bearingarms--2020-12-05--Newtown, Connecticut Blocks Proposed Gun Restrictions

It ’ s notable when any locality says “ no ” to restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms , but when that town was home to one of the worst mass murders in American history , it ’ s definitely a newsworthy event .
Gun control activists intent on banning legally carried firearms on town property in Newtown , Connecticut were thwarted this week after members of the town board deadlocked 6-6 on three proposed ordinances that would have targeted legal gun owners with restrictions on possessing guns in public .
The decision came after the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were intimidated at protests by armed Second Amendment supporters .
The debate showed how the gun control discussion remains active in Newtown long after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre , which killed 20 first-graders and six educators .
The eighth anniversary of the shooting is coming up on Dec. 14 .
After listening to testimony from both sides of the issue Wednesday night by phone because of the pandemic , the Newtown Legislative Council deadlocked in 6-6 votes on whether to refer three proposed gun restriction ordinances to the council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the requests .
Members of the Newtown Action Alliance , formed after the school shooting to prevent gun violence , had proposed the measures , in response to feeling threatened by gun rights advocates carrying firearms during protests outside the National Shooting Sports Foundation , a gun industry group that happens to be based in Newtown .
“ It ’ s disheartening and disappointing to live in a community where the leaders are choosing not to take our recommendations seriously , particularly after what we ’ ve been through in this community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resident and chair of the alliance .
Murray , who said that the town ’ s legislative council needed to take preemptive action because “ white extremism is spreading across the country , ” may be disappointed by the action ( or lack thereof ) on the part of local lawmakers , but personally , I think it ’ s more disheartening that nearly eight years after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown , activists like Murray are still targeting legal gun owners with dubious restrictions on their right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts on mental health and criminal justice reforms .
The push to ban the open carrying of firearms on town property could come back before Newtown ’ s legislative council before long , with council members requesting that the town ’ s attorney look into the legality of a ban at its meeting on Wednesday night .
For now , though , both First and Second Amendment supporters should be pleased that the council members in Newtown didn ’ t simply rubber-stamp the agenda of gun control activists and have chosen for now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

It’s notable when any locality says “no” to restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but when that town was home to one of the worst mass murders in American history, it’s definitely a newsworthy event. Gun control activists intent on banning legally carried firearms on town property in Newtown, Connecticut were thwarted this week after members of the town board deadlocked 6-6 on three proposed ordinances that would have targeted legal gun owners with restrictions on possessing guns in public.
The decision came after the board heard from gun control activists who said they were intimidated at protests by armed Second Amendment supporters. The debate showed how the gun control discussion remains active in Newtown long after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which killed 20 first-graders and six educators. The eighth anniversary of the shooting is coming up on Dec. 14. After listening to testimony from both sides of the issue Wednesday night by phone because of the pandemic, the Newtown Legislative Council deadlocked in 6-6 votes on whether to refer three proposed gun restriction ordinances to the council’s Ordinance Committee, effectively killing the requests. Members of the Newtown Action Alliance, formed after the school shooting to prevent gun violence, had proposed the measures, in response to feeling threatened by gun rights advocates carrying firearms during protests outside the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group that happens to be based in Newtown. “It’s disheartening and disappointing to live in a community where the leaders are choosing not to take our recommendations seriously, particularly after what we’ve been through in this community,” said Po Murray, a local resident and chair of the alliance.
Murray, who said that the town’s legislative council needed to take preemptive action because “white extremism is spreading across the country,” may be disappointed by the action (or lack thereof) on the part of local lawmakers, but personally, I think it’s more disheartening that nearly eight years after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, activists like Murray are still targeting legal gun owners with dubious restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms rather than focusing their efforts on mental health and criminal justice reforms.
Ryan Knapp, a Republican member of Newtown’s Legislative Council, voted against the proposed gun restrictions, questioning whether the town could prohibit gun owners from doing things they’re allowed to do under state law. “Different people feel different ways about this,” he said. “I think ultimately this is a legal question and not a feelings question. And I don’t think it’s our purview to decide that. And I don’t want to commit the taxpayers of Newtown to funding the defense of that if I’m not confident it’s legal.”
The push to ban the open carrying of firearms on town property could come back before Newtown’s legislative council before long, with council members requesting that the town’s attorney look into the legality of a ban at its meeting on Wednesday night. For now, though, both First and Second Amendment supporters should be pleased that the council members in Newtown didn’t simply rubber-stamp the agenda of gun control activists and have chosen for now to side with the right of self-defense.


bearingarms--2020-12-05--Guns-For-Drug Operation Proves Futility Of Gun Control

Anti-gunners often are true believers when it comes to the idea that gun control makes people safer .
In fact , many really do believe that if we repealed the Second Amendment and banned guns entirely , then we wouldn ’ t have any violent crime to speak of .
The technical name for people like this is “ idiot , ” of course .
Violent people don ’ t require a gun to be violent , of course .
Further , if a total ban on a certain item meant that such an item simply couldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have spent decades battling illegal drugs .
Hell , this guns-for-drug operation in Georgia should really blow their minds .
Authorities say they ’ ve uncovered an operation in Grady County in which drugs were being exchanged for stolen firearms out of a Cairo residence .
Drug agents with the Grady County Sheriff ’ s Office uncovered the illicit operation last week during an investigation into firearms being sold from a residence on 4th Avenue Southeast .
The investigation , which was conducted together with the Decatur County Sheriff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of shady transactions occurring at the residence .
An AR-15-style rifle valued at $ 2,000 was purchased at the residence during an undercover operation .
The weapon was later determined to have been stolen during a Thomas County burglary along with two other firearms .
“ The description of the firearm matched ( the stolen rifle ) , ” said Michael Logue , commander of the Grady County Sheriff ’ s Office Drug Unit , “ and then when we actually made the purchase the serial numbers matched up , ” Investigators also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for methamphetamine .
So , stolen guns were used to “ buy ” illicit drugs from people .
In other words , absolutely nothing about this operation was legal .
They were exchanging one illegal good for another illegal good .
And yet , some would try to argue that if you did away with legal guns , you ’ d suddenly have no problem with guns .
The same guns that bought meth , which is also illegal as hell .
In fact , unlike firearms , there is no legal ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when there is a demand for a product , someone will meet that demand .
For decades , criminals have been meeting the demand for drugs by either producing them locally or importing them from overseas .
Despite a total ban , people have had absolutely no problem obtaining drugs .
Why would guns be any different ?
First , there are too many guns in black market circulation right now for a ban to accomplish much of anything .
Sure , those would be depleted with each arrest , but someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in to fill it .
They ’ ll either bring them in from overseas , produce them domestically , or steal them from whoever is permitted to have them ; even if that ’ s just the military and law enforcement .
You ’ re not going to stop criminals from being armed .
The best option available is to make it so the law-abiding citizens of this country can protect themselves from these threats .
It ’ s well past time to stop trying to disarm these people and recognize the truth @

Anti-gunners often are true believers when it comes to the idea that gun control makes people safer. In fact, many really do believe that if we repealed the Second Amendment and banned guns entirely, then we wouldn’t have any violent crime to speak of.
The technical name for people like this is “idiot,” of course.
Violent people don’t require a gun to be violent, of course. Further, if a total ban on a certain item meant that such an item simply couldn’t be obtained by anyone, then we wouldn’t have spent decades battling illegal drugs.
Hell, this guns-for-drug operation in Georgia should really blow their minds.
Authorities say they’ve uncovered an operation in Grady County in which drugs were being exchanged for stolen firearms out of a Cairo residence. Drug agents with the Grady County Sheriff’s Office uncovered the illicit operation last week during an investigation into firearms being sold from a residence on 4th Avenue Southeast. The investigation, which was conducted together with the Decatur County Sheriff’s Office, began after authorities received complaints of shady transactions occurring at the residence. An AR-15-style rifle valued at $2,000 was purchased at the residence during an undercover operation. The weapon was later determined to have been stolen during a Thomas County burglary along with two other firearms. “The description of the firearm matched (the stolen rifle),” said Michael Logue, commander of the Grady County Sheriff’s Office Drug Unit, “and then when we actually made the purchase the serial numbers matched up,” Investigators also learned that the weapons were being traded for methamphetamine.
So, stolen guns were used to “buy” illicit drugs from people.
In other words, absolutely nothing about this operation was legal. They were exchanging one illegal good for another illegal good. And yet, some would try to argue that if you did away with legal guns, you’d suddenly have no problem with guns.
The same guns that bought meth, which is also illegal as hell. In fact, unlike firearms, there is no legal ownership of meth by private citizens.
See, when there is a demand for a product, someone will meet that demand. For decades, criminals have been meeting the demand for drugs by either producing them locally or importing them from overseas. Despite a total ban, people have had absolutely no problem obtaining drugs.
Why would guns be any different?
First, there are too many guns in black market circulation right now for a ban to accomplish much of anything. Sure, those would be depleted with each arrest, but someone somewhere will see a need and move in to fill it. They’ll either bring them in from overseas, produce them domestically, or steal them from whoever is permitted to have them; even if that’s just the military and law enforcement.
You’re not going to stop criminals from being armed.
The best option available is to make it so the law-abiding citizens of this country can protect themselves from these threats. It’s well past time to stop trying to disarm these people and recognize the truth.


bearingarms--2020-12-06--Will You Ever Be Able To Legally Carry A Gun In New Jersey?

