bearingarms--2020-11-24--SCOTUS Accepts Case Dealing With Warrantless Gun Seizures

It ’ s not a case that specifically deals with the right to keep and bear arms , but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the seizure of a Rhode Island man ’ s lawfully owned firearms by police back in 2015 .
The case , known as Caniglia v. Strom , could serve as a vehicle for the Court to expound on the right to keep and bear arms , though the main question that the justices will have to answer instead revolves around our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The facts of the case involve the warrantless seizure of several firearms from the home of Edward Caniglia after an argument with his wife .
During the argument , Caniglia dramatically placed an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and proclaimed , “ Why don ’ t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.
” Instead of taking Caniglia up on his obvious attempt at melodrama , Caniglia ’ s wife left the house .
When Edward didn ’ t answer a phone call from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she asked police to perform a wellness check on her husband .
They found that Caniglia was just fine , and he explained to police what had happened .
Even though the officers said he “ seemed normal , ” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated .
The police specifically told Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he voluntarily went with them , so he did .
He was checked out , pronounced no danger to himself or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege of being told what he already knew , and was sent home , only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home .
Not only that , they did so without a warrant .
Edward Caniglia ’ s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston , Rhode Island police department ever since .
Tomorrow , the justices will consider the arguments of Caniglia ’ s attorneys and the defense attorneys for the Cranston police department .
The defendants maintain that an exception to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unreasonable searches and seizures applies in the search of Caniglia ’ s home , though even the First Circuit Court of Appeals realized it was treading in uncharted waters when they agreed with the defense .
We ’ re getting into the legal weeds here , but in essence the Court is being asked to decide if a “ community caretaker ” exception to the Fourth Amendment applies in this case .
The Supreme Court had recognized the exception in a 1973 case , Cady v. Dombrowski , in which police searched the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towed after an accident .
“ In the decades since Cady , however , the so-called ‘ community caretaking ’ exception has taken on a life of its own , ” the cert petition said .
“ Courts across the country are deeply divided about whether the ‘ community caretaking ’ exception can justify a warrantless intrusion into a home .
There is at least a 4 to 3 split on that question among the federal courts of appeals .
State courts are similarly divided.
” The cert petition asked the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community caretaking exception can ’ t be used to justify a warrantless search of a home .
While Caniglia doesn ’ t directly implicate the Second Amendment in its cert petition , this will be a hugely important Fourth Amendment case , and it could serve as a powerful check on the powers of government if the Court rules that the seizure of firearms from someone they believe may pose a threat to themselves or others doesn ’ t take precedence over the individual citizen ’ s right to privacy and security @ @ @ @ @

It’s not a case that specifically deals with the right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the seizure of a Rhode Island man’s lawfully owned firearms by police back in 2015. The case, known as Caniglia v. Strom, could serve as a vehicle for the Court to expound on the right to keep and bear arms, though the main question that the justices will have to answer instead revolves around our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The facts of the case involve the warrantless seizure of several firearms from the home of Edward Caniglia after an argument with his wife. During the argument, Caniglia dramatically placed an unloaded pistol on a table in front of his wife and proclaimed, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.”
Instead of taking Caniglia up on his obvious attempt at melodrama, Caniglia’s wife left the house. When Edward didn’t answer a phone call from her the next day, however, she asked police to perform a wellness check on her husband.
They found that Caniglia was just fine, and he explained to police what had happened. Even though the officers said he “seemed normal,” they still told him they were going to take him to the local hospital to get evaluated. The police specifically told Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he voluntarily went with them, so he did. He was checked out, pronounced no danger to himself or others, billed $1,000 for the privilege of being told what he already knew, and was sent home, only to discover that police had in fact taken the two guns from the home. Not only that, they did so without a warrant. Edward Caniglia’s been trying to get his guns back from the Cranston, Rhode Island police department ever since. Tomorrow, the justices will consider the arguments of Caniglia’s attorneys and the defense attorneys for the Cranston police department. The defendants maintain that an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in the search of Caniglia’s home, though even the First Circuit Court of Appeals realized it was treading in uncharted waters when they agreed with the defense.
We’re getting into the legal weeds here, but in essence the Court is being asked to decide if a “community caretaker” exception to the Fourth Amendment applies in this case.
The Supreme Court had recognized the exception in a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which police searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after an accident. “In the decades since Cady, however, the so-called ‘community caretaking’ exception has taken on a life of its own,” the cert petition said. “Courts across the country are deeply divided about whether the ‘community caretaking’ exception can justify a warrantless intrusion into a home. There is at least a 4 to 3 split on that question among the federal courts of appeals. State courts are similarly divided.” The cert petition asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule that the community caretaking exception can’t be used to justify a warrantless search of a home.
While Caniglia doesn’t directly implicate the Second Amendment in its cert petition, this will be a hugely important Fourth Amendment case, and it could serve as a powerful check on the powers of government if the Court rules that the seizure of firearms from someone they believe may pose a threat to themselves or others doesn’t take precedence over the individual citizen’s right to privacy and security in their own home.


bearingarms--2020-11-26--Vox Co-Founder: Democrats' Embrace Of Gun Control "Misguided"

Gun owners and conservatives have been saying this all along , of course , but it ’ s rare these days to hear someone on the Left admit that gun control isn ’ t such a great idea politically speaking .
Kudos to Matt Yglesias for stepping up to the plate .
The pundit , who recently left Vox because even his progressive views were ticking off the young socialist staffers and he wanted the freedom to speak his mind without them pitching a fit over his columns , headed off to Substack , where he ’ s writing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom .
In his latest piece , Yglesias admits he ’ s stirring the pot with his lefty audience by arguing that Democrats would be better off dropping gun control as a political issue , but this isn ’ t just an attempt to troll his audience .
As Yglesias puts it , the “ juice here just isn ’ t worth the squeeze.
” The entire piece by Yglesias is well worth a read and far too long to quote extensively here , but his basic point is simple : Americans may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control agenda items like universal background checks or red flag laws , but there ’ s no stomach or yearning for the kind of firearm-free society that gun control advocates embrace .
Yglesias is a lefty , and he ’ s not making an argument trying to convince his audience of the importance of the Second Amendment as an individual right .
His point is that it ’ s not an issue that Democrats should run on .
There ’ s absolutely nothing wrong with a politician who ’ s asked about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show loophole .
But when push comes to shove , there is no political upside for progressives in having a high-profile national debate about whether it ’ s important to protect gun rights or whether the time has come to say “ enough.
” The fact that thoughtful progressives actually have serious doubts on civil liberties grounds about the no-fly list idea ( which has due process problems ) and the mental illness idea ( which is very stigmatizing and seems overly broad if you think about what ’ s a large share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health issues ) only makes this worse .
Last but by no means least , there ’ s reason to believe this background checks stuff is less popular than it seems .
In Maine , for example , they held a referendum on closing the gun show loophole and it lost 52-48 even as Clinton won the state by three points .
There ’ s wisdom in looking at ballot initiatives , and the evidence seems to be that gun regulation runs behind the Democratic Party even in one of the few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Interestingly enough , Yglesias doesn ’ t mention what I consider to be another big reason for Democrats to drop their demands for gun control ; their calls for criminal justice reform , including prison abolition .
Democrats can bury their head in the sand all they want , but the fact remains that gun control laws get enforced by law enforcement officers , and in the course of that enforcement plenty of people get put in prison for non-violent , possessory firearm offenses .
Replacing a War on Drugs with a War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same endless war waged against American citizens , only this time the battle will be over a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution , not a seemingly endless supply of narcotics with sources both foreign and domestic .
Yglesias ’ piece has been met with mostly positive comments from his audience , and several say that they ’ ve been persuaded by his argument , which is fantastic .
Look , as much as I ’ d love to convert every one of these folks to Second Amendment stalwarts , I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I tend to subscribe to Milton Friedman ’ s view of politics : I ’ ll accept the wrong people doing the right thing for purely political reasons if it leads to our Second Amendment rights becoming more secure .
That doesn ’ t mean we don ’ t need to continue to evangelize on the issue of the importance of our Constitutional rights , but we also need to think about ways to make our case in language the Left can understand , and Yglesias ’ argument is a good exercise @ @ @ @ @ @

