bearingarms--2020-02-14--Crucial Vote Coming Monday For Northam's Gun Ban Bill

Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun , magazine , suppressor , and trigger activator ban is scheduled to be heard in the state senate ’ s Judiciary Committee next Monday morning , and it will likely be the best opportunity to kill the bill before it can get to Northam ’ s desk .
HB961 narrowly passed out of the Virginia House of Delegates a few days ago , but the bigger hurdle for the bill was always going to be in the state Senate .
Four Democrats in that chamber have expressed their opposition to the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Lynwood Lewis has flat out stated he won ’ t vote for any bill that bans guns or magazines .
Lewis isn ’ t on the Judiciary Committee , but the other three senators who ’ ve expressed reservations ( Chap Petersen , Creigh Deeds , and John Edwards ) all happen to be assigned to the committee that will hear the bill Monday morning .
In fact , Sen. Edwards is actually the committee chairman .
How those three Democrats vote on Monday will determine whether the bill not only passes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate as well .
Sen. Chap Petersen has moderated several of the gun control bills that have passed out of the Senate , and has actually helped to kill a couple of bad bills in committee , including a lost-or-stolen measure and a bill that could have criminalized allowing teenagers access to a firearm for hunting or self-defense , regardless of how much training they might have had .
Opponents have warned the bill could have ramifications for teen hunting in rural areas where handling guns at an early age is more common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents after gun-related accidents .
“ When my son was 16 he came home from school and thanks to having access to a firearm was able to interrupt wild dogs attacking our livestock , ” said Will Shaw of Louisa County .
“ Under this law , I ’ d be risking a year behind bars for allowing him that access.
” Democrats have said anyone worried about being ensnared by the tougher law can just make sure they ’ re storing firearms safely .
“ It would be left up to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your actions were actually reckless , ” said Del .
Cliff Hayes , D-Chesapeake , the sponsor of the House bill .
“ I would simply say : Don ’ t leave your loaded , unsecured firearms recklessly in the presence of minors.
” Funny , I thought Gov .
Northam told us that his gun control laws would be followed , and that sheriffs and prosecutors in Second Amendment Sanctuaries didn ’ t have any discretion on whether or not to enforce his laws .
Anyway , I ’ d say Petersen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee to vote against HB961 on Monday .
Creigh Deeds , who also voted against the storage law , is a close second in my opinion .
Sen. Edwards , the committee chair , has so far not voted against any of the gun control proposals that he ’ s shepherded through to the Senate floor , and I ’ m a little worried that he ’ ll back more revisions to the bill , perhaps grandfathering in existing owners of magazines that would be banned , in hopes of getting Deeds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the bill by arguing that it doesn ’ t actually ban any existing gun or magazine .
That ’ s the big question : do they have the votes to pass it , or do they just want to kill it and get it over with .
HB961 didn ’ t move at all until close to the legislative deadline to pass out of the house because it didn ’ t have the votes until Northam started watering down the bill .
Either Sen. Edwards knows the bill isn ’ t ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pass the committee , or he knows he can make it acceptable to a majority , but Northam ’ s not going to have weeks to bargain on this bill behind the scenes as he did in the House .
If two of the three Democrats who ’ ve said they oppose HB961 stay the course , the bill is done for ( I don ’ t see any Republican voting for the measure ) .
If only one of them opposes the measure , the bill would pass on to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Lewis already says he opposes the bill .
The Democrats hold a 21-19 majority , so if Lewis and the one holdout from the committee were to remain firm in opposition , the bill would be defeated on the Senate floor .
I ’ m cautiously optimistic that we can kill the bill in committee , but at the same time , I know what a priority this is for Northam and I suspect that Sen. Edwards wants to be a good party man for the governor .
I urge every Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend contacting their state senator , particularly if they ’ re on the Judiciary Committee .
Be polite , be civil , but be crystal clear that HB961 is unsupportable in any form .
You can find out who your state senator is here .

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun, magazine, suppressor, and trigger activator ban is scheduled to be heard in the state senate’s Judiciary Committee next Monday morning, and it will likely be the best opportunity to kill the bill before it can get to Northam’s desk.
HB961 narrowly passed out of the Virginia House of Delegates a few days ago, but the bigger hurdle for the bill was always going to be in the state Senate. Four Democrats in that chamber have expressed their opposition to the bill in its original form, though only Sen. Lynwood Lewis has flat out stated he won’t vote for any bill that bans guns or magazines.
Lewis isn’t on the Judiciary Committee, but the other three senators who’ve expressed reservations (Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds, and John Edwards) all happen to be assigned to the committee that will hear the bill Monday morning. In fact, Sen. Edwards is actually the committee chairman. How those three Democrats vote on Monday will determine whether the bill not only passes out of committee, but the full Senate as well.
Sen. Chap Petersen has moderated several of the gun control bills that have passed out of the Senate, and has actually helped to kill a couple of bad bills in committee, including a lost-or-stolen measure and a bill that could have criminalized allowing teenagers access to a firearm for hunting or self-defense, regardless of how much training they might have had.
Opponents have warned the bill could have ramifications for teen hunting in rural areas where handling guns at an early age is more common and give prosecutors more leeway to charge parents after gun-related accidents. “When my son was 16 he came home from school and thanks to having access to a firearm was able to interrupt wild dogs attacking our livestock,” said Will Shaw of Louisa County. “Under this law, I’d be risking a year behind bars for allowing him that access.” Democrats have said anyone worried about being ensnared by the tougher law can just make sure they’re storing firearms safely. “It would be left up to the discretion of that prosecutor whether or not your actions were actually reckless,” said Del. Cliff Hayes, D-Chesapeake, the sponsor of the House bill. “I would simply say: Don’t leave your loaded, unsecured firearms recklessly in the presence of minors.”
Funny, I thought Gov. Northam told us that his gun control laws would be followed, and that sheriffs and prosecutors in Second Amendment Sanctuaries didn’t have any discretion on whether or not to enforce his laws.
Anyway, I’d say Petersen is the most likely Democrat on the committee to vote against HB961 on Monday. Creigh Deeds, who also voted against the storage law, is a close second in my opinion. Sen. Edwards, the committee chair, has so far not voted against any of the gun control proposals that he’s shepherded through to the Senate floor, and I’m a little worried that he’ll back more revisions to the bill, perhaps grandfathering in existing owners of magazines that would be banned, in hopes of getting Deeds, Petersen, and eventually Lewis on board with the bill by arguing that it doesn’t actually ban any existing gun or magazine.
HB961 on Senate Judiciary Docket for Monday morning. Only gun bill on the docket. Either they have the votes to report it out of committee or they want to defeat it and get it over with now. Contact the members of the committee and urge them to vote no. https://t.co/b8iT9DZMOE — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) February 14, 2020
That’s the big question: do they have the votes to pass it, or do they just want to kill it and get it over with. HB961 didn’t move at all until close to the legislative deadline to pass out of the house because it didn’t have the votes until Northam started watering down the bill. Either Sen. Edwards knows the bill isn’t ever going to be in an acceptable form to pass the committee, or he knows he can make it acceptable to a majority, but Northam’s not going to have weeks to bargain on this bill behind the scenes as he did in the House.
If two of the three Democrats who’ve said they oppose HB961 stay the course, the bill is done for (I don’t see any Republican voting for the measure). If only one of them opposes the measure, the bill would pass on to the floor of the state senate, where Sen. Lewis already says he opposes the bill. The Democrats hold a 21-19 majority, so if Lewis and the one holdout from the committee were to remain firm in opposition, the bill would be defeated on the Senate floor.
I’m cautiously optimistic that we can kill the bill in committee, but at the same time, I know what a priority this is for Northam and I suspect that Sen. Edwards wants to be a good party man for the governor. I urge every Virginia gun owner to spend some time this weekend contacting their state senator, particularly if they’re on the Judiciary Committee. Be polite, be civil, but be crystal clear that HB961 is unsupportable in any form. You can find out who your state senator is here.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--Director Of IL State Police Wants Gun Owners Treated Like Criminals

The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution through the Second Amendment .
However , some places treat those who want to exercise that right like there ’ s something wrong with them .
It ’ s getting more and more difficult to buy guns in some places and , if that wasn ’ t enough , some want to make it even more difficult .
Take Illinois ( please ? )
for example .
It ’ s already difficult to buy a gun , requiring you to get permission from the state in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but then you have to deal with all the federal requirements .
It ’ s a pain .
It seems the director of the Illinois State Police wants it to be more of a pain .
Worse , he wants to treat gun owners like criminals .
In the year since five workers died in a suburban Chicago warehouse shooting , state officials have beefed up illegal firearms enforcement efforts , including the first-ever operations by state authorities to confiscate weapons from those whose gun permits are invalid , Illinois State Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s briefing at the state Capitol to commemorate the Feb. 15 , 2019 shooting at the Henry Pratt Co.also came with an alert : Increased vigilance of illegal gun possession comes with a price that exceeds current spending .
He advocated legislation pending in the Senate that would increase the Firearm Owner ’ sIdentification card fee and require fingerprinting of gun owners , a measure bitterly opposed by gun-rights advocates .
“ We will be able to do a much more thorough , effective and quicker background check , even for law-abiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Kelly said .
“ Now , as to the constitutionality and the policy and the politics of all that , that ’ s … an issue that citizens and policymakers and others will debate.
” The problem is , the shooter at the Henry Pratt Co warehouse didn ’ t show up in a federal background check for a gun sale either .
He simply wasn ’ t in the system .
Yet because of that oversight , Kelly wants to treat each and every Illinois gun buyer like they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require fingerprinting in addition to the higher fees , and those fees are a significant increase .
The Senate legislation would increase the 10-year , $ 10 FOID fee to $ 20 for five years , in addition to the other provisions .
Kelly acknowledged that over the years , $ 30 million in gun-permit fees has been diverted to other expenses , which the Illinois State Rifle Association points out in a lawsuit filed against the state police this month by taxpayers claiming they ’ ve waited since 2017 for gun-permit cards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presdent , said increased fees are “ an inhibitor to a constitutional right.
” Pearson is right , too .
Basically , the ISP is misusing the money collected from the fees , but now are demanding a doubling of that fee as well as cutting the amount of time the FOID card is good for in half , which amounts to still another doubling .
So for ten years of gun buying , you have to spend $ 40 instead of $ 10 .
Plus , of course , the fingerprints .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .
When Clarence Thomas said the Second Amendment was treated like a second class right , he wasn ’ t joking .
In Illinois , it ’ s becoming almost criminal to exercise that right , it seems .

