bearingarms--2020-03-02--Dems Bash WI Supreme Court Justice For Gun Range Fundraiser

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Dan Bice is criticizing state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly for holding a campaign fundraiser at a gun range in Waukesha County a day after an employee at Molson Coors killed five individuals before killing himself .
Bice says the fundraiser was “ tone deaf ” , and of course found some anti-gun Democrats who were more than willing to agree .
What really seems to bother Bice is the fact that Justice Kelly isn ’ t apologizing for hosting the fundraiser at the gun range , and is instead pushing back against the criticism .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies to exploit a horrible tragedy for their own political gain is repulsive , yet unsurprising given the way Judge Karofsky has chosen to run her entire campaign , ” said Charles Nichols , campaign manager for Kelly .
Nichols said Kelly ’ s opponent and her allies don ’ t seem to get that “ constitutional rights are exactly that , rights — regardless of her desire to strip them away.
” Even though the race is officially nonpartisan — and for a judicial seat — the two candidates haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gun control .
As Bice notes , Kelly has recognized the right to keep and bear arms in past decisions , including striking down a ban on legally carried firearms on public transportation in Madison , Wisconsin .
Kelly ’ s opponent , Jill Karofsky , on the other hand , has some problems with the Heller decision and seems like a guaranteed vote to uphold any gun control law passed in the state if she were to be elected to the state Supreme Court .
Karofsky said she believes the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass some gun control laws “ so that we ’ re able to live in a country where we don ’ t have to send our kids to school for code-red drills.
” In contrast , Kelly said he saw no problems in the high court ruling .
He also noted that he owns a shotgun and two hunting rifles and has a concealed weapons permit .
Sounds like there ’ s a pretty clear choice for gun owners in Wisconsin come April .
If you want your Second Amendment rights protected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually acknowledge that the Second Amendment means something , while Karofsky would ignore the plain language of the amendment in order to allow as many restrictive gun control laws as possible .
As for Kelly holding a fundraiser at a gun range , I know that Democrats in the state are desperate to try to turn that into some sort of controversy , but unless you think that exercising your right to keep and bear arms is in and of itself bad taste , I ’ m not sure what the problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence , but instead was an opportunity for legal , law-abiding gun owners to show their support for a judicial candidate who understands that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental , individual right .
That ’ s all , despite Democrats ’ protests to the contrary .

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Dan Bice is criticizing state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly for holding a campaign fundraiser at a gun range in Waukesha County a day after an employee at Molson Coors killed five individuals before killing himself.
Bice says the fundraiser was “tone deaf”, and of course found some anti-gun Democrats who were more than willing to agree.
Courtney Beyer, a spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party, called the fundraiser “tasteless and disrespectful.” Beyer then promoted Karofsky’s candidacy, saying the state wants a justice concerned about the issue of gun violence. She then said Kelly has been “bought off by special interests to stand in the way of meaningful progress on gun safety reform.” Karofsky’s campaign declined to comment.
What really seems to bother Bice is the fact that Justice Kelly isn’t apologizing for hosting the fundraiser at the gun range, and is instead pushing back against the criticism.
“This attempt by Jill Karofsky’s allies to exploit a horrible tragedy for their own political gain is repulsive, yet unsurprising given the way Judge Karofsky has chosen to run her entire campaign,” said Charles Nichols, campaign manager for Kelly. Nichols said Kelly’s opponent and her allies don’t seem to get that “constitutional rights are exactly that, rights — regardless of her desire to strip them away.” Even though the race is officially nonpartisan — and for a judicial seat — the two candidates haven’t really hidden their positions on the issue of gun control.
As Bice notes, Kelly has recognized the right to keep and bear arms in past decisions, including striking down a ban on legally carried firearms on public transportation in Madison, Wisconsin. Kelly’s opponent, Jill Karofsky, on the other hand, has some problems with the Heller decision and seems like a guaranteed vote to uphold any gun control law passed in the state if she were to be elected to the state Supreme Court.
Karofsky said she believes the decision leaves enough wiggle room for communities to pass some gun control laws “so that we’re able to live in a country where we don’t have to send our kids to school for code-red drills.” In contrast, Kelly said he saw no problems in the high court ruling. He also noted that he owns a shotgun and two hunting rifles and has a concealed weapons permit.
Sounds like there’s a pretty clear choice for gun owners in Wisconsin come April. If you want your Second Amendment rights protected, Kelly’s the candidate who will actually acknowledge that the Second Amendment means something, while Karofsky would ignore the plain language of the amendment in order to allow as many restrictive gun control laws as possible.
As for Kelly holding a fundraiser at a gun range, I know that Democrats in the state are desperate to try to turn that into some sort of controversy, but unless you think that exercising your right to keep and bear arms is in and of itself bad taste, I’m not sure what the problem is. The fundraiser wasn’t glorifying gun violence, but instead was an opportunity for legal, law-abiding gun owners to show their support for a judicial candidate who understands that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right. That’s all, despite Democrats’ protests to the contrary.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--Media Laments Florida Gun Bills Not Passing

In the immediate aftermath of Parkland , the state of Florida seemed to go on an anti-gun kick .
They passed several controversial measures including raising the minimum age to buy a long gun to 21 .
It was an emotional time and legislators reacted with emotion , not logic or reason .
That was a couple of years ago , though .
Now , they ’ re able to see that gun control wasn ’ t the problem with Parkland or any other mass shooting .
Now they can think .
As a result , a number of gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no hope of going anywhere except for the trash .
It seems the media is less than pleased by that .
Time is beginning to run out for a score of gun bills languishing in committees as the Legislature begins week No .
8 of a nine-week legislative session .
Nearly three dozen proposals related to gun rights are stuck in review panels that will not meet again this year .
Just three others remain viable and could make it out of committee — but because of the number of bills still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not get introduced to the House and Senate floors .
“ This session has been a unique hurry-up-and-wait experience when you look at the time we ’ ve spent on the floor , ” said Rep. Jamie Grant , R-Tampa , speaking about the session in general while talking about gun bills .
“ We are either in for a lot of marathon sessions the next two weeks , or I don ’ t think a lot of legislation gets passed , ” he added .
“ We approve the budget , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home.
” Rep. Anna Eskamani , D-Orlando , said she wouldn ’ t be surprised to see no changes in the state ’ s gun laws this session .
“ At this point , it ’ s going to be an uphill battle because our Speaker has made it clear he doesn ’ t align with the Senate priorities , ” Eskamani said .
Among the measures that have already died was a proposal for universal background checks , described as an effort to close the “ gun show loophole ” that simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these bills not going anywhere is good news for gun-owning Floridians .
By extension , it ’ s good for all Floridians .
After all , gun ownership is herd immunity for violent crime , so anything that doesn ’ t make life more difficult for the good guys who own guns , the better it is for everyone in the state .
To be sure , though , these measures will be back .
Anti-gunners were emboldened by the passing of those anti-gun laws immediately post-Parkland .
They believe the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t get that people were emotional , which is weird since their entire schtick is to try and force people to legislate through emotion rather than logic and facts , but there you have it .
At the end of the day , these bills floundering is a win .
It ’ s a win not just for Floridians , but for all Americans .
The line has held somewhere .
That means it can hold somewhere else .
Each victory is a win for us all , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a win for some of us as our brothers and sisters in the Sunshine State .

In the immediate aftermath of Parkland, the state of Florida seemed to go on an anti-gun kick. They passed several controversial measures including raising the minimum age to buy a long gun to 21. It was an emotional time and legislators reacted with emotion, not logic or reason.
That was a couple of years ago, though. Now, they’re able to see that gun control wasn’t the problem with Parkland or any other mass shooting. Now they can think.
As a result, a number of gun control bills are languishing in the legislature with no hope of going anywhere except for the trash. It seems the media is less than pleased by that.
Time is beginning to run out for a score of gun bills languishing in committees as the Legislature begins week No. 8 of a nine-week legislative session. Nearly three dozen proposals related to gun rights are stuck in review panels that will not meet again this year. Just three others remain viable and could make it out of committee — but because of the number of bills still waiting to be heard, they may not get introduced to the House and Senate floors. “This session has been a unique hurry-up-and-wait experience when you look at the time we’ve spent on the floor,” said Rep. Jamie Grant, R-Tampa, speaking about the session in general while talking about gun bills. “We are either in for a lot of marathon sessions the next two weeks, or I don’t think a lot of legislation gets passed,” he added. “We approve the budget, a couple of policy changes and then go home.” Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said she wouldn’t be surprised to see no changes in the state’s gun laws this session. “At this point, it’s going to be an uphill battle because our Speaker has made it clear he doesn’t align with the Senate priorities,” Eskamani said.
Among the measures that have already died was a proposal for universal background checks, described as an effort to close the “gun show loophole” that simply doesn’t exist.
Of course, these bills not going anywhere is good news for gun-owning Floridians. By extension, it’s good for all Floridians. After all, gun ownership is herd immunity for violent crime, so anything that doesn’t make life more difficult for the good guys who own guns, the better it is for everyone in the state.
To be sure, though, these measures will be back. Anti-gunners were emboldened by the passing of those anti-gun laws immediately post-Parkland. They believe the state will accept more and more gun control and don’t get that people were emotional, which is weird since their entire schtick is to try and force people to legislate through emotion rather than logic and facts, but there you have it.
At the end of the day, these bills floundering is a win. It’s a win not just for Floridians, but for all Americans. The line has held somewhere. That means it can hold somewhere else. Each victory is a win for us all, even if it’s not quite as big a win for some of us as our brothers and sisters in the Sunshine State.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--New Mexico Sheriffs Preparing To Sue Over Red Flag Law