Gun owners and conservatives have been saying this all along, of course, but it’s rare these days to hear someone on the Left admit that gun control isn’t such a great idea politically speaking. Kudos to Matt Yglesias for stepping up to the plate. The pundit, who recently left Vox because even his progressive views were ticking off the young socialist staffers and he wanted the freedom to speak his mind without them pitching a fit over his columns, headed off to Substack, where he’s writing for a paid audience and enjoying complete editorial freedom.
In his latest piece, Yglesias admits he’s stirring the pot with his lefty audience by arguing that Democrats would be better off dropping gun control as a political issue, but this isn’t just an attempt to troll his audience. As Yglesias puts it, the “juice here just isn’t worth the squeeze.”
The entire piece by Yglesias is well worth a read and far too long to quote extensively here, but his basic point is simple: Americans may say they support a few individual gun control agenda items like universal background checks or red flag laws, but there’s no stomach or yearning for the kind of firearm-free society that gun control advocates embrace.
Yglesias is a lefty, and he’s not making an argument trying to convince his audience of the importance of the Second Amendment as an individual right. His point is that it’s not an issue that Democrats should run on.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a politician who’s asked about it saying he wants to close the gun show loophole. But when push comes to shove, there is no political upside for progressives in having a high-profile national debate about whether it’s important to protect gun rights or whether the time has come to say “enough.” The fact that thoughtful progressives actually have serious doubts on civil liberties grounds about the no-fly list idea (which has due process problems) and the mental illness idea (which is very stigmatizing and seems overly broad if you think about what’s a large share of the population has some kind of mental health issues) only makes this worse. Last but by no means least, there’s reason to believe this background checks stuff is less popular than it seems. In Maine, for example, they held a referendum on closing the gun show loophole and it lost 52-48 even as Clinton won the state by three points. There’s wisdom in looking at ballot initiatives, and the evidence seems to be that gun regulation runs behind the Democratic Party even in one of the few rural states where Democrats are competitive.
Interestingly enough, Yglesias doesn’t mention what I consider to be another big reason for Democrats to drop their demands for gun control; their calls for criminal justice reform, including prison abolition. Democrats can bury their head in the sand all they want, but the fact remains that gun control laws get enforced by law enforcement officers, and in the course of that enforcement plenty of people get put in prison for non-violent, possessory firearm offenses. Replacing a War on Drugs with a War on Guns is going to lead to the same endless war waged against American citizens, only this time the battle will be over a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution, not a seemingly endless supply of narcotics with sources both foreign and domestic.
Yglesias’ piece has been met with mostly positive comments from his audience, and several say that they’ve been persuaded by his argument, which is fantastic. Look, as much as I’d love to convert every one of these folks to Second Amendment stalwarts, I know that’s not going to happen. I tend to subscribe to Milton Friedman’s view of politics:
The important thing is to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. If it is not politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either.
I’ll accept the wrong people doing the right thing for purely political reasons if it leads to our Second Amendment rights becoming more secure. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to continue to evangelize on the issue of the importance of our Constitutional rights, but we also need to think about ways to make our case in language the Left can understand, and Yglesias’ argument is a good exercise in how to do so.


bearingarms--2020-11-26--Pope Francis: Gun Sales Symptom Of "Violent, Unstable Society"

In a forthcoming book , Pope Francis bemoans the record-setting pace of gun sales in the United States , calling it a symptom of a “ violent , unstable society ” that threatens to unleash anarchy , authoritarianism , or maybe both at the same time .
The Washington Examiner ‘ s Nicholas Rowan reports that Francis ’ comments are part of a broader warning against the “ hyperinflation of the individual ” in his new book Let Us Dream : The Path to a Better Future , which is set to be released next month .
Ironically , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manifesto a “ call to arms ” even as the Pope calls for the voluntary disarming of gun owners .
Okay , I realize the ecclesiastical danger in calling the Pope a hypocrite , but I ’ m going to do it anyway .
If Francis truly does believe that world leaders should divest themselves of the notion that the possession of weapons leads to greater security , why are the Vatican ’ s Swiss Guards still armed to the hilt with state-of-the-art weaponry that civilians in the United States can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be a clown suit in the picture above ?
He ’ s a member of the Swiss Guards too , but not all of the guardsmen wear 16th century outfits and carry around ceremonial halberds .
The Swiss Guard in their function as close protection officers is equipped with the SIG Sauer P220 pistol and the SIG SG 550 rifle .
Both weapons are in use by the Swiss Army .
As recruits to the Swiss Guard must have passed basic military training in Switzerland , they are already familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pepper spray used by the Swiss Army ( RSG-2000 ) is also in use .
The plainclothes close protection officers are reportedly issued a Glock 19 pistol and Heckler & Koch MP7 submachine gun .
If you ’ ve got your own personal protection squad of bodyguards equipped with automatic weapons , you really shouldn ’ t complain about a mom buying a pistol to protect herself and her children .
That ’ s one of the things that Francis doesn ’ t seem to get about gun ownership ; for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not about the inflation of the self but about our desire to protect the ones we love .
Is it un-Christian of me to put the safety of my children above the security of the guy breaking into my home ?
I ’ d say it ’ s no more sacrilegious than having my own personal army designed to protect me and kill my attackers , which is the primary mission of the members of the Swiss Guards , which have served as the papal protection unit since 1506 .
As Dave Kopel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted in a piece called “ Is The Best Defense A Good Book , ” Jesus himself commanded his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy a sword before they set off to spread the gospel .
When the apostles displayed two swords to him , Jesus replied “ It is enough ” ( Luke 22:35-38 ) .
Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword ( or a purse or a bag ) .
For the eleven , two swords were “ enough.
” The broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the apostles would , after Jesus was gone , have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree .
The moneybag , the knapsack ( generally used to carry clothing and food ) and the sword ( generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers , including missionaries , in the open country between towns ) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs .
This passage does show that two of the apostles carried swords while they were following Jesus .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been violating the sword control laws , as many of the earliest readers of the Book of Luke would have known .
Roman law forbade the Jews and other subject people to carry swords .
2000 years later the gun has replaced the sword as the preferred means of self-defense , but the principle still remains .
As a Christian , I do believe it ’ s my duty to love my neighbors and even my enemies , but I don ’ t believe that requires me to turn myself or my family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do us harm .
I ’ m a peacemaker by nature and intent , but I ’ m not a pacifist .
If Pope Francis believes me to be a hypocrite or a sinner because I own firearms for self-defense , so be it , but as long as he remains secure behind men who are ready to kill to save his own life , I don ’ t think that he ’ s in a position to cast any stones .

In a forthcoming book, Pope Francis bemoans the record-setting pace of gun sales in the United States, calling it a symptom of a “violent, unstable society” that threatens to unleash anarchy, authoritarianism, or maybe both at the same time.
The Washington Examiner‘s Nicholas Rowan reports that Francis’ comments are part of a broader warning against the “hyperinflation of the individual” in his new book Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, which is set to be released next month. Ironically, the book’s publisher calls the new manifesto a “call to arms” even as the Pope calls for the voluntary disarming of gun owners.
Francis historically has been critical of gun manufacturing and sales, saying in 2015 that the people who make guns and call themselves Christians may be guilty of “hypocrisy.” Francis in 2019 condemned gun violence in the U.S. after a rash of shootings throughout the country. Francis, amid reports earlier this year of rising gun sales, on Twitter called for world leaders to “dismantle the perverse logic that links personal and national security to the possession of weaponry.” “This logic serves only to increase the profits of the arms industry, while fostering a climate of distrust and fear between persons and peoples,” he wrote.
Okay, I realize the ecclesiastical danger in calling the Pope a hypocrite, but I’m going to do it anyway. If Francis truly does believe that world leaders should divest themselves of the notion that the possession of weapons leads to greater security, why are the Vatican’s Swiss Guards still armed to the hilt with state-of-the-art weaponry that civilians in the United States can’t legally own? That guy in what appears to be a clown suit in the picture above? He’s a member of the Swiss Guards too, but not all of the guardsmen wear 16th century outfits and carry around ceremonial halberds.
The Swiss Guard in their function as close protection officers is equipped with the SIG Sauer P220 pistol and the SIG SG 550 rifle. Both weapons are in use by the Swiss Army. As recruits to the Swiss Guard must have passed basic military training in Switzerland, they are already familiar with these weapons when they begin their service. The pepper spray used by the Swiss Army (RSG-2000) is also in use. The plainclothes close protection officers are reportedly issued a Glock 19 pistol and Heckler & Koch MP7 submachine gun.
If you’ve got your own personal protection squad of bodyguards equipped with automatic weapons, you really shouldn’t complain about a mom buying a pistol to protect herself and her children. That’s one of the things that Francis doesn’t seem to get about gun ownership; for many of us, it’s not about the inflation of the self but about our desire to protect the ones we love.
Is it un-Christian of me to put the safety of my children above the security of the guy breaking into my home? I’d say it’s no more sacrilegious than having my own personal army designed to protect me and kill my attackers, which is the primary mission of the members of the Swiss Guards, which have served as the papal protection unit since 1506.
As Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute noted in a piece called “Is The Best Defense A Good Book,” Jesus himself commanded his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy a sword before they set off to spread the gospel. When the apostles displayed two swords to him, Jesus replied “It is enough” (Luke 22:35-38).
Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were “enough.” The broader point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The moneybag, the knapsack (generally used to carry clothing and food) and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. This passage does show that two of the apostles carried swords while they were following Jesus. And rather significantly, the disciples may have been violating the sword control laws, as many of the earliest readers of the Book of Luke would have known. Roman law forbade the Jews and other subject people to carry swords.
2000 years later the gun has replaced the sword as the preferred means of self-defense, but the principle still remains. As a Christian, I do believe it’s my duty to love my neighbors and even my enemies, but I don’t believe that requires me to turn myself or my family into willing victims for those who would do us harm. I’m a peacemaker by nature and intent, but I’m not a pacifist.
If Pope Francis believes me to be a hypocrite or a sinner because I own firearms for self-defense, so be it, but as long as he remains secure behind men who are ready to kill to save his own life, I don’t think that he’s in a position to cast any stones.


