bearingarms--2020-01-06--2A Sanctuary County Eyes Resolution Supporting Gun Control

Less than a month ago , hundreds of northern Virginia gun owners turned out in support of a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution in Prince William County and cheered as supervisors approved a resolution in support of the right to keep and bear arms .
Now , the Republican majority on the county board has disappeared , and newly-sworn in supervisors are expected to leave that resolution in place , while also adopting a resolution supporting gun control at their first supervisors meeting on Tuesday .
The now Democratic-controlled Prince William Board of County Supervisors is poised to adopt a resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of new gun-safety laws and boost funding for mental health treatment and firearm safety training .
The measure is the newly elected board ’ s response to the “ constitutional county ” resolution adopted during the last meeting of the previous county board , which had a 6 to 2 Republican majority , and reflects the political sea change under way as board switches to Democratic control .
The Prince William Times reports that the incoming chair of the supervisors , Democrat Ann Wheeler , plans to leave the existing Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no intent to overturn the constitutional county resolution , ” Wheeler said Saturday .
“ You know , I believe that following the Constitution and gun safety legislation are not mutually exclusive.
” Indeed , the first few clauses of the proposed resolution note that every elected official in the commonwealth of Virginia , including county supervisors , must swear to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions .
The measure also states the board “ wishes to express its commitment to the rights of law-abiding citizens of Prince William County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After paying lip service to the Second Amendment rights of residents , the proposed resolution then urges lawmakers in Richmond to support several gun control measures that would restrict or infringe on those rights .
Interestingly , the Prince William Times notes that the resolution doesn ’ t mention the ban on modern sporting rifles and “ high capacity ” magazines proposed by state Senator Dick Saslaw .
That may be a sign that the proposed gun ban is going to face a tougher fight in the legislature than anticipated , or it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly-elected Democratic supervisors in Prince William County don ’ t want to go on the record in favor of confiscating firearms from legal gun owners .
Unfortunately , given the resolution ’ s support for “ red flag ” legislation , supervisors are , in fact , going to endorse a proposal that would confiscate firearms from legal gun owners who have not been convicted or even accused of a crime .
Additionally , the so-called “ safe storage ” bills that the supervisors are endorsing would make it a crime for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a firearm for self-defense while she ’ s home alone , or to allow her to hunt by herself on the family farm .
I expect that turnout for Tuesday ’ s board of supervisors meeting in Prince William County is going to be high once again .
I ’ m not nearly as optimistic about the chances that the newly-elected board members will actually listen to the voices of those in attendance .

Less than a month ago, hundreds of northern Virginia gun owners turned out in support of a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution in Prince William County and cheered as supervisors approved a resolution in support of the right to keep and bear arms.
Now, the Republican majority on the county board has disappeared, and newly-sworn in supervisors are expected to leave that resolution in place, while also adopting a resolution supporting gun control at their first supervisors meeting on Tuesday.
The now Democratic-controlled Prince William Board of County Supervisors is poised to adopt a resolution Tuesday urging state lawmakers to pass a handful of new gun-safety laws and boost funding for mental health treatment and firearm safety training. The measure is the newly elected board’s response to the “constitutional county” resolution adopted during the last meeting of the previous county board, which had a 6 to 2 Republican majority, and reflects the political sea change under way as board switches to Democratic control.
The Prince William Times reports that the incoming chair of the supervisors, Democrat Ann Wheeler, plans to leave the existing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution in place.
“There’s no intent to overturn the constitutional county resolution,” Wheeler said Saturday. “You know, I believe that following the Constitution and gun safety legislation are not mutually exclusive.” Indeed, the first few clauses of the proposed resolution note that every elected official in the commonwealth of Virginia, including county supervisors, must swear to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions. The measure also states the board “wishes to express its commitment to the rights of law-abiding citizens of Prince William County to legally keep and bear arms.”
After paying lip service to the Second Amendment rights of residents, the proposed resolution then urges lawmakers in Richmond to support several gun control measures that would restrict or infringe on those rights.
Pass the so-called “red-flag bill,” which would allow a judge to temporarily limit access to firearms by individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others “while preserving due process;”
Eliminate potential background check loopholes by requiring background checks for all gun purchases through a federal firearms license;
Support laws limiting children’s access to firearms to reduce adolescent suicides and accidental adolescent shootings;
Provide additional state funding for firearms safety education;
Waive sales tax on gun safes and gun safety locks to promote safe gun handling practices; and
Strengthen penalties for adults who allow unsafe access to guns to children.
Interestingly, the Prince William Times notes that the resolution doesn’t mention the ban on modern sporting rifles and “high capacity” magazines proposed by state Senator Dick Saslaw. That may be a sign that the proposed gun ban is going to face a tougher fight in the legislature than anticipated, or it could just be a sign that these newly-elected Democratic supervisors in Prince William County don’t want to go on the record in favor of confiscating firearms from legal gun owners.
Unfortunately, given the resolution’s support for “red flag” legislation, supervisors are, in fact, going to endorse a proposal that would confiscate firearms from legal gun owners who have not been convicted or even accused of a crime. Additionally, the so-called “safe storage” bills that the supervisors are endorsing would make it a crime for a parent to allow their 17-year-old daughter access to a firearm for self-defense while she’s home alone, or to allow her to hunt by herself on the family farm.
I expect that turnout for Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting in Prince William County is going to be high once again. I’m not nearly as optimistic about the chances that the newly-elected board members will actually listen to the voices of those in attendance.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--NH Democrat Claims Death Threats After Accusing Right Of Wanting Civil War