Cibola County , New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state ’ s new red flag law , signed last week by Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham .
During the signing ceremony , Grisham said that sheriffs who weren ’ t prepared to enforce the new law should resign , but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead .
Mace tells me that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect .
Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico , and not just their right to keep and bear arms .
He says the law establishes a bizarre “ civil search warrant ” process that violates the Fourth Amendment , and the seizure of firearms of those who ’ ve not been accused of a crime , much less convicted of one , is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment ’ s taking clause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at stake , there ’ s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws .
As Sheriff Mace points out , when someone has been deemed by a court ( in a one-sided hearing ) to be a danger to themselves or others , the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns .
Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things , does it not ?
And of course , once the firearms are seized , the dangerous person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their knives aren ’ t confiscated .
Neither are their car keys .
It ’ s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law .
The dangerous person is left behind , without any mental health treatment at all .
Mace poignantly describes the current crisis in mental health in New Mexico , where he and deputies have to drive 100 miles in order to find the nearest inpatient treatment facility .
If that facility has no open beds , individuals in crisis are often housed in the county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they could actually receive help .
Red flag laws are a cheap way for politicians to say they ’ re “ doing something ” about mental health , when all they ’ re actually doing is stripping people of their constitutional rights and offering up a soundbite solution to a deadly serious problem .
In addition to my interview with Sheriff Mace , we also have the story of a young felon facing up to five years in prison for an Ohio shooting , a home invasion in Katy , Texas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital , and an officer in South Carolina who was in the right place at the right time to help a young man in a moment of need .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media at YouTube to get the latest episode , or Apple Podcasts if you ’ d prefer the show in an audio format .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Cibola County, New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state’s new red flag law, signed last week by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
During the signing ceremony, Grisham said that sheriffs who weren’t prepared to enforce the new law should resign, but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead. Mace tells me that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys over the next few weeks to discuss litigation strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect.
Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico, and not just their right to keep and bear arms. He says the law establishes a bizarre “civil search warrant” process that violates the Fourth Amendment, and the seizure of firearms of those who’ve not been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one, is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause.
In addition to the constitutional issues at stake, there’s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws. As Sheriff Mace points out, when someone has been deemed by a court (in a one-sided hearing) to be a danger to themselves or others, the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns. Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things, does it not? And of course, once the firearms are seized, the dangerous person is left to their own devices. Their knives aren’t confiscated. Neither are their car keys. It’s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law. The dangerous person is left behind, without any mental health treatment at all.
Mace poignantly describes the current crisis in mental health in New Mexico, where he and deputies have to drive 100 miles in order to find the nearest inpatient treatment facility. If that facility has no open beds, individuals in crisis are often housed in the county jail, instead of in an institution where they could actually receive help. Red flag laws are a cheap way for politicians to say they’re “doing something” about mental health, when all they’re actually doing is stripping people of their constitutional rights and offering up a soundbite solution to a deadly serious problem.
In addition to my interview with Sheriff Mace, we also have the story of a young felon facing up to five years in prison for an Ohio shooting, a home invasion in Katy, Texas that ended with the home invader in the hospital, and an officer in South Carolina who was in the right place at the right time to help a young man in a moment of need.
Don’t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media at YouTube to get the latest episode, or Apple Podcasts if you’d prefer the show in an audio format. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-03-02--Gun Rights Activists Make Stand Against CT Ammo Tax

Connecticut isn ’ t a gun-friendly state and , frankly , probably never will be .
Their anti-gun credentials can be summed up with two names : Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy .
The two senators for the state are rabid gun grabbers .
Especially Murphy .
In fact , the state has never met a gun control law they didn ’ t like , it seems .
Now , though , they want to raise money on the backs of law-abiding gun owners by taxing ammunition .
Gun rights activists in the state aren ’ t taking this lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 35 percent excise tax on ammunition sold in the state to help pay the more than $ 1 billion cost of gun violence each year came under heavy fire during a public hearing Thursday .
Rep. Jillian Gilchrest , D-West Hartford , and other proponents are putting on a renewed push for a bill that ’ s been tried unsuccessfully before , and that would bring in $ 7 million annually in new taxes .
Gilchrest said her main rationale is that since there is no ammunition tax in the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connecticut is footed by all residents when more than eight out of ten of them don ’ t even own a firearm .
“ Why should the 84 percent of those who don ’ t own guns pay the same as those who do ?
” asked Gilchrest .
“ The status quo is unfair to the 84 percent who don ’ t own guns and ammunition.
” The difference is that the other remaining 16 percent are law-abiding citizens who aren ’ t responsible for gun violence either .
So-called gun violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun problem .
The keyword here is “ violence.
” Using the word “ gun ” as an adjective here simply specifies what type of violence we ’ re talking about , that ’ s all .
Yet if 16 percent of the population of Connecticut were committing violent acts on a regular basis , the state would be a virtual war zone .
It would make Chicago look like Columbia , Maryland by comparison .
Since nothing of the sort is happening , let ’ s not pretend Connecticut gun owners are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one who sees it that way , either .
Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria , R-Derby , asked Gilchrest if there is anything else in the state of Connecticut that is taxed at a rate as high as 35 percent .
Gilchrest answered she did not know , adding that she considered her bill ’ s language , specifically the part asking for a 35 percent tax “ to be a starting point , ” and that she is open to further negotiations on whether that is the right rate to tax ammunition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate an “ attempt to punish legal firearm owners in Connecticut.
” That ’ s precisely what it is .
Gilchrest wants to punish gun owners because , by and large , they don ’ t share the right politics .
They ’ re not vehemently anti-gun , so they ’ re not the right sort .
No one in their right mind thinks this will accomplish anything and let ’ s face it , a 35 percent tax is ridiculously high .
It ’ s not about raising money , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expensive to own a firearm .
The unintended consequence of this , though , is that by taxing ammunition at such a high rate , Gilchrest is going to discourage gun owners from practicing with their firearms .
Shooting is a perishable skill .
Without regular training , accuracy decreases .
That means the potential for collateral damage increases .
In other words , Gilchrest is actually putting lives at risk with this hair-brained scheme .
Does she know ?
More importantly , does she care ?
I think we all know the @ @ @ @

Connecticut isn’t a gun-friendly state and, frankly, probably never will be. Their anti-gun credentials can be summed up with two names: Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. The two senators for the state are rabid gun grabbers. Especially Murphy.
In fact, the state has never met a gun control law they didn’t like, it seems. Now, though, they want to raise money on the backs of law-abiding gun owners by taxing ammunition.
Gun rights activists in the state aren’t taking this lying down, either.
A proposal for a 35 percent excise tax on ammunition sold in the state to help pay the more than $1 billion cost of gun violence each year came under heavy fire during a public hearing Thursday. Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-West Hartford, and other proponents are putting on a renewed push for a bill that’s been tried unsuccessfully before, and that would bring in $7 million annually in new taxes. Gilchrest said her main rationale is that since there is no ammunition tax in the state, the entire cost of gun violence in Connecticut is footed by all residents when more than eight out of ten of them don’t even own a firearm. “Why should the 84 percent of those who don’t own guns pay the same as those who do?” asked Gilchrest. “The status quo is unfair to the 84 percent who don’t own guns and ammunition.”
The difference is that the other remaining 16 percent are law-abiding citizens who aren’t responsible for gun violence either.
So-called gun violence is a criminal problem, not a gun problem. The keyword here is “violence.” Using the word “gun” as an adjective here simply specifies what type of violence we’re talking about, that’s all.
Yet if 16 percent of the population of Connecticut were committing violent acts on a regular basis, the state would be a virtual war zone. It would make Chicago look like Columbia, Maryland by comparison. Since nothing of the sort is happening, let’s not pretend Connecticut gun owners are responsible.
I’m not the only one who sees it that way, either.
Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria, R-Derby, asked Gilchrest if there is anything else in the state of Connecticut that is taxed at a rate as high as 35 percent. Gilchrest answered she did not know, adding that she considered her bill’s language, specifically the part asking for a 35 percent tax “to be a starting point,” and that she is open to further negotiations on whether that is the right rate to tax ammunition. Klarides-Ditria said she sees the 35 percent rate an “attempt to punish legal firearm owners in Connecticut.”
That’s precisely what it is.
Gilchrest wants to punish gun owners because, by and large, they don’t share the right politics. They’re not vehemently anti-gun, so they’re not the right sort.
No one in their right mind thinks this will accomplish anything and let’s face it, a 35 percent tax is ridiculously high. It’s not about raising money, it’s an attempt to make it too expensive to own a firearm.
The unintended consequence of this, though, is that by taxing ammunition at such a high rate, Gilchrest is going to discourage gun owners from practicing with their firearms. Shooting is a perishable skill. Without regular training, accuracy decreases. That means the potential for collateral damage increases.
In other words, Gilchrest is actually putting lives at risk with this hair-brained scheme. Does she know? More importantly, does she care?
I think we all know the answer to that.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--How The Left Continues To Excuse Violence Towards The Right

