bearingarms--2020-07-23--Man Pulls Gun After Being Told To Wear Mask, Arrest Ensues

I ’ m not going to get into the great Mask Debate of 2020 here , but let ’ s start with this simple premise : no matter where you come down on the issue , don ’ t be a jerk about it .
If you ’ re wearing a mask in a store and you see someone who ’ s not , it ’ s not your business to try and scold them .
If you ’ re not wearing a mask and you see someone who is , it ’ s not your business to shame them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , and go on about your day .
It ’ s really not that hard .
Unfortunately , it does seem to be a bridge too far for some of us on both sides of the mask debate , and one recent argument in Florida has ended up with a concealed carry holder behind bars after he pulled his gun in a dispute over masks at a WalMart .
28-year old Vincent Scavetta is now charged with aggravated assault and improper display of a firearm in the incident .
According to investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shopper and his daughter in the electronics section after the shopper said Scavetta should be wearing a mask .
Scavetta then cursed at the shopper .
The father asked Scavetta not to curse in front of his daughter .
Scavetta told deputies the shopper got into his face and threatened him .
That ’ s when Scavetta pulled his Smith & Wesson .40 caliber semi-automatic weapon .
According to the report , Scavetta said he wore a face mask when he came into the store but took it off after he had trouble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scavetta said he knew he shouldn ’ t have cursed at the man .
He also said the little girl appeared to be scared when he pulled out his gun , but he felt the shopper planned to punch him .
Just like the case out of Michigan involving an argument in a Chipotle parking lot , there were plenty of opportunities for both parties here , including the concealed carry holder , to de-escalate the situation .
In this case , when Scavetta was scolded by the shopper , he could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t owe the shopper any explanation as to why he wasn ’ t wearing a mask , though he obviously could have shared that if he wanted to .
Instead though , Scavetta decided to respond by cursing at the guy , which ultimately led to him pulling the firearm .
I haven ’ t been able to find the surveillance video from WalMart , just a few still frames , so I have no idea if the unnamed shopper did get into Scavetta ’ s face and threatened him in any way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the shopper was going to punch him , but doesn ’ t say that the man actually articulated a threat to do so .
Even in a stand-your-ground state like Florida , you can meet force with force , but state law says that in order to do so the you must “ reasonably believe that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
” I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case .
Maybe the surveillance footage will clear Scavetta , but I ’ m guessing if that was the case he likely wouldn ’ t be facing charges to begin with .
It sounds like he wishes he handled the situation differently , and I don ’ t blame him .
Improper display of a firearm is a misdemeanor charge , but aggravated assault is a felony offense , and Scavetta could be looking at a couple of years in prison if he ’ s convicted .
It may be tough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment , but there ’ s no shortage of jackasses at the grocery store these days .
If you ’ re confronted or verbally harassed by one of them , just walk away .
A stranger scolding you for your mask habit is worthy of an eye-roll , but it ’ s not important to enough to risk going to jail .

I’m not going to get into the great Mask Debate of 2020 here, but let’s start with this simple premise: no matter where you come down on the issue, don’t be a jerk about it. If you’re wearing a mask in a store and you see someone who’s not, it’s not your business to try and scold them. If you’re not wearing a mask and you see someone who is, it’s not your business to shame them. Leave people alone, do your thing, and go on about your day. It’s really not that hard.
Unfortunately, it does seem to be a bridge too far for some of us on both sides of the mask debate, and one recent argument in Florida has ended up with a concealed carry holder behind bars after he pulled his gun in a dispute over masks at a WalMart. 28-year old Vincent Scavetta is now charged with aggravated assault and improper display of a firearm in the incident.
According to investigators, Scavetta pulled a gun on a shopper and his daughter in the electronics section after the shopper said Scavetta should be wearing a mask. Scavetta then cursed at the shopper. The father asked Scavetta not to curse in front of his daughter. Scavetta told deputies the shopper got into his face and threatened him. That’s when Scavetta pulled his Smith & Wesson .40 caliber semi-automatic weapon. Deputies said Scavetta told the shopper, “I’ll kill you.” According to the report, Scavetta said he wore a face mask when he came into the store but took it off after he had trouble breathing and his glasses fogged up. Scavetta said he knew he shouldn’t have cursed at the man. He also said the little girl appeared to be scared when he pulled out his gun, but he felt the shopper planned to punch him.
Just like the case out of Michigan involving an argument in a Chipotle parking lot, there were plenty of opportunities for both parties here, including the concealed carry holder, to de-escalate the situation. In this case, when Scavetta was scolded by the shopper, he could have simply walked away. He didn’t owe the shopper any explanation as to why he wasn’t wearing a mask, though he obviously could have shared that if he wanted to. Instead though, Scavetta decided to respond by cursing at the guy, which ultimately led to him pulling the firearm.
I haven’t been able to find the surveillance video from WalMart, just a few still frames, so I have no idea if the unnamed shopper did get into Scavetta’s face and threatened him in any way. Scavetta says he “felt” like the shopper was going to punch him, but doesn’t say that the man actually articulated a threat to do so. Even in a stand-your-ground state like Florida, you can meet force with force, but state law says that in order to do so the you must “reasonably believe that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” I’m not sure that would apply in this case.
Maybe the surveillance footage will clear Scavetta, but I’m guessing if that was the case he likely wouldn’t be facing charges to begin with. It sounds like he wishes he handled the situation differently, and I don’t blame him. Improper display of a firearm is a misdemeanor charge, but aggravated assault is a felony offense, and Scavetta could be looking at a couple of years in prison if he’s convicted.
It may be tough to find some items on your shopping list at the moment, but there’s no shortage of jackasses at the grocery store these days. If you’re confronted or verbally harassed by one of them, just walk away. A stranger scolding you for your mask habit is worthy of an eye-roll, but it’s not important to enough to risk going to jail.


bearingarms--2020-07-23--Media Ignores Bias Of The Trace

Media Ignores Bias Of The Trace

When it comes to The Trace , anyone who cares to look can see their biases .
After all , they ’ re funded by Michael Bloomberg and their journalism almost universally takes an anti-gun lean .
While they claim to be “ an independent , nonpartisan , nonprofit newsroom dedicated to shining a light on America ’ s gun violence crisis , ” we all know where their biases lie .
And , to be fair , I don ’ t think The Trace really tries that hard to pretend those biases aren ’ t there .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re looking to bring on pro-gun writers to provide a counterpoint to anything .
However , it seems the rest of the media likes to pretend those biases don ’ t exist .
NPR , Politico , Time , and Scientific American are unlikely ever to pay an NRA employee to write news articles about gun control .
But they have no problem hiring people who work for The Trace , a Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control organization .
Even in the very hypothetical case that these publications did use an NRA-influenced article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning readers of the possible bias .
The Trace , which has made a business out of attacking people who have received money from gun rights organizations , doesn ’ t receive the same scrutiny from the rest of the media .
Instead , news outlets hide or ignore The Trace ’ s financial ties to Bloomberg .
NPR describes it as “ an independent , nonprofit journalism organization dedicated to covering issues related to guns in America.
” When I pointed out to a senior editor at Scientific American that contributing editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid writer for The Trace , he insisted that none of his staff had a conflict of interest and that The Trace was a nonprofit newsroom .
And they are a non-profit newsroom .
That doesn ’ t mean they ’ re an unbiased newsroom .
Arguably , the NRA ’ s First Freedom is a non-profit newsroom , too , but no one seems interested in considering them unbiased .
That ’ s because they ’ re not .
They ’ re biased as hell , just like we are .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , Moyer had a piece at The Trace arguing that the increase in gun sales over the last few months is linked to the recent surge in urban shootings .
In another , she claimed that guns don ’ t keep one ’ s family safer .
But Moyer fails to mention the standing down and disbandment of police units , or the release of prisoners amid the pandemic .
These factors can lead to a surge in crime .
She ignores that the causation with gun sales might be going the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they see the breakdown of the legal system and having to rely on themselves for protection .
Instead , she blames the 30 % increase in murders in New York City or the 78 % increase in Chicago in June on gun sales that increased the national supply of firearms by only a couple of percentage points .
The Trace toes the same ideological line as Bloomberg ’ s other nonprofit gun control organizations , such as Everytown for Gun Safety .
A search through the last several years of The Trace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a pro-gun slant .
Not a single one approvingly discusses research that has found a benefit from gun ownership .
And , it ’ s not going to .
The Trace isn ’ t about presenting pro-gun research , and I ’ m fine with that .
They ’ re biased and we all know it .
I ’ d rather they be a bit more upfront about it , but they do less claiming of neutrality than some of the other anti-gun media outlets around , so I ’ ll cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but some .
However , Moyer and people like him don ’ t get any of that .
You see , as John Lott who wrote the above-linked piece notes , while every person who ever worked for the NRA will be treated as some kind of pariah , veterans of The Trace are treated like legitimate , unbiased colleagues .
That ’ s simply not right .
And yet , these same people can ’ t figure out why so few Americans trust the media anymore .
It ’ s a mystery @ @ @