New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation , and it ’ s not surprising that even Second Amendment supporters can feel pretty glum about the prospects of that ever changing .
Take Judi Franco , for instance .
The longtime midday host at New Jersey ’ s 101.5 says that even with a new lawsuit challenging the state ’ s carry laws , residents should accept that they ’ ll probably never be able to legally carry a gun in the Garden State .
The NRA is suing the state of New Jersey To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people to obtain concealed carry permits .
The way the law is now , New Jersey residents must show what ’ s called “ justifiable need “ in order to be able to carry concealed weapons in the state .
And to meet that standard is nearly impossible .
So if Americans have the right to defend themselves with firearms , a right Constitutionally afforded to all of us , and situations come up quickly and without warning , what ’ s the good of having a gun that you can only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to use and certainly not allowed to take out with you ?
This lawsuit will not change anything .
But for the ever-decreasing pool of freedom-loving Americans in New Jersey , it ’ s good to know that someone is not just lying down and watching our rights taken away without a fight .
Franco is spot-on when she talks about the near impossibility of individual gun owners meeting the “ justifiable need ” standard in order to get a carry license in the state .
The average New Jersey resident will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless they can document some sort of specific and ongoing threat against their life , which is the entire point of the new litigation filed by the NRA , Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs , and the Coalition of New Jersey Gun Owners .
I disagree with Franco , however , when she claims that the new lawsuit “ will not change anything.
” I think there ’ s a very good chance that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court for potential review , SCOTUS will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one right-to-carry case , and will have sided with the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms .
There ’ s already a split in the various appellate courts over the issue of “ justifiable need ” and whether it ’ s a violation of the Second Amendment .
The Third and Ninth Circuits have rule that the heightened standard passes constitutional muster , while the Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit disagrees .
That split in the appellate courts makes it far more likely that SCOTUS will accept a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need ” requirement , especially with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the bench .
The new lawsuit filed over New Jersey ’ s carry laws might not be the first such case to reach the Supreme Court ( there ’ s an challenge to Hawaii ’ s open carry laws that is currently in the Ninth Circuit that ’ s likely to be the next carry case to get to the high Court ) , but I feel pretty confident about the Court taking on the right to bear arms in the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m pretty bullish on New Jersey residents getting their right to carry in the not-too-distant future .
I know how frustrated gun owners are after decades of having their Second Amendment rights treated as a privilege , but I believe that better days are ahead for gun rights in the Garden State .

New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and it’s not surprising that even Second Amendment supporters can feel pretty glum about the prospects of that ever changing. Take Judi Franco, for instance. The longtime midday host at New Jersey’s 101.5 says that even with a new lawsuit challenging the state’s carry laws, residents should accept that they’ll probably never be able to legally carry a gun in the Garden State.
The NRA is suing the state of New Jersey To change the laws to make it easier for people to obtain concealed carry permits. The way the law is now, New Jersey residents must show what’s called “justifiable need“ in order to be able to carry concealed weapons in the state. And to meet that standard is nearly impossible. So if Americans have the right to defend themselves with firearms, a right Constitutionally afforded to all of us, and situations come up quickly and without warning, what’s the good of having a gun that you can only keep in your bedside drawer, barely allowed to use and certainly not allowed to take out with you? This lawsuit will not change anything. But for the ever-decreasing pool of freedom-loving Americans in New Jersey, it’s good to know that someone is not just lying down and watching our rights taken away without a fight.
Franco is spot-on when she talks about the near impossibility of individual gun owners meeting the “justifiable need” standard in order to get a carry license in the state. The average New Jersey resident will always be denied their right to carry unless they can document some sort of specific and ongoing threat against their life, which is the entire point of the new litigation filed by the NRA, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, and the Coalition of New Jersey Gun Owners.
I disagree with Franco, however, when she claims that the new lawsuit “will not change anything.” I think there’s a very good chance that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court for potential review, SCOTUS will have already weighed in on at least one right-to-carry case, and will have sided with the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms.
There’s already a split in the various appellate courts over the issue of “justifiable need” and whether it’s a violation of the Second Amendment. The Third and Ninth Circuits have rule that the heightened standard passes constitutional muster, while the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagrees.
That split in the appellate courts makes it far more likely that SCOTUS will accept a carry case dealing with the “justifiable need” requirement, especially with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. The new lawsuit filed over New Jersey’s carry laws might not be the first such case to reach the Supreme Court (there’s an challenge to Hawaii’s open carry laws that is currently in the Ninth Circuit that’s likely to be the next carry case to get to the high Court), but I feel pretty confident about the Court taking on the right to bear arms in the new year.
So, unlike Franco, I’m pretty bullish on New Jersey residents getting their right to carry in the not-too-distant future. I know how frustrated gun owners are after decades of having their Second Amendment rights treated as a privilege, but I believe that better days are ahead for gun rights in the Garden State.


bearingarms--2020-12-06--NSSF Gets $75,000 Donation From Mossberg

Gun rights are under attack from almost every direction you care to look .
Our allies in Congress are barely holding on and if the Georgia runoff doesn ’ t work out the right way , they may be little more than a spit in the wind .
While anti-gunners often equate the NRA with the gun industry–it ’ s hilarious how many think the NRA “ profits ” from gun sales , for example–they ’ re not .
The industry is represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation , which hosts the annual SHOT Show .
Well , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anyway .
Now , Mossberg is stepping up to make a generous donation to the NSSF .
O.F .
Mossberg & Sons , Inc. announced today a donation of $ 75,000 to the National Shooting Sports Foundation ( NSSF ) following the cancellation of the 2021 Shooting Hunting & Outdoor Trade ( SHOT ) Show .
The 42nd annual SHOT Show , scheduled to take place in January 2021 , was canceled due to potential health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ We ’ re very disappointed we won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vegas this year for SHOT Show , and I believe that sentiment is held across the entire industry , ” said John MacLellan , Vice President of Sales and Marketing .
“ Given the unfortunate recent rise of COVID-19 infections on a global level and the precautions that are being taken regarding slowing the spread of the virus , we fully support NSSF ’ s decision to cancel the upcoming show .
We also understand that most of NSSF ’ s annual operating expenses are generated through SHOT Show every year , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announce that Mossberg intends to donate $ 75,000 to help NSSF maintain normal business operations in 2021.
” Founded in 1919 , O.F .
Mossberg & Sons , Inc. , is the oldest family-owned firearms manufacturer in America and is the largest pump-action shotgun manufacturer in the world .
Celebrating 100 years of innovation , Mossberg leads the industry with over 100 design and utility patents to its credit and stands as the first ISO 9001 Certified long-gun manufacturer .
Complete information on commercial , special purpose , law enforcement and military shotguns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are available at mossberg.com or by calling 1-800-363-3555 .
Mossberg can also be found on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and YouTube .
This is quite generous , but also savvy .
The truth is , the NSSF is a vital part of the defense of our Second Amendment rights .
While the NRA represents its members , the NSSF represents the gun companies themselves .
They ’ re the bulwark against the oncoming tide of anti-gun legislation we can expect during the Biden era .
This money will help the group continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cancelation .
The last thing we need is to lose a key ally at such an important time .
Our rights are in peril , after all , and the gun companies have a strong stake in the consumers being able to hold onto their Second Amendment rights .
While they don ’ t answer to us , they answer to the companies who we buy from .
They ’ re on our side completely , and I ’ m happy to have them here .
My hope is that other companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this and help make the NSSF even more stable in these uncertain times .

Gun rights are under attack from almost every direction you care to look. Our allies in Congress are barely holding on and if the Georgia runoff doesn’t work out the right way, they may be little more than a spit in the wind.
While anti-gunners often equate the NRA with the gun industry–it’s hilarious how many think the NRA “profits” from gun sales, for example–they’re not. The industry is represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which hosts the annual SHOT Show.
Well, it was annual until the age of COVID, anyway.
Now, Mossberg is stepping up to make a generous donation to the NSSF.
O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. announced today a donation of $75,000 to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) following the cancellation of the 2021 Shooting Hunting & Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show. The 42nd annual SHOT Show, scheduled to take place in January 2021, was canceled due to potential health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re very disappointed we won’t be able to gather in Las Vegas this year for SHOT Show, and I believe that sentiment is held across the entire industry,” said John MacLellan, Vice President of Sales and Marketing. “Given the unfortunate recent rise of COVID-19 infections on a global level and the precautions that are being taken regarding slowing the spread of the virus, we fully support NSSF’s decision to cancel the upcoming show. We also understand that most of NSSF’s annual operating expenses are generated through SHOT Show every year, which is why we’re pleased to announce that Mossberg intends to donate $75,000 to help NSSF maintain normal business operations in 2021.” Founded in 1919, O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., is the oldest family-owned firearms manufacturer in America and is the largest pump-action shotgun manufacturer in the world. Celebrating 100 years of innovation, Mossberg leads the industry with over 100 design and utility patents to its credit and stands as the first ISO 9001 Certified long-gun manufacturer. Complete information on commercial, special purpose, law enforcement and military shotguns, rifles, handguns, and accessories are available at mossberg.com or by calling 1-800-363-3555. Mossberg can also be found on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.
This is quite generous, but also savvy.
The truth is, the NSSF is a vital part of the defense of our Second Amendment rights. While the NRA represents its members, the NSSF represents the gun companies themselves. They’re the bulwark against the oncoming tide of anti-gun legislation we can expect during the Biden era. This money will help the group continue on in spite of SHOT Show’s cancelation.
The last thing we need is to lose a key ally at such an important time. Our rights are in peril, after all, and the gun companies have a strong stake in the consumers being able to hold onto their Second Amendment rights. While they don’t answer to us, they answer to the companies who we buy from. They’re on our side completely, and I’m happy to have them here.
My hope is that other companies will follow Mossberg’s lead on this and help make the NSSF even more stable in these uncertain times.


