bearingarms--2020-11-25--Concealed Carry Holder Killed, Career Criminal Charged

Carrying a firearm for self-defense can increase your odds of surviving an encounter with a violent criminal , but a gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen is still a tool , not a magical talisman that guarantees protection .
The murder of Anna Marie Wagener in St. Paul , Minnesota is a painful reminder of that fact , just as the history of her accused killer is a reminder that the criminal justice system doesn ’ t always deliver justice to criminals .
Wagener , a 41-year old mother and grandmother described by family as “ tough ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heart of gold , ” was shot and killed in St. Paul back on September 3rd , but Antoine Powell wasn ’ t charged for the crime until this week , when the 44-year old added second degree murder to the long list of criminal charges he ’ s faced over the past few years .
Neither police nor prosecutors have offered a motive for the shooting .
Investigators said at the time that they believed that the suspect and victim knew each other .
According to the complaint : Police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Avenue shortly before 3:40 a.m. and saw Wagener with gunshot wounds to her chest and leg .
She died at the scene .
An autopsy found that she had been shot six times .
The officers learned that missing were her cellphone and her handgun .
She had recently obtained a government-issued permit to carry a firearm and the gun “ because the area where she lived wasn ’ t safe , ” the charging document read .
A resident nearby told police about seeing the gunman shoot Wagener as she moved backward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something from Wagener and ran .
Surveillance video from the area showed Wagener pull out a handgun from her waistband , then walk out of view .
Police squads arrived 10 minutes later .
It ’ s unclear whether Wagener fired any shots at her attacker before she died , but news reports don ’ t indicate that any shell casings from her gun were found at the scene .
Instead , police spotted several casings that were tied back to a shooting in north Minneapolis a few hours before Wagener ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when an informant came forward with information about her killer .
According to the confidential informant , a man named Antoine or Shantoine was responsible for her death , as well as stealing her firearm after her murder .
The informant also told police that the same man had been a part of the north Minneapolis shooting , and also informed officers that Wagener ’ s killer had been wearing an ankle monitoring device , but had since cut off the device .
DOC data provided by the ankle bracelet placed Powell at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at the earlier shooting on Emerson Avenue .
Powell spoke with homicide investigators Monday from the Hennepin County jail .
He was shown some of the evidence in Wagener ’ s death and did not respond , other than to say he needed a lawyer .
Powell was on probation at the time of the shootings in early September for a weapons offense in 2014 out of Hennepin County .
Court records also show that he has three convictions in Minnesota for drugs , three for bringing drugs or alcohol into jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit card fraud .
At some point between the shooting and Powell ’ s interview with police on Monday , the 44-year old convicted felon was arrested in Hennepin County and charged with another weapons-related offense dating back to 2019 , which is why he was behind bars when homicide investigators paid him a visit earlier this week .
I ’ m very curious to know how long Powell served behind bars on the 2014 charge before he was placed on parole , as well as whether or not he committed any parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman and stealing her handgun .
While we ’ re waiting for more details about Powell ’ s criminal history , Anna Marie Wagener ’ s family has set up a GoFundMe to help pay for the 41-year old ’ s funeral expenses .
If you ’ re so inclined , you can donate here .

Carrying a firearm for self-defense can increase your odds of surviving an encounter with a violent criminal, but a gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen is still a tool, not a magical talisman that guarantees protection. The murder of Anna Marie Wagener in St. Paul, Minnesota is a painful reminder of that fact, just as the history of her accused killer is a reminder that the criminal justice system doesn’t always deliver justice to criminals.
Wagener, a 41-year old mother and grandmother described by family as “tough” and “no nonsense, but with a heart of gold,” was shot and killed in St. Paul back on September 3rd, but Antoine Powell wasn’t charged for the crime until this week, when the 44-year old added second degree murder to the long list of criminal charges he’s faced over the past few years.
Neither police nor prosecutors have offered a motive for the shooting. Investigators said at the time that they believed that the suspect and victim knew each other. According to the complaint: Police officers arrived at Arcade Street and E. Cook Avenue shortly before 3:40 a.m. and saw Wagener with gunshot wounds to her chest and leg. She died at the scene. An autopsy found that she had been shot six times. The officers learned that missing were her cellphone and her handgun. She had recently obtained a government-issued permit to carry a firearm and the gun “because the area where she lived wasn’t safe,” the charging document read. A resident nearby told police about seeing the gunman shoot Wagener as she moved backward from him. The shooter then grabbed something from Wagener and ran. Surveillance video from the area showed Wagener pull out a handgun from her waistband, then walk out of view. Police squads arrived 10 minutes later.
It’s unclear whether Wagener fired any shots at her attacker before she died, but news reports don’t indicate that any shell casings from her gun were found at the scene. Instead, police spotted several casings that were tied back to a shooting in north Minneapolis a few hours before Wagener’s murder, but their biggest break came when an informant came forward with information about her killer.
According to the confidential informant, a man named Antoine or Shantoine was responsible for her death, as well as stealing her firearm after her murder. The informant also told police that the same man had been a part of the north Minneapolis shooting, and also informed officers that Wagener’s killer had been wearing an ankle monitoring device, but had since cut off the device.
DOC data provided by the ankle bracelet placed Powell at the scene of Wagener’s death and at the earlier shooting on Emerson Avenue. Powell spoke with homicide investigators Monday from the Hennepin County jail. He was shown some of the evidence in Wagener’s death and did not respond, other than to say he needed a lawyer. Powell was on probation at the time of the shootings in early September for a weapons offense in 2014 out of Hennepin County. Court records also show that he has three convictions in Minnesota for drugs, three for bringing drugs or alcohol into jail, and one each for assault and credit card fraud.
At some point between the shooting and Powell’s interview with police on Monday, the 44-year old convicted felon was arrested in Hennepin County and charged with another weapons-related offense dating back to 2019, which is why he was behind bars when homicide investigators paid him a visit earlier this week.
I’m very curious to know how long Powell served behind bars on the 2014 charge before he was placed on parole, as well as whether or not he committed any parole violations before allegedly murdering a 41-year old woman and stealing her handgun.
While we’re waiting for more details about Powell’s criminal history, Anna Marie Wagener’s family has set up a GoFundMe to help pay for the 41-year old’s funeral expenses. If you’re so inclined, you can donate here.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Are Virginia Democrats Playing Political Games With Lobby Day?

You may remember the massive turnout by gun owners in Richmond , Virginia back in January of this year , when tens of thousands of folks surrounded the state Capitol and filled the downtown streets for the annual Lobby Day rally organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League .
I was honored to be among the speakers addressing the throng of Second Amendment supporters who gathered for a peaceful yet boisterous protest of the anti-gun agenda of Democrats who had just taken control of the state legislature , and I ’ ve been looking forward to next year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to be a little different in 2021 , because somehow gun control activists were given most of the permits that are necessary to hold a public event on the Capitol grounds .
Of course officials are denying that any favoritism of any kind took place in ensuring that the anti-gun groups would be able to occupy the grounds for their rally .
Department of Government Services spokeswoman Dena Potter told the Washington Post that permits are issued “ in the order in which the applications are received.
” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lori Haas , a longtime gun control activist in Virginia , told the Post that her organization applied for their permit more than a year ago .
There ’ s nothing nefarious , nothing underhanded , nothing untoward that I know of that took place , ” Haas said .
Her group had been scheduled to hold an event on Capitol Square last January — as they have every year for more than two decades — but canceled once the pro-gun rally drew national attention .
In calling state officials to cancel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grab a spot next year instead .
Then she told other groups what she had done , and they followed suit .
As VCDL head Phillip Van Cleave explained to members , however , the state appears to have changed the rules for getting a permit without informing the public .
VCDL was told years ago that an application to use the Bell Tower for an event more than six months out would not even be accepted .
We have followed that rule , booked six months out , and gotten the 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we applied exactly six months out , we were told that the 11 am slot was already booked !
In fact , every slot was filled except the 6 am and 6 pm slots .
How was that even possible ?
We had booked right at the six month mark .
We got a copy of a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) document containing the applications that had been accepted by the Department of General Services ( DGS ) for Lobby Day on January 18 , 2021 .
Lo and behold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Andrew Goddard and Lori Haas with the Virginia Center For Public Safety ( a gun-control group with ties to Michael Bloomberg ) .
Here ’ s the kicker – DGS accepted the application , which had been filed OVER A YEAR IN ADVANCE ( January 14 , 2020 ) !
That was even before the VCDL ’ s 2020 Lobby Day event !
If Lori Haas ’ s name sounds familiar , she ’ s the paid gun-control lobbyist who the Democrats put on the supposedly non-partisan Crime Commission a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility on any gun-related items .
The other slots were taken by the following organizations ( note the dates the applications were submitted – all self-proclaimed progressive organizations , all magically within a few days of Goddard ’ s application , and all before VCDL ’ s Lobby Day 2020 ! )
: 9 am : Care in Action .
Applied on January 17 , 2020 .
1 pm : Progress Virginia ( another gun-control rally ) .
Applied on January 17 , 2020 .
3 pm : New Virginia Majority .
Applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own rules say they will grant the venues to the first applicant with a valid application .
That would have made VCDL the first valid applicant for the 11 am slot ( or any of the slots for that matter ) .
But that ’ s not what is being done .
And that ’ s not all : notification of who has actually gotten the slots won ’ t be known until mid-December , making planning for such an event very difficult .
Van Cleave will be joining me later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Co to talk about the new plans for 2A supporters and Lobby Day , which won ’ t involve massing at the Capitol but will instead focus on a caravan of pro-gun Virginians motoring their way through downtown .
VCDL ’ s lobbying effort on January 18 is going to consist of thousands of vehicles in four major caravans coming from the corners of the state and all of them headed to Richmond !
We will post the times the various caravans should be passing key locations so those along the routes can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their area .
The four major caravans will all flood into the Richmond area over a 4 hour period in the afternoon and will pass through the center of Richmond , near wherever the Senate is meeting .
With Democrats expected to once again push to enact Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban in the next legislative session , I expect that the streets of Richmond are going to be jammed with cars and buses from across the state .
I know I ’ ll be behind the wheel on January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Virginia gun owners aren ’ t going to let the political games being played at the Capitol stop us from turning out in force to show our support for the right to keep and bear arms .