Is the Left becoming emboldened to commit acts of violence against Trump supporters and those on the right ?
It ’ s certainly easy to come to that conclusion when you see stories like this recent case where a man in Florida drove into a tent full of Trump supporters in Jacksonville .
A 27-year-old Jacksonville man has been accused of assaulting two senior citizen supporters of President Donald Trump as they tried to register voters in a Jacksonville shopping plaza parking lot .
Gregory Timm ’ s weapon of the alleged assault : a van , driven through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest was announced Sunday by the Jacksonville Sheriff ’ s Office .
He faces two counts of aggravated assault on a victim over the age of 65 , one count of criminal mischief and one count of driving while his license is suspended .
Sunday , his bond was set at $ 507,512 .
Timm ’ s attack made national headlines , but only for about five minutes before the story disappeared from our national conscience .
It was relegated to the status of a “ local news story , ” just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Donnell , a former NYPD officer and one of the guys behind the non-profit Brothers Before Others sat down with me at CPAC 2020 to discuss these cases , as well as the broader policies in place in deep-blue cities that he says are encouraging and fostering an atmosphere of acceptance when it comes to violent acts , either by individuals or groups .
“ The police are left , you know , the rank-and-file that want to do their job are left to basically be hands off because the second they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media will be all over that .
It ’ s allowed them to attack journalists , it ’ s allowed Antifa to attack people they disagree with .
Here are individuals who are going out to fight .
It ’ s the only reason they ’ re there .
They ’ re wearing helmets , they ’ re bringing weapons , they ’ re there to fight .
It ’ s when the media steps up and actually starts addressing that , it ’ s when the public starts supporting the rank-and-file police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ that things will change ] .
Right now you have the public , especially in places like Portland , demonizing the police .
Why wouldn ’ t the police just stand down , because that ’ s what they want.
” While politicians in Democrat-controlled cities are putting policies like this in place , they ’ re also pushing for new laws that would make it harder if not impossible for many Americans to protect themselves with a firearm .
O ’ Donnell , who spent years patrolling some of the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he saw firsthand how the city ’ s gun laws deprived many residents of their constitutional rights .
In fact , O ’ Donnell says it wasn ’ t until he retired from the force and moved to rural Pennsylvania that he had a reality check of his own ; the right to keep and bear arms is for everyone , not just the politically powerful , the wealthy , and police officers .
“ This is your God-given right , this is your constitutional right , and they have just as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect themselves and their family as I always had .
And I saw that firsthand and it really hit me when I moved to rural Pennsylvania because I took that for granted , because I was one of the privileged .
I was a law enforcement officer who always had that gun .
I was always able to protect myself and my family.
” Kudos to O ’ Donnell for recognizing those facts , which in turn spurred on his activism in support of the Second Amendment .
Be sure to check out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuned for more coverage from CPAC 2020 here on Bearing Arms .

Is the Left becoming emboldened to commit acts of violence against Trump supporters and those on the right? It’s certainly easy to come to that conclusion when you see stories like this recent case where a man in Florida drove into a tent full of Trump supporters in Jacksonville.
A 27-year-old Jacksonville man has been accused of assaulting two senior citizen supporters of President Donald Trump as they tried to register voters in a Jacksonville shopping plaza parking lot. Gregory Timm’s weapon of the alleged assault: a van, driven through a tent. Timm’s Saturday night arrest was announced Sunday by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. He faces two counts of aggravated assault on a victim over the age of 65, one count of criminal mischief and one count of driving while his license is suspended. Sunday, his bond was set at $507,512.
Timm’s attack made national headlines, but only for about five minutes before the story disappeared from our national conscience. It was relegated to the status of a “local news story,” just like other attacks have been.
Rob O’Donnell, a former NYPD officer and one of the guys behind the non-profit Brothers Before Others sat down with me at CPAC 2020 to discuss these cases, as well as the broader policies in place in deep-blue cities that he says are encouraging and fostering an atmosphere of acceptance when it comes to violent acts, either by individuals or groups.
“The police are left, you know, the rank-and-file that want to do their job are left to basically be hands off because the second they do put their hands on someone the media will be all over that. It’s allowed them to attack journalists, it’s allowed Antifa to attack people they disagree with. Here are individuals who are going out to fight. It’s the only reason they’re there. They’re wearing helmets, they’re bringing weapons, they’re there to fight. It’s when the media steps up and actually starts addressing that, it’s when the public starts supporting the rank-and-file police so they can take that extra step [that things will change]. Right now you have the public, especially in places like Portland, demonizing the police. Why wouldn’t the police just stand down, because that’s what they want.”
While politicians in Democrat-controlled cities are putting policies like this in place, they’re also pushing for new laws that would make it harder if not impossible for many Americans to protect themselves with a firearm. O’Donnell, who spent years patrolling some of the worst neighborhoods in New York City, says he saw firsthand how the city’s gun laws deprived many residents of their constitutional rights. In fact, O’Donnell says it wasn’t until he retired from the force and moved to rural Pennsylvania that he had a reality check of his own; the right to keep and bear arms is for everyone, not just the politically powerful, the wealthy, and police officers.
“This is your God-given right, this is your constitutional right, and they have just as much a right to carry that firearm and protect themselves and their family as I always had. And I saw that firsthand and it really hit me when I moved to rural Pennsylvania because I took that for granted, because I was one of the privileged. I was a law enforcement officer who always had that gun. I was always able to protect myself and my family.”
Kudos to O’Donnell for recognizing those facts, which in turn spurred on his activism in support of the Second Amendment. Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stay tuned for more coverage from CPAC 2020 here on Bearing Arms.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--Anti-Gun Wisconsin Lawmakers Try To Capitalize On Milwaukee Shooting

Gun grabbers are going to try and grab guns .
It ’ s just what they do .
They don ’ t know how to turn it off .
While the rest of us look at a mass shooting and feel sorrow , they look at such incidents with excitement .
They ’ re downright giddy .
After all , those are their moments to shine , their chance to jump on the bodies of the dead and use them as a soapbox to push their anti-gun agenda while people are emotional .
Wisconsin isn ’ t exactly the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sort of thing , either .
Oh no , they have that particular breed as well .
Just a few hours after the shootings , calls began for lawmakers to do something about guns and gun violence .
“ We need to be focusing on red flag laws as well as background checks .
We need to take action .
We need to do something , ” Rep. David Crowley , D-Milwaukee , said Thursday .
“ We do not know exactly what happened , but we know what has continued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nearly everywhere else .
How much longer will we have to wait for the Wisconsin Legislature to make our communities safer ?
” Crowley said he is not politicizing the shooting .
He said the issue of gun violence is already political .
That ’ s not going over well with some other lawmakers .
Sen. Van Wanggaard , R-Racine , said it is not time to look at new laws .
“ Today and coming days should be focused on the victims and healing while we learn the facts of [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wanggaard said .
While Crowley can claim he ’ s not politicizing the shooting , he most certainly is .
Gun violence may be a political issue , but he ’ s taking a specific incident and trying to warp the reality surrounding it to fit his own agenda .
We still have a lot of unanswered questions about the shooting .
That was especially true in the initial hours when Crowley spouted off .
So far as we know , there ’ s nothing Crowley is pushing that would have inhibited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem to be any reason people would call for a red flag order for him .
There ’ s no reason to believe he didn ’ t or couldn ’ t pass a background check .
We don ’ t know that there is any measure possible that could have prevented this deadly attack .
But that doesn ’ t matter to people like Crowley because it ’ s not really about what happened at the Molson Coors plant that day .
Oh no , it ’ s about pushing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throats , preferably while they ’ re too upset to think clearly .
This is par for the course with people like him .
Unfortunately , though , there are a lot of people like him .
The ghoulish nature of their pouncing on such a tragedy wouldn ’ t be tolerated by the media under any other circumstances , nor should it be , but because they actually agree with the anti-gun agenda , they turn a blind eye to it .
Meanwhile , Crowley and those like him will continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities for political gain .
It ’ s vital they be called down and called down often for this nonsense .