bearingarms--2020-12-03--Cyber Monday NICS Checks Up 65% Over Previous Year

There was a fair bit of media attention over the fact that NICS checks on Black Friday weren ’ t as high as they had been the year before .
Considering how many guns had been sold this year , a lot of people found that a little surprising , myself included .
After all , the biggest shopping day of the year happens and there aren ’ t more guns sold ?
Seriously , what ’ s up with that ?
Well , it seems people were waiting just a bit .
Cyber Monday gun background checks surged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same day last year with more than 123,700 conducted , while checks for the extended holiday weekend as a whole were up by roughly 4 % year-over-year , according to recently released statistics .
Of the 19.1 million gun background checks conducted year-to-date , 417,465 were done from Thursday to Sunday , while another 123,797 were completed on Cyber Monday , the National Shooting Sports Foundation ( NSSF ) said in an email to Fox News .
Monday ’ s numbers shot up 65.2 % year-over-year compared to the 74,926 background checks submitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the gun trade group ’ s statistics , which are based on the FBI ’ s National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ) .
So , what gives ?
Well , my initial reaction was that people simply weren ’ t going to the gun stores if they could help it due to COVID-19 concerns , so they all ordered online .
However , the math doesn ’ t really work out on that one since online orders wouldn ’ t create a NICS check until the guns were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m thinking that in previous years , people spent their money on Black Friday leaving little for Monday .
This year , people opted to wait to go and buy .
Of course , that ’ s just a guess based on what we currently know .
Here ’ s something else we know : “ Politicians looking for a mandate on firearms should examine the record setting figures Americans are posting every month with firearm sales , ” [ director of public affairs for the NSSF Mark ] Oliva @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected representatives more than 19 million times exactly where their voters stand when it comes to their rights , more than 7.5 million making that declaration publicly for the first time in their lives.
” Since some in Washington think they do have some kind of mandate simply because they won a narrow election , that ’ s definitely something they should keep in mind .
With tons of new gun owners , the last thing anyone should be talking about is restricting gun ownership .
There are too many of us for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Further , expect those numbers to continue to climb for as long as a threat to our Second Amendment remains .
More people will buy guns out of fear that they won ’ t be available indefinitely .
Expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories over the next couple of years at a minimum .
The American people clearly still love their guns , even people who are just now dipping their toes into the gun ownership waters .
That ’ s a very good thing for the nation @ @ @ @

There was a fair bit of media attention over the fact that NICS checks on Black Friday weren’t as high as they had been the year before. Considering how many guns had been sold this year, a lot of people found that a little surprising, myself included.
After all, the biggest shopping day of the year happens and there aren’t more guns sold?
Seriously, what’s up with that?
Well, it seems people were waiting just a bit.
Cyber Monday gun background checks surged by 65% this year compared to the same day last year with more than 123,700 conducted, while checks for the extended holiday weekend as a whole were up by roughly 4% year-over-year, according to recently released statistics. Of the 19.1 million gun background checks conducted year-to-date, 417,465 were done from Thursday to Sunday, while another 123,797 were completed on Cyber Monday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in an email to Fox News. Monday’s numbers shot up 65.2% year-over-year compared to the 74,926 background checks submitted on the same day in 2019, according to the gun trade group’s statistics, which are based on the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
So, what gives?
Well, my initial reaction was that people simply weren’t going to the gun stores if they could help it due to COVID-19 concerns, so they all ordered online. However, the math doesn’t really work out on that one since online orders wouldn’t create a NICS check until the guns were picked up at the FFL.
Instead, I’m thinking that in previous years, people spent their money on Black Friday leaving little for Monday. This year, people opted to wait to go and buy.
Of course, that’s just a guess based on what we currently know.
Here’s something else we know:
“Politicians looking for a mandate on firearms should examine the record setting figures Americans are posting every month with firearm sales,” [director of public affairs for the NSSF Mark] Oliva wrote. “Americans have told their elected representatives more than 19 million times exactly where their voters stand when it comes to their rights, more than 7.5 million making that declaration publicly for the first time in their lives.”
Since some in Washington think they do have some kind of mandate simply because they won a narrow election, that’s definitely something they should keep in mind. With tons of new gun owners, the last thing anyone should be talking about is restricting gun ownership. There are too many of us for there to be an actual mandate.
Further, expect those numbers to continue to climb for as long as a threat to our Second Amendment remains. More people will buy guns out of fear that they won’t be available indefinitely.
Expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories over the next couple of years at a minimum.
The American people clearly still love their guns, even people who are just now dipping their toes into the gun ownership waters. That’s a very good thing for the nation as a whole.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--SD Judges Move Cases To Nearby County After Guns Allowed In Courthouse

In a state like South Dakota , you ’ d expect to find pro-gun people at all levels of government .
While no state is immune to anti-gun sentiment , a state like South Dakota is probably going to have fewer folks like that no matter what level you want to take a gander at .
However , it seems that while you ’ d expect them to be pro-gun , they ’ re willing to throw a hissy fit over a law change they don ’ t particularly like .
At least , that ’ s what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A new ordinance allowing guns in the Custer County Courthouse has judges taking their hearings elsewhere .
This week the Custer County Commission passed an ordinance allowing anyone to carry guns inside the courthouse , but not the courtroom .
Commission Chairman Jim Lintz says it was effort to follow state law .
“ This is hitting close to home to the people that really feel strongly about the gun rights because this is sort of on a local level where they feel they ’ re infringing on the rights of the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Custer County Commission , said .
However , this ordinance did not sit well with the county judges .
Causing them to carryon with their hearings here in Pennington County instead .
“ It ’ s going to affect the general public who have to appear in court , they ’ re going to have to provide transportation to Pennington County .
We ’ re going to have to probably shutdown our state ’ s attorney ’ s office that day because they ’ ll all be in Pennington County , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get that judges make enemies .
I get them feeling a bit more threatened than the average citizen would .
However , I don ’ t think this is about that .
This is an attempt to punish the county and its citizens for not bending the knee over the judges ’ fears .
The county passed an ordinance the judges aren ’ t thrilled with so they got their knickers in a twist .
Custer County is about 1,559 square miles .
That means moving cases to a nearby county will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court cases .
Plus , someone ’ s going to have to pay the other county for their facilities and any personnel they have to provide as well .
And the most annoying part is that judges usually have so much discretion on how their courtrooms operate that this is perfectly legal .
That means it ’ s up to state officials to crack down on this kind of stupid .
Make no mistake , either , this is weapons-grade stupid .
There ’ s no real reason to do this except to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this really is .
With luck , though , this will prove to be such a pain for the judges that it doesn ’ t keep going on for very long .
The people of Custer County deserve better than to be subjected to this kind of nonsense , and they ’ re the ones who are likely to bear the brunt of this particular hissy fit .
At least , that ’ s the hope until someone in the legislature decides it ’ s time to smack these judges upside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and put an end to it .

In a state like South Dakota, you’d expect to find pro-gun people at all levels of government. While no state is immune to anti-gun sentiment, a state like South Dakota is probably going to have fewer folks like that no matter what level you want to take a gander at.
However, it seems that while you’d expect them to be pro-gun, they’re willing to throw a hissy fit over a law change they don’t particularly like. At least, that’s what’s happening in one South Dakota county.
A new ordinance allowing guns in the Custer County Courthouse has judges taking their hearings elsewhere. This week the Custer County Commission passed an ordinance allowing anyone to carry guns inside the courthouse, but not the courtroom. Commission Chairman Jim Lintz says it was effort to follow state law. “This is hitting close to home to the people that really feel strongly about the gun rights because this is sort of on a local level where they feel they’re infringing on the rights of the gun owners,” Jim Lintz, Chairman of Custer County Commission, said. However, this ordinance did not sit well with the county judges. Causing them to carryon with their hearings here in Pennington County instead. “It’s going to affect the general public who have to appear in court, they’re going to have to provide transportation to Pennington County. We’re going to have to probably shutdown our state’s attorney’s office that day because they’ll all be in Pennington County,” Lintz said.
Honestly, that’s just absolutely pathetic.
Now, look, I get that judges make enemies. I get them feeling a bit more threatened than the average citizen would. However, I don’t think this is about that. This is an attempt to punish the county and its citizens for not bending the knee over the judges’ fears. The county passed an ordinance the judges aren’t thrilled with so they got their knickers in a twist.
Custer County is about 1,559 square miles. That means moving cases to a nearby county will create an undue burden on people with court cases. Plus, someone’s going to have to pay the other county for their facilities and any personnel they have to provide as well.
And the most annoying part is that judges usually have so much discretion on how their courtrooms operate that this is perfectly legal. That means it’s up to state officials to crack down on this kind of stupid.
Make no mistake, either, this is weapons-grade stupid. There’s no real reason to do this except to throw a temper tantrum, which is all this really is.
With luck, though, this will prove to be such a pain for the judges that it doesn’t keep going on for very long. The people of Custer County deserve better than to be subjected to this kind of nonsense, and they’re the ones who are likely to bear the brunt of this particular hissy fit.
At least, that’s the hope until someone in the legislature decides it’s time to smack these judges upside the head (metaphorically) for their stupidity and put an end to it.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--School Board Doubles Down Over Suspension Of In-Home BB Gun

