bearingarms--2020-02-03--Bloomberg Spends Millions To Misinform Americans On Gun Control

Former New York City mayor and current gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg dropped tens of millions of dollars on a pair of ads that ran during Sunday night ’ s Super Bowl , but as Second Amendment researcher Dr. John Lott notes at Townhall , the Democrat presidential candidate ’ s ads attacking the right to keep and bear arms and promising new restrictions was full of misleading claims and erroneous information .
One ad focused on the Trolley Square Shooting in Utah in 2015 .
Kait Hinkley movingly talked about losing her sister in that attack , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her mother .
The mass shooting is unquestionably a tragedy , but as Lott points out , Bloomberg ’ s ad left out some pretty important details , including the fact that the attack took place in a “ gun free zone.
” Fortunately , an off-duty police officer was carrying his gun .
He did so in violation of the posted signs .
Ken Hammond , an off-duty officer from Ogden , Utah , was on a different floor and at the opposite end of the mall .
It took him three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at which point he cornered the gunman and exchanged fire until other officers arrived .
“ There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people , ” Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said .
Incredibly , Hammond endured lengthy hearings and had to pay hefty legal fees .
His career as an officer was on the line .
While Hammond eventually kept his job , his ordeal is likely to make others think twice now about ignoring gun-free zone prohibitions .
Unlike Bloomberg , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took down the gun-free zone signs after the attack .
If only someone had been even closer to the attack , then perhaps Hinckley ’ s sister and mother might have been protected .
Bloomberg ’ s second ad claimed that “ 2,900 children die from gun violence every year , ” which Lott says is simply untrue .
Unfortunately , Bloomberg ’ s ad doesn ’ t provide a source for this claim .
From 2013 to 2017 — the most recent five years for which data are available — total murders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ averaged 1,900 per year .
This is not an insignificant number , but Bloomberg ’ s figure is off by a thousand deaths a year .
The overwhelming majority of non-adult murders involving drug gangs , and nearly all of the victims are teenagers .
Drug dealers are the primary source of illegal guns .
Since they can ’ t go to the police for help in their turf wars , gangs need firearms to protect their valuable property .
As Lott points out , Bloomberg ’ s arguments are long on emotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a growing number of academics are actually rejecting the broad , sweeping gun control laws aimed at legal gun owners in favor of policies targeting the most likely offenders and victims of gun-related crimes , Bloomberg is pushing a platform that treats America ’ s 100,000,000 gun owners as if they are the problem .
That ’ s because to Bloomberg and other anti-gun activists , we are the problem , and if Bloomberg or another anti-gun Democrat wins the White House in November , we ’ ll be the ones paying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Former New York City mayor and current gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg dropped tens of millions of dollars on a pair of ads that ran during Sunday night’s Super Bowl, but as Second Amendment researcher Dr. John Lott notes at Townhall, the Democrat presidential candidate’s ads attacking the right to keep and bear arms and promising new restrictions was full of misleading claims and erroneous information.
One ad focused on the Trolley Square Shooting in Utah in 2015. Kait Hinkley movingly talked about losing her sister in that attack, as well as the permanent disabilities suffered by her mother. The mass shooting is unquestionably a tragedy, but as Lott points out, Bloomberg’s ad left out some pretty important details, including the fact that the attack took place in a “gun free zone.”
Fortunately, an off-duty police officer was carrying his gun. He did so in violation of the posted signs. Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, Utah, was on a different floor and at the opposite end of the mall. It took him three minutes to arrive at the scene, at which point he cornered the gunman and exchanged fire until other officers arrived. “There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people,” Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said. Incredibly, Hammond endured lengthy hearings and had to pay hefty legal fees. His career as an officer was on the line. While Hammond eventually kept his job, his ordeal is likely to make others think twice now about ignoring gun-free zone prohibitions. Unlike Bloomberg, the Trolley Square Mall learned its lesson and took down the gun-free zone signs after the attack. If only someone had been even closer to the attack, then perhaps Hinckley’s sister and mother might have been protected.
Bloomberg’s second ad claimed that “2,900 children die from gun violence every year,” which Lott says is simply untrue.
Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s ad doesn’t provide a source for this claim. From 2013 to 2017 — the most recent five years for which data are available — total murders, suicides and accidental deaths of non-adults averaged 1,900 per year. This is not an insignificant number, but Bloomberg’s figure is off by a thousand deaths a year. The overwhelming majority of non-adult murders involving drug gangs, and nearly all of the victims are teenagers. Drug dealers are the primary source of illegal guns. Since they can’t go to the police for help in their turf wars, gangs need firearms to protect their valuable property.
As Lott points out, Bloomberg’s arguments are long on emotion and short on facts. Even as a growing number of academics are actually rejecting the broad, sweeping gun control laws aimed at legal gun owners in favor of policies targeting the most likely offenders and victims of gun-related crimes, Bloomberg is pushing a platform that treats America’s 100,000,000 gun owners as if they are the problem. That’s because to Bloomberg and other anti-gun activists, we are the problem, and if Bloomberg or another anti-gun Democrat wins the White House in November, we’ll be the ones paying the price for the actions of violent criminals.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Former Pennsylvania State Trooper Accused of Lying On Gun Paperwork

Only the police can be trusted with guns .
That is , after all , the central premise of gun control , right ?
While anti-gunners often claim they don ’ t want this , I have yet to see an anti-gunner articulate a single position that ’ s simply too far for them .
As a result , we have to assume that the only people they want with guns are the police .
Yet the problem is , police forces are made up of ordinary folks .
Like any other group made up from society at large , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good people and some awful people .
Most are , like everywhere else , somewhere in between .
One former Pennsylvania state trooper is accused of being in that second camp , though , as he faces charges that he lied on gun purchase paperwork .
A former state police officer accused of falsifying an application to buy two firearms did not attempt to break the law , his lawyer told a Westmoreland County jury as his trial started Monday .
Chad Corbett , 40 , of New Derry , believed criminal charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be dismissed when he signed documents in early March 2018 to buy guns at the Army-Navy Store in Latrobe , defense attorney Fran Murrman said .
Corbett had a plea bargain deal in place since a preliminary hearing just weeks after his arrest in November 2017 in which felony charges were to be dismissed in exchange for his successfully completing anger management treatment , according to Murrman .
That deal , in which Corbett pleaded guilty to a summary harassment charge , was finalized March 23 , 2018 , Murrman said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges when he filled out paperwork to purchase the guns , Assistant District Attorney Mike Pacek said in his opening statement .
That paperwork required Corbett to disclose he faced charges that could result in at least a year in jail , if convicted , Pacek said .
After a background check determined he was ineligible to buy the weapons , Corbett ’ s then-fiancee , who now is his wife , came back to the store seeking to buy the weapons on his behalf , according to Pacek .
“ Clearly this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he knew he wasn ’ t allowed to , ” Pacek said .
“ He knows he broke the law.
” Now , I don ’ t know the details of the assault case Corbett was facing , but if the charges were still pending and he claimed they weren ’ t , then that doesn ’ t look good for him .
His girlfriend trying to commit a straw buy for him afterward , though , really doesn ’ t look good .
However , it should be noted that attempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is illegal .
I ’ m curious where the charges are against her .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I oppose pretty much every gun control law on the books anywhere .
I think I should be legally allowed to defend my home with heavy artillery if I so desire , after all .
But we have laws on the books and if they ’ re not enforced , I see even less reason than usual pass more laws .
If Corbett broke the law–and from what I see here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably less than everything to be seen in the case .
It ’ s unlike the media has the whole story and , if they did , that they ’ d share it–then he should probably be punished for it .
The problem is , how many others lied on paperwork around that same time and aren ’ t being prosecuted ?
I can ’ t help but think that Corbett is being hit here simply because the assault case fell apart and prosecutors are still pissed at him , so they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so few others get prosecuted for the same thing .
If so , he deserves to walk even if he knew .
Malicious prosecution should never be acceptable .

Only the police can be trusted with guns.
That is, after all, the central premise of gun control, right? While anti-gunners often claim they don’t want this, I have yet to see an anti-gunner articulate a single position that’s simply too far for them. As a result, we have to assume that the only people they want with guns are the police.
Yet the problem is, police forces are made up of ordinary folks. Like any other group made up from society at large, they’re going to get some good people and some awful people. Most are, like everywhere else, somewhere in between.
One former Pennsylvania state trooper is accused of being in that second camp, though, as he faces charges that he lied on gun purchase paperwork.
A former state police officer accused of falsifying an application to buy two firearms did not attempt to break the law, his lawyer told a Westmoreland County jury as his trial started Monday. Chad Corbett, 40, of New Derry, believed criminal charges alleging he had assaulted a woman were to be dismissed when he signed documents in early March 2018 to buy guns at the Army-Navy Store in Latrobe, defense attorney Fran Murrman said. Corbett had a plea bargain deal in place since a preliminary hearing just weeks after his arrest in November 2017 in which felony charges were to be dismissed in exchange for his successfully completing anger management treatment, according to Murrman. That deal, in which Corbett pleaded guilty to a summary harassment charge, was finalized March 23, 2018, Murrman said. … Corbett was aware of the pending assault charges when he filled out paperwork to purchase the guns, Assistant District Attorney Mike Pacek said in his opening statement. That paperwork required Corbett to disclose he faced charges that could result in at least a year in jail, if convicted, Pacek said. After a background check determined he was ineligible to buy the weapons, Corbett’s then-fiancee, who now is his wife, came back to the store seeking to buy the weapons on his behalf, according to Pacek. “Clearly this was an attempt to get these guns when he knew he wasn’t allowed to,” Pacek said. “He knows he broke the law.”
Now, I don’t know the details of the assault case Corbett was facing, but if the charges were still pending and he claimed they weren’t, then that doesn’t look good for him.
His girlfriend trying to commit a straw buy for him afterward, though, really doesn’t look good.
However, it should be noted that attempting to buy guns for an ineligible person is illegal. I’m curious where the charges are against her.
Don’t get me wrong, I oppose pretty much every gun control law on the books anywhere. I think I should be legally allowed to defend my home with heavy artillery if I so desire, after all.
But we have laws on the books and if they’re not enforced, I see even less reason than usual pass more laws.
If Corbett broke the law–and from what I see here, he probably did, though this is probably less than everything to be seen in the case. It’s unlike the media has the whole story and, if they did, that they’d share it–then he should probably be punished for it. The problem is, how many others lied on paperwork around that same time and aren’t being prosecuted?
I can’t help but think that Corbett is being hit here simply because the assault case fell apart and prosecutors are still pissed at him, so they’ll go after him on this when so few others get prosecuted for the same thing.
If so, he deserves to walk even if he knew. Malicious prosecution should never be acceptable.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Lawmaker Demands Gun Ban At WA Capitol After 2A Rally