bearingarms--2020-11-26--Ben Affleck "Uncomfortable" Remembering Trips To Gun Range

Back in the mid-1990s I had one of the greatest jobs that a young adult could hope to land : video store clerk .
I wasn ’ t some corporate drone at Blockbuster either .
I worked for a small mom-and-pop shop in Ft. Smith , Arkansas for a little more than a year , which happened to coincide with the release of the movie Dazed and Confused , which quickly became one of my all-time favorite comedies .
The movie didn ’ t do so hot at the box office , but became a cult classic when it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more than 20 years later the flick still has a loyal legion of fans .
In a new oral history of the making of the movie , Ben Affleck ( who portrayed high school bully Fred O ’ Bannion ) not-so-fondly recalls his experience in Austin , Texas , including the cast ’ s multiple trips to a local gun range .
“ Texas had extremely lax gun laws and most of us came from states where it was next to impossible to buy guns , ” Affleck explains .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a bunch of us bought guns and went shooting at ranges on weekends , which seemed fun and innocent at the time , but given the subsequent tragedies with young people and guns , it makes me uncomfortable to remember.
” Now , I know that Ben Affleck has been doing his best to be “ woke ” the past few years , but this is just sad .
Going to the gun range with friends is fun and innocent .
It was fun in 1992 , when Dazed and Confused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still fun today .
It ’ s not like there weren ’ t tragedies involving young people and guns in the early 1990s .
In fact , the juvenile homicide rate reached an all-time high in 1993 , the same year that Dazed and Confused was released .
We ’ ve actually become a less violent society in the decades since , even as the number of guns in private hands has grown to more than 400-million .
What makes Affleck ’ s comments even more bizarre is the fact that the actor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past from acknowledging his gun ownership .
After confronting actress/wife Jennifer Garner ’ s stalker , Ben Affleck told the Hollywood Reporter that he owned several guns and had “ embraced ” them since dealing with the stalker .
“ It gave me a stronger sense of feeling protective about my family , ” he said .
“ There ’ s a lot of crazy , weird people out there .
It ’ s an ugly world.
” That was back in 2012 , when Affleck was an Obama-supporting gun owner who shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife and kids with a firearm if necessary .
Was he uncomfortable looking back at his Dazed and Confused days eight years ago , or is this a more recent development ?
It ’ s not like the world has become a less ugly place since then , and God knows we still have plenty of crazy , weird people out there .
I ’ m not sure what prompted Affleck ’ s change of heart , but it ’ s sad that he ’ s gone from a guy who could recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recreation to someone who can ’ t even acknowledge the fun that he had with friends at the gun range without expressing remorse and regret .

Back in the mid-1990s I had one of the greatest jobs that a young adult could hope to land: video store clerk. I wasn’t some corporate drone at Blockbuster either. I worked for a small mom-and-pop shop in Ft. Smith, Arkansas for a little more than a year, which happened to coincide with the release of the movie Dazed and Confused, which quickly became one of my all-time favorite comedies. The movie didn’t do so hot at the box office, but became a cult classic when it was released on VHS in March of 1994, and more than 20 years later the flick still has a loyal legion of fans.
In a new oral history of the making of the movie, Ben Affleck (who portrayed high school bully Fred O’Bannion) not-so-fondly recalls his experience in Austin, Texas, including the cast’s multiple trips to a local gun range.
“Texas had extremely lax gun laws and most of us came from states where it was next to impossible to buy guns,” Affleck explains. “Part of the newfound freedom being down there was a bunch of us bought guns and went shooting at ranges on weekends, which seemed fun and innocent at the time, but given the subsequent tragedies with young people and guns, it makes me uncomfortable to remember.”
Now, I know that Ben Affleck has been doing his best to be “woke” the past few years, but this is just sad. Going to the gun range with friends is fun and innocent. It was fun in 1992, when Dazed and Confused was filmed, and it’s still fun today.
It’s not like there weren’t tragedies involving young people and guns in the early 1990s. In fact, the juvenile homicide rate reached an all-time high in 1993, the same year that Dazed and Confused was released. We’ve actually become a less violent society in the decades since, even as the number of guns in private hands has grown to more than 400-million.
What makes Affleck’s comments even more bizarre is the fact that the actor hasn’t shied away in the past from acknowledging his gun ownership.
After confronting actress/wife Jennifer Garner’s stalker, Ben Affleck told the Hollywood Reporter that he owned several guns and had “embraced” them since dealing with the stalker. “It gave me a stronger sense of feeling protective about my family,” he said. “There’s a lot of crazy, weird people out there. It’s an ugly world.”
That was back in 2012, when Affleck was an Obama-supporting gun owner who shot skeet and was prepared to protect his wife and kids with a firearm if necessary. Was he uncomfortable looking back at his Dazed and Confused days eight years ago, or is this a more recent development?
It’s not like the world has become a less ugly place since then, and God knows we still have plenty of crazy, weird people out there.
I’m not sure what prompted Affleck’s change of heart, but it’s sad that he’s gone from a guy who could recognize the value of firearms for both self-defense and recreation to someone who can’t even acknowledge the fun that he had with friends at the gun range without expressing remorse and regret.


bearingarms--2020-11-26--The Guns Of Thanksgiving

The Guns Of Thanksgiving

While turkey will be on the table for most Americans today , millions of us will out in the field or up in a tree stand this today hoping to add some quality venison to our freezer .
Now , I ’ ve been filling in for Vince Coglianese on WMAL ’ s morning show all week , so I didn ’ t get a chance to get out this morning , but as the sun was peeking out over the treeline I heard the sharp crack of a rifle from my neighbor ’ s property ( thankfully we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
About twenty minutes later I heard three more shots , this time across the creek on the north end of my property , and when I ran to the grocery store after I got off the air at 9 o ’ clock the parking lot of the one open convenience store in my small town was packed with pickup trucks and men , women , and children in their camo jackets and blaze orange hats .
Hunting on Thanksgiving is a longtime tradition for many of us , but this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the field for the first time , or at least the first time in years .
In Michigan , for instance , the number of deer hunting licenses has grown by more than 25 % compared to 2019 , and the overall hunting numbers have more than doubled .
The increase in hunters is good as particularly when it comes to deer hunting , there have been fewer hunters in recent years as older people “ age out ” and fewer younger people don ’ t have the time or may have other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manage and cull the state ’ s estimated 1.7 million deer population .
“ We ’ re very excited about this , ” said Kristin Phillips , chief of marketing and outreach for the Michigan DNR .
“ I ’ m trying to keep my expectations in check.
” The Michigan DNR reports that the number of first-time hunters has nearly doubled since 2019 , which includes a surge in hunting licenses for both youth and women .
What ’ s driving the increase ?
There are a few factors at work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus closures has likely led to more Americans hunting for quality protein for their freezer .
Some fish and game officials have noted that hunting licenses tend to go up when there is high unemployment , and the current jobless rate of 6.9 % is nearly double what it was in November of last year .
The lockdowns mandated by many governors have also resulted in more Americans getting outside .
Camping , fishing , and other outdoor recreational activities have increased throughout the year , so the rise in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader trend .
Whether this is a one-year spike or the start of a new renaissance remains to be seen , but my hope is that those who ’ ve gotten a taste of the hunting experience ( not to mention the taste of some freshly grilled backstrap ) will keep them coming back for more in the years ahead .

While turkey will be on the table for most Americans today, millions of us will out in the field or up in a tree stand this today hoping to add some quality venison to our freezer. Now, I’ve been filling in for Vince Coglianese on WMAL’s morning show all week, so I didn’t get a chance to get out this morning, but as the sun was peeking out over the treeline I heard the sharp crack of a rifle from my neighbor’s property (thankfully we were in a commercial break at the time).
About twenty minutes later I heard three more shots, this time across the creek on the north end of my property, and when I ran to the grocery store after I got off the air at 9 o’clock the parking lot of the one open convenience store in my small town was packed with pickup trucks and men, women, and children in their camo jackets and blaze orange hats.
Hunting on Thanksgiving is a longtime tradition for many of us, but this year more Americans seem to be taking to the field for the first time, or at least the first time in years. In Michigan, for instance, the number of deer hunting licenses has grown by more than 25% compared to 2019, and the overall hunting numbers have more than doubled.
The increase in hunters is good as particularly when it comes to deer hunting, there have been fewer hunters in recent years as older people “age out” and fewer younger people don’t have the time or may have other priorities. The DNR relies on hunters to manage and cull the state’s estimated 1.7 million deer population. “We’re very excited about this,” said Kristin Phillips, chief of marketing and outreach for the Michigan DNR. “I’m trying to keep my expectations in check.”
The Michigan DNR reports that the number of first-time hunters has nearly doubled since 2019, which includes a surge in hunting licenses for both youth and women.
People ages 10-16 drove a 144% increase in license sales across all hunting species, while the number of female hunters has risen nearly 25%. Michiganders also bought 9% more fishing licenses this year, with the total number of new anglers rising 42%, said Dustin Isenhoff, DNR marketing specialist. These numbers are a sharp contrast to a downward trend in hunting license sales both in state and nationwide over the past several decades, as baby-boomers are spending less time hunting, and younger generations opt not to pursue the sport.
What’s driving the increase? There are a few factors at work here. First, the economic impact of the coronavirus closures has likely led to more Americans hunting for quality protein for their freezer. Some fish and game officials have noted that hunting licenses tend to go up when there is high unemployment, and the current jobless rate of 6.9% is nearly double what it was in November of last year.
The lockdowns mandated by many governors have also resulted in more Americans getting outside. Camping, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities have increased throughout the year, so the rise in the number of hunters is part of a broader trend. Whether this is a one-year spike or the start of a new renaissance remains to be seen, but my hope is that those who’ve gotten a taste of the hunting experience (not to mention the taste of some freshly grilled backstrap) will keep them coming back for more in the years ahead.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Third Circuit Upholds NJ Mag Ban; Next Stop SCOTUS?