The saga of young Ka ’ Mauri Harrison took another turn late last week when the Jefferson Parish school board held a hearing regarding the 4th-grader ’ s suspension from school for violating the district ’ s weapons policy after a teacher briefly spotted the barrel of a BB gun during an online class .
During the hearing , the school board retroactively reduced Harrison ’ s suspension from six days to three , but Harrison ’ s father and attorney ended up leaving the hearing after the board ruled against allowing the state ’ s Solicitor General to testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harrison grew frustrated after his attorney tried to call Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill to testify on behalf of his son , 9-year-old Ka ’ Mauri Harrison , who had been suspended from school for handling a BB gun during a virtual class .
School Board member Mark Morgan , who was running the meeting , objected to the request and , with no opposition from other members , refused to let Murrill take the stand .
“ Y ’ all shameful , ” Harrison said loudly , before gathering up Ka ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re leaving .
Y ’ all ain ’ t a court !
” On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. Nyron Harrison and attorney Chelsea Cusimano join me to talk about the results of the hearing , and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry joins the show as well with his reaction to the school board ’ s decision to reduce the suspension but leave the overall disciplinary charge on Harrison ’ s record .
Nyron Harrison says that he simply wanted an apology from the school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure stricken from his son ’ s record , but now that the district has made its decision , he ’ s done with any more discussions .
Instead , the family is focusing on the lawsuit that they ’ ve filed against the Jefferson Parish school board , and are hoping to find relief in the federal court system .
Landry , in the meantime , says he ’ s not through with the issue either , which he notes goes far beyond Harrison ’ s specific case .
Other students in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inadvertent display of a BB gun during virtual classes , and the attorney general says it ’ s critically important that school districts quit trying to declare that private homes are an extension of the public school building when virtual learning is involved .
Ka ’ Mauri Harrison isn ’ t the first kid we ’ ve seen suspended because a teacher overreacted to the sight of a toy gun during an online class , and I suspect he won ’ t be the last either .
While this isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that because the school accused Ka ’ Mauri of violating federal prohibitions on bringing weapons onto campus , there is a Second Amendment component to the federal lawsuit that the family has filed .
I wish I could say that I was surprised by the school board ’ s unwillingness to reverse the original decision to suspend Ka ’ Mauri Harrison , but I ’ m not .
It ’ s been pretty clear from the outset that the school board doesn ’ t want to admit that officials were in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he picked up a BB gun from the floor of the bedroom he shares with his younger brother and rested it against the side of his desk so his sibling wouldn ’ t trip over it , and the half-measure taken by the board to reduce Harrison ’ s suspension while continuing to hold him at fault is a sign to me that the board is more interested in covering its collective rear end than in delivering a just and fair outcome in the case .
Be sure to check out today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ window above for more details about the case and where we might be headed next .
Even though the school board ’ s decision puts an end to Ka ’ Mauri Harrison ’ s appeal , it ’ s clear that both Ka ’ Mauri ’ s family and his supporters in Louisiana state government aren ’ t through with their fight for justice .

The saga of young Ka’Mauri Harrison took another turn late last week when the Jefferson Parish school board held a hearing regarding the 4th-grader’s suspension from school for violating the district’s weapons policy after a teacher briefly spotted the barrel of a BB gun during an online class. During the hearing, the school board retroactively reduced Harrison’s suspension from six days to three, but Harrison’s father and attorney ended up leaving the hearing after the board ruled against allowing the state’s Solicitor General to testify on behalf of the student.
Nyron Harrison grew frustrated after his attorney tried to call Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill to testify on behalf of his son, 9-year-old Ka’Mauri Harrison, who had been suspended from school for handling a BB gun during a virtual class. School Board member Mark Morgan, who was running the meeting, objected to the request and, with no opposition from other members, refused to let Murrill take the stand. “Y’all shameful,” Harrison said loudly, before gathering up Ka’Mauri and walking out of the room. “We’re leaving. Y’all ain’t a court!”
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. Nyron Harrison and attorney Chelsea Cusimano join me to talk about the results of the hearing, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry joins the show as well with his reaction to the school board’s decision to reduce the suspension but leave the overall disciplinary charge on Harrison’s record.
Nyron Harrison says that he simply wanted an apology from the school district in addition to having the disciplinary measure stricken from his son’s record, but now that the district has made its decision, he’s done with any more discussions. Instead, the family is focusing on the lawsuit that they’ve filed against the Jefferson Parish school board, and are hoping to find relief in the federal court system.
Landry, in the meantime, says he’s not through with the issue either, which he notes goes far beyond Harrison’s specific case. Other students in Jefferson Parish have also faced suspension over the inadvertent display of a BB gun during virtual classes, and the attorney general says it’s critically important that school districts quit trying to declare that private homes are an extension of the public school building when virtual learning is involved.
Ka’Mauri Harrison isn’t the first kid we’ve seen suspended because a teacher overreacted to the sight of a toy gun during an online class, and I suspect he won’t be the last either. While this isn’t specifically a Second Amendment issue, Cusimano says that because the school accused Ka’Mauri of violating federal prohibitions on bringing weapons onto campus, there is a Second Amendment component to the federal lawsuit that the family has filed.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by the school board’s unwillingness to reverse the original decision to suspend Ka’Mauri Harrison, but I’m not. It’s been pretty clear from the outset that the school board doesn’t want to admit that officials were in the wrong when they suspended the 4th grader after he picked up a BB gun from the floor of the bedroom he shares with his younger brother and rested it against the side of his desk so his sibling wouldn’t trip over it, and the half-measure taken by the board to reduce Harrison’s suspension while continuing to hold him at fault is a sign to me that the board is more interested in covering its collective rear end than in delivering a just and fair outcome in the case.
Be sure to check out today’s entire show in the video window above for more details about the case and where we might be headed next. Even though the school board’s decision puts an end to Ka’Mauri Harrison’s appeal, it’s clear that both Ka’Mauri’s family and his supporters in Louisiana state government aren’t through with their fight for justice.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--California's Anti-Gun Attorney General Tapped To Head Biden's HHS

On the surface , it makes absolutely no sense to put California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services .
He ’ s not a medical professional , and in fact has absolutely no experience in the healthcare field at all .
Why then has Joe Biden picked Becerra to head up the agency ?
Over at Hot Air , Ed Morrissey says the move is a pander to Planned Parenthood and abortion activists and a “ harbinger of more hostility to conscience protections and religious expression.
” It ’ s insane to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Democrats have accused Trump of politicizing health care all year long and demanded that he put doctors in charge of the effort .
Biden ’ s first move after this is to put a political hack in charge , an attorney whose primary focus is abortion .
So much for depoliticizing health care , eh ?
I have no doubt that Becerra ’ s nomination has a lot to do with appeasing pro-abortion forces , but as Secretary of Health and Human Services he could also steer the department towards viewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health concern .
We ’ ve already seen President Trump ’ s HHS secretary Alex Azar give the green light for the CDC to conduct research into gun-related violence , and in a Biden administration , the department could be used to funnel more federal dollars to anti-gun activists and junk studies promoting a variety of gun control measures .
If there ’ s any silver lining to the announcement , it ’ s that Becerra won ’ t be Biden ’ s Attorney General , though I have no doubt that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as hostile to the Second Amendment as Becerra has been in his role as California ’ s top law enforcement official .
Becerra has not only defended California ’ s restrictive gun control laws , he ’ s teamed up with gun control groups in recent months to sue the ATF over the agency ’ s handling of unfinished receivers and frames .
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has joined with gun control advocates in filing a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives , demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and receivers as “ firearms ” under federal law , which would require that they be serialized and that buyers undergo background checks when purchasing them from retailers .
There are several problems with the arguments by Becerra , but the biggest issue for the gun control groups is that there ’ s no law being broken here , at least on the part of the BATFE .
As the agency notes on its website , unfinished receivers ( typically referred to as “ 80 % receivers ” because they ’ re only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet the definition of a firearm as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 .
Becerra ’ s hostility towards gun owners may not have been the determining factor in being chosen to run Health and Human Services , but it certainly didn ’ t hurt his standing at all .
Joe Biden keeps making noise about wanting to be a “ unifying ” president , but so far his cabinet picks are only unified in opposition to our Second Amendment rights .