Washington State ’ s constitution declares that “ the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself , or the state , shall not be impaired , ” but that ’ s exactly what one lawmaker wants to do after hundreds of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters recently rallied at the state capitol in Olympia while armed .
State Rep. Tana Senn filed a bill to ban firearms at the capitol just before this year ’ s deadline for new legislation , claiming that the recent civic engagement on the part of gun owners amounted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other supporters of gun control .
“ They were all over the building and they were , frankly , intimidating people whether they meant to or not , that was definitely the reaction , ” Senn said .
“ People were scared.
” Legislative staff were notified of the demonstration and the House authorized staff who were made uncomfortable to take leave from work or work from home , according to an email shared with the Northwest News Network .
Senn said she was especially concerned because school children were forced to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrators were in the Capitol .
“ We teach our kids all the time what to do if there ’ s an active shooter and then they come to the state Capitol and they see people with these large weapons , how are they supposed to respond , ” Senn said .
Senn ’ s bill would prohibit the possession of openly-carried weapons on the state Capitol grounds .
The proposal would amend an existing law that already outlaws guns in places like jails , courthouses and public mental health facilities .
Jails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , huh ?
If Senn wants to lump her and other anti-gun lawmakers in with criminals and the severely mentally ill , she probably won ’ t hear too many objections from the state ’ s gun owners .
However , I imagine she ’ ll hear plenty of protests if her bill starts making progress .
And despite what the story says above , Senn ’ s bill wouldn ’ t just ban the open carrying of firearms , but the carrying of firearms in general .
Senn ’ s position is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the People with the free exercise of their rights , so she wants to stop them from doing so .
There were no issues with any of the gun owners who were legally carrying at the capitol in Washington , just as there were no issues with any of the thousands of legal gun owners on hand for Lobby Day in Richmond a few weeks ago .
Despite that , however , anti-gun lawmakers are still making it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will be infringed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they get nervous when gun owners are around .
I believe in being a good ambassador for our Second Amendment .
I believe that conversation is a far more effective political tool than needless confrontation , and I also believe that as gun owners we can and should be doing everything we can to be as politically effective at persuading the persuadables ( is that a word ? )
to reject unconstitutional and ineffective gun control laws .
I ’ m not a huge fan of slinging an AR-15 to your back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , but I also think that ’ s a far different activity than open carrying a long gun while at the capitol to protest gun control bills .
Besides , it ’ s one thing to debate the effectiveness of open carry of long guns as a political statement .
It ’ s something else entirely to make it illegal , which is what Senn wants to do .
The legal carrying of a firearm can not , in itself , be an act of intimidation under the law , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senn ’ s proposed gun ban .
She saw people legally carrying , she felt intimidated , and therefore guns must be banned .
Senn ’ s unreasonable fear of law-abiding gun owners and her desire to declare the capitol a gun-free zone will need to pass out of committee by Friday in order to remain viable this session .
Right now the bill hasn ’ t been formally scheduled for a hearing , but we ’ ll keep an eye out and let you know if it actually gets a vote .

Washington State’s constitution declares that “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,” but that’s exactly what one lawmaker wants to do after hundreds of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters recently rallied at the state capitol in Olympia while armed.
State Rep. Tana Senn filed a bill to ban firearms at the capitol just before this year’s deadline for new legislation, claiming that the recent civic engagement on the part of gun owners amounted to “intimidation” of her and other supporters of gun control.
“They were all over the building and they were, frankly, intimidating people whether they meant to or not, that was definitely the reaction,” Senn said. “People were scared.” Legislative staff were notified of the demonstration and the House authorized staff who were made uncomfortable to take leave from work or work from home, according to an email shared with the Northwest News Network. Senn said she was especially concerned because school children were forced to remain in the House galleries while the armed demonstrators were in the Capitol. “We teach our kids all the time what to do if there’s an active shooter and then they come to the state Capitol and they see people with these large weapons, how are they supposed to respond,” Senn said. Senn’s bill would prohibit the possession of openly-carried weapons on the state Capitol grounds. The proposal would amend an existing law that already outlaws guns in places like jails, courthouses and public mental health facilities.
Jails, courthouses, and mental health facilities, huh? If Senn wants to lump her and other anti-gun lawmakers in with criminals and the severely mentally ill, she probably won’t hear too many objections from the state’s gun owners. However, I imagine she’ll hear plenty of protests if her bill starts making progress. And despite what the story says above, Senn’s bill wouldn’t just ban the open carrying of firearms, but the carrying of firearms in general.
Senn’s position is simple: she doesn’t trust the People with the free exercise of their rights, so she wants to stop them from doing so.
There were no issues with any of the gun owners who were legally carrying at the capitol in Washington, just as there were no issues with any of the thousands of legal gun owners on hand for Lobby Day in Richmond a few weeks ago. Despite that, however, anti-gun lawmakers are still making it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will be infringed by them if given the chance, because they get nervous when gun owners are around.
I believe in being a good ambassador for our Second Amendment. I believe that conversation is a far more effective political tool than needless confrontation, and I also believe that as gun owners we can and should be doing everything we can to be as politically effective at persuading the persuadables (is that a word?) to reject unconstitutional and ineffective gun control laws. I’m not a huge fan of slinging an AR-15 to your back while you’re at Starbucks, for example, but I also think that’s a far different activity than open carrying a long gun while at the capitol to protest gun control bills.
Besides, it’s one thing to debate the effectiveness of open carry of long guns as a political statement. It’s something else entirely to make it illegal, which is what Senn wants to do. The legal carrying of a firearm cannot, in itself, be an act of intimidation under the law, but that’s the entire argument for Senn’s proposed gun ban. She saw people legally carrying, she felt intimidated, and therefore guns must be banned.
Senn’s unreasonable fear of law-abiding gun owners and her desire to declare the capitol a gun-free zone will need to pass out of committee by Friday in order to remain viable this session. Right now the bill hasn’t been formally scheduled for a hearing, but we’ll keep an eye out and let you know if it actually gets a vote.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--SC Lawmaker Pushes Mandatory Reporting Bill

It is an established fact that most criminals use stolen guns , often purchased on the black market .
Studies confirm this , and it ’ s why many of us argue that gun control is perpetually doomed to fail .
After all , efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals ignore the fact that criminals don ’ t obey the law .
However , a South Carolina lawmaker is using this fact to try and push for a bill that seeks to potentially punish the victims of crimes instead of those who commit them .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rep. Robert Williams of Darlington and Florence counties said he introduced a bill last legislative session that he thinks will curb gun violence .
Williams said House Bill 3683 would require people to report their stolen or lost guns .
“ There are people who are stealing weapons and there is no accountability .
For these weapons and these weapons are in the back on the streets .
I wanted to make sure that folks are reporting their weapons when they were stolen .
Or when they are lost .
Or misplaced.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other person lawfully in possession of a firearm , rifle or shotgun to report the loss or theft of each such weapon , to require the appropriate law enforcement agency to collect certain information regarding a lost or stolen weapon , and to provide graduated penalties for the failure to report a lost or stolen weapon.
” “ Folks break into vehicles .
Folks break into people ’ s homes .
Steal weapons all the time .
And all we are asking for all these reports to be made to law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said his bill has nothing to do with gun control laws .
He ’ s not trying to restrict citizens ’ Second Amendment Rights .
No , he ’ s just going to punish the victim of a crime for not choosing to report it .
Now , why is this an issue ?
There are a few reasons .
One is , why bother to report a gun stolen when you don ’ t have the serial number for it ?
Sure , you can say your Kimber 1911 was taken , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re never getting that gun back and we all know it .
Plus , let ’ s be honest , sometimes we don ’ t always put our eyes on all our guns all the time .
We simply might not know a gun is gun until we ’ re being asked about it by the police .
Even if you do , there ’ s no evidence that you knew a gun was stolen unless someone tells the police , thus making it almost impossible to prosecute anyone but the honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that isn ’ t necessarily a question people are going to hear .
South Carolina has too many ways for a gun to legally change hands for such transfers to be tracked .
It ’ s just not likely the police will be able to find who owned the gun before it was stolen .
Finally , let ’ s not forget that laws like this seek to punish those who are already the victims of a crime .
Victim blaming is a bad thing , as we ’ re told , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but blaming the victims of crime for crimes carried out with property stolen from them .
Williams claims he ’ s trying to stop criminals , but I have to ask him just what good a mandatory reporting law will do .
The guns will still be stolen and it ’ s highly unlikely most gun owners will ever get them back even if they ’ re recovered .
It won ’ t reduce the guns on the street , so why push this ?
If there ’ s a saving grace in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unlikely this bill will get very far .

