I honestly don ’ t know one way or another , but I do believe Meyer screwed the pooch here .
Badly .
For their sake , though , I ’ m glad they got some kind of restitution from this .
As it stands , there is likely to be trauma and distrust of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future , and I ’ m not sure I can blame them for it .

While tensions are extremely high and have been for quite some time, especially with regard to police and the black community, it’s important to recognize that no side is pure as snow. Each has bad actors that do things no one should be doing. While we may lack the hard numbers on just what percentage of which group are really bad actors, we know there are some in both.
However, one hallmark of a just society is the ability for the state to admit they screwed up. When the government pretends it’s infallible, that’s fertile ground for tyranny to take hold. When the government can say, “We made a mistake” then try to make it right, we’ve got something else entirely.
In Phoenix, the government admitted his officers screwed up, and now the city is paying.
The Phoenix City Council agreed to pay a settlement Wednesday after police pointed guns at a Black couple after their daughter took a doll from a store without their knowledge. Iesha Harper and Dravon Ames will receive $475,000 after the May 2019 incident, which was caught on video. According to Harper and Ames, the family left a Family Dollar location and drove away not knowing their youngest daughter had taken a doll. After an anonymous call to police about the missing doll, without turning on lights or sirens, police followed Harper and Ames back to an apartment complex and confronted them while they were still in the car. “Next thing you know, a police officer … comes up, ‘Open the door,’ banging on the window with a gun, saying he’s gonna shoot us in the face, telling us to get out of the car,” Ames said. In one of the videos recorded by a resident of the apartment complex, Officer Christopher Meyer points his gun at the car and says “You’re going to get f—— shot!” and “I’m going to put a cap in your ass.”
Meyer was fired over the incident and the former Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed a $10 million lawsuit on the couple’s behalf. What they’re getting is a mere fraction of that, but this is a settlement, which assumes the couple is good with the amount.
Frankly, though, I think Meyer needs more than to be fired.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that a vehicle counts as a deadly weapon. However, Harper and Ames weren’t acting aggressively. Hell, they didn’t even realize there was a problem, apparently. Hell, even if they’d known about the doll the whole time, this is not an appropriate response to such a low-level crime. Not in the least.
As such, I’d argue this constitutes aggravated assault and he should be charged accordingly. Then again, maybe Harper and Ames declined that, just wanting to put this whole thing behind them. I honestly don’t know one way or another, but I do believe Meyer screwed the pooch here. Badly.
For their sake, though, I’m glad they got some kind of restitution from this. As it stands, there is likely to be trauma and distrust of the police for those children in the future, and I’m not sure I can blame them for it.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--FL Homeowner Defends Family From "Out of Control" Intruder

Authorities in Polk County , Florida say an intruder was shot and killed by a resident on Friday morning after the stranger smashed a window to gain entry to the home , but the suspect had already caused alarm for several members of the community before he broke into the home in Lakeland .
According to Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd , the situation started to unfold right as kids were heading off to school .
The suspect was behind the wheel of a car that crashed into a tree .
Exiting the vehicle , he began to throw himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then attempted to gain entry to a school bus full of children .
Luckily , the sheriff said , the driver refused to open the school bus door .
“ She had stopped , picked up a child , when this guy tried to get in the school bus .
That school bus driver is a hero .
She kept the doors locked .
She didn ’ t let him in when he tried to get in , ” Judd said .
“ God bless our school bus drivers.
” Unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man then apparently decided to break into a nearby home .
There were three generations of residents inside , including a 9-year old boy , his parents , and grandparents , and thankfully the child ’ s father was able to get to his firearm while he dialed 911 to alert authorities .
The suspect apparently broke a window and was able to get inside the house , where he tried to attack one of the residents .
That ’ s when the unidentified intruder grabbed a piece of glass that broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And threw it at the homeowner , ” Judd described .
“ That ’ s when he shot him .
Our deputies arrived shortly attempted to provide first aid of the suspect .
He was later pronounced deceased at Lakeland Regional.
” This is the second case of armed self-defense in Polk County this week .
Last Sunday morning , a woman in Auburndale , Florida was forced to shoot a man after he tried to break into her home after an argument with his girlfriend , who was still inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went out for the evening Friday night and all came to a home around 4 a.m. A heated argument then happened between one couple .
The boyfriend left the home with the other man and went to his car , while the girlfriend and the other woman stayed inside the home .
Sheriff Judd said the boyfriend left in his car , and when he got to the end of the road , he told the other man he was going back for his girlfriend .
The other man tried to tell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , the boyfriend insisted on going back to the home .
When the boyfriend got back to the home , he kicked the door demanding the girlfriend to go with him .
However , no one answered the door .
The boyfriend then went back to his car and picked up a tire iron and headed toward a window , Sheriff Judd said .
The suspect then used the tire iron to smash the window of the home , which is when the woman inside shot him .
Violent crime can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County violent criminals stand a pretty good chance of being shot by their intended victims .
I ’ m glad to see Sheriff Judd has been so vocal about highlighting these self-defense stories .
For their sakes , I hope the county ’ s violent criminals are paying attention .