On the surface, it makes absolutely no sense to put California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services. He’s not a medical professional, and in fact has absolutely no experience in the healthcare field at all. Why then has Joe Biden picked Becerra to head up the agency?
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey says the move is a pander to Planned Parenthood and abortion activists and a “harbinger of more hostility to conscience protections and religious expression.”
It’s insane to choose Becerra in the middle of the pandemic. Democrats have accused Trump of politicizing health care all year long and demanded that he put doctors in charge of the effort. Biden’s first move after this is to put a political hack in charge, an attorney whose primary focus is abortion. So much for depoliticizing health care, eh?
I have no doubt that Becerra’s nomination has a lot to do with appeasing pro-abortion forces, but as Secretary of Health and Human Services he could also steer the department towards viewing “gun violence” as a public health concern. We’ve already seen President Trump’s HHS secretary Alex Azar give the green light for the CDC to conduct research into gun-related violence, and in a Biden administration, the department could be used to funnel more federal dollars to anti-gun activists and junk studies promoting a variety of gun control measures.
If there’s any silver lining to the announcement, it’s that Becerra won’t be Biden’s Attorney General, though I have no doubt that Biden’s eventual pick will be just as hostile to the Second Amendment as Becerra has been in his role as California’s top law enforcement official. Becerra has not only defended California’s restrictive gun control laws, he’s teamed up with gun control groups in recent months to sue the ATF over the agency’s handling of unfinished receivers and frames.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has joined with gun control advocates in filing a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, demanding that the agency begin classifying unfinished frames and receivers as “firearms” under federal law, which would require that they be serialized and that buyers undergo background checks when purchasing them from retailers. There are several problems with the arguments by Becerra, but the biggest issue for the gun control groups is that there’s no law being broken here, at least on the part of the BATFE. As the agency notes on its website, unfinished receivers (typically referred to as “80% receivers” because they’re only 80% complete) don’t meet the definition of a firearm as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Becerra’s hostility towards gun owners may not have been the determining factor in being chosen to run Health and Human Services, but it certainly didn’t hurt his standing at all. Joe Biden keeps making noise about wanting to be a “unifying” president, but so far his cabinet picks are only unified in opposition to our Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--CA City Passes Mandatory Storage Requirement

If you ask the majority of people why they own a firearm , they ’ ll likely tell you that it ’ s for self-defense .
Most , particularly in California where it ’ s extremely difficult to get a carry permit , get them for home defense .
After all , bad things can happen when you ’ re home and it makes sense to have some way to deal with those potential threats .
However , some cities seem to think you should be required to lock your firearms up at all times , thus making it all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city of Dublin , CA is one such city , apparently .
Gun owners in Dublin will soon be required to store their firearms inside a locked container or keep it disabled with a trigger lock while inside their home after the City Council unanimously approved the new ordinance at its meeting last week .
California already has similar laws in effect for guns in households with children living there , or that require a gun owner to store their guns from a household member who is prohibited from having guns .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case is just expanding that definition beyond those two scenarios — children in the home or criminal record — and applying it to all households , ” City Manager Linda Smith during a presentation at the Dec. 1 meeting .
Added to the Dublin Municipal Code , the ordinance known as Chapter 5.89 to Title 5 , states , “ No person shall keep a firearm within any residence unless the firearm is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.
” Two exceptions were added : when the firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or when it is under the control of a peace officer .
Councilmember Shawn Kumagai said the ordinance “ will state clearly to our community that we embrace a culture of gun safety ” and “ safe gun storage helps to prevent unintentional and intentional injury and death of minors , helps prevent gun suicide , and deters gun theft.
” A staff report stated “ the unsafe storage of firearms threatens public health and safety , ” and that 54 % of gun owners in the U.S. don ’ t lock away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there have been at least 236 unintentional shootings by children , resulting in 102 deaths and 141 injuries nationally .
Seven of those were in California , resulting in two deaths and five injuries .
I ’ m calling BS on that staff report , particularly that storage differences somehow “ threaten public health and safety.
” After all , California is the most populated state in the nation , and they had a grand total of seven kids hurt or killed by unintentional shootings .
I ’ m sorry , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seven people ’ s deaths , while tragic , is statistically insignificant .
But what will happen , though , is that those law-abiding citizens who secure their guns in accordance with the law won ’ t be able to access those firearms in an emergency , thus making them and their families less safe .
Luckily , there ’ s one upside to this , and that ’ s in the fact that the law is unenforceable in most cases .
Police can ’ t do spot checks or anything else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not you had your gun secured after something happens .
Don ’ t let something happen and there ’ s really no way they ’ ll know if you locked your gun away or not .
In other words , the city council managed to virtue signal and little else .

If you ask the majority of people why they own a firearm, they’ll likely tell you that it’s for self-defense. Most, particularly in California where it’s extremely difficult to get a carry permit, get them for home defense. After all, bad things can happen when you’re home and it makes sense to have some way to deal with those potential threats.
However, some cities seem to think you should be required to lock your firearms up at all times, thus making it all but useless for home defense.
The city of Dublin, CA is one such city, apparently.
Gun owners in Dublin will soon be required to store their firearms inside a locked container or keep it disabled with a trigger lock while inside their home after the City Council unanimously approved the new ordinance at its meeting last week. California already has similar laws in effect for guns in households with children living there, or that require a gun owner to store their guns from a household member who is prohibited from having guns. “What we’re doing in this case is just expanding that definition beyond those two scenarios — children in the home or criminal record — and applying it to all households,” City Manager Linda Smith during a presentation at the Dec. 1 meeting. Added to the Dublin Municipal Code, the ordinance known as Chapter 5.89 to Title 5, states, “No person shall keep a firearm within any residence unless the firearm is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.” Two exceptions were added: when the firearm is lawfully carried on an individual, or when it is under the control of a peace officer. Councilmember Shawn Kumagai said the ordinance “will state clearly to our community that we embrace a culture of gun safety” and “safe gun storage helps to prevent unintentional and intentional injury and death of minors, helps prevent gun suicide, and deters gun theft.” A staff report stated “the unsafe storage of firearms threatens public health and safety,” and that 54% of gun owners in the U.S. don’t lock away all of their guns. This year, there have been at least 236 unintentional shootings by children, resulting in 102 deaths and 141 injuries nationally. Seven of those were in California, resulting in two deaths and five injuries.
I’m calling BS on that staff report, particularly that storage differences somehow “threaten public health and safety.”
After all, California is the most populated state in the nation, and they had a grand total of seven kids hurt or killed by unintentional shootings. I’m sorry, but in a state of almost 40 million, seven people’s deaths, while tragic, is statistically insignificant.
But what will happen, though, is that those law-abiding citizens who secure their guns in accordance with the law won’t be able to access those firearms in an emergency, thus making them and their families less safe.
Luckily, there’s one upside to this, and that’s in the fact that the law is unenforceable in most cases.
Police can’t do spot checks or anything else. They just have to infer whether or not you had your gun secured after something happens. Don’t let something happen and there’s really no way they’ll know if you locked your gun away or not.
In other words, the city council managed to virtue signal and little else.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--Dems Recognize Rural Problem, But Can't Accept The Answer

In the aftermath of an election that failed to deliver the big legislative gains they were predicting , some Democrats are speaking up about the party ’ s inability to connect with rural voters and the need to change .
In a new piece at The Hill , Kal Munis , a postdoctoral researcher in the P3 Lab at Johns Hopkins University ’ s SNF Agora Institute and Robert P. Saldin , a political scientist at the University of Montana ’ s Mansfield Center and College of Humanities and Sciences , argue that if Democrats want to create an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to “ reverse their rural freefall.
” Unfortunately , the pair offer mere lip service to one of the biggest issues for Democrats in rural areas ; their party ’ s embrace of an anti-gun agenda that demonizes law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment while going light on actual criminals .
That ’ s all Munis and Saldin have to say about the issue of the right to keep and bear arms , preferring instead to focus on things like access to public land and taking on “ Big Agriculture.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment may be enough for the political scientists , but they don ’ t bother to explain what that rebranding would look like .
Meanwhile , in Iowa , Democrats are also sifting through the aftermath of a disastrous election .
Democrats lost two House seats , failed to dislodge GOP senator Joni Ernst , and Biden ended up losing the state by eight points .
Now the state party is having trouble recruiting candidates to replace the outgoing chairman .
Politico ‘ s report on the damage done to Democrats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election results may impact the Iowa caucuses in 2024 , rather than how gun control helped to create the problems that Democrats are facing in the state , but the quote from the unnamed “ prominent Democrat ” highlights the problem for the party .
First off , the current fight isn ’ t between “ progressives ” and “ moderates.
” It ’ s between socialists and progressives , and unfortunately for Democrats both wings continue to embrace policies that turn the Second Amendment into a second-class right .
Even “ Defund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pressley , who believes that today ’ s law enforcement is linked to slave patrols in the pre-Civil War South , is still on board with giving police broad leeway in determining which Americans should receive permission to exercise their constitutional rights .
It ’ s a completely inconsistent position , and the socialist wing of the Democrat Party should be the ones demanding an end to traditional gun control measures that rely on the heavy hand of police for enforcement .
That won ’ t play well with their base of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they continue to hold firm to the idea of putting more people in jail by criminalizing our right to keep and bear arms , even as they demand an end to over-incarceration .
The slightly more moderate progressive wing of the Party , meanwhile , has been beholden to the anti-gun lobby for decades , and show no signs of rejecting Joe Biden ’ s anti-gun agenda in favor of policies that aim to reduce crime by targeting violent criminals instead of the Second Amendment itself .
“ Rebranding ” isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those rural voters who care about their right to keep and bear arms .
It ’ s going to take a full rejection of the anti-gun policies put forth by both wings of the Democrat Party in order for the party to be competitive in rural areas , but that appears to be a bridge too far for the politicians who want to win elections while treating gun-owning voters with contempt .