It is an established fact that most criminals use stolen guns, often purchased on the black market. Studies confirm this, and it’s why many of us argue that gun control is perpetually doomed to fail. After all, efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals ignore the fact that criminals don’t obey the law.
However, a South Carolina lawmaker is using this fact to try and push for a bill that seeks to potentially punish the victims of crimes instead of those who commit them. In particular, the theft of a firearm.
Rep. Robert Williams of Darlington and Florence counties said he introduced a bill last legislative session that he thinks will curb gun violence. Williams said House Bill 3683 would require people to report their stolen or lost guns. “There are people who are stealing weapons and there is no accountability. For these weapons and these weapons are in the back on the streets. I wanted to make sure that folks are reporting their weapons when they were stolen. Or when they are lost. Or misplaced.” The bill requires an “owner or other person lawfully in possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun to report the loss or theft of each such weapon, to require the appropriate law enforcement agency to collect certain information regarding a lost or stolen weapon, and to provide graduated penalties for the failure to report a lost or stolen weapon.” “Folks break into vehicles. Folks break into people’s homes. Steal weapons all the time. And all we are asking for all these reports to be made to law enforcement,” said Williams. Williams also said his bill has nothing to do with gun control laws. He’s not trying to restrict citizens’ Second Amendment Rights.
No, he’s just going to punish the victim of a crime for not choosing to report it.
Now, why is this an issue? There are a few reasons. One is, why bother to report a gun stolen when you don’t have the serial number for it? Sure, you can say your Kimber 1911 was taken, but without the serial number, you’re never getting that gun back and we all know it.
Plus, let’s be honest, sometimes we don’t always put our eyes on all our guns all the time. We simply might not know a gun is gun until we’re being asked about it by the police. Even if you do, there’s no evidence that you knew a gun was stolen unless someone tells the police, thus making it almost impossible to prosecute anyone but the honest folks who answer that question honestly.
And that isn’t necessarily a question people are going to hear. South Carolina has too many ways for a gun to legally change hands for such transfers to be tracked. It’s just not likely the police will be able to find who owned the gun before it was stolen.
Finally, let’s not forget that laws like this seek to punish those who are already the victims of a crime. Victim blaming is a bad thing, as we’re told, yet bills like this are doing nothing but blaming the victims of crime for crimes carried out with property stolen from them.
Williams claims he’s trying to stop criminals, but I have to ask him just what good a mandatory reporting law will do. The guns will still be stolen and it’s highly unlikely most gun owners will ever get them back even if they’re recovered. It won’t reduce the guns on the street, so why push this?
If there’s a saving grace in this, it’s that it’s unlikely this bill will get very far.
Thankfully.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Psychiatrist Illustrates Why "Mental Health Screenings" Won't Fly

One idea that anti-gunners often try to push is to require mental health screenings before people are allowed to purchase a firearm .
Their argument is that this will keep the disturbed–people such as potential mass shooters–from being able to buy firearms but shouldn ’ t impact the rest of us in the least .
Of course , that ’ s male bovine excrement and we all know it .
You see , the kind of people who conduct the screening are human beings .
As such , they ’ ll have their own biases .
Especially political biases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these mental healthcare providers do some colossally stupid thing .
Take this individual , for example : Back in October of 2017 , Bandy Lee—a forensic psychiatrist at Yale who doubles as a self-anointed political schoolmarm—notoriously diagnosed President Trump as having so-called narcissistic personality disorder .
Having done this without “ examining ” him , Lee violated the American Psychiatric Association ’ s Goldwater rule , which states that “ it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee was widely rebuked by people throughout her profession , which , needless to say , is hardly a MAGA crowd .
Now Lee has gone after Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz for criticizing the view that Donald Trump is guilty of obstructing justice or other impeachable conduct .
Dershowitz , according to Lee , suffers from the same “ mental disorder ” as the president .
What makes “ experts ” like Lee so dangerous is their blithe use of “ science ” to advance what is really a kind of moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dangerous Case of Donald Trump : 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President , Lee writes : Possibly the oddest experience in my career as a psychiatrist has been to find that the only people not allowed to speak about an issue are those who know the most about it .
How can I , as a medical and mental health researcher , remain a bystander in the face of one of the greatest emergencies of our time , when I have been called to step in everywhere else ?
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and has , to put it generously , a middling intellect , Lee is nonetheless bursting with hubris .
“ Everywhere else ” means all domains and contexts other than what she calls “ one of the greatest emergencies of our time ” —namely , the Trump administration .
Quite a busy life , Bandy Lee ’ s !
Reading Lee on Lee , one is reminded of St. Paul : “ I have become all things to all men , that I might by all means save some.
” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people as suffering from mental disorders based on little else except for profound political disagreements .
If you think she ’ s alone in this , you ’ ve deluded yourself .
No , not all providers would be so blatantly biased .
Even some who hold anti-gun views would still try to perform screenings in as unbiased a manner as humanly possible .
However , Lee knows good and well she ’ s not permitted to offer diagnoses on people she hasn ’ t actually seen as a patient , yet here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the precise problem because she ’ s ignoring her oath and her training in order to try and hurt people she disagrees with politically .
Meanwhile , buying a gun is an unfortunately political act .
Simply by doing so , you ’ re illustrating your own beliefs in the Second Amendment .
Do you think someone like Lee won ’ t judge your entire political ideology based on this one simple act , that she could be trusted to give some a fair and impartial screening ?
If so , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona .
Screenings require people , which introduces bias into the system .
For a group of people who spend a lot of time talking about inherent biases , you ’ d think the anti-gun left would understand that .
Apparently not .
But so long as you have people like Dr. Lee running around , you ’ ll have an even harder time trying to convince me and other gun rights supporters that this is a viable thing .
Even if you somehow circumvented the constitutional arguments against it , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

One idea that anti-gunners often try to push is to require mental health screenings before people are allowed to purchase a firearm. Their argument is that this will keep the disturbed–people such as potential mass shooters–from being able to buy firearms but shouldn’t impact the rest of us in the least.
Of course, that’s male bovine excrement and we all know it.
You see, the kind of people who conduct the screening are human beings. As such, they’ll have their own biases. Especially political biases.
Sometimes, those political biases will have these mental healthcare providers do some colossally stupid thing. Take this individual, for example:
Back in October of 2017, Bandy Lee—a forensic psychiatrist at Yale who doubles as a self-anointed political schoolmarm—notoriously diagnosed President Trump as having so-called narcissistic personality disorder. Having done this without “examining” him, Lee violated the American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater rule, which states that “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” Lee was widely rebuked by people throughout her profession, which, needless to say, is hardly a MAGA crowd. Now Lee has gone after Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz for criticizing the view that Donald Trump is guilty of obstructing justice or other impeachable conduct. Dershowitz, according to Lee, suffers from the same “mental disorder” as the president. What makes “experts” like Lee so dangerous is their blithe use of “science” to advance what is really a kind of moral crusade. In her introduction to The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, Lee writes: Possibly the oddest experience in my career as a psychiatrist has been to find that the only people not allowed to speak about an issue are those who know the most about it. How can I, as a medical and mental health researcher, remain a bystander in the face of one of the greatest emergencies of our time, when I have been called to step in everywhere else? Although she is terribly lacking in analytical rigor and has, to put it generously, a middling intellect, Lee is nonetheless bursting with hubris. “Everywhere else” means all domains and contexts other than what she calls “one of the greatest emergencies of our time”—namely, the Trump administration. Quite a busy life, Bandy Lee’s! Reading Lee on Lee, one is reminded of St. Paul: “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
In other words, Dr. Lee is ready to diagnose people as suffering from mental disorders based on little else except for profound political disagreements. If you think she’s alone in this, you’ve deluded yourself.
No, not all providers would be so blatantly biased. Even some who hold anti-gun views would still try to perform screenings in as unbiased a manner as humanly possible.
However, Lee knows good and well she’s not permitted to offer diagnoses on people she hasn’t actually seen as a patient, yet here she is. She’s illustrating the precise problem because she’s ignoring her oath and her training in order to try and hurt people she disagrees with politically.
Meanwhile, buying a gun is an unfortunately political act. Simply by doing so, you’re illustrating your own beliefs in the Second Amendment. Do you think someone like Lee won’t judge your entire political ideology based on this one simple act, that she could be trusted to give some a fair and impartial screening?
If so, I have some beachfront property to sell you in Arizona.
Screenings require people, which introduces bias into the system. For a group of people who spend a lot of time talking about inherent biases, you’d think the anti-gun left would understand that. Apparently not.
But so long as you have people like Dr. Lee running around, you’ll have an even harder time trying to convince me and other gun rights supporters that this is a viable thing. Even if you somehow circumvented the constitutional arguments against it, that is, which you really can’t.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Can Bloomberg Capitalize On Iowa's Caucus Chaos?