Authorities in Polk County, Florida say an intruder was shot and killed by a resident on Friday morning after the stranger smashed a window to gain entry to the home, but the suspect had already caused alarm for several members of the community before he broke into the home in Lakeland.
According to Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, the situation started to unfold right as kids were heading off to school. The suspect was behind the wheel of a car that crashed into a tree. Exiting the vehicle, he began to throw himself onto the hoods of several nearby cars, and then attempted to gain entry to a school bus full of children.
Luckily, the sheriff said, the driver refused to open the school bus door. “She had stopped, picked up a child, when this guy tried to get in the school bus. That school bus driver is a hero. She kept the doors locked. She didn’t let him in when he tried to get in,” Judd said. “God bless our school bus drivers.”
Unable to get inside the school bus, the man then apparently decided to break into a nearby home. There were three generations of residents inside, including a 9-year old boy, his parents, and grandparents, and thankfully the child’s father was able to get to his firearm while he dialed 911 to alert authorities. The suspect apparently broke a window and was able to get inside the house, where he tried to attack one of the residents.
That’s when the unidentified intruder grabbed a piece of glass that broke off after he entered the home. “And threw it at the homeowner,” Judd described. “That’s when he shot him. Our deputies arrived shortly attempted to provide first aid of the suspect. He was later pronounced deceased at Lakeland Regional.”
This is the second case of armed self-defense in Polk County this week. Last Sunday morning, a woman in Auburndale, Florida was forced to shoot a man after he tried to break into her home after an argument with his girlfriend, who was still inside the residence.
Sheriff Judd said two couples went out for the evening Friday night and all came to a home around 4 a.m. A heated argument then happened between one couple. The boyfriend left the home with the other man and went to his car, while the girlfriend and the other woman stayed inside the home. Sheriff Judd said the boyfriend left in his car, and when he got to the end of the road, he told the other man he was going back for his girlfriend. The other man tried to tell the boyfriend to just go home and leave, however, the boyfriend insisted on going back to the home. When the boyfriend got back to the home, he kicked the door demanding the girlfriend to go with him. However, no one answered the door. The boyfriend then went back to his car and picked up a tire iron and headed toward a window, Sheriff Judd said.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Dem Rep: Guns Linked To "Small Genitals", Internet Blasts Him