In the aftermath of an election that failed to deliver the big legislative gains they were predicting, some Democrats are speaking up about the party’s inability to connect with rural voters and the need to change. In a new piece at The Hill, Kal Munis, a postdoctoral researcher in the P3 Lab at Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute and Robert P. Saldin, a political scientist at the University of Montana’s Mansfield Center and College of Humanities and Sciences, argue that if Democrats want to create an “actual governing majority,” the party needs to “reverse their rural freefall.”
Unfortunately, the pair offer mere lip service to one of the biggest issues for Democrats in rural areas; their party’s embrace of an anti-gun agenda that demonizes law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment while going light on actual criminals.
Democrats running in rural areas need to combat the nationalized political environment in obvious ways like actively rebranding themselves on mainstay political issues like the Second Amendment, but also by creatively localizing their races by adopting popular positions on issues that don’t cleanly map onto our partisan cleavages.
That’s all Munis and Saldin have to say about the issue of the right to keep and bear arms, preferring instead to focus on things like access to public land and taking on “Big Agriculture.” A simple rebranding on issues like the Second Amendment may be enough for the political scientists, but they don’t bother to explain what that rebranding would look like.
Meanwhile, in Iowa, Democrats are also sifting through the aftermath of a disastrous election. Democrats lost two House seats, failed to dislodge GOP senator Joni Ernst, and Biden ended up losing the state by eight points. Now the state party is having trouble recruiting candidates to replace the outgoing chairman.
It’s a thankless job. Few Democrats expect the state’s fortunes to improve in the midterm elections, when the president’s party traditionally faces headwinds. And as in other states, the party is riven with internal conflict — what one prominent Democrat called a “psychiatric ward right now in terms of the battle between progressives … and the moderates.”
Politico‘s report on the damage done to Democrats in Iowa focuses largely on how the dismal election results may impact the Iowa caucuses in 2024, rather than how gun control helped to create the problems that Democrats are facing in the state, but the quote from the unnamed “prominent Democrat” highlights the problem for the party.
First off, the current fight isn’t between “progressives” and “moderates.” It’s between socialists and progressives, and unfortunately for Democrats both wings continue to embrace policies that turn the Second Amendment into a second-class right. Even “Defund Police” supporters like Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who believes that today’s law enforcement is linked to slave patrols in the pre-Civil War South, is still on board with giving police broad leeway in determining which Americans should receive permission to exercise their constitutional rights.
It’s a completely inconsistent position, and the socialist wing of the Democrat Party should be the ones demanding an end to traditional gun control measures that rely on the heavy hand of police for enforcement. That won’t play well with their base of support in large cities, however, so they continue to hold firm to the idea of putting more people in jail by criminalizing our right to keep and bear arms, even as they demand an end to over-incarceration.
The slightly more moderate progressive wing of the Party, meanwhile, has been beholden to the anti-gun lobby for decades, and show no signs of rejecting Joe Biden’s anti-gun agenda in favor of policies that aim to reduce crime by targeting violent criminals instead of the Second Amendment itself. “Rebranding” isn’t going to be enough to win back those rural voters who care about their right to keep and bear arms. It’s going to take a full rejection of the anti-gun policies put forth by both wings of the Democrat Party in order for the party to be competitive in rural areas, but that appears to be a bridge too far for the politicians who want to win elections while treating gun-owning voters with contempt.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--Salon Admits Left Using Lawsuits To Skirt Lawmakers

One of the reasons lawsuits against the firearm industry is restricted unlike any other kind of lawsuit is simply because gun control advocates have a history of trying to bankrupt firearm manufacturers for acts they ’ re not responsible for .
It got to be such a problem that Congress stepped in and passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act .
When gun control advocates talk about the law , though , they pretend that it blocks people from suing gun makers for just about anything when that ’ s simply not the case .
They like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for consumers or something .
However , Salon admitted what the left ’ s game really is with their lawsuits , and that ’ s to circumvent the legislative process .
Daniel “ Bud ” Williams was a 16-year-old high school basketball star shooting hoops outside his home in Buffalo , New York , when he was severely wounded in a drive-by shooting on Aug. 16 , 2003 — a case of mistaken identity .
More than 17 years later , just before Thanksgiving , he finally got the last full measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement with the gun distributor responsible for the gun that shot him — a “ Saturday Night Special ” Hi-Point 9mm semi-automatic pistol , one of 87 sold in a single illegal transaction .
It was just one of several recent gun safety developments in which the gun industry and NRA rhetoric of “ protecting Second Amendment rights ” for “ law-abiding gun owners ” — for “ good guys with a gun ” to “ stop a bad guy with a gun ” — is diametrically opposed to the facts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the first to target untraceable “ ghost guns , ” point the way toward common sense , common-ground policies that gun owners themselves substantially support .
In the Williams case , the distributor , a company called MKS , “ agreed to significant reforms in distribution of guns , which is unprecedented , ” Brady chief counsel Jonathan Lowy told Salon .
“ I ’ ve been litigating gun liability cases with Brady for 23-plus years now , and the position of gun manufacturers and gun distributors has always been , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to someone legally , ” Lowy explained .
“ In the settlement , MKS agreed to actually pay attention to its downstream sales , to take some action so that downstream dealers that it supplied would sell in a responsible manner .
That ’ s a huge step forward.
” It ’ s also a huge step for the example it sets for others in the industry , and as a possible model for how regulations could be significantly strengthened to crack down on illegal gun trafficking — the kinds of regulations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the I wrote about , no congressional permission is needed .
President Joe Biden could dramatically improve gun safety simply by making this model of responsibility mandatory for all distributors .
The thing is , gun manufacturers are not responsible for what happens after it leaves their warehouses .
What ’ s problematic about these lawsuits is that they seek to demand gun makers take steps that literally no other industry is expected to make .
Car manufacturers , for example , aren ’ t required to make sure dealers are conducting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such nonsense .
The gun sold in the deal that MKS reached a settlement on was sold illegally .
That tells us that it was a different matter entirely than 99 percent of gun sales on a daily basis , yet the gun grabbers rarely acknowledge this fact .
However , as the story notes , this is a way to try and push changes that Congress has been unwilling to make .
They can ’ t win in the legislature , so they ’ re trying to win in the courtroom .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know that they ’ ll pull this off in the long run .
Sure , MKS made a settlement , but that ’ s in a case that looks like they may have actually screwed up somewhere along the way–The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has always allowed lawsuits for illegal gun sales–

One of the reasons lawsuits against the firearm industry is restricted unlike any other kind of lawsuit is simply because gun control advocates have a history of trying to bankrupt firearm manufacturers for acts they’re not responsible for. It got to be such a problem that Congress stepped in and passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
When gun control advocates talk about the law, though, they pretend that it blocks people from suing gun makers for just about anything when that’s simply not the case. They like to act as if they’re standing up for consumers or something.
However, Salon admitted what the left’s game really is with their lawsuits, and that’s to circumvent the legislative process.
Daniel “Bud” Williams was a 16-year-old high school basketball star shooting hoops outside his home in Buffalo, New York, when he was severely wounded in a drive-by shooting on Aug. 16, 2003 — a case of mistaken identity. More than 17 years later, just before Thanksgiving, he finally got the last full measure of justice, as Brady United announced a historic settlement with the gun distributor responsible for the gun that shot him — a “Saturday Night Special” Hi-Point 9mm semi-automatic pistol, one of 87 sold in a single illegal transaction. It was just one of several recent gun safety developments in which the gun industry and NRA rhetoric of “protecting Second Amendment rights” for “law-abiding gun owners” — for “good guys with a gun” to “stop a bad guy with a gun” — is diametrically opposed to the facts of the case. Instead, these cases, including the first to target untraceable “ghost guns,” point the way toward common sense, common-ground policies that gun owners themselves substantially support. In the Williams case, the distributor, a company called MKS, “agreed to significant reforms in distribution of guns, which is unprecedented,” Brady chief counsel Jonathan Lowy told Salon. “I’ve been litigating gun liability cases with Brady for 23-plus years now, and the position of gun manufacturers and gun distributors has always been, our only obligation is to sell a gun to someone legally,” Lowy explained. “In the settlement, MKS agreed to actually pay attention to its downstream sales, to take some action so that downstream dealers that it supplied would sell in a responsible manner. That’s a huge step forward.” It’s also a huge step for the example it sets for others in the industry, and as a possible model for how regulations could be significantly strengthened to crack down on illegal gun trafficking — the kinds of regulations that NRA members themselves strongly support , in contrast to the industry-connected organization . As with the Day One Agenda I wrote about last weekend , no congressional permission is needed. President Joe Biden could dramatically improve gun safety simply by making this model of responsibility mandatory for all distributors.
The thing is, gun manufacturers are not responsible for what happens after it leaves their warehouses. What’s problematic about these lawsuits is that they seek to demand gun makers take steps that literally no other industry is expected to make. Car manufacturers, for example, aren’t required to make sure dealers are conducting background checks on buyers or any other such nonsense.
The gun sold in the deal that MKS reached a settlement on was sold illegally. That tells us that it was a different matter entirely than 99 percent of gun sales on a daily basis, yet the gun grabbers rarely acknowledge this fact.
However, as the story notes, this is a way to try and push changes that Congress has been unwilling to make.
They can’t win in the legislature, so they’re trying to win in the courtroom.
The thing is, I don’t know that they’ll pull this off in the long run. Sure, MKS made a settlement, but that’s in a case that looks like they may have actually screwed up somewhere along the way–The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has always allowed lawsuits for illegal gun sales–


bearingarms--2020-12-07--Family Demands Answers After CCW Holder Killed By Ohio Deputy