I reached out to my friend Jim Geraghty from National Review on Monday afternoon to invite him on today ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. “ Let ’ s talk about the Iowa caucus results , who won and who lost , and what the impact will be on the actual nomination process , ” I told him .
Well , we talk about everything except for the results , because when we taped the show Tuesday morning , no results had been released .
Democrats are scrambling right now to figure out what happened Monday night , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still isn ’ t sure when all of the results will be released .
Based on the live reporting from various cable outlets across the state on Monday night , however , the news doesn ’ t look great for Joe Biden .
Jim points out that CNN and others were set up in the state ’ s bigger cities and university towns , which aren ’ t exactly Biden strongholds , but in several of the caucus sites shown on television , Biden couldn ’ t even get 15 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders ends up winning Iowa while Biden underperforms , who benefits the most ?
Arguably the answer is Michael Bloomberg .
A new national poll has Bloomberg at 14 % , which is one of his best showings since he entered the presidential campaign back in November .
Bloomberg ’ s strategy is predicated on the idea of a Biden collapse , and with Sanders leading the polling in New Hampshire , it ’ s looking more and more like Biden will at least be seen as damaged goods by the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early March .
That ’ s when Bloomberg is hoping to win delegate-rich states like California and Texas , or at least be competitive enough to pick up some delegates on the way to the convention .
If no candidate has enough delegates to secure the nomination outright , a brokered convention would be the ultimate opportunity for Bloomberg to wheel , deal , and buy his way into the becoming the nominee .
Of course we ’ re still a long way from that scenario coming to pass , and a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg to get his way .
California , for example , hasn ’ t embraced Bloomberg with open arms , at least in the polling that we ’ ve seen over the last few weeks .
Bernie Sanders holds a sizable lead in three of the four polls conducted since January , while Bloomberg ’ s best showing is 6 % of California ’ s Democratic primary voters .
In Texas , there ’ s only been one poll conducted since the start of the year , and it showed Biden leading Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren a close third and Bloomberg a distant fourth .
Will Democrats in the Lone Star State really embrace the man who belittled Jack Wilson , the hero who stopped the church shooting in White Settlement back in January , even if Biden ’ s campaign falters over the next couple of weeks ?
I doubt it , but at the same time , I ’ m not underestimating the Bloomberg campaign and the hundreds of millions of dollars the candidate is pouring into his effort to become president , including his latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the caucus chaos on Monday night .
Make sure you check out the entire interview with Jim Geraghty above , and stick around for today ’ s armed citizen story , our recidivist report , and one of the best good deeds of the day I ’ ve covered in quite a while .
Also , don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or the Townhall.com podcast page , or to Townhall Media on YouTube .
Thanks for watching , listening , and @ @ @ @

I reached out to my friend Jim Geraghty from National Review on Monday afternoon to invite him on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co.
“Let’s talk about the Iowa caucus results, who won and who lost, and what the impact will be on the actual nomination process,” I told him.
Well, we talk about everything except for the results, because when we taped the show Tuesday morning, no results had been released. Democrats are scrambling right now to figure out what happened Monday night, and the head of the state Democrat Party still isn’t sure when all of the results will be released.
Based on the live reporting from various cable outlets across the state on Monday night, however, the news doesn’t look great for Joe Biden. Jim points out that CNN and others were set up in the state’s bigger cities and university towns, which aren’t exactly Biden strongholds, but in several of the caucus sites shown on television, Biden couldn’t even get 15% of the voters to align with him. If Bernie Sanders ends up winning Iowa while Biden underperforms, who benefits the most?
Arguably the answer is Michael Bloomberg. A new national poll has Bloomberg at 14%, which is one of his best showings since he entered the presidential campaign back in November. Bloomberg’s strategy is predicated on the idea of a Biden collapse, and with Sanders leading the polling in New Hampshire, it’s looking more and more like Biden will at least be seen as damaged goods by the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around in early March. That’s when Bloomberg is hoping to win delegate-rich states like California and Texas, or at least be competitive enough to pick up some delegates on the way to the convention. If no candidate has enough delegates to secure the nomination outright, a brokered convention would be the ultimate opportunity for Bloomberg to wheel, deal, and buy his way into the becoming the nominee.
Of course we’re still a long way from that scenario coming to pass, and a lot would have to happen in order for Bloomberg to get his way. California, for example, hasn’t embraced Bloomberg with open arms, at least in the polling that we’ve seen over the last few weeks. Bernie Sanders holds a sizable lead in three of the four polls conducted since January, while Bloomberg’s best showing is 6% of California’s Democratic primary voters.
In Texas, there’s only been one poll conducted since the start of the year, and it showed Biden leading Sanders by almost 12 points, with Elizabeth Warren a close third and Bloomberg a distant fourth. Will Democrats in the Lone Star State really embrace the man who belittled Jack Wilson, the hero who stopped the church shooting in White Settlement back in January, even if Biden’s campaign falters over the next couple of weeks? I doubt it, but at the same time, I’m not underestimating the Bloomberg campaign and the hundreds of millions of dollars the candidate is pouring into his effort to become president, including his latest deluge of cash in the wake of the caucus chaos on Monday night.
Scoop: In the wake of Iowa debacle, Mike Bloomberg told aides this morning to double ad spending—from 1200 points to 2400 points in all targeted markets. https://t.co/PvtbOiGBMk — michaelscherer (@michaelscherer) February 4, 2020
Make sure you check out the entire interview with Jim Geraghty above, and stick around for today’s armed citizen story, our recidivist report, and one of the best good deeds of the day I’ve covered in quite a while.
Also, don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or the Townhall.com podcast page, or to Townhall Media on YouTube. Thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucus Turnout May Suggest Low Energy For Gun Control

The 2020 Democratic Primary was supposed to have a whole lot of talk about gun control and so far , it has .
We ’ ve seen candidates try to focus their entire campaign on the issue and every campaign has a gun control plan in place to some degree or another .
It ’ s been a significant issue for every candidate .
And it may also be at least part of why the turnout for Monday ’ s Iowa Caucus was so low .
While so much of the focus on Iowa has been the complete debacle made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ untested app–and these people want me to give up my guns and trust them with my family ’ s safety ?
–there ’ s also been at least some discussion of the poor turnout .
Iowa Democrats just aren ’ t that energized by any of the candidates .
However , it also suggests they ’ re not nearly as motivated by gun control as some would like to believe .
Now , this is only one state so far and it ’ s a pretty rural state , so it may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but don ’ t be surprised to see lower voter turnout throughout the primary season .
The reason is that while polls argue that most people support gun control , the polling over a number of recent issues hasn ’ t reflected reality .
Most famously , these same polls predicted Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the White House .
How did that work out again ?
Polling has been exposed as terribly flawed , which means they can still be useful , but they ’ re not infallible .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control doesn ’ t mean they actually do .
That ’ s especially true in states like Iowa where even a lot of Democrats own guns .
While the Democrats have been beating the gun control drum with every fiber of their being , probably regarding the polling as telling them that ’ s a good choice , they ’ re also alienating a lot of voters who might have otherwise backed them .
Again , though , this is Iowa .
It ’ s just one state , right ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s look at the overall primary season to date .
Beto O ’ Rourke , Rep. Eric Swalwell , Sen. Kamala Harris , and Sen. Cory Booker all took major stands on gun control , arguably , the strongest in the field .
All are at home right now wondering what happened in Iowa but not otherwise impacted by it…just like the rest of us .
Had the passion for gun control been as strong as Democratic insiders argue , one might have expected these candidates to do far better than they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call .
It ’ s a warning that gun control isn ’ t the winning strategy Democrats might want to believe it is .
If they want to have a hope in hell of winning , it might not be a bad idea to kill the anti-gun rhetoric and recognize how many gun owners there really are in the United States .
We all tend to vote , and while many may not like Trump for a variety of reasons–up to and including the bump stock ban–we ’ re not voting for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more gun control laws .

The 2020 Democratic Primary was supposed to have a whole lot of talk about gun control and so far, it has. We’ve seen candidates try to focus their entire campaign on the issue and every campaign has a gun control plan in place to some degree or another. It’s been a significant issue for every candidate.
And it may also be at least part of why the turnout for Monday’s Iowa Caucus was so low.
While so much of the focus on Iowa has been the complete debacle made of reporting caucus results thanks to an untested app–and these people want me to give up my guns and trust them with my family’s safety?–there’s also been at least some discussion of the poor turnout. Iowa Democrats just aren’t that energized by any of the candidates.
However, it also suggests they’re not nearly as motivated by gun control as some would like to believe.
Now, this is only one state so far and it’s a pretty rural state, so it may not end up being typical across the board, but don’t be surprised to see lower voter turnout throughout the primary season.
The reason is that while polls argue that most people support gun control, the polling over a number of recent issues hasn’t reflected reality. Most famously, these same polls predicted Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the White House. How did that work out again?
Polling has been exposed as terribly flawed, which means they can still be useful, but they’re not infallible. Just because they say most voters want gun control doesn’t mean they actually do. That’s especially true in states like Iowa where even a lot of Democrats own guns.
While the Democrats have been beating the gun control drum with every fiber of their being, probably regarding the polling as telling them that’s a good choice, they’re also alienating a lot of voters who might have otherwise backed them.
Again, though, this is Iowa. It’s just one state, right?
That’s certainly true, but let’s look at the overall primary season to date. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Eric Swalwell, Sen. Kamala Harris, and Sen. Cory Booker all took major stands on gun control, arguably, the strongest in the field. All are at home right now wondering what happened in Iowa but not otherwise impacted by it…just like the rest of us.
Had the passion for gun control been as strong as Democratic insiders argue, one might have expected these candidates to do far better than they did.
No, Iowa is a warning call. It’s a warning that gun control isn’t the winning strategy Democrats might want to believe it is. If they want to have a hope in hell of winning, it might not be a bad idea to kill the anti-gun rhetoric and recognize how many gun owners there really are in the United States. We all tend to vote, and while many may not like Trump for a variety of reasons–up to and including the bump stock ban–we’re not voting for a Democrat who has vowed to make even more gun control laws.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Indiana Prosecutor Wants To Expand State's Red Flag Law