There are actually two separate cases dealing with Second Amendment challenges to federal and state gun laws have been decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in recent days , and now the next stop for both lawsuits will be the Supreme Court .
Though there ’ s no guarantee that SCOTUS will accept either case , much less both of them , the questions raised in the lawsuits will provide justices the opportunity to substantively address two issues that could impact tens of millions of gun owners , as well as hundreds of thousands of Americans who might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms but are currently barred from doing so .
The first case is called Folajtar vs. United States , and according to legal analyst Jonathan Turley , it seems like litigation that ’ s almost sure to pique the interest of Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
The Third Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm .
The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns .
The plea led to a sentence of three-years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home confinement , a $ 10,000 fine , and a $ 100 assessment .
She also paid the IRS over $ 250,000 in back taxes , penalties , and interest .
The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008 .
The Supreme Court recognized that this is not an “ unlimited ” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “ law-abiding , responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
” Moreover , the Court ruled two years later that Heller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longstanding regulatory measures as ‘ prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.
’ ” The question is whether this means any and all felons , even those never accused of violent acts .
The law at issue is 18 U.S.C .
§ 922 ( g ) ( 1 ) .
Originally , in 1938 , the Congress prohibited only gun ownership to those who were convicted of “ crimes of violence.
” That limited the denial of gun ownership to those convicted of murder , manslaughter , rape , mayhem , kidnapping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of aggravated assault .
That changed in the 1960s when Congress expanded the bar on gun ownership .
That however was long before the Heller decision recognized gun ownership as an individual constitutional right .
As Turley goes on to explain , Folajtar is in essence making the same argument that another felon named Rickey Kanter used to try to regain his Second Amendment rights in a case that Barrett heard while serving on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals .
In that case , Barrett was in the minority when she opined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felons to lose their right to keep and bear arms permanently .
Instead , she argued that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment limits the loss of rights only to those determined to be “ dangerous.
” Now that Barrett ’ s on the Supreme Court , it seems likely that she ’ d want to accept a case like this , and she could soon get her chance .
The other case coming out of the Third Circuit is a challenge to New Jersey ’ s ban on the possession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ten rounds .
New Jersey ’ s law is functionally identical to California ’ s magazine ban , which is also facing a court challenge , but the New Jersey case may get to SCOTUS ahead of it .
Earlier this week the Third Circuit denied an en banc review of a 2-1 decision upholding the ban , and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs , which brought the lawsuit , is now free to appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case .
The California magazine case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently in the Ninth Circuit , and has been accepted for an en banc review , but oral arguments in the case have yet to take place .
As it stands , the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California ’ s ban violates the Constitution , while the Third Circuit has said New Jersey ’ s nearly identical ban is just fine .
The Supreme Court typically wants to see a split like this in the appellate courts before they agree to hear a case , so that could up the odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vs. Grewal when and if the plaintiffs appeal to the high Court .

There are actually two separate cases dealing with Second Amendment challenges to federal and state gun laws have been decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in recent days, and now the next stop for both lawsuits will be the Supreme Court. Though there’s no guarantee that SCOTUS will accept either case, much less both of them, the questions raised in the lawsuits will provide justices the opportunity to substantively address two issues that could impact tens of millions of gun owners, as well as hundreds of thousands of Americans who might like to exercise their right to keep and bear arms but are currently barred from doing so.
The first case is called Folajtar vs. United States, and according to legal analyst Jonathan Turley, it seems like litigation that’s almost sure to pique the interest of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The Third Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm. The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns. The plea led to a sentence of three-years’ probation, including three months of home confinement, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 assessment. She also paid the IRS over $250,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest. The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008. The Supreme Court recognized that this is not an “unlimited” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Moreover, the Court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’” The question is whether this means any and all felons, even those never accused of violent acts. The law at issue is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Originally, in 1938, the Congress prohibited only gun ownership to those who were convicted of “crimes of violence.” That limited the denial of gun ownership to those convicted of murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, burglary, housebreaking and various types of aggravated assault. That changed in the 1960s when Congress expanded the bar on gun ownership. That however was long before the Heller decision recognized gun ownership as an individual constitutional right.
As Turley goes on to explain, Folajtar is in essence making the same argument that another felon named Rickey Kanter used to try to regain his Second Amendment rights in a case that Barrett heard while serving on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, Barrett was in the minority when she opined that the Founders never intended for all felons to lose their right to keep and bear arms permanently. Instead, she argued that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment limits the loss of rights only to those determined to be “dangerous.”
Now that Barrett’s on the Supreme Court, it seems likely that she’d want to accept a case like this, and she could soon get her chance.
The other case coming out of the Third Circuit is a challenge to New Jersey’s ban on the possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. New Jersey’s law is functionally identical to California’s magazine ban, which is also facing a court challenge, but the New Jersey case may get to SCOTUS ahead of it.
Earlier this week the Third Circuit denied an en banc review of a 2-1 decision upholding the ban, and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, which brought the lawsuit, is now free to appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case. The California magazine case, known as Duncan vs. Becerra, is currently in the Ninth Circuit, and has been accepted for an en banc review, but oral arguments in the case have yet to take place.
As it stands, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California’s ban violates the Constitution, while the Third Circuit has said New Jersey’s nearly identical ban is just fine. The Supreme Court typically wants to see a split like this in the appellate courts before they agree to hear a case, so that could up the odds of four justices opting to accept ANJRPC vs. Grewal when and if the plaintiffs appeal to the high Court.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Even Cuomo Recognizes Media Bias, It Seems

Longtime readers here at Bearing Arms will know that I don ’ t have a lot of love for the governor of New York .
After all , the man has launched a personal jihad against gun manufacturers , trying to use his influence over the finance industry in an effort to undermine our Second Amendment rights via the back door .
And yet , if the man actually does something right , I like to think I ’ m man enough to acknowledge it .
Well , he did .
The governor took aim at members of the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and openly disrespecting the president at press conferences .
“ The way they question President Trump at some of these press conferences is just — I ’ ve never heard that tone with the president , ” the New York governor told WAMC host Alan Chartock on Monday .
When Chartock countered with , “ Well , he deserves it , doesn ’ t he ?
, ” Cuomo doubled down .
“ Well , yeah , except there ’ s supposed to be a decorum to the institution , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Well I don ’ t like the president and I disrespect him.
’ I know .
But it ’ s still the office of the president.
” Cuomo even commented that if someone had done that with his father , three-term Governor Mario Cuomo , then they ’ d have likely gotten decked for their rudeness .
To date , Trump hasn ’ t punched anyone , just mocked them .
Of course , it sucks that this comes after the election , but Cuomo is right .
Trump has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president has been forced to endure .
Cuomo when on to acknowledge the media ’ s bias against the president .
It ’ s only too bad that Cuomo hasn ’ t recognized that the bias goes beyond the president .
For some time now , most of the media has decided it isn ’ t just supposed to report on events , but it ’ s supposed to shape the future .
It ’ s not enough to tell people what happened , they ’ re supposed to tell them how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why it ’ s rare to find a pro-gun story beyond the local level , for example .
The national media has an anti-gun tilt and they ’ re not interested in presenting a balanced few of the issue .
They want people afraid of guns so they can pressure politicians into making guns go away .
See , the media can shape the narrative , but despite what some on the left think , there is an objective reality that isn ’ t going to be shaped by how people perceive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make guns disappear , for example , simply because the media says guns will disappear .
Their bias and reality aren ’ t necessarily similar .
It would be nice if Governor Cuomo recognized that the media ’ s bias has shaped a lot of perceptions about a great many issues , including guns .
However , that would likely require him to reexamine his own actions as governor , something I suspect he ’ s unlikely to consider just now .
Still , it ’ s refreshing to see a Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
Of all the people who would do it first , I never pegged Cuomo for it .
Good on him , though .