Last Friday , 23-year old Casey Goodson , Jr. was heading home from a dentist ’ s appointment , but before he could make inside his family ’ s house in northeast Columbus , Ohio , a Franklin County deputy shot and killed the young man , claiming that Goodson was “ waving his gun ” while driving down the street .
Goodson ’ s family disputes the claims by law enforcement .
They say that the 23-year old , who possessed a valid license to carry , had his gun on him but was holding a sandwich from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Tobin , the U.S .
Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio , said Friday that officers from a fugitive task force had been unsuccessfully looking for a suspect nearby .
As that search wrapped up , Goodson drove past officers , according to Tobin .
“ He was seen driving down the street waving a gun , ” Tobin said at a press conference .
“ That ’ s when the deputy , at some point after that , he confronted him .
And it went badly.
” Tobin alleged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deputy approached him to confront him about the gun and allegedly ordered him to drop the gun , USA Today reported .
Tobin said that the deputy shot Goodson when he allegedly refused to drop his weapon .
Goodson was transported to Ohio Health Riverside Methodist Hospital where he later died , USA Today reported .
Tobin said that Goodson was not the suspect that the task force had been looking for .
Through an attorney , the Goodson family says the account by police leaves out “ key details ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheriff ’ s deputy .
Casey was shot and killed as he unlocked his door and entered his home .
His death was witnessed by his 72-year-old Grandmother and two toddlers who were near the door .
Casey was coming home from a dentist appointment that day .
As Casey lie on the ground dying , the unopened Subway sandwiches that he brought for himself and his family sat next to him in a pool of blood .
Even hours after his death , the keys that he used to let himself in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed hung in the door – a reminder to his family of how close he was to safety .
Casey is not alleged to have committed any crimes , has no criminal background , and was not the target of any investigation .
Casey was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and Ohio does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms .
It is troubling that authorities have already stated that they believe the shooting to be justified , prior to any investigation taking place and before any information has been released to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness testimony and physical evidence raise serious concerns about why Casey was even confronted , let alone why he was shot dead while entering his own home .
This is obviously an incredibly troubling story , and the first thing that should happen is the release of any body camera footage that shows us what happened .
I agree with the statement by the attorneys representing Goodson ’ s family that there was no reason for the authorities to say that the shooting appears justified before any investigation had taken place .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jr. wasn ’ t the man that police were looking for .
There ’ s no dispute that he was shot on the front steps of his home as he was trying to get inside .
The only dispute is whether Goodson was brandishing a gun at police officers and refused to drop the weapon .
On Facebook , Goodson ’ s sister flat-out accused officers of lying about what happened , saying that her brother had “ literally walked across the yard , walked into the back fence to get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mask in one hand keys in the other , UNLOCKED AND OPENED THE DOOR and stepped in the house before shooting him.
” That ’ s a completely different scenario than the one portrayed by police , and again , if there ’ s body camera footage that shows the events leading up to Goodson ’ s shooting it should be released as soon as possible .
In the meantime , the Columbus Police Department , which is leading the investigation into Goodson ’ s death , needs to be as transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any statements by the deputy who pulled the trigger .
I ’ m doing my best to withhold judgement in the absence of evidence , but there are legitimate questions raised by the family that need to be answered , and quickly .
Let ’ s hope that the Columbus Police Department takes this investigation seriously and will soon provide more information and any evidence , whether it backs up the deputy ’ s story or not .

Goodson’s family disputes the claims by law enforcement. They say that the 23-year old, who possessed a valid license to carry, had his gun on him but was holding a sandwich from a nearby Subway when he was shot.
Peter Tobin, the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio, said Friday that officers from a fugitive task force had been unsuccessfully looking for a suspect nearby. As that search wrapped up, Goodson drove past officers, according to Tobin. “He was seen driving down the street waving a gun,” Tobin said at a press conference. “That’s when the deputy, at some point after that, he confronted him. And it went badly.” Tobin alleged that Goodson was out of his vehicle when the deputy approached him to confront him about the gun and allegedly ordered him to drop the gun, USA Today reported. Tobin said that the deputy shot Goodson when he allegedly refused to drop his weapon. Goodson was transported to Ohio Health Riverside Methodist Hospital where he later died, USA Today reported. Tobin said that Goodson was not the suspect that the task force had been looking for.
Through an attorney, the Goodson family says the account by police leaves out “key details” of the fatal encounter between Goodson and the sheriff’s deputy.
Casey was shot and killed as he unlocked his door and entered his home. His death was witnessed by his 72-year-old Grandmother and two toddlers who were near the door. Casey was coming home from a dentist appointment that day. As Casey lie on the ground dying, the unopened Subway sandwiches that he brought for himself and his family sat next to him in a pool of blood. Even hours after his death, the keys that he used to let himself in the house as he was shot and killed hung in the door – a reminder to his family of how close he was to safety. Casey is not alleged to have committed any crimes, has no criminal background, and was not the target of any investigation. Casey was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and Ohio does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms. It is troubling that authorities have already stated that they believe the shooting to be justified, prior to any investigation taking place and before any information has been released to the family. At this point, witness testimony and physical evidence raise serious concerns about why Casey was even confronted, let alone why he was shot dead while entering his own home.
This is obviously an incredibly troubling story, and the first thing that should happen is the release of any body camera footage that shows us what happened. I agree with the statement by the attorneys representing Goodson’s family that there was no reason for the authorities to say that the shooting appears justified before any investigation had taken place. There’s no dispute that Casey Goodson, Jr. wasn’t the man that police were looking for. There’s no dispute that he was shot on the front steps of his home as he was trying to get inside. The only dispute is whether Goodson was brandishing a gun at police officers and refused to drop the weapon.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--Pennsylvania Town Pairs Social Workers With Police Officers

One of the things that the Defund the Police movement has called for is using social workers for certain calls rather than police officers .
This has been blasted by opponents as a particularly stupid idea .
After all , with many of these calls , you ’ ll end up with dead social workers and still no police officers on the scene .
However , in fairness , having just the police respond to certain calls isn ’ t necessarily a great thing either .
Police officers aren ’ t trained to deal with people having a mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
Now , a Pennsylvania town is rolling out a program that seeks to find the best of both worlds .
Will this approach work ?
Honestly ?
Who the hell knows .
What I do know is that social workers have their place , as do police officers .
Calling them for non-emergency issues with some of these calls makes sense .
However , there needs to be some common sense exercised .
Domestic violence calls can be among some of the most dangerous calls police officers respond to , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sending a social worker to such a call , however , is a recipe for disaster .
Oh , it might work in a number of cases , but all it takes is one failure to show just how bad an idea it is .
However , there is a balance that can be reached .
Will Bucks County figure out the formula for that balance ?
Again , who the hell knows .
What I do know is that there ’ s been a concerted effort to push for social workers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety of calls that sound like something a social worker should respond to , but often isn ’ t .
Let ’ s hope that if the balance isn ’ t right , they figure it out before some well-meaning public employee is murdered because he or she was out on a call that should have been for law enforcement , not a bureaucrat/therapist .
I really would rather not write that story if we can avoid it , you know ?

One of the things that the Defund the Police movement has called for is using social workers for certain calls rather than police officers. This has been blasted by opponents as a particularly stupid idea. After all, with many of these calls, you’ll end up with dead social workers and still no police officers on the scene.
However, in fairness, having just the police respond to certain calls isn’t necessarily a great thing either. Police officers aren’t trained to deal with people having a mental health crisis, whereas the social worker actually is.
Now, a Pennsylvania town is rolling out a program that seeks to find the best of both worlds.
Bucks County authorities on Thursday announced a new program that aims to pair Bensalem Township police officers with social workers and divert people in need of social services away from the criminal justice system. The program, a two-year pilot effort, aims to reduce the amount of time police spend on social service-related calls, authorities said. Data on the program will be collected to determine whether it is effective and should be expanded. Bucks officials’ decision to pair police with social workers in certain cases comes amid a movement to reform the way officers respond to 911 calls. ”We respond to drug addiction … to homelessness, … to hoarding complaints, elderly issues, children issues, family issues, neighbor issues, and of course mental health issues, which unfortunately continues to grow and grow and grow,” Bensalem Public Safety Director Fred Harran said during an afternoon news conference at the township building attended by Bucks County Commissioners Diane Ellis-Marseglia, Bob Harvie, and Gene DiGirolamo, Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub, Bensalem Mayor Joseph DiGirolamo, and the two newly hired co-responders.
Will this approach work? Honestly? Who the hell knows.
What I do know is that social workers have their place, as do police officers. Calling them for non-emergency issues with some of these calls makes sense. However, there needs to be some common sense exercised. Domestic violence calls can be among some of the most dangerous calls police officers respond to, but they’re at least armed. Sending a social worker to such a call, however, is a recipe for disaster. Oh, it might work in a number of cases, but all it takes is one failure to show just how bad an idea it is.
However, there is a balance that can be reached. Will Bucks County figure out the formula for that balance? Again, who the hell knows. What I do know is that there’s been a concerted effort to push for social workers to be used instead of police for a variety of calls that sound like something a social worker should respond to, but often isn’t.
Let’s hope that if the balance isn’t right, they figure it out before some well-meaning public employee is murdered because he or she was out on a call that should have been for law enforcement, not a bureaucrat/therapist. I really would rather not write that story if we can avoid it, you know?