You may remember the massive turnout by gun owners in Richmond, Virginia back in January of this year, when tens of thousands of folks surrounded the state Capitol and filled the downtown streets for the annual Lobby Day rally organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League. I was honored to be among the speakers addressing the throng of Second Amendment supporters who gathered for a peaceful yet boisterous protest of the anti-gun agenda of Democrats who had just taken control of the state legislature, and I’ve been looking forward to next year’s rally ever since.
Well, things are going to be a little different in 2021, because somehow gun control activists were given most of the permits that are necessary to hold a public event on the Capitol grounds.
“Games are being played to silence us,” Philip van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League told his members in an email Tuesday. When he called the state Department of Government Services to arrange a Jan. 18 permit for a rally on Capitol Square, van Cleave said he was told the only time slots available were 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Everything else had been booked by groups advocating for gun control. “This was a thinly veiled effort to lock us out,” van Cleave said in an interview. His organization sponsored the gathering that drew thousands of armed gun-rights advocates to Richmond on Jan. 20 — Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a traditional day of citizen lobbying at the General Assembly.
Of course officials are denying that any favoritism of any kind took place in ensuring that the anti-gun groups would be able to occupy the grounds for their rally. Department of Government Services spokeswoman Dena Potter told the Washington Post that permits are issued “in the order in which the applications are received.” In other words, first come, first served.
Lori Haas, a longtime gun control activist in Virginia, told the Post that her organization applied for their permit more than a year ago.
There’s nothing nefarious, nothing underhanded, nothing untoward that I know of that took place,” Haas said. Her group had been scheduled to hold an event on Capitol Square last January — as they have every year for more than two decades — but canceled once the pro-gun rally drew national attention. In calling state officials to cancel, Haas said, she simply asked to grab a spot next year instead. Then she told other groups what she had done, and they followed suit.
As VCDL head Phillip Van Cleave explained to members, however, the state appears to have changed the rules for getting a permit without informing the public.
VCDL was told years ago that an application to use the Bell Tower for an event more than six months out would not even be accepted . We have followed that rule, booked six months out, and gotten the 11 am slot for 17 years . This year, when we applied exactly six months out, we were told that the 11 am slot was already booked! In fact, every slot was filled except the 6 am and 6 pm slots. How was that even possible? We had booked right at the six month mark. We got a copy of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document containing the applications that had been accepted by the Department of General Services (DGS) for Lobby Day on January 18, 2021. Lo and behold – the 11am slot had been requested by Andrew Goddard and Lori Haas with the Virginia Center For Public Safety (a gun-control group with ties to Michael Bloomberg). Here’s the kicker – DGS accepted the application, which had been filed OVER A YEAR IN ADVANCE (January 14, 2020)! That was even before the VCDL’s 2020 Lobby Day event! If Lori Haas’s name sounds familiar, she’s the paid gun-control lobbyist who the Democrats put on the supposedly non-partisan Crime Commission a few months ago, destroying the Commission’s credibility on any gun-related items. The other slots were taken by the following organizations (note the dates the applications were submitted – all self-proclaimed progressive organizations, all magically within a few days of Goddard’s application, and all before VCDL’s Lobby Day 2020!): 9 am: Care in Action. Applied on January 17, 2020.
1 pm: Progress Virginia (another gun-control rally). Applied on January 17, 2020.
3 pm: New Virginia Majority. Applied on January 19, 2020. DGS’s own rules say they will grant the venues to the first applicant with a valid application. That would have made VCDL the first valid applicant for the 11 am slot (or any of the slots for that matter). But that’s not what is being done. And that’s not all: notification of who has actually gotten the slots won’t be known until mid-December, making planning for such an event very difficult.
Van Cleave will be joining me later today on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about the new plans for 2A supporters and Lobby Day, which won’t involve massing at the Capitol but will instead focus on a caravan of pro-gun Virginians motoring their way through downtown.
VCDL’s lobbying effort on January 18 is going to consist of thousands of vehicles in four major caravans coming from the corners of the state and all of them headed to Richmond! We will post the times the various caravans should be passing key locations so those along the routes can join the caravans as it passes by their area. The four major caravans will all flood into the Richmond area over a 4 hour period in the afternoon and will pass through the center of Richmond, near wherever the Senate is meeting.
With Democrats expected to once again push to enact Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban in the next legislative session, I expect that the streets of Richmond are going to be jammed with cars and buses from across the state. I know I’ll be behind the wheel on January 18th, and I suspect that my fellow Virginia gun owners aren’t going to let the political games being played at the Capitol stop us from turning out in force to show our support for the right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-11-25--Tucker Carlson Calls Out The Biden Anti-Gun Team

The mainstream media seems bound and determined to completely ignore Joe Biden and his anti-gun agenda .
While they had no problem talking about it during debates , when they were preaching to the choir during the primaries , everything about guns and gun control dropped off the radar once it was clear Biden was the nominee .
Now that the media has anointed him as president-elect , they ’ re still not actually looking at him , looking at his team .
Over at Fox News , though , Tucker Carlson actually is , and from a Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s a question for you : What does Joe Biden believe ?
What are his plans for our country ?
The truth is , we still don ’ t know the answers to those basic questions .
Joe Biden somehow made it through an entire presidential campaign — most of a year — without telling us because a partisan press corps let him get away with it .
As a result , tens of millions of people voted for a candidate who wasn ’ t real .
They voted for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no idea who Joe Biden was .
They had no idea who they were voting for or what he might do if he got elected .
But at the urging of the media , they voted for him anyway .
Now the rest of us get to find out what they voted for .
Biden also wants less dissent from the population .
The president-elect knows what we all know , which is that an armed society is an independent society .
That ’ s why he ’ s hired Rep. Cedric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser .
Richmond plans to disarm law-abiding Americans , not criminals .
People who commit gun crimes are now being let out of jail , but people who have done nothing wrong and tried in good faith to protect themselves and their family will be punished .
That ’ s not speculation , by the way .
Here ’ s what Richmond told CNN last year : RICHMOND , AUGUST 2019 : If it is a buyback , then I ’ m all for it .
If it ’ s a mandatory buyback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into some complications , but the thought of it does not offend me , and it sounds like something I could support .
The idea of anyone finding mandatory buybacks as something they could support is downright offensive .
Especially at such a high position where they could influence policy .
However , Richmond isn ’ t the only one Carlson calls out , either .
Gun control didn ’ t play a large role in the 2020 campaign .
There was almost no discussion about it for six months .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from defending themselves and their families is a big part of the Biden agenda , and that ’ s part of the reason that campaign manager Jennifer O ’ Malley Dillon is the next White House deputy chief of staff .
At a time when a record number of Americans have purchased legal firearms to protect themselves from skyrocketing crime , Dillon has called for the confiscation of more than 10 million legally owned firearms .
We ’ re not making that up .
That ’ s not propaganda .
Dillon said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war .
The assault weapons ban is very , very important and we need to have it .
But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future .
It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there , and I think there ’ s 15 or 16 million .
“ I think there ’ s 15 or 16 million.
” She doesn ’ t know the number .
She doesn ’ t know anything .
Imagine what she knows about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bullet come out of ?
” She doesn ’ t know , but it doesn ’ t matter .
She plans to seize them anyway .
Mandatory buybacks are seizure , the taking of private property by force .
Not because the people who own those firearms have done anything wrong , they haven ’ t .
Jennifer O ’ Malley Dillon just doesn ’ t think you should be allowed to have them .
Here , Carlson hits the nail on the head as to precisely why I find mandatory buybacks so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things from people who have done nothing wrong simply because you don ’ t like what they own .
It makes them uncomfortable , so they ’ re going to come for what you have .
Yes , Biden is talking about classifying them as NFA items , which supposedly allows you to keep your guns , but how is that any better ?
Then you have to pay a tax on an item you previously bought and were taxed for at the time .
Biden has surrounded himself with those who like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s surrounded himself with people who want to disarm law-abiding Americans for the sin of being armed in the first place .
This is what so many Americans voted for , but as Carlson notes , the media did their best to hide that from the American people .
The former vice president ran on a platform of not being Donald Trump .
That ’ s all he had going for him , but it was all he needed with the press on his side .
Now , unless we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to see these things roll down the ramp and there ’ s not a damned thing we can do about it .
Dig in .
Unless a miracle happens in the courts , it ’ s going to be a very long four years .