When it comes to The Trace, anyone who cares to look can see their biases. After all, they’re funded by Michael Bloomberg and their journalism almost universally takes an anti-gun lean. While they claim to be “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit newsroom dedicated to shining a light on America’s gun violence crisis,” we all know where their biases lie.
And, to be fair, I don’t think The Trace really tries that hard to pretend those biases aren’t there. After all, it’s not like they’re looking to bring on pro-gun writers to provide a counterpoint to anything.
However, it seems the rest of the media likes to pretend those biases don’t exist.
NPR, Politico, Time, and Scientific American are unlikely ever to pay an NRA employee to write news articles about gun control. But they have no problem hiring people who work for The Trace, a Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control organization. Even in the very hypothetical case that these publications did use an NRA-influenced article, they would undoubtedly include a disclaimer warning readers of the possible bias. The Trace, which has made a business out of attacking people who have received money from gun rights organizations, doesn’t receive the same scrutiny from the rest of the media. Instead, news outlets hide or ignore The Trace’s financial ties to Bloomberg. NPR describes it as “an independent, nonprofit journalism organization dedicated to covering issues related to guns in America.” When I pointed out to a senior editor at Scientific American that contributing editor Melinda Wenner Moyer is also a regular paid writer for The Trace, he insisted that none of his staff had a conflict of interest and that The Trace was a nonprofit newsroom.
And they are a non-profit newsroom.
That doesn’t mean they’re an unbiased newsroom. Arguably, the NRA’s First Freedom is a non-profit newsroom, too, but no one seems interested in considering them unbiased. That’s because they’re not. They’re biased as hell, just like we are.
Just like The Trace is.
This past week, Moyer had a piece at The Trace arguing that the increase in gun sales over the last few months is linked to the recent surge in urban shootings. In another, she claimed that guns don’t keep one’s family safer. But Moyer fails to mention the standing down and disbandment of police units, or the release of prisoners amid the pandemic. These factors can lead to a surge in crime. She ignores that the causation with gun sales might be going the other way, with people buying guns as they see the breakdown of the legal system and having to rely on themselves for protection. Instead, she blames the 30% increase in murders in New York City or the 78% increase in Chicago in June on gun sales that increased the national supply of firearms by only a couple of percentage points. The Trace toes the same ideological line as Bloomberg’s other nonprofit gun control organizations, such as Everytown for Gun Safety. A search through the last several years of The Trace’s articles does not reveal any with a pro-gun slant. Not a single one approvingly discusses research that has found a benefit from gun ownership.
And, it’s not going to.
The Trace isn’t about presenting pro-gun research, and I’m fine with that. They’re biased and we all know it. I’d rather they be a bit more upfront about it, but they do less claiming of neutrality than some of the other anti-gun media outlets around, so I’ll cut them some slack. Not much, but some.
However, Moyer and people like him don’t get any of that.
You see, as John Lott who wrote the above-linked piece notes, while every person who ever worked for the NRA will be treated as some kind of pariah, veterans of The Trace are treated like legitimate, unbiased colleagues. That’s simply not right.
And yet, these same people can’t figure out why so few Americans trust the media anymore. It’s a mystery to them.


bearingarms--2020-07-23--Banks Continue War Against Gun Industry

Banks Continue War Against Gun Industry

In recent years , the financial industry has seemingly been at war with the firearm industry .
This war has involved banks and other financial institutions severing all ties with various gun companies , not because these companies did anything wrong , illegal , unethical , or against their policies .
No , their only crime is being in the wrong business .
To be fair , the war isn ’ t a very fair fight .
The financial industry is massive and globe-spanning .
The gun industry , by comparison , is tiny .
And yet , the battles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and steady form of gun control that gradually gains momentum with limited public fanfare : if guns can ’ t be taken directly from the hands of citizens , the next best target is banks and financial institutions that allow transactions or loans for the industry .
Vining posted a call between himself and the California-based company on YouTube and told Fox News that they are no longer using PayPal for anything , personal or commercial , and that they do not intend to return .
“ It is an ongoing fight when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate and related to small arms in the current political climate , ” he said .
In April , several Republican senators wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , expressing concern that “ several of the nation ’ s systemically important financial institutions ( SIFIs ) , including Citibank , Bank of America , JP Morgan Chase and others , continue to use their Market dominance financially discriminate against legal and compliant companies for political reasons , “ including ” the firearms and ammunition industry .
” But a big part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representative Jennifer Wexton , a Democrat from Virginia , quietly introduced the Gun Violence Prevention Act through financial intelligence late last year .
This pushes banks and credit card companies to automatically provide transaction data to federal authorities on some firearm purchases with the goal of identifying “ suspicious activity , ” even though payment networks determine what it is .
strange and what is not a worrying precedent .
And an increasing number of state leaders are targeting .
The problem , of course , is these states are trying to impose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation by dictating to banks what regulations they need to have in general and not just for residents of their respective states .
One of the worst offenders has been New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who has been lodging his own personal jihad against the gun industry .
Now , I don ’ t think the financial industry is a willing participant .
Not universally , anyway .
Some are , but some are being used as pawns for anti-gun lawmakers to try a different tactic to interfere with our constitutionally-protected right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers aren ’ t counting on is the pendulum swinging back .
You see , these measures were all floated at a time when public opinion was against gun rights .
That was post-Parkland , after all , and people were queasy about the Second Amendment .
Now , though , we ’ re post-COVID and post-riots .
Public opinion is likely swinging back in the pro-gun direction .
When that happens , expect federal regulations to step in and put an end to this kind of nonsense .
And it needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns , then the Second Amendment is damn near meaningless .
That can ’ t be allowed to happen .

In recent years, the financial industry has seemingly been at war with the firearm industry. This war has involved banks and other financial institutions severing all ties with various gun companies, not because these companies did anything wrong, illegal, unethical, or against their policies. No, their only crime is being in the wrong business.
To be fair, the war isn’t a very fair fight. The financial industry is massive and globe-spanning. The gun industry, by comparison, is tiny.
And yet, the battles continue.
It’s a slow and steady form of gun control that gradually gains momentum with limited public fanfare: if guns can’t be taken directly from the hands of citizens, the next best target is banks and financial institutions that allow transactions or loans for the industry. Vining posted a call between himself and the California-based company on YouTube and told Fox News that they are no longer using PayPal for anything, personal or commercial, and that they do not intend to return. “It is an ongoing fight when it comes to driving anything that is legitimate and related to small arms in the current political climate,” he said. In April, several Republican senators wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, expressing concern that “several of the nation’s systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), including Citibank, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and others, continue to use their Market dominance financially discriminate against legal and compliant companies for political reasons, “including” the firearms and ammunition industry. ” But a big part of this has been political pressure. Representative Jennifer Wexton, a Democrat from Virginia, quietly introduced the Gun Violence Prevention Act through financial intelligence late last year. This pushes banks and credit card companies to automatically provide transaction data to federal authorities on some firearm purchases with the goal of identifying “suspicious activity,” even though payment networks determine what it is. strange and what is not a worrying precedent. And an increasing number of state leaders are targeting.
The problem, of course, is these states are trying to impose their will on the rest of the nation by dictating to banks what regulations they need to have in general and not just for residents of their respective states. One of the worst offenders has been New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who has been lodging his own personal jihad against the gun industry.
Now, I don’t think the financial industry is a willing participant. Not universally, anyway. Some are, but some are being used as pawns for anti-gun lawmakers to try a different tactic to interfere with our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
What these lawmakers aren’t counting on is the pendulum swinging back.
You see, these measures were all floated at a time when public opinion was against gun rights. That was post-Parkland, after all, and people were queasy about the Second Amendment. Now, though, we’re post-COVID and post-riots. Public opinion is likely swinging back in the pro-gun direction. When that happens, expect federal regulations to step in and put an end to this kind of nonsense.
And it needs to. If people can’t access guns, then the Second Amendment is damn near meaningless. That can’t be allowed to happen.


bearingarms--2020-07-23--Bloomberg Unleashes $15-Million Anti-Gun Ad Blitz

Michael Bloomberg ’ s pet gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety has vowed to spend at least $ 60-million in this year ’ s elections , and the New York Times is reporting that the first $ 15-million of that anti-gun war chest will be spent in places where the Second Amendment has been fairly secure in recent years .
The gun control group says it ’ s earmarked at least $ 5-million in the state of Florida , where the group will be promoting Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign , and an initial $ 3.5-million investment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. House .
The group will also be targeting races in Georgia , Pennsylvania , Minnesota , Iowa , Arizona , and North Carolina , and could expand their focus as we get closer to the elections in November .
In the meantime , expect a lot of Everytown ads to pop up on Facebook and other online outlets .
The organization ’ s focus on digital advertising comes during what its top political aides said was the fastest change in media consumption habits since the dawn of the digital age .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , nearly half of all television consumption is now on streaming platforms .
“ 2020 looks more like 2025 , ” said Charlie Kelly , a senior Everytown political adviser .
Mr. Kelly estimated that the cost to reach voters on digital platforms across enough competitive state legislative districts to flip a state chamber was a fraction of the resources required in a federal or statewide race .
Mr. Kelly said Everytown would spend to help Mr. Biden in Florida , but not elsewhere , after consultation with other Democratic super PACs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take responsibility for different states .
“ The goal is to win and everybody comes to the table to do that , ” Mr. Kelly said .
“ Post-2016 , people were like , ‘ We got to get ourselves together on that front.
’ ” I seem to recall a lot of complaints that Second Amendment organizations like the NRA were just fronts for the Republican Party , but here ’ s Everytown for Gun Safety working hand-in-hand with Democratic super PACs to help elect Joe Biden in November , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear a peep of protest from any watchdogs .
We also won ’ t be hearing any complaints from candidates about getting their Bloomberg bucks , even though Bloomberg himself has seen his star diminish on the Left since his disastrous attempt to run for president ended earlier this year .
The anti-gun billionaire received criticism over his previous support for things like stop-and-frisk , though no candidate or mainstream media outlet connected the dots between that activity and the gun control laws that were enforced through the practice .
Regardless of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end policing , the vast majority of them are still fully on board with passing any and every gun control law pushed by Everytown and their anti-gun allies .
Is that an ideological contradiction ?
Of course , but there ’ ll be time enough to worry about that after the election is over .
For Democrat candidates , now ’ s the time to soak up as much campaign cash as possible , even if it ’ s coming from an anti-gun billionaire whose gun laws have had a disproportionate impact on @ @ @ @ @ @