There ’ s an awful lot of hysterics surrounding Donald Trump and his presidency .
The impeachment effort , which was never going to amount to much of anything , got a lot of people on the Right good and worked up .
After all , they support President Trump and the Democrats are trying to remove him from office based on the most ridiculous stream of accusations any of us have ever seen .
They have reason to get worked up .
Yet a New Hampshire Democrat is making headlines , first for saying the Right was ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , and now that she ’ s getting death threats over the comments .
New Hampshire Republicans are demanding disciplinary action against a Democratic State Representative who said gun-toting Trump voters are “ stockpiling ammo ” to start a second “ Civil War ” if he loses in 2020 .
Democratic State Representative Deb Stevens of Nashua , New Hampshire , has been unapologetic about her social media posts blasting President Donald Trump and his supporters as “ unstable , full of hate & bigotry.
” Stevens warned her supporters on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , ” the president will incite his most violent and armed supporters to start a “ mass slaughter ” of Democrats and all his critics .
House Republicans described Stevens ’ posts as “ offensive ” and “ dangerous ” and have threatened her with disciplinary action .
Stevens doubled down on her critical comments about Trump voters and told Newsweek Sunday afternoon that she is filing police complaints after receiving threats of sexual and firearm-related violence .
“ If trump loses in 2020 , these people who ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to start a Civil War .
What will that be like ?
Are they planning a mass slaughter ?
Who will the “ enemy ” be…those who voted for trump ’ s opponent ?
” Stevens wrote in the controversial Facebook post Friday .
It linked to an article from The Hill which quoted a Trump supporters who said he ’ d back a “ second Civil War ” if Trump doesn ’ t win reelection in November .
The problem is that Stevens took the remarks of precisely one Trump supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters with that brush .
To say nothing of all the other brushes she tarred them with as well .
I ’ m never going to condone death threats against anyone .
They never do anything but allow the recipient to feel vindicated and righteous .
But to take the quote of one guy and somehow make him a spokesperson for millions upon millions of Americans is ridiculous .
Stevens shouldn ’ t get a pass on that either , and I don ’ t think she did .
I know a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So much so that I doubt she got death threats .
Most likely , she ’ s getting “ I hope you die in a fire ” kind of remarks–which I still think are inappropriate , but aren ’ t threats–and is riding those as death threats are currency in politics these days .
Regardless of whether she did or not , the truth is that if President Trump loses in November , his supporters will be upset , sure .
I also suspect a lot of them will start preparing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lost but because of what a Democrat in the White House will plan to do , particularly with regard to guns .
It ’ s important to recognize one thing Stevens completely ignores in her fearmongering .
It isn ’ t the Right that has rioted over and over since Trump won the 2016 election .
It wasn ’ t the Right that set fire to buildings and destroyed cars because “ orange man bad.
” It ’ s not the Right that has been engaged in low-level conflict nonstop since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t deserve death threats ( assuming she ’ s even getting real death threats ) , but she definitely deserves the pushback she ’ s getting otherwise .
If you ’ re someone who is giving her death threats , knock it off .
You ’ re not helping .