Longtime readers here at Bearing Arms will know that I don’t have a lot of love for the governor of New York. After all, the man has launched a personal jihad against gun manufacturers, trying to use his influence over the finance industry in an effort to undermine our Second Amendment rights via the back door.
Yeah, that’s a problem for me.
And yet, if the man actually does something right, I like to think I’m man enough to acknowledge it.
Well, he did.
The governor took aim at members of the media for taking on a “nastier tone” and openly disrespecting the president at press conferences. “The way they question President Trump at some of these press conferences is just — I’ve never heard that tone with the president,” the New York governor told WAMC host Alan Chartock on Monday. When Chartock countered with, “Well, he deserves it, doesn’t he?,” Cuomo doubled down. “Well, yeah, except there’s supposed to be a decorum to the institution,” he said. “You want to say, ‘Well I don’t like the president and I disrespect him.’ I know. But it’s still the office of the president.”
Cuomo even commented that if someone had done that with his father, three-term Governor Mario Cuomo, then they’d have likely gotten decked for their rudeness.
To date, Trump hasn’t punched anyone, just mocked them.
Of course, it sucks that this comes after the election, but Cuomo is right. Trump has had an openly hostile media that no other president has been forced to endure. Cuomo when on to acknowledge the media’s bias against the president.
It’s only too bad that Cuomo hasn’t recognized that the bias goes beyond the president.
For some time now, most of the media has decided it isn’t just supposed to report on events, but it’s supposed to shape the future. It’s not enough to tell people what happened, they’re supposed to tell them how to feel about it too.
That’s why it’s rare to find a pro-gun story beyond the local level, for example. The national media has an anti-gun tilt and they’re not interested in presenting a balanced few of the issue. They want people afraid of guns so they can pressure politicians into making guns go away.
Only, they won’t.
See, the media can shape the narrative, but despite what some on the left think, there is an objective reality that isn’t going to be shaped by how people perceive it. You’re not going to make guns disappear, for example, simply because the media says guns will disappear. Their bias and reality aren’t necessarily similar.
It would be nice if Governor Cuomo recognized that the media’s bias has shaped a lot of perceptions about a great many issues, including guns. However, that would likely require him to reexamine his own actions as governor, something I suspect he’s unlikely to consider just now.
Still, it’s refreshing to see a Democrat acknowledge a left-leaning bias to the news media. Of all the people who would do it first, I never pegged Cuomo for it.
Good on him, though.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Six Holiday Gift Ideas For The Gun Owner In Your Life

With more than 7-million new gun owners in the United States joining the 100-million or so of us who already own firearms , chances are you know someone ( maybe even you ) who could use one of the items on our list .
I ’ ll be putting together a few of these gift guides over the next couple of weeks with different themes , but this time around I ’ m going to keep it simple and straightforward and go with things that are on my own personal wish list .
Orca Tactical Gun Range Bag – A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any gun owner ’ s gear , and the Orca Tactical Gun Range Bag is a solid choice that blends functionality and durability with a price tag that won ’ t break the bank .
The range bag is large enough to fit three pistols and multiple magazines , and with 13 different interior and exterior pockets offers plenty of room for ammo , ear and eye protection , and other accessories .
The bag is made out of 600d water-and-scratch resistant polyester , and is constructed with double stitching on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and secure .
The fast access side compartments also come with lockable YYZ zippers for extra security and peace of mind .
Personally , I generally prefer a carry on-style bag , but if you ’ re looking for a backpack range bag the Case Club Tactical 2nd Generation 4-Pistol Backpack is a great choice .
The main compartment can hold 4 pistols , and the zippers to the compartment are lockable as well for extra security .
Two side pockets can store up to six ammunition magazines , while the pack also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can attach what you can ’ t pack in the bag on the exterior .
The backpack even comes with a pull-out rain cover to protect the contents in case of an unexpected deluge .
Allen Company Ultimate Universal Weapon Gun Cleaning Kit – You can find gun cleaning kits that cost less than the Ultimate Universal Weapon Gun Cleaning Kit by Allen Company , but this rugged tool box comes stuffed with 65 cleaning tools that each have their own fitted compartment with the item ’ s name or size to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re looking for .
With cleaning tools for 12 gauge , 20 gauge , .410 bore shotguns , as well as standard rifle and pistol calibers , you should be able to keep all of your guns clean with the tools provided , though some buyers have complained that the 30″ length of the rods isn ’ t long enough for some of their rifles .
The rods themselves are made of brass , which is a much softer material compared to more expensive carbon or fiberglass cleaning rods , but for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work just fine .
Rothco Concealed Carry 3 Season Jacket – With nearly 20-million Americans possessing a license to carry a firearm , concealed carry clothing has become a pretty big industry over the past few years , and you can find everything from vests to yoga pants that will keep your gun secure while on the go .
I like the Rothco Concealed Carry 3 Season Jacket for several reasons .
First , as the name indicates , this jacket is comfortable enough to wear from fall to spring , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polyester inner lining .
The coat also has two large inner concealment pockets on each side , which is great for left-handed gun owners like myself , and both sides of the jacket have four magazine holders with hook and loop flap closures for easy access .
The jacket also comes in sizes up to 5X , so no matter how big , tall , short , or small you might be , you ’ ll be able to find the right fit for you .
Now , these last two items aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but if you ’ re shopping for someone who loves the outdoors I think they ’ d be thrilled with either one of these as a gift this holiday season .
GTHUNDER Night Vision Binoculars – Night vision binoculars , monoculars , and goggles can come with a hefty price tag , but the GTHUNDER GT-02 binoculars offer quality performance at a pretty reasonable price .
The binoculars offer 3x optical zoom and 4x digital zoom , while also allowing you to take pictures and even 30 FPS video that you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or through a 32GB SD card that comes included .
You can also view your photos and videos directly on the viewscreen of the binoculars .
Running on 6 AA batteries , the GTHUNDER Night Vision Binoculars provide seven different IR settings that you can use depending on the available light level , and promise to provide visibility up to 984 feet .
The biggest drawback to the GTHUNDER is that it can ’ t use rechargeable batteries , so you ’ ll need to keep some spares on hand , but unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binoculars for hours each night , it shouldn ’ t be that much of an issue .
Fiskars 29-inch Machete Axe – Last year I picked up a Fiskars shovel for use around the farm , and I ’ ve been very impressed with the quality of the construction and the materials .
The Fiskar Machete Axe is a great multi-purpose tool that can help you clear away underbrush and saplings , and the hooked blade is perfect for pulling up roots as well as splitting small branches or suckers ( though I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you want something to help you split logs for firewood ) .
The Fiskars Machete Axe comes with a lifetime warranty , a nylon sheath , and comes with a rust-resistant , low-friction coating that will help keep your blade in good shape for years to come .
We ’ ll have even more gift ideas in the coming days and weeks , including stocking stuffers and kid-friendly items , but hopefully this will provide a starting point for shopping for the gun owners in your life.. including yourself !