Michael Bloomberg’s pet gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety has vowed to spend at least $60-million in this year’s elections, and the New York Times is reporting that the first $15-million of that anti-gun war chest will be spent in places where the Second Amendment has been fairly secure in recent years. The gun control group says it’s earmarked at least $5-million in the state of Florida, where the group will be promoting Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, and an initial $3.5-million investment in Texas targeting a half-dozen races for the U.S. House.
The group will also be targeting races in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Arizona, and North Carolina, and could expand their focus as we get closer to the elections in November. In the meantime, expect a lot of Everytown ads to pop up on Facebook and other online outlets.
The organization’s focus on digital advertising comes during what its top political aides said was the fastest change in media consumption habits since the dawn of the digital age. With millions of Americans homebound because of the pandemic, nearly half of all television consumption is now on streaming platforms. “2020 looks more like 2025,” said Charlie Kelly, a senior Everytown political adviser. Mr. Kelly estimated that the cost to reach voters on digital platforms across enough competitive state legislative districts to flip a state chamber was a fraction of the resources required in a federal or statewide race. Mr. Kelly said Everytown would spend to help Mr. Biden in Florida, but not elsewhere, after consultation with other Democratic super PACs, like Priorities USA, that would take responsibility for different states. “The goal is to win and everybody comes to the table to do that,” Mr. Kelly said. “Post-2016, people were like, ‘We got to get ourselves together on that front.’”
I seem to recall a lot of complaints that Second Amendment organizations like the NRA were just fronts for the Republican Party, but here’s Everytown for Gun Safety working hand-in-hand with Democratic super PACs to help elect Joe Biden in November, and I’m guessing we won’t hear a peep of protest from any watchdogs.
We also won’t be hearing any complaints from candidates about getting their Bloomberg bucks, even though Bloomberg himself has seen his star diminish on the Left since his disastrous attempt to run for president ended earlier this year. The anti-gun billionaire received criticism over his previous support for things like stop-and-frisk, though no candidate or mainstream media outlet connected the dots between that activity and the gun control laws that were enforced through the practice.
Regardless of how much Democrats may want to defund or end policing, the vast majority of them are still fully on board with passing any and every gun control law pushed by Everytown and their anti-gun allies. Is that an ideological contradiction? Of course, but there’ll be time enough to worry about that after the election is over. For Democrat candidates, now’s the time to soak up as much campaign cash as possible, even if it’s coming from an anti-gun billionaire whose gun laws have had a disproportionate impact on low-income Americans and racial minorities.


bearingarms--2020-07-23--Five UPS Workers Busted In Gun Theft Ring

You know , it ’ s hard enough finding guns and ammunition right now without anyone stealing them before they even make it to their intended destination .
Maybe things will ease up slightly for firearms retailers in South Carolina now that five employees of UPS have been pilfering packages containing firearms while on the company dime .
The five young men , identified by authorities as 19-year olds Byron Burke , Jalen Green , Tre ’ von Williams , and 18-year olds Dishon Kinney and Kenyon Peters are now facing charges of breach of trust , with Kinney and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gave them away ?
How generous and kind-hearted of them , given that they could have turned around and sold the guns on the illicit market .
Maybe that ’ s why their bonds were set low enough that all five men were quickly able to be sprung from custody .
The suspects were arrested at work last Thursday , but had already bonded out by Tuesday .
At this point , there ’ s no official word on just how many guns may have been stolen before the UPS security team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know if any of the firearms have been recovered either .
I have a sneaking suspicion that none of the guns in question have actually turned up , because the Lexington County Sheriff ’ s Department hasn ’ t announced any arrests for individuals receiving stolen property .
If I ’ m reading South Carolina law correctly buying , selling , or giving away a stolen handgun is a felony offense in South Carolina , punishable by up to five years in prison .
However , at the moment the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breach of trust , ” which is only a misdemeanor offense if the property in question is valued at less than $ 1,000 .
Presumably prosecutors can add up the value of all of the stolen firearms , which should make their charges a felony , but it looks like this case offers plenty of opportunities for a plea bargain to reduced charges .
Despite the seriousness of the offense , there ’ s a good possibility that most of men arrested will suffer few consequences for their actions .
This is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originating from UPS employees this year .
Back in February , authorities in North Carolina busted 32-year old Matthew Scott Nunes after several firearms disappeared in transit to local gun stores .
According to an arrest warrant , the guns were in transit from the UPS shipping facility in Asheville to three stores : On Target Shooting Range , Prices Creek General Store and Cherokee Trading Post .
Each charge is a felony .
According to the search warrant , the UPS loss prevention department called the Asheville Police Department on Dec. 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UPS employee at the time .
Once APD arrived at the local UPS center , Nunes admitted to having stolen multiple firearms while employed with UPS .
Nunes told detectives he had opened several packages and removed guns before repackaging the shipments .
Here ’ s a helpful hint to any UPS or FedEx employees thinking about stealing the next package they see at work with guns inside : don ’ t .
Both companies have security departments that are on guard for things like this , and if you ’ re caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years behind bars .
With violent crime on the rise across the country , prosecutor in South Carolina shouldn ’ t go easy on the five men currently facing charges for their gun theft ring .
It ’ s time to send a message that actions like this won ’ t be tolerated , and that means no sweetheart plea deals that result in a slap on the wrist instead of prison time .

You know, it’s hard enough finding guns and ammunition right now without anyone stealing them before they even make it to their intended destination. Maybe things will ease up slightly for firearms retailers in South Carolina now that five employees of UPS have been pilfering packages containing firearms while on the company dime.
The five young men, identified by authorities as 19-year olds Byron Burke, Jalen Green, Tre’von Williams, and 18-year olds Dishon Kinney and Kenyon Peters are now facing charges of breach of trust, with Kinney and Peters facing criminal conspiracy charges as well.
UPS’s security team notified the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department that guns were being stolen from incoming trucks. LCSD says Kinney and Peters devised the plan and that all five men sold the guns or gave them away while on company time.
Gave them away? How generous and kind-hearted of them, given that they could have turned around and sold the guns on the illicit market. Maybe that’s why their bonds were set low enough that all five men were quickly able to be sprung from custody. The suspects were arrested at work last Thursday, but had already bonded out by Tuesday.
At this point, there’s no official word on just how many guns may have been stolen before the UPS security team notified the local sheriff, and we don’t know if any of the firearms have been recovered either. I have a sneaking suspicion that none of the guns in question have actually turned up, because the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department hasn’t announced any arrests for individuals receiving stolen property.
If I’m reading South Carolina law correctly buying, selling, or giving away a stolen handgun is a felony offense in South Carolina, punishable by up to five years in prison. However, at the moment the five suspects have been charged with “breach of trust,” which is only a misdemeanor offense if the property in question is valued at less than $1,000. Presumably prosecutors can add up the value of all of the stolen firearms, which should make their charges a felony, but it looks like this case offers plenty of opportunities for a plea bargain to reduced charges. Despite the seriousness of the offense, there’s a good possibility that most of men arrested will suffer few consequences for their actions.
This is at least the second case of stolen firearms originating from UPS employees this year. Back in February, authorities in North Carolina busted 32-year old Matthew Scott Nunes after several firearms disappeared in transit to local gun stores.
According to an arrest warrant, the guns were in transit from the UPS shipping facility in Asheville to three stores: On Target Shooting Range, Prices Creek General Store and Cherokee Trading Post. Each charge is a felony. According to the search warrant, the UPS loss prevention department called the Asheville Police Department on Dec. 20 to report Nunes, who was a UPS employee at the time. Once APD arrived at the local UPS center, Nunes admitted to having stolen multiple firearms while employed with UPS. Nunes told detectives he had opened several packages and removed guns before repackaging the shipments.
Here’s a helpful hint to any UPS or FedEx employees thinking about stealing the next package they see at work with guns inside: don’t. Both companies have security departments that are on guard for things like this, and if you’re caught, you could be looking at several years behind bars.
With violent crime on the rise across the country, prosecutor in South Carolina shouldn’t go easy on the five men currently facing charges for their gun theft ring. It’s time to send a message that actions like this won’t be tolerated, and that means no sweetheart plea deals that result in a slap on the wrist instead of prison time.


bearingarms--2020-07-23--McCloskey Prosecutor Ordered Inoperable Gun Made "Lethal"

