bearingarms--2020-11-20--Now, They're Blaming U.S. For 'Sniper Rifles' In Mexico

The United States is an amazing place .
It ’ s the Land of the Free .
It ’ s a country people will risk their lives trying to cross open oceans on cobbled-together rafts just to reach .
There ’ s simply no other place like it in the world .
And , it seems , we ’ re to blame for other countries ’ problems .
Now , this isn ’ t always without cause .
For example , if the U.S. has a trade embargo against a country and that country has a shortage of goods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is because of us .
That ’ s fair , even if it ’ s simplistic .
Yet , it seems that the U.S. is to blame for problems in other countries even when our government has taken action .
For example , we ’ ve repeatedly heard that the problem with violence in Mexico is because of a lack of gun laws in America , even though God only knows how many guns ended up across the border because of the actions of the ATF .
It seems that if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the cartels–who have no problems getting drugs and other illicit goods–wouldn ’ t be able to get so-called “ assault weapons ” or handguns .
Now , the problem is “ sniper rifles.
” North of the border , the .50-caliber sniper rifle is the stuff of YouTube celebrity , shown blasting through engine blocks and concrete walls .
Deployed with U.S. troops to foreign wars , it is among the most destructive weapons legally available in the United States .
But every week , those rifles are trafficked across the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartels now command arsenals that rival the weaponry of the country ’ s security forces .
In many cases , criminals outgun police .
After years of failed U.S. and Mexican efforts to curb arms trafficking , groups such as the Jalisco New Generation and Sinaloa cartels are showcasing the military-grade weapons in slick propaganda videos and using them to defeat security forces in battle .
In a country with just a single legal gun shop , on a military base in the capital , roughly 2.5 million illicit American guns have poured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a new Mexican government study .
That flood has been a key accelerant in the security crisis now confronting the country .
The cartels are using assault rifles to kill record numbers of police officers — 464 in the first nine months of 2020 alone — and smaller armed groups are fueling historically high homicide rates .
Mexican officials , in rare public criticism , are now venting their frustration at what they say is the U.S. failure to stop the flow of .50-caliber rifles .
At a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target cartels more aggressively , U.S. laws that make .50-calibers and other destructive weapons easy to buy , along with a lack of enforcement at the border , are enabling those groups to expand their influence and activities in the country .
Mexico has problems , but those problems aren ’ t the fault of the United States .
For one thing , the government makes it impossible for Mexican citizens to defend themselves .
As noted , the nation has a single gun store , and it ’ s on a military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling for easier access to guns for the law-abiding Mexicans .
In addition , the cartels never could have come to power without Mexican corruption .
It ’ s long been known that public officials and police were more than willing to take bribes to look the other way .
That allowed the cartels to grow and maintain power until they got to the point they no longer had to worry about the government .
Now , they ’ re trying to target a gun that isn ’ t sold in mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to AR-15s , for example–and claiming that American sales of these guns are the problem .
Well , they might be coming from the U.S. , but let ’ s also understand that if we could completely cut off the flow of these guns from here , they ’ d just get them from somewhere else .
Hell , I ’ ve seen pics from the Crimea and Syria where people have built these in machine shops on their own .
Besides , these are drug cartels .
They have a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re going to get guns .
As such , if you want to cut them off at the knees , you have to go after them on a base level .
You can ’ t go after a supply of guns and pretend that ’ s going to hurt them .
No , you have to wage war and destroy their ability to threaten the lawful civilian government .
At the same time , you have to destroy the corruption rampant in the country so that any efforts don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You don ’ t get to blame .50 caliber rifles for the problem .
It ’ s not the guns that are to blame , and it never was .

The United States is an amazing place. It’s the Land of the Free. It’s a country people will risk their lives trying to cross open oceans on cobbled-together rafts just to reach. There’s simply no other place like it in the world.
And, it seems, we’re to blame for other countries’ problems.
Now, this isn’t always without cause. For example, if the U.S. has a trade embargo against a country and that country has a shortage of goods, you can make the case that its problem is because of us. That’s fair, even if it’s simplistic.
Yet, it seems that the U.S. is to blame for problems in other countries even when our government has taken action. For example, we’ve repeatedly heard that the problem with violence in Mexico is because of a lack of gun laws in America, even though God only knows how many guns ended up across the border because of the actions of the ATF.
It seems that if the U.S. restricted AR-15s and handgun sales here, the cartels–who have no problems getting drugs and other illicit goods–wouldn’t be able to get so-called “assault weapons” or handguns.
Now, the problem is “sniper rifles.”
North of the border, the .50-caliber sniper rifle is the stuff of YouTube celebrity, shown blasting through engine blocks and concrete walls. Deployed with U.S. troops to foreign wars, it is among the most destructive weapons legally available in the United States. But every week, those rifles are trafficked across the border to Mexico, where increasingly militarized drug cartels now command arsenals that rival the weaponry of the country’s security forces. In many cases, criminals outgun police. After years of failed U.S. and Mexican efforts to curb arms trafficking, groups such as the Jalisco New Generation and Sinaloa cartels are showcasing the military-grade weapons in slick propaganda videos and using them to defeat security forces in battle. In a country with just a single legal gun shop, on a military base in the capital, roughly 2.5 million illicit American guns have poured across the border in the past decade, according to a new Mexican government study. That flood has been a key accelerant in the security crisis now confronting the country. The cartels are using assault rifles to kill record numbers of police officers — 464 in the first nine months of 2020 alone — and smaller armed groups are fueling historically high homicide rates. Mexican officials, in rare public criticism, are now venting their frustration at what they say is the U.S. failure to stop the flow of .50-caliber rifles. At a time when the United States is pushing Mexico to target cartels more aggressively, U.S. laws that make .50-calibers and other destructive weapons easy to buy, along with a lack of enforcement at the border, are enabling those groups to expand their influence and activities in the country.
Mexico has problems, but those problems aren’t the fault of the United States.
For one thing, the government makes it impossible for Mexican citizens to defend themselves. As noted, the nation has a single gun store, and it’s on a military base. Many Mexicans are lashing out, calling for easier access to guns for the law-abiding Mexicans.
In addition, the cartels never could have come to power without Mexican corruption. It’s long been known that public officials and police were more than willing to take bribes to look the other way. That allowed the cartels to grow and maintain power until they got to the point they no longer had to worry about the government.
Now, they’re trying to target a gun that isn’t sold in mass quantities here in the states–not when compared to AR-15s, for example–and claiming that American sales of these guns are the problem.
Well, they might be coming from the U.S., but let’s also understand that if we could completely cut off the flow of these guns from here, they’d just get them from somewhere else. Hell, I’ve seen pics from the Crimea and Syria where people have built these in machine shops on their own. Besides, these are drug cartels. They have a lot of money and a desire to get guns. They’re going to get guns.
As such, if you want to cut them off at the knees, you have to go after them on a base level. You can’t go after a supply of guns and pretend that’s going to hurt them.
No, you have to wage war and destroy their ability to threaten the lawful civilian government. At the same time, you have to destroy the corruption rampant in the country so that any efforts don’t fall apart in an instant.
You don’t get to blame .50 caliber rifles for the problem. It’s not the guns that are to blame, and it never was.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--CT Dems Want To Expand Red Flag Gun Seizure Law

Connecticut was one of the few states where Democrats managed to expand their legislative majority on Election Day , and with anti-gun politicians in firm control of state government from the governor on down , they ’ re looking to further erode the right to keep and bear arms in the state .
Rep. Steve Stafstrom , a Democrat from Bridgeport and the co-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , says revisions to the state ’ s red flag law are on the table when lawmakers convene for the 2021 session .
Stafstrom says he will push for a so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their criminal records cleared if they stay out of trouble for a period of time , such as 10 years .
A proponent of adult-use cannabis , Stafstrom said it could pass this year .
A third issue is a revision to the state ’ s “ red flag ” law that allows neighbors and family members to report people with firearms who might be a danger to themselves or others .
The current law which dates back more than 20 years , allows two law enforcement officers or a prosecutor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant .
“ At least a dozen other states allow a spouse or parent , even a medical professional to apply for a risk-protective order , ” he said .
I have issues with red flag laws in general , but broadening the law to allow family members or even neighbors to initiate an Extreme Risk Protective Order opens up the door for even more abuse than the law already allows .
In Virginia , where I live , we ’ ve already seen at least one red flag case tossed out after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns seized failed to show up in court , though not before the gun owner had his firearms taken from him for a period of several weeks .
And let ’ s be clear here ; while the impetus for approving the state ’ s red flag law 20 years ago was to reduce the number of suicides , they ’ ve still increased since the law has been on the books , rising from 320 suicides in 2000 to 424 suicides in 2019 .
Researchers have noted that while gun-related suicides declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-gun related suicides increased at an even higher rate .
That ’ s another problem with red flag laws ; they ’ re billed as some sort of mental health measure when they do nothing to treat those who are truly at-risk .
Their guns might be taken from them , but their inner demons remain , and they ’ re left alone with their knives , matches , gasoline , car keys , belts , pills , and anything else that they might use to harm themselves or others .
Red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any sort of mental health treatment because they ’ re ultimately not about mental health .
These are gun control laws masquerading as mental health measures .
If Connecticut lawmakers push for expanding the state ’ s red flag law , lives won ’ t be saved , but rights will be lost .