Indiana ’ s red flag law has been on the books since 2005 , but a prosecutor in the state says the law needs some changes if it ’ s going to work as intended .
Marion County DA Ryan Mears says under the existing law , someone who ’ s had their firearms seized can still purchase a gun at retail while they ’ re appealing the temporary order , and he says that needs to change .
Indiana ’ s Red Flag Law — also known as the Jake Laird Law — allows officers to seize a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he or she is dangerous or mentally unstable .
A hearing is then set within 14 days .
However , Mears said often times the person whose firearm was taken wants to present evidence and testimony .
So the case goes to trial .
Mears explains that the process sometimes can take months , and in that time period , the person can legally purchase another gun .
“ I think we need to have the courage to say it doesn ’ t make sense for this person to have the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after they go through this stressful situation , ” he said .
Funny , I think prosecutors need to have the courage to say people shouldn ’ t be stripped of their constitutional rights without due process , and that ’ s exactly what Mears ’ proposed changes would do .
Indiana ’ s red flag law is named after Jake Laird , an Indianapolis police officer killed in the line of duty , but even Laird ’ s father isn ’ t embracing Mears ’ proposal .
Laird ’ s father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports closing this loophole .
“ With anything , with any law , there is always going to be a way to skirt the issue , ” said Laird .
“ I would much rather him not be able to get a gun , but I don ’ t know if it is against his constitutional rights.
” What Mears is calling for simply turns the legal system on its head by putting the punishment ahead of a trial , as Fox 59 in Indianapolis explains .
When a judge signs a Jake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forwarded to the FBI as a NICS disqualifier to prevent the person from making future purchases from a licensed firearm dealer .
The order must specifically prohibit the person from purchasing , possessing or acquiring firearms .
Mears said this only happens after the trial is over .
I ’ m sure it would be easier for law enforcement if they didn ’ t have to worry about things like due process or violating the civil rights of residents .
Fortunately , that ’ s not how it ’ s supposed to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is way off base by advocating for stripping people of their rights before a trial has even concluded .
The prosecutor may see his proposal as a simple shortcut for law enforcement , but it ’ s far more dangerous to civil liberties than he lets on .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Indiana’s red flag law has been on the books since 2005, but a prosecutor in the state says the law needs some changes if it’s going to work as intended. Marion County DA Ryan Mears says under the existing law, someone who’s had their firearms seized can still purchase a gun at retail while they’re appealing the temporary order, and he says that needs to change.
Indiana’s Red Flag Law — also known as the Jake Laird Law — allows officers to seize a person’s gun if law enforcement thinks he or she is dangerous or mentally unstable. A hearing is then set within 14 days. However, Mears said often times the person whose firearm was taken wants to present evidence and testimony. So the case goes to trial. Mears explains that the process sometimes can take months, and in that time period, the person can legally purchase another gun. “I think we need to have the courage to say it doesn’t make sense for this person to have the ability to purchase a firearm literally an hour later after they go through this stressful situation,” he said.
Funny, I think prosecutors need to have the courage to say people shouldn’t be stripped of their constitutional rights without due process, and that’s exactly what Mears’ proposed changes would do.
Indiana’s red flag law is named after Jake Laird, an Indianapolis police officer killed in the line of duty, but even Laird’s father isn’t embracing Mears’ proposal.
Laird’s father, Mike, is torn on whether he supports closing this loophole. “With anything, with any law, there is always going to be a way to skirt the issue,” said Laird. “I would much rather him not be able to get a gun, but I don’t know if it is against his constitutional rights.”
What Mears is calling for simply turns the legal system on its head by putting the punishment ahead of a trial, as Fox 59 in Indianapolis explains.
When a judge signs a Jake Laird order, the order may be forwarded to the FBI as a NICS disqualifier to prevent the person from making future purchases from a licensed firearm dealer. The order must specifically prohibit the person from purchasing, possessing or acquiring firearms. Mears said this only happens after the trial is over.
I’m sure it would be easier for law enforcement if they didn’t have to worry about things like due process or violating the civil rights of residents. Fortunately, that’s not how it’s supposed to work in the United States, and Mears is way off base by advocating for stripping people of their rights before a trial has even concluded. The prosecutor may see his proposal as a simple shortcut for law enforcement, but it’s far more dangerous to civil liberties than he lets on.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Reaches New York State

Gun owners in at least one New York county are eyeing a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance , and local lawmakers could approve the measure at a board meeting Tuesday evening .
WWNY-TV reports that the effort began with a simple Facebook group in the county , but has taken off in recent weeks as members set up petitions at local businesses for Second Amendment supporters to sign .
While there ’ s no word on how the county ’ s board of legislators is leaning , the group does have the backing of at least one local official .
Sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group but says he supports the effort .
“ This wasn ’ t my idea – just some fantastic like-minded citizens that have finally had enough with the Albany bureaucracy , no representation , ” he said .
With New York City-area lawmakers dominating the state Assembly , gun owners in upstate New York have long felt like their voices have been ignored in the state capitol .
With the passage of the state ’ s SAFE Act back in 2013 , those gun owners have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m surprised it ’ s taken this long for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement to spring up in New York .
Unfortunately , while Sheriff Carpinelli is backing the pro-2A ordinance in Lewis County , other upstate sheriffs aren ’ t on board , Both Montgomery County Sheriff Jeff Smith and Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino issued statements this week rejecting calls from social media groups asking them to declare their respective counties “ 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties.
” Smith and Giardino are Republicans who serve rural counties with many active gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their respective Facebook pages , each outlined his objection to New York ’ s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 , commonly known as the New York SAFE Act .
While each explained his strong support for the second amendment — each also said he can not announce he will refuse to enforce laws he doesn ’ t like personally .
Giardino , a former district attorney and former judge , explained why he won ’ t , and why other sheriffs should not , declare their counties “ 2nd Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fulton County Sheriff , my oath as an admitted Attorney in the State , as a Former District Attorney and County Court Judge , I can ’ t refuse to enforce any duly passed law which has been found Constitutional by the Courts .
To do so would make myself or any other Sheriff derelict in their duties and subject to removal , ” he said .
“ As Sheriffs we have to be cognizant of the fact that a Governor can remove a Sheriff who refuses to enforce the laws of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I respect the sheriff ’ s reasoning , I can ’ t help but note that there are plenty of provisions in the SAFE Act that are on the books but aren ’ t being enforced by any county sheriff or the state police .
Back in 2015 , for example , the Cuomo administration simply gave up on enforcing a law requiring background checks for all ammunition sales .
Prosecutors in Erie County aren ’ t enforcing a provision of the SAFE Act that requires gun owners to only have seven rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sheriffs in the state already enjoy the same discretion in enforcing gun control laws that they have in enforcing virtually every other law on the books , and there ’ s plenty of evidence that many upstate law enforcement officers aren ’ t that interested in arresting or prosecuting individuals for non-violent possessory offenses under the SAFE Act .
As PolitiFact pointed out back in 2017 , the vast majority of SAFE Act arrests and prosecutions are taking place in New York City , not upstate .
I ’ d also tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in numbers .
Yes , Cuomo may have the power to remove sheriffs who refuse to enforce the laws of New York State .
Can you imagine the political fallout , however , if Cuomo tried to remove a dozen or more sheriffs over their enforcement ( or not ) of the SAFE Act ?
I don ’ t think Cuomo actually wants that political fight .
He ’ s much more interested in simply pretending that the gun control laws are working than he is in actually enforcing them .
I wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their Second Amendment rights , and hopefully we ’ ll see a successful vote in Lewis County during Tuesday evening ’ s board meeting .