The mainstream media seems bound and determined to completely ignore Joe Biden and his anti-gun agenda. While they had no problem talking about it during debates, when they were preaching to the choir during the primaries, everything about guns and gun control dropped off the radar once it was clear Biden was the nominee.
Now that the media has anointed him as president-elect, they’re still not actually looking at him, looking at his team.
Over at Fox News, though, Tucker Carlson actually is, and from a Second Amendment perspective, it’s bad.
Here’s a question for you: What does Joe Biden believe? What are his plans for our country? The truth is, we still don’t know the answers to those basic questions. Joe Biden somehow made it through an entire presidential campaign — most of a year — without telling us because a partisan press corps let him get away with it. As a result, tens of millions of people voted for a candidate who wasn’t real. They voted for a ghost with a whitened smile. They had no idea who Joe Biden was. They had no idea who they were voting for or what he might do if he got elected. But at the urging of the media, they voted for him anyway. Now the rest of us get to find out what they voted for. … Biden also wants less dissent from the population. The president-elect knows what we all know, which is that an armed society is an independent society. That’s why he’s hired Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., as a senior adviser. Richmond plans to disarm law-abiding Americans, not criminals. People who commit gun crimes are now being let out of jail, but people who have done nothing wrong and tried in good faith to protect themselves and their family will be punished. That’s not speculation, by the way. Here’s what Richmond told CNN last year: RICHMOND, AUGUST 2019: If it is a buyback, then I’m all for it. If it’s a mandatory buyback, I think then you may run into some complications, but the thought of it does not offend me, and it sounds like something I could support.
The idea of anyone finding mandatory buybacks as something they could support is downright offensive. Especially at such a high position where they could influence policy.
However, Richmond isn’t the only one Carlson calls out, either.
Gun control didn’t play a large role in the 2020 campaign. There was almost no discussion about it for six months. But it’s becoming clear that preventing Americans from defending themselves and their families is a big part of the Biden agenda, and that’s part of the reason that campaign manager Jennifer O’Malley Dillon is the next White House deputy chief of staff. At a time when a record number of Americans have purchased legal firearms to protect themselves from skyrocketing crime, Dillon has called for the confiscation of more than 10 million legally owned firearms. We’re not making that up. That’s not propaganda. Dillon said it herself: DILLON: A plan that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war. The assault weapons ban is very, very important and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there, and I think there’s 15 or 16 million. “I think there’s 15 or 16 million.” She doesn’t know the number. She doesn’t know anything. Imagine what she knows about firearms: “What end does the bullet come out of?” She doesn’t know, but it doesn’t matter. She plans to seize them anyway. Mandatory buybacks are seizure, the taking of private property by force. Not because the people who own those firearms have done anything wrong, they haven’t. Jennifer O’Malley Dillon just doesn’t think you should be allowed to have them.
Here, Carlson hits the nail on the head as to precisely why I find mandatory buybacks so downright offensive. It’s taking things from people who have done nothing wrong simply because you don’t like what they own. It makes them uncomfortable, so they’re going to come for what you have.
Yes, Biden is talking about classifying them as NFA items, which supposedly allows you to keep your guns, but how is that any better? Then you have to pay a tax on an item you previously bought and were taxed for at the time.
Biden has surrounded himself with those who like the idea of a mandatory buyback. He’s surrounded himself with people who want to disarm law-abiding Americans for the sin of being armed in the first place.
This is what so many Americans voted for, but as Carlson notes, the media did their best to hide that from the American people.
The former vice president ran on a platform of not being Donald Trump. That’s all he had going for him, but it was all he needed with the press on his side. Now, unless we’re very careful or very fortunate, we’re going to see these things roll down the ramp and there’s not a damned thing we can do about it.
Dig in. Unless a miracle happens in the courts, it’s going to be a very long four years.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Denmark Bans Lead Ammo For Hunting. Will The U.S. Follow Suit?

Environmental activists have been pushing for a ban on lead ammunition here in the United States for over a decade , and last year the Center for Biological Diversity successfully lobbied to make California the first state in the Union to bar lead-based ammo from being used while hunting .
Activists have been demanding similar bans across the European Union as well , and now Denmark has announced that the country will be the first in the EU to ban all hunting ammunition containing lead , with the ban taking effect in 2023 .
Environmental minister Lea Wermelin says the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on board with the ban .
“ Lead is a heavy element with no place in Danish nature or in our food chains .
Hunting in Denmark must be sustainable , and not pollute our shared nature .
This is why I ’ m happy that the government and the Danish Hunters ’ Association are working towards making Denmark the first country in the world to ban leaded rifle ammunition for hunting .
Just as we were the first country in the world to ban lead shot in shotgun cartridges.
” While a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States would require congressional approval , don ’ t be surprised if Joe Biden moves to prohibit the use of the ammunition on federal lands .
Back in 2017 , then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke undid an Obama-era order that would have blocked lead ammo from being used on agency land , including 150-million acres of National Wildlife Refuges , but that rule could be re-established by whoever Biden taps to run the department .
At the moment , the rumors are that New Mexico Rep. Debra Haaland is the first choice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haaland would be the first Native American cabinet official in U.S. history , but she ’ s also an ardent supporter of gun control , declaring on her campaign website that “ we need to rid our communities of military-grade weapons ; neither hunting nor policing require automatic weapons.
” The firearms industry has long been opposed to bans on traditional ammunition , with the National Shooting Sports Foundation ’ s Larry Keane arguing in 2015 that lead ammunition has been used in hunting for hundreds of years “ without any ill effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while our mission is the promotion of hunting and sport-shooting , most families around the country and in Oregon may never consume meat acquired through hunting of any kind .
A 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on blood lead levels from North Dakota families that consumed meat hunted with traditional ammunition showed levels lower than that of the average American and did not remotely approach any threshold of concern .
I have a feeling that the CDC study is going to be roundly ignored in favor of emotional rhetoric about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from dying off after ingesting spent ammo , even if research can ’ t show that lead ammo is causing mass die-offs in the wild .
The science may be unsettled , but the anti-gun agenda of Democrats is well established , and if given the opportunity I have no doubt they ’ ll reimpose the ban on lead ammunition on federal lands and push for states to do the same .

Environmental activists have been pushing for a ban on lead ammunition here in the United States for over a decade, and last year the Center for Biological Diversity successfully lobbied to make California the first state in the Union to bar lead-based ammo from being used while hunting.
Activists have been demanding similar bans across the European Union as well, and now Denmark has announced that the country will be the first in the EU to ban all hunting ammunition containing lead, with the ban taking effect in 2023. Environmental minister Lea Wermelin says the country’s largest hunting organization is on board with the ban.
“Lead is a heavy element with no place in Danish nature or in our food chains. Hunting in Denmark must be sustainable, and not pollute our shared nature. This is why I’m happy that the government and the Danish Hunters’ Association are working towards making Denmark the first country in the world to ban leaded rifle ammunition for hunting. Just as we were the first country in the world to ban lead shot in shotgun cartridges.”
While a total ban on lead ammunition in the United States would require congressional approval, don’t be surprised if Joe Biden moves to prohibit the use of the ammunition on federal lands. Back in 2017, then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke undid an Obama-era order that would have blocked lead ammo from being used on agency land, including 150-million acres of National Wildlife Refuges, but that rule could be re-established by whoever Biden taps to run the department.
At the moment, the rumors are that New Mexico Rep. Debra Haaland is the first choice to head up the Department of Interior. Haaland would be the first Native American cabinet official in U.S. history, but she’s also an ardent supporter of gun control, declaring on her campaign website that “we need to rid our communities of military-grade weapons; neither hunting nor policing require automatic weapons.”
The firearms industry has long been opposed to bans on traditional ammunition, with the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane arguing in 2015 that lead ammunition has been used in hunting for hundreds of years “without any ill effects to hunters or their families.”
And while our mission is the promotion of hunting and sport-shooting, most families around the country and in Oregon may never consume meat acquired through hunting of any kind. A 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on blood lead levels from North Dakota families that consumed meat hunted with traditional ammunition showed levels lower than that of the average American and did not remotely approach any threshold of concern.
I have a feeling that the CDC study is going to be roundly ignored in favor of emotional rhetoric about saving bald eagles and other wildlife populations from dying off after ingesting spent ammo, even if research can’t show that lead ammo is causing mass die-offs in the wild. The science may be unsettled, but the anti-gun agenda of Democrats is well established, and if given the opportunity I have no doubt they’ll reimpose the ban on lead ammunition on federal lands and push for states to do the same.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--DC Project Kicks Off #TealFor2A