With more than 7-million new gun owners in the United States joining the 100-million or so of us who already own firearms, chances are you know someone (maybe even you) who could use one of the items on our list. I’ll be putting together a few of these gift guides over the next couple of weeks with different themes, but this time around I’m going to keep it simple and straightforward and go with things that are on my own personal wish list.
Orca Tactical Gun Range Bag – A good range bag is an invaluable part of any gun owner’s gear, and the Orca Tactical Gun Range Bag is a solid choice that blends functionality and durability with a price tag that won’t break the bank. The range bag is large enough to fit three pistols and multiple magazines, and with 13 different interior and exterior pockets offers plenty of room for ammo, ear and eye protection, and other accessories.
The bag is made out of 600d water-and-scratch resistant polyester, and is constructed with double stitching on all stress points to keep your gear dry and secure. The fast access side compartments also come with lockable YYZ zippers for extra security and peace of mind.
Personally, I generally prefer a carry on-style bag, but if you’re looking for a backpack range bag the Case Club Tactical 2nd Generation 4-Pistol Backpack is a great choice. The main compartment can hold 4 pistols, and the zippers to the compartment are lockable as well for extra security. Two side pockets can store up to six ammunition magazines, while the pack also comes equipped with Molle straps so you can attach what you can’t pack in the bag on the exterior. The backpack even comes with a pull-out rain cover to protect the contents in case of an unexpected deluge.
Allen Company Ultimate Universal Weapon Gun Cleaning Kit – You can find gun cleaning kits that cost less than the Ultimate Universal Weapon Gun Cleaning Kit by Allen Company, but this rugged tool box comes stuffed with 65 cleaning tools that each have their own fitted compartment with the item’s name or size to help you easily find the tool you’re looking for. With cleaning tools for 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .410 bore shotguns, as well as standard rifle and pistol calibers, you should be able to keep all of your guns clean with the tools provided, though some buyers have complained that the 30″ length of the rods isn’t long enough for some of their rifles. The rods themselves are made of brass, which is a much softer material compared to more expensive carbon or fiberglass cleaning rods, but for the hobbyist or new gun owner they should work just fine.
Rothco Concealed Carry 3 Season Jacket – With nearly 20-million Americans possessing a license to carry a firearm, concealed carry clothing has become a pretty big industry over the past few years, and you can find everything from vests to yoga pants that will keep your gun secure while on the go. I like the Rothco Concealed Carry 3 Season Jacket for several reasons.
First, as the name indicates, this jacket is comfortable enough to wear from fall to spring, with a 100% cotton outer shell and a polyester inner lining. The coat also has two large inner concealment pockets on each side, which is great for left-handed gun owners like myself, and both sides of the jacket have four magazine holders with hook and loop flap closures for easy access.
The jacket also comes in sizes up to 5X, so no matter how big, tall, short, or small you might be, you’ll be able to find the right fit for you.
Now, these last two items aren’t necessarily specific to gun owners, but if you’re shopping for someone who loves the outdoors I think they’d be thrilled with either one of these as a gift this holiday season.
GTHUNDER Night Vision Binoculars – Night vision binoculars, monoculars, and goggles can come with a hefty price tag, but the GTHUNDER GT-02 binoculars offer quality performance at a pretty reasonable price. The binoculars offer 3x optical zoom and 4x digital zoom, while also allowing you to take pictures and even 30 FPS video that you can upload to your computer from the binoculars or through a 32GB SD card that comes included. You can also view your photos and videos directly on the viewscreen of the binoculars.
Running on 6 AA batteries, the GTHUNDER Night Vision Binoculars provide seven different IR settings that you can use depending on the available light level, and promise to provide visibility up to 984 feet. The biggest drawback to the GTHUNDER is that it can’t use rechargeable batteries, so you’ll need to keep some spares on hand, but unless you’re planning on using the binoculars for hours each night, it shouldn’t be that much of an issue.
Fiskars 29-inch Machete Axe – Last year I picked up a Fiskars shovel for use around the farm, and I’ve been very impressed with the quality of the construction and the materials. The Fiskar Machete Axe is a great multi-purpose tool that can help you clear away underbrush and saplings, and the hooked blade is perfect for pulling up roots as well as splitting small branches or suckers (though I’d go with a two-handed axe if you want something to help you split logs for firewood).
The Fiskars Machete Axe comes with a lifetime warranty, a nylon sheath, and comes with a rust-resistant, low-friction coating that will help keep your blade in good shape for years to come.
We’ll have even more gift ideas in the coming days and weeks, including stocking stuffers and kid-friendly items, but hopefully this will provide a starting point for shopping for the gun owners in your life.. including yourself!


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Alabama Cop Who Shot Armed Citizen Didn't Issue Any Warnings

The police officer who shot and killed an Alabama man who was responding to a shooting at a mall in 2018 has acknowledged he failed to activate his body camera or issue a verbal warning to the armed citizen before opening fire , but says that he “ acted reasonably and consistently under fast moving circumstances ” and should be immune from a civil lawsuit filed over the death .
The new details in the case emerged in a response to the civil lawsuit filed by the officer ’ s attorneys and offer some additional information about the chaotic scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2018 .
EJ Bradford was at the mall when gunshots rang out that afternoon .
The 21-year old Bradford , according to attorneys representing his family , initially tried to flee from the gunshots , but turned back and ran towards the sound of the gunfire when he realized that someone had been hit and injured .
Bradford , who possessed an Alabama carry permit , drew his gun as he approached the wounded man , identified as 18-year old Brian Wilson , in order to protect Wilson and others from any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer David Alexander and one other officer whose name has not been publicly released arrived at the scene of the shooting seconds later it took place .
Alexander , spotting Bradford with a gun in his hand , fired four rounds from his service pistol , striking Bradford multiple times .
Alexander ’ s shooting of Bradford was deemed to be justified by the Alabama Attorney General ’ s office in February of 2019 , but Bradford ’ s mother , April Pipkins , filed a civil lawsuit shortly after the decision was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been talking quite a bit recently about the conflict between qualified immunity for police officers and our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms , and the Bradford case is another example of the legal system placing law enforcement over armed citizens .
No one alleges that Bradford was the one responsible for shooting Brian Wilson .
In fact , no one ’ s alleged that Wilson committed a crime at all .
The position of the Alabama AG and the Hoover police appears to be that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the shooter by Alexander .
The fact that Alexander acknowledges that he never issued a verbal command to Bradford to drop his weapon or gave him a warning before firing , however , is important .
I can understand forgetting to turn on your body camera in the seconds between hearing gunshots and arriving at the scene of the shooting , but the fact that Alexander shot Bradford without first telling him to drop his weapon is troubling , to say the least .
Alexander ’ s attorneys argue that the officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary and justified under the circumstances at that time , ” but I disagree .
Clearly the actions weren ’ t necessary , since an innocent man was killed while the actual suspect had already fled the scene and wouldn ’ t be arrested until almost a week had passed .
Given the fact that Bradford had no warning before he was shot and killed , I also have to disagree with the assertion that Alexander ’ s actions were reasonable and justified .
We ’ ll see what the courts have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to get the civil case dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity , and a judge could issue a ruling soon that will determine if the litigation can proceed or if EJ Bradford ’ s death will go unchallenged in a court of law .

The police officer who shot and killed an Alabama man who was responding to a shooting at a mall in 2018 has acknowledged he failed to activate his body camera or issue a verbal warning to the armed citizen before opening fire, but says that he “acted reasonably and consistently under fast moving circumstances” and should be immune from a civil lawsuit filed over the death.
The new details in the case emerged in a response to the civil lawsuit filed by the officer’s attorneys and offer some additional information about the chaotic scene at the Riverchase Galleria on November 22nd, 2018.
EJ Bradford was at the mall when gunshots rang out that afternoon. The 21-year old Bradford, according to attorneys representing his family, initially tried to flee from the gunshots, but turned back and ran towards the sound of the gunfire when he realized that someone had been hit and injured.
Bradford, who possessed an Alabama carry permit, drew his gun as he approached the wounded man, identified as 18-year old Brian Wilson, in order to protect Wilson and others from any further attack. Instead, Hoover police officer David Alexander and one other officer whose name has not been publicly released arrived at the scene of the shooting seconds later it took place. Alexander, spotting Bradford with a gun in his hand, fired four rounds from his service pistol, striking Bradford multiple times.
In his answer to the lawsuit on Aug. 13, Alexander agreed there was no body camera activation. But the attorneys point out he had only seconds to respond. “Alexander admits that at the time of the Wilson shooting, he was wearing a body camera provided by the City of Hoover, and did not activate the camera in the three seconds after hearing gunshots and before shooting EJ Bradford.” He also said he fired the fatal shots. “Alexander admits that, upon observing EJ Bradford with a handgun moving toward Wilson and a second person who was leaning over Wilson, he fired four rounds from a Glock 19X 9mm pistol at EJ Bradford.” Also, despite witnesses who had initially said they heard warnings issued by officers, Alexander stated in his answer that he has no recollection of a verbal warning were made before the shooting. “Alexander admits that he has no recollection of issuing a verbal warning or command to EJ Bradford in the few seconds after shooting began and before EJ Bradford was shot,” Alexander’s attorneys wrote. But Alexander denied he violated any standard police procedure or training. Alexander’s attorneys emphasized the condensed time frame of events. “Alexander admits that, in the two seconds it took him to fire four bullets, all within less than three seconds after hearing shots fired in a crowded mall filled with innocent shoppers, EJ Bradford was moving towards two persons as if ready to fire.” Only one officer fired his weapon. “Alexander admits that the police officer with him did not fire his handgun,” the defendants said. “Alexander admits that the shooting of Wilson by Erron Brown occurred within three seconds before EJ Bradford was shot.”
Alexander’s shooting of Bradford was deemed to be justified by the Alabama Attorney General’s office in February of 2019, but Bradford’s mother, April Pipkins, filed a civil lawsuit shortly after the decision was released.
Here at Bearing Arms we’ve been talking quite a bit recently about the conflict between qualified immunity for police officers and our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms, and the Bradford case is another example of the legal system placing law enforcement over armed citizens. No one alleges that Bradford was the one responsible for shooting Brian Wilson. In fact, no one’s alleged that Wilson committed a crime at all. The position of the Alabama AG and the Hoover police appears to be that it was just bad luck that Bradford was mistaken for the shooter by Alexander.
The fact that Alexander acknowledges that he never issued a verbal command to Bradford to drop his weapon or gave him a warning before firing, however, is important. I can understand forgetting to turn on your body camera in the seconds between hearing gunshots and arriving at the scene of the shooting, but the fact that Alexander shot Bradford without first telling him to drop his weapon is troubling, to say the least.
Alexander’s attorneys argue that the officer’s actions were “reasonable, necessary and justified under the circumstances at that time,” but I disagree. Clearly the actions weren’t necessary, since an innocent man was killed while the actual suspect had already fled the scene and wouldn’t be arrested until almost a week had passed. Given the fact that Bradford had no warning before he was shot and killed, I also have to disagree with the assertion that Alexander’s actions were reasonable and justified.
We’ll see what the courts have to say. Alexander’s attorneys are trying to get the civil case dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity, and a judge could issue a ruling soon that will determine if the litigation can proceed or if EJ Bradford’s death will go unchallenged in a court of law.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Writing In Trump For GA Senate Is Dumbest Idea Ever