Gun owners in at least one New York county are eyeing a Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinance, and local lawmakers could approve the measure at a board meeting Tuesday evening.
WWNY-TV reports that the effort began with a simple Facebook group in the county, but has taken off in recent weeks as members set up petitions at local businesses for Second Amendment supporters to sign.
“To adopt a proposed ordinance which will generally say they will not fund or allow any employees to enforce any of the New York state firearm laws,” said Patrick Morse, spokesperson, Lewis County and Towns 2A Sanctuary. Morse says the county would still enforce federal gun laws. He says the group is sick of state laws restricting gun rights. “If we follow all these laws, which there seems to be no end in sight, the only groups of people that will have firearms is the government and the criminals and it is not going after the problem by disarming the people who have never broken a law. And I’m one of those,” he said. “It just seems like their common sense gun legislation has no common sense to it. They never ever include the people who are stakeholders. They always dictate from a far and we’re sick of it.”
While there’s no word on how the county’s board of legislators is leaning, the group does have the backing of at least one local official.
Sheriff Mike Carpinelli is not affiliated with the group but says he supports the effort. “This wasn’t my idea – just some fantastic like-minded citizens that have finally had enough with the Albany bureaucracy, no representation,” he said.
With New York City-area lawmakers dominating the state Assembly, gun owners in upstate New York have long felt like their voices have been ignored in the state capitol. With the passage of the state’s SAFE Act back in 2013, those gun owners have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to new gun laws, and frankly I’m surprised it’s taken this long for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement to spring up in New York.
Unfortunately, while Sheriff Carpinelli is backing the pro-2A ordinance in Lewis County, other upstate sheriffs aren’t on board,
Both Montgomery County Sheriff Jeff Smith and Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino issued statements this week rejecting calls from social media groups asking them to declare their respective counties “2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties.” Smith and Giardino are Republicans who serve rural counties with many active gun owners. In written letters posted to their respective Facebook pages, each outlined his objection to New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, commonly known as the New York SAFE Act. While each explained his strong support for the second amendment — each also said he cannot announce he will refuse to enforce laws he doesn’t like personally. Giardino, a former district attorney and former judge, explained why he won’t, and why other sheriffs should not, declare their counties “2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.” “Under my Oath as the Fulton County Sheriff, my oath as an admitted Attorney in the State, as a Former District Attorney and County Court Judge, I can’t refuse to enforce any duly passed law which has been found Constitutional by the Courts. To do so would make myself or any other Sheriff derelict in their duties and subject to removal,” he said. “As Sheriffs we have to be cognizant of the fact that a Governor can remove a Sheriff who refuses to enforce the laws of the State of New York.”
While I respect the sheriff’s reasoning, I can’t help but note that there are plenty of provisions in the SAFE Act that are on the books but aren’t being enforced by any county sheriff or the state police. Back in 2015, for example, the Cuomo administration simply gave up on enforcing a law requiring background checks for all ammunition sales. Prosecutors in Erie County aren’t enforcing a provision of the SAFE Act that requires gun owners to only have seven rounds of ammunition in their ten round magazines.
Sheriffs in the state already enjoy the same discretion in enforcing gun control laws that they have in enforcing virtually every other law on the books, and there’s plenty of evidence that many upstate law enforcement officers aren’t that interested in arresting or prosecuting individuals for non-violent possessory offenses under the SAFE Act. As PolitiFact pointed out back in 2017, the vast majority of SAFE Act arrests and prosecutions are taking place in New York City, not upstate.
Since the law’s passage, there have been 11,893 arrests for SAFE Act violations in New York state through Feb. 17, [2017] according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. A disproportionate number of the arrests happened in New York City. Some 9,593 arrests were made in New York City compared with 1,641 arrests upstate and 659 arrests on Long Island or in the suburban Westchester and Rockland counties.
I’d also tell these sheriffs that there’s safety in numbers. Yes, Cuomo may have the power to remove sheriffs who refuse to enforce the laws of New York State. Can you imagine the political fallout, however, if Cuomo tried to remove a dozen or more sheriffs over their enforcement (or not) of the SAFE Act? I don’t think Cuomo actually wants that political fight. He’s much more interested in simply pretending that the gun control laws are working than he is in actually enforcing them.
I wish New Yorkers the best in their fight for their Second Amendment rights, and hopefully we’ll see a successful vote in Lewis County during Tuesday evening’s board meeting.


bearingarms--2020-02-04--CA To Scrutinize Hunting Licenses For Those Under 21

The state of California isn ’ t a big fan of anyone having a gun .
That ’ s especially true of adults under the age of 21 , apparently , despite an exception in state law that allows those very same people to buy a gun if they have a valid hunting license .
Of course , that exception seems to be much of the problem in the first place .
While the state doesn ’ t seem interested in ending that exception , what they ’ re considering might be even dumber .
A California Democrat responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control laws wants to tighten oversight of hunting licenses through a proposed law that he says was inspired by a shooting last year at a San Diego County synagogue .
State Sen. Anthony J. Portantino , D-La Cañada Flintridge , introduced legislation on Monday to require the state Department of Justice and gun retailers to determine the legitimacy of hunting licenses issued for people under 21 before a gun is purchased .
He announced Senate Bill 914 in response to the April 2019 shooting at Chabad of Poway that left one dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19-year-old gunman allegedly purchased a firearm with an invalid hunting license and opened fire at the synagogue .
“ Sadly , no one can undo the tragedy that occurred in Poway , ” Portantino said in a press release .
“ I pray for the families and hope the lessons learned can be used proactively for a better and safer place for our Californians to worship and for families to raise their children in safety.
” Now , I ’ m not thrilled that the shooter in Poway used a fake hunting license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no one would have sold that gun if they knew the hunting license was fake .
They ’ re not stupid and would know that the state of California would come down on them like a ton of bricks .
No one wants that kind of headache .
Portantino wants gun sellers to do a more comprehensive background check , apparently , though .
Somehow .
By adding more information to the background check .
Because there ’ s no way that won ’ t go wrong .
Of course , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice to handle all of the required databases .
To say this has received some criticism is an understatement .
“ You ’ re now asking the DOJ , which has a history of bungling databases and juggling databases that do not speak to each other , to hire personnel that can make everything work together , ” [ Sam Paredes , executive director of Gun Owners of California ] .
“ And you ’ re going to add by necessity the California Department of Fish and Wildlife into it in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re the ones that maintain that database .
We envision a coordination nightmare.
” Which is probably exactly what will happen .
One thing we ’ ve seen in recent years is that to err is human , but to really foul something up , you need the California Department of Justice to be on the case .
Should this pass , expect to immediately hear of difficulties for law-abiding , hunting-license holding adults in purchasing firearms because the state can ’ t maintain a database to save their lives .
Which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end to this foolishness of barring lawful adults from buying guns , but it won ’ t .
Not in California .
As such , it ’ s going to be a colossal cluster-flop and we all know it .

The state of California isn’t a big fan of anyone having a gun. That’s especially true of adults under the age of 21, apparently, despite an exception in state law that allows those very same people to buy a gun if they have a valid hunting license.
Of course, that exception seems to be much of the problem in the first place.
While the state doesn’t seem interested in ending that exception, what they’re considering might be even dumber.
A California Democrat responsible for some of the state’s strictest gun control laws wants to tighten oversight of hunting licenses through a proposed law that he says was inspired by a shooting last year at a San Diego County synagogue. State Sen. Anthony J. Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, introduced legislation on Monday to require the state Department of Justice and gun retailers to determine the legitimacy of hunting licenses issued for people under 21 before a gun is purchased. He announced Senate Bill 914 in response to the April 2019 shooting at Chabad of Poway that left one dead and three more injured after an accused 19-year-old gunman allegedly purchased a firearm with an invalid hunting license and opened fire at the synagogue. “Sadly, no one can undo the tragedy that occurred in Poway,” Portantino said in a press release. “I pray for the families and hope the lessons learned can be used proactively for a better and safer place for our Californians to worship and for families to raise their children in safety.”
Now, I’m not thrilled that the shooter in Poway used a fake hunting license, but Portantino is deluded.
First, no one would have sold that gun if they knew the hunting license was fake. They’re not stupid and would know that the state of California would come down on them like a ton of bricks. No one wants that kind of headache.
Portantino wants gun sellers to do a more comprehensive background check, apparently, though. Somehow. By adding more information to the background check. Because there’s no way that won’t go wrong.
Of course, he’s wanting the California Department of Justice to handle all of the required databases. To say this has received some criticism is an understatement.
“You’re now asking the DOJ, which has a history of bungling databases and juggling databases that do not speak to each other, to hire personnel that can make everything work together,” [Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California]. “And you’re going to add by necessity the California Department of Fish and Wildlife into it in order to verify the hunting licenses because they’re the ones that maintain that database. We envision a coordination nightmare.”
Which is probably exactly what will happen. One thing we’ve seen in recent years is that to err is human, but to really foul something up, you need the California Department of Justice to be on the case.
Should this pass, expect to immediately hear of difficulties for law-abiding, hunting-license holding adults in purchasing firearms because the state can’t maintain a database to save their lives.
Which would be fine if it would lead to an end to this foolishness of barring lawful adults from buying guns, but it won’t. Not in California. As such, it’s going to be a colossal cluster-flop and we all know it.


bearingarms--2020-03-30--NRA Pushing Back Against Anti-Gun Emergency Orders

Gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are that the spike in gun sales around the country is all because of “ fearmongering ” on the part of the National Rifle Association , but NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet says that Americans are simply responding to the facts on the ground ; growing economic uncertainty , police forces that are starting to feel the effects of the coronavirus in their ranks , inmates being released from many jails , and the realization that things could get worse as the nationwide emergency remains in effect for at least another 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential that Americans be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in these troubled times , which is why the NRA got involved in a California lawsuit challenging Gov .
Gavin Newsom and Los Angles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva over the closing of gun stores in the areas served by the sheriff ’ s department .
Ouimet says the organization isn ’ t ruling out other lawsuits as well , but in the meantime has been working to ensure that gun stores around the country remain open for business .
That includes talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation , to get national guidance from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the essential nature of the firearms and ammunition industry , from manufacturers down the supply chain to retailers .
That guidance was released on Saturday , and while it ’ s advisory in nature , it should go a long way in ensuring that Americans continue to have access to arms and ammunition during the current emergency .
I asked Ouimet about the criticism by gun control groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused the NRA of “ fearmongering ” in order to drive up gun sales , and he says it ’ s just par for the course .
Organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action are so desperate to spin the incredible surge in gun sales that they ’ re claiming the NRA is brainwashing Americans through a propaganda campaign because they simply can ’ t handle the truth ; when concerned for their personal safety , the American people cling to their right to keep and bear arms and reject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .
Will this moment have a long lasting impact the Second Amendment movement ?
Ouimet says he believes that many new gun owners will become politically active , and also thinks that those individuals who want to purchase a firearm right now but can ’ t because of government action could become some of the most ardent activists going forward .
That makes sense , given that these are the Americans who ’ ve actually had their rights curtailed .
In fact , also on today ’ s show you ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had already paid for his firearms , but now can ’ t get them because of Gov .
Phil Murphy ’ s order to shut down gun stores in the state .
There are going to be tens of thousands of people across the country similarly impacted , and I hope that they get involved and stay involved in the political and legal fights ahead .
Check out the entire interview above , and check out the page that NRA-ILA has put together which shows how each state is treating gun stores right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggregation of all state alerts put out by NRA-ILA regarding the coronavirus and its impact on our Second Amendment rights , and it , along with the NSSF ’ s COVID-19 page for those working in the firearms industry are great resources for keeping up with everything that ’ s happening around the country ( of course , so is Bearing Arms , so keep visiting us too ! )
.
Be sure to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co on Apple Podcasts so you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word .

Gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are that the spike in gun sales around the country is all because of “fearmongering” on the part of the National Rifle Association, but NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet says that Americans are simply responding to the facts on the ground; growing economic uncertainty, police forces that are starting to feel the effects of the coronavirus in their ranks, inmates being released from many jails, and the realization that things could get worse as the nationwide emergency remains in effect for at least another 30 days.
Oiumet says that it is essential that Americans be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in these troubled times, which is why the NRA got involved in a California lawsuit challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva over the closing of gun stores in the areas served by the sheriff’s department. Ouimet says the organization isn’t ruling out other lawsuits as well, but in the meantime has been working to ensure that gun stores around the country remain open for business.
That includes talking with the Trump administration alongside other Second Amendment organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, to get national guidance from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the essential nature of the firearms and ammunition industry, from manufacturers down the supply chain to retailers. That guidance was released on Saturday, and while it’s advisory in nature, it should go a long way in ensuring that Americans continue to have access to arms and ammunition during the current emergency.
I asked Ouimet about the criticism by gun control groups and anti-gun politicians, who’ve accused the NRA of “fearmongering” in order to drive up gun sales, and he says it’s just par for the course. Organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action are so desperate to spin the incredible surge in gun sales that they’re claiming the NRA is brainwashing Americans through a propaganda campaign because they simply can’t handle the truth; when concerned for their personal safety, the American people cling to their right to keep and bear arms and reject the idea of banning our way to safety.
Will this moment have a long lasting impact the Second Amendment movement? Ouimet says he believes that many new gun owners will become politically active, and also thinks that those individuals who want to purchase a firearm right now but can’t because of government action could become some of the most ardent activists going forward. That makes sense, given that these are the Americans who’ve actually had their rights curtailed. In fact, also on today’s show you’ll hear from a New Jersey resident who had already paid for his firearms, but now can’t get them because of Gov. Phil Murphy’s order to shut down gun stores in the state. There are going to be tens of thousands of people across the country similarly impacted, and I hope that they get involved and stay involved in the political and legal fights ahead.
Check out the entire interview above, and check out the page that NRA-ILA has put together which shows how each state is treating gun stores right now. The site also offers an aggregation of all state alerts put out by NRA-ILA regarding the coronavirus and its impact on our Second Amendment rights, and it, along with the NSSF’s COVID-19 page for those working in the firearms industry are great resources for keeping up with everything that’s happening around the country (of course, so is Bearing Arms, so keep visiting us too!).
Be sure to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co on Apple Podcasts so you’ll never miss a show, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word.


bearingarms--2020-03-30--Everytown Claims Surge In Gun Sales All Because Of NRA Fearmongering

The Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown For Gun Safety is blasting the Trump administration ’ s new guidance on critical sectors of the economy , which includes firearm and ammunition manufacturers , distributors , and retailers , calling it “ shameful and nonsensical ” that the Department of Homeland Security would recommend Americans still have access to their Second Amendment rights during the current emergency .
On a Monday afternoon press call , Everytown president John Feinblatt told reporters that the group is taking two steps ; urging governors to ignore the Department of Homeland Security guidance and order gun stores closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter urging them to reverse this decision .
Feinblatt claims that ordinarily Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun group wouldn ’ t support the closure of gun stores , because they support responsible gun ownership , but “ these are anything but normal circumstances.
” Feinblatt also launched an absurd attack on the National Rifle Association by asserting that no matter what the NRA says , “ you can ’ t shoot a virus.
” Obviously the NRA has said no such thing , and the countless Americans who ’ ve become gun owners for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t trying to shoot their way out of being infected .
They ’ re concerned about the safety and security of themselves and their families , but to hear Feinblatt tell it , they ’ ve all just succumbed to a massive propaganda campaign by the National Rifle Association .
In fact , the NRA and the Trump administration were the two big bogeymen throughout the call with reporters .
Moms Demand Action ’ s Shannon Watts claimed , “ the gun lobby has fear-mongered to stoke gun sales throughout this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns make us safer .
The Trump administration just gave that myth its seal of approval , proving once again that President Trump cares more about lining gun dealers ’ pockets than saving American lives.
” Neither Feinblatt or Watts acknowledged that there have been plenty of Democrat governors who ’ ve declared that gun stores are essential businesses and can remain open , including J.B. Pritzker in Illinois , Ned Lamont in Connecticut , Andy Beshear in Kentucky , and Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania , who reversed course and allowed gun stores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the retailers essential businesses .
Are these politicians also “ tools of the gun lobby ” ?
Rather than face facts , Bloomberg ’ s gun control groups are peddling fiction .
The truth is that Americans were lining up to buy firearms and ammunition long before the NRA or any other Second Amendment organization said a word about coronavirus .
As I wrote on Sunday , it ’ s perfectly reasonable to want a firearm for self-defense right now , and the long lines and empty shelves at gun stores across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being brainwashed by the NRA , but a sign that the “ don ’ t own a gun ” mentality of anti-gun organizations is simply a losing argument as Americans become more concerned about the economic impacts of the emergency and what the future might hold .
Rather than spend their time developing online training resources for America ’ s new gun owners , these so-called “ gun safety ” groups are simply demanding that Americans who don ’ t currently own a firearm be stopped from acquiring one .
Feinblatt is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , but that ’ s an argument for getting a gun , not shutting down gun stores .
Gun control advocates are showing their true agenda right now , and it ’ s not about gun safety .
It ’ s about preventing gun ownership instead .

The Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown For Gun Safety is blasting the Trump administration’s new guidance on critical sectors of the economy, which includes firearm and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, calling it “shameful and nonsensical” that the Department of Homeland Security would recommend Americans still have access to their Second Amendment rights during the current emergency.
On a Monday afternoon press call, Everytown president John Feinblatt told reporters that the group is taking two steps; urging governors to ignore the Department of Homeland Security guidance and order gun stores closed, as well as sending DHS a letter urging them to reverse this decision.
Feinblatt claims that ordinarily Bloomberg’s anti-gun group wouldn’t support the closure of gun stores, because they support responsible gun ownership, but “these are anything but normal circumstances.” Feinblatt also launched an absurd attack on the National Rifle Association by asserting that no matter what the NRA says, “you can’t shoot a virus.” Obviously the NRA has said no such thing, and the countless Americans who’ve become gun owners for the first time over the past month aren’t trying to shoot their way out of being infected. They’re concerned about the safety and security of themselves and their families, but to hear Feinblatt tell it, they’ve all just succumbed to a massive propaganda campaign by the National Rifle Association.
In fact, the NRA and the Trump administration were the two big bogeymen throughout the call with reporters. Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts claimed, “the gun lobby has fear-mongered to stoke gun sales throughout this pandemic, pedaling the lie that more guns make us safer. The Trump administration just gave that myth its seal of approval, proving once again that President Trump cares more about lining gun dealers’ pockets than saving American lives.”
Neither Feinblatt or Watts acknowledged that there have been plenty of Democrat governors who’ve declared that gun stores are essential businesses and can remain open, including J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, Ned Lamont in Connecticut, Andy Beshear in Kentucky, and Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who reversed course and allowed gun stores to re-open after originally refusing to declare the retailers essential businesses. Are these politicians also “tools of the gun lobby”? Rather than face facts, Bloomberg’s gun control groups are peddling fiction.
The truth is that Americans were lining up to buy firearms and ammunition long before the NRA or any other Second Amendment organization said a word about coronavirus. As I wrote on Sunday, it’s perfectly reasonable to want a firearm for self-defense right now, and the long lines and empty shelves at gun stores across the country aren’t signs that people are being brainwashed by the NRA, but a sign that the “don’t own a gun” mentality of anti-gun organizations is simply a losing argument as Americans become more concerned about the economic impacts of the emergency and what the future might hold.
Rather than spend their time developing online training resources for America’s new gun owners, these so-called “gun safety” groups are simply demanding that Americans who don’t currently own a firearm be stopped from acquiring one. Feinblatt is right that these are anything but normal times, but that’s an argument for getting a gun, not shutting down gun stores. Gun control advocates are showing their true agenda right now, and it’s not about gun safety. It’s about preventing gun ownership instead.