Gun grabbers are going to try and grab guns. It’s just what they do. They don’t know how to turn it off.
While the rest of us look at a mass shooting and feel sorrow, they look at such incidents with excitement. They’re downright giddy. After all, those are their moments to shine, their chance to jump on the bodies of the dead and use them as a soapbox to push their anti-gun agenda while people are emotional.
Wisconsin isn’t exactly the kind of place that would be immune to that sort of thing, either. Oh no, they have that particular breed as well.
Just a few hours after the shootings, calls began for lawmakers to do something about guns and gun violence. “We need to be focusing on red flag laws as well as background checks. We need to take action. We need to do something,” Rep. David Crowley, D-Milwaukee, said Thursday. “We do not know exactly what happened, but we know what has continued to happen in our schools, workplaces, and nearly everywhere else. How much longer will we have to wait for the Wisconsin Legislature to make our communities safer?” Crowley said he is not politicizing the shooting. He said the issue of gun violence is already political. That’s not going over well with some other lawmakers. Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, said it is not time to look at new laws. “Today and coming days should be focused on the victims and healing while we learn the facts of [Wednesday’s] events,” Wanggaard said.
I agree completely with Wanggaard.
While Crowley can claim he’s not politicizing the shooting, he most certainly is. Gun violence may be a political issue, but he’s taking a specific incident and trying to warp the reality surrounding it to fit his own agenda. We still have a lot of unanswered questions about the shooting. That was especially true in the initial hours when Crowley spouted off.
So far as we know, there’s nothing Crowley is pushing that would have inhibited the shooter in any way. There doesn’t seem to be any reason people would call for a red flag order for him. There’s no reason to believe he didn’t or couldn’t pass a background check. We don’t know that there is any measure possible that could have prevented this deadly attack.
But that doesn’t matter to people like Crowley because it’s not really about what happened at the Molson Coors plant that day. Oh no, it’s about pushing a radical anti-gun agenda down people’s throats, preferably while they’re too upset to think clearly.
This is par for the course with people like him. Unfortunately, though, there are a lot of people like him. The ghoulish nature of their pouncing on such a tragedy wouldn’t be tolerated by the media under any other circumstances, nor should it be, but because they actually agree with the anti-gun agenda, they turn a blind eye to it.
Meanwhile, Crowley and those like him will continue to try and turn tragedies like this into opportunities for political gain. It’s vital they be called down and called down often for this nonsense.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge To Bump Stock Ban

The Supreme Court denied review of a case challenging the ATF ’ s ban on bump stocks Monday morning , leaving the rule that bans the continued possession of the items in place .
The case , known as Guedes v BATFE , hinged on whether or not the BATFE actually had the authority to retroactively ban bump stocks , which the agency had previously approved , or whether Congress needed to actually write a law banning the devices .
As the Cato Institute noted last year , the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retroactive ban .
Instead of analyzing whether the administration was correct in determining that the term “ machinegun ” includes bump stocks , however , the court simply deferred to the administration ’ s interpretation .
This was an example of the controversial doctrine of “ Chevron deference , ” in which courts defer to an administrative agency ’ s permissible interpretation of a statutory term if the term is ambiguous .
Because of Chevron deference , the law often means whatever the current administration decides it should mean .
And while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply the doctrine to criminal laws , there is a grey area for laws like this that have both criminal and civil sides .
So , even after both the challengers of the law and the administration asked the court not to apply Chevron deference , the D.C .
Circuit did it anyways .
According to Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog , Justice Neil Gorsuch addressed the Chevron deference argument in a statement .
If you ’ re a non-lawyer like me , you probably had to look up the phrase “ interlocutory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch meant .
Gorsuch was arguing that the matter could still be reviewed in future cases even if the court decided not to hear this case , and in fact there are other challenges to the BAFTE ’ s bump stock ban still in the lower courts .
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering the case Aposhian v Barr , which raises similar questions and challenges to the BAFTE ’ s administrative action , and while the Supreme Court ’ s decision to pass on hearing a challenge to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help the Aposhian case in the court of appeals , gun owners and those hoping to restore some limits to the rule-making authority of government agencies will get at least one more crack at SCOTUS once the 10th Circuit issues its decision .
The odds of the Supreme Court granting review to any one case are incredibly high , and the Court does have a number of Second Amendment-related cases in conference at the moment .
We ’ re also waiting on the SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were held back in December in that case , and the attorneys and legal scholars that I ’ ve spoken to recently are hopeful that the Court will issue a substantive ruling in the coming months .
Here ’ s the text of Gorsuch ’ s statement , which does indeed indicate he thinks the issue of whether or not the BAFTE had the authority to ban bump stocks is still very much an open question .
Read the whole thing , but here ’ s the most pertinent part of his statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bump stocks don ’ t qualify as “ machineguns.
” Now it says the opposite .
The law hasn ’ t changed , only an agency ’ s interpretation of it .
And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations .
How , in all this , can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge , but forced to guess whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess again whether the agency ’ s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “ reasonable ” ; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “ reasonable ” ?
And why should courts , charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted , defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting ?
Despite these concerns , I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review .
The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation .
Before deciding whether to weigh in , we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided , of course , that they are not afflicted with the same problems .
But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern .

The Supreme Court denied review of a case challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks Monday morning, leaving the rule that bans the continued possession of the items in place.
The case, known as Guedes v BATFE, hinged on whether or not the BATFE actually had the authority to retroactively ban bump stocks, which the agency had previously approved, or whether Congress needed to actually write a law banning the devices. As the Cato Institute noted last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the the agency was within its authority to enact the retroactive ban.
Instead of analyzing whether the administration was correct in determining that the term “machinegun” includes bump stocks, however, the court simply deferred to the administration’s interpretation. This was an example of the controversial doctrine of “Chevron deference,” in which courts defer to an administrative agency’s permissible interpretation of a statutory term if the term is ambiguous. Because of Chevron deference, the law often means whatever the current administration decides it should mean. And while the Supreme Court has told lower courts not to apply the doctrine to criminal laws, there is a grey area for laws like this that have both criminal and civil sides. So, even after both the challengers of the law and the administration asked the court not to apply Chevron deference, the D.C. Circuit did it anyways.
According to Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog, Justice Neil Gorsuch addressed the Chevron deference argument in a statement.
#SCOTUS denies review in Guedes v. BATF, challenge to “bump-stock rule”; Gorsuch has statement indicating that Chevron “has nothing to say about the proper interpretation of the law before us,” but agreeing that this “interlocutory petition” does not merit review. — Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) March 2, 2020
If you’re a non-lawyer like me, you probably had to look up the phrase “interlocutory petition” to find out exactly what Gorsuch meant. Gorsuch was arguing that the matter could still be reviewed in future cases even if the court decided not to hear this case, and in fact there are other challenges to the BAFTE’s bump stock ban still in the lower courts.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering the case Aposhian v Barr, which raises similar questions and challenges to the BAFTE’s administrative action, and while the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on hearing a challenge to the bump stock ban probably doesn’t help the Aposhian case in the court of appeals, gun owners and those hoping to restore some limits to the rule-making authority of government agencies will get at least one more crack at SCOTUS once the 10th Circuit issues its decision.
The odds of the Supreme Court granting review to any one case are incredibly high, and the Court does have a number of Second Amendment-related cases in conference at the moment. We’re also waiting on the SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v New York City. Oral arguments were held back in December in that case, and the attorneys and legal scholars that I’ve spoken to recently are hopeful that the Court will issue a substantive ruling in the coming months.
**UPDATE**
Here’s the text of Gorsuch’s statement, which does indeed indicate he thinks the issue of whether or not the BAFTE had the authority to ban bump stocks is still very much an open question. Read the whole thing, but here’s the most pertinent part of his statement.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--This Interview Is What's Scaring Anti-Gun Leftists