It is , perhaps , one of the dumbest arguments in the “ arsenal ” of the anti-gunner .
I ’ m talking about the attempt to claim that gun owners are overcompensating for their small genitals .
There have been a number of comebacks to this one through the years , of course .
I read Massad Ayoob ’ s response that if that was true , no man would have a gun with a two-inch barrel .
Fantasy author and gun guy Larry Correia has remarked that yes , he is , but it ’ s because his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slug at over 900 feet per second .
There have , of course , been many others .
However , that doesn ’ t stop some from still trying to make the accusation anyway .
Democratic Illinois Rep. Sean Casten appeared to link gun ownership to “ having small genitals ” in comments he made during a virtual campaign event on Friday .
“ If you are a constitutionalist , unless you ’ re a member of well-regulated militia , tell me why you need to own a gun , right ?
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to own a gun , ” Casten said on a Zoom call with college students on Friday .
Casten ’ s Republican opponent , Jeanne Ives , posted a clip of Casten ’ s comments to YouTube on Tuesday .
Casten ’ s campaign didn ’ t return the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment .
Unsurprisingly , the internet went kind of nuts .
See , personally , I get tickled by this whole line of attack .
You see , I find it amusing because these are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masculinity ” think that men need to get more in touch with our feminine side .
They argue that men shouldn ’ t be focused on how manly they should be , yet at the first opportunity , they try to attack that same masculinity .
However , Casten is missing something important .
You see , in order for his opinion to matter to someone , they have to actually care what he thinks .
His opinion has to count for something , it has to matter in some way .
Especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s what this comment was really meant to attack .
As you can see from the tweets above , a lot of women were less than thrilled with the congressman ’ s comments as well , not because of anything to do with gun rights but the outright sexism to believe guns were a guy thing .
Honestly , Casten ’ s whole line of attack is nothing more than an attempt to shame his opponents into capitulation .
He can ’ t reason us into abandoning our gun rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to make it so we ’ re outcast .
It ’ s an attempt to stigmatize gun owners .
The problem for him is that we simply don ’ t care what he thinks of us , nor of what his fellow anti-gunners think of us .
We stand for our civil liberties .
All of them .
Not just the approved ones anti-gun lawmakers can tolerate , but each and every one .
That ’ s because we know damn good and well that if gun rights go , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest go as well .
And compared to that , why would we worry what some rando congressman thinks of our genitals ?
Frankly , I ’ m wondering why he ’ s spending so much time thinking about our genitals in the first place .

It is, perhaps, one of the dumbest arguments in the “arsenal” of the anti-gunner. I’m talking about the attempt to claim that gun owners are overcompensating for their small genitals.
There have been a number of comebacks to this one through the years, of course. I read Massad Ayoob’s response that if that was true, no man would have a gun with a two-inch barrel. Fantasy author and gun guy Larry Correia has remarked that yes, he is, but it’s because his genitals are unable to throw a 230-grain slug at over 900 feet per second. There have, of course, been many others.
However, that doesn’t stop some from still trying to make the accusation anyway.
Democratic Illinois Rep. Sean Casten appeared to link gun ownership to “having small genitals” in comments he made during a virtual campaign event on Friday. “If you are a constitutionalist, unless you’re a member of well-regulated militia, tell me why you need to own a gun, right? Having small genitals is not a sufficient reason to own a gun,” Casten said on a Zoom call with college students on Friday. Casten’s Republican opponent, Jeanne Ives, posted a clip of Casten’s comments to YouTube on Tuesday. Casten’s campaign didn’t return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Unsurprisingly, the internet went kind of nuts.
Well I’m female so…..probably. — unruly kulak, striped edition (@robo_tabby) August 27, 2020
Uhh,I am a woman, & well, if you’re defunding Cops, I certainly NEED a gun.Yes,I know you want me to become a noodle and just give up, but I fight back. Democratic Rep Sean Casten Claims Gun Ownership Is Linked To ‘Having Small Genitals’ https://t.co/NlZJunoJzH via @dailycaller — Sapphire 🇺🇸 (@Sapphire80129) August 27, 2020
My questions to Rep. Casten. So what? What if it’s in fact true? How does it matter? Are genitally challenged people somehow less deserving of respect? Does your statement include women? Do women who own guns have “small genitals”? Why are you so concerned about their Junk? — jaschmd (@jaschmd) August 27, 2020
See, personally, I get tickled by this whole line of attack. You see, I find it amusing because these are often the same people who decry “toxic masculinity” think that men need to get more in touch with our feminine side. They argue that men shouldn’t be focused on how manly they should be, yet at the first opportunity, they try to attack that same masculinity.
However, Casten is missing something important.
You see, in order for his opinion to matter to someone, they have to actually care what he thinks. His opinion has to count for something, it has to matter in some way. Especially when it comes to my masculinity, and that’s what this comment was really meant to attack.
As you can see from the tweets above, a lot of women were less than thrilled with the congressman’s comments as well, not because of anything to do with gun rights but the outright sexism to believe guns were a guy thing.
Honestly, Casten’s whole line of attack is nothing more than an attempt to shame his opponents into capitulation. He can’t reason us into abandoning our gun rights, so he wants to shame us, to make it so we’re outcast. It’s an attempt to stigmatize gun owners.
The problem for him is that we simply don’t care what he thinks of us, nor of what his fellow anti-gunners think of us. We stand for our civil liberties. All of them. Not just the approved ones anti-gun lawmakers can tolerate, but each and every one. That’s because we know damn good and well that if gun rights go, it’s only a matter of time before the rest go as well.
And compared to that, why would we worry what some rando congressman thinks of our genitals? Frankly, I’m wondering why he’s spending so much time thinking about our genitals in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Concealed Carry Applications Soar In Los Angeles