There’s an awful lot of hysterics surrounding Donald Trump and his presidency. The impeachment effort, which was never going to amount to much of anything, got a lot of people on the Right good and worked up. After all, they support President Trump and the Democrats are trying to remove him from office based on the most ridiculous stream of accusations any of us have ever seen. They have reason to get worked up.
Yet a New Hampshire Democrat is making headlines, first for saying the Right was ready to start a civil war if Trump lost in 2020, and now that she’s getting death threats over the comments.
New Hampshire Republicans are demanding disciplinary action against a Democratic State Representative who said gun-toting Trump voters are “stockpiling ammo” to start a second “Civil War” if he loses in 2020. Democratic State Representative Deb Stevens of Nashua, New Hampshire, has been unapologetic about her social media posts blasting President Donald Trump and his supporters as “unstable, full of hate & bigotry.” Stevens warned her supporters on Facebook Friday that “if Trump loses in 2020,” the president will incite his most violent and armed supporters to start a “mass slaughter” of Democrats and all his critics. House Republicans described Stevens’ posts as “offensive” and “dangerous” and have threatened her with disciplinary action. Stevens doubled down on her critical comments about Trump voters and told Newsweek Sunday afternoon that she is filing police complaints after receiving threats of sexual and firearm-related violence. “If trump loses in 2020, these people who’ve been stockpiling ammo & amassing weaponry, are planning to start a Civil War. What will that be like? Are they planning a mass slaughter? Who will the “enemy” be…those who voted for trump’s opponent?” Stevens wrote in the controversial Facebook post Friday. It linked to an article from The Hill which quoted a Trump supporters who said he’d back a “second Civil War” if Trump doesn’t win reelection in November.
The problem is that Stevens took the remarks of precisely one Trump supporter and tarred and feathered all of his supporters with that brush. To say nothing of all the other brushes she tarred them with as well.
I’m never going to condone death threats against anyone. They never do anything but allow the recipient to feel vindicated and righteous.
But to take the quote of one guy and somehow make him a spokesperson for millions upon millions of Americans is ridiculous. Stevens shouldn’t get a pass on that either, and I don’t think she did. I know a lot of people called her out on it. So much so that I doubt she got death threats. Most likely, she’s getting “I hope you die in a fire” kind of remarks–which I still think are inappropriate, but aren’t threats–and is riding those as death threats are currency in politics these days.
Regardless of whether she did or not, the truth is that if President Trump loses in November, his supporters will be upset, sure. I also suspect a lot of them will start preparing for war, but not so much because Trump lost but because of what a Democrat in the White House will plan to do, particularly with regard to guns.
It’s important to recognize one thing Stevens completely ignores in her fearmongering. It isn’t the Right that has rioted over and over since Trump won the 2016 election. It wasn’t the Right that set fire to buildings and destroyed cars because “orange man bad.” It’s not the Right that has been engaged in low-level conflict nonstop since the election results were announced.
Stevens doesn’t deserve death threats (assuming she’s even getting real death threats), but she definitely deserves the pushback she’s getting otherwise.
If you’re someone who is giving her death threats, knock it off. You’re not helping.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--FBI Says 2019 Was A Record-Breaking Year For NICS Checks

The number of background checks on firearm sales , transfers , and concealed carry applications reached a record high in 2019 , according to FBI figures released on Monday .
The agency reports that there were nearly 3-million background checks performed in December , which propelled the total number of NICS checks in 2019 to 28,369,750 .
That ’ s 3 % higher than the previous record set back in 2016 , when concerns over a possible Hillary Clinton presidency drove gun sales to near record highs .
This year ’ s increase was likely driven by calls by presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Rourke to ban and confiscate all semi-automatic rifles in the country , alongside House Democrats voting in favor of a “ universal background check ” bill .
While the NICS numbers aren ’ t a perfect snapshot of gun sales ( sales involving multiple firearms will only result in one NICS check , for instance ) they are a pretty good proxy for interest in the Second Amendment .
Justin Anderson , marketing director at Hyatt Guns told the Washington Examiner ’ s Paul Bedard that he expects another big year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fueled industry growth , and this year ’ s historic NICS record is no different .
Intelligent people are seeing the writing on the wall — whether it be Virginia ’ s test case for gun confiscation or threats of another world war on the horizon .
They are arming themselves .
Anti-gun politicians should take note .
While an armed populace is a polite populace , they do not take well to threats to their freedom , ” he told Secrets .
If you go back and look at the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can see that election-year spikes didn ’ t begin until 2008 , when Barack Obama , who backed a ban on handguns while a state Senator in Illinois , defeated John McCain for the presidency .
That spike in 2008 resulted in nearly 13-million NICS checks performed .
Compare that to the nearly 29-million background checks performed in 2019 , and you can see how robust the growth has been in support for the Second Amendment over the past decade .
This bodes well for another record-setting year in 2020 .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat nominee will be the most anti-gun presidential candidate in U.S. history , but anti-gun lawmakers from Virginia to Washington State will be busy trying to enact sweeping restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if we surpass 30-million NICS checks this year .
I just hope every one of those gun owners gets out and votes , or else they ’ ll likely find their new purchases are now illegal for them to continue to own .

The number of background checks on firearm sales, transfers, and concealed carry applications reached a record high in 2019, according to FBI figures released on Monday.
The agency reports that there were nearly 3-million background checks performed in December, which propelled the total number of NICS checks in 2019 to 28,369,750. That’s 3% higher than the previous record set back in 2016, when concerns over a possible Hillary Clinton presidency drove gun sales to near record highs. This year’s increase was likely driven by calls by presidential candidates like Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke to ban and confiscate all semi-automatic rifles in the country, alongside House Democrats voting in favor of a “universal background check” bill.
While the NICS numbers aren’t a perfect snapshot of gun sales (sales involving multiple firearms will only result in one NICS check, for instance) they are a pretty good proxy for interest in the Second Amendment.
Justin Anderson, marketing director at Hyatt Guns told the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard that he expects another big year in 2020.
“Politics have traditionally fueled industry growth, and this year’s historic NICS record is no different. Intelligent people are seeing the writing on the wall — whether it be Virginia’s test case for gun confiscation or threats of another world war on the horizon. They are arming themselves. Anti-gun politicians should take note. While an armed populace is a polite populace, they do not take well to threats to their freedom,” he told Secrets.
If you go back and look at the number of background checks performed by the FBI, you can see that election-year spikes didn’t begin until 2008, when Barack Obama, who backed a ban on handguns while a state Senator in Illinois, defeated John McCain for the presidency. That spike in 2008 resulted in nearly 13-million NICS checks performed. Compare that to the nearly 29-million background checks performed in 2019, and you can see how robust the growth has been in support for the Second Amendment over the past decade.
This bodes well for another record-setting year in 2020. Not only are we assured that the eventual Democrat nominee will be the most anti-gun presidential candidate in U.S. history, but anti-gun lawmakers from Virginia to Washington State will be busy trying to enact sweeping restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. I wouldn’t be surprised if we surpass 30-million NICS checks this year. I just hope every one of those gun owners gets out and votes, or else they’ll likely find their new purchases are now illegal for them to continue to own.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--VA Republican Says Background Check Bill Will Pass With Some GOP Support