The annual gathering of conservatives known as CPAC isn ’ t exclusively devoted to the Second Amendment by any means , and some years the right to keep and bear arms can feel more like an afterthought than a major component of the conference .
Not this year , however .
Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter brought the house down during his speech at CPAC , and joined me shortly afterwards for a wide-ranging discussion on gun rights , big city violence , and how “ solutionaries ” like Maj are helping to educate and invigorate people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me as Maj and I were talking that gun control activists really don ’ t want to see guys like us talking together , getting along and fighting for each other , not with each other .
I ’ m a white dude in his 40s who lives in rural America .
Maj is a black dude from north Philly .
According to the conventional wisdom , we ’ re supposed to be distrustful of each other at best , and many on the Left would love for us to be at each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment movement is full of people like Maj and me ; people who may not have a common background or many shared life experiences , but who are bound together because of our desire to see every American have the opportunity to embrace and exercise their right to keep and bear arms .
The gun rights movement is , in my opinion , the biggest tent in American politics .
It doesn ’ t matter where you ’ re from , what you look like , or who you are as long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fight for our Second Amendment freedoms .
One of the things that Maj and I discussed is the fact that many Democrats are bashing Michael Bloomberg for his stop-and-frisk policies , but are still embracing the gun control laws that were enforced with that tactic .
“ You can ’ t separate and isolate that from the guys that had a gun because they live in a rough neighborhood , ” said Maj. “ Those guys that are willing to pretend that these things aren ’ t part and parcel of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at themselves and their own contradictions , because that ’ s what it is.
” I brought up the fact that in Philadelphia , where Maj is from , politicians are getting ready to open up a supervised injection site where drug addicts can shoot up under medical supervision .
I find it bizarre that the same politicians who want a safe place for people to shoot up are the same ones who are making it as hard as possible for gun owners to have a safe place to go shooting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherent in that stance as well , and notes that when the crack epidemic was decimating black communities in the 1990s nobody was talking about a “ safe smoking site.
” Only when the opioid epidemic hit , which by and large is impacting white populations more than minorities , did politicians embrace the idea that we can ’ t arrest our way out of the problem .
Toure says that same racial mindset is evident in the gun control movement , and reiterated his belief that gun control laws are racist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hoping to help the Left confront them .
It was a great conversation , and I encourage you to check out the entire interview above .

The annual gathering of conservatives known as CPAC isn’t exclusively devoted to the Second Amendment by any means, and some years the right to keep and bear arms can feel more like an afterthought than a major component of the conference. Not this year, however.
Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter brought the house down during his speech at CPAC, and joined me shortly afterwards for a wide-ranging discussion on gun rights, big city violence, and how “solutionaries” like Maj are helping to educate and invigorate people on the issue throughout the country.
It struck me as Maj and I were talking that gun control activists really don’t want to see guys like us talking together, getting along and fighting for each other, not with each other. I’m a white dude in his 40s who lives in rural America. Maj is a black dude from north Philly. According to the conventional wisdom, we’re supposed to be distrustful of each other at best, and many on the Left would love for us to be at each others’ throats.
Instead, the Second Amendment movement is full of people like Maj and me; people who may not have a common background or many shared life experiences, but who are bound together because of our desire to see every American have the opportunity to embrace and exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
The gun rights movement is, in my opinion, the biggest tent in American politics. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, what you look like, or who you are as long as you’re willing to stand and fight for our Second Amendment freedoms.
One of the things that Maj and I discussed is the fact that many Democrats are bashing Michael Bloomberg for his stop-and-frisk policies, but are still embracing the gun control laws that were enforced with that tactic.
“You can’t separate and isolate that from the guys that had a gun because they live in a rough neighborhood,” said Maj. “Those guys that are willing to pretend that these things aren’t part and parcel of the same issue have to take a serious look at themselves and their own contradictions, because that’s what it is.”
I brought up the fact that in Philadelphia, where Maj is from, politicians are getting ready to open up a supervised injection site where drug addicts can shoot up under medical supervision. I find it bizarre that the same politicians who want a safe place for people to shoot up are the same ones who are making it as hard as possible for gun owners to have a safe place to go shooting.
Toure says there are number of contradictions inherent in that stance as well, and notes that when the crack epidemic was decimating black communities in the 1990s nobody was talking about a “safe smoking site.” Only when the opioid epidemic hit, which by and large is impacting white populations more than minorities, did politicians embrace the idea that we can’t arrest our way out of the problem. Toure says that same racial mindset is evident in the gun control movement, and reiterated his belief that gun control laws are racist.
By exposing their contradictions, Maj Toure is hoping to help the Left confront them. It was a great conversation, and I encourage you to check out the entire interview above.


bearingarms--2020-03-02--Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Mass shootings , such as what transpired last week in Milwaukee , are horrible events .
They shake us to our core , probably because they ’ re so seemingly random that we simply can ’ t comprehend them .
They ’ re awful .
And , if you listen to the media and anti-gun activists , they ’ re becoming almost daily occurrences .
To be fair , it sure feels like they ’ re more common than ever , a feeling that ’ s also pushed many to embrace anti-gun legislation .
However , a new study has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events .
James Alan Fox , the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology , Law , and Public Policy at Northeastern , and Emma Fridel , who is currently completing her doctorate at the school , revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain “ incredibly rare events.
” Their findings , which are set to be published later this year , indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined that , “ on average , mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year , and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.
” They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s .
“ There is not an epidemic of school shootings , ” Fox said .
David Hogg will be so disappointed , to be sure .
Not that anyone should expect him to even acknowledge this study or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun-grabber agenda .
The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today , the FBI ’ s Supplementary Homicide Report , Congressional Research Service , Gun Violence Archive , Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries , Mother Jones , Everytown for Gun Safety , and an NYPD report on active shooters .
They concluded that , on average , of the 55 million school children in the United States , 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years .
In their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers .
“ The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events , and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it , the shooter will have a workaround , ” Fox said .
The researchers also noted that more kids are killed each year in incidents involving pools and bicycles than in all the school shootings combined .
Of course , this study didn ’ t get a whole lot of attention in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising .
After all , they seem to be personally invested in selling the idea that our kids aren ’ t likely to survive to graduate because of some maniac with an AR-15 is going to kill them all .
Yet looking at the average over the last 25 years , it ’ s easy to see that more students are killed in car crashes than by mass shooters .
So why does everyone freak over these ?
For one thing , it ’ s not about the total numbers .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per incident .
It ’ s not about how many have been killed in the last quarter of a century or what the annual average .
If a dozen die in a single incident , that ’ s an even bigger tragedy but if you spread those deaths over an entire year , it ’ s a statistic .
That ’ s what ’ s fueling much of this nonsense .
Look , these shootings are downright awful .
No one ’ s saying they ’ re not .
But what we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an epidemic that desperately needs to be “ addressed.
” Especially when “ addressed ” means to infringe on our constitutionally-protected rights .

Mass shootings, such as what transpired last week in Milwaukee, are horrible events. They shake us to our core, probably because they’re so seemingly random that we simply can’t comprehend them. They’re awful.
And, if you listen to the media and anti-gun activists, they’re becoming almost daily occurrences. To be fair, it sure feels like they’re more common than ever, a feeling that’s also pushed many to embrace anti-gun legislation.
However, a new study has a very different take.
Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events. James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain “incredibly rare events.” Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s. The research team determined that, “on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.” They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s. “There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” Fox said.
David Hogg will be so disappointed, to be sure. Not that anyone should expect him to even acknowledge this study or any other study that fails to advance the gun-grabber agenda.
The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers. “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said.
The researchers also noted that more kids are killed each year in incidents involving pools and bicycles than in all the school shootings combined.
Of course, this study didn’t get a whole lot of attention in the mainstream media. That’s not surprising. After all, they seem to be personally invested in selling the idea that our kids aren’t likely to survive to graduate because of some maniac with an AR-15 is going to kill them all. Yet looking at the average over the last 25 years, it’s easy to see that more students are killed in car crashes than by mass shooters.
So why does everyone freak over these?
For one thing, it’s not about the total numbers. It’s about the number of people killed per incident. It’s not about how many have been killed in the last quarter of a century or what the annual average. If a dozen die in a single incident, that’s an even bigger tragedy but if you spread those deaths over an entire year, it’s a statistic.
That’s what’s fueling much of this nonsense.
Look, these shootings are downright awful. No one’s saying they’re not. But what we are saying is that it’s not an epidemic that desperately needs to be “addressed.” Especially when “addressed” means to infringe on our constitutionally-protected rights.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Bloomberg's Gun Control Advocacy Criticized By Gun Control Advocate