DC Project Kicks Off #TealFor2A

A lot of various movements use different colors to symbolize their cause .
Perhaps the most famous example is the use of pink for breast cancer awareness .
The idea is that people can wear a color and make a statement , even when they ’ re not able to make a statement with their clothing in other ways .
You can ’ t wear a t-shirt when your job calls for a suit and tie , but you can wear a particular color tie and still show your support .
In a press release sent out on Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Second Amendment to have its own color : The # TealFor2A campaign is a collective movement spreading across America in support of the Second Amendment .
The color teal represents a steadfast commitment to preserving the right to bear arms and reflects the shared mission of individuals and organizations fighting for gun rights .
Spearheaded by the DC Project , # TealFor2A cause embraces the premise that there should be no compromise on the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States .
What is the DC Project ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence prevention are achieved through education , not legislation ; it encourages the preservation of America ’ s gun culture and highlights the diversity and rising demographic of female gun owners through ongoing advocacy because gun rights are women ’ s rights .
According to Dianna Muller , Founder of the DC Project , “ We believe that self-defense is a human right and that we are our own first responders .
We understand the importance of preserving the right to protect ourselves .
Members of our foundation regularly stand before legislators and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect this crucial right and make their voices heard through education .
Stand with us by donating to the DC Project and wear the color teal to let others know you support the rights of responsible gun owners too.
” Get Involved , Wear Teal , and Be Heard Share the campaign by using the hashtag # TealFor2A on social media , wear teal , and share the DC Project ’ s social media messaging .
“ Research who you are electing and learn their stance on the Second Amendment , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muller said .
Learn moreat www.dcproject.info .
Follow the DC Project on Facebook and Instagram and share the # TealFor2A hashtag everywhere to show support for the Second Amendment .
Honestly , I like the idea .
For one , my wife ’ s response was “ I like teal and I like things that go ‘ boom !
’ ” so it won ’ t be difficult to implement in my home .
Additionally , by having a designated color as support for the Second Amendment , people can show their support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a t-shirt warning that someone will have to take your gun from your cold , dead hand .
Don ’ t get me wrong , there ’ s a place for that , of course , but it doesn ’ t work every place .
The color teal , on the other hand , can .
It can work anywhere and at any time .
It ’ s kind of perfect in so many ways .
Time to go buy some teal stuff .

A lot of various movements use different colors to symbolize their cause. Perhaps the most famous example is the use of pink for breast cancer awareness. The idea is that people can wear a color and make a statement, even when they’re not able to make a statement with their clothing in other ways. You can’t wear a t-shirt when your job calls for a suit and tie, but you can wear a particular color tie and still show your support.
In a press release sent out on Monday, the DC Project has decided to push for the Second Amendment to have its own color:
The #TealFor2A campaign is a collective movement spreading across America in support of the Second Amendment. The color teal represents a steadfast commitment to preserving the right to bear arms and reflects the shared mission of individuals and organizations fighting for gun rights. Spearheaded by the DC Project, #TealFor2A cause embraces the premise that there should be no compromise on the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States. What is the DC Project?
The DC Project affirms that firearms safety and violence prevention are achieved through education, not legislation; it encourages the preservation of America’s gun culture and highlights the diversity and rising demographic of female gun owners through ongoing advocacy because gun rights are women’s rights. According to Dianna Muller, Founder of the DC Project, “We believe that self-defense is a human right and that we are our own first responders. We understand the importance of preserving the right to protect ourselves. Members of our foundation regularly stand before legislators and lawmakers on the frontlines of this battle to protect this crucial right and make their voices heard through education. Stand with us by donating to the DC Project and wear the color teal to let others know you support the rights of responsible gun owners too.” Get Involved, Wear Teal, and Be Heard
Share the campaign by using the hashtag #TealFor2A on social media, wear teal, and share the DC Project’s social media messaging. “Research who you are electing and learn their stance on the Second Amendment, then get out there and vote,” Muller said. Learn moreat www.dcproject.info. Follow the DC Project on Facebook and Instagram and share the #TealFor2A hashtag everywhere to show support for the Second Amendment.
Honestly, I like the idea. For one, my wife’s response was “I like teal and I like things that go ‘boom!’” so it won’t be difficult to implement in my home.
Additionally, by having a designated color as support for the Second Amendment, people can show their support in ways that are far more subtle than a t-shirt warning that someone will have to take your gun from your cold, dead hand.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a place for that, of course, but it doesn’t work every place.
The color teal, on the other hand, can. It can work anywhere and at any time. It’s kind of perfect in so many ways.
Time to go buy some teal stuff.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Rachel Maddow's Gun Range Date

Rachel Maddow's Gun Range Date

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow is no friend of gun owners .
She ’ s used her show time and time again to advocate for gun control , seeking to restrict your right to keep and bear arms .
She ’ s backed pretty much every anti-gun politician you care to name and done with glee .
With every fiber of her being , she ’ s done just about everything you can think of to tramble on the right to keep and bear arms .
Which is why finding out what she and her partner did for a first date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So what was Rachel Maddow and her partner ’ s first date like ?
The media icon came out guns blazing —literally !
Yup , they went to a gun range !
Quite a stone ’ s throw , or sporting clay ’ s throw , from dinner and a movie .
“ My first date with Susan was at an NRA ‘ Ladies Day On The Range ’ event , and that is as close as I have ever gotten to the NRA , ” Maddow said in 2011 , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro gun-control , politically speaking , but the journalist admitted the pair did enjoy the outing .
“ Susan has the hand-eye coordination , ” Maddow told Rolling Stone .
“ But I can ’ t control my movements.
” The pair then went for a stroll in a Western Massachusetts cemetery .
And there , “ at a moment of nearly transcendent silence and beauty , while they were looking serenely at 19th-century gravestones , ” per Rolling Stone , they fell in love .
Pretty adorable , in a morbidly sweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off her marksman skills yet again by taking CBS Sunday Morning to a firing range .
“ I ’ m a real liberal even on gun safety and gun control issues .
That said , I think that shooting is fun , ” she told the outlet .
“ And I think shooting ranges are an excellent place to both learn … and to freak your friends out.
” She then remarked on the Colt-45 she was holding was “ a beautiful gun.
” Rachel Maddow sure loves guns … and her life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deny you the ability to have them .
Oh , this isn ’ t quite as bad as all those anti-gunners who turn out to actually own them , but it ’ s close .
See , what ’ s happening is that Maddow likes having access to guns when she wants them , but unless you want them the exact same way she does–at a range where you can rent them , but not take them home–then she thinks something is wrong with you .
The thing is , the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good time or freaking your friends out .
It ’ s about protecting yourself and protecting this nation , even from its own government if need be .
Oh , don ’ t get me wrong , I love to go shooting with friends .
It ’ s a great time and I relish the times I got to shoot with various buddies .
To risk a pun , it was a blast .
I ’ m just saying that ’ s not what it ’ s about .
Meanwhile , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment is for .
Well , that ’ s probably not fair .
I ’ m not sure Maddow cares what the Second Amendment says in the least .
All she cares about is that she and her partner had their fun , but now she wants to deny you access to that very thing .
So very liberal of her .

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow is no friend of gun owners. She’s used her show time and time again to advocate for gun control, seeking to restrict your right to keep and bear arms. She’s backed pretty much every anti-gun politician you care to name and done with glee.
With every fiber of her being, she’s done just about everything you can think of to tramble on the right to keep and bear arms.
Which is why finding out what she and her partner did for a first date is so downright humorous to me.
So what was Rachel Maddow and her partner’s first date like? The media icon came out guns blazing —literally! Yup, they went to a gun range! Quite a stone’s throw, or sporting clay’s throw, from dinner and a movie. “My first date with Susan was at an NRA ‘Ladies Day On The Range’ event, and that is as close as I have ever gotten to the NRA,” Maddow said in 2011, according to the Huffington Post. Maddow may be pro gun-control, politically speaking, but the journalist admitted the pair did enjoy the outing. “Susan has the hand-eye coordination,” Maddow told Rolling Stone. “But I can’t control my movements.” The pair then went for a stroll in a Western Massachusetts cemetery. And there, “at a moment of nearly transcendent silence and beauty, while they were looking serenely at 19th-century gravestones,” per Rolling Stone, they fell in love. Pretty adorable, in a morbidly sweet way! In 2016, Maddow showed off her marksman skills yet again by taking CBS Sunday Morning to a firing range. “I’m a real liberal even on gun safety and gun control issues. That said, I think that shooting is fun,” she told the outlet. “And I think shooting ranges are an excellent place to both learn … and to freak your friends out.” She then remarked on the Colt-45 she was holding was “a beautiful gun.” Rachel Maddow sure loves guns … and her life partner!
She loves guns…but she wants to deny you the ability to have them.
Oh, this isn’t quite as bad as all those anti-gunners who turn out to actually own them, but it’s close.
See, what’s happening is that Maddow likes having access to guns when she wants them, but unless you want them the exact same way she does–at a range where you can rent them, but not take them home–then she thinks something is wrong with you.
The thing is, the Second Amendment isn’t about having a good time or freaking your friends out. It’s about protecting yourself and protecting this nation, even from its own government if need be.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love to go shooting with friends. It’s a great time and I relish the times I got to shoot with various buddies. To risk a pun, it was a blast.
I’m just saying that’s not what it’s about.
Meanwhile, that’s all Maddow seems to believe the Second Amendment is for. Well, that’s probably not fair. I’m not sure Maddow cares what the Second Amendment says in the least.
All she cares about is that she and her partner had their fun, but now she wants to deny you access to that very thing. So very liberal of her.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Concealed Carry Application Leads To Innocent Man's Arrest