Virginia ’ s 2020 legislative session kicks off this week , with gun control expected to be one of the top priorities for Governor Ralph Northam .
While tens of thousands of Virginians have turned out for their local county supervisors and city council meetings to urge local lawmakers to stand in support of the Second Amendment , Republican state senator Tommy Norment says he expects that several of the anti-gun bills pushed by Democrats will draw at least some report from his fellow Republicans .
He made the statement at the annual Kaufman & Canoles Business Leaders Forum at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beach .
During the luncheon , Norment and Virginia Beach Del .
Barry Knight ( R-81st District ) talked about some legislation Virginia can expect to see .
Norment ’ s official position as co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee makes him the man at the tip of the spear for all things budget-related .
His position as Senate majority leader has changed as Democrats take control of the Senate .
Norment said it ’ s clear recent gatherings at local government meetings supporting gun rights are making a statement .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests are expressions of pro-gun values .
“ Universal background checks , I predict , is coming out no matter what the governor has said .
It is going to happen because there is majority of Republicans and Democrats who will pass it , ” he said .
A reminder ; Democrats now control both chambers of the legislature , so they can pass what they want even if every Republican votes “ no , ” but Norment says both background checks and a “ red flag ” law could draw support from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But let me be clear about that , ” he told the gathering of about 100 people .
“ If there is an appropriately , narrowly-drawn red flag law it will pass , but it must be drawn so tightly that due process is preserved.
” At the so-called “ Sanctuary City ” gatherings all across Hampton Roads , many people have voiced concerns that guns will be confiscated .
Norment said there was “ no way ” that would happen .
“ There ain ’ t no way in hell that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people up under the pretext of amending the federal Constitution of the Second Amendment , ” he said , garnering some applause .
From what I ’ ve been hearing , there are some GOP lawmakers ( particularly in several suburban districtse ) who believe the popularity of “ universal background checks ” in polls in Virginia makes this an issue they feel like they have to support .
A few folks I ’ ve talked to indicate that they believe the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement revolves around opposition to SB16 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sen. Dick Saslaw from northern Virginia .
I would strongly encourage them to reconsider their position , because I can assure these senators that every one of Ralph Northam ’ s gun control proposals is going to be met with resistance in most of the Second Amendment Sanctuaries , including background checks on all private transfers .
Besides the concerns about establishing a back-door gun registry , gun owners and Second Amendment supporters know that these universal background check laws don ’ t actually lead to more background checks or reduced crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baltimore , Maryland , crime rates have actually increased after background check laws were put in place .
If the supposed popularity of a bad bill is enough for some lawmakers to vote for it , Virginia gun owners are going to be in for a rough few months .
Every gun owner in the state concerned about the erosion and the infringement on their right to keep and bear arms needs to be in contact with their delegate and state senator right now , urging them to stand strong in defense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia really want to do something with background checks , they ’ d be much better off pushing something that actually works while addressing the valid concerns of gun owners in the state .
Kareem Shaya with Open Source Defense , for example , wrote a piece back in August that offered a new way to conduct background checks that alleviates the concern over a registry .
Now , the system that Shaya lays out is designed to work at the federal level , but this could be tweaked to allow the Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would give purchasers the check number that expires .
It ’ s not a perfect system , but it ’ s much better than what Virginia Democrats are proposing .
If Republicans in the state legislature roll over on any of the Northam ’ s gun control proposals , they will face a backlash .
They could also drive down the voter enthusiasm on the right during a critically important 2020 election year .
It ’ s critically important that we as gun owners engage with our lawmakers right now to let them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be civil , but be heard .