The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution through the Second Amendment. However, some places treat those who want to exercise that right like there’s something wrong with them. It’s getting more and more difficult to buy guns in some places and, if that wasn’t enough, some want to make it even more difficult.
Take Illinois (please?) for example.
It’s already difficult to buy a gun, requiring you to get permission from the state in the form of a Firearm Owners Identification Card, but then you have to deal with all the federal requirements. It’s a pain.
It seems the director of the Illinois State Police wants it to be more of a pain. Worse, he wants to treat gun owners like criminals.
In the year since five workers died in a suburban Chicago warehouse shooting, state officials have beefed up illegal firearms enforcement efforts, including the first-ever operations by state authorities to confiscate weapons from those whose gun permits are invalid, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly said Thursday. Kelly’s briefing at the state Capitol to commemorate the Feb. 15, 2019 shooting at the Henry Pratt Co.also came with an alert: Increased vigilance of illegal gun possession comes with a price that exceeds current spending. He advocated legislation pending in the Senate that would increase the Firearm Owner’sIdentification card fee and require fingerprinting of gun owners, a measure bitterly opposed by gun-rights advocates. “We will be able to do a much more thorough, effective and quicker background check, even for law-abiding citizens, if we have that fingerprint,” Kelly said. “Now, as to the constitutionality and the policy and the politics of all that, that’s … an issue that citizens and policymakers and others will debate.”
The problem is, the shooter at the Henry Pratt Co warehouse didn’t show up in a federal background check for a gun sale either. He simply wasn’t in the system.
Yet because of that oversight, Kelly wants to treat each and every Illinois gun buyer like they’re a criminal. He wants to require fingerprinting in addition to the higher fees, and those fees are a significant increase.
The Senate legislation would increase the 10-year, $10 FOID fee to $20 for five years, in addition to the other provisions. Kelly acknowledged that over the years, $30 million in gun-permit fees has been diverted to other expenses, which the Illinois State Rifle Association points out in a lawsuit filed against the state police this month by taxpayers claiming they’ve waited since 2017 for gun-permit cards. Richard Pearson, the rifle association presdent, said increased fees are “an inhibitor to a constitutional right.”
Pearson is right, too.
Basically, the ISP is misusing the money collected from the fees, but now are demanding a doubling of that fee as well as cutting the amount of time the FOID card is good for in half, which amounts to still another doubling. So for ten years of gun buying, you have to spend $40 instead of $10.
Plus, of course, the fingerprints.
All to exercise a basic, constitutionally-protected right.
When Clarence Thomas said the Second Amendment was treated like a second class right, he wasn’t joking. In Illinois, it’s becoming almost criminal to exercise that right, it seems.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--Everytown For Gun Safety Claims Independence From Bloomberg

The fallout over Michael Bloomberg ’ s 2015 speech in which he praised stop-and-frisk tactics in New York City and touted taking young minorities and “ throwing them up against the wall ” to pat them down for weapons continues , and now even the gun control group founded by the anti-gun billionaire is claiming “ independence ” from their sugar daddy .
WAMU radio in Washington , D.C. has a pretty good takedown of Bloomberg ’ s speech , and it ’ s fascinating to see voices on the left criticize the presidential candidate for his views , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received by Democrats and progressives over the years .
In the audio , Bloomberg incorrectly says the profile of murderers and murder victims “ are male minorities 15 to 25.
” “ That ’ s true in New York , ” he says in the audio .
“ That ’ s true in virtually every city in America.
” But by 2012 , analysis of gun violence in Oakland , California , had found that 70 % of people involved in gun violence fit a narrow profile .
They ’ re people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven or more arrests , part of some form of clique or gang , and who have themselves been a victim of gun violence or know someone who has .
“ That is a very small number of people , ” said David Muhammad , the executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform , a non-profit organization that consults on criminal justice systems and gun violence reduction .
“ And what we have found , is that is very close to the risk profile in nearly every city that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time Bloomberg made his comments in 2015 , Muhammad said , “ that was generally known to people in the field of gun violence reduction.
” Muhammad served as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Probation in New York City while Bloomberg was mayor .
His work in Oakland helped reduce gun violence in the city by 50 % between 2012 and 2018 .
In other words , Bloomberg and gun control groups are wrong to paint young men of color with such broad brushstrokes , because the number of bad actors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very small .
Muhammad says Bloomberg has it backwards when it comes to fighting crime with his sweeping gun control policies .
“ People say , ‘ Oh my God , you are arresting kids for marijuana who are all minorities , ’ ” Bloomberg says in the audio .
“ Yes , that ’ s true .
Why ?
Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods .
Yes , that ’ s true .
Why ’ d we do it ?
Because that ’ s where all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should get the guns out of the kids ’ hands is throw them against the wall and frisk them.
” But by 2015 , Muhammad says , that approach was known to exacerbate the underlying causes of gun violence .
“ This notion of ‘ broken windows ’ kind of extreme enforcement of low level offenses has been debunked and has proven to result in the type of mass incarceration that specifically exacerbates racial tensions and inequalities in the system , ” Muhammad said .
Muhammad says what has been shown to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Bloomberg suggests : non-police interventions with the small number of people who are at the highest risk of being involved in gun violence and deprioritizing low-level crimes to focus police attention on gun violence .
By 2015 , studies had found that coupling community partnerships with “ focused deterrence , ” a policing strategy concentrating resources on the small number of people responsible for much of the violence , can reduce gun violence .
In order to make communities safer , in other words , we need to focus on the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s legal gun owners or even every resident of a bad neighborhood .
That ’ s real common sense , and it bears very little resemblance to the anti-gun agenda of Bloomberg and his gun control groups .
Speaking of his gun control groups , WAMU received a very interesting statement from Everytown for Gun Safety , which Bloomberg founded in 2014 , folding his previous gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns into the new organization .
Despite the billionaire spending hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now trying to distance itself from its patron .
That ’ s a laugh .
Everytown isn ’ t independent from Bloomberg .
He ’ s the founder , serves on the board , and is the national chair of the gun control group .
It ’ s his organization .
It wouldn ’ t exist without him .
It ’ s also never been about gun safety .
Well , let me take that back .
It ’ s about gun safety , but only in the sense that Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t own a gun.
” The truth is that more and more criminal justice experts are coming to the realization that the broad , sweeping gun control laws championed by Michael Bloomberg aren ’ t the answer to reducing violent crime .
Bloomberg ’ s anti-gun agenda isn ’ t about making American cities safer .
It ’ s about making Americans unarmed .

The fallout over Michael Bloomberg’s 2015 speech in which he praised stop-and-frisk tactics in New York City and touted taking young minorities and “throwing them up against the wall” to pat them down for weapons continues, and now even the gun control group founded by the anti-gun billionaire is claiming “independence” from their sugar daddy.
WAMU radio in Washington, D.C. has a pretty good takedown of Bloomberg’s speech, and it’s fascinating to see voices on the left criticize the presidential candidate for his views, given the wide support his anti-gun policies have received by Democrats and progressives over the years.
In the audio, Bloomberg incorrectly says the profile of murderers and murder victims “are male minorities 15 to 25.” “That’s true in New York,” he says in the audio. “That’s true in virtually every city in America.” But by 2012, analysis of gun violence in Oakland, California, had found that 70% of people involved in gun violence fit a narrow profile. They’re people in their 20s to early 30s, with seven or more arrests, part of some form of clique or gang, and who have themselves been a victim of gun violence or know someone who has. “That is a very small number of people,” said David Muhammad, the executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a non-profit organization that consults on criminal justice systems and gun violence reduction. “And what we have found, is that is very close to the risk profile in nearly every city that has a significant gun violence problem.” By the time Bloomberg made his comments in 2015, Muhammad said, “that was generally known to people in the field of gun violence reduction.” Muhammad served as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Probation in New York City while Bloomberg was mayor. His work in Oakland helped reduce gun violence in the city by 50% between 2012 and 2018.
In other words, Bloomberg and gun control groups are wrong to paint young men of color with such broad brushstrokes, because the number of bad actors driving the violence in any given community is very small. Muhammad says Bloomberg has it backwards when it comes to fighting crime with his sweeping gun control policies.
“People say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana who are all minorities,’” Bloomberg says in the audio. “Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why’d we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you should get the guns out of the kids’ hands is throw them against the wall and frisk them.” But by 2015, Muhammad says, that approach was known to exacerbate the underlying causes of gun violence. “This notion of ‘broken windows’ kind of extreme enforcement of low level offenses has been debunked and has proven to result in the type of mass incarceration that specifically exacerbates racial tensions and inequalities in the system,” Muhammad said. Muhammad says what has been shown to be most effective is the opposite of what Mayor Bloomberg suggests: non-police interventions with the small number of people who are at the highest risk of being involved in gun violence and deprioritizing low-level crimes to focus police attention on gun violence. By 2015, studies had found that coupling community partnerships with “focused deterrence,” a policing strategy concentrating resources on the small number of people responsible for much of the violence, can reduce gun violence.
In order to make communities safer, in other words, we need to focus on the actual violent criminals in other words, not the nation’s legal gun owners or even every resident of a bad neighborhood. That’s real common sense, and it bears very little resemblance to the anti-gun agenda of Bloomberg and his gun control groups.
Speaking of his gun control groups, WAMU received a very interesting statement from Everytown for Gun Safety, which Bloomberg founded in 2014, folding his previous gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns into the new organization. Despite the billionaire spending hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the group over the years, Everytown is now trying to distance itself from its patron.
In a statement, Everytown For Gun Safety said it is independent from Mayor Bloomberg. As an organization, it initially focused on gun safety legislation and only recently got involved in programs to address community gun violence.
That’s a laugh. Everytown isn’t independent from Bloomberg. He’s the founder, serves on the board, and is the national chair of the gun control group. It’s his organization. It wouldn’t exist without him. It’s also never been about gun safety. Well, let me take that back. It’s about gun safety, but only in the sense that Bloomberg’s definition of gun safety is “don’t own a gun.”
The truth is that more and more criminal justice experts are coming to the realization that the broad, sweeping gun control laws championed by Michael Bloomberg aren’t the answer to reducing violent crime. Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda isn’t about making American cities safer. It’s about making Americans unarmed.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--Gallup Numbers Suggest Media Hiding Waning Support For Gun Control