Martin Montavious Jones was a Dean ’ s List student at Kennesaw State University when he was arrested for criminal property damage back in the spring of 2019 .
The only problem ?
Jones was innocent .
As it turns out a warrant was issued for his arrest because his name , like all other concealed carry applicants , had been placed on a countywide database of names used by law enforcement to track criminal suspects .
When a “ Martin Jones ” was named by woman in Albany , Georgia as the man who vandalized her car and home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Albany police department ended up issuing warrants for the college student instead of the actual suspect .
As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution details in a new report , about three months after the warrants were issued , Jones was pulled over by Kennesaw State campus police for not having his headlights on .
Jones was let off with a warning , but a few hours later he got a call from the officers asking him to stop by the police department .
When he did , he was placed under arrest and held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family worked to free him by contacting both the Albany police and the Dougherty County sheriff ’ s office .
None of it made sense , his mother told the officer .
Her son didn ’ t know the woman who filed the police complaint .
She logged into her son ’ s employee portal for his part-time job with a heating and air company and showed the officer time sheets placing him in Atlanta at the time of the domestic dispute .
By early Monday afternoon , a Dougherty County magistrate judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he didn ’ t have a parent , or someone who cares or could assist him ?
” LaTasha Jones said .
“ If nobody were there , he ’ d just be a product of the system , by mistaken identity , for so many years , or so many months .
And then they ’ ll say , ‘ Oh , you ’ re not the right person.
’ ” Jones is now suing the sheriff and the Albany police for his arrest , which will show up on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones should never have been considered a suspect in the first place .
Why on earth are concealed carry applicants being put on some sort of secret list in Dougherty County ?
As it turns out , almost anyone who comes in contact with law enforcement may end up on that list , and these lists aren ’ t isolated to one county in southwestern Georgia .
John Monroe , a gun rights attorney and vice president of GeorgiaCarry.org , said the Dougherty County Sheriff ’ s Office may have violated a 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ database of people issued weapons licenses .
He said he suspects other police agencies around the state are doing the same .
“ I have had this conversation with some police officers , ” Monroe said .
“ At the time I lived in Fulton County and I had a weapons carry license .
They ran me in Cobb County as though they had pulled me over , and it came up that I had a weapons carry license .
And that ’ s just plain not legal.
” While police were told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this , officials in Dougherty County say their database is fine because it isn ’ t “ multijurisdictional ” in nature .
An official with the Dougherty County Sheriff ’ s Office confirmed that Jones wound up in the county ’ s “ master name record ” database because of the gun permit application .
Anyone who has contact with police can be entered , including people who visit jail inmates , Chief Jailer John Ostrander said .
Maintaining records of gun permit applicants doesn ’ t violate state law , Ostrander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect whether the permit was granted or denied , and the information is only shared between law enforcement and emergency agencies within Dougherty County .
So it ’ s not “ multijurisdictional , ” he said .
GeorgiaCarry.org ’ s vice president disagrees .
Monroe told the paper that if the list is shared with multiple agencies , even within the same county , that amounts to a multijurisdictional database .
As I said on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. , I ’ m generally a pretty even-keeled guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What happened to Martin Jones is an outrage .
The only good that came of it , in my opinion , was the revelation that law enforcement agencies appear to be skirting the law with their databases , and it ’ s clear that legislators need to revisit this issue when they return to the state capitol in January .
The first time around , lawmakers forbade agencies from establishing multijurisdictional databases of concealed carry holders .
It ’ s time to revise that statute and prohibit law enforcement agencies from using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis for placing folks on a “ master name record ” or any other database .
In addition , lawmakers should re-introduce permitless carry legislation , which would greatly reduce the opportunity for local law enforcement to establish databases of gun owners , even if they wanted to violate the law .
There ’ s simply no reason for including legal gun owners applying for a carry license in these types of databases , and as Martin Jones has sadly shown us , these secret lists have far more potential to enable injustices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state are looking for ways to advance the cause , they should start by ensuring that what happened to Martin Jones can ’ t happen to any other legal gun owner in the future .

Martin Montavious Jones was a Dean’s List student at Kennesaw State University when he was arrested for criminal property damage back in the spring of 2019. The only problem? Jones was innocent.
As it turns out a warrant was issued for his arrest because his name, like all other concealed carry applicants, had been placed on a countywide database of names used by law enforcement to track criminal suspects. When a “Martin Jones” was named by woman in Albany, Georgia as the man who vandalized her car and home in a domestic incident, detectives with the Albany police department ended up issuing warrants for the college student instead of the actual suspect.
As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution details in a new report, about three months after the warrants were issued, Jones was pulled over by Kennesaw State campus police for not having his headlights on. Jones was let off with a warning, but a few hours later he got a call from the officers asking him to stop by the police department. When he did, he was placed under arrest and held in custody for 33 hours while his family worked to free him by contacting both the Albany police and the Dougherty County sheriff’s office.
None of it made sense, his mother told the officer. Her son didn’t know the woman who filed the police complaint. She logged into her son’s employee portal for his part-time job with a heating and air company and showed the officer time sheets placing him in Atlanta at the time of the domestic dispute. By early Monday afternoon, a Dougherty County magistrate judge had dismissed the charges. “What if he didn’t have a parent, or someone who cares or could assist him?” LaTasha Jones said. “If nobody were there, he’d just be a product of the system, by mistaken identity, for so many years, or so many months. And then they’ll say, ‘Oh, you’re not the right person.’”
Jones is now suing the sheriff and the Albany police for his arrest, which will show up on a criminal background check despite the fact that Jones should never have been considered a suspect in the first place. Why on earth are concealed carry applicants being put on some sort of secret list in Dougherty County? As it turns out, almost anyone who comes in contact with law enforcement may end up on that list, and these lists aren’t isolated to one county in southwestern Georgia.
John Monroe, a gun rights attorney and vice president of GeorgiaCarry.org, said the Dougherty County Sheriff’s Office may have violated a 2014 state law that forbids maintaining a multijurisdictional database of people issued weapons licenses. He said he suspects other police agencies around the state are doing the same. “I have had this conversation with some police officers,” Monroe said. “At the time I lived in Fulton County and I had a weapons carry license. They ran me in Cobb County as though they had pulled me over, and it came up that I had a weapons carry license. And that’s just plain not legal.”
While police were told back in 2014 not to maintain lists like this, officials in Dougherty County say their database is fine because it isn’t “multijurisdictional” in nature.
An official with the Dougherty County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that Jones wound up in the county’s “master name record” database because of the gun permit application. Anyone who has contact with police can be entered, including people who visit jail inmates, Chief Jailer John Ostrander said. Maintaining records of gun permit applicants doesn’t violate state law, Ostrander said, because they don’t reflect whether the permit was granted or denied, and the information is only shared between law enforcement and emergency agencies within Dougherty County. So it’s not “multijurisdictional,” he said.
GeorgiaCarry.org’s vice president disagrees. Monroe told the paper that if the list is shared with multiple agencies, even within the same county, that amounts to a multijurisdictional database.
As I said on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., I’m generally a pretty even-keeled guy, but this case has me furious. What happened to Martin Jones is an outrage. The only good that came of it, in my opinion, was the revelation that law enforcement agencies appear to be skirting the law with their databases, and it’s clear that legislators need to revisit this issue when they return to the state capitol in January.
The first time around, lawmakers forbade agencies from establishing multijurisdictional databases of concealed carry holders. It’s time to revise that statute and prohibit law enforcement agencies from using concealed carry applications or approvals as the basis for placing folks on a “master name record” or any other database. In addition, lawmakers should re-introduce permitless carry legislation, which would greatly reduce the opportunity for local law enforcement to establish databases of gun owners, even if they wanted to violate the law.
There’s simply no reason for including legal gun owners applying for a carry license in these types of databases, and as Martin Jones has sadly shown us, these secret lists have far more potential to enable injustices than solve crimes. If pro-2A lawmakers in the state are looking for ways to advance the cause, they should start by ensuring that what happened to Martin Jones can’t happen to any other legal gun owner in the future.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground Not Just About Guns