The McCloskeys presented their firearms to the mob and made it clear they were willing to use them .
However , when police seized the guns as potential evidence , there was a problem .
At least one–the handgun wielded by Patricia McCloskey–wasn ’ t actually operable .
For the prosecutor who has decided to file felony charges against the couple , that ’ s not a problem .
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ordered technicians to make the guns operable .
But a story breaking today shows another big problem in the case and it ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCloskey had was turned over to the authorities , it was inoperable and inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis Police crime lab .
According to the McCloskey ’ s attorney , Joel Schwartz , the gun was inoperable during the incident in question with the protesters and couldn ’ t have hurt anyone .
The McCloskeys , who are both attorneys , had used the gun as a prop during a trial .
So here ’ s the problem , as KSDK reports .
In Missouri , police and prosecutors must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” capable of lethal use when it used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged .
At the request of Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley , crime lab staff members field stripped the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly .
Specifically , the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin , which was backward , and made the gun incapable of firing , according to the documents .
Firearms experts then put the gun back together , per Hinckley ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , finding that it worked , according to the documents .
Crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the gun , according to the documents .
Hinckley swore in the complaint filed that it was “ readily capable of lethal use ” when it was used in the incident .
Now , I ’ m not an attorney , but this sure sounds like evidence tampering to me .
If the firearm was inoperable when it was seized , that ’ s the condition it should remain .
Especially if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ readily ” capable of being used for lethal force .
Hinkley also swore in the filed complaint that the gun was capable of being fired .
That sounds like perjury to me , since by that point he had to know it wasn ’ t .
Oh , I ’ m sure he ’ ll claim it was during the incident and was only made inoperable after the incident .
However , that ’ s something Hinkley would have to prove at a trial , and I don ’ t think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that generally happens after routine maintenance , after all , so I ’ d be shocked if he can find evidence that the couple not only did it but knew what they were doing to make it that way .
The McCloskeys have been the target of a witchhunt and we all know it .
This is just more evidence that they ’ re being maliciously prosecuted simply because they dared stand up to the Black Lives Matter mob when they were threatened .
Meanwhile , I want to give them a medal @

For the prosecutor who has decided to file felony charges against the couple, that’s not a problem. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ordered technicians to make the guns operable.
But a story breaking today shows another big problem in the case and it’s pretty troubling. When the gun that Patricia McCloskey had was turned over to the authorities, it was inoperable and inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis Police crime lab. According to the McCloskey’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, the gun was inoperable during the incident in question with the protesters and couldn’t have hurt anyone. The McCloskeys, who are both attorneys, had used the gun as a prop during a trial.
So here’s the problem, as KSDK reports.
In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged. At the request of Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley, crime lab staff members field stripped the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to the documents. Firearms experts then put the gun back together, per Hinckley’s request, in the correct order and test-fired it, finding that it worked, according to the documents. Crime lab workers photographed the disassembly and reassembly of the gun, according to the documents. Hinckley swore in the complaint filed that it was “readily capable of lethal use” when it was used in the incident.
Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure sounds like evidence tampering to me.
If the firearm was inoperable when it was seized, that’s the condition it should remain. Especially if the case hinges on the gun being “readily” capable of being used for lethal force.
Hinkley also swore in the filed complaint that the gun was capable of being fired. That sounds like perjury to me, since by that point he had to know it wasn’t.
Oh, I’m sure he’ll claim it was during the incident and was only made inoperable after the incident. However, that’s something Hinkley would have to prove at a trial, and I don’t think he can. That’s not something that generally happens after routine maintenance, after all, so I’d be shocked if he can find evidence that the couple not only did it but knew what they were doing to make it that way.
The McCloskeys have been the target of a witchhunt and we all know it. This is just more evidence that they’re being maliciously prosecuted simply because they dared stand up to the Black Lives Matter mob when they were threatened.
Meanwhile, I want to give them a medal.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Once Again, Michigan Considers Capitol Gun Ban

When armed protestors took to the Michigan State Capitol to protest the lockdown , I doubt many of them thought their actions would be used to justify gun control .
After all , they were there about the lockdown , right ?
Unfortunately , whether them being armed or not was the right call , some in the state have latched onto their actions as an excuse to limit where guns can be carried in the state .
Luckily , for now , that ’ s mostly confined to whether or not they can carry in the capitol or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been a decision about changing the rules for the capitol , but the subject has come up once again .
There are developments today on how much it would cost to ban all weapons in the state Capitol building .
The State Capitol Commission is considering the issue of should guns continue to be allowed in the Capitol .
There are currently three options on the table : ( 1 ) Do Nothing , which would continue to allow weapons in the building If the Commission votes to ban all weapons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen , there is a cost for metal detectors and x-ray machines much like you see at your airport .
And much like the TSA , the state would have to hire five employees to operate these checkpoints in the Capitol .
The total cost runs from $ 500,000 and $ 1.3 million .
This is a state running a $ 3 billion deficit and has a Republican-controlled legislature .
Somehow , I don ’ t see a total gun ban happening .
However , it wouldn ’ t need to in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place following the protests in the capitol .
Most of those protestors were carrying long guns .
While long guns are rarely used in crimes , they ’ re scarier to people who don ’ t know any better .
Further , they not concealable , which means there ’ s no reason to need to install metal detectors .
Now , I am not advocating for that position .
While I disagreed with protesting the lockdown while armed–I support their right to do it , I just don ’ t think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want to see the carry of any firearm limited in any way .
I ’ m simply pointing out that this is an option .
More importantly , it ’ s an option that would probably satisfy the loudest in the state without really creating a huge difficulty for most folks who visit the capitol for whatever reason .
What we all need to do is hope that the legislature opts not to do either in hopes that Gretchen Whitmer ’ s actions during the lockdown rile up the voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get a second term .
I won ’ t hold my breath for that to be the case , but that would likely put an end to much of this effort .
For sure , we know that a total gun ban is probably not going to happen with regard to the capitol .
That ’ s just too much money and it wouldn ’ t be necessary to put an end to the grumbling .

When armed protestors took to the Michigan State Capitol to protest the lockdown, I doubt many of them thought their actions would be used to justify gun control. After all, they were there about the lockdown, right?
Unfortunately, whether them being armed or not was the right call, some in the state have latched onto their actions as an excuse to limit where guns can be carried in the state.
Luckily, for now, that’s mostly confined to whether or not they can carry in the capitol or not.
So far, there hasn’t been a decision about changing the rules for the capitol, but the subject has come up once again.
There are developments today on how much it would cost to ban all weapons in the state Capitol building. The State Capitol Commission is considering the issue of should guns continue to be allowed in the Capitol. There are currently three options on the table: Guns in Capitol? (1) Do Nothing, which would continue to allow weapons in the building (2) Ban Long Guns (3) Total Ban All Guns If the Commission votes to ban all weapons, and there is no indication that that will happen, there is a cost for metal detectors and x-ray machines much like you see at your airport. And much like the TSA, the state would have to hire five employees to operate these checkpoints in the Capitol. The total cost runs from $500,000 and $1.3 million.
This is a state running a $3 billion deficit and has a Republican-controlled legislature.
Somehow, I don’t see a total gun ban happening. However, it wouldn’t need to in order to quell the fearmongering that took place following the protests in the capitol.
Most of those protestors were carrying long guns. While long guns are rarely used in crimes, they’re scarier to people who don’t know any better. Further, they not concealable, which means there’s no reason to need to install metal detectors.
Now, I am not advocating for that position. While I disagreed with protesting the lockdown while armed–I support their right to do it, I just don’t think it was a good idea for strategic reasons–I don’t want to see the carry of any firearm limited in any way. I’m simply pointing out that this is an option.
More importantly, it’s an option that would probably satisfy the loudest in the state without really creating a huge difficulty for most folks who visit the capitol for whatever reason.
What we all need to do is hope that the legislature opts not to do either in hopes that Gretchen Whitmer’s actions during the lockdown rile up the voters to the point that she doesn’t get a second term. I won’t hold my breath for that to be the case, but that would likely put an end to much of this effort.
For sure, we know that a total gun ban is probably not going to happen with regard to the capitol. That’s just too much money and it wouldn’t be necessary to put an end to the grumbling.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Virginia Delegate: Gun Control Push Possible In Special Session

We ’ re less than a month away from the start of a special legislative session in Virginia , and rumors of a renewed push to ban so-called assault weapons , large capacity magazines , and suppressors are continuing to swirl around the Commonwealth .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Delegate Nick Freitas joins me to talk about the odds that Democrats in control of the General Assembly will try to revive HB961 , Governor Northam ’ s gun grab bill .
According to the delegate , Democrats in the legislature are likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wouldn ’ t be surprised if House leadership and Gov .
Ralph Northam delay any attempt to pass HB961 during the special session for purely political reasons .
Virginia gun owners are already wide awake and eager to vote out anti-gun candidates this November , but the adoption of a gun , magazine , and suppressor ban just months before the 2020 elections would ensure that the Second Amendment is first in the minds of many voters when they head to the polls .
Instead , Freitas thinks that Democrats will aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session .
While there are several criminal justice and policing reform measures that he believes will garner bipartisan support , like de-certifying officers who are fired with cause so they can ’ t be hired in another jurisdiction , the delegate is certain that Democrats will go even further , and mentioned one bill that would reduce the penalty for assaulting a law enforcement officer from a felony to a misdemeanor offense .
Freitas is also the GOP candidate for Virginia ’ s 7th congressional district , where he ’ ll square off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The seat has been a fairly reliable GOP stronghold until the 2018 blue wave election , when Spanberger narrowly upset Rep. Dave Brat by less than 7,000 votes to become the first Democrat to represent the district since the early 1970s .
Spanberger ’ s done her best to present herself as a moderate , but Freitas has hammered the fact that even Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has voted in line with President Trump more often than Abigail Spanberger has .
When it comes to Second Amendment issues , Spanberger is “ all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a 2019 story from the Washington Post : Spanberger ’ s 2018 victory was aided in part by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg , whose Everytown for Gun Safety spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to flip the seat .
Since 2018 , however , Virginia Democrats have passed their own gun control laws in the face of massive public opposition , and the state has seen record high gun sales in recent months , many of them first-time gun buyers in the Richmond suburbs .
Suburban soccer moms may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety measures ” in 2018 , but at least some of them have started exercising their Second Amendment rights in the months since , and Spanberger ’ s backing bills that would turn them into felons simply for keeping the guns and magazines they already own .
I expect that the Freitas/Spanberger race will be one to watch this November , and could be one of the best opportunities for Republicans to take back one of the seats that they lost in the 2018 midterms .
Be sure to check out the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and stick around afterwards for more news , including a defensive gun use in New Orleans and a Massachusetts police officer who went above and beyond the call of duty to help a woman in need