bearingarms--2020-03-30--Firm Finds Way Around Export Restrictions On Gun Files

When Cody Wilson first released his 3D printer files for gun builds to the world , it sparked plenty of outrage .
The problem was , the files weren ’ t actually illegal .
There were already laws in place as to who could build a gun .
Further , all the complete firearms required sufficient metal to comply with federal requirements .
So the approach they took was to hit him over export restrictions .
Guns and similar equipment can ’ t be exported without State Department approval and during the Obama administration , that wasn ’ t going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed that ruling , a number of attorney generals filed a lawsuit to block the move .
In short , Wilson was back to square one .
However , it seems he may have found a way around the restrictions .
A technology company made thousands of digital-gun files publicly available , including blueprints that will enable users to make plastic guns with three-dimensional printers , reports the Wall Street Journal .
Cody Wilson of Defcad has waged a long legal battle against the federal government over the right to share 3-D-gun-related materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has released such files , but the first time he abided by U.S. foreign export controls , using what he said are digital verification tools to ensure legal file downloads .
Wilson said he believed his release of the files would be “ impervious ” to legal challenge and would help normalize the distribution of such material for easy download .
Wilson is offering access for an annual $ 50 fee , calling his service “ Netflix for 3-D guns.
” Of course , the usual suspects are still upset over it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups cite the fact that such weapons can ’ t be controlled as evidence Wilson and his company shouldn ’ t be allowed to provide the files at all .
There are a number of problems with this argument .
First is that as noted previously , the law already restricts criminals from building firearms .
They ignore it all the time , of course , but since they also ignore the prohibition against them having guns at all , it ’ s probably safe to say that making it difficult or impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t have much of an impact .
Additionally , the courts have generally found that computer code is a matter of free speech .
While images , video , and audio files are slightly different , the written code falls under the First Amendment .
That makes this not just a Second Amendment issue , but a first Amendment one as well .
Especially since having the files doesn ’ t mean you ’ re going to use them .
Believe me , I ’ ve got them and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anytime soon .
Regardless , though , there doesn ’ t seem to be much that can be done .
While the State Department will still look at Wilson ’ s latest effort , it ’ s entirely likely they ’ ll be forced to give this a pass .
That will likely spark still more lawsuits , of course , but in this day and age , what ’ s new about that ?
In the meantime , though , DefCad and Wilson are back poking the gun controllers in the eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forever .
After all , gun control does you no good if you can ’ t actually control who gets guns .
Considering the number of people who don ’ t want anyone to have anything , that matters .

When Cody Wilson first released his 3D printer files for gun builds to the world, it sparked plenty of outrage. The problem was, the files weren’t actually illegal. There were already laws in place as to who could build a gun. Further, all the complete firearms required sufficient metal to comply with federal requirements.
So the approach they took was to hit him over export restrictions. Guns and similar equipment can’t be exported without State Department approval and during the Obama administration, that wasn’t going to happen.
While the Trump administration reversed that ruling, a number of attorney generals filed a lawsuit to block the move. In short, Wilson was back to square one.
However, it seems he may have found a way around the restrictions.
A technology company made thousands of digital-gun files publicly available, including blueprints that will enable users to make plastic guns with three-dimensional printers, reports the Wall Street Journal. Cody Wilson of Defcad has waged a long legal battle against the federal government over the right to share 3-D-gun-related materials. This was the third time he has released such files, but the first time he abided by U.S. foreign export controls, using what he said are digital verification tools to ensure legal file downloads. Wilson said he believed his release of the files would be “impervious” to legal challenge and would help normalize the distribution of such material for easy download. Wilson is offering access for an annual $50 fee, calling his service “Netflix for 3-D guns.”
Of course, the usual suspects are still upset over it, which is hardly surprising. Gun control groups cite the fact that such weapons can’t be controlled as evidence Wilson and his company shouldn’t be allowed to provide the files at all.
There are a number of problems with this argument. First is that as noted previously, the law already restricts criminals from building firearms. They ignore it all the time, of course, but since they also ignore the prohibition against them having guns at all, it’s probably safe to say that making it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to build them probably won’t have much of an impact.
Additionally, the courts have generally found that computer code is a matter of free speech. While images, video, and audio files are slightly different, the written code falls under the First Amendment. That makes this not just a Second Amendment issue, but a first Amendment one as well. Especially since having the files doesn’t mean you’re going to use them.
Believe me, I’ve got them and I’m not really planning to use them anytime soon.
Regardless, though, there doesn’t seem to be much that can be done. While the State Department will still look at Wilson’s latest effort, it’s entirely likely they’ll be forced to give this a pass.
That will likely spark still more lawsuits, of course, but in this day and age, what’s new about that?
In the meantime, though, DefCad and Wilson are back poking the gun controllers in the eye and working to defeat gun control once and forever. After all, gun control does you no good if you can’t actually control who gets guns. Considering the number of people who don’t want anyone to have anything, that matters.


bearingarms--2020-03-30--Officer-Involved Shooting Sparks Riots, Councilman Calls Cops "Pigs," "Killers"

Being a police officer can be tough , especially in the era of COVID-19 .
We already know that the police aren ’ t responding to low-level calls in many places , but high-level calls are another matter entirely .
They ’ re still responding to those , and in addition to the threats they normally face , now they have to worry that the person they ’ re arresting my be infected with a potentially deadly disease .
However , those “ normal ” threats are still threats and sometimes , police have to do respond with deadly force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one New York town .
Unfortunately , it seems that a city councilman had to go and make things so much worse .
NEWBURGH , NY– Friday evening , an officer involved shooting occurred in Newburgh involving a suspect that reportedly pulled out a silver handgun during contact with police .
The suspect , only described at the time of this writing as a man in his early 20 ’ s , is dead , and several officers were left injured .
According to reports , police approached the suspect around 5pm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for questioning in relation to a shooting that had occurred Thursday near Benkard Avenue and William Street .
Police said that when they approached the suspect , he pulled out a silver handgun .
So far , it sounds like the kind of officer-involved shooting we see on a regular basis .
Granted , there ’ s a lot we apparently don ’ t know about the shooting which is normal in the immediate aftermath .
It doesn ’ t matter to some people , though .
What is known is that City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital where officers and the suspect were all reportedly taken , Montefiore St. Luke ’ s Cornwall Hospital , less than two hours after the incident occurred stirring the pot and condemning police before literally any type of investigation could even be started .
Even so , Shakur took it upon himself to talk to the crown about how the “ pigs ” are “ killers ” and shot an “ unarmed black man.
” Shortly after getting the crowds riled up outside the hospital , he posted a Facebook live video again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the killers in our communities !
” And how did the community respond ?
Worse , though , is that Shakur posted video to Facebook showing him walking around in the midst of the riot , talking to people and recording their anger , but not even attempting to diffuse the situation he helped to create .
Law Enforcement Today is already familiar with Shakur , who previously responded to officers trying to do their job with “ Do you know who I am ?
” Of course , as a general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that question , the answer is either “ no ” or “ I don ’ t give a damn.
” Anyway , Shakur seems to have incited a riot , then walked around stoking the flames of outrage .
Honestly , while this isn ’ t related to COVID-19 in any way we can tell , is it any wonder that so many people are buying guns right about now ?
I ’ d argue that besides food , it ’ s probably the best precaution one can take in a time like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shakur walking around in our cities .
Especially when there ’ s currently no evidence to suggest that the police acted inappropriately in any way .

Being a police officer can be tough, especially in the era of COVID-19. We already know that the police aren’t responding to low-level calls in many places, but high-level calls are another matter entirely. They’re still responding to those, and in addition to the threats they normally face, now they have to worry that the person they’re arresting my be infected with a potentially deadly disease.
Joy.
However, those “normal” threats are still threats and sometimes, police have to do respond with deadly force. That appears to be what happened in one New York town.
Unfortunately, it seems that a city councilman had to go and make things so much worse.
NEWBURGH, NY– Friday evening, an officer involved shooting occurred in Newburgh involving a suspect that reportedly pulled out a silver handgun during contact with police. The suspect, only described at the time of this writing as a man in his early 20’s, is dead, and several officers were left injured. According to reports, police approached the suspect around 5pm on Williams street, who was wanted for questioning in relation to a shooting that had occurred Thursday near Benkard Avenue and William Street. Police said that when they approached the suspect, he pulled out a silver handgun.
So far, it sounds like the kind of officer-involved shooting we see on a regular basis. Granted, there’s a lot we apparently don’t know about the shooting which is normal in the immediate aftermath.
It doesn’t matter to some people, though.
What is known is that City Councilman-at-large Omari Shakur was outside of the hospital where officers and the suspect were all reportedly taken, Montefiore St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, less than two hours after the incident occurred stirring the pot and condemning police before literally any type of investigation could even be started. … Even so, Shakur took it upon himself to talk to the crown about how the “pigs” are “killers” and shot an “unarmed black man.” Shortly after getting the crowds riled up outside the hospital, he posted a Facebook live video again calling the cops killers: “These are the killers in our communities!”
And how did the community respond?
They rioted.
Worse, though, is that Shakur posted video to Facebook showing him walking around in the midst of the riot, talking to people and recording their anger, but not even attempting to diffuse the situation he helped to create.
Law Enforcement Today is already familiar with Shakur, who previously responded to officers trying to do their job with “Do you know who I am?” Of course, as a general rule, if you have to ask that question, the answer is either “no” or “I don’t give a damn.”
Anyway, Shakur seems to have incited a riot, then walked around stoking the flames of outrage. Honestly, while this isn’t related to COVID-19 in any way we can tell, is it any wonder that so many people are buying guns right about now? I’d argue that besides food, it’s probably the best precaution one can take in a time like this. Especially with people like Omar Shakur walking around in our cities.
Especially when there’s currently no evidence to suggest that the police acted inappropriately in any way.