As Democrats battle for the chance to face President Donald Trump , both they and their anti-gun allies continue to argue that gun control is popular with the American people .
They swear up and down that most people want gun control .
To be fair , the polls we ’ ve seen publicized have said as much .
The numbers suggest that people want more gun control .
However , are those numbers still valid ?
While looking at something else , I came across Gallup ’ s website on polling regarding guns .
I noticed an interesting number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total number of people satisfied with the status quo on guns and the number dissatisfied and wanting stricter guns are the same at 42 percent .
Further , five percent are dissatisfied and want to keep laws the same with nine percent wanting less strict laws .
That means 56 percent of the population has no interest in passing new gun control laws .
That ’ s well outside the margin of error on polls like this .
Yet , where was this in the press ?
Why isn ’ t this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s also possible that this is some kind of a misprint as there ’ s no data for 2019 , which seems odd .
However , it doesn ’ t really matter when those numbers originate from , the numbers remain the same , and they also remain at least relatively unreported by the media who routinely shares Gallup ’ s numbers on virtually any other issue .
Why is that ?
It ’ s just easier for someone if everyone thinks the majority of the public supports new gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just speculation on my part , but it ’ s also the most plausible reason to publish every bit of Gallup ’ s findings other than this particular one .
Politicians will cite the old , now bogus , claims and the voting public will accept it because they haven ’ t seen anything in the news arguing otherwise .
While Gallup has done a bang-up job sharing every big of anti-gun data they can muster , they apparently haven ’ t shared these particular numbers with much of anyone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hide them , though .
They ’ re on the website plain as day , along with all the other polls that say other things .
As a result , I ’ m inclined to believe the media just didn ’ t want to report on it .
They got a press release about the findings from Gallup but opted not to report on them simply because they didn ’ t like the news .
That ’ s part of what media bias really is , after all .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but what is reported .
This wasn ’ t .
To be fair , there may be an innocent explanation for this .
I ’ ve sent an email asking for clarification , but as of publication , I ’ ve not heard back from Gallup .
In fact , I ’ d actually prefer there to be an innocent explanation .
Regardless of that , though , what we can plainly see is that despite presidential candidates and op-eds claiming the American public is clamoring for more gun control regulations , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , the pendulum on gun control is starting to swing back toward sanity .
The anti-gunners moment is over .
That ’ s good for the rest of us , even if the media would rather no one know about it .

As Democrats battle for the chance to face President Donald Trump, both they and their anti-gun allies continue to argue that gun control is popular with the American people. They swear up and down that most people want gun control.
To be fair, the polls we’ve seen publicized have said as much. The numbers suggest that people want more gun control.
However, are those numbers still valid?
While looking at something else, I came across Gallup’s website on polling regarding guns. I noticed an interesting number.
Here’s a screenshot:
Note how it shows in 2020 the total number of people satisfied with the status quo on guns and the number dissatisfied and wanting stricter guns are the same at 42 percent. Further, five percent are dissatisfied and want to keep laws the same with nine percent wanting less strict laws. That means 56 percent of the population has no interest in passing new gun control laws.
That’s well outside the margin of error on polls like this.
Yet, where was this in the press? Why isn’t this being talked about?
To be fair, it’s also possible that this is some kind of a misprint as there’s no data for 2019, which seems odd. However, it doesn’t really matter when those numbers originate from, the numbers remain the same, and they also remain at least relatively unreported by the media who routinely shares Gallup’s numbers on virtually any other issue.
Why is that?
It’s just easier for someone if everyone thinks the majority of the public supports new gun control legislation. Of course, that’s just speculation on my part, but it’s also the most plausible reason to publish every bit of Gallup’s findings other than this particular one. Politicians will cite the old, now bogus, claims and the voting public will accept it because they haven’t seen anything in the news arguing otherwise.
Again, that’s just speculation.
While Gallup has done a bang-up job sharing every big of anti-gun data they can muster, they apparently haven’t shared these particular numbers with much of anyone. They’re not exactly trying to hide them, though. They’re on the website plain as day, along with all the other polls that say other things.
As a result, I’m inclined to believe the media just didn’t want to report on it. They got a press release about the findings from Gallup but opted not to report on them simply because they didn’t like the news.
That’s part of what media bias really is, after all. It’s not just how the news is reported, but what is reported. This wasn’t.
To be fair, there may be an innocent explanation for this. I’ve sent an email asking for clarification, but as of publication, I’ve not heard back from Gallup. In fact, I’d actually prefer there to be an innocent explanation.
Regardless of that, though, what we can plainly see is that despite presidential candidates and op-eds claiming the American public is clamoring for more gun control regulations, that’s simply not the case.
No, the pendulum on gun control is starting to swing back toward sanity. The anti-gunners moment is over. That’s good for the rest of us, even if the media would rather no one know about it.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--NJ Man Faces Long, Slow Fight Against Red Flag Petition

A 57-year old New Jersey man embroiled in a dispute with his former doctor and the doctor ’ s attorney says he never threatened the pair , and shouldn ’ t have his firearms taken from him under the state ’ s red flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law .
Alfred Conti was in court on Thursday challenging the petition that allowed police to confiscate his five legally-owned firearms in September , shortly after New Jersey ’ s red flag law went into effect .
Conti agrees that he ’ s threatened press attention and litigation against Dr. Matthew Kaufman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s ridiculous to claim that he ever threatened violence .
Superior Court Judge Paul X. Escandon is presiding over the hearing , which is being closely watched by gun rights advocates .
Escandon ultimately will decide if Conti can get his guns back .
Maggs testified in November that he felt threatened by profanity-laced phone calls an agitated Conti made to him after Kaufman refused to see Conti as a patient and sued him over negative reviews that Conti had written about the surgeon .
Thursday was Conti ’ s turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readily admitted vowing to barrage Kaufman with bad press .
He also conceded to a profanity-laced back and forth between him and Maggs , but he said that was the extent of it .
His attorney , Jason Seidman , asked him if he ever threatened another person with a gun .
“ I would never do that in a million years , ’ ’ Conti responded .
It doesn ’ t sound like prosecutors were able to document a physical threat by Conti , despite cross-examining him on the witness stand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asked Conti if he threatened to go to the media about his ongoing dispute with the practice .
“ Sir , it ’ s not a threat , it ’ s a promise , ’ ’ Conti responded , “ I ’ ve been doing that since this case began.
’ ’ Brennan brought up emails Conti sent to Maggs in which Conti referred to the Internal Revenue Service .
“ Are you threatening to have Mr. Maggs or Dr. Kaufman audited ?
’ ’ Brennan asked him .
“ No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is over , I am definitely going to the attorney general .
I ’ m going to the medical board .
The newspaper is already involved , because I ’ m not the little guy who ’ s going to get squashed.
’ ’ But , Conti insisted he has no plans to physically harm Kaufman or Maggs .
“ I ’ m 57 years old , I have no criminal record , ’ ’ Conti said .
“ Do you think I would want to make myself a criminal for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Amazingly , while Conti ’ s firearms were seized almost immediately after the emergency order was granted back in September , the gun owner faces even more time before his guns might be returned to him .
Thursday ’ s hearing on the final order will continue , but not until early March , and it could be even longer before the judge in the case decides whether or not Conti ’ s firearms should be returned to him .
Conti first appeared in court to try to get his guns back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice are moving awfully slowly .
In the meantime , Conti ’ s having to pay for an attorney for his case , since the state ’ s red flag laws are supposedly civil in nature , and public defenders aren ’ t an option for those subject to a red flag order who can ’ t afford an attorney .
You either come up with the funds yourself , or you ’ re forced to go it alone in court .
It ’ s another way in which the law is stacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s not likely to be addressed any time soon .