We’re less than a month away from the start of a special legislative session in Virginia, and rumors of a renewed push to ban so-called assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and suppressors are continuing to swirl around the Commonwealth. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Delegate Nick Freitas joins me to talk about the odds that Democrats in control of the General Assembly will try to revive HB961, Governor Northam’s gun grab bill.
According to the delegate, Democrats in the legislature are likely to introduce several gun control bills, but he wouldn’t be surprised if House leadership and Gov. Ralph Northam delay any attempt to pass HB961 during the special session for purely political reasons. Virginia gun owners are already wide awake and eager to vote out anti-gun candidates this November, but the adoption of a gun, magazine, and suppressor ban just months before the 2020 elections would ensure that the Second Amendment is first in the minds of many voters when they head to the polls.
Instead, Freitas thinks that Democrats will aim their fire at police during the special session. While there are several criminal justice and policing reform measures that he believes will garner bipartisan support, like de-certifying officers who are fired with cause so they can’t be hired in another jurisdiction, the delegate is certain that Democrats will go even further, and mentioned one bill that would reduce the penalty for assaulting a law enforcement officer from a felony to a misdemeanor offense.
Freitas is also the GOP candidate for Virginia’s 7th congressional district, where he’ll square off against first-term Democrat Abigail Spanberger in November. The seat has been a fairly reliable GOP stronghold until the 2018 blue wave election, when Spanberger narrowly upset Rep. Dave Brat by less than 7,000 votes to become the first Democrat to represent the district since the early 1970s.
Spanberger’s done her best to present herself as a moderate, but Freitas has hammered the fact that even Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has voted in line with President Trump more often than Abigail Spanberger has. When it comes to Second Amendment issues, Spanberger is “all in” for gun control, according to a 2019 story from the Washington Post:
Her father, a local cop turned federal officer, was always armed. As a child, she revered — but never touched — the cherry wood cabinet where her uncle kept hunting rifles. And as a onetime federal agent herself, she carried a 9mm Beretta handgun, able to drop and reload magazines in an instant. But the freshman congresswoman is backing a raft of gun-control measures, and not only those with bipartisan support, such as universal background checks and “red flag” laws that would temporarily take guns from people deemed to be dangerous. She also wants to ban military-style weapons.
Spanberger’s 2018 victory was aided in part by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, whose Everytown for Gun Safety spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to flip the seat. Since 2018, however, Virginia Democrats have passed their own gun control laws in the face of massive public opposition, and the state has seen record high gun sales in recent months, many of them first-time gun buyers in the Richmond suburbs. Suburban soccer moms may have voted for “common sense gun safety measures” in 2018, but at least some of them have started exercising their Second Amendment rights in the months since, and Spanberger’s backing bills that would turn them into felons simply for keeping the guns and magazines they already own.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Woman Arrested For Pointing Gun At Boise Protests

For weeks , we ’ ve seen protests turn violent .
While much of the violence has subsided–with some notable exceptions , to be sure–some people still view protests with suspicion .
That ’ s certainly understandable .
We ’ ve seen way too much happen for it not to be .
It also makes sense for people to take precautions in the event of a protest in their neck of the woods .
That ’ s just smart .
What ’ s not smart is allegedly pulling a gun when it ’ s not warranted .
Several arrests were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which police say included one incident of a woman reportedly pointing a gun at a crowd .
Overall , the Boise Police Department said the protesters were peaceful and the chief thanked those who exercised their first amendment rights as such .
One of those included a woman reportedly pointing a firearm at people in a crowd .
BPD says the investigation is being routed to the prosecutor ’ s office for a review of the charges .
“ I find it a little disheartening that there are people either in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community that would [ do something like that ] , ” said Lee .
Now , all we have is this little bit of a report .
Assuming this information is accurate and more or less complete , this was dumb .
Oh so very dumb .
Yes , the McCloskeys pointed guns at “ protestors ” and became heroes because of it , but things were quite a bit different .
The mob in the McCloskey case weren ’ t minding their own business .
They were already trespassing .
Additionally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats against them and their home .
Now , it ’ s possible threats were issued and it just didn ’ t make the media .
That ’ s entirely possible .
This is a brief news report on a number of arrests made at the protest and law enforcement may not even really know the situation just yet , much less the media .
And that ’ s assuming the media would report the claims .
Look , I don ’ t blame anyone for having a gun on them if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I ’ ve said before , that ’ s just a smart precaution considering what we ’ ve seen all over the country .
Pulling it and pointing it at protestors when you ’ re not being threatened–and I mean inarguably threatened–is a recipe for a bad time .
I ’ m sorry , but I can ’ t feel a lot of pity as things stand right now .
Folks , with tensions as high as they are at the moment , it ’ s imperative that gun owners comport themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to be vilified if we do anything , so if we do , we ’ d best make sure we ’ re completely above board to shield ourselves from the outrage mobs as best we can .
Allegedly pointing guns at protestors ?
That ain ’ t how you do it .
Of course , as I noted , there may well be more to the story .
I certainly hope there is and that this isn ’ t what is being presented to the public right now .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if more comes out .

For weeks, we’ve seen protests turn violent. While much of the violence has subsided–with some notable exceptions, to be sure–some people still view protests with suspicion.
That’s certainly understandable. We’ve seen way too much happen for it not to be. It also makes sense for people to take precautions in the event of a protest in their neck of the woods. That’s just smart.
What’s not smart is allegedly pulling a gun when it’s not warranted.
Several arrests were made at the Tuesday night, which police say included one incident of a woman reportedly pointing a gun at a crowd. Overall, the Boise Police Department said the protesters were peaceful and the chief thanked those who exercised their first amendment rights as such. … One of those included a woman reportedly pointing a firearm at people in a crowd. BPD says the investigation is being routed to the prosecutor’s office for a review of the charges. “I find it a little disheartening that there are people either in this community or within driving distance of this community that would [do something like that],” said Lee.
Now, all we have is this little bit of a report. Assuming this information is accurate and more or less complete, this was dumb. Oh so very dumb.
Yes, the McCloskeys pointed guns at “protestors” and became heroes because of it, but things were quite a bit different. The mob in the McCloskey case weren’t minding their own business. They were already trespassing. Additionally, the McCloskeys say the first protestors issued threats against them and their home.
Now, it’s possible threats were issued and it just didn’t make the media. That’s entirely possible. This is a brief news report on a number of arrests made at the protest and law enforcement may not even really know the situation just yet, much less the media.
And that’s assuming the media would report the claims.
Look, I don’t blame anyone for having a gun on them if they have to be near a protest. As I’ve said before, that’s just a smart precaution considering what we’ve seen all over the country.
Pulling it and pointing it at protestors when you’re not being threatened–and I mean inarguably threatened–is a recipe for a bad time. I’m sorry, but I can’t feel a lot of pity as things stand right now.
Folks, with tensions as high as they are at the moment, it’s imperative that gun owners comport themselves in the best manner possible. We’re going to be vilified if we do anything, so if we do, we’d best make sure we’re completely above board to shield ourselves from the outrage mobs as best we can. Allegedly pointing guns at protestors? That ain’t how you do it.
Of course, as I noted, there may well be more to the story. I certainly hope there is and that this isn’t what is being presented to the public right now. We’ll have to wait and see if more comes out.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Michigan Man Charged With Pointing Rifle During Protest