Alex Clavering is a law student in New York City and one of the founders of the city ’ s March For Our Lives chapter .
He ’ s a big supporter of things like red flag laws and universal background checks , but he ’ s also the first gun control advocate that I ’ ve seen who ’ s come out and said what many Second Amendment supporters have been saying for years : Michael Bloomberg ’ s stop-and-frisk policies were part of a bigger problem ; gun control laws that disproportionately impacted young minority males in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeal , Clavering argues that Bloomberg ’ s crackdown on illegal gun possession was enforced through stop-and-frisk , but the underlying laws themselves are just as big an issue .
Possession of a firearm by a felon , on its own , is considered a felony crime , usually punishable by a prison sentence of several years .
This is for simple possession , with no other crime involved .
The law-and-order approach ignores a key reality that often those punished for this kind of crime are nonwhite and poor .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases generally .
To regain possession rights , individuals need some form of pardon , expungement , or a record seal .
The process to do so is not straightforward , especially not for a person with few resources .
Anecdotes never tell the full story , but they can be useful indicators for understanding how policies affect people in the real world .
Ask any attorney in criminal court , and they ’ ll tell you a horror story about mandatory sentences related to gun possession laws .
I ’ ve met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several individuals who had virtually nonexistent and nonviolent criminal histories who will spend years of their life locked in a cage because they were in possession of a firearm .
These individuals consistently shared two characteristics : They were Black and poor .
Quite often , they possessed weapons out of fear of danger in their community and fear of the police .
The law-and-order approach to gun violence , often promulgated in various forms , is appealing because of its simple messaging and “ common sense ” approach .
It suffers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unmistakably white .
I disagree with Clavering ’ s assertion that the flaw in Bloomberg ’ s approach to gun control is that it is unmistakably white .
The real flaw is that it treats an unmistakeable right as a privilege , which in turn leads to the racially and economically disparate outcomes Clavering correctly points out .
Even if there were no disparate impact from Bloomberg ’ s gun control laws , however , they would still be a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans .
Clavering isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in fact still has at least qualified praise for Bloomberg ’ s groups .
This is not to criticize the meaningful accomplishments of these groups or those affiliated with them .
The accomplishments of Everytown are too numerous to count , and by almost any measure objectively positive developments , like when it contributed nearly $ 16 million to support and win in passing Nevada ’ s background checks ballot question in 2016 .
But we can ’ t ignore Bloomberg ’ s impact on the strategies and priorities of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Everytown website , you can find the “ Statement of Principles ” of Mayors Against Illegal Guns .
Among them , supporting “ intelligence-led policing.
” With a person with Bloomberg ’ s history of surveillance and abuse at the helm , surely such language should give any social justice advocate pause .
Here ’ s my question for Clavering : what exactly was meaningful about Nevada passing a universal background check bill via referendum in 2016 ?
The law itself was so poorly written that it couldn ’ t take effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and draft legislation dealing with background checks that passed in 2019 and took effect in January of this year .
The referendum in Nevada was meaningless , not meaningful .
We know that universal background check laws don ’ t reduce crime or even lead to more background checks .
That ’ s been the case in Colorado , where violent crime is up by more than 25 % since the background check law was implemented in 2013 .
Maryland also instituted universal background checks the same year , and Baltimore ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years since .
We also know that red flag laws don ’ t decrease suicides , though they may cause individuals to commit suicide by other means .
Clavering ’ s ready to admit that the Bloomberg agenda of criminalizing gun ownership has deleterious effects on young minority men , but he needs to dig a little deeper into some of the gun control laws that he does support .
Are they really making anybody safer ?
Or are they just another way for politicians to promise safety and security at the expense @ @ @ @

Alex Clavering is a law student in New York City and one of the founders of the city’s March For Our Lives chapter. He’s a big supporter of things like red flag laws and universal background checks, but he’s also the first gun control advocate that I’ve seen who’s come out and said what many Second Amendment supporters have been saying for years: Michael Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policies were part of a bigger problem; gun control laws that disproportionately impacted young minority males in the city.
In a column at The Appeal, Clavering argues that Bloomberg’s crackdown on illegal gun possession was enforced through stop-and-frisk, but the underlying laws themselves are just as big an issue.
Possession of a firearm by a felon, on its own, is considered a felony crime, usually punishable by a prison sentence of several years. This is for simple possession, with no other crime involved. The law-and-order approach ignores a key reality that often those punished for this kind of crime are nonwhite and poor. There is little recourse for people involved in such cases generally. To regain possession rights, individuals need some form of pardon, expungement, or a record seal. The process to do so is not straightforward, especially not for a person with few resources. Anecdotes never tell the full story, but they can be useful indicators for understanding how policies affect people in the real world. Ask any attorney in criminal court, and they’ll tell you a horror story about mandatory sentences related to gun possession laws. I’ve met with clients on Rikers Island and know several individuals who had virtually nonexistent and nonviolent criminal histories who will spend years of their life locked in a cage because they were in possession of a firearm. These individuals consistently shared two characteristics: They were Black and poor. Quite often, they possessed weapons out of fear of danger in their community and fear of the police. The law-and-order approach to gun violence, often promulgated in various forms, is appealing because of its simple messaging and “common sense” approach. It suffers from a severe, fatal flaw: It is unmistakably white.
I disagree with Clavering’s assertion that the flaw in Bloomberg’s approach to gun control is that it is unmistakably white. The real flaw is that it treats an unmistakeable right as a privilege, which in turn leads to the racially and economically disparate outcomes Clavering correctly points out. Even if there were no disparate impact from Bloomberg’s gun control laws, however, they would still be a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans.
Clavering isn’t ready to give up on gun control, and in fact still has at least qualified praise for Bloomberg’s groups.
This is not to criticize the meaningful accomplishments of these groups or those affiliated with them. The accomplishments of Everytown are too numerous to count, and by almost any measure objectively positive developments, like when it contributed nearly $16 million to support and win in passing Nevada’s background checks ballot question in 2016. But we can’t ignore Bloomberg’s impact on the strategies and priorities of many organizations and advocates. Even today on the Everytown website, you can find the “Statement of Principles” of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Among them, supporting “intelligence-led policing.” With a person with Bloomberg’s history of surveillance and abuse at the helm, surely such language should give any social justice advocate pause.
Here’s my question for Clavering: what exactly was meaningful about Nevada passing a universal background check bill via referendum in 2016? The law itself was so poorly written that it couldn’t take effect, and lawmakers were forced to go back and draft legislation dealing with background checks that passed in 2019 and took effect in January of this year. The referendum in Nevada was meaningless, not meaningful.
We know that universal background check laws don’t reduce crime or even lead to more background checks. That’s been the case in Colorado, where violent crime is up by more than 25% since the background check law was implemented in 2013. Maryland also instituted universal background checks the same year, and Baltimore’s homicide rate has skyrocketed in the years since.
We also know that red flag laws don’t decrease suicides, though they may cause individuals to commit suicide by other means.
Clavering’s ready to admit that the Bloomberg agenda of criminalizing gun ownership has deleterious effects on young minority men, but he needs to dig a little deeper into some of the gun control laws that he does support. Are they really making anybody safer? Or are they just another way for politicians to promise safety and security at the expense of individual rights?


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Liberal Gun Owners Likely Hosed With 2020 Choices

We tend to view the Second Amendment as more of a conservative/libertarian issue .
The right to keep and bear arms is typically upheld by Republicans and opposed by Democrats .
That ’ s a simplistic view , though .
While it ’ s generally correct , there are a number of Republicans who have backed various forms of gun control in recent years .
Further , there are a handful of pro-gun Democrats floating around .
Most aren ’ t in public office , mind you , and none in the United States House of Representatives , so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do exist .
They exist and their pro-Second Amendment stance is practically non-existent in their party ’ s potential nominees for president .
Like many liberals , Lara Smith considers herself a feminist , favors abortion rights and believes the nation ’ s immigration policies under the Trump administration have just been “ vile.
” But when it comes to guns , Smith sounds more like a conservative : She opposes reviving the nation ’ s assault weapons ban , enacting red-flag laws or creating a registry of firearms .
The 48-year-old California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from pistols to rifles such as the AR-15 .
Smith and liberal gun owners like her face a quandary as voting in the Democratic primary intensifies with Super Tuesday this week .
They are nervous about some of the gun control measures the Democratic candidates are pushing and are unsure who to trust on this issue .
“ You ’ re alienating a huge part of your constituency , ” Smith said of the Democratic field ’ s gun proposals .
“ You have a huge constituency that is looking for something different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a right which is so different than everything else you talk about , you are being anti-liberal.
” Many of them are feeling increasingly disillusioned by their party as it lurches toward the left on the Second Amendment , but they ’ re also wary of President Donald Trump for a variety of reasons : his conservative leanings but a track record in office that has led to several gun restrictions , such as the banning of bump stocks .
And , unfortunately for them , that ’ s the reality of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate in the field is pushing some form of gun control .
But really , should they ?
Obviously , most Bearing Arms readers are going to say that no , they shouldn ’ t .
Not because they ’ re worried about the Democrats , but because they see the Second Amendment as inviolable .
However , there ’ s another reason why Democratic candidates probably shouldn ’ t have been too quick to jump on the anti-gun train .
Right now , 23 percent of the Democratic vote would put a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders for the nomination .
Further , a pro-gun Democrat might even win over some on the right who are less than pleased with President Trump for whatever reason .
Yet not a single such candidate exists .
The least radical candidate running for the Democratic nomination is probably Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , yet even she pushes gun control via her campaign website .
Her proposals aren ’ t nearly as objectionable as most of her opponents ’ positions , but she ’ s not really a gun rights candidate either .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frankly , I ’ d argue their best choice–assuming , of course , they ’ re bound and determined to continue voting Democrat–would simply be to vote for the least objectionable candidate possible .
That would likely be Gabbard or someone like her .
However , it also seems that many are looking at candidates and imposing something of a Rorschach test and seeing what they want to see .
Smith , for example , was leaning toward Sanders or Sen. Amy Klobuchar who withdrew from the race yesterday .
Sanders , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once been endorsed by the NRA .
That position has since changed , though , yet she seems to feel Bernie would at least entertain the conversation .
Others think someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be the least likely to infringe on their gun rights .
Personally , I think there ’ s a fair bit of wishful thinking , but that ’ s just me .
Yet let ’ s also remember that liberal gun owners aren ’ t as single-issue as many of us are .
They may want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not a driving force for many of them .
They don ’ t use it as a litmus test for a candidate like many on the right do .
Left-leaning gun folks are likely more interested in things like immigration , welfare , and healthcare than the Second Amendment , at least when it comes to picking a candidate to back .
Regardless , though , there ’ s no perfect candidate for them .
I ’ m sure it sucks , especially since it ’ s to our benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back .