Virginia’s 2020 legislative session kicks off this week, with gun control expected to be one of the top priorities for Governor Ralph Northam. While tens of thousands of Virginians have turned out for their local county supervisors and city council meetings to urge local lawmakers to stand in support of the Second Amendment, Republican state senator Tommy Norment says he expects that several of the anti-gun bills pushed by Democrats will draw at least some report from his fellow Republicans.
He made the statement at the annual Kaufman & Canoles Business Leaders Forum at the Princess Anne Country Club in Virginia Beach. During the luncheon, Norment and Virginia Beach Del. Barry Knight (R-81st District) talked about some legislation Virginia can expect to see. Norment’s official position as co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee makes him the man at the tip of the spear for all things budget-related. His position as Senate majority leader has changed as Democrats take control of the Senate. Norment said it’s clear recent gatherings at local government meetings supporting gun rights are making a statement. There’s no legal impact, but the protests are expressions of pro-gun values. “Universal background checks, I predict, is coming out no matter what the governor has said. It is going to happen because there is majority of Republicans and Democrats who will pass it,” he said.
A reminder; Democrats now control both chambers of the legislature, so they can pass what they want even if every Republican votes “no,” but Norment says both background checks and a “red flag” law could draw support from some members of the GOP.
“But let me be clear about that,” he told the gathering of about 100 people. “If there is an appropriately, narrowly-drawn red flag law it will pass, but it must be drawn so tightly that due process is preserved.” At the so-called “Sanctuary City” gatherings all across Hampton Roads, many people have voiced concerns that guns will be confiscated. Norment said there was “no way” that would happen. “There ain’t no way in hell that any legislation will pass confiscating guns and locking people up under the pretext of amending the federal Constitution of the Second Amendment,” he said, garnering some applause.
From what I’ve been hearing, there are some GOP lawmakers (particularly in several suburban districtse) who believe the popularity of “universal background checks” in polls in Virginia makes this an issue they feel like they have to support. A few folks I’ve talked to indicate that they believe the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement revolves around opposition to SB16, the so-called “assault weapons ban” introduced by Sen. Dick Saslaw from northern Virginia.
I would strongly encourage them to reconsider their position, because I can assure these senators that every one of Ralph Northam’s gun control proposals is going to be met with resistance in most of the Second Amendment Sanctuaries, including background checks on all private transfers.
Besides the concerns about establishing a back-door gun registry, gun owners and Second Amendment supporters know that these universal background check laws don’t actually lead to more background checks or reduced crime rates. From Denver, Colorado to Baltimore, Maryland, crime rates have actually increased after background check laws were put in place. If the supposed popularity of a bad bill is enough for some lawmakers to vote for it, Virginia gun owners are going to be in for a rough few months.
Every gun owner in the state concerned about the erosion and the infringement on their right to keep and bear arms needs to be in contact with their delegate and state senator right now, urging them to stand strong in defense of the Second Amendment.
If Republicans in Virginia really want to do something with background checks, they’d be much better off pushing something that actually works while addressing the valid concerns of gun owners in the state. Kareem Shaya with Open Source Defense, for example, wrote a piece back in August that offered a new way to conduct background checks that alleviates the concern over a registry.
Any gun buyer can log into the NICS background check system and enter their personal information. The system gives them a check number that expires in 1 week. (For reference here is ATF Form 4473, the background check form.) The buyer can then buy firearms from any legal seller. They have to meet face-to-face (or ship the gun to a licensed dealer for the buyer to do the check with), and the buyer shows the check number. The seller verifies the buyer’s ID, enters the check number into the NICS system, and the system returns just one word: “approved” or “denied”. If the check is approved, they can proceed with the sale. The system doesn’t collect any information at all on the item(s) being sold/transferred (type, make, model, quantity, etc.) — its only job is to check on whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase firearms. After one week, when the check number expires, the system doesn’t retain any records. (That information is already archived for 20 years on the Form 4473 for all gun shop sales.) The system collects no information about the seller, as it’s designed to work without even knowing the seller’s identity. Transfers between family members are exempt. Firearm loans of up to 14 days are also exempt — this is to accommodate a situation where, say, two people are on a backcountry hunting trip and one needs to lend the other a gun during the trip. They need some way to do that without committing a felony.
Now, the system that Shaya lays out is designed to work at the federal level, but this could be tweaked to allow the Virginia State Police to serve as agency that would give purchasers the check number that expires. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s much better than what Virginia Democrats are proposing.
If Republicans in the state legislature roll over on any of the Northam’s gun control proposals, they will face a backlash. They could also drive down the voter enthusiasm on the right during a critically important 2020 election year. It’s critically important that we as gun owners engage with our lawmakers right now to let them know where we stand. Be polite, be civil, but be heard.


bearingarms--2020-01-06--Latest Attack On Gun Sanctuaries? Comparing Them To Slavery