The headline may conjure up comparisons to the case of the McCloskeys in St. Louis , but there are some key differences between the the couple and a Lansing , Michigan man charged with brandishing a rifle during a protest in late June .
We can with the fact that the McCloskeys were on their own property when they confronted protesters who had broken a gate and entered the private community where they lived , while Gregory Richardson , on the other hand , was on a public street when he allegedly pointed a rifle at a man on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group of protesters who were blocking the road .
Richardson ’ s attorney , Lucas Dillon , said Richardson is not affiliated with We the Free People of Lansing .
Protesters reached out to a pro-Second Amendment group Richardson is a member of and asked for security .
On June 17 , Richardson was acting as a security guard for the group .
Dillon said the statute for brandishing a weapon lines up pretty accurately with the facts of the case .
The one difference is that the statute specifies it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
That ’ s what Richardson was doing , he said .
“ He ’ s not going to let a motorcycle ride through a crowd of people , ” Dillon said .
“ He ’ s never done anything wrong in his life…He ’ s a family man who supports the Second Amendment.
” I appreciate Richardson ’ s support for the Second Amendment , but was this really a case of acting in defense of another ?
Based on reporting , it sounds more like the We the Free People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving down a public right-of-way .
Video shows a group of protesters lined up on Michigan Avenue as a man on a motorcycle stops at the intersection .
He is on the north side of the intersection on Foster Avenue ; the protesters are lined up east of him .
“ You ’ re not going this way .
This way is not an option , ” protest leader Paul Birdsong said , according to the video .
Another man says : “ If you ’ re going to run us over , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd.
” It is unclear if Richardson or another man with a rifle said this .
The video shows Richardson pointing his rifle at the motorcyclist ; the other man has his rifle angled to the ground .
“ You can ’ t ride anywhere in this direction , ” Birdsong said .
“ The problem is , we told you to stop and you revved your engine.
” There ’ ve been several instances of motorists hitting protesters with their vehicles over the past couple of months , including an incident in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed against the driver , so I understand that the protesters may have been concerned about their safety .
Even so , none of the protesters had a right to stop motorists , much less point a gun at them in order to prevent them from traveling down a public street .
In Michigan , open carry of a rifle is legal , but absent an actual threat , you can ’ t point that rifle at anyone without breaking the law .
Was the revving of a motorcycle engine the only perceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to be very difficult for Richardson to successfully argue that his actions were done in self-defense and in defense of others .
The protesters could have simply moved aside to let the motorcyclist through , but instead they claimed the public road as their own .
In this case , even if Gregory Richardson had the intent of protecting protesters , it sounds like he and the other armed “ security ” ended up as the aggressors in this case .
There is at least one similarity to the McCloskey case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Louis says she wants to offer the McCloskeys the opportunity to enter pre-trial diversion if they plead guilty to unlawful use of a firearm , and Richardson ’ s attorney is hoping for a similar deal .
While the McCloskeys have vowed to fight their charges , it sounds like Gregory Richardson is willing to take that deal if it ’ s offered to him .
Given the fact that no one was harmed in the incident , and the lack of any criminal history on Richardson ’ s part , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It sounds to me like this was a mistake on Richardson ’ s part made in the heat of the moment , and I don ’ t think he should forfeit his Second Amendment rights as a result .
Whether or not the prosecutor agrees is another story .

The headline may conjure up comparisons to the case of the McCloskeys in St. Louis, but there are some key differences between the the couple and a Lansing, Michigan man charged with brandishing a rifle during a protest in late June. We can with the fact that the McCloskeys were on their own property when they confronted protesters who had broken a gate and entered the private community where they lived, while Gregory Richardson, on the other hand, was on a public street when he allegedly pointed a rifle at a man on a motorcycle who was trying to get past a group of protesters who were blocking the road.
Richardson’s attorney, Lucas Dillon, said Richardson is not affiliated with We the Free People of Lansing. Protesters reached out to a pro-Second Amendment group Richardson is a member of and asked for security. On June 17, Richardson was acting as a security guard for the group. Dillon said the statute for brandishing a weapon lines up pretty accurately with the facts of the case. The one difference is that the statute specifies it is not illegal if acting in defense of others. That’s what Richardson was doing, he said. “He’s not going to let a motorcycle ride through a crowd of people,” Dillon said. “He’s never done anything wrong in his life…He’s a family man who supports the Second Amendment.”
I appreciate Richardson’s support for the Second Amendment, but was this really a case of acting in defense of another? Based on reporting, it sounds more like the We the Free People of Lansing protesters were preventing motorists from driving down a public right-of-way.
Video shows a group of protesters lined up on Michigan Avenue as a man on a motorcycle stops at the intersection. He is on the north side of the intersection on Foster Avenue; the protesters are lined up east of him. “You’re not going this way. This way is not an option,” protest leader Paul Birdsong said, according to the video. Another man says: “If you’re going to run us over, I’m going to protect my crowd.” It is unclear if Richardson or another man with a rifle said this. The video shows Richardson pointing his rifle at the motorcyclist; the other man has his rifle angled to the ground. “You can’t ride anywhere in this direction,” Birdsong said. “The problem is, we told you to stop and you revved your engine.”
There’ve been several instances of motorists hitting protesters with their vehicles over the past couple of months, including an incident in Seattle that led to criminal charges being filed against the driver, so I understand that the protesters may have been concerned about their safety. Even so, none of the protesters had a right to stop motorists, much less point a gun at them in order to prevent them from traveling down a public street. In Michigan, open carry of a rifle is legal, but absent an actual threat, you can’t point that rifle at anyone without breaking the law.
Was the revving of a motorcycle engine the only perceived threat? If so, it’s going to be very difficult for Richardson to successfully argue that his actions were done in self-defense and in defense of others. The protesters could have simply moved aside to let the motorcyclist through, but instead they claimed the public road as their own. In this case, even if Gregory Richardson had the intent of protecting protesters, it sounds like he and the other armed “security” ended up as the aggressors in this case.
There is at least one similarity to the McCloskey case, however. Prosecutor Kim Gardner in St. Louis says she wants to offer the McCloskeys the opportunity to enter pre-trial diversion if they plead guilty to unlawful use of a firearm, and Richardson’s attorney is hoping for a similar deal. While the McCloskeys have vowed to fight their charges, it sounds like Gregory Richardson is willing to take that deal if it’s offered to him. Given the fact that no one was harmed in the incident, and the lack of any criminal history on Richardson’s part, that’s probably the most appropriate outcome. It sounds to me like this was a mistake on Richardson’s part made in the heat of the moment, and I don’t think he should forfeit his Second Amendment rights as a result. Whether or not the prosecutor agrees is another story.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--How AMA's Position On Guns Hurt Their Case On COVID

Right now , COVID-19 is still running around and an awful lot of people just don ’ t care anymore .
To be fair , most people who catch it will fully recover without any issue .
Not everyone will , though , particularly those with comorbidities .
People like pretty much everyone else in my family .
Part of the reason no one seems to care is that so many people no longer trust the medical profession as a whole .
While they may trust their doctor , that does extend to doctors as a group .
Over at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that part of the reason is because of the way the American Medical Association has come down on topics like guns .
There are a lot of people making a lot of bad decisions in regard to COVID-19 .
I wish they would make better decisions .
But if some people do not seem to believe that they are getting a straight answer from the medical community about the pandemic , it may be because they remember not having got a straight answer from the medical community about gun rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and much else .
If some people believe that the doctors and their organizations are playing politics with the pandemic , it may be because they remember the doctors and their organizations playing politics with a lot of other issues before .
For example : The efforts of the American Medical Association and similar organizations to medicalize the debate over gun control , part of a larger effort from progressives to pathologize dissent , is typical of the pattern .
Doctors , like scientists , enjoy a great deal of prestige , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rooted in expertise that is specialized .
But like the businessman-politician who argues that what ’ s needed is to run the IRS or OSHA as though it were a business , physicians mistakenly generalize their actual expertise and experience .
It ’ s the same thing behind Michael Jordan ’ s baseball career : “ I ’ m good at this , so I must be good at that.
” And so a guy who belongs to a professional association in which there are other people who treat patients for gunshot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special knowledge about the questions of regulation and constitutional jurisprudence related to gun control , and that he has special moral and intellectual standing to speak on these questions .
To be sure , this is one of my pet peeves .
Especially when debating one of these doctors who seems to think that their expertise in patching up someone who was shot somehow gives them the relevant expertise to debate firearm policy as a whole .
While they ’ re certainly free to speak their piece , they often feel that anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular job experience is somehow unworthy of being part of the debate .
It isn ’ t just the politicization of the medical field that ’ s a problem , but the smugness of many practitioners who seem to think they ’ re the only ones who could possibly understand the debate .
Unless , of course , you agree with them .
And so it is , “ Gun control is a public-health emergency , ” “ Population control is a public-health emergency , ” “ Climate change is a public-health emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMA speaks about climate change , it does not speak about the actual medical questions related to climate change ; instead , it engages in simple , ordinary political activism , e.g.
, endorsing changes in the electricity-generating industry as though the world ’ s physicians collectively knew the first thing about operating utilities .
Physicians are entitled to their opinion on this as citizens ; but as physicians , they have a responsibility to invoke their medical authority only where it is actually applicable .
To do otherwise is to damage the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results that can be seen all around us right now .
The AMA asserts that “ uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms , especially handguns , is a serious threat to the public ’ s health.
” But it is not the “ uncontrolled ownership ” of firearms that results in all those murders — it is murderers and murderous intent .
And so the AMA might as easily have written : “ The failure to impose longer prison sentences on first-time violent offenders is a serious threat to public health ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual police state is a serious threat to public health ” or , “ The failure to oogedy-boogedy is a serious threat to public health.
” The policy preference comes first and the medicalized rationale comes after .
And the policy is not the result of medical judgment but political judgment .
For those who agree with gun control , the AMA ’ s stance is merely an acknowledgment of fact .
Yet , as Williamson goes on to point out , gun violence has been trending downward for decades now .
Doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” suggest the problem is getting worse ?
Regardless , these are the same doctors who are advocating for keeping the economy shut down , mandating masks everywhere , and any manner of other things .
Is it any wonder that so many people are dismissing them outright ?
Look , my healthcare experience ended during the Clinton administration , so I won ’ t pretend to be an expert here .
I ’ m not going to tell you what to do or even suggest it .
Besides , you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do anyway .
What I will say , though , is that if the AMA is upset that they ’ re not being listened to by a large segment of the American population , well…they have only themselves to blame for it .