Connecticut was one of the few states where Democrats managed to expand their legislative majority on Election Day, and with anti-gun politicians in firm control of state government from the governor on down, they’re looking to further erode the right to keep and bear arms in the state.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Democrat from Bridgeport and the co-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says revisions to the state’s red flag law are on the table when lawmakers convene for the 2021 session.
Stafstrom says he will push for a so-called clean-slate bill that would allow ex-offenders to have their criminal records cleared if they stay out of trouble for a period of time, such as 10 years. A proponent of adult-use cannabis, Stafstrom said it could pass this year. A third issue is a revision to the state’s “red flag” law that allows neighbors and family members to report people with firearms who might be a danger to themselves or others. The current law which dates back more than 20 years, allows two law enforcement officers or a prosecutor to apply to the courts for a firearm-seizure warrant. “At least a dozen other states allow a spouse or parent, even a medical professional to apply for a risk-protective order,” he said.
I have issues with red flag laws in general, but broadening the law to allow family members or even neighbors to initiate an Extreme Risk Protective Order opens up the door for even more abuse than the law already allows. In Virginia, where I live, we’ve already seen at least one red flag case tossed out after the family members who sought to have guns seized failed to show up in court, though not before the gun owner had his firearms taken from him for a period of several weeks.
And let’s be clear here; while the impetus for approving the state’s red flag law 20 years ago was to reduce the number of suicides, they’ve still increased since the law has been on the books, rising from 320 suicides in 2000 to 424 suicides in 2019. Researchers have noted that while gun-related suicides declined by about 14% since 2007, non-gun related suicides increased at an even higher rate.
That’s another problem with red flag laws; they’re billed as some sort of mental health measure when they do nothing to treat those who are truly at-risk. Their guns might be taken from them, but their inner demons remain, and they’re left alone with their knives, matches, gasoline, car keys, belts, pills, and anything else that they might use to harm themselves or others.
Red flag laws typically don’t come with any sort of mental health treatment because they’re ultimately not about mental health. These are gun control laws masquerading as mental health measures. If Connecticut lawmakers push for expanding the state’s red flag law, lives won’t be saved, but rights will be lost.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--No, Jon Ossoff, Standing Together Isn't Corruption

My wife isn ’ t very political , but there was one vote she cast on election day she felt a great deal of satisfaction over .
She voted against Democrat Jon Ossoff .
See , my wife may not be political , but she can smell a load of BS from a mile away .
Everything about Ossoff grated on my wife like no other candidate before .
It was kind of impressive how much she came to despise him .
And yet , he somehow made it into a runoff election against incumbent David Perdue ( R ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t think much of you and how you choose to defend your gun rights .
When you get involved in the effort to protect your rights , you are acting well within the norms of the constitutional system devised by the Founders .
You are using freedom of speech , freedom of the press , the right to peaceably assemble , and the right to petition for redress of grievances to protect our right to keep and bear arms .
In fact , if there is a “ gun lobby , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy of people like you , the loyal Ammoland readers .
This was once freely admitted by those who sought to infringe upon our rights .
When you are doing this , you are doing nothing wrong .
Well , Jon Ossoff does not believe that .
Ossoff , who we noted earlier supports pretty much the entire Bloomberg wish list , yet who has the gall to try to gaslight the people of Georgia into believing the support the Second Amendment , has a markedly different view of our grassroots activism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t take my word for it .
You can see it on his own campaign site .
Oh , come on , he doesn ’ t actually say that , now does he ?
Except , he does .
From the above-linked campaign website : Most gun owners are responsible , qualified , and own weapons in good faith .
However , the only objective of the firearms industry lobbyists is to drive up gun sales and enrich shareholders — even at the expense of public safety and common sense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the gun lobby , and I ’ ll fight to end their corrupt influence in Washington .
Yet the “ firearms industry ” is a misnomer , and we all know it .
The National Rifle Association ( NRA ) is the big bugaboo for Democrats , yet it represents the gun-owning public , not the firearm industry as a whole .
It ’ s basically where a bunch of gun owners has banded together to have their voices heard in one voice .
Other groups that make up the same lobby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s private Americans stepping up and defending their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms .
It ’ s where and how we oppose other things that Ossoff is running on , like universal background checks , assault weapon bans , and red flag laws .
That ’ s what Ossoff is calling corrupt .
He ’ s calling you corrupt for standing together to oppose his radical , anti-American agenda .
I can ’ t imagine why my fairly apolitical wife could despise someone like that , can you ?
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surface .
He ’ s also going to destroy much of what makes this country great .

My wife isn’t very political, but there was one vote she cast on election day she felt a great deal of satisfaction over. She voted against Democrat Jon Ossoff.
See, my wife may not be political, but she can smell a load of BS from a mile away. Everything about Ossoff grated on my wife like no other candidate before. It was kind of impressive how much she came to despise him.
And yet, he somehow made it into a runoff election against incumbent David Perdue (R).
However, it seems that Ossoff doesn’t think much of you and how you choose to defend your gun rights.
When you get involved in the effort to protect your rights, you are acting well within the norms of the constitutional system devised by the Founders. You are using freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition for redress of grievances to protect our right to keep and bear arms. In fact, if there is a “gun lobby,” it’s the activism and advocacy of people like you, the loyal Ammoland readers. This was once freely admitted by those who sought to infringe upon our rights. When you are doing this, you are doing nothing wrong. Well, Jon Ossoff does not believe that. Ossoff, who we noted earlier supports pretty much the entire Bloomberg wish list, yet who has the gall to try to gaslight the people of Georgia into believing the support the Second Amendment, has a markedly different view of our grassroots activism. He thinks it is “corrupt.” Don’t take my word for it. You can see it on his own campaign site.
Oh, come on, he doesn’t actually say that, now does he?
Except, he does.
From the above-linked campaign website:
Most gun owners are responsible, qualified, and own weapons in good faith. However, the only objective of the firearms industry lobbyists is to drive up gun sales and enrich shareholders — even at the expense of public safety and common sense. I’m not taking a dime from the gun lobby, and I’ll fight to end their corrupt influence in Washington.
Yet the “firearms industry” is a misnomer, and we all know it. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the big bugaboo for Democrats, yet it represents the gun-owning public, not the firearm industry as a whole. It’s basically where a bunch of gun owners has banded together to have their voices heard in one voice.
Other groups that make up the same lobby are the same thing. It’s private Americans stepping up and defending their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
It’s where and how we oppose other things that Ossoff is running on, like universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and red flag laws.
That’s what Ossoff is calling corrupt. He’s calling you corrupt for standing together to oppose his radical, anti-American agenda.
I can’t imagine why my fairly apolitical wife could despise someone like that, can you? I mean, smug and elitist only touches the surface. He’s also going to destroy much of what makes this country great.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--PA Gov Will Veto Pro-2A Bills Limiting His Power In An Emergency

Rarely do politicians approve of measures that take away their own powers , so it ’ s not exactly a shock that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced that his office would veto a pair of bills that would take away his authority to ban the lawful sale and open carrying of firearms during a disaster declaration .
The bills , approved by the state Senate on Thursday on party-line votes , were introduced after Wolf originally shut down gun stores in the state back in the spring .
Declaring the businesses to be “ non-essential , ” Wolf reversed course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that included the firearms industry in its list of essential sectors of the economy , but Wolf still imposed restrictions on the number of customers that could be in a gun store at any given time , despite the fact that gun sales were already surging on increased demand by Americans concerned about lockdown-inspired unrest .
The bills are the latest to pass the Republican-controlled Legislature that sought to limit Wolf ’ s powers during the existing coronavirus disaster emergency and beyond .
Wolf has vetoed more than a half-dozen such bills .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are meant to help the administration fight the public health crises at hand and have no impact on citizens and their firearm rights , ” Wolf ’ s office said in a statement .
Wolf imposed a stay-at-home order and shuttered businesses deemed “ non-life-sustaining ” early in the pandemic .
However , Wolf and his health secretary have consistently said they have no intention of implementing another broad-based shutdown .
Intent or not , I think every resident in Pennsylvania is aware of the potential for another shutdown in the coming weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that take effect today that require visitors to the state to provide evidence of a negative COVID test that ’ s less than 72 hours old .
Anyone who can ’ t show a test result is supposed to quarantine for 14 days , though the governor hasn ’ t said how the new restrictions would be enforced .
We also know that Wolf is hostile to the Second Amendment rights of residents , even before he vetoed the legislation that would have ensured the right to acquire arms during an emergency could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the governor called for the passage of several new gun laws in his State of the State address , though the Republican-controlled legislature did not oblige Wolf ’ s demands .
While Wolf is pinning the blame for violent crime on legal gun owners , police in Philadelphia were told earlier this year to simply stop making arrests for a number of crimes , court systems have been mostly shuttered thanks to Wolf ’ s emergency orders , and clearance rates for homicides and non-fatal shootings have dropped below 50 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emergency powers legislation , he ’ s once again sending a sign ( intentional or not ) that he views legal gun owners as a bigger problem than violent criminals in cities like Philadelphia , Harrisburg , and Pittsburgh .
What ’ s more , he ’ s made it clear that our Second Amendment rights take a back seat to his embrace of power and authority , even when the state is failing in its mission to protect the safety of its citizens .