We tend to view the Second Amendment as more of a conservative/libertarian issue. The right to keep and bear arms is typically upheld by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.
That’s a simplistic view, though. While it’s generally correct, there are a number of Republicans who have backed various forms of gun control in recent years. Further, there are a handful of pro-gun Democrats floating around. Most aren’t in public office, mind you, and none in the United States House of Representatives, so far as I can tell, but they do exist.
They exist and their pro-Second Amendment stance is practically non-existent in their party’s potential nominees for president.
Like many liberals, Lara Smith considers herself a feminist, favors abortion rights and believes the nation’s immigration policies under the Trump administration have just been “vile.” But when it comes to guns, Smith sounds more like a conservative: She opposes reviving the nation’s assault weapons ban, enacting red-flag laws or creating a registry of firearms. The 48-year-old California lawyer owns a cache of firearms, from pistols to rifles such as the AR-15. Smith and liberal gun owners like her face a quandary as voting in the Democratic primary intensifies with Super Tuesday this week. They are nervous about some of the gun control measures the Democratic candidates are pushing and are unsure who to trust on this issue. “You’re alienating a huge part of your constituency,” Smith said of the Democratic field’s gun proposals. “You have a huge constituency that is looking for something different and when you are talking about restricting a right which is so different than everything else you talk about, you are being anti-liberal.” … Many of them are feeling increasingly disillusioned by their party as it lurches toward the left on the Second Amendment, but they’re also wary of President Donald Trump for a variety of reasons: his conservative leanings but a track record in office that has led to several gun restrictions, such as the banning of bump stocks.
And, unfortunately for them, that’s the reality of the Democratic Party right now. Every single candidate in the field is pushing some form of gun control.
But really, should they?
Obviously, most Bearing Arms readers are going to say that no, they shouldn’t. Not because they’re worried about the Democrats, but because they see the Second Amendment as inviolable.
However, there’s another reason why Democratic candidates probably shouldn’t have been too quick to jump on the anti-gun train.
An estimated 23 percent of Democrats nationally lived in households with guns in 2018, according to the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. And roughly 20 percent of gun owners — about 12 million people — identify as liberal, according to results from a survey between 2014 and 2018. More than a third describe themselves as moderates, while just under 45 percent call themselves conservatives.
Right now, 23 percent of the Democratic vote would put a candidate in second place behind Sen. Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Further, a pro-gun Democrat might even win over some on the right who are less than pleased with President Trump for whatever reason.
Yet not a single such candidate exists.
The least radical candidate running for the Democratic nomination is probably Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, yet even she pushes gun control via her campaign website. Her proposals aren’t nearly as objectionable as most of her opponents’ positions, but she’s not really a gun rights candidate either.
So where does that leave pro-gun Democrats?
Frankly, I’d argue their best choice–assuming, of course, they’re bound and determined to continue voting Democrat–would simply be to vote for the least objectionable candidate possible. That would likely be Gabbard or someone like her.
However, it also seems that many are looking at candidates and imposing something of a Rorschach test and seeing what they want to see. Smith, for example, was leaning toward Sanders or Sen. Amy Klobuchar who withdrew from the race yesterday. Sanders, at least, had a pro-gun history having once been endorsed by the NRA. That position has since changed, though, yet she seems to feel Bernie would at least entertain the conversation.
Others think someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be the least likely to infringe on their gun rights.
Personally, I think there’s a fair bit of wishful thinking, but that’s just me.
Yet let’s also remember that liberal gun owners aren’t as single-issue as many of us are. They may want to see the Second Amendment protected, but it’s not a driving force for many of them. They don’t use it as a litmus test for a candidate like many on the right do. Left-leaning gun folks are likely more interested in things like immigration, welfare, and healthcare than the Second Amendment, at least when it comes to picking a candidate to back.
Regardless, though, there’s no perfect candidate for them. I’m sure it sucks, especially since it’s to our benefit if they did have a pro-gun candidate to back.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--High Noon For Mini-Mike In Super Tuesday Races

On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I ’ m sharing a conversation with National Review ‘ s Jim Geraghty from CPAC 2020 , where we discuss the fascinating phenomenon of Michael Bloomberg losing support from gun control advocates , many of whom are vocally backing other candidates despite his longtime dedication to the anti-gun cause .
As Geraghty points out , Bloomberg doesn ’ t really build coalitions .
He buys them instead .
While that may help to swing elections when his organizations are pouring tons of money into races for other candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot himself his money can ’ t buy likability .
“ He ’ s got enormous charitable contributions , he has an enormous ability , and the first thing people in New York said was ‘ Hey , we like that !
This guy doesn ’ t owe anything to anybody ’ , ” Geraghty explained .
“ And then they suddenly realize he got into office and he didn ’ t owe anything to anyone , and he could kind of do whatever he wanted .
All of the people who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , you shouldn ’ t do that ’ , well , he ’ d already given them this donation , the city had given them a grant , and all of a sudden everybody in the power structure of New York City was sorta bought off.
” It worked in New York City , where Bloomberg was able to serve three terms as mayor .
What a lot of folks forget is that in order to win that third term , Bloomberg spent more than $ 100-million , and ended up capturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the most expensive local election in U.S. history , and Bloomberg barely squeaked out a win .
Now , Bloomberg has spent five times that amount on his Democratic presidential bid , and there ’ s no guarantee he ’ s going to win a single state on Super Tuesday , much less rack up a large amount of delegates .
That won ’ t stop him from continuing his campaign up to the convention if it looks like no candidate will garner enough delegates to win the nomination outright , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg really is .
The more people get to know him , the less they like him .

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I’m sharing a conversation with National Review‘s Jim Geraghty from CPAC 2020, where we discuss the fascinating phenomenon of Michael Bloomberg losing support from gun control advocates, many of whom are vocally backing other candidates despite his longtime dedication to the anti-gun cause.
As Geraghty points out, Bloomberg doesn’t really build coalitions. He buys them instead. While that may help to swing elections when his organizations are pouring tons of money into races for other candidates, when Bloomberg’s actually on the ballot himself his money can’t buy likability.
“He’s got enormous charitable contributions, he has an enormous ability, and the first thing people in New York said was ‘Hey, we like that! This guy doesn’t owe anything to anybody’,” Geraghty explained. “And then they suddenly realize he got into office and he didn’t owe anything to anyone, and he could kind of do whatever he wanted. All of the people who would usually stand up and say ‘Mayor Bloomberg, you shouldn’t do that’, well, he’d already given them this donation, the city had given them a grant, and all of a sudden everybody in the power structure of New York City was sorta bought off.”
It worked in New York City, where Bloomberg was able to serve three terms as mayor. What a lot of folks forget is that in order to win that third term, Bloomberg spent more than $100-million, and ended up capturing 50.7% of the vote. It was the most expensive local election in U.S. history, and Bloomberg barely squeaked out a win.
Now, Bloomberg has spent five times that amount on his Democratic presidential bid, and there’s no guarantee he’s going to win a single state on Super Tuesday, much less rack up a large amount of delegates. That won’t stop him from continuing his campaign up to the convention if it looks like no candidate will garner enough delegates to win the nomination outright, but it speaks volumes about good a candidate Michael Bloomberg really is. The more people get to know him, the less they like him.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Pennsylvania Governor Wants More Invested In Gun Control