A 57-year old New Jersey man embroiled in a dispute with his former doctor and the doctor’s attorney says he never threatened the pair, and shouldn’t have his firearms taken from him under the state’s red flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law.
Alfred Conti was in court on Thursday challenging the petition that allowed police to confiscate his five legally-owned firearms in September, shortly after New Jersey’s red flag law went into effect. Conti agrees that he’s threatened press attention and litigation against Dr. Matthew Kaufman and attorney James Maggs, but says it’s ridiculous to claim that he ever threatened violence.
Superior Court Judge Paul X. Escandon is presiding over the hearing, which is being closely watched by gun rights advocates. Escandon ultimately will decide if Conti can get his guns back. Maggs testified in November that he felt threatened by profanity-laced phone calls an agitated Conti made to him after Kaufman refused to see Conti as a patient and sued him over negative reviews that Conti had written about the surgeon. Thursday was Conti’s turn on the witness stand, and he readily admitted vowing to barrage Kaufman with bad press. He also conceded to a profanity-laced back and forth between him and Maggs, but he said that was the extent of it. His attorney, Jason Seidman, asked him if he ever threatened another person with a gun. “I would never do that in a million years,’’ Conti responded.
It doesn’t sound like prosecutors were able to document a physical threat by Conti, despite cross-examining him on the witness stand.
Sean Brennan, assistant Monmouth County prosecutor, asked Conti if he threatened to go to the media about his ongoing dispute with the practice. “Sir, it’s not a threat, it’s a promise,’’ Conti responded, “I’ve been doing that since this case began.’’ Brennan brought up emails Conti sent to Maggs in which Conti referred to the Internal Revenue Service. “Are you threatening to have Mr. Maggs or Dr. Kaufman audited?’’ Brennan asked him. “No,’’ Conti responded. “Before this is over, I am definitely going to the attorney general. I’m going to the medical board. The newspaper is already involved, because I’m not the little guy who’s going to get squashed.’’ But, Conti insisted he has no plans to physically harm Kaufman or Maggs. “I’m 57 years old, I have no criminal record,’’ Conti said. “Do you think I would want to make myself a criminal for a doctor and his pony lawyer?’’
Amazingly, while Conti’s firearms were seized almost immediately after the emergency order was granted back in September, the gun owner faces even more time before his guns might be returned to him. Thursday’s hearing on the final order will continue, but not until early March, and it could be even longer before the judge in the case decides whether or not Conti’s firearms should be returned to him. Conti first appeared in court to try to get his guns back last November, but the wheels of justice are moving awfully slowly.
In the meantime, Conti’s having to pay for an attorney for his case, since the state’s red flag laws are supposedly civil in nature, and public defenders aren’t an option for those subject to a red flag order who can’t afford an attorney. You either come up with the funds yourself, or you’re forced to go it alone in court. It’s another way in which the law is stacked against the subjects of these orders, but it’s not likely to be addressed any time soon.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--CT Lawmakers Facing Heat Over Proposed Ammo Tax

A proposed 35 % excise tax on all ammunition purchases in the state of Connecticut drew criticism from gun owners and Second Amendment supporters on Thursday , who say that the proposed tax singles out legal gun owners and taxes them to pay for programs that all residents should be paying for .
State Rep. Jillian Gilchrist is the author of the proposed tax increase , and she tried to shame anyone who would question why only gun owners are being asked to pay for programs to reduce violent crime across the state .
An emotional scolding from State Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when asked whether her proposal to tax gun ammunition by 35 % is a punishment on lawful gun owners .
“ Shame on you , those being punished are the victims of gun violence from Hartford to Newtown , ” she said .
Gilchrest said there has never been a comprehensive plan to fund gun violence prevention programs , and her proposal would do just that .
An estimated $ 50 box of bullets with a 35 % excise tax would result in about $ 17.50 being paid to the state .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise $ 7 million for programs to diffuse violence .
The “ emotional scolding ” from Gilchrist doesn ’ t change the fact that if “ gun violence ” is something all Connecticut residents should be concerned about , perhaps anti-violence programs are things that all Connecticut residents should be paying for .
After all , it ’ s not the state ’ s legal gun owners that are driving the drug and gang-related violence in the state .
Not surprisingly , Moms Demand Action is on board with the tax hike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment organizations are opposed .
Connecticut Citizens Defense League leaders said , once again , the lawmakers are making a separate class of citizens .
They are making different rules for themselves versus different rules for the civilians .
Ray Bevis represents CCDL and gun owners who say if an ammo tax is applied it should be applied to all , calling this a civil liberties tax .
“ Gun owners in this state already have to pay a permit fee to buy ammunition , they have to be fingerprinted and background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , while the gun safety action groups have a laudable mission , the state needs to stop pulling their dedicated funding .
Then , maybe , there won ’ t be a need to target gun owners .
This bill proposal is being looked at by the finance revenue and boding committee .
It is very early in the process and unclear whether the concept will get to a public hearing .
I think the CCDL is absolutely correct in calling this a civil liberties tax , and Gilchrest ’ s unhinged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolster her case .
The anti-gun lawmaker actually proposed a an even larger tax of 50 % on all ammunition sales in the state during the 2019 legislative session , but her bill went nowhere after pushback from gun owners and some self-inflicted damage to her own cause by making stupid statements like this .
It ’ s clear that Gilchrest is far more interested in targeting legal gun owners than addressing violent crime in the state .
Instead of working with gun owners on a solution , she simply believes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopefully this year ’ s bill suffers the same fate as her 2019 legislation , but gun owners in the state should be reaching out to their lawmakers to let their opposition be known .

A proposed 35% excise tax on all ammunition purchases in the state of Connecticut drew criticism from gun owners and Second Amendment supporters on Thursday, who say that the proposed tax singles out legal gun owners and taxes them to pay for programs that all residents should be paying for.
State Rep. Jillian Gilchrist is the author of the proposed tax increase, and she tried to shame anyone who would question why only gun owners are being asked to pay for programs to reduce violent crime across the state.
An emotional scolding from State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest (D- West Harford) when asked whether her proposal to tax gun ammunition by 35% is a punishment on lawful gun owners. “Shame on you, those being punished are the victims of gun violence from Hartford to Newtown,” she said. Gilchrest said there has never been a comprehensive plan to fund gun violence prevention programs, and her proposal would do just that. An estimated $50 box of bullets with a 35% excise tax would result in about $17.50 being paid to the state. In total, Gilchrest expects the proposed tax to raise $7 million for programs to diffuse violence.
The “emotional scolding” from Gilchrist doesn’t change the fact that if “gun violence” is something all Connecticut residents should be concerned about, perhaps anti-violence programs are things that all Connecticut residents should be paying for. After all, it’s not the state’s legal gun owners that are driving the drug and gang-related violence in the state.
Not surprisingly, Moms Demand Action is on board with the tax hike, while the state’s largest Second Amendment organizations are opposed.
Connecticut Citizens Defense League leaders said, once again, the lawmakers are making a separate class of citizens. They are making different rules for themselves versus different rules for the civilians. Ray Bevis represents CCDL and gun owners who say if an ammo tax is applied it should be applied to all, calling this a civil liberties tax. “Gun owners in this state already have to pay a permit fee to buy ammunition, they have to be fingerprinted and background checked,” Bevis said. Bevis said, while the gun safety action groups have a laudable mission, the state needs to stop pulling their dedicated funding. Then, maybe, there won’t be a need to target gun owners. This bill proposal is being looked at by the finance revenue and boding committee. It is very early in the process and unclear whether the concept will get to a public hearing.
I think the CCDL is absolutely correct in calling this a civil liberties tax, and Gilchrest’s unhinged response to a simple question does nothing to bolster her case.
The anti-gun lawmaker actually proposed a an even larger tax of 50% on all ammunition sales in the state during the 2019 legislative session, but her bill went nowhere after pushback from gun owners and some self-inflicted damage to her own cause by making stupid statements like this.
“I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one’s home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?” Gilchrest said in a post to social media that was soon bombarded with negative feedback from pro-gun commenters.
It’s clear that Gilchrest is far more interested in targeting legal gun owners than addressing violent crime in the state. Instead of working with gun owners on a solution, she simply believes that taxing gun owners is the solution. Hopefully this year’s bill suffers the same fate as her 2019 legislation, but gun owners in the state should be reaching out to their lawmakers to let their opposition be known.


bearingarms--2020-02-14--Bernie's Pro-Gun History Can't Be Ignored

As of right now , Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to challenge President Donald Trump for the White House .
As of this writing , he ’ s got nearly a four-and-a-half-point lead in the Real Clear Politics poll average .
He ’ s currently the odds on favorite to win the primary .
One of the things his supporters say they like about him is his consistency .
They argue that he ’ s been saying the same things for decades , so clearly it ’ s a matter of integrity with him .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not true .
Bernie Sanders has long blamed support for gun control measures on his loss in his first House race in 1988 .
But two years later , he ran to the right of his Republican opponent on the gun issue , first-term Rep. Peter Smith , winning Vermont ’ s lone House seat with National Rifle Association ’ s backing .
The dichotomy in Sanders ’ s approach to gun control in the largely rural state reflects his , often , calculating political sense , though the now-senator and 2020 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tout his purity and unwillingness to compromise on principle .
In 1988 , the Vermont House ’ s seat came open , with 14-year GOP Rep. James Jeffords , successfully running for Senate .
Sanders , the outgoing Burlington , Vermont , mayor , ran and lost against GOP state lawmaker Peter Smith .
In 1990 , running again as an independent , Sanders challenged Smith again , contending he was out of touch on multiple issues , including gun control .
Specifically , Smith ’ s support for a federal ban on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would become law for 10 years starting in 1994 .
Sanders attacked Smith for supporting the ban , saying he was “ turning [ his ] back on the 30 percent who believe in no gun control.
” In other words , Bernie shifted his positions in order to get elected to office in the state of Vermont .
Of course , Bernie argues his position has evolved on the issue of guns .
I argued earlier this week that they didn ’ t , he ’ s just pandering to a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other politician .
Of course , I may well have been wrong .
He may have supported gun control the entire time and only pandered to get elected to office in Vermont , which was fairly pro-gun at the time .
Either way , though , it ’ s important to keep in mind that while his supporters rail about his consistency and how he doesn ’ t flip flop on various issues , this is one prime example of him doing just that .
The avowed socialist doesn ’ t just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who didn ’ t earn it and take your money to pay for it , he wants to take your guns away too .
This is problematic because there ’ s an old saying about socialism .
You can vote yourself into it , but you have to shoot your way out of it .
Sanders wants to make that impossible .
Regardless , though , Bernie is nothing more than a political creature the same as anyone else running for the Democratic nomination .
He ’ s just done a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something else entirely .
Make no mistake , though , he ’ s just another politician .