Rarely do politicians approve of measures that take away their own powers, so it’s not exactly a shock that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced that his office would veto a pair of bills that would take away his authority to ban the lawful sale and open carrying of firearms during a disaster declaration.
The bills, approved by the state Senate on Thursday on party-line votes, were introduced after Wolf originally shut down gun stores in the state back in the spring. Declaring the businesses to be “non-essential,” Wolf reversed course after the Trump administration released CISA guidance that included the firearms industry in its list of essential sectors of the economy, but Wolf still imposed restrictions on the number of customers that could be in a gun store at any given time, despite the fact that gun sales were already surging on increased demand by Americans concerned about lockdown-inspired unrest.
The bills are the latest to pass the Republican-controlled Legislature that sought to limit Wolf’s powers during the existing coronavirus disaster emergency and beyond. Wolf has vetoed more than a half-dozen such bills. “The current disaster declarations in place are meant to help the administration fight the public health crises at hand and have no impact on citizens and their firearm rights,” Wolf’s office said in a statement. Wolf imposed a stay-at-home order and shuttered businesses deemed “non-life-sustaining” early in the pandemic. However, Wolf and his health secretary have consistently said they have no intention of implementing another broad-based shutdown.
Intent or not, I think every resident in Pennsylvania is aware of the potential for another shutdown in the coming weeks. Wolf already announced new travel restrictions that take effect today that require visitors to the state to provide evidence of a negative COVID test that’s less than 72 hours old. Anyone who can’t show a test result is supposed to quarantine for 14 days, though the governor hasn’t said how the new restrictions would be enforced.
We also know that Wolf is hostile to the Second Amendment rights of residents, even before he vetoed the legislation that would have ensured the right to acquire arms during an emergency could not be infringed. Earlier this year, the governor called for the passage of several new gun laws in his State of the State address, though the Republican-controlled legislature did not oblige Wolf’s demands.
In his address, Wolf urged the legislature to pass stronger gun control laws, including comprehensive background checks for gun purchases, red flag laws (which allow for the removal of guns from a person who poses a risk to themselves or others), making it a requirement for owners to report a lost or stolen gun, and to ban ghost guns (partially built guns sold without a serial number). He also urged new gun-storage requirements to prevent accidental shootings, school shootings, and suicides.
While Wolf is pinning the blame for violent crime on legal gun owners, police in Philadelphia were told earlier this year to simply stop making arrests for a number of crimes, court systems have been mostly shuttered thanks to Wolf’s emergency orders, and clearance rates for homicides and non-fatal shootings have dropped below 50%.
With Wolf’s expected veto of the emergency powers legislation, he’s once again sending a sign (intentional or not) that he views legal gun owners as a bigger problem than violent criminals in cities like Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh. What’s more, he’s made it clear that our Second Amendment rights take a back seat to his embrace of power and authority, even when the state is failing in its mission to protect the safety of its citizens.


bearingarms--2020-11-20--No, Forbes, Biden WON'T Be Good For Gun Industry

President Barack Obama has been described as the greatest gun salesman in history .
It ’ s pretty accurate .
During his tenure in the White House , he represented a constant threat to our gun rights , even when he wasn ’ t saying a thing about them .
As a result , many flocked to gun stores to buy firearms while they still could .
When President Trump was elected , that fear disappeared and the firearm industry hit a bit of a slump .
Now , though , the press is salivating over the idea of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting kind of stupid about it .
Even a business publication like Forbes is being idiotic .
The great irony of Joseph Biden ’ s presidency is that he could be good for the gun industry .
President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris are already fueling gun sales with the gun control platform they ran on .
Americans are buying guns like never before .
Gun sales have surged since the Covid-19 pandemic swept through America in March .
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted 32.13 million background checks in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an annual record before the year is over .
While FBI background checks are not the same as sales , they serve as the closest nationwide proxy .
Gun sales are fueled by fear over the coronavirus pandemic , a flattened economy , the millions of unemployed workers and civil unrest stemming from volatile protests and police brutality .
Gun sales are also fueled by politics , and consumers are motivated by the fear of gun control .
Of course , the claim is that Biden will represent a threat and , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns even if COVID-19 and racial tensions vanish .
See , that line of “ thinking , ” if it can really be called that , only works if there is a perceived threat , not an actual one .
Obama sold tons of guns because buyers believed he represented a threat , but without a compliant Congress–something he didn ’ t have most of his presidency–there wasn ’ t an actual threat to gun rights .
Sure , Obama wanted to push gun control ; he just couldn ’ t .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of backing gun control , after all .
That was then , though .
This is now .
Now , we have Biden , who ran on gun control during the primary .
We ’ ve got Democrats in the House who have been chomping at the bit to pass gun control .
We have a Senate that will potentially be a 50-50 split with Kamala Harris as the tie-breaker .
All it would take is one or two vulnerable Republicans thinking they have to cross lines to keep their jobs and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big one .
And that is not good for the firearm industry .
See , while they might sell more guns in the short term , they ’ re going to see their most popular offerings banned .
No AR-15s ?
That ’ s going to hurt a whole lot of companies , and people are deluded if they think that those attracted to the AR platform will suddenly be satisfied with some other offerings available .
You don ’ t tell someone they can ’ t have the AR-15 they want , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s going to hurt the firearm industry as a whole .
It ’ s the equivalent of telling the oil industry they can no longer sell gasoline and expecting them to thrive over petroleum derivatives .
Yeah , sorry , not gon na buy that one .
You ’ d expect Forbes to understand that .

President Barack Obama has been described as the greatest gun salesman in history. It’s pretty accurate. During his tenure in the White House, he represented a constant threat to our gun rights, even when he wasn’t saying a thing about them. As a result, many flocked to gun stores to buy firearms while they still could.
When President Trump was elected, that fear disappeared and the firearm industry hit a bit of a slump.
Now, though, the press is salivating over the idea of President Joe Biden, and they’re getting kind of stupid about it. Even a business publication like Forbes is being idiotic.
The great irony of Joseph Biden’s presidency is that he could be good for the gun industry. President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris are already fueling gun sales with the gun control platform they ran on. Americans are buying guns like never before. Gun sales have surged since the Covid-19 pandemic swept through America in March. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted 32.13 million background checks in the first 10 months of the year, breaking an annual record before the year is over. While FBI background checks are not the same as sales, they serve as the closest nationwide proxy. Gun sales are fueled by fear over the coronavirus pandemic, a flattened economy, the millions of unemployed workers and civil unrest stemming from volatile protests and police brutality. Gun sales are also fueled by politics, and consumers are motivated by the fear of gun control.
Of course, the claim is that Biden will represent a threat and, as a result, people will buy more guns even if COVID-19 and racial tensions vanish.
See, that line of “thinking,” if it can really be called that, only works if there is a perceived threat, not an actual one. Obama sold tons of guns because buyers believed he represented a threat, but without a compliant Congress–something he didn’t have most of his presidency–there wasn’t an actual threat to gun rights.
Sure, Obama wanted to push gun control; he just couldn’t. Even most Democrats were concerned over the ramifications of backing gun control, after all.
That was then, though. This is now.
Now, we have Biden, who ran on gun control during the primary. We’ve got Democrats in the House who have been chomping at the bit to pass gun control. We have a Senate that will potentially be a 50-50 split with Kamala Harris as the tie-breaker. All it would take is one or two vulnerable Republicans thinking they have to cross lines to keep their jobs and we’ve got a problem. A big one.
And that is not good for the firearm industry.
See, while they might sell more guns in the short term, they’re going to see their most popular offerings banned. No AR-15s? That’s going to hurt a whole lot of companies, and people are deluded if they think that those attracted to the AR platform will suddenly be satisfied with some other offerings available. You don’t tell someone they can’t have the AR-15 they want, then sell them a bolt-action instead.
That’s going to hurt the firearm industry as a whole. It’s the equivalent of telling the oil industry they can no longer sell gasoline and expecting them to thrive over petroleum derivatives.
Yeah, sorry, not gonna buy that one. You’d expect Forbes to understand that.


bearingarms--2020-11-21--Undersheriff Indicted In CA Concealed Carry Bribery Scandal