Earlier this year Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said that he was going to approve more concealed carry licenses , though he did say that a general right of self-defense would still not be viewed by his office as a valid reason to apply .
Apparently gun owners in the county are taking the sheriff at his word , because applications to receive a California Handgun Permit are soaring .
“ We ’ re adding more people to it because all of a sudden it became very popular for people to solicit for a CCW permit .
So we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should reduce the processing time , ” Sheriff Alex Villanueva says .
“ We want to get it down to the point where it ’ s just a matter of a few weeks or within a month , we could do the whole thing .
That would be ideal , ” he said .
The Sheriff ’ s Department has received at least 518 requests for CCW permit so far this year compared to 273 for all of last year .
On the one hand , it ’ s good to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angelenos have embraced their Second Amendment rights , but the fact that only about 500 people have applied in a county home to more than 10-million people tells me that most gun owners still believe that it ’ s fruitless to apply because they ’ re going to be denied .
As I wrote back when Villanueva first announced plans to approve more licenses : In neighboring Orange County , for example , as of 2018 there were more than 12,000 concealed carry licenses for a population about a third the size of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the north of Los Angeles County , had nearly 9,000 active concealed carry licenses with a population around 900,000 .
In the counties surround Los Angeles that do view self-defense as a valid reason to carry a firearm , about 4 out of every 1,000 residents have a concealed carry license .
If Los Angeles County had the same ratio , it would be home to about 40,000 concealed carry licensees , not the 400 or so reported in 2018 .
Sheriff Alex Villanueva ’ s announcement of a potential 400 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough , in other words .
If the sheriff is serious about reforming the concealed carry licensing in his office , the answer is simple : drop the good cause requirement and move to a shall-issue system .
I stand by that statement .
It ’ s nice to see more residents applying for their concealed carry licenses , but until Villanueva recognizes the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment right to bear arms , the county ’ s residents are still being being hamstrung by the policies of the sheriff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far fewer concealed carry holders than there would be under a shall-issue system .
That ’ s the issue , and Villanueva has yet to address the real problem .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Earlier this year Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said that he was going to approve more concealed carry licenses, though he did say that a general right of self-defense would still not be viewed by his office as a valid reason to apply. Apparently gun owners in the county are taking the sheriff at his word, because applications to receive a California Handgun Permit are soaring.
From KNX-AM:
“We’re adding more people to it because all of a sudden it became very popular for people to solicit for a CCW permit. So we are increasing the amount of people so that should reduce the processing time,” Sheriff Alex Villanueva says. “We want to get it down to the point where it’s just a matter of a few weeks or within a month, we could do the whole thing. That would be ideal,” he said. The Sheriff’s Department has received at least 518 requests for CCW permit so far this year compared to 273 for all of last year.
On the one hand, it’s good to see that applications have increased as more Los Angelenos have embraced their Second Amendment rights, but the fact that only about 500 people have applied in a county home to more than 10-million people tells me that most gun owners still believe that it’s fruitless to apply because they’re going to be denied. As I wrote back when Villanueva first announced plans to approve more licenses:
In neighboring Orange County, for example, as of 2018 there were more than 12,000 concealed carry licenses for a population about a third the size of Los Angeles County. Kern County, to the north of Los Angeles County, had nearly 9,000 active concealed carry licenses with a population around 900,000.


bearingarms--2020-08-28--Fresno County Sheriff Expresses Concerns Over New Gun Law