As of right now, Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to challenge President Donald Trump for the White House. As of this writing, he’s got nearly a four-and-a-half-point lead in the Real Clear Politics poll average. He’s currently the odds on favorite to win the primary.
One of the things his supporters say they like about him is his consistency. They argue that he’s been saying the same things for decades, so clearly it’s a matter of integrity with him.
The problem is, it’s just not true.
Bernie Sanders has long blamed support for gun control measures on his loss in his first House race in 1988. But two years later, he ran to the right of his Republican opponent on the gun issue, first-term Rep. Peter Smith, winning Vermont’s lone House seat with National Rifle Association’s backing. The dichotomy in Sanders’s approach to gun control in the largely rural state reflects his, often, calculating political sense, though the now-senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign likes to tout his purity and unwillingness to compromise on principle. In 1988, the Vermont House’s seat came open, with 14-year GOP Rep. James Jeffords, successfully running for Senate. Sanders, the outgoing Burlington, Vermont, mayor, ran and lost against GOP state lawmaker Peter Smith. In 1990, running again as an independent, Sanders challenged Smith again, contending he was out of touch on multiple issues, including gun control. Specifically, Smith’s support for a federal ban on “assault” style weapons, which would become law for 10 years starting in 1994. Sanders attacked Smith for supporting the ban, saying he was “turning [his] back on the 30 percent who believe in no gun control.”
In other words, Bernie shifted his positions in order to get elected to office in the state of Vermont.
Of course, Bernie argues his position has evolved on the issue of guns. I argued earlier this week that they didn’t, he’s just pandering to a gun control hungry Democratic base, just like any other politician. Of course, I may well have been wrong. He may have supported gun control the entire time and only pandered to get elected to office in Vermont, which was fairly pro-gun at the time.
Either way, though, it’s important to keep in mind that while his supporters rail about his consistency and how he doesn’t flip flop on various issues, this is one prime example of him doing just that.
The avowed socialist doesn’t just want to give away free stuff to people who didn’t earn it and take your money to pay for it, he wants to take your guns away too. This is problematic because there’s an old saying about socialism. You can vote yourself into it, but you have to shoot your way out of it. Sanders wants to make that impossible.
Regardless, though, Bernie is nothing more than a political creature the same as anyone else running for the Democratic nomination. He’s just done a better job of convincing people that he’s something else entirely.
Make no mistake, though, he’s just another politician.


bearingarms--2020-02-16--State Requiring Training To Buy Gun Wants More Gun Control

Rhode Island has one of the most jacked up requirements to buy a gun anywhere in the country .
It ’ s a requirement that you provide proof you ’ ve undergone a firearm safety course just to purchase a firearm .
It ’ s something that would be tolerated for no other right , but for guns it ’ s a whole different kettle of fish .
However , despite that bit of draconian regulation , it seems lawmakers in the state are less than satisfied .
Rhode Island ’ s Democratic governor and attorney general are asking state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they feel will help curb gun violence .
Gov .
Gina Raimondo and Attorney General Peter Neronha said Thursday they ’ re supporting eight gun-control bills .
“ These bills and more to come will save lives , ” Raimondo said .
“ We know that.
” The bills would ban military-style assault weapons , high-capacity magazines and 3D-printed guns , as well as require gun sellers to send firearm purchase applications to police departments where the buyer lives .
Of course , we know how rarely “ military-style assault weapons ” are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how pointless high-capacity magazine bans actually are , especially at the state level but even at the federal level .
Further , 3D-printed guns are little more than scary things for anti-gunners , not an actual threat to the public ’ s safety .
In other words , none of this is about saving lives .
It ’ s all about taking something that scares the pants off of them out of the hands of people they don ’ t like .
Raimondo has to know damn good and well that these measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on crime .
It ’ s easy to pretend anti-gunners like her are dumb , but that would be to let them off the hook too easily .
No , she knows these measures aren ’ t really going to have any kind of impact .
She simply doesn ’ t care .
For Democrats , gun control is less and less of a losing proposition , even though polls are starting to shift against them .
Regardless , though , they know most of the people who this will impact weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place , so there ’ s little for them to lose , especially in a state where people are used to having to provide proof of attending a gun safety class just to buy a damn firearm in the first place .
No , I can ’ t help but feel like this is really about punishing people who didn ’ t vote for her and her fellow Democrats .
If she actually wanted to combat violence , there are ways to do it without infringing on the rights of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , though .
It was never about that , not for Rhode Island Democrats .
After all , they ’ re a low-crime state already and everyone knows it .
There ’ s no pressing need to “ combat violence ” with still more gun control .
No , this is about something else and anyone with half a brain can see it with their own two eyes .
What ’ s so bad , though , is that the state is so damn blue they ’ ll be able to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember is that you can only push the law-abiding so far before they give up on abiding by the law .

Rhode Island has one of the most jacked up requirements to buy a gun anywhere in the country. It’s a requirement that you provide proof you’ve undergone a firearm safety course just to purchase a firearm. It’s something that would be tolerated for no other right, but for guns it’s a whole different kettle of fish.
However, despite that bit of draconian regulation, it seems lawmakers in the state are less than satisfied.
Rhode Island’s Democratic governor and attorney general are asking state lawmakers to pass a group of bills they feel will help curb gun violence. Gov. Gina Raimondo and Attorney General Peter Neronha said Thursday they’re supporting eight gun-control bills. “These bills and more to come will save lives,” Raimondo said. “We know that.” … The bills would ban military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and 3D-printed guns, as well as require gun sellers to send firearm purchase applications to police departments where the buyer lives.
Of course, we know how rarely “military-style assault weapons” are used in crime. We also know how pointless high-capacity magazine bans actually are, especially at the state level but even at the federal level. Further, 3D-printed guns are little more than scary things for anti-gunners, not an actual threat to the public’s safety.
In other words, none of this is about saving lives. It’s all about taking something that scares the pants off of them out of the hands of people they don’t like.
Raimondo has to know damn good and well that these measures don’t actually have any impact on crime. It’s easy to pretend anti-gunners like her are dumb, but that would be to let them off the hook too easily.
No, she knows these measures aren’t really going to have any kind of impact. She simply doesn’t care.
For Democrats, gun control is less and less of a losing proposition, even though polls are starting to shift against them. Regardless, though, they know most of the people who this will impact weren’t likely to vote for them in the first place, so there’s little for them to lose, especially in a state where people are used to having to provide proof of attending a gun safety class just to buy a damn firearm in the first place.
No, I can’t help but feel like this is really about punishing people who didn’t vote for her and her fellow Democrats. If she actually wanted to combat violence, there are ways to do it without infringing on the rights of the innocent. It’s not about that, though. It was never about that, not for Rhode Island Democrats.
After all, they’re a low-crime state already and everyone knows it. There’s no pressing need to “combat violence” with still more gun control.
No, this is about something else and anyone with half a brain can see it with their own two eyes. What’s so bad, though, is that the state is so damn blue they’ll be able to get away with it.
The thing to remember is that you can only push the law-abiding so far before they give up on abiding by the law.


bearingarms--2020-02-15--Bloomberg/Clinton Would Be The Most Anti-Gun Ticket In History