A top official in the Santa Clara County Sheriff ’ s Office was indicted on Friday , becoming the fifth person to date to face criminal charges for allegedly participating in a pay-to-play scheme in which a number of individuals received their licenses to carry after first making sizeable donations to a committee set up to re-elect Sheriff Laurie Smith .
Undersheriff Rick Sung is Smith ’ s second-in-command in Santa Clara , and he now joins sheriff ’ s Capt .
James Jensen as the first two members of the department to face indictments in the probe .
Jensen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a new charge was added along with Sung ’ s charges by a grand jury empaneled to investigate the bribery accusations .
The specific charges are not yet known , but Santa Clara County D.A .
Jeff Rosen is promising to release more details at a press conference on Monday morning .
To date , three people have pleaded guilty to participating in an alleged scheme in which prosecutors accuse members of an executive protection firm of conspiring with two attorneys and a gun manufacturer to make campaign donations to an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry concealed weapons .
AS Solution CEO Christian West entered a plea a few months ago .
Two of his managers , Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren , followed suit in October .
The other defendants include attorneys Christopher Schumb and Harpaul Nahal and The Gun Co. owner Michael Nichols .
Sheriff Laurie Smith—who , like other top cops in California , has the authority to issue the gun permits—has not been charged with a crime .
When Smith testified before the grand jury , she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was posed to her .
So did Sung , with his attorney suggesting at the time that the sheriff and her second-in-command shouldn ’ t be considered suspects in the probe .
“ He asserted his rights based upon my advice , based upon my understanding of the case .
It was the wisest course for him to take , ” Chuck Smith said Friday .
He also defended Sung against being implicated by association with the case .
“ He was subpoenaed as a witness .
Not as a suspect , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Chuck Smith said .
“ Based upon that , I don ’ t believe he ’ s culpable of any wrongdoing.
” Well , clearly the prosecutor disagrees , and I ’ m very interested to learn the specifics of the charges against Sung come Monday .
In the meantime , Sheriff Smith is still clinging to office , despite the bribery scandal and calls for her to step down by many locals , including the editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News , which demanded Smith ’ s resignation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in agreement with the paper that it ’ s time for the sheriff to go , but that ’ s not the only change that ’ s needed .
Until California removes the broad discretion that sheriffs have in approving or denying carry licenses based on a “ justifiable need , ” the opportunity for graft and corruption is going to remain a temptation for corruptible cops .
By refusing to change the law , legislators in Sacramento aren ’ t just turning a blind eye to the growing bribery scandal in Santa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheriffs departments in other counties to engage in the same type of illicit activity at the expense of our trust in law enforcement and the lawful exercise of our constitutional rights .

A top official in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office was indicted on Friday, becoming the fifth person to date to face criminal charges for allegedly participating in a pay-to-play scheme in which a number of individuals received their licenses to carry after first making sizeable donations to a committee set up to re-elect Sheriff Laurie Smith.
Undersheriff Rick Sung is Smith’s second-in-command in Santa Clara, and he now joins sheriff’s Capt. James Jensen as the first two members of the department to face indictments in the probe. Jensen was first indicted several months ago, but a new charge was added along with Sung’s charges by a grand jury empaneled to investigate the bribery accusations.
The specific charges are not yet known, but Santa Clara County D.A. Jeff Rosen is promising to release more details at a press conference on Monday morning.
To date, three people have pleaded guilty to participating in an alleged scheme in which prosecutors accuse members of an executive protection firm of conspiring with two attorneys and a gun manufacturer to make campaign donations to an independent expenditure fund in exchange for permits to carry concealed weapons. AS Solution CEO Christian West entered a plea a few months ago. Two of his managers, Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren, followed suit in October. The other defendants include attorneys Christopher Schumb and Harpaul Nahal and The Gun Co. owner Michael Nichols. Sheriff Laurie Smith—who, like other top cops in California, has the authority to issue the gun permits—has not been charged with a crime.
When Smith testified before the grand jury, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to almost every question that was posed to her. So did Sung, with his attorney suggesting at the time that the sheriff and her second-in-command shouldn’t be considered suspects in the probe.
“He asserted his rights based upon my advice, based upon my understanding of the case. It was the wisest course for him to take,” Chuck Smith said Friday. He also defended Sung against being implicated by association with the case. “He was subpoenaed as a witness. Not as a suspect, not as a target of the grand jury,” Chuck Smith said. “Based upon that, I don’t believe he’s culpable of any wrongdoing.”
Well, clearly the prosecutor disagrees, and I’m very interested to learn the specifics of the charges against Sung come Monday.
In the meantime, Sheriff Smith is still clinging to office, despite the bribery scandal and calls for her to step down by many locals, including the editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News, which demanded Smith’s resignation back in September.
I’m in agreement with the paper that it’s time for the sheriff to go, but that’s not the only change that’s needed. Until California removes the broad discretion that sheriffs have in approving or denying carry licenses based on a “justifiable need,” the opportunity for graft and corruption is going to remain a temptation for corruptible cops. By refusing to change the law, legislators in Sacramento aren’t just turning a blind eye to the growing bribery scandal in Santa Clara County; they’re enabling sheriffs departments in other counties to engage in the same type of illicit activity at the expense of our trust in law enforcement and the lawful exercise of our constitutional rights.


bearingarms--2020-11-21--GA Democrats Want To Peer Pressure Teens To Vote

I remember being in school and being warned about the dangers of peer pressure .
After all , it was the “ Just Say No Era , ” and peer pressure was supposedly how your drug-abusing friends got you hooked on illicit substances .
It was an ongoing mantra to the point that “ peer pressure ” became something of a dirty word .
Now , it seems Georgia Democrats intend to harness it as a way to elect two vehement anti-gunners to the United States Senate .
One important voting bloc that can ’ t be reached so easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who need a little extra nudging to cast ballots .
Michael Giusto is doing some of that nudging .
Giusto recently turned 18 .
Just a couple weeks ago he was too young to vote in the presidential election .
But that didn ’ t stop him from co-founding Students for Tomorrow at his high school in the Atlanta suburbs .
Their pitch ?
Vote if you want to change things .
“ Students ’ positions on a lot of topics like climate change , gun control and equality in general have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giusto said .
Giusto said that to get out the vote , they ’ re relying on the most potent weapon in a teenagers ’ arsenal : peer pressure .
Giusto says he spends seven to eight hours a day sending out emails and talking on the phone .
He can ’ t do much texting because his mom says it would get too expensive .
Students for Tomorrow doesn ’ t have a budget .
You ’ re deluded if you think this is just going to be about getting people out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be about getting them to vote the “ right way ” as well .
Anyone who might vote for Perdue or Loeffler will likely be badgered and pressured to toe the line .
Maybe I ’ m just cynical and a little jaded , but considering all the stuff my 19-year-old son got trying to make sure he got out and voted ?
It was nothing more than an attempt to boost the votes for the Democrats while pretending to be non-partisan .
There ’ s an assumption that young people vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , but not always .
It ’ s possible that these youth-focused groups really don ’ t care about who you ’ re voting for and won ’ t ask , but that ’ s something they damn sure need to be explicit about .
We ’ ve spent four years being gaslighted and told we ’ re awful people if we don ’ t vote a certain way .
It ’ s ridiculous not to assume this would go into any youth voter mobilization efforts .
And that ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so problematic for me , especially since so few of these kids can articulate reasons to vote for Warnock or Ossoff that aren ’ t a repeat of their talking points .
So , expect them to resort to peer pressure to force the issue .
Again , maybe I ’ m too cynical and untrusting here , but I get a bad feeling about this kind of thing .
It feels skeevy and underhanded , even if there ’ s no law against it ( nor should there be , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have to see if it actually works out that way .

I remember being in school and being warned about the dangers of peer pressure. After all, it was the “Just Say No Era,” and peer pressure was supposedly how your drug-abusing friends got you hooked on illicit substances. It was an ongoing mantra to the point that “peer pressure” became something of a dirty word.
Now, it seems Georgia Democrats intend to harness it as a way to elect two vehement anti-gunners to the United States Senate.
One important voting bloc that can’t be reached so easily with pricey campaign ads? Teenagers, who need a little extra nudging to cast ballots. Michael Giusto is doing some of that nudging. Giusto recently turned 18. Just a couple weeks ago he was too young to vote in the presidential election. But that didn’t stop him from co-founding Students for Tomorrow at his high school in the Atlanta suburbs. Their pitch? Vote if you want to change things. “Students’ positions on a lot of topics like climate change, gun control and equality in general have been largely been ignored in government,” Giusto said. Giusto said that to get out the vote, they’re relying on the most potent weapon in a teenagers’ arsenal: peer pressure. Giusto says he spends seven to eight hours a day sending out emails and talking on the phone. He can’t do much texting because his mom says it would get too expensive. Students for Tomorrow doesn’t have a budget.
You’re deluded if you think this is just going to be about getting people out to vote. No, it’ll be about getting them to vote the “right way” as well. Anyone who might vote for Perdue or Loeffler will likely be badgered and pressured to toe the line.
Maybe I’m just cynical and a little jaded, but considering all the stuff my 19-year-old son got trying to make sure he got out and voted? It was nothing more than an attempt to boost the votes for the Democrats while pretending to be non-partisan. There’s an assumption that young people vote Democrat.
Of course, they generally do, but not always.
It’s possible that these youth-focused groups really don’t care about who you’re voting for and won’t ask, but that’s something they damn sure need to be explicit about.
We’ve spent four years being gaslighted and told we’re awful people if we don’t vote a certain way. It’s ridiculous not to assume this would go into any youth voter mobilization efforts.
And that’s why the term “peer pressure” is so problematic for me, especially since so few of these kids can articulate reasons to vote for Warnock or Ossoff that aren’t a repeat of their talking points. So, expect them to resort to peer pressure to force the issue.
Again, maybe I’m too cynical and untrusting here, but I get a bad feeling about this kind of thing. It feels skeevy and underhanded, even if there’s no law against it (nor should there be, to be honest).
I guess we’ll have to see if it actually works out that way.