While I fully believe the United States is the greatest country on the face of the planet , I ’ m also not blind to its faults .
In particular that “ peculiar institution ” we once had in this nation called slavery .
Ridding our nation of that particular stain–an ironic one for a nation founded on liberty–was a good thing .
The truth is , while there may be debate on just how bad slavery was , I ’ ve never met anyone who thinks we should go back to that point , which is a good thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our history and we ’ ll never make it go away , but that ’ s fine .
We learn from our mistakes , after all .
However , there also comes a point when that particular stain is being used not as a lesson but as a bludgeon to hammer away at anyone who dares to disagree with you .
In these days , slavery is used in just such a way , and that includes using it against the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement .
A new line of attack on Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is propelling similar pro-gun efforts in other states , compares it to slavery , drawing criticism from movement leaders who have won support in 91 % of the state ’ s counties .
In the latest Washington Post slam on the movement , dubbed “ vigilantism ” in a recent editorial , the paper gave space Sunday to a critic who said the “ thinking ” behind the organic movement is what propelled slavery and opposed the civil rights movement .
In linking it to slavery , he wrote , “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ movement conjures the disturbing nullification movements of the past three centuries in Virginia .
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states have the right to ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional .
That thinking was applied to proslavery movements , leading to the Civil War and the fight over integration in the 1950s and 1960s.
” Wow .
Someone trying to paint us as racists .
We never see that one , now do we ?
Now , don ’ t get me wrong , I ’ m glad slavery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those institutions still here , I ’ d have been deprived of many dear friends in my life .
Plus , under the “ one-drop rule ” and the DNA test my father recently took , we ’ d be on the wrong side of those institutions as well , which is yet another reason to be glad they in the dustbin of history .
But Jefferson and Madison argued states have those rights across the board .
The fact that they were used for two particularly heinous institutions doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation , we have states legalizing marijuana , thus ignoring federal laws against it .
How is that any different ?
It ’ s not .
It ’ s the same principle .
Yet Galuszka doesn ’ t really care about that .
He ’ s too busy trying to continue vilifying pro-gun voices by comparing them to slavery apologists and similarly vile people during segregation .
He knows precisely what he ’ s doing , too .
Where he runs into a problem is that so many of us have been called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point that this latest effort isn ’ t likely to change anyone ’ s mind .
Not that running around and screaming about racists everywhere has a really good track record of changing hearts and minds anyway .

While I fully believe the United States is the greatest country on the face of the planet, I’m also not blind to its faults. In particular that “peculiar institution” we once had in this nation called slavery. Ridding our nation of that particular stain–an ironic one for a nation founded on liberty–was a good thing. The truth is, while there may be debate on just how bad slavery was, I’ve never met anyone who thinks we should go back to that point, which is a good thing.
That particular stain still resides in our history and we’ll never make it go away, but that’s fine. We learn from our mistakes, after all.
However, there also comes a point when that particular stain is being used not as a lesson but as a bludgeon to hammer away at anyone who dares to disagree with you. In these days, slavery is used in just such a way, and that includes using it against the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement.
A new line of attack on Virginia’s fast-growing gun sanctuary movement, which is propelling similar pro-gun efforts in other states, compares it to slavery, drawing criticism from movement leaders who have won support in 91% of the state’s counties. In the latest Washington Post slam on the movement, dubbed “vigilantism” in a recent editorial, the paper gave space Sunday to a critic who said the “thinking” behind the organic movement is what propelled slavery and opposed the civil rights movement. Peter Galuszka called the movement “disturbing,” “reactionary,” “hysteria,” “ugly,” and “dangerous.” In linking it to slavery, he wrote, “A sad irony is that the ‘sanctuary’ movement conjures the disturbing nullification movements of the past three centuries in Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states have the right to ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional. That thinking was applied to proslavery movements, leading to the Civil War and the fight over integration in the 1950s and 1960s.”
Wow. Someone trying to paint us as racists. We never see that one, now do we?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad slavery and segregation are long over. Were those institutions still here, I’d have been deprived of many dear friends in my life. Plus, under the “one-drop rule” and the DNA test my father recently took, we’d be on the wrong side of those institutions as well, which is yet another reason to be glad they in the dustbin of history.
But Jefferson and Madison argued states have those rights across the board. The fact that they were used for two particularly heinous institutions doesn’t mean they were wrong. All across the nation, we have states legalizing marijuana, thus ignoring federal laws against it. How is that any different?
It’s not. It’s the same principle.
Yet Galuszka doesn’t really care about that. He’s too busy trying to continue vilifying pro-gun voices by comparing them to slavery apologists and similarly vile people during segregation. He knows precisely what he’s doing, too.
Where he runs into a problem is that so many of us have been called racists for so damn long at this point that this latest effort isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. Not that running around and screaming about racists everywhere has a really good track record of changing hearts and minds anyway.


bearingarms--2020-01-05--VA County Addresses Its 2A Ordinance "Ordering" The Militia