Are you ready for Bloomberg/Clinton 2020 ?
I ’ m not sure the nation ’ s firearms industry could handle the surge in demand such a pairing would cause , but according to Matt Drudge , the anti-gun billionaire is considering the possibility after internal polling by the Bloomberg campaign showed the pair would be “ a formidable force.
” Bloomberg ’ s been getting a lot of attention in the wake of Joe Biden ’ s face plant in Iowa and New Hampshire , and has closed the gap in polling over the last few weeks , aided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Real Clear Politics polling average , Bloomberg is now comfortably in 3rd place behind Bernie Sanders and Biden , and is closing in on the former vice-president fairly quickly .
Along with the steady rise in support , Bloomberg is now starting to face growing criticism over his policies as mayor , and the “ empire of influence ” ( in the words of the New York Times ) that he ’ s built over the years , including with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety .
A steady stream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the candidate , even as we read stories of the campaign paying online influencers for their support .
He ’ s not wrong , but I somehow doubt we ’ ll be seeing too many reporters ask those questions .
The anti-Bloomberg backlash on the left has come hardest from Bernie Sanders supporters , as you might expect .
I think I ’ ve unironically retweeted more self-described socialists in the past week than I have in the past ten years .
Politics makes strange bedfellows , and while I can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology , I certainly stand in solidarity with their opposition to the authoritarian anti-gun billionaire who believes he can buy his way into the White House .
Which brings us to the idea of Bloomberg bringing in Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee .
Honestly , I think that move might be more popular among Republicans than Democrats , though I haven ’ t seen the internal polling cited by Matt Drudge .
I know that Second Amendment supporters in particular would be energized by the prospect of a Bloomberg/Clinton ticket .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only possible running mate that could get gun owners more fired up would be Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke .
Presumably , Democrats would also be fired up by the chance to right the wrong they feel was done to Clinton in 2016 , and Bloomberg might even dangle the possibility of serving just one term before passing the torch to Clinton in 2024 .
Heck , Bloomberg just turned 78 on Friday .
He could dangle the possibility of retiring in 2022 and letting Hillary serve out the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for re-election as a semi-incumbent if he really wanted to .
Right now , the Left is hitting Bloomberg for his support for stop-and-frisk , his deluge of spending , and the idea that he ’ s not a true Democrat ( Bloomberg left the Democrat party to run as a Republican in the New York City mayoral race , then switched to independent before once again becoming a Democrat in 2018 .
Bringing Clinton on to the ticket would be a reassurance to establishment Democrats that Bloomberg is one of them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do anything to try to bridge the divide in the party between the Sanders/Warren wing and the Biden/Bloomberg axis of establishment Democrats .
This idea isn ’ t designed to bring Sanders supporters into the fold , but to peel away support from those currently backing Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar .
Bloomberg plans on attacking his left flank first and dispatching Sanders by either winning the nomination outright or by grabbing the nomination during a contested convention .
Then , Bloomberg will attack his right flank , spending upwards of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat Donald Trump .
If having Hillary as his running mate will help , I have no doubt Bloomberg would extend the offer .
It could be , however , that this story was simply leaked out by his campaign to generate some buzz and conversation to deflect from his recent controversies .
After all , it ’ s far better for Bloomberg that we ’ re talking about his potential running mate than the ways he enforced his draconian gun control laws when he was mayor , and his plans to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When Clinton was running for president in 2016 , she backed a Bloombergian agenda of gun bans , universal background checks , and more .
Bloomberg ’ s plan in 2020 is much more expansive than Clinton ’ s , however , up to and including requiring mental health screenings before being able to purchase a firearm .
• Require point-of-sale background checks for all gun sales and finally close the private sale loophole , which enables prohibited people to buy guns simply by finding unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyer to get a permit before making a purchase .
• Allow for extreme risk screening before guns are purchased so that issuers would be equipped to deny permits to troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others • Require all gun buyers to wait at least 48 hours before any firearm purchase .
• Pass a federal red flag law that expands extreme risk orders to 50 states—and funds state efforts to maximize the policy .
• Reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines .
• Require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown to reduce the risk of child gun injuries by up to 85 percent .
However , an estimated 4.6 million American children live in houses with an unlocked gun .
• Ban all guns in K-12 schools , colleges , and universities – except for law enforcement .
That ’ s just a portion of his entire plan , which , if enacted , would absolutely gut the protections to our right to keep and bear arms provided by the U.S. Constitution , as well potentially turn tens of millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already own .
Actually , as far as gun owners are concerned , it really doesn ’ t matter who Bloomberg would pick as his running mate .
Unfortunately , no matter who the Democrats ultimately nominate , they ’ ll be running as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in the nation ’ s history .

Are you ready for Bloomberg/Clinton 2020? I’m not sure the nation’s firearms industry could handle the surge in demand such a pairing would cause, but according to Matt Drudge, the anti-gun billionaire is considering the possibility after internal polling by the Bloomberg campaign showed the pair would be “a formidable force.”
Bloomberg’s been getting a lot of attention in the wake of Joe Biden’s face plant in Iowa and New Hampshire, and has closed the gap in polling over the last few weeks, aided by his massive spending. According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Bloomberg is now comfortably in 3rd place behind Bernie Sanders and Biden, and is closing in on the former vice-president fairly quickly.
Along with the steady rise in support, Bloomberg is now starting to face growing criticism over his policies as mayor, and the “empire of influence” (in the words of the New York Times) that he’s built over the years, including with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety. A steady stream of lawmakers have been issuing their endorsement of the candidate, even as we read stories of the campaign paying online influencers for their support.
The first question any reputable reporter should ask any official who endorses Bloomberg is: “Has Bloomberg or any Bloomberg-affiliated entity given money to you or any organization with which you are affiliated?” — michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) February 14, 2020
He’s not wrong, but I somehow doubt we’ll be seeing too many reporters ask those questions.
The anti-Bloomberg backlash on the left has come hardest from Bernie Sanders supporters, as you might expect. I think I’ve unironically retweeted more self-described socialists in the past week than I have in the past ten years. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and while I can’t find much common ground with their ideology, I certainly stand in solidarity with their opposition to the authoritarian anti-gun billionaire who believes he can buy his way into the White House.
Which brings us to the idea of Bloomberg bringing in Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee. Honestly, I think that move might be more popular among Republicans than Democrats, though I haven’t seen the internal polling cited by Matt Drudge. I know that Second Amendment supporters in particular would be energized by the prospect of a Bloomberg/Clinton ticket. In fact, I’d say the only possible running mate that could get gun owners more fired up would be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.
Presumably, Democrats would also be fired up by the chance to right the wrong they feel was done to Clinton in 2016, and Bloomberg might even dangle the possibility of serving just one term before passing the torch to Clinton in 2024. Heck, Bloomberg just turned 78 on Friday. He could dangle the possibility of retiring in 2022 and letting Hillary serve out the last two years of his term before running for re-election as a semi-incumbent if he really wanted to.
Right now, the Left is hitting Bloomberg for his support for stop-and-frisk, his deluge of spending, and the idea that he’s not a true Democrat (Bloomberg left the Democrat party to run as a Republican in the New York City mayoral race, then switched to independent before once again becoming a Democrat in 2018. Bringing Clinton on to the ticket would be a reassurance to establishment Democrats that Bloomberg is one of them.
It won’t, however, do anything to try to bridge the divide in the party between the Sanders/Warren wing and the Biden/Bloomberg axis of establishment Democrats. This idea isn’t designed to bring Sanders supporters into the fold, but to peel away support from those currently backing Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Bloomberg plans on attacking his left flank first and dispatching Sanders by either winning the nomination outright or by grabbing the nomination during a contested convention. Then, Bloomberg will attack his right flank, spending upwards of a billion dollars in the general election to defeat Donald Trump.
If having Hillary as his running mate will help, I have no doubt Bloomberg would extend the offer. It could be, however, that this story was simply leaked out by his campaign to generate some buzz and conversation to deflect from his recent controversies. After all, it’s far better for Bloomberg that we’re talking about his potential running mate than the ways he enforced his draconian gun control laws when he was mayor, and his plans to turn our Second Amendment right into a privilege.
When Clinton was running for president in 2016, she backed a Bloombergian agenda of gun bans, universal background checks, and more. Bloomberg’s plan in 2020 is much more expansive than Clinton’s, however, up to and including requiring mental health screenings before being able to purchase a firearm.
Require point-of-sale background checks for all gun sales and finally close the private sale loophole, which enables prohibited people to buy guns simply by finding unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on the Internet.
Require every gun buyer to get a permit before making a purchase.
Allow for extreme risk screening before guns are purchased so that issuers would be equipped to deny permits to troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others
Require all gun buyers to wait at least 48 hours before any firearm purchase.
Pass a federal red flag law that expands extreme risk orders to 50 states—and funds state efforts to maximize the policy.
Reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Require secure storage of firearms which have been shown to reduce the risk of child gun injuries by up to 85 percent. However, an estimated 4.6 million American children live in houses with an unlocked gun.
Ban all guns in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities – except for law enforcement.
That’s just a portion of his entire plan, which, if enacted, would absolutely gut the protections to our right to keep and bear arms provided by the U.S. Constitution, as well potentially turn tens of millions of Americans into criminals for simply keeping what they already own.
Actually, as far as gun owners are concerned, it really doesn’t matter who Bloomberg would pick as his running mate. Unfortunately, no matter who the Democrats ultimately nominate, they’ll be running as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in the nation’s history.


bearingarms--2020-02-15--Gun Maker Files For Bankruptcy Following Lawsuit

There are a lot of gun companies you can name that make quality firearms .
At some level , they really all start to be about the same as far as overall quality goes , really .
And no , not all of those firearms break the bank , either .
Unless , of course , you ’ re very poor .
Luckily , there are companies that cater to those poorer individuals .
They make affordable firearms that might not be fantastic , but generally are better than a sharp stick .
Of course , those lower-cost manufacturers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other such creatures .
In fact , one recently had to file bankruptcy over such lawsuits .
A Nevada-based gun manufacturer filed for bankruptcy after Kansas City sued the company over weapons trafficking last month .
In the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed Monday , Jimenez Arms listed assets of less than $ 50,000 and outstanding liabilities that surpass $ 1 million , KCUR-FM reported .
This could pose a challenge for the city should it successfully recover compensation in its lawsuit .
The city sued Jimenez in January , alleging that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City , which has one of America ’ s highest homicide rates .
“ Kansas City families can rest a little easier knowing that a company responsible for facilitating years of illegal trafficking of guns is no longer operating , ” said Alla Lefkowitz , an attorney for the organization .
“ When firearm companies repeatedly ignore the law and facilitate gun trafficking they bring these sort of consequences on themselves.
” The “ organization ” is Everytown Law , which is part of Bloomberg ’ s Everytown For Gun Safety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control and provides almost nothing at all to do with actual gun safety .
There ’ s a lot of allegations against Jimenez , but the story is lacking in evidence of any actual wrongdoing by the company .
In other words , it sounds like Jimenez made inexpensive pistols which were then either purchased for illegal resale or stolen from lawful owners at a higher rate than many other guns–something that ’ s not surprising considering they ’ re cheap firearms–and that ’ s somehow their fault .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against federal law to sue gun companies .
See , pushing Jimenez into bankruptcy isn ’ t really that much of a problem .
Not for Everytown , though the government of Kansas City might be annoyed .
For Everytown Law , this is likely the goal .
The reason for the Protect for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was to prevent such malicious lawsuits designed to do nothing more than make it impossible for gun manufacturers and retailers to do business .
Unfortunately , too many judges have apparently decided none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to proceed .
As a result , Jimenez has been forced to file for bankruptcy .
Just what Everytown probably wanted all along .
Make no mistake , either .
They will not stop with Jimenez .
They ’ ll soon try to argue that any manufacturer whose firearms are used illegally are somehow complicit in the illegal trade of arms .
If someone at Jimenez is breaking the law , prosecute them .
Otherwise , this nonsense needs to end .