We tend to think of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws as “ gun ” laws .
However , that ’ s not entirely fair .
The laws themselves make no mention of firearms and for good reason .
They apply to any kind of lethal force .
Because of that , they apply in a number of situations that have nothing to do with firearms .
In fact , they have plenty to do with situations even the most vehement anti-gunner might find themselves in .
First , let ’ s talk about the Castle Doctrine .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s based on the idea of someone ’ s home being their castle and that they have a right to protect that castle .
Some will argue that this is wrong , that there ’ s nothing in your house worth killing for .
Well , since my wife and children are also in my house , I beg to differ .
They would probably call me a gun nut who is just looking for an excuse to be violent .
Yet how many of them grab a baseball bat to investigate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , long holding anti-gun views even while making millions with them , has shown the scene time and again .
A strange noise sounds through the house and a guy grabs a baseball bat , a tennis racket , or a golf club , and investigates .
Self-defense , right ?
Of course it is , as it should be .
Anyone entering your home represents a threat and using any of these tools to defend yourself is self-defense .
How is that any different than using a gun ?
“ Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , ” someone might say .
They ’ d be wrong , though .
All of those examples I mentioned are blunt objects .
They ’ re fully capable of killing someone , thus making the use of one lethal force .
In the eyes of the law , that ’ s no different than using a gun or a knife .
In fact , blunt objects are used to kill more people every year than the AR-15 .
That ’ s right .
So many of those who act like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they use a bat don ’ t realize that legally speaking , there is no difference .
What the law actually does , though , is protect you for investigating the noise rather than running away at the prospect of your home being invaded .
Yet those same people are protected by the Castle Doctrine law .
Meanwhile , Stand Your Ground laws are described by opponents as legalized murder , yet they ’ re really no different than Castle Doctrine laws that cover you outside your home in many ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about having a gun .
Instead , it ’ s about protecting yourself and others , regardless of what tool you use .
In theory , using a taser–a less-lethal option–against an attacker who dies from it could land someone in hot water for not retreating…unless they ’ re in a Stand Your Ground state , anyway .
See , while opponents of these laws like to reframe them in ways that make non-gun people think these laws don ’ t apply to them , the truth is that they cover any weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply in any manner of circumstance , too .
Those who oppose these laws would do well to first understand them to at least some degree first .
I suspect most of them would change their opinions .

We tend to think of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws as “gun” laws. However, that’s not entirely fair. The laws themselves make no mention of firearms and for good reason. They apply to any kind of lethal force.
Because of that, they apply in a number of situations that have nothing to do with firearms. In fact, they have plenty to do with situations even the most vehement anti-gunner might find themselves in.
First, let’s talk about the Castle Doctrine. To put this rather short, it’s based on the idea of someone’s home being their castle and that they have a right to protect that castle.
Some will argue that this is wrong, that there’s nothing in your house worth killing for. Well, since my wife and children are also in my house, I beg to differ. They would probably call me a gun nut who is just looking for an excuse to be violent.
Yet how many of them grab a baseball bat to investigate that strange noise in the night?
Hollywood, long holding anti-gun views even while making millions with them, has shown the scene time and again. A strange noise sounds through the house and a guy grabs a baseball bat, a tennis racket, or a golf club, and investigates.
What’s that for?
Self-defense, right? Of course it is, as it should be. Anyone entering your home represents a threat and using any of these tools to defend yourself is self-defense.
How is that any different than using a gun?
“Oh, but that’s not to kill people,” someone might say. They’d be wrong, though.
All of those examples I mentioned are blunt objects. They’re fully capable of killing someone, thus making the use of one lethal force. In the eyes of the law, that’s no different than using a gun or a knife.
In fact, blunt objects are used to kill more people every year than the AR-15.
That’s right. So many of those who act like they’re morally superior to gun people because they use a bat don’t realize that legally speaking, there is no difference.
What the law actually does, though, is protect you for investigating the noise rather than running away at the prospect of your home being invaded.
Yet those same people are protected by the Castle Doctrine law.
Meanwhile, Stand Your Ground laws are described by opponents as legalized murder, yet they’re really no different than Castle Doctrine laws that cover you outside your home in many ways.
Again, these aren’t exclusively about having a gun. Instead, it’s about protecting yourself and others, regardless of what tool you use. In theory, using a taser–a less-lethal option–against an attacker who dies from it could land someone in hot water for not retreating…unless they’re in a Stand Your Ground state, anyway.
See, while opponents of these laws like to reframe them in ways that make non-gun people think these laws don’t apply to them, the truth is that they cover any weapon, even an improvised one. They apply in any manner of circumstance, too.
Those who oppose these laws would do well to first understand them to at least some degree first. I suspect most of them would change their opinions.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--2A Researcher Dr. John Lott Hired By Justice Department

Longtime Second Amendment advocate and researcher Dr. John Lott , who until very recently headed up the non-profit Crime Prevention Research Center , now has a new gig with the Department of Justice .
Politico reports that Lott was hired as a senior analyst in the DOJ ’ s Office of Justice Programs , which serves as the “ federal government ’ s leading source of funding and research to strengthen the justice system , support law enforcement , and enhance victim services , ” according to the office ’ s website .
Andrew Pollack , whose daughter Meadow was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida in 2018 , has been named the new president of the Crime Prevention Research Center , and the organization ’ s executive director Nikki Goeser told Politico that the group will continue with its mission of providing academic-quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns , crime , and public safety .
“ Since Dr. Lott left the CPRC on October 12th , much about the CPRC will remain unchanged , ” Goeser told POLITICO by email .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting are continuing : on the percent of gun ownership across different countries as well as our regular reports on things such as the number of concealed handgun permits , keeping track of what would have been mass public shootings that were stopped by concealed handgun permit holders will continue , keeping track of states that allow people to carry handguns at state capitols will continue , and similarly for state rules on letting teachers carry guns , ” she added .
According to Politico , a DOJ spokesperson wouldn ’ t say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil service job or a political appointment , but I hope for Lott ’ s case that his hiring came with civil service job protections , because gun control activists are assuredly going to do everything in their power to go after the author of More Guns , Less Crime and other works that debunk many of the lies told by anti-gun groups , academics , and politicians .
Of course , if Joe Biden truly wants to try to “ unify ” the country , keeping Lott on would be a step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s research has not only focused on the failures of gun control laws in reducing crime , but has also highlighted what actually works .
His expertise and experience with the issue could help to direct federal funds towards truly worthwhile initiatives that can reduce violence , as opposed to simply throwing money at schemes like “ gun buybacks.
” Pollack , meanwhile , has a national presence thanks to his advocacy for school security in the wake of the Parkland murders .
His book Why Meadow Died : The People and Policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s Students is a searing indictment of dysfunctional criminal justice and public education systems that even drew praise from March For Our Lives co-founder Cameron Kasky , who called the Pollack “ the bold , striking colossus of Parkland politics.
” With Pollack serving as the new president of the Crime Prevention Research Center , the organization should be able to raise its profile even further .
I think Andrew Pollack ’ s a great pick for the position , and hopefully Lott ’ s new role at the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the months ahead .

Longtime Second Amendment advocate and researcher Dr. John Lott, who until very recently headed up the non-profit Crime Prevention Research Center, now has a new gig with the Department of Justice. Politico reports that Lott was hired as a senior analyst in the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, which serves as the “federal government’s leading source of funding and research to strengthen the justice system, support law enforcement, and enhance victim services,” according to the office’s website.
Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was among those murdered in the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018, has been named the new president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and the organization’s executive director Nikki Goeser told Politico that the group will continue with its mission of providing academic-quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety.
“Since Dr. Lott left the CPRC on October 12th, much about the CPRC will remain unchanged,” Goeser told POLITICO by email. “Research projects that we have been conducting are continuing: on the percent of gun ownership across different countries as well as our regular reports on things such as the number of concealed handgun permits, keeping track of what would have been mass public shootings that were stopped by concealed handgun permit holders will continue, keeping track of states that allow people to carry handguns at state capitols will continue, and similarly for state rules on letting teachers carry guns,” she added.
According to Politico, a DOJ spokesperson wouldn’t say whether Lott’s position is a civil service job or a political appointment, but I hope for Lott’s case that his hiring came with civil service job protections, because gun control activists are assuredly going to do everything in their power to go after the author of More Guns, Less Crime and other works that debunk many of the lies told by anti-gun groups, academics, and politicians.
Of course, if Joe Biden truly wants to try to “unify” the country, keeping Lott on would be a step in the right direction. Lott’s research has not only focused on the failures of gun control laws in reducing crime, but has also highlighted what actually works. His expertise and experience with the issue could help to direct federal funds towards truly worthwhile initiatives that can reduce violence, as opposed to simply throwing money at schemes like “gun buybacks.”
Pollack, meanwhile, has a national presence thanks to his advocacy for school security in the wake of the Parkland murders. His book Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students is a searing indictment of dysfunctional criminal justice and public education systems that even drew praise from March For Our Lives co-founder Cameron Kasky, who called the Pollack “the bold, striking colossus of Parkland politics.”
With Pollack serving as the new president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, the organization should be able to raise its profile even further. I think Andrew Pollack’s a great pick for the position, and hopefully Lott’s new role at the Department of Justice won’t be undone in the months ahead.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Gun Rights Advocates Fight To Carry In Norfolk Courthouse