Most of the 115 counties , cities , and towns in Virginia that have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries have done so via a resolution , but a couple of counties have gone further by passing an actual ordinance .
Tazewell County , a beautiful and somewhat remote county ( at least once you get off Interstate 81 ) in the Appalachian Mountains and the Cumberland Plateau , is full of Second Amendment supporters , and the county supervisors not only declared the county a sanctuary on December 3rd , it passed an ordinance “ ordering ” the militia in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms from being seized .
Since then , the county ’ s been fielding questions from residents , reporters , and others who are curious about what exactly that means .
According to Southwest Virginia Today , the county ’ s been giving a “ stock answer.
” That answer is “ On Dec. 3rd , 2019 , our Board of Supervisors chose to exercise some of its rights under the Virginia Constitution to order or regulate militia .
By insuring that our residents have the opportunity ( 1 ) to possess certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to educate themselves on their use , ( 3 ) to learn common military practices , and ( 4 ) to learn basic survival skills , we hope to preserve a group of residents who could form a militia , were such a body needed .
Without these most basic elements our County would not have a group of persons from whom a militia could be drawn .
At the moment , however , the Board has not called any such militia to arms and prays that such moment never occurs.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia wasn ’ t necessarily meant to lead to thousands of residents drilling on the courthouse lawn , but to make the argument that , because virtually every law-abiding resident is a member of the county militia , they need access to the type of firearm most suited for use in defense of self and county ; a semi-automatic rifle .
Since SB 16 in Virginia currently is written to make continued possession of legally owned semi-automatic rifles a crime , this is an attempt to protect residents from the effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the county reserves the right to call the militia to arms , though its statement doesn ’ t indicate what would trigger such a response .
As the paper in southwest Virginia points out , while Tazewell County may have been the first in the state to order the county ’ s militia , it likely won ’ t be the last .
The Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have been passed by the vast majority of Virginia counties are the first step , not the last word in the movement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Mark Herring , these counties don ’ t seem interested in backing down from their pro-Second Amendment stand .

Most of the 115 counties, cities, and towns in Virginia that have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries have done so via a resolution, but a couple of counties have gone further by passing an actual ordinance. Tazewell County, a beautiful and somewhat remote county (at least once you get off Interstate 81) in the Appalachian Mountains and the Cumberland Plateau, is full of Second Amendment supporters, and the county supervisors not only declared the county a sanctuary on December 3rd, it passed an ordinance “ordering” the militia in an attempt to prevent any lawfully owned firearms from being seized.
Since then, the county’s been fielding questions from residents, reporters, and others who are curious about what exactly that means. According to Southwest Virginia Today, the county’s been giving a “stock answer.”
That answer is “On Dec. 3rd, 2019, our Board of Supervisors chose to exercise some of its rights under the Virginia Constitution to order or regulate militia. By insuring that our residents have the opportunity (1) to possess certain types of firearms, (2) to educate themselves on their use, (3) to learn common military practices, and (4) to learn basic survival skills, we hope to preserve a group of residents who could form a militia, were such a body needed. Without these most basic elements our County would not have a group of persons from whom a militia could be drawn. At the moment, however, the Board has not called any such militia to arms and prays that such moment never occurs.”
In other words, the ordering of the militia wasn’t necessarily meant to lead to thousands of residents drilling on the courthouse lawn, but to make the argument that, because virtually every law-abiding resident is a member of the county militia, they need access to the type of firearm most suited for use in defense of self and county; a semi-automatic rifle. Since SB 16 in Virginia currently is written to make continued possession of legally owned semi-automatic rifles a crime, this is an attempt to protect residents from the effects of the unconstitutional law.
Note, however, that the county reserves the right to call the militia to arms, though its statement doesn’t indicate what would trigger such a response.
As the paper in southwest Virginia points out, while Tazewell County may have been the first in the state to order the county’s militia, it likely won’t be the last.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have been passed by the vast majority of Virginia counties are the first step, not the last word in the movement. Despite tough talk from Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring, these counties don’t seem interested in backing down from their pro-Second Amendment stand.


bearingarms--2020-01-05--"We Will Not Comply": FL GOP Liberty Caucus Vows To Resist Gun Ban

There ’ s currently an effort underway to get a referendum to ban so-called “ assault weapons ” on the 2020 ballot in Florida , and while the effort appears to be falling far short of the required number of signatures to be successful , some Second Amendment supporters aren ’ t taking anything for granted .
The Republican Liberty Caucus has approved a “ resolution of non-compliance , ” according to Florida Today , which reports the group is also one of several sponsors of a Monday forum that will focus on the proposed gun ban .
The resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caucus read in part that “ we , the lawful citizens of the state of Florida and the United States of America , do hereby resolve to defy and resist any and all registration or confiscation attempts of our lawfully owned arms , and that we will not comply with any orders to do so , as all laws or amendments that require such are illegal , a direct assault on our constitutionally protected rights , and therefore automatically null and void by default , regardless of what any constitutionally ignorant voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may say to the contrary.
” “ This is a drawing a line in the sand kind of thing , ” said Bob White of Suntree , chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida and its local affiliate , the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida .
White said members of his organization plan to defy to constitutional amendment if it makes the ballot and is approved by voters .
“ We ’ ve never done anything as strident as this , ” White said , while adding that “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Outright vowing not to abide by a law is a pretty strident step all right , but one well within the tradition of civil disobedience in this country .
Of course , with any act of civil disobedience , one has to be willing to face the consequences .
As the ballot proposal is worded , existing owners of any banned firearms wouldn ’ t be required to turn them in , but they would be required to register their firearms with the state , which many believe to be a precursor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road .
For now anyway , the vow of noncompliance comes without consequence .
Let ’ s hope that it never has to be put to the test , though if Florida ever does pass a ban on the most commonly produced rifle in the United States , I suspect far more than just the members of the Republican Liberty Caucus will be defiantly asserting that they will not comply .