bearingarms--2020-11-22--Anti-Gun Activists Bemoan End To Local Laws In Montana

When voters in the Big Sky state went to the polls on Election Day this year , not only did they have a chance to vote in pro-gun candidates for president , U.S .
Senator , governor , and state legislative offices , they were also presented with a ballot measure to bar localities from passing their own laws dealing with the lawful carrying of firearms .
The measure was almost identical to legislation that had been previously approved by the legislature , but was vetoed by Gov .
Steve Bullock .
Second Amendment activists pushing the referendum , known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control activists , but the gun vote turned out in force and the ballot measure was approved by 51 % of the state ’ s voters .
Now those same anti-gun activists and politicians who lobbied against the measure are slowly coming to terms with their loss , and as a Second Amendment supporter their glum is glorious to see .
For Missoula City Council President Bryan von Lossberg , however , the passage of LR-130 enacts “ the most extreme advancement of concealed carry rights that the state has ever seen.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 Missoula city ordinance that expanded background checks on local gun sales .
That ordinance inflamed gun rights advocates , sparking a legal battle that ended with the Montana Supreme Court striking down the law .
LR-130 now renders moot another Missoula city ordinance , passed in 2018 , prohibiting the carrying of firearms at polling locations and in developed city parks .
Von Lossberg notes that particular law was in part a codification of long-practiced prohibitions made at the behest of the Missoula County attorney ’ s office , and in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at polling stations located in non-publicly owned buildings .
The vote on that ordinance was accompanied by considerable debate and compromise , he said .
“ We had what was a very thoughtful , deliberative legislative discussion around the difference between developed parks that have like playground equipment and stuff … versus an open space area ” owned by the city , von Lossberg said .
“ In my mind , the vast majority of the community gets that.
” In his mind , none of Missoula ’ s local gun control laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Supreme Court ruled otherwise .
As for his “ thoughtful , deliberative ” discussion about banning guns in developed city parks , where ’ s the logic behind that decision ?
You can exercise your right to armed self-defense , but only in open spaces and not in a park with a playground ?
Silly ordinances like that are one of the primary reasons why voters approved the ban on local gun ordinances in the first place .
Support for LR-130 was geographically widespread in Montana , according to election results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office .
The measure passed by wide margins in many rural counties , as well as in Flathead , Cascade and Yellowstone counties .
The rural results did contain one exception : Fallon County voted down LR-130 by 37 votes .
In the end , only seven counties voted against LR-130 including Missoula , Gallatin and Lewis and Clark .
Von Lossberg has a hard time containing his frustration over the way LR-130 played out .
He believes his Missoula constituents are less safe today than they were before Nov. 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the historical grain of local government control in Montana .
“ The hypocrisy of ranting that the government closest to the people is the best government , blah blah blah , and then the misrepresentations of what we had actually done and implemented , it ’ s just — oh , I ’ ve got to be careful — that kind of legislative policymaking is not in the interests of the safety of my constituents , ” von Lossberg said .
It ’ s pretty simple .
You can believe that the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most likely to best represent them , but that doesn ’ t mean that local governments are incapable of violating the rights of their residents .
No governmental entity has the authority to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens .
Not the federal government , not your state lawmakers , and not your city council members , even if they swear they have the interests of the safety of their constituents in mind .
The butthurt of the gun-banners is likely to continue in the new year in Montana .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected a pro-2A Republican as the state ’ s next governor , and Greg Gianforte has already announced that he ’ ll sign a constitutional carry bill if it ’ s sent to his desk next session .
The state legislature has already approved the measure before , but outgoing governor Steve Bullock also vetoed that bill .
Without Bullock serving as a roadblock the Second Amendment rights of Montanans should soon be stronger than ever , and thanks to the vote of gun owners in the state , activist politicians like Bryan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringe on those rights through local ordinances .

When voters in the Big Sky state went to the polls on Election Day this year, not only did they have a chance to vote in pro-gun candidates for president, U.S. Senator, governor, and state legislative offices, they were also presented with a ballot measure to bar localities from passing their own laws dealing with the lawful carrying of firearms.
The measure was almost identical to legislation that had been previously approved by the legislature, but was vetoed by Gov. Steve Bullock. Second Amendment activists pushing the referendum, known as LR-130, were outspent by gun control activists, but the gun vote turned out in force and the ballot measure was approved by 51% of the state’s voters.
Now those same anti-gun activists and politicians who lobbied against the measure are slowly coming to terms with their loss, and as a Second Amendment supporter their glum is glorious to see.
For Missoula City Council President Bryan von Lossberg, however, the passage of LR-130 enacts “the most extreme advancement of concealed carry rights that the state has ever seen.” Von Lossberg was the sponsor of a 2016 Missoula city ordinance that expanded background checks on local gun sales. That ordinance inflamed gun rights advocates, sparking a legal battle that ended with the Montana Supreme Court striking down the law. LR-130 now renders moot another Missoula city ordinance, passed in 2018, prohibiting the carrying of firearms at polling locations and in developed city parks. Von Lossberg notes that particular law was in part a codification of long-practiced prohibitions made at the behest of the Missoula County attorney’s office, and in part a response to incidents of intimidation reported at polling stations located in non-publicly owned buildings. The vote on that ordinance was accompanied by considerable debate and compromise, he said. “We had what was a very thoughtful, deliberative legislative discussion around the difference between developed parks that have like playground equipment and stuff … versus an open space area” owned by the city, von Lossberg said. “In my mind, the vast majority of the community gets that.”
In his mind, none of Missoula’s local gun control laws were problematic, even though the state’s Supreme Court ruled otherwise. As for his “thoughtful, deliberative” discussion about banning guns in developed city parks, where’s the logic behind that decision? You can exercise your right to armed self-defense, but only in open spaces and not in a park with a playground? Silly ordinances like that are one of the primary reasons why voters approved the ban on local gun ordinances in the first place.
Support for LR-130 was geographically widespread in Montana, according to election results recorded by the Secretary of State’s office. The measure passed by wide margins in many rural counties, as well as in Flathead, Cascade and Yellowstone counties. The rural results did contain one exception: Fallon County voted down LR-130 by 37 votes. In the end, only seven counties voted against LR-130 including Missoula, Gallatin and Lewis and Clark. Von Lossberg has a hard time containing his frustration over the way LR-130 played out. He believes his Missoula constituents are less safe today than they were before Nov. 3, and argues that the referendum cuts against the historical grain of local government control in Montana. “The hypocrisy of ranting that the government closest to the people is the best government, blah blah blah, and then the misrepresentations of what we had actually done and implemented, it’s just — oh, I’ve got to be careful — that kind of legislative policymaking is not in the interests of the safety of my constituents,” von Lossberg said.
It’s pretty simple. You can believe that the government that’s closest to the people is the most likely to best represent them, but that doesn’t mean that local governments are incapable of violating the rights of their residents. No governmental entity has the authority to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens. Not the federal government, not your state lawmakers, and not your city council members, even if they swear they have the interests of the safety of their constituents in mind.
The butthurt of the gun-banners is likely to continue in the new year in Montana. The same voters that approved LR-130 also elected a pro-2A Republican as the state’s next governor, and Greg Gianforte has already announced that he’ll sign a constitutional carry bill if it’s sent to his desk next session. The state legislature has already approved the measure before, but outgoing governor Steve Bullock also vetoed that bill. Without Bullock serving as a roadblock the Second Amendment rights of Montanans should soon be stronger than ever, and thanks to the vote of gun owners in the state, activist politicians like Bryan von Lossberg can no longer try to infringe on those rights through local ordinances.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Media Warns Of "Battle" Over Gun Control In Texas

The state of Texas was going to be another Virginia .
Anti-gunners were convinced they could flip the state blue just like they had in the Old Dominion State .
They were convinced they could throw enough money to turn the state into a Democratic stronghold .
However , it ’ s baffling how some in the media seem convinced that the gambit won .
After all , anti-gunners have filed an unprecedented number of gun control bills despite having their posteriors handed to them in the election .
Now , a media outlet has a story about those bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislative ) Gun Battle in Texas Next Year.
” If by battle , they mean , “ Three cub scouts with rocks taking on the 75th Ranger Regiment , ” then sure , it ’ ll be a battle .
The National Rifle Association has called the pre-filings for legislation in the Texas Congress next year a “ record amount of gun control.
” There are also a slew of bills aiming to increase gun rights in the state .
On the control side , there are at least sixteen gun control bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them incredibly minor in scope and sensible in conception .
Both Rep. Diego Bernal ( D-San Antonio ) and Ron Reynolds ( D-Missouri City ) have filed congruent bills looking to close the “ gun show loophole.
” HBs 52 and 245 would make it a criminal act to sell firearms at gun shows without complying with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System .
This is a very uncontroversial proposal that is supported by 96 percent of Americans nationwide .
Of course , that ’ s because most of those Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually think dealers at gun shows don ’ t have to do perform background checks .
They do , though .
Instead , this law would target the individuals who simply try to sell a few of their personally-owned firearms at a gun show rather than trying to use other potential avenues .
That ’ s it .
Then again , they ’ ve got bills trying to change that , too .
It should be noted that while polling suggests broad support for this kind of thing , it keeps being voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot .
Maybe that ’ s because people support the idea of it , but when they get down into the nuts and bolts of it , they realize that it inhibits people from giving gifts , making loans of firearms to another , and a whole host of other things .
Eventually , though , the report does seem to acknowledge that just because they ’ re filed doesn ’ t mean they ’ ll become law .
How much traction any of these bills will get in the January session as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rage is anyone ’ s guess .
However , as the 2022 election cycle slowly starts to get moving , it ’ s likely that these bills will become rallying cries for bases on both sides of the gun debate .
Whether they become law or not , they have already become fodder for propaganda rhetoric .
Only , it ’ s not anyone ’ s guess .
The anti-gunners got the proverbial mudhole stomped in their butts in Texas , in part because of the anti-gun rhetoric and push by anti-gunners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , and aren ’ t likely to take too kindly to folks in the cities trying to take them away .
A lot of bills got filed , but this isn ’ t a fight .
It ’ s set up to become a political massacre .