Law-abiding citizens don ’ t get to pick just when trouble might strike .
That ’ s something the bad guys do .
We ’ re forced to just deal with what ’ s there , which means it ’ s wise to be prepared for trouble anywhere we go .
That includes the courthouse .
In Norfolk , VA , there ’ s a fight brewing over whether firearms should be allowed in the courthouse , though .
Then again , maybe not .
Norfolk is also a military town and military members tend to be pro-gun .
Sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote elsewhere , but considering how easily one can spend an entire naval career in Norfolk , some might be willing to re-register .
Plus , with millions of new gun owners nationwide , at least some of them are Democrats who are starting to wake up to the importance of their gun rights .
It ’ s not the slam dunk that it might have been in past years .
And really , there are cases to be made as to why it ’ s colossally stupid to ban law-abiding citizens with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courthouses and other public buildings .
For one thing , rules alone won ’ t ensure compliance by those who actually are a threat .
We learned that with the Virginia Beach shooting several years ago .
For another , you ’ re putting law-abiding citizens at risk , even if you can ensure that absolutely no one is entering these buildings with a firearm .
How ?
Easy .
They have to be disarmed too and from the building .
That represents a vulnerability that criminals can exploit because they know these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We just had a mayor of a city note that a shooting took place in a gun-free zone , though he somehow thought the failure to comply with that bit was more important than complying with laws against shooting people .
Gun-free zones are criminal empowerment zones .
More and more , though , I suspect people are waking up to that fact .
I wouldn ’ t be too sure that the pro-gun forces in Norfolk can ’ t muster enough votes to make a real difference .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of years ago , after all .

Law-abiding citizens don’t get to pick just when trouble might strike. That’s something the bad guys do. We’re forced to just deal with what’s there, which means it’s wise to be prepared for trouble anywhere we go. That includes the courthouse.
In Norfolk, VA, there’s a fight brewing over whether firearms should be allowed in the courthouse, though.
After months of stumbling, gun rights advocates in Norfolk have finally amassed enough signatures to force the City Council to hold hearings on their request for the city to keep allowing guns in city-owned buildings. Called the Norfolk Second Amendment Preservation Coalition, the group gathered more than 2,600 petition signatures on Election Day, forcing the city’s hand and mandating a public discussion. Given the political makeup of the council and what members have said about gun laws, the push is nearly certain to fail. Assuming that happens, advocates will try to gather more signatures to put the issue before voters through a ballot referendum, though it’s not clear when that would happen. Even if it makes it on the ballot — advocates would need 4,000 signatures for that — the proposal would seem to be a long shot in a heavily Democratic city where supporters of gun control typically win elections by huge margins.
Maybe.
Then again, maybe not. Norfolk is also a military town and military members tend to be pro-gun. Sure, most of them are registered to vote elsewhere, but considering how easily one can spend an entire naval career in Norfolk, some might be willing to re-register.
Plus, with millions of new gun owners nationwide, at least some of them are Democrats who are starting to wake up to the importance of their gun rights.
It’s not the slam dunk that it might have been in past years.
And really, there are cases to be made as to why it’s colossally stupid to ban law-abiding citizens with carry permits from taking their guns in courthouses and other public buildings. For one thing, rules alone won’t ensure compliance by those who actually are a threat. We learned that with the Virginia Beach shooting several years ago.
For another, you’re putting law-abiding citizens at risk, even if you can ensure that absolutely no one is entering these buildings with a firearm. How? Easy. They have to be disarmed too and from the building. That represents a vulnerability that criminals can exploit because they know these individuals are disarmed.
Think about it. We just had a mayor of a city note that a shooting took place in a gun-free zone, though he somehow thought the failure to comply with that bit was more important than complying with laws against shooting people. Gun-free zones are criminal empowerment zones.
More and more, though, I suspect people are waking up to that fact. I wouldn’t be too sure that the pro-gun forces in Norfolk can’t muster enough votes to make a real difference. This is a different world than it was just a couple of years ago, after all.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--Gun Grabbers' New Priority: "Local Control"

With the growing likelihood of congressional deadlock for the next couple of years , gun control activists are going to be focusing a lot of their efforts on state-level gun laws , and one of their top priorities in the next legislative session in many states will be an attempt to empower local governments to pass gun control laws of their own .
We ’ ve already had a taste of this in Virginia , where Democrats who seized control of the statehouse in 2019 passed a law earlier this year that enables localities to ban firearms in government buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several cities around the state have already taken advantage of the opportunity to limit the right to carry as much as possible , and I suspect Democrats will try to further erode the state ’ s firearms preemption law in the next legislative session .
In Missouri , anti-gun activists are facing a much tougher job , given the fact that Republicans dominate the state legislature and control the governorship .
Still , Democrats and gun control advocates are starting to stump for local control of gun laws , using the coronavirus as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parson for a supposedly inconsistent stance .
Responding to a question about the new spike in coronavirus cases , Parson stated on Nov. 12 : “ We ’ ve got to step up .
We ’ ve got to do our part to protect one another , ” presumably by wearing masks .
But he rejected issuing a statewide mandate , noting that “ the vast majority of people in the state are under a mask mandate ” at the local level .
He added : “ It ’ s up to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
That ’ s why you have elections .
The purest form of democracy is for them to be able to make those decisions .
… Because if you start just letting one person dictate across the state of Missouri for one particular issue — today it ’ s maybe an issue you like , but it may not be someday.
” Although the coronavirus epidemic is the current hot topic , the state ’ s urban centers actually are confronting another out-of-control epidemic : gun violence .
A three-day series in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue as it affects St. Louis , Kansas City and Springfield .
Local governments have tried to address the problem in multiple ways , including laws to restrict the unpermitted circulation of guns and high-capacity magazines .
Kansas City tried to enact a “ red flag ” law to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and violent criminals .
But the state Legislature , with Parson ’ s backing , stepped in to deny local governments these rights and roll back their efforts .
That ’ s the editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mask mandate to gun and magazine bans , licensing regimes , and red flag laws , which is somewhat akin to comparing apples to bald eagles .
The editors seem to forget that even with firearms preemption laws on the books , one person isn ’ t dictating gun laws across the state of Missouri , as would be the case if Parson were to try to impose a mask mandate all by his lonesome .
The reason why the state legislature in Missouri is the body that decides the gun laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It avoids the possibility of a patchwork quilt of gun laws that may vary from town to town , which makes it difficult if not impossible to comply with every law on the books .
While Democrats don ’ t have a majority in the legislature , they still have a seat at the table , and if their proposals didn ’ t run counter to the Second Amendment , they might find more support .
It ’ s true that St. Louis and Kansas City are seeing a sharp increase in violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other cities across the country .
Los Angeles just had its 300th homicide of the year , and the murder rate is the highest it ’ s been in ten years , even with California laws like a 10-day waiting period to purchase firearms ; bans on “ large capacity ” magazines and “ assault weapons ” ; laws that make it a crime to purchase ammunition without a background check , which makes online or out-of-state ammo purchases illegal .
In other words , gun control isn ’ t the crime-fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s really needed are more police in high crime areas , better community relations and cooperation between officers and civilians in those high crime neighborhoods , increased federal prosecution of the most violent offenders , and programs designed to help gang members leave the life and establish themselves on the right side of the law .
The push for “ local control ” and an end to firearm preemption laws is nothing more than an attempt by anti-gun activists to try to gain ground wherever they can .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s likely to be through executive action and regulatory powers exercised by agencies like the ATF .
In Republican-controlled states , gun control supporters will use Democrat-controlled cities as their launching pad for attacks on our right to keep and bear arms .
St. Louis , for example , has already passed a ban on guns in parks in clear violation of the state ’ s preemption law , but the city council members who approved the ban are hoping that a judge will rule in their favor and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unconstitutional ( which is not likely , in my opinion ) .
Even if a judge throws out their new law , the city gets free publicity and gun control activists can issue a press release bemoaning the awful “ gun lobby ” standing in the way of “ commonsense gun safety reforms.
” It ’ s a no-lose situation for the gun banners , at least as long as they can ignore the fact that while they ’ re wasting time passing ineffective and illegal gun control laws , they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been proven to be effective at dramatically reducing violent crime .