There’s currently an effort underway to get a referendum to ban so-called “assault weapons” on the 2020 ballot in Florida, and while the effort appears to be falling far short of the required number of signatures to be successful, some Second Amendment supporters aren’t taking anything for granted.
The Republican Liberty Caucus has approved a “resolution of non-compliance,” according to Florida Today, which reports the group is also one of several sponsors of a Monday forum that will focus on the proposed gun ban.
The resolution of noncompliance approved by the Republican Liberty Caucus read in part that “we, the lawful citizens of the state of Florida and the United States of America, do hereby resolve to defy and resist any and all registration or confiscation attempts of our lawfully owned arms, and that we will not comply with any orders to do so, as all laws or amendments that require such are illegal, a direct assault on our constitutionally protected rights, and therefore automatically null and void by default, regardless of what any constitutionally ignorant voters, judges, law enforcement officials or legislators may say to the contrary.” “This is a drawing a line in the sand kind of thing,” said Bob White of Suntree, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida and its local affiliate, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida. White said members of his organization plan to defy to constitutional amendment if it makes the ballot and is approved by voters. “We’ve never done anything as strident as this,” White said, while adding that “an unconstitutional law is no law at all.”
Outright vowing not to abide by a law is a pretty strident step all right, but one well within the tradition of civil disobedience in this country. Of course, with any act of civil disobedience, one has to be willing to face the consequences. As the ballot proposal is worded, existing owners of any banned firearms wouldn’t be required to turn them in, but they would be required to register their firearms with the state, which many believe to be a precursor for an eventual confiscation further down the road.
For now anyway, the vow of noncompliance comes without consequence. Let’s hope that it never has to be put to the test, though if Florida ever does pass a ban on the most commonly produced rifle in the United States, I suspect far more than just the members of the Republican Liberty Caucus will be defiantly asserting that they will not comply.


bearingarms--2020-01-05--Why Gun Thefts From Cars Aren't Just On Gun Owners

It ’ s not the first time we ’ ve seen the police somewhere make this claim .
You see , police departments all over the nation have taken to the media to point out how criminals are breaking into cars in an effort to steal guns .
The bad guys can ’ t buy them legally , so they take to stealing them .
Plus , you ’ re less likely to get shot by breaking into someone ’ s car than by breaking into their home .
The latest department to do so is the Richmond , VA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if you ’ re going to leave your gun in the car , you should secure it in such a way that it ’ s not likely to be stolen .
However , I ’ m tired of this always being on gun owners .
The government itself has a role in all of this , one that ’ s curiously absent from these discussions .
You see , to understand that role , ask yourself why do people leave guns in their cars ?
Some people keep a gun in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t carry it other places .
Others have the required permits to carry a gun , but they can ’ t carry it into certain places .
All of these means guns are being left in people ’ s vehicles .
They ’ re being left because they don ’ t have much choice except to go unarmed everywhere else they need to go .
No one should have to make that choice .
If officials are serious about wanting to prevent guns from being stolen out of cars , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it so damn hard for people to keep guns on their person instead .
We don ’ t hear about a rash of guns being stolen out of people ’ s holsters , now do we ?
Of course , we don ’ t .
That ’ s because it doesn ’ t happen .
Cars are unattended because people have things to do .
Leaving a gun in the car is unlikely to be anyone ’ s first choice , but they do it out of a sense of necessity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happens ?
That ’ s right , fewer people leave their guns in the car .
Everyone wins .
Of course , the flip side of this is that everywhere else becomes a whole lot safer , thank you very much .
Honestly , it ’ s a win for everyone…except for gun grabbers , of course , since they can ’ t tar us all with the “ irresponsible ” brush as they like to do .
Frankly , they ’ ll get over it , especially when the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

It’s not the first time we’ve seen the police somewhere make this claim.
You see, police departments all over the nation have taken to the media to point out how criminals are breaking into cars in an effort to steal guns. The bad guys can’t buy them legally, so they take to stealing them. Plus, you’re less likely to get shot by breaking into someone’s car than by breaking into their home.
The latest department to do so is the Richmond, VA Police Department.
Richmond police are sending a message to gun owners – don’t leave guns accessible in your car. The warning comes as investigators are noticing many of the stolen guns they’ve confiscated are coming from cars that thieves have broken into. Last year around 450 guns were stolen in Richmond. More than half of them came from cars that thieves got into. Those guns were easy to get their hands on. Police say that can be dangerous. The right to bear arms is one that comes with responsibility. “Whether it’s one gun or 200 guns, it gives somebody the opportunity to use that weapon in a