There are a lot of gun companies you can name that make quality firearms. At some level, they really all start to be about the same as far as overall quality goes, really. And no, not all of those firearms break the bank, either.
Unless, of course, you’re very poor.
Luckily, there are companies that cater to those poorer individuals. They make affordable firearms that might not be fantastic, but generally are better than a sharp stick.
Of course, those lower-cost manufacturers are often the target for malicious lawsuits and other such creatures. In fact, one recently had to file bankruptcy over such lawsuits.
A Nevada-based gun manufacturer filed for bankruptcy after Kansas City sued the company over weapons trafficking last month. In the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed Monday, Jimenez Arms listed assets of less than $50,000 and outstanding liabilities that surpass $1 million, KCUR-FM reported. This could pose a challenge for the city should it successfully recover compensation in its lawsuit. The city sued Jimenez in January, alleging that the gun trafficking created a public nuisance in Kansas City, which has one of America’s highest homicide rates. … “Kansas City families can rest a little easier knowing that a company responsible for facilitating years of illegal trafficking of guns is no longer operating,” said Alla Lefkowitz, an attorney for the organization. “When firearm companies repeatedly ignore the law and facilitate gun trafficking they bring these sort of consequences on themselves.”
The “organization” is Everytown Law, which is part of Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety, a group that only tries to push gun control and provides almost nothing at all to do with actual gun safety.
There’s a lot of allegations against Jimenez, but the story is lacking in evidence of any actual wrongdoing by the company.
In other words, it sounds like Jimenez made inexpensive pistols which were then either purchased for illegal resale or stolen from lawful owners at a higher rate than many other guns–something that’s not surprising considering they’re cheap firearms–and that’s somehow their fault.
Of course, this is also why it’s against federal law to sue gun companies.
See, pushing Jimenez into bankruptcy isn’t really that much of a problem. Not for Everytown, though the government of Kansas City might be annoyed. For Everytown Law, this is likely the goal. The reason for the Protect for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was to prevent such malicious lawsuits designed to do nothing more than make it impossible for gun manufacturers and retailers to do business.
Unfortunately, too many judges have apparently decided none of that matters and are allowing these cases to proceed. As a result, Jimenez has been forced to file for bankruptcy.
Just what Everytown probably wanted all along.
Make no mistake, either. They will not stop with Jimenez. They’ll soon try to argue that any manufacturer whose firearms are used illegally are somehow complicit in the illegal trade of arms.
If someone at Jimenez is breaking the law, prosecute them. Otherwise, this nonsense needs to end.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--FL Man Attacks Trump Supporters With Cane Sword

The Florida Man meme is one of my all-time favorites in the history of the internet .
Plus , let ’ s be honest , Florida men actually do enough weird stuff that the meme didn ’ t really have any choice but to form .
And to think , all those years before , I thought Alabama was a strange place .
Regardless , though , Florida Man has given us much mirth through the years now .
In fact , I recall seeing a page where someone proposed Florida Man as something like a superhero , that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just one man .
Well , if that ’ s true , he ’ s a rather debonair superhero…in addition to really not liking Trump supporters .
Peaceful Florida citizens holding Trump signs were minding their own business in Dunnellon , Fla. , last Thursday when a man rushed at them with a cane sword .
Police arrested 49-year-old James L. Whitehurst II and charged him with 10 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of disorderly conduct , the Ocala Star Banner reported .
Victims reportedly told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their peaceful assembly with what was described as a cane sword .
The assailant allegedly pointed the sword in their faces and made threatening statements , holding the blade 6 inches from their faces .
Whitehurst confessed to having removed the sword from its holder and pointing it at the Trump supporters .
He told police he meant no harm by the threatening action .
I ’ m sorry , what ?
He meant no harm by pointing a sword at people and holding it just inches from their faces ?
You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think he meant to physically harm anyone .
I do , however , believe he meant to scare and intimidate people with his threats , however .
I think he wanted them to think he meant them harm , and that ’ s the problem .
The truth is , though , Whitehurst is lucky to be alive .
After all , if you were carrying and someone came at you with a sword–even a cane sword , which looks cool but is usually just a crap blade–what would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ d take it as a serious threat , draw their weapons , and fire .
That would make it a very bad day for Whitehurst indeed , assuming it happened as presented in the story .
Even if he survived the shooting , he ’ d end up in the hospital undergoing all kinds of painful stuff , all while waiting to be released for a one-way trip to jail on the aggravated assault charges .
Oh yes , he wouldn ’ t get to escape those in the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liking Trump .
While he ’ s a far sight better than I thought he ’ d be , I ’ m still not enamored with the man as president .
I can only imagine how a liberal would view him and his supporters .
That said , you don ’ t win elections by threatening everyone who supports the other guy .
What you do is make it harder and harder for us to communicate about politics in a sane manner .
You contribute to the unrest we feel in this society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s only a matter of time before one of these moments turns deadly .
When that happens , will that be the end of it , or will it be just the beginning of something ugly ?

The Florida Man meme is one of my all-time favorites in the history of the internet. Plus, let’s be honest, Florida men actually do enough weird stuff that the meme didn’t really have any choice but to form.
And to think, all those years before, I thought Alabama was a strange place.
Regardless, though, Florida Man has given us much mirth through the years now. In fact, I recall seeing a page where someone proposed Florida Man as something like a superhero, that all those odd things were all the work of just one man.
Well, if that’s true, he’s a rather debonair superhero…in addition to really not liking Trump supporters.
Peaceful Florida citizens holding Trump signs were minding their own business in Dunnellon, Fla., last Thursday when a man rushed at them with a cane sword. Police arrested 49-year-old James L. Whitehurst II and charged him with 10 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of disorderly conduct, the Ocala Star Banner reported. Victims reportedly told police that Whitehurst had approached them during their peaceful assembly with what was described as a cane sword. The assailant allegedly pointed the sword in their faces and made threatening statements, holding the blade 6 inches from their faces. Whitehurst confessed to having removed the sword from its holder and pointing it at the Trump supporters. He told police he meant no harm by the threatening action.
I’m sorry, what? He meant no harm by pointing a sword at people and holding it just inches from their faces?
You know what? I buy that. I don’t think he meant to physically harm anyone.
I do, however, believe he meant to scare and intimidate people with his threats, however. I think he wanted them to think he meant them harm, and that’s the problem.
The truth is, though, Whitehurst is lucky to be alive. After all, if you were carrying and someone came at you with a sword–even a cane sword, which looks cool but is usually just a crap blade–what would you do? For a lot of people, they’d take it as a serious threat, draw their weapons, and fire.
That would make it a very bad day for Whitehurst indeed, assuming it happened as presented in the story. Even if he survived the shooting, he’d end up in the hospital undergoing all kinds of painful stuff, all while waiting to be released for a one-way trip to jail on the aggravated assault charges. Oh yes, he wouldn’t get to escape those in the least.
Look, I get people not liking Trump. While he’s a far sight better than I thought he’d be, I’m still not enamored with the man as president. I can only imagine how a liberal would view him and his supporters.
That said, you don’t win elections by threatening everyone who supports the other guy. What you do is make it harder and harder for us to communicate about politics in a sane manner. You contribute to the unrest we feel in this society.
At this point, it’s only a matter of time before one of these moments turns deadly. When that happens, will that be the end of it, or will it be just the beginning of something ugly?


bearingarms--2020-02-17--Armed Protesters Picket Bloomberg, Campaign Office

Former New York City mayor and current gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg is suddenly under the microscope as the presidential candidate is climbing in the polls and front-runner Joe Biden ’ s campaign seems to be in a tailspin that may or may not be corrected in the upcoming Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary .
Bloomberg ’ s past comments and attempts to buy influence may be breaking news to a lot of Americans , but gun owners have known a lot of these things for years , and they know what a Bloomberg presidency would mean for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why , in two states thousands of miles away from each other over the weekend , hundreds of gun owners turned out to protest Bloomberg and his presidential campaign , and to exercise their Second Amendment rights while doing so .
In Boise , Idaho , several hundred gun owners and Second Amendment supporters greeted the opening of a Bloomberg campaign office with signs and their legally-carried firearms .
Meanwhile , in Richmond , Virginia dozens of Second Amendment advocates peacefully protested outside of a Democrat-run gala on Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam and Michael Bloomberg were wining and dining inside .
The Virginia Citizens Defense League organized a protest outside the gala in opposition to gun control laws championed by Democrats and Bloomberg .
“ Tonight we ’ re really here just to make sure Bloomberg , in particular , doesn ’ t ever feel comfortable in Virginia , ” Sarah Linden , a Virginia gun owner said .
“ He ’ s not welcome here , we don ’ t need his money .
As one of the other protesters said , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we don ’ t need Bloomberg ’ s money.
” The two groups in America who may despise Michael Bloomberg the most at the moment are Second Amendment supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters , and yes , I ’ m aware that there ’ s a small amount of overlap in those two groups .
In fact , I ’ m thinking about casting a vote for Bernie Sanders in Virginia ’ s Democratic primary on March 3rd , so technically I might soon be a member of that small slice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intend to vote for Donald Trump in November ( with Vermin Supreme currently running in second place in my own personal polling ) .
Bloomberg ’ s not dropping out any time soon , or at all .
He ’ ll take it to a contested convention if need be and buy off enough delegates to take the nomination .
That means there ’ ll be plenty of more opportunities to protest , and it ’ s likely that it won ’ t just be gun owners protesting the anti-gun billionaire ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk with those on the Left about why Bloomberg ’ s gun control policies are just as harmful as his abuse of stop-and-frisk and other authoritarian measures , and maybe change a few hearts and minds on the issue .
The Second Amendment isn ’ t just a right of the Right , after all , and our rights will be in much better shape when a majority of both parties stand opposed to turning a right protected by the Constitution into a privilege granted the government .