With the growing likelihood of congressional deadlock for the next couple of years, gun control activists are going to be focusing a lot of their efforts on state-level gun laws, and one of their top priorities in the next legislative session in many states will be an attempt to empower local governments to pass gun control laws of their own.
We’ve already had a taste of this in Virginia, where Democrats who seized control of the statehouse in 2019 passed a law earlier this year that enables localities to ban firearms in government buildings, parks, and permitted events. Several cities around the state have already taken advantage of the opportunity to limit the right to carry as much as possible, and I suspect Democrats will try to further erode the state’s firearms preemption law in the next legislative session.
In Missouri, anti-gun activists are facing a much tougher job, given the fact that Republicans dominate the state legislature and control the governorship. Still, Democrats and gun control advocates are starting to stump for local control of gun laws, using the coronavirus as an excuse to berate Gov. Brad Parson for a supposedly inconsistent stance.
Responding to a question about the new spike in coronavirus cases, Parson stated on Nov. 12: “We’ve got to step up. We’ve got to do our part to protect one another,” presumably by wearing masks. But he rejected issuing a statewide mandate, noting that “the vast majority of people in the state are under a mask mandate” at the local level. He added: “It’s up to the local levels to be able to do that. That’s why you have elections. The purest form of democracy is for them to be able to make those decisions. … Because if you start just letting one person dictate across the state of Missouri for one particular issue — today it’s maybe an issue you like, but it may not be someday.” Although the coronavirus epidemic is the current hot topic, the state’s urban centers actually are confronting another out-of-control epidemic: gun violence. A three-day series in this week’s Post-Dispatch focused on the issue as it affects St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield. Local governments have tried to address the problem in multiple ways, including laws to restrict the unpermitted circulation of guns and high-capacity magazines. Kansas City tried to enact a “red flag” law to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and violent criminals. But the state Legislature, with Parson’s backing, stepped in to deny local governments these rights and roll back their efforts.
That’s the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch comparing a mask mandate to gun and magazine bans, licensing regimes, and red flag laws, which is somewhat akin to comparing apples to bald eagles. The editors seem to forget that even with firearms preemption laws on the books, one person isn’t dictating gun laws across the state of Missouri, as would be the case if Parson were to try to impose a mask mandate all by his lonesome.
The reason why the state legislature in Missouri is the body that decides the gun laws for the entire state is simple. It avoids the possibility of a patchwork quilt of gun laws that may vary from town to town, which makes it difficult if not impossible to comply with every law on the books. While Democrats don’t have a majority in the legislature, they still have a seat at the table, and if their proposals didn’t run counter to the Second Amendment, they might find more support.
It’s true that St. Louis and Kansas City are seeing a sharp increase in violent crime this year, but so are many other cities across the country. Los Angeles just had its 300th homicide of the year, and the murder rate is the highest it’s been in ten years, even with California laws like a 10-day waiting period to purchase firearms; bans on “large capacity” magazines and “assault weapons”; laws that make it a crime to purchase ammunition without a background check, which makes online or out-of-state ammo purchases illegal.
In other words, gun control isn’t the crime-fighting tool that Democrats want it to be. What’s really needed are more police in high crime areas, better community relations and cooperation between officers and civilians in those high crime neighborhoods, increased federal prosecution of the most violent offenders, and programs designed to help gang members leave the life and establish themselves on the right side of the law.
The push for “local control” and an end to firearm preemption laws is nothing more than an attempt by anti-gun activists to try to gain ground wherever they can. In a Biden administration hamstrung by a gridlocked Congress, that’s likely to be through executive action and regulatory powers exercised by agencies like the ATF. In Republican-controlled states, gun control supporters will use Democrat-controlled cities as their launching pad for attacks on our right to keep and bear arms.
St. Louis, for example, has already passed a ban on guns in parks in clear violation of the state’s preemption law, but the city council members who approved the ban are hoping that a judge will rule in their favor and perhaps even declare the state preemption law to be unconstitutional (which is not likely, in my opinion). Even if a judge throws out their new law, the city gets free publicity and gun control activists can issue a press release bemoaning the awful “gun lobby” standing in the way of “commonsense gun safety reforms.” It’s a no-lose situation for the gun banners, at least as long as they can ignore the fact that while they’re wasting time passing ineffective and illegal gun control laws, they could be implementing strategies and tactics that have been proven to be effective at dramatically reducing violent crime.


bearingarms--2020-11-24--From "Defund Police" To "Call The Cops On Thanksgiving Dinner"

Oregon has a very hard leftward lean .
It ’ s a state where they believe in defunding the police because police are bad or something .
Governor Kate Brown aided in lawlessness in Portland for months by refusing to work with the Department of Homeland Security in protecting the federal building there .
She took the side of rioters .
She made it very clear she wasn ’ t a fan of the police .
Until that seems , Thanksgiving rolled around .
Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown wants residents to call the police on their neighbors over violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutdown , which includes a six-person limit on in-home gatherings .
The temporary “ freeze , ” which went into effect Wednesday , restricts indoor at-home and social gatherings to six people from no more than two households , with no exceptions for Thanksgiving dinner get-togethers .
In a Friday virtual interview with KGW-TV , Ms. Brown agreed that Oregonians should contact authorities if they see their neighbors hosting more than six people .
“ Look , this is no different than what happens if there ’ s a party down the street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What do neighbors do ?
They call law enforcement because it ’ s too noisy , ” the Democratic governor told KGW .
“ This is just like that .
It ’ s like a violation of a noise ordinance.
” Except they call the police on the party because it ’ s noisy and that noise is disturbing them .
Someone having a quiet Thanksgiving with more than six people doesn ’ t disturb anyone .
Further , no one is forced to attend a family gathering for the holiday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to so many people–it isn ’ t , but let ’ s say it was for the sake of argument–no one is putting anyone but themselves at risk .
Everyone is there of their own free will .
The government sucks at trying to protect people from themselves anyway .
Every time they do it , they end up making things worse .
Plus , let ’ s face it , I know nuclear families with more than six people in them .
Some friends of mine have six kids between them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ led them to joke about which kids will be forced to eat outside .
But let ’ s run with this .
My family has four people .
Let ’ s say we have my wife ’ s dad , her stepmom , and her sister over .
That ’ s a total of seven people and doesn ’ t include her grandmother who lives just down the street .
That would give us eight without blinking .
Yet that could still only be one car .
What Brown is doing here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but to spy on their neighbors , to get a count of just how many people are going into each house , making note of how many live there to begin with , and then call the authorities .
For all the rhetoric out of Oregon about the police state because DHS was arresting people who committed federal crimes , this is the actual police state .
Anyone with half a brain can see that .
Then again , anyone with half a brain isn ’ t voting for Brown .

Oregon has a very hard leftward lean. It’s a state where they believe in defunding the police because police are bad or something. Governor Kate Brown aided in lawlessness in Portland for months by refusing to work with the Department of Homeland Security in protecting the federal building there. She took the side of rioters.
She made it very clear she wasn’t a fan of the police.
Until that seems, Thanksgiving rolled around.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown wants residents to call the police on their neighbors over violations of the state’s latest coronavirus shutdown, which includes a six-person limit on in-home gatherings. The temporary “freeze,” which went into effect Wednesday, restricts indoor at-home and social gatherings to six people from no more than two households, with no exceptions for Thanksgiving dinner get-togethers. In a Friday virtual interview with KGW-TV, Ms. Brown agreed that Oregonians should contact authorities if they see their neighbors hosting more than six people. “Look, this is no different than what happens if there’s a party down the street and it’s keeping everyone awake. What do neighbors do? They call law enforcement because it’s too noisy,” the Democratic governor told KGW. “This is just like that. It’s like a violation of a noise ordinance.”
Except they call the police on the party because it’s noisy and that noise is disturbing them. Someone having a quiet Thanksgiving with more than six people doesn’t disturb anyone.
Further, no one is forced to attend a family gathering for the holiday. Even if the virus is super fatal to so many people–it isn’t, but let’s say it was for the sake of argument–no one is putting anyone but themselves at risk. Everyone is there of their own free will.
The government sucks at trying to protect people from themselves anyway. Every time they do it, they end up making things worse.
Plus, let’s face it, I know nuclear families with more than six people in them. Some friends of mine have six kids between them. A limit of just six people has led them to joke about which kids will be forced to eat outside.
But let’s run with this. My family has four people. Let’s say we have my wife’s dad, her stepmom, and her sister over. That’s a total of seven people and doesn’t include her grandmother who lives just down the street. That would give us eight without blinking. Yet that could still only be one car.
What Brown is doing here is asking people to not just report people, but to spy on their neighbors, to get a count of just how many people are going into each house, making note of how many live there to begin with, and then call the authorities.
For all the rhetoric out of Oregon about the police state because DHS was arresting people who committed federal crimes, this is the actual police state. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
Then again, anyone with half a brain isn’t voting for Brown.