The state of Texas was going to be another Virginia. Anti-gunners were convinced they could flip the state blue just like they had in the Old Dominion State. They were convinced they could throw enough money to turn the state into a Democratic stronghold.
Well…that failed miserably.
However, it’s baffling how some in the media seem convinced that the gambit won. After all, anti-gunners have filed an unprecedented number of gun control bills despite having their posteriors handed to them in the election.
Now, a media outlet has a story about those bills headlined, “Prepare for a (Legislative) Gun Battle in Texas Next Year.”
If by battle, they mean, “Three cub scouts with rocks taking on the 75th Ranger Regiment,” then sure, it’ll be a battle.
The National Rifle Association has called the pre-filings for legislation in the Texas Congress next year a “record amount of gun control.” There are also a slew of bills aiming to increase gun rights in the state. On the control side, there are at least sixteen gun control bills that have already been filed, most of them incredibly minor in scope and sensible in conception. Both Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) and Ron Reynolds (D-Missouri City) have filed congruent bills looking to close the “gun show loophole.” HBs 52 and 245 would make it a criminal act to sell firearms at gun shows without complying with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is a very uncontroversial proposal that is supported by 96 percent of Americans nationwide.
Of course, that’s because most of those Americans have been lied to for years and actually think dealers at gun shows don’t have to do perform background checks. They do, though.
Instead, this law would target the individuals who simply try to sell a few of their personally-owned firearms at a gun show rather than trying to use other potential avenues. That’s it.
Then again, they’ve got bills trying to change that, too.
Rep. Lina Ortega’s (D-El Paso) HB 118 would ban all private gun transfers unless they were from close family members. This is a sore spot in Texas as [Scumbag’s name redacted] used a private sale to evade a background check that would have prevented him owning the guns he used to kill and wound 29 people in Odessa and Midland in 2019.
It should be noted that while polling suggests broad support for this kind of thing, it keeps being voted down when it shows up on the ballot. Maybe that’s because people support the idea of it, but when they get down into the nuts and bolts of it, they realize that it inhibits people from giving gifts, making loans of firearms to another, and a whole host of other things.
Eventually, though, the report does seem to acknowledge that just because they’re filed doesn’t mean they’ll become law.
How much traction any of these bills will get in the January session as the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis continue to rage is anyone’s guess. However, as the 2022 election cycle slowly starts to get moving, it’s likely that these bills will become rallying cries for bases on both sides of the gun debate. Whether they become law or not, they have already become fodder for propaganda rhetoric.
Only, it’s not anyone’s guess. The anti-gunners got the proverbial mudhole stomped in their butts in Texas, in part because of the anti-gun rhetoric and push by anti-gunners. Texans love their guns, after all, and aren’t likely to take too kindly to folks in the cities trying to take them away.
A lot of bills got filed, but this isn’t a fight. It’s set up to become a political massacre.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--49 Firearms Stolen From Michigan Gun Store

The black market for guns is fueled not by lawfully purchased firearms , but by stolen guns .
While a few may be purchased lawfully with the intention of them being sold to criminals , the truth is that most are stolen from either private citizens or gun stores .
Gun thieves love hitting gun stores simply because they can get a lot more guns for the same amount of time .
Snagging some dude ’ s Glock is fine , but it ’ s even better when you can snag dozens of handguns .
In Michigan , authorities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent theft there where the crooks stole 49 firearms .
The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are offering a $ 5,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible for a northern Michigan gun store .
According to authorities , the burglary happened at about 4:15 a.m. , Nov. 21 at Full Bore Firearms , located on Crittenden Court in Alpena .
Police said two unknown people threw a brick through the front glass window of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation is being conducted by the Michigan State Police , the ATF , and the Alpena County Sheriff ’ s Office .
Anyone with any information is asked to contact the ATF at 1-888-ATF-TIPS ( 888-283-8477 ) .
However , I ’ m just flabbergasted .
I mean , it ’ s bad enough that they stole several dozen firearms–the report doesn ’ t give us the makeup of the guns stolen–but there ’ s nothing in the report to suggest these criminals went through their background check or filled out the Form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals , but couldn ’ t they at least be law-abiding criminals ?
I mean , just because you break the law for a living doesn ’ t mean you should , you know , break the law !
Obviously , these are insane positions to maintain , but it ’ s not all that different than what a certain mayor had to say .
More seriously , though , people who steal guns are particularly problematic because they ’ re rarely selling them to otherwise law-abiding customers .
No , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use them to commit crimes .
They ’ re fueling the very thing that is used to justify taking our gun rights away .
That ’ s right .
These people steal guns , sell them to criminals who think shoot and rob people , thus handing anti-gunners the best tool they have to justify gun control possible .
Of course , the anti-gunners never bother to acknowledge that this is the real problem .
If they did , they ’ d quickly find out that people don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem is criminals who are going to keep doing this stuff regardless .
That ’ s just not something the anti-gun industry can handle .
Not when their entire livelihoods are predicated on guns being the problem , not criminals .
Still , if you have any information on this robbery , please notify the ATF .
You might make a little money and get guns out of the hands of the criminals and , hopefully , back to the gun stores .
Now , with that said , I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised the crooks could find a gun store with 49 firearms available to steal .

The black market for guns is fueled not by lawfully purchased firearms, but by stolen guns. While a few may be purchased lawfully with the intention of them being sold to criminals, the truth is that most are stolen from either private citizens or gun stores.
Gun thieves love hitting gun stores simply because they can get a lot more guns for the same amount of time. Snagging some dude’s Glock is fine, but it’s even better when you can snag dozens of handguns.
In Michigan, authorities are offering a reward for information on a recent theft there where the crooks stole 49 firearms.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are offering a $5,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible for a northern Michigan gun store. According to authorities, the burglary happened at about 4:15 a.m., Nov. 21 at Full Bore Firearms, located on Crittenden Court in Alpena. Police said two unknown people threw a brick through the front glass window of the building and stole 49 firearms.
The investigation is being conducted by the Michigan State Police, the ATF, and the Alpena County Sheriff’s Office. Anyone with any information is asked to contact the ATF at 1-888-ATF-TIPS (888-283-8477).
However, I’m just flabbergasted. I mean, it’s bad enough that they stole several dozen firearms–the report doesn’t give us the makeup of the guns stolen–but there’s nothing in the report to suggest these criminals went through their background check or filled out the Form 4473. I mean, these are criminals, but couldn’t they at least be law-abiding criminals?
I mean, just because you break the law for a living doesn’t mean you should, you know, break the law!
Obviously, these are insane positions to maintain, but it’s not all that different than what a certain mayor had to say.
More seriously, though, people who steal guns are particularly problematic because they’re rarely selling them to otherwise law-abiding customers. No, they’re selling them to people who want to use them to commit crimes. They’re fueling the very thing that is used to justify taking our gun rights away.
That’s right. These people steal guns, sell them to criminals who think shoot and rob people, thus handing anti-gunners the best tool they have to justify gun control possible.
Of course, the anti-gunners never bother to acknowledge that this is the real problem. If they did, they’d quickly find out that people don’t want to restrict the actions of the law-abiding when the problem is criminals who are going to keep doing this stuff regardless.
That’s just not something the anti-gun industry can handle. Not when their entire livelihoods are predicated on guns being the problem, not criminals.
Still, if you have any information on this robbery, please notify the ATF. You might make a little money and get guns out of the hands of the criminals and, hopefully, back to the gun stores.
Now, with that said, I have to admit that I’m a little surprised the crooks could find a gun store with 49 firearms available to steal.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--DA: Sheriff's Officials Wanted Luxury Box Access, iPads For Carry Licenses