One recurring theme at this site is that California is a hostile state when it comes to the Second Amendment .
They don ’ t like guns and they don ’ t like gun owners .
The state lawmakers seem to view gun owners as a special breed of criminal they just can ’ t arrest .
However , there are people in the state that actually have decent sense , especially when it comes to encroachment on our gun rights .
Some of those people even get elected to office .
In particular , we have the Fresno County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control law to the books next month .
It gives more people access to a court process that could lead to the temporary removal of someone ’ s guns when they pose a danger to themselves or others .
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims has concerns about the law .
“ My fear with those kinds of laws is the incrementalism that it can cause .
How far is it gon na go next year ?
How far is it gon na go the following year.
” Assembly bill 61 adds teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can file a gun violence restraining order .
Under the state ’ s red flag gun law , only law enforcement and family members can do so .
The Fresno County District Attorney thinks this is great and cites all the help his office has given in helping people file these , which is part of the problem with red flag laws .
Invariably , the mere use of them is taken as evidence of their effectiveness , but that ’ s not really true .
It ’ ll become even less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petition for someone to lose their gun rights , even temporarily .
Sheriff Mims is absolutely correct to be concerned because if anyone thinks this is where California draws the line , they ’ re wrong .
There will be more coming down the road .
Oh , the may not tinker with it for the next year or two , focusing on something else , but then they ’ ll decide friends need to be included or something else equally stupid .
They will come back to this and expand it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an informal logical fallacy called the Slippery Slope Fallacy .
Basically , it ’ s a fallacy to debate about a small step that can lead to all kinds of other things .
It ’ s something to be careful about .
However , in California , we don ’ t have a small step .
We have a series of small steps that have eventually made it so that gun ownership is California is the proverbial pain in the butt .
It ’ s not a fallacy because we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new measure may lead to more changes down the road isn ’ t fallacious when we ’ ve seen it happen over and over again .
Sheriff Mims has likely seen it herself , and she ’ s calling it out .
Frankly , we ’ ve been calling this out for years now and absolutely no one in that neck of the woods seems interested in listening .
It ’ s a shame , too , because we predicted this was going to happen .
Hopefully , they ’ ll listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not counting on it .

One recurring theme at this site is that California is a hostile state when it comes to the Second Amendment. They don’t like guns and they don’t like gun owners. The state lawmakers seem to view gun owners as a special breed of criminal they just can’t arrest.
Yet.
However, there are people in the state that actually have decent sense, especially when it comes to encroachment on our gun rights. Some of those people even get elected to office. In particular, we have the Fresno County sheriff.
California will add a new gun control law to the books next month. It gives more people access to a court process that could lead to the temporary removal of someone’s guns when they pose a danger to themselves or others. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims has concerns about the law. “My fear with those kinds of laws is the incrementalism that it can cause. How far is it gonna go next year? How far is it gonna go the following year.” Assembly bill 61 adds teachers, employers and co-workers to the list who can file a gun violence restraining order. Under the state’s red flag gun law, only law enforcement and family members can do so.
The Fresno County District Attorney thinks this is great and cites all the help his office has given in helping people file these, which is part of the problem with red flag laws. Invariably, the mere use of them is taken as evidence of their effectiveness, but that’s not really true. It’ll become even less true of skittish coworkers or teachers can petition for someone to lose their gun rights, even temporarily.
Sheriff Mims is absolutely correct to be concerned because if anyone thinks this is where California draws the line, they’re wrong. There will be more coming down the road.
Oh, the may not tinker with it for the next year or two, focusing on something else, but then they’ll decide friends need to be included or something else equally stupid.
They will come back to this and expand it.
See, in logic, there’s an informal logical fallacy called the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Basically, it’s a fallacy to debate about a small step that can lead to all kinds of other things. It’s something to be careful about.
However, in California, we don’t have a small step. We have a series of small steps that have eventually made it so that gun ownership is California is the proverbial pain in the butt. It’s not a fallacy because we’ve seen it happen. Saying that the new measure may lead to more changes down the road isn’t fallacious when we’ve seen it happen over and over again.
Sheriff Mims has likely seen it herself, and she’s calling it out. Frankly, we’ve been calling this out for years now and absolutely no one in that neck of the woods seems interested in listening. It’s a shame, too, because we predicted this was going to happen.
Hopefully, they’ll listen to Sheriff Mims, at least, but I’m not counting on it.