Politics attracts a lot of stupid ideas .
Communism and socialism , for example .
However , there ’ s an idea that seems to be popping up that is absolutely baffling in its outright stupidity .
It seems that many Trump supporters are upset with some here in Georgia .
After all , there were some irregularities there in Georgia ’ s voting and it seems to many that our Republican leadership isn ’ t taking those irregularities seriously .
Now , that ’ s not the stupid part .
On the contrary , I get it .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t at least some effort to take a critical look and make sure our electoral process is secure .
The stupid part is how some people are responding to it .
You see , they think Republicans here in Georgia should lash out by writing in Trump for the Georgia Senate races .
Of course , it should be noted that in Georgia runoffs , there ’ s not the possibility of writing in Trump .
After all , there ’ s not even a line allocated for a write-in candidate because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoff between two candidates .
However , others seem to be encouraging Trump supporters to just outright skip voting in the runoff at all .
To be fair , this smacks of a false-flag kind of thing .
Someone pretends to be Republican and calls for this , only they ’ re not and they ’ re hoping Trump supporters are too stupid to see through their antics .
Yet it seems that at least some Trump supporters are really down with this plan .
Now , as a long-time libertarian , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these people remember this whole “ they ’ re not entitled to our votes ” the next time they claim the Libertarian Party ’ s candidate is the reason they lost an election .
It should be noted that some who support this plan seem to think it ’ s more than just punishing Georgia Republicans , but that writing in Trump can actually hand the White House to Trump .
That might be dumber , and not just because it ’ s not physically possible .
However , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ’ s the ramifications of this brand of stupidity .
Right now , Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are locked in a battle that has ramifications for our entire country .
If they lose , then we ’ re looking at a Democrat-controlled House , a Democrat in the White House , and a 50-50 split in the Senate with the Democrat vice president casting the deciding vote .
I don ’ t know about you , but that ’ s not exactly making me feel as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Understand , I get being upset because you think President Trump is getting a raw deal .
I get wanting to punish those you feel are responsible .
However , who really gets punished with this approach ?
Neither Perdue nor Loeffler had anything to do with certifying elections .
Arguably , if there was any fraud , they ’ re likely the victims of it as well .
Why punish them over this ?
And what about the rest of the country ?
This race has serious national implications .
Handing Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous for any conservative or libertarian value you care to name .
Is it really that important to the petulant children out there that they get their way ?
And yes , that ’ s precisely what we ’ re looking at here : Children having a temper tantrum because they didn ’ t get their way .
They might have had an initial point , but now it ’ s getting lost in the crying .
If you want to punish the governor and secretary of state here in Georgia , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Primary them .
Beat them in two years and make it clear why they ’ re being beaten .
Put them out of office so everyone gets the message loud and clear .
That ’ s how you teach lessons in politics .
You don ’ t flop on the ground and cry and screw everyone else in the nation over because things didn ’ t work out like you wanted .
Believe me , the only one who will learn a lesson that way is the Biden administration , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy .

Politics attracts a lot of stupid ideas. Communism and socialism, for example.
However, there’s an idea that seems to be popping up that is absolutely baffling in its outright stupidity. It seems that many Trump supporters are upset with some here in Georgia. After all, there were some irregularities there in Georgia’s voting and it seems to many that our Republican leadership isn’t taking those irregularities seriously.
Now, that’s not the stupid part. On the contrary, I get it. I’m not happy that there wasn’t at least some effort to take a critical look and make sure our electoral process is secure.
The stupid part is how some people are responding to it. You see, they think Republicans here in Georgia should lash out by writing in Trump for the Georgia Senate races. Of course, it should be noted that in Georgia runoffs, there’s not the possibility of writing in Trump. After all, there’s not even a line allocated for a write-in candidate because, well, it’s a runoff between two candidates.
However, others seem to be encouraging Trump supporters to just outright skip voting in the runoff at all.
To be fair, this smacks of a false-flag kind of thing. Someone pretends to be Republican and calls for this, only they’re not and they’re hoping Trump supporters are too stupid to see through their antics.
Yet it seems that at least some Trump supporters are really down with this plan.
After the GOP BETRAYED our President on election night, now they expect Trump supporters to dutifully vote in the Georgia Senate Runoff so McConnell can keep his precious majority. They think they are entitled to our votes— THEY’RE NOT! Defend our President and you can earn it! — Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) November 23, 2020
Now, as a long-time libertarian, I’d really love to see some of these people remember this whole “they’re not entitled to our votes” the next time they claim the Libertarian Party’s candidate is the reason they lost an election.
It should be noted that some who support this plan seem to think it’s more than just punishing Georgia Republicans, but that writing in Trump can actually hand the White House to Trump. That might be dumber, and not just because it’s not physically possible.
However, there’s a more important point to make here, and that’s the ramifications of this brand of stupidity.
Right now, Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are locked in a battle that has ramifications for our entire country. If they lose, then we’re looking at a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat in the White House, and a 50-50 split in the Senate with the Democrat vice president casting the deciding vote.
I don’t know about you, but that’s not exactly making me feel as if all is right with the world.
Understand, I get being upset because you think President Trump is getting a raw deal. I get wanting to punish those you feel are responsible. However, who really gets punished with this approach?
Neither Perdue nor Loeffler had anything to do with certifying elections. Arguably, if there was any fraud, they’re likely the victims of it as well. Why punish them over this?
And what about the rest of the country? This race has serious national implications. Handing Democrats effective control over the Senate would be disastrous for any conservative or libertarian value you care to name. Is it really that important to the petulant children out there that they get their way? And yes, that’s precisely what we’re looking at here: Children having a temper tantrum because they didn’t get their way. They might have had an initial point, but now it’s getting lost in the crying.
If you want to punish the governor and secretary of state here in Georgia, there’s a way to do it. Primary them. Beat them in two years and make it clear why they’re being beaten. Put them out of office so everyone gets the message loud and clear.
That’s how you teach lessons in politics. You don’t flop on the ground and cry and screw everyone else in the nation over because things didn’t work out like you wanted.
Believe me, the only one who will learn a lesson that way is the Biden administration, and it won’t be a lesson we enjoy.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--Proposed Rule Seeks To Stop Banks From Denying Services To Gun Industry

The Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury is one of those government agencies that few people have heard of , but a proposed rule put forth by the office could have a huge impact on the firearms industry .
Brian Brooks , the acting head of the office , wants to bar banks from denying services to businesses in industries that are viewed with disfavor by Democrats like oil and gas and firearms .
It ’ s a great idea , as far as I ’ m concerned , because we ’ ve seen efforts like Operation Choke Point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) used to bully banks into dropping relationships with gun companies and even independent gun stores .
One of the problems with the new proposed rule , however , is that there ’ s likely going to be a new administration in a couple of months , and typically it takes far longer for a rule to go through the public comment period before it ’ s adopted and rejected .
Brooks wants to expedite the public comment period for this new rule , but gun control groups and lobbyists for the banking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Mr. Brooks has achieved the rare feat of uniting progressive groups and Wall Street lobbyists against the proposal , which addresses a long-time Republican talking point and has support among business groups in the affected industries .
“ We ’ re still digesting the oddity and enormity of this proposal , ” John Court , the top lawyer at the Bank Policy Institute , said in a statement .
Washington-based BPI and other banking industry groups wrote in a letter to the OCC dated Wednesday that the comment deadline comes too soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that an additional 30 days would be warranted .
Court called the proposal “ a completely unworkable government mandate designed to address a particular political problem ” that would “ require every covered bank to offer every financial product to every business and consumer in the country.
” It sounds like Court has had enough time to study the proposal if he feels comfortable calling it “ completely unworkable , ” so I don ’ t buy his excuse about needing more time to study the issue .
What Court and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public comment period to the point that it will end after Joe Biden ’ s likely inauguration .
Once Biden ’ s in office , his administration could suspend or revoke the proposed rule , leaving huge financial institutions like Bank of America and Citigroup to continue to block access to their services for those working in the firearms industry .
Sounds awfully swampy , doesn ’ t it ?
By the way , Court is absolutely wrong about the proposed rule requiring banks to offer every financial product to every consumer or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
“ We ’ re not just talking about calls to ban firearms manufacturers or calls to de-bank fracking companies , ” Brooks said , according to American Banker .
“ We ’ re talking about calls to de-bank independent ATM operators , calls to de-bank Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations , calls to de-bank agricultural operations .
These things are not politically partisan.
” Under the proposal , banks could still deny services but would have to justify their reasoning by showing the person or business failed to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the bank in advance.
” The OCC said in the proposal the crux is not that banks are denying services to companies in a particular industry .
It ’ s that the reasoning is “ based on criteria unrelated to safe and sound banking practices , ” such as “ personal beliefs and opinions on matters of substantive policy that are more appropriately the purview of state and Federal legislatures , ” the agency said .
Besides the fight over the proposed rule , we may see a battle in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirm Brooks to a full five-year term in the OCC , but Biden could try to remove Brooks once he takes office , though he would have to rely on “ legal authority that has never been used , ” in the words of BankingDive.com ’ s Dan Ennis .
The Senate returns to work next week , and while a COVID-19 relief bill will be the biggest priority once they gavel in , I expect that Mitch McConnell will want to move fairly quickly to confirm Brooks to his position and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office with an anti-gun axe to grind .
In the meantime , if you ’ d like to comment on the proposed rule , you can submit your comment here .

The Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury is one of those government agencies that few people have heard of, but a proposed rule put forth by the office could have a huge impact on the firearms industry. Brian Brooks, the acting head of the office, wants to bar banks from denying services to businesses in industries that are viewed with disfavor by Democrats like oil and gas and firearms.
It’s a great idea, as far as I’m concerned, because we’ve seen efforts like Operation Choke Point (which began in the Obama administration) used to bully banks into dropping relationships with gun companies and even independent gun stores. One of the problems with the new proposed rule, however, is that there’s likely going to be a new administration in a couple of months, and typically it takes far longer for a rule to go through the public comment period before it’s adopted and rejected.
Brooks wants to expedite the public comment period for this new rule, but gun control groups and lobbyists for the banking industry are pushing back.
The move by Mr. Brooks has achieved the rare feat of uniting progressive groups and Wall Street lobbyists against the proposal, which addresses a long-time Republican talking point and has support among business groups in the affected industries. “We’re still digesting the oddity and enormity of this proposal,” John Court, the top lawyer at the Bank Policy Institute, said in a statement. Washington-based BPI and other banking industry groups wrote in a letter to the OCC dated Wednesday that the comment deadline comes too soon for them to sufficiently analyze the proposal, and that an additional 30 days would be warranted. Court called the proposal “a completely unworkable government mandate designed to address a particular political problem” that would “require every covered bank to offer every financial product to every business and consumer in the country.”
It sounds like Court has had enough time to study the proposal if he feels comfortable calling it “completely unworkable,” so I don’t buy his excuse about needing more time to study the issue. What Court and others really want is to extend the public comment period to the point that it will end after Joe Biden’s likely inauguration. Once Biden’s in office, his administration could suspend or revoke the proposed rule, leaving huge financial institutions like Bank of America and Citigroup to continue to block access to their services for those working in the firearms industry.
Sounds awfully swampy, doesn’t it? By the way, Court is absolutely wrong about the proposed rule requiring banks to offer every financial product to every consumer or business, as Brooks himself has made clear.
“We’re not just talking about calls to ban firearms manufacturers or calls to de-bank fracking companies,” Brooks said, according to American Banker. “We’re talking about calls to de-bank independent ATM operators, calls to de-bank Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations, calls to de-bank agricultural operations. These things are not politically partisan.” Under the proposal, banks could still deny services but would have to justify their reasoning by showing the person or business failed to meet “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards established by the bank in advance.” The OCC said in the proposal the crux is not that banks are denying services to companies in a particular industry. It’s that the reasoning is “based on criteria unrelated to safe and sound banking practices,” such as “personal beliefs and opinions on matters of substantive policy that are more appropriately the purview of state and Federal legislatures,” the agency said.
Besides the fight over the proposed rule, we may see a battle in the Senate as well. President Trump wants senators to confirm Brooks to a full five-year term in the OCC, but Biden could try to remove Brooks once he takes office, though he would have to rely on “legal authority that has never been used,” in the words of BankingDive.com’s Dan Ennis.
The Senate returns to work next week, and while a COVID-19 relief bill will be the biggest priority once they gavel in, I expect that Mitch McConnell will want to move fairly quickly to confirm Brooks to his position and deny Biden the opportunity to staff the office with an anti-gun axe to grind. In the meantime, if you’d like to comment on the proposed rule, you can submit your comment here.


bearingarms--2020-11-27--A Georgian Perspective On The Senate Runoff Races

The one thing I really didn ’ t see coming this year was two runoff races for Georgia ’ s Senate seats .
I expected Sen. Kelly Loeffler ’ s race to end in a runoff because that ’ s what typically happens when you have half a dozen or so candidates in a jungle primary .
No one is going to get 50 percent of the vote , so it goes to a run-off .
I didn ’ t expect Jon Ossoff ’ s challenge against Sen. David Perdue to go that direction , though .
Now we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really starting to get ugly .
Take , for example , the race between Sen. Loeffler and Rev .
Raphael Warnock .
Warnock responded to initial attacks by Loeffler with ads saying how the senator was calling names , but listing the thing he stands for .
Not specifics , of course , because “ affordable health care ” sounds better with many Georgians than “ I want to bring back the failed Obamacare policies that actually jacked up your insurance rates.
” You know , for example .
Meanwhile , just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on television , I hear a Warnock radio spot attacking Loeffler ’ s stock trades following a COVID briefing .
Now , I ’ ll admit , the trades never looked good .
However , it should be noted that the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee cleared her of any wrongdoing .
That is typically left out of Warnock ’ s attacks .
Understandably , of course .
Warnock is now claiming that Loeffler is taking quotes from his sermons out of context , as if there ’ s a context that makes some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other hand , we have Jon Ossoff , a man who has managed to fail his way into bigger and bigger campaigns over and over again .
Previously , he lost a House race to Karen Handel .
That ’ s a seat that eventually flipped Democrat when the district elected Rep. Lucy McBath just a couple of years later , but he ’ s got a shot at being a senator ?
Yet both of these men represent a threat to our gun rights , among other things .
While Warnock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any mention of guns , Everytown seems to like him .
They like Jon Ossoff , too , though at least Ossoff has the cajones to put that on his site .
Georgia has been a pro-gun state for some time .
We rejected Stacey Abrams and her radical anti-gun agenda just two years ago , and now the state is set to potentially elected two radical gun grabbers to the Senate .
And that ’ s terrifying considering just how close we are to handing the anti-gunners all they need to ram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throat .
Now we ’ re looking at a runoff for two races that , frankly , could determine the entire fate of the nation .
I know it sounds like hyperbole , but a 50-50 split in the Senate is potentially disastrous under current conditions .
Fortunately , it ’ s possible that the runoff won ’ t motivate Democrats nearly as much as Republicans .
After all , when you figure you have the House and the White House , you can feel pretty secure overall .
Republicans don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re likely to be more motivated this time around .
But , that ’ s not a guarantee , which means all eyes will be on Georgia politics for the next couple of months .

The one thing I really didn’t see coming this year was two runoff races for Georgia’s Senate seats. I expected Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s race to end in a runoff because that’s what typically happens when you have half a dozen or so candidates in a jungle primary. No one is going to get 50 percent of the vote, so it goes to a run-off.
I didn’t expect Jon Ossoff’s challenge against Sen. David Perdue to go that direction, though.
Now we’re here, and it’s really starting to get ugly.
Take, for example, the race between Sen. Loeffler and Rev. Raphael Warnock.
Warnock responded to initial attacks by Loeffler with ads saying how the senator was calling names, but listing the thing he stands for. Not specifics, of course, because “affordable health care” sounds better with many Georgians than “I want to bring back the failed Obamacare policies that actually jacked up your insurance rates.”
You know, for example.
Meanwhile, just a few minutes after seeing that very ad on television, I hear a Warnock radio spot attacking Loeffler’s stock trades following a COVID briefing.
Now, I’ll admit, the trades never looked good. However, it should be noted that the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee cleared her of any wrongdoing. That is typically left out of Warnock’s attacks. Understandably, of course.
Warnock is now claiming that Loeffler is taking quotes from his sermons out of context, as if there’s a context that makes some of those statements somehow better.
On the other hand, we have Jon Ossoff, a man who has managed to fail his way into bigger and bigger campaigns over and over again. Previously, he lost a House race to Karen Handel. That’s a seat that eventually flipped Democrat when the district elected Rep. Lucy McBath just a couple of years later, but he’s got a shot at being a senator?
Well, apparently.
Yet both of these men represent a threat to our gun rights, among other things. While Warnock’s campaign website is devoid of any mention of guns, Everytown seems to like him. They like Jon Ossoff, too, though at least Ossoff has the cajones to put that on his site.
Georgia has been a pro-gun state for some time. We rejected Stacey Abrams and her radical anti-gun agenda just two years ago, and now the state is set to potentially elected two radical gun grabbers to the Senate.
And that’s terrifying considering just how close we are to handing the anti-gunners all they need to ram their agenda down the nation’s throat. Now we’re looking at a runoff for two races that, frankly, could determine the entire fate of the nation. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but a 50-50 split in the Senate is potentially disastrous under current conditions.
Fortunately, it’s possible that the runoff won’t motivate Democrats nearly as much as Republicans. After all, when you figure you have the House and the White House, you can feel pretty secure overall. Republicans don’t have any delusions that they are. They’re likely to be more motivated this time around.
But, that’s not a guarantee, which means all eyes will be on Georgia politics for the next couple of months.