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen on Monday announced several additional charges in his investigation into a pay-to-play scheme involving concealed carry licenses issued by the Santa Clara County Sheriff ’ s Office , including the head of Apple ’ s security team and two top officials within the sheriff ’ s office itself .
According to Rosen , Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung and Captain James Jensen sat on a number of concealed carry permit applications from Apple until the company ’ s chief security officer , Thomas Moyer , secured a sizeable “ gift ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sheriff Laurie Smith—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons ( CCW ) permits for Apple ’ s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $ 75,000 to the Sheriff ’ s Office .
Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple .
“ The donation was pulled back at the 11th hour when our search warrants into this probe began ” in August 2019 , Rosen said Monday .
In another incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a promise from [ local businessman Harpreet ] Chadha for $ 6,000 worth of luxury box suites at a San Jose Sharks game on Valentine ’ s Day , 2019 , before issuing Chadha a hidden gun permit .
“ Sheriff Laurie Smith ’ s family members and some of her biggest supporters held a celebration of her reelection as sheriff in Chadha ’ s suite , ” Rosen said .
In a written statement , Rosen said Sung and Jensen “ treated CCW licenses as commodities and found willing buyers.
” So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicted by the grand jury , though she was called in to testify this summer and ended up invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to almost every question .
Speaking to reporters on Monday , Rosen made it clear that his investigation isn ’ t over , and more indictments could be coming soon .
The DA ’ s continued announcements about the CCW investigation in recent months have suggested that corruption and bribery in the issuing of weapons permits was entrenched in the sheriff ’ s office ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 .
“ Call this quid pro quo , call it pay to play , call it give to get—it is illegal , ” Rosen told reporters from behind his West Wing office .
“ It is illegal and it deeply erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system .
When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme , it tarnishes the badge , the honor , the reputations , and , tragically , the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies.
” The investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s security team .
Earlier this year , officials associated with AS Solution—a company that contract with Facebook to provide executive protection—have pleaded guilty in connection to the case .
Namely , ex-AS Solution CEO Christian West and two of his former managers , Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren .
There ’ s a very simple way to get rid of the corruption in Santa Clara and other California counties when it comes to the issuance of concealed carry licenses : quit giving sheriffs broad leeway to approve or deny permits based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That discretion not only empowers abuse in terms of restricting the right to carry by law-abiding citizens , but it fuels the type of graft and corruption that allegedly took place in Santa Clara County .
Moving the state to a “ shall issue ” standard for concealed carry licenses would remove the opportunity for corrupt officials to demand cash or prizes in exchange for a permit to carry , but it would also lead to hundreds of thousands more Californians exercising their Second Amendment rights , and that ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacramento .
They ’ d rather keep a broken system in place that enables bribery because it also deprives the average resident in population centers like Los Angeles , San Francisco , San Diego , and San Jose from being able to exercise their right to carry .
Since lawmakers won ’ t step in , it ’ ll likely be up to the courts to restore some semblance of sanity to the state ’ s carry laws .
Thankfully , there are a number of challenges underway , including a right-to-carry case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact on California ’ s laws as well .
That case , known as Young v. Hawaii , is currently awaiting a decision by an en banc panel of Ninth Circuit judges , and once the opinion has been released , the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court ( though with the current makeup of SCOTUS justices , the state of Hawaii might be reluctant to take the case any further if their ban on open carry without a license is ruled unconstitutional ) .

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen on Monday announced several additional charges in his investigation into a pay-to-play scheme involving concealed carry licenses issued by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, including the head of Apple’s security team and two top officials within the sheriff’s office itself.
According to Rosen, Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung and Captain James Jensen sat on a number of concealed carry permit applications from Apple until the company’s chief security officer, Thomas Moyer, secured a sizeable “gift” to the department.
Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office. Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple. “The donation was pulled back at the 11th hour when our search warrants into this probe began” in August 2019, Rosen said Monday. In another incident, prosecutors say Sung “extracted” a promise from [local businessman Harpreet] Chadha for $6,000 worth of luxury box suites at a San Jose Sharks game on Valentine’s Day, 2019, before issuing Chadha a hidden gun permit. “Sheriff Laurie Smith’s family members and some of her biggest supporters held a celebration of her reelection as sheriff in Chadha’s suite,” Rosen said. In a written statement, Rosen said Sung and Jensen “treated CCW licenses as commodities and found willing buyers.”
So far Sheriff Laurie Smith has not been indicted by the grand jury, though she was called in to testify this summer and ended up invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to almost every question. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Rosen made it clear that his investigation isn’t over, and more indictments could be coming soon.
The DA’s continued announcements about the CCW investigation in recent months have suggested that corruption and bribery in the issuing of weapons permits was entrenched in the sheriff’s office’s highest ranks as Smith was seeking re-election in 2018. “Call this quid pro quo, call it pay to play, call it give to get—it is illegal,” Rosen told reporters from behind his West Wing office. “It is illegal and it deeply erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system. When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme, it tarnishes the badge, the honor, the reputations, and, tragically, the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies.” The investigation has already led Rosen to Facebook’s security team. Earlier this year, officials associated with AS Solution—a company that contract with Facebook to provide executive protection—have pleaded guilty in connection to the case. Namely, ex-AS Solution CEO Christian West and two of his former managers, Martin Nielsen and Jack Stromgren.
There’s a very simple way to get rid of the corruption in Santa Clara and other California counties when it comes to the issuance of concealed carry licenses: quit giving sheriffs broad leeway to approve or deny permits based on a “justifiable need” to carry. That discretion not only empowers abuse in terms of restricting the right to carry by law-abiding citizens, but it fuels the type of graft and corruption that allegedly took place in Santa Clara County.
Moving the state to a “shall issue” standard for concealed carry licenses would remove the opportunity for corrupt officials to demand cash or prizes in exchange for a permit to carry, but it would also lead to hundreds of thousands more Californians exercising their Second Amendment rights, and that’s a bridge too far for anti-gun lawmakers in Sacramento. They’d rather keep a broken system in place that enables bribery because it also deprives the average resident in population centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose from being able to exercise their right to carry.
Since lawmakers won’t step in, it’ll likely be up to the courts to restore some semblance of sanity to the state’s carry laws. Thankfully, there are a number of challenges underway, including a right-to-carry case out of Hawaii that will have an impact on California’s laws as well. That case, known as Young v. Hawaii, is currently awaiting a decision by an en banc panel of Ninth Circuit judges, and once the opinion has been released, the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court (though with the current makeup of SCOTUS justices, the state of Hawaii might be reluctant to take the case any further if their ban on open carry without a license is ruled unconstitutional).


bearingarms--2020-11-23--How Many Members Of Congress Are Armed On The Job?

Concealed carry in the District of Columbia is a fairly new phenomenon ; it wasn ’ t until 2017 that the District actually established a process by which folks could obtain a carry license , and “ shall issue ” concealed carry didn ’ t exist in our nation ’ s capitol until 2018 , when the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the District ’ s “ good cause ” requirement .
However , since 1967 members of Congress have been authorized to carry on the Capitol grounds and buildings ( though not in the legislative chambers themselves ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention this week after an incoming freshman representative allegedly made inquiries about bringing her gun to work .
Republican Lauren Boebert , 33 , was elected this month from a conservative western Colorado district after gaining notice as a brash pro-gun activist who straps a Glock pistol to her hip .
In an upset last June , she defeated five-term Rep. Scott Tipton for the GOP nomination , in part by claiming he wasn ’ t an ardent enough backer of President Donald Trump .
Boebert asked Capitol Police officials about carrying her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking office in January were in town recently for orientation programs , according to two congressional officials .
Both people — a Democrat and a Republican — spoke on condition of anonymity to describe her request .
Aides to Boebert , who Trump endorsed as “ a fighter ” who will “ never bow down to the establishment in Congress , ” did not make her available for an interview .
“ This was a private discussion and inquiry about what the rules are , and as a result the Congresswoman-Elect won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Boebert aide Laura Carno said in an email last week .
Boebert wouldn ’ t be the first member of Congress to carry at the Capitol , though just how common the practice is remains unknown .
In fact , under the rules established by the Capitol Police Board back in the late 1960s , members of Congress don ’ t need to notify the agency that they ’ re carrying , so there ’ s no real way of determining just how many congresscritters are strapped while on the job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t happy about the fact that their colleagues may be exercising their Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill .
Back in 2018 , Rep. Jared Huffman , a California Democrat , tried to change the rules and bar colleagues from carrying , but met with stiff opposition .
Huffman told the Associated Press that he has no plans to try to revisit the issue this year , though he still objects to the practice .
Huffman said the loophole for lawmakers , adopted after a summer of racial unrest in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said members and their staffs carry firearms around the Capitol “ all the time , ” though he mentioned no names .
He said lawmakers keep guns in their publicly accessible offices , though building entry has been limited due to COVID-19 .
“ Members could have a loaded AK47 sitting on their desk and no one would ever do anything about it , ” Huffman said .
He also said with lawmakers exempted from passing through screening devices throughout the Capitol campus , “ no one checks ” to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House floor .
If members of Congress are carrying around the Capitol on a regular basis without incident , why is Huffman so hot and bothered by the practice ?
Maybe it ’ s because Huffman ’ s a vociferous gun-hater who thinks U.S. gun laws should look a lot more like California ’ s , as he urged last year .
I ’ m not bothered by the fact that members of Congress can carry on the Capitol grounds .
What bothers me is the double standard ; elected officials can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hip , but the average Hill staffer , office worker , maintenance crew member , or even cafeteria employee face arrest for bringing their gun to work , even if they ’ re licensed to carry .
Frankly , many of those working within the confines of the Capitol have a greater need for self-defense compared to members of Congress .
The average hourly employee doesn ’ t live in a penthouse apartment at the Watergate , after all , and may have to navigate some pretty rough neighborhoods in order to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal ban on firearms at the U.S. Capitol , those employees aren ’ t just defenseless on the job but are required to be disarmed on their way to and from their workplace as well .
If any member of Congress wants to carry a firearm to protect themselves and others from harm , that ’ s fine by me .
I ’ d just like to hear at least one of them push to extend the right to carry to all legal gun owners on Capitol Hill , and not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington to represent their constituents .