Former New York City mayor and current gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg is suddenly under the microscope as the presidential candidate is climbing in the polls and front-runner Joe Biden’s campaign seems to be in a tailspin that may or may not be corrected in the upcoming Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary. Bloomberg’s past comments and attempts to buy influence may be breaking news to a lot of Americans, but gun owners have known a lot of these things for years, and they know what a Bloomberg presidency would mean for their right to keep and bear arms.
That’s why, in two states thousands of miles away from each other over the weekend, hundreds of gun owners turned out to protest Bloomberg and his presidential campaign, and to exercise their Second Amendment rights while doing so.
In Boise, Idaho, several hundred gun owners and Second Amendment supporters greeted the opening of a Bloomberg campaign office with signs and their legally-carried firearms.
The rally was intended to inform Bloomberg and his Boise campaign office officials that the crowd does not support his stance on guns, according to rally organizer and president of ISAA Greg Pruett. “We are out here today with just over 300 gun owners who wanted to come and exercise their first amendment rights and let Micheal Bloomberg know we don’t like his gun control here in the state of Idaho,” Pruett said. “We are not fans of Michael Bloomberg as a number of groups he has been using to destroy the second amendment.” No one from Bloomberg’s Boise office was available for comment.
There’s a shock.
Meanwhile, in Richmond, Virginia dozens of Second Amendment advocates peacefully protested outside of a Democrat-run gala on Saturday night, while both Gov. Ralph Northam and Michael Bloomberg were wining and dining inside.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League organized a protest outside the gala in opposition to gun control laws championed by Democrats and Bloomberg. “Tonight we’re really here just to make sure Bloomberg, in particular, doesn’t ever feel comfortable in Virginia,” Sarah Linden, a Virginia gun owner said. “He’s not welcome here, we don’t need his money. As one of the other protesters said, this is the land of milk and honey, and we don’t need Bloomberg’s money.”
The two groups in America who may despise Michael Bloomberg the most at the moment are Second Amendment supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters, and yes, I’m aware that there’s a small amount of overlap in those two groups. In fact, I’m thinking about casting a vote for Bernie Sanders in Virginia’s Democratic primary on March 3rd, so technically I might soon be a member of that small slice of the Venn diagram, though I intend to vote for Donald Trump in November (with Vermin Supreme currently running in second place in my own personal polling).
Bloomberg’s not dropping out any time soon, or at all. He’ll take it to a contested convention if need be and buy off enough delegates to take the nomination. That means there’ll be plenty of more opportunities to protest, and it’s likely that it won’t just be gun owners protesting the anti-gun billionaire’s campaign. I see lots of opportunities to talk with those on the Left about why Bloomberg’s gun control policies are just as harmful as his abuse of stop-and-frisk and other authoritarian measures, and maybe change a few hearts and minds on the issue. The Second Amendment isn’t just a right of the Right, after all, and our rights will be in much better shape when a majority of both parties stand opposed to turning a right protected by the Constitution into a privilege granted the government.


bearingarms--2020-02-17--"Boyfriend Loophole" Rhetoric Nothing More Than Rights Grab

Domestic violence is one of those things that absolutely no one supports .
You ’ d be hardpressed to find anyone seriously advocating for domestic violence .
Sure , some people may joke about it–and whether that ’ s right or wrong is a completely different debate–but no one actually supports it .
So , one would think that the Violence Against Women Act would get universal support , but it doesn ’ t .
In fact , I can ’ t support it .
Why ?
Because it ’ s not about protecting women anymore .
Now it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can disqualify someone from owning a firearm .
And for some , they can ’ t see why that ’ s a bad thing .
Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa is one of a handful of women in Congress to have disclosed their status as a survivor of domestic abuse .
In interviews last year , she told reporters that her ex-husband beat and choked her , and that she was raped in college .
She hopes that “ people will view my work in those areas not as a senator that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she told the CNN affiliate KCCI , “ but now as somebody who has been in that situation that will be supporting them.
” But months later , Ernst , a Republican , held up a vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act , or VAWA , major legislation that created the National Domestic Violence Hotline , funds women ’ s shelters and research on gender-based violence , and which has languished in the Senate since it passed the House last year .
The sticking point , she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attached to the bill .
If passed , it would have closed the so-called “ boyfriend loophole , ” which would prevent individuals subject to a restraining order or those who had been convicted of abusing a domestic partner from buying guns .
Ernst later introduced her own counter-proposal which stripped VAWA of any gun control provisions .
Ernst ’ s maneuvering outraged survivors and advocates alike , who say the loophole puts women at risk .
The rate of murders committed by domestic partners has risen significantly , according to a Northeastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most victims are women .
A researcher told HuffPost that the increase was driven primarily by gun violence .
Closing the loophole , experts say , would save lives , by ensuring the law covers all abusers , not just those who have lived with or been married to their victims .
The article , titled , “ Domestic Violence Survivors Want Legal Protections , Not Platitudes , ” argues that closing the so-called “ boyfriend loophole ” is the precise protection domestic violence survivors need .
Except , that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem I have with this effort to expand the list of crimes that bar someone from owning a gun legally is that it doesn ’ t actually have nearly the impact proponents think .
A truly dangerous person intent on killing the woman in question doesn ’ t actually need a gun .
A knife is easy to get and completely unrestricted .
The same is true of a hammer .
Frankly , the average man can murder the average woman with his bare hands easily enough .
These measures don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those murders and don ’ t tell me they don ’ t happen .
Additionally , what rises to the level of violence is often far less than people think .
For example , just grabbing an arm as someone tries to walk away during an argument can constitute assault .
Does someone doing such a thing automatically mean they can ’ t be trusted with responsibly exercising their rights ?
Of course not .
Here ’ s the thing , though .
There are dangerous people out there .
We all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these domestic abusers are that much of a threat , then why isn ’ t anyone trying to raise these crimes to the level of a felony ?
After all , felons are already barred from owning guns .
Plus , if these individuals represent that significant of a threat , why on Earth should we settle for misdemeanor punishments for their crimes ?
The fact that hasn ’ t been on the table is telling .
The “ boyfriend loophole ” isn ’ t about keeping women safe .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else .

Domestic violence is one of those things that absolutely no one supports. You’d be hardpressed to find anyone seriously advocating for domestic violence. Sure, some people may joke about it–and whether that’s right or wrong is a completely different debate–but no one actually supports it.
So, one would think that the Violence Against Women Act would get universal support, but it doesn’t. In fact, I can’t support it.
Why? Because it’s not about protecting women anymore. Now it’s about expanding the list of crimes that can disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
And for some, they can’t see why that’s a bad thing.
Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa is one of a handful of women in Congress to have disclosed their status as a survivor of domestic abuse. In interviews last year, she told reporters that her ex-husband beat and choked her, and that she was raped in college. She hopes that “people will view my work in those areas not as a senator that is working to support them,” she told the CNN affiliate KCCI, “but now as somebody who has been in that situation that will be supporting them.” But months later, Ernst, a Republican, held up a vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, major legislation that created the National Domestic Violence Hotline, funds women’s shelters and research on gender-based violence, and which has languished in the Senate since it passed the House last year. The sticking point, she said, was a gun-control provision that the House attached to the bill. If passed, it would have closed the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which would prevent individuals subject to a restraining order or those who had been convicted of abusing a domestic partner from buying guns. Ernst later introduced her own counter-proposal which stripped VAWA of any gun control provisions. Ernst’s maneuvering outraged survivors and advocates alike, who say the loophole puts women at risk. The rate of murders committed by domestic partners has risen significantly, according to a Northeastern University study released in 2019, and most victims are women. A researcher told HuffPost that the increase was driven primarily by gun violence. Closing the loophole, experts say, would save lives, by ensuring the law covers all abusers, not just those who have lived with or been married to their victims.
The article, titled, “Domestic Violence Survivors Want Legal Protections, Not Platitudes,” argues that closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” is the precise protection domestic violence survivors need.
Except, that’s not really true.
You see, the problem I have with this effort to expand the list of crimes that bar someone from owning a gun legally is that it doesn’t actually have nearly the impact proponents think. A truly dangerous person intent on killing the woman in question doesn’t actually need a gun. A knife is easy to get and completely unrestricted. The same is true of a hammer. Frankly, the average man can murder the average woman with his bare hands easily enough.
These measures don’t even touch on how to prevent any of those murders and don’t tell me they don’t happen.
Additionally, what rises to the level of violence is often far less than people think. For example, just grabbing an arm as someone tries to walk away during an argument can constitute assault. Does someone doing such a thing automatically mean they can’t be trusted with responsibly exercising their rights?
Of course not.
Here’s the thing, though. There are dangerous people out there. We all know it.
However, if all of these domestic abusers are that much of a threat, then why isn’t anyone trying to raise these crimes to the level of a felony? After all, felons are already barred from owning guns. Plus, if these individuals represent that significant of a threat, why on Earth should we settle for misdemeanor punishments for their crimes?
The fact that hasn’t been on the table is telling.
The “boyfriend loophole” isn’t about keeping women safe. It’s about expanding gun control. Nothing else.
Don’t be fooled.