Right now, COVID-19 is still running around and an awful lot of people just don’t care anymore. To be fair, most people who catch it will fully recover without any issue. Not everyone will, though, particularly those with comorbidities. People like pretty much everyone else in my family.
Part of the reason no one seems to care is that so many people no longer trust the medical profession as a whole. While they may trust their doctor, that does extend to doctors as a group.
Over at the National Review, Kevin Williamson makes the case that part of the reason is because of the way the American Medical Association has come down on topics like guns.
There are a lot of people making a lot of bad decisions in regard to COVID-19. I wish they would make better decisions. But if some people do not seem to believe that they are getting a straight answer from the medical community about the pandemic, it may be because they remember not having got a straight answer from the medical community about gun rights, climate change, population control, abortion, and much else. If some people believe that the doctors and their organizations are playing politics with the pandemic, it may be because they remember the doctors and their organizations playing politics with a lot of other issues before. For example: The efforts of the American Medical Association and similar organizations to medicalize the debate over gun control, part of a larger effort from progressives to pathologize dissent, is typical of the pattern. Doctors, like scientists, enjoy a great deal of prestige, much of it well-earned. That prestige is rooted in expertise that is specialized. But like the businessman-politician who argues that what’s needed is to run the IRS or OSHA as though it were a business, physicians mistakenly generalize their actual expertise and experience. It’s the same thing behind Michael Jordan’s baseball career: “I’m good at this, so I must be good at that.” And so a guy who belongs to a professional association in which there are other people who treat patients for gunshot wounds comes to believe that he has special knowledge about the questions of regulation and constitutional jurisprudence related to gun control, and that he has special moral and intellectual standing to speak on these questions.
To be sure, this is one of my pet peeves. Especially when debating one of these doctors who seems to think that their expertise in patching up someone who was shot somehow gives them the relevant expertise to debate firearm policy as a whole. While they’re certainly free to speak their piece, they often feel that anyone who disagrees with them that lacks this particular job experience is somehow unworthy of being part of the debate.
It isn’t just the politicization of the medical field that’s a problem, but the smugness of many practitioners who seem to think they’re the only ones who could possibly understand the debate.
Unless, of course, you agree with them.
Williamson continues, however:
And so it is, “Gun control is a public-health emergency,” “Population control is a public-health emergency,” “Climate change is a public-health emergency,” etc. But when the AMA speaks about climate change, it does not speak about the actual medical questions related to climate change; instead, it engages in simple, ordinary political activism, e.g., endorsing changes in the electricity-generating industry as though the world’s physicians collectively knew the first thing about operating utilities. Physicians are entitled to their opinion on this as citizens; but as physicians, they have a responsibility to invoke their medical authority only where it is actually applicable. To do otherwise is to damage the credibility of their profession — with the results that can be seen all around us right now. The AMA asserts that “uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious threat to the public’s health.” But it is not the “uncontrolled ownership” of firearms that results in all those murders — it is murderers and murderous intent. And so the AMA might as easily have written: “The failure to impose longer prison sentences on first-time violent offenders is a serious threat to public health” or, “The failure to create an actual police state is a serious threat to public health” or, “The failure to oogedy-boogedy is a serious threat to public health.” The policy preference comes first and the medicalized rationale comes after. And the policy is not the result of medical judgment but political judgment.
He’s not wrong.
For those who agree with gun control, the AMA’s stance is merely an acknowledgment of fact. Yet, as Williamson goes on to point out, gun violence has been trending downward for decades now. Doesn’t a “public health emergency” suggest the problem is getting worse?
Regardless, these are the same doctors who are advocating for keeping the economy shut down, mandating masks everywhere, and any manner of other things. Is it any wonder that so many people are dismissing them outright?
Look, my healthcare experience ended during the Clinton administration, so I won’t pretend to be an expert here. I’m not going to tell you what to do or even suggest it. Besides, you’re going to do what you’re going to do anyway.
What I will say, though, is that if the AMA is upset that they’re not being listened to by a large segment of the American population, well…they have only themselves to blame for it.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Gun Control Groups Demand More Laws, Less Enforcement

The Trump administration ’ s plans to expand a surge of federal law enforcement into cities beset by a spike in violent crime is coming under criticism from gun control groups , even though the program called “ Operation LeGend ” ultimately amounts to greater enforcement of the very gun control laws that they helped to put on the books .
President Trump outlined why he ’ s sending more federal resources to cities like Milwaukee and Albuquerque in a White House press briefing on Wednesday , highlighting some of the recent problems in Democrat-controlled cities .
For decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s major cities have put the interests of criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens .
These same politicians have now embraced the far-left movement to break up our police departments , causing violent crime in their cities to spiral — and I mean spiral seriously out of control .
In New York City , over 300 people were shot in the last month alone .
A 277 — at least — percent increase over the same period of a year ago .
Murders this year have spiked 27 percent in Philadelphia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same period in 2019 .
Perhaps no citizens have suffered more from the menace of violent crime than the wonderful people of Chicago — a city I know very well .
At least 414 people have been murdered in the city this year , a roughly 50 percent increase over last year .
More than 1,900 people have been shot .
These are numbers that aren ’ t even to be believed .
Until just a few months ago , gun control groups would likely have cheered the president ’ s decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources means more opportunities to enforce federal gun laws .
Since the start of the “ defund police ” movement , however , gun control advocates have found themselves in the increasingly awkward position of advocating for more gun laws to be put on the books , while downplaying the idea of actually enforcing them .
That ’ s Brady president Kris Brown taking the bizarre position that sending federal law enforcement officers to places like Chicago won ’ t reduce violent crime , but putting a few new federal gun laws on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet wasn ’ t just a casual aside , either .
The anti-gun group has gone so far as to put out a statement blasting the idea of “ more policing , ” even though their ideology demands that armed agents of the State Brady urges the federal government to listen to impacted communities and local leaders rather than add federal policing to American cities .
While Brady supports federal policies to address gun violence , this “ surge ” in policing does not accomplish that goal and has been rejected by local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over-policing , the federal government should instead listen to experts , local officials , and those most affected by gun violence to identify and understand how to reduce gun violence in urban communities .
The problem for Brady is that most “ experts ” and many community activists have moved away from the idea that we can ban our way to safety by putting more gun control laws in place .
If you believe that the criminal justice system and policing are systemically racist , then every new gun control law just exacerbates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups like Brady , Everytown for Gun Safety , Moms Demand Action , and Giffords have actually made the problem worse .
The answer would seem to be to get rid of the non-violent , possessory offenses for things like possessing a “ large capacity ” magazine or an “ assault weapon ” and discriminatory licensing and registration laws and focus law enforcement resources on arresting and fully prosecuting violent criminals .
That would require a complete reset of the gun control movement , however , and that ’ s not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control movement is completely at odds with the de-policing movement .
Since both exist under the umbrella of the Democrat Party , activists like Brown are now desperately trying to figure out a way to stay relevant , even if it results in bizarre positions like demanding more gun control laws and less policing .
It ’ s an untenable position , but since it ’ s unlikely that they ’ ll get much pushback from their ostensible allies on the Left ( at least before the elections in November ) , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it in the coming months .

The Trump administration’s plans to expand a surge of federal law enforcement into cities beset by a spike in violent crime is coming under criticism from gun control groups, even though the program called “Operation LeGend” ultimately amounts to greater enforcement of the very gun control laws that they helped to put on the books.
President Trump outlined why he’s sending more federal resources to cities like Milwaukee and Albuquerque in a White House press briefing on Wednesday, highlighting some of the recent problems in Democrat-controlled cities.
For decades, politicians running many of our nation’s major cities have put the interests of criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens. These same politicians have now embraced the far-left movement to break up our police departments, causing violent crime in their cities to spiral — and I mean spiral seriously out of control. In New York City, over 300 people were shot in the last month alone. A 277 — at least — percent increase over the same period of a year ago. Murders this year have spiked 27 percent in Philadelphia and 94 percent in Minneapolis compared to the same period in 2019. Perhaps no citizens have suffered more from the menace of violent crime than the wonderful people of Chicago — a city I know very well. At least 414 people have been murdered in the city this year, a roughly 50 percent increase over last year. More than 1,900 people have been shot. These are numbers that aren’t even to be believed.
Until just a few months ago, gun control groups would likely have cheered the president’s decision. After all, more federal law enforcement resources means more opportunities to enforce federal gun laws. Since the start of the “defund police” movement, however, gun control advocates have found themselves in the increasingly awkward position of advocating for more gun laws to be put on the books, while downplaying the idea of actually enforcing them.
Let’s be clear, unleashing federal troops into our cities will not solve gun violence. The solutions — stronger federal gun laws, lifesaving funding for violence interruption programs — are sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk. We’re not falling for this desperate show of dominance. https://t.co/N7uT7ITVza — Kris Brown (@KrisB_Brown) July 22, 2020
That’s Brady president Kris Brown taking the bizarre position that sending federal law enforcement officers to places like Chicago won’t reduce violent crime, but putting a few new federal gun laws on the books will. Brown’s tweet wasn’t just a casual aside, either. The anti-gun group has gone so far as to put out a statement blasting the idea of “more policing,” even though their ideology demands that armed agents of the State
Brady urges the federal government to listen to impacted communities and local leaders rather than add federal policing to American cities. While Brady supports federal policies to address gun violence, this “surge” in policing does not accomplish that goal and has been rejected by local officials. Rather than engaging in more over-policing, the federal government should instead listen to experts, local officials, and those most affected by gun violence to identify and understand how to reduce gun violence in urban communities.
The problem for Brady is that most “experts” and many community activists have moved away from the idea that we can ban our way to safety by putting more gun control laws in place. If you believe that the criminal justice system and policing are systemically racist, then every new gun control law just exacerbates the problem, which means that anti-gun groups like Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and Giffords have actually made the problem worse.
The answer would seem to be to get rid of the non-violent, possessory offenses for things like possessing a “large capacity” magazine or an “assault weapon” and discriminatory licensing and registration laws and focus law enforcement resources on arresting and fully prosecuting violent criminals. That would require a complete reset of the gun control movement, however, and that’s not going to happen.
Instead, the modern gun control movement is completely at odds with the de-policing movement. Since both exist under the umbrella of the Democrat Party, activists like Brown are now desperately trying to figure out a way to stay relevant, even if it results in bizarre positions like demanding more gun control laws and less policing. It’s an untenable position, but since it’s unlikely that they’ll get much pushback from their ostensible allies on the Left (at least before the elections in November), they’re going to try to stick with it in the coming months.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Virginia Man Sues Over New "Red Flag" Law