bearingarms--2020-12-07--CO Company Apologizes For Hitler Gun Control Reference

The owner of a Castle Rock , Colorado plumbing company is apologizing after a digital sign for the business displayed a picture of a Nazi concentration camp guard shooting a Jewish inmate over the weekend .
The picture , which was captioned with “ ” Hitler gave Jews the gift of gun control , you know , because he cared about their safety , ” was meant to serve as a warning about the dangers of anti-gun legislation , but Javier Hoggard , who owns Patriot Pros Plumbing , Heating , Air & Electrical , quickly realized that the message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming in .
“ It has been made clear to us that an image we used in our outdoor advertising at our office came across as extremely upsetting to members of our community , including members of the Jewish Faith .
While my intention was to make a statement about our 2nd Amendment Rights and the dangers of Government Overreach , the message was misconstrued and taken out of context .
I immediately took the imagery down the moment we got our first complaint .
Hours later , after the imagery had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office and spoke with me about why the image was a sensitive issue for the Jewish community .
After that conversation , I fully understand the mistake that was made and am deeply sorry for coming across as so callous and offensive .
It was never my intention to do any harm , upset anyone or cause damage to our relationship with the community we love and strive to help so much.
” It ’ s pretty clear that Hoggard didn ’ t intend to kick up a controversy when he or an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signboard ’ s hard drive .
The intent was simply to tie gun control into authoritarianism .
Still , there are ways to drive that message home without actually displaying a picture of a concentration camp inmate facing imminent execution .
Personally , I probably would have gone with a big picture of former governor and Senator-elect John Hickenlooper , along with the statistics for the increase in crime in Colorado since Hickenlooper signed the state ’ s magazine ban and universal background check laws back in 2013 , but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound like Hoggard or Patriot Pros are facing cancellation over the digital sign at the moment , which is good .
Complaints were made , Hoggard listened and responded , and that should be the end of the story .
I ’ m sure that anti-gun activists in Colorado will try to make as much out of this as they possibly can , but Hoggard and the folks at Patriot Pros handled this as well as they could have .
They ’ re not backing off their support for the Second Amendment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to convey was getting lost amidst the complaints .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

The owner of a Castle Rock, Colorado plumbing company is apologizing after a digital sign for the business displayed a picture of a Nazi concentration camp guard shooting a Jewish inmate over the weekend. The picture, which was captioned with “”Hitler gave Jews the gift of gun control, you know, because he cared about their safety,” was meant to serve as a warning about the dangers of anti-gun legislation, but Javier Hoggard, who owns Patriot Pros Plumbing, Heating, Air & Electrical, quickly realized that the message was being lost when the complaints started coming in.
“It has been made clear to us that an image we used in our outdoor advertising at our office came across as extremely upsetting to members of our community, including members of the Jewish Faith. While my intention was to make a statement about our 2nd Amendment Rights and the dangers of Government Overreach, the message was misconstrued and taken out of context. I immediately took the imagery down the moment we got our first complaint. Hours later, after the imagery had been removed, a local Rabbi called our office and spoke with me about why the image was a sensitive issue for the Jewish community. After that conversation, I fully understand the mistake that was made and am deeply sorry for coming across as so callous and offensive. It was never my intention to do any harm, upset anyone or cause damage to our relationship with the community we love and strive to help so much.”
It’s pretty clear that Hoggard didn’t intend to kick up a controversy when he or an employee loaded the image into the digital signboard’s hard drive. The intent was simply to tie gun control into authoritarianism. Still, there are ways to drive that message home without actually displaying a picture of a concentration camp inmate facing imminent execution. Personally, I probably would have gone with a big picture of former governor and Senator-elect John Hickenlooper, along with the statistics for the increase in crime in Colorado since Hickenlooper signed the state’s magazine ban and universal background check laws back in 2013, but that’s just me.
It doesn’t sound like Hoggard or Patriot Pros are facing cancellation over the digital sign at the moment, which is good. Complaints were made, Hoggard listened and responded, and that should be the end of the story. I’m sure that anti-gun activists in Colorado will try to make as much out of this as they possibly can, but Hoggard and the folks at Patriot Pros handled this as well as they could have. They’re not backing off their support for the Second Amendment, just recognizing that the message they were trying to convey was getting lost amidst the complaints.


bearingarms--2020-12-07--Man Arrested For Pointing Gun During Protest

A lot of people leave their firearms at home when they go to a protest , particularly in this day and age .
Not everyone , mind you , but a lot of folks .
They know that temper can flare , particularly if there are counter-protesters there , and that flaring tempers and firearms don ’ t always mix well .
Of course , we see a lot of people on the left that would do well to remember that , but the right isn ’ t immune to that brand of stupidity , either , apparently .
Olympia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally participant on suspicion of first- and second-degree assault after he allegedly fired his gun at counter-protesters during a clash on Saturday .
Olympia police also received reports that a counter-protester may have been shot .
Police are asking that the possible victim come forward so the appropriate charges can be made , according to a news release from the city of Olympia .
The 27-year-old man who was arrested was part of a pro-Trump rally Saturday afternoon on the Capitol Campus .
They eventually clashed with black-clad counter-protesters at Capitol Way South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to police , involved up to 200 people armed with bats , bottles , rocks , chemical sprays and guns , and took place near The United Churches of Olympia .
The church ’ s pastor was shoved in the altercation , and she posted about it Sunday on Facebook .
In fairness , while the man was charged , I ’ m not really sure this should be called “ stupidity ” by me .
After all , if bats , bottles , and rocks were being used , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of scenarios where someone would feel justified in pulling a firearm , particularly after this year .
As such , calling this “ stupidity ” is a tad premature , to say the least .
However , let ’ s also acknowledge that in this day and age , anyone on the right needs to be extremely careful in how they carry themselves .
There are entire legions who go out of their way to ignore anything bad about the left but amplify any mistake made by the right .
If this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justified reason , they ’ ll have a field day with it .
Now , this will be a matter for the courts to determine .
Let ’ s hope there ’ s enough evidence showing that this act was justified so the man in question can continue on with his life .
Going forward , this is the kind of story that people would do well to recall prior to attending a protest .
No one wants to be under the spotlight , not for something like this .
Make sure you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accordance with it , otherwise you ’ re likely to be the subject of a news story written by someone who isn ’ t the least bit sympathetic toward what you may have actually faced .
I ’ ll at least acknowledge that the man may have been justified .
For a lot of people in the media , they simply won ’ t care .
They ’ ll crucify him with every tool they have in the media arsenal .
I wouldn ’ t wish that on much of anyone .

A lot of people leave their firearms at home when they go to a protest, particularly in this day and age. Not everyone, mind you, but a lot of folks. They know that temper can flare, particularly if there are counter-protesters there, and that flaring tempers and firearms don’t always mix well.
Of course, we see a lot of people on the left that would do well to remember that, but the right isn’t immune to that brand of stupidity, either, apparently.
Olympia Police arrested a 27-year-old man and Trump rally participant on suspicion of first- and second-degree assault after he allegedly fired his gun at counter-protesters during a clash on Saturday. Olympia police also received reports that a counter-protester may have been shot. Police are asking that the possible victim come forward so the appropriate charges can be made, according to a news release from the city of Olympia. The 27-year-old man who was arrested was part of a pro-Trump rally Saturday afternoon on the Capitol Campus. They eventually clashed with black-clad counter-protesters at Capitol Way South and 11th Avenue Southeast. The fight, according to police, involved up to 200 people armed with bats, bottles, rocks, chemical sprays and guns, and took place near The United Churches of Olympia. The church’s pastor was shoved in the altercation, and she posted about it Sunday on Facebook.
In fairness, while the man was charged, I’m not really sure this should be called “stupidity” by me. After all, if bats, bottles, and rocks were being used, it’s not difficult to imagine any number of scenarios where someone would feel justified in pulling a firearm, particularly after this year. As such, calling this “stupidity” is a tad premature, to say the least.
However, let’s also acknowledge that in this day and age, anyone on the right needs to be extremely careful in how they carry themselves. There are entire legions who go out of their way to ignore anything bad about the left but amplify any mistake made by the right. If this gun wasn’t drawn for a justified reason, they’ll have a field day with it.
Now, this will be a matter for the courts to determine. Let’s hope there’s enough evidence showing that this act was justified so the man in question can continue on with his life.
Going forward, this is the kind of story that people would do well to recall prior to attending a protest. No one wants to be under the spotlight, not for something like this. Make sure you understand the law and act in strict accordance with it, otherwise you’re likely to be the subject of a news story written by someone who isn’t the least bit sympathetic toward what you may have actually faced.
I’ll at least acknowledge that the man may have been justified. For a lot of people in the media, they simply won’t care. They’ll crucify him with every tool they have in the media arsenal. I wouldn’t wish that on much of anyone.