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf is no friend of gun owners in the Keystone State .
He ’ s offered support to Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto ’ s illegal gun control laws and , by extension , tacit support for any other community that wants to test preemption in the state .
Now , he ’ s pushing for an increase in funding in what should be an innocuous program but is likely anything but .
Governor Tom Wolf is urging the General Assembly to approve $ 6 million to go toward reducing gun violence in Pennsylvania .
The money would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Reduction grants , which are administered by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Of course , anytime you hear “ gun violence prevention or reduction ” in this day and age , it ’ s usually safe to assume that they ’ re talking about gun control .
Yet the description sounds like it ’ s no such thing .
Instead , the grant is for “ community programs that focus on evidence-based strategies or promising practices ” that the governor ’ s council on gun violence recommended .
That sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on gun violence has made some initial recommendations and they ’ re about what you ’ d expect from a council built by an anti-gunner like Wolf .
Among their recommendations are mandatory reporting laws for lost or stolen firearms , mandatory storage laws , universal background checks , red flag laws , and expanding domestic violence to close what anti-gunners refer to as the “ boyfriend loophole.
” Now , that ’ s not all they recommend .
Also among all that gun control are a number of measures that include things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One would expect the funding to go towards things like that , which are far less concerning from a Second Amendment standpoint .
The problem is , though , a committee that seems to believe all this gun control is somehow beneficial is a council I ’ m not sure I want to trust to find a grain of sand in the middle of the Sahara .
If they think gun control is the way forward on these measures , I find myself needing to question everything else they ’ re proposing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ control doesn ’ t actually work .
All it does is interfere with the very people who aren ’ t likely to be a problem in the first place .
The evil that walks among us will continue to get firearms despite all of those recommendations .
They ’ ll steal them , buy them from others who stole them , make them , or whatever else they need to do in order to arm themselves .
They simply don ’ t care about the law and never have .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still wants that .
Further , there ’ s little reason to think that some of this tax money won ’ t be used to help push for laws that infringe on the rights of ordinary Pennsylvanians who just want to live their lives .
That ’ s how people like Wolf roll , anyway .
Maybe it ’ s time for people like Wolf to focus on actually enforcing the laws on the books and stop trying to score leftist political points .
Do that and watch what happens to the state @ @ @ @ @ @

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf is no friend of gun owners in the Keystone State. He’s offered support to Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto’s illegal gun control laws and, by extension, tacit support for any other community that wants to test preemption in the state.
Now, he’s pushing for an increase in funding in what should be an innocuous program but is likely anything but.
Governor Tom Wolf is urging the General Assembly to approve $6 million to go toward reducing gun violence in Pennsylvania. The money would be distributed as Community Gun Violence Prevention and Reduction grants, which are administered by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
Of course, anytime you hear “gun violence prevention or reduction” in this day and age, it’s usually safe to assume that they’re talking about gun control.
Yet the description sounds like it’s no such thing. Instead, the grant is for “community programs that focus on evidence-based strategies or promising practices” that the governor’s council on gun violence recommended. That sounds pretty innocuous.
However, that council on gun violence has made some initial recommendations and they’re about what you’d expect from a council built by an anti-gunner like Wolf.
Among their recommendations are mandatory reporting laws for lost or stolen firearms, mandatory storage laws, universal background checks, red flag laws, and expanding domestic violence to close what anti-gunners refer to as the “boyfriend loophole.”
Now, that’s not all they recommend. Also among all that gun control are a number of measures that include things like job programs and intervention programs.
One would expect the funding to go towards things like that, which are far less concerning from a Second Amendment standpoint.
The problem is, though, a committee that seems to believe all this gun control is somehow beneficial is a council I’m not sure I want to trust to find a grain of sand in the middle of the Sahara. If they think gun control is the way forward on these measures, I find myself needing to question everything else they’re proposing.
We know from past experience that gun control doesn’t actually work. All it does is interfere with the very people who aren’t likely to be a problem in the first place. The evil that walks among us will continue to get firearms despite all of those recommendations. They’ll steal them, buy them from others who stole them, make them, or whatever else they need to do in order to arm themselves. They simply don’t care about the law and never have.
That’s not going to change.
But Wolf still wants that. Further, there’s little reason to think that some of this tax money won’t be used to help push for laws that infringe on the rights of ordinary Pennsylvanians who just want to live their lives. That’s how people like Wolf roll, anyway.
Maybe it’s time for people like Wolf to focus on actually enforcing the laws on the books and stop trying to score leftist political points. Do that and watch what happens to the state’s violent crime rate.


bearingarms--2020-03-03--Number Of Issued, Renewed OH Carry Permits Drops

The state of Ohio isn ’ t one thinks of as pro-gun , but it ’ s also not an anti-gun state by any measure .
There ’ s a strong sentiment of supporting the Second Amendment that runs through much of the state .
While there ’ s also a fairly strong anti-gun sentiment in some parts , it ’ s not enough to make Ohio into another California by any stretch .
However , a recent report from the state suggests that one metric we could use to determine what the sentiment toward guns is has changed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharp decrease in concealed carry permits in the state .
New and renewed concealed-handgun permits issued in Ohio dropped by more than 20 percent between 2018 and 2019 , resulting in the fewest new licenses in nearly a decade , according to a new state report .
Last year , Ohio county sheriffs issued 54,426 new conceal-carry permits and 77,959 renewals , each decreasing about 21 percent from the previous year , according to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost ’ s office .
The report didn ’ t explain the drop in new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t want to speculate about the reason for the decline .
But the report noted that denials were rare – 1,310 in total , a rate of less than 1 percent .
The number of new permits issued has fallen in Ohio every year since 2016 , when an all-time high of 117,953 permits were approved .
Now , does that mean the state is shifting toward becoming an anti-gun haven ?
After all , this is the same timeframe when the mass shooting in Dayton took place .
Did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some Ohioans ?
When concealed-firearms permits were first issued in 2004 , they had to be renewed every four years .
But after 2008 , the renewal period was extended to five years – meaning the 45,497 Ohioans who originally registered in 2004 – along with tens of thousands more who got licenses in 2008 and 2013 – had to renew last year .
Dean Rieck , executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association , said that 2019 wasn ’ t a particularly unusual year if you look at overall permits issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permits in 2019 was down from more than 168,000 total licenses in 2018 , it ’ s only up slightly from the 131,000 or so valid licenses at the end of 2017 .
Plus , there ’ s another factor that needs to be acknowledged , and that ’ s the push for constitutional carry .
It ’ s possible that at least some of those who didn ’ t renew their permits failed to do so because it was their hope that constitutional carry would pass in the state , thus negating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost money and take time .
That ’ s something many would rather skip if they could , so it ’ s possible they were more optimistic over constitutional carry ’ s passage than it turned out was warranted .
All of this contributes to a decline in the number of permits being issued , either renewal or initial issuing .
In other words , there ’ s nothing to be concerned about .
Gun traditions in the state remain as strong as they always have , despite the media push following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Ohioans aren ’ t going to be swayed by a single evil act that actually proved gun control ’ s failures in the first place .

The state of Ohio isn’t one thinks of as pro-gun, but it’s also not an anti-gun state by any measure. There’s a strong sentiment of supporting the Second Amendment that runs through much of the state. While there’s also a fairly strong anti-gun sentiment in some parts, it’s not enough to make Ohio into another California by any stretch.
However, a recent report from the state suggests that one metric we could use to determine what the sentiment toward guns is has changed. A lot.
In particular, a sharp decrease in concealed carry permits in the state.
New and renewed concealed-handgun permits issued in Ohio dropped by more than 20 percent between 2018 and 2019, resulting in the fewest new licenses in nearly a decade, according to a new state report. Last year, Ohio county sheriffs issued 54,426 new conceal-carry permits and 77,959 renewals, each decreasing about 21 percent from the previous year, according to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office. The report didn’t explain the drop in new permits, and a Yost spokesman said he didn’t want to speculate about the reason for the decline. But the report noted that denials were rare – 1,310 in total, a rate of less than 1 percent. The number of new permits issued has fallen in Ohio every year since 2016, when an all-time high of 117,953 permits were approved.
Now, does that mean the state is shifting toward becoming an anti-gun haven? After all, this is the same timeframe when the mass shooting in Dayton took place. Did that shake the faith in gun rights for some Ohioans?
Probably not.
When concealed-firearms permits were first issued in 2004, they had to be renewed every four years. But after 2008, the renewal period was extended to five years – meaning the 45,497 Ohioans who originally registered in 2004 – along with tens of thousands more who got licenses in 2008 and 2013 – had to renew last year. Dean Rieck, executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said that 2019 wasn’t a particularly unusual year if you look at overall permits issued. While the 132,365 new and renewed permits in 2019 was down from more than 168,000 total licenses in 2018, it’s only up slightly from the 131,000 or so valid licenses at the end of 2017.
Plus, there’s another factor that needs to be acknowledged, and that’s the push for constitutional carry. It’s possible that at least some of those who didn’t renew their permits failed to do so because it was their hope that constitutional carry would pass in the state, thus negating the requirement completely. Concealed carry permits cost money and take time. That’s something many would rather skip if they could, so it’s possible they were more optimistic over constitutional carry’s passage than it turned out was warranted.
All of this contributes to a decline in the number of permits being issued, either renewal or initial issuing.
In other words, there’s nothing to be concerned about. Gun traditions in the state remain as strong as they always have, despite the media push following the Dayton shooting. That’s because many Ohioans aren’t going to be swayed by a single evil act that actually proved gun control’s failures in the first place.