Virginia ’ s version of the Extreme Risk Protection Order , or “ red flag ” law that allows for the seizure of firearms from individuals deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others , has its first legal challenge , though it might not go very far .
Joseph Draego lives in Albemarle County , outside of Charlottesville , Virginia , and while he ’ s not been the subject of a gun seizure order , he ’ s filed suit in federal court alleging that the law is already chilling his speech because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements could lead to officials red-flagging him .
The Daily Progress newspaper in Charlottesville reports that in 2016 , Draego ’ s speech before the Charlottesville City Council was abruptly interrupted by the mayor after he called Muslims “ monstrous maniacs.
” Draego continued trying to speak , and ultimately had to be removed from the city council chambers by police .
Several months after filing suit , a judge agreed with Draego that his rights had been violated , and issued a temporary injunction against the city blocking it from imposing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future speakers .
Draego ’ s new lawsuit might not be as successful , for the simple fact that he ’ s not actually been subjected to a “ substantial risk order ” … yet .
Not only has Albemarle County not pursued a red flag order yet , I ’ m not aware of any jurisdiction in the state that ’ s done so since the law took effect on July 1st .
That may make it difficult for Draego to claim he has standing to challenge the law , since he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the gun owner is hoping to overcome that hurdle with the claim that he ’ s already having to watch his mouth if he wants to keep his guns .
It ’ s an interesting argument , but I ’ m not sure that it will be enough to convince a judge to toss the state ’ s temporary gun ban altogether .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Virginia’s version of the Extreme Risk Protection Order, or “red flag” law that allows for the seizure of firearms from individuals deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others, has its first legal challenge, though it might not go very far.
Joseph Draego lives in Albemarle County, outside of Charlottesville, Virginia, and while he’s not been the subject of a gun seizure order, he’s filed suit in federal court alleging that the law is already chilling his speech because he’s concerned his “controversial” statements could lead to officials red-flagging him.
The Daily Progress newspaper in Charlottesville reports that in 2016, Draego’s speech before the Charlottesville City Council was abruptly interrupted by the mayor after he called Muslims “monstrous maniacs.” Draego continued trying to speak, and ultimately had to be removed from the city council chambers by police. Several months after filing suit, a judge agreed with Draego that his rights had been violated, and issued a temporary injunction against the city blocking it from imposing its rule against “group defamation” on future speakers.
Draego’s new lawsuit might not be as successful, for the simple fact that he’s not actually been subjected to a “substantial risk order”… yet.
Not only has Albemarle County not pursued a red flag order yet, I’m not aware of any jurisdiction in the state that’s done so since the law took effect on July 1st. That may make it difficult for Draego to claim he has standing to challenge the law, since he’s not had his firearms removed, but the gun owner is hoping to overcome that hurdle with the claim that he’s already having to watch his mouth if he wants to keep his guns. It’s an interesting argument, but I’m not sure that it will be enough to convince a judge to toss the state’s temporary gun ban altogether.


bearingarms--2020-07-24--Rioters Barricade DHS Officers Inside Building, Try To Set Fire To It

Portland has become it ’ s own kind of trainwreck .
While violent crime in places like Chicago and New York are climbing , making those cities problem spots , Portland is in a league of its own .
While most of the country has moved on from the riots following the death of George Floyd during an arrest by Minneapolis police officers , Portland hasn ’ t .
The Antifa stronghold has had continuous civil unrest for weeks now .
This has led to federal officers stepping in and making arrests of those responsible for damage to federal buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either can ’ t or won ’ t step in .
Well , things just got…interesting there on Thursday .
“ Last night violence was even more aggressive than previous nights as rioters once again tried to set fire to the federal courthouse and actively tried to breach the entrance of the courthouse , ” a senior DHS official wrote in an email Thursday .
“ Rioters are also employing tactics that force federal officers to leave the Hatfield Federal Courthouse , setting them up to be attacked with lasers and projectiles.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began after 10 p.m. local time after more than 1,000 people gathered downtown .
Some became violent .
The attackers blocked the entrances to the courthouse , preventing the special DHS forces inside from easily getting out .
Some federal officers escaped and tried to repel those vandalizing the outside of the courthouse but were beamed in the eye by lasers , which can cause temporary and long-term blindness .
Other rioters then installed wooden boards on the outside of the courthouse entrance to prevent the rest of the DHS officials from leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the doors .
DHS officials on the scene said a shopping cart full of bricks and baseball bats were left in front of the building .
Federal police indoors who were trying to peak outside were struck with lasers , preventing them from seeing what was going on outside .
While the media is still making a whole lot of nothing out of “ right-wing extremists , ” they continue to ignore that the left has only avoided mass murder through either luck or incompetence .
I ’ m not really sure which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s one and/or the other .
Arguably , this is an attempt to kill everyone in the building , though it ’ s more likely an attempt to try and drive officers out into the mob .
Undoubtedly , any arrest of those responsible will be presented as if some secret police force is swooping in and snatching dissidents off the streets , all while ignoring the serious crimes they ’ re accused of .
And these are the same people wondering why the Second Amendment crowd isn ’ t shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is great for a Godzilla movie , but not something I ’ m interested in doing in real life , especially when the person encouraging it generally wants people like me either dead or subjugated .
What these dipsticks are doing is serious .
Arson is a serious crime .
Trying to barricade the building while doing it is even more serious .
There ’ s zero sympathy for anyone who do this being arrested no matter who does the arresting .
This needs to end before it escalates .

Portland has become it’s own kind of trainwreck. While violent crime in places like Chicago and New York are climbing, making those cities problem spots, Portland is in a league of its own.
While most of the country has moved on from the riots following the death of George Floyd during an arrest by Minneapolis police officers, Portland hasn’t. The Antifa stronghold has had continuous civil unrest for weeks now. This has led to federal officers stepping in and making arrests of those responsible for damage to federal buildings since, apparently, the Portland police either can’t or won’t step in.
Well, things just got…interesting there on Thursday.
“Last night violence was even more aggressive than previous nights as rioters once again tried to set fire to the federal courthouse and actively tried to breach the entrance of the courthouse,” a senior DHS official wrote in an email Thursday. “Rioters are also employing tactics that force federal officers to leave the Hatfield Federal Courthouse, setting them up to be attacked with lasers and projectiles.” The attack on the Hatfield Federal Courthouse began after 10 p.m. local time after more than 1,000 people gathered downtown. Some became violent. The attackers blocked the entrances to the courthouse, preventing the special DHS forces inside from easily getting out. Some federal officers escaped and tried to repel those vandalizing the outside of the courthouse but were beamed in the eye by lasers, which can cause temporary and long-term blindness. Other rioters then installed wooden boards on the outside of the courthouse entrance to prevent the rest of the DHS officials from leaving, while others tried to break down the doors. DHS officials on the scene said a shopping cart full of bricks and baseball bats were left in front of the building. Federal police indoors who were trying to peak outside were struck with lasers, preventing them from seeing what was going on outside.
While the media is still making a whole lot of nothing out of “right-wing extremists,” they continue to ignore that the left has only avoided mass murder through either luck or incompetence. I’m not really sure which it is at this point, but it’s one and/or the other.
Arguably, this is an attempt to kill everyone in the building, though it’s more likely an attempt to try and drive officers out into the mob.
Undoubtedly, any arrest of those responsible will be presented as if some secret police force is swooping in and snatching dissidents off the streets, all while ignoring the serious crimes they’re accused of.
And these are the same people wondering why the Second Amendment crowd isn’t shooting federal officers? “Let them fight” is great for a Godzilla movie, but not something I’m interested in doing in real life, especially when the person encouraging it generally wants people like me either dead or subjugated.
What these dipsticks are doing is serious. Arson is a serious crime. Trying to barricade the building while doing it is even more serious. There’s zero sympathy for anyone who do this being arrested no matter who does the arresting.
This needs to end before it escalates.