Concealed carry in the District of Columbia is a fairly new phenomenon; it wasn’t until 2017 that the District actually established a process by which folks could obtain a carry license, and “shall issue” concealed carry didn’t exist in our nation’s capitol until 2018, when the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the District’s “good cause” requirement.
However, since 1967 members of Congress have been authorized to carry on the Capitol grounds and buildings (though not in the legislative chambers themselves). This little-known loophole is getting some attention this week after an incoming freshman representative allegedly made inquiries about bringing her gun to work.
Republican Lauren Boebert, 33, was elected this month from a conservative western Colorado district after gaining notice as a brash pro-gun activist who straps a Glock pistol to her hip. In an upset last June, she defeated five-term Rep. Scott Tipton for the GOP nomination, in part by claiming he wasn’t an ardent enough backer of President Donald Trump. Boebert asked Capitol Police officials about carrying her weapon when she and other House freshmen taking office in January were in town recently for orientation programs, according to two congressional officials. Both people — a Democrat and a Republican — spoke on condition of anonymity to describe her request. Aides to Boebert, who Trump endorsed as “a fighter” who will “never bow down to the establishment in Congress,” did not make her available for an interview. “This was a private discussion and inquiry about what the rules are, and as a result the Congresswoman-Elect won’t be going on the record,” Boebert aide Laura Carno said in an email last week.
Boebert wouldn’t be the first member of Congress to carry at the Capitol, though just how common the practice is remains unknown. In fact, under the rules established by the Capitol Police Board back in the late 1960s, members of Congress don’t need to notify the agency that they’re carrying, so there’s no real way of determining just how many congresscritters are strapped while on the job.
As you can imagine, anti-gun politicians aren’t happy about the fact that their colleagues may be exercising their Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill. Back in 2018, Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat, tried to change the rules and bar colleagues from carrying, but met with stiff opposition. Huffman told the Associated Press that he has no plans to try to revisit the issue this year, though he still objects to the practice.
Huffman said the loophole for lawmakers, adopted after a summer of racial unrest in American cities, is outdated and risky. He said members and their staffs carry firearms around the Capitol “all the time,” though he mentioned no names. He said lawmakers keep guns in their publicly accessible offices, though building entry has been limited due to COVID-19. “Members could have a loaded AK47 sitting on their desk and no one would ever do anything about it,” Huffman said. He also said with lawmakers exempted from passing through screening devices throughout the Capitol campus, “no one checks” to make sure they’re not bringing guns onto the House floor.
If members of Congress are carrying around the Capitol on a regular basis without incident, why is Huffman so hot and bothered by the practice? Maybe it’s because Huffman’s a vociferous gun-hater who thinks U.S. gun laws should look a lot more like California’s, as he urged last year.
I’m not bothered by the fact that members of Congress can carry on the Capitol grounds. What bothers me is the double standard; elected officials can walk around with a pistol on their hip, but the average Hill staffer, office worker, maintenance crew member, or even cafeteria employee face arrest for bringing their gun to work, even if they’re licensed to carry.
Frankly, many of those working within the confines of the Capitol have a greater need for self-defense compared to members of Congress. The average hourly employee doesn’t live in a penthouse apartment at the Watergate, after all, and may have to navigate some pretty rough neighborhoods in order to get to and from work. Because of the federal ban on firearms at the U.S. Capitol, those employees aren’t just defenseless on the job but are required to be disarmed on their way to and from their workplace as well.
If any member of Congress wants to carry a firearm to protect themselves and others from harm, that’s fine by me. I’d just like to hear at least one of them push to extend the right to carry to all legal gun owners on Capitol Hill, and not just the ones who’ve been sent to Washington to represent their constituents.


bearingarms--2020-11-23--Shooting Looters Isn't Fascism, But Looting And Rioting Is

We ’ ve spent a lot of time this year talking about riots and looting .
Like no time in my life , we ’ re seeing more looting , rioting , and all-around idiocy in our cities .
It ’ s not even one city that ’ s experiencing the totality of this insanity , either .
Many are trying to find solutions , and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis hit on an idea .
He wants to expand the Stand Your Ground law so that it will cover those who use lethal force to stop looting .
For at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fascist.
” But most telling of all is DeSantis ’ call for an expansion of the troublesome and controversial Stand Your Ground Law to allow business owners to shoot looters or anyone involved in “ criminal mischief.
” He calls it “ anti-mob ” legislation , but it ’ s an endorsement of vigilantes and of murder for a minor criminal offense .
It ’ s as if Florida , which let George Zimmerman get away with murdering a Black teen , didn ’ t already have enough vigilantes and wannabe vigilantes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likes because the ones we often hear about are Trump supporters .
In DeSantis World , they , instead of their victims , need to be protected .
What ’ s next ?
Banning the books Republicans aren ’ t fond of , sending writers to the slammer .
No , it ’ s not preposterous .
The GOP already campaigns fiercely to oust newspaper writers from their jobs .
Throughout the column , the writer , Fabiola Santiago , argues that DeSantis is being a fascist .
However , who is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people the power to defend their property , or the people who think it ’ s fine to destroy property because they ’ re a bit miffed ?
Looting isn ’ t a “ minor criminal offense , ” it ’ s part of a larger pattern that destroys livelihoods overnight and Santiago ’ s decision to try and play it off like that shows just how little she thinks of the lives destroyed by looters .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong .
I ’ m not sure I agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone for stealing is generally something we tell people is going too far , yet that ’ s what looting is .
It ’ s theft .
On the other hand , looting is , as noted previously , something that destroyed people ’ s lives .
But that ’ s a discussion we can have , provided we can avoid the insanity of those who still believe George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin despite the evidence clearly showing that Martin was trying to cave Zimmerman ’ s head in by bashing it against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be bothered to look beyond the approved narrative , so of course , everything is fascist .
While DeSantis ’ proposal may or may not be wrong , it ’ s not fascist in any way .
Santiago can decry the lack of unity she sees in this country , but never forget the role of people like her in that disunity .
There ’ s absolutely no reason to even bother trying to reach across the aisle when the other side is convinced you ’ re pure , unadulterated evil .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe she should look to those who would destroy entire neighborhoods in a pique of petulant rage because they didn ’ t get their way on something .
Again .

We’ve spent a lot of time this year talking about riots and looting. Like no time in my life, we’re seeing more looting, rioting, and all-around idiocy in our cities. It’s not even one city that’s experiencing the totality of this insanity, either.
Many are trying to find solutions, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis hit on an idea. He wants to expand the Stand Your Ground law so that it will cover those who use lethal force to stop looting.
For at least one columnist, that’s “fascist.”
But most telling of all is DeSantis’ call for an expansion of the troublesome and controversial Stand Your Ground Law to allow business owners to shoot looters or anyone involved in “criminal mischief.” He calls it “anti-mob” legislation, but it’s an endorsement of vigilantes and of murder for a minor criminal offense. It’s as if Florida, which let George Zimmerman get away with murdering a Black teen, didn’t already have enough vigilantes and wannabe vigilantes. But these are criminals the GOP likes because the ones we often hear about are Trump supporters. In DeSantis World, they, instead of their victims, need to be protected. What’s next? Banning the books Republicans aren’t fond of, sending writers to the slammer. No, it’s not preposterous. The GOP already campaigns fiercely to oust newspaper writers from their jobs.
Throughout the column, the writer, Fabiola Santiago, argues that DeSantis is being a fascist.
However, who is the bigger fascist, the man who gives people the power to defend their property, or the people who think it’s fine to destroy property because they’re a bit miffed?
Looting isn’t a “minor criminal offense,” it’s part of a larger pattern that destroys livelihoods overnight and Santiago’s decision to try and play it off like that shows just how little she thinks of the lives destroyed by looters.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not sure I agree with DeSantis on this one. Shooting someone for stealing is generally something we tell people is going too far, yet that’s what looting is. It’s theft.
On the other hand, looting is, as noted previously, something that destroyed people’s lives.
But that’s a discussion we can have, provided we can avoid the insanity of those who still believe George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin despite the evidence clearly showing that Martin was trying to cave Zimmerman’s head in by bashing it against a concrete sidewalk. Santiago can’t be bothered to look beyond the approved narrative, so of course, everything is fascist.
While DeSantis’ proposal may or may not be wrong, it’s not fascist in any way.
Santiago can decry the lack of unity she sees in this country, but never forget the role of people like her in that disunity. There’s absolutely no reason to even bother trying to reach across the aisle when the other side is convinced you’re pure, unadulterated evil.
If Santiago is worried about fascism, maybe she should look to those who would destroy entire neighborhoods in a pique of petulant rage because they didn’t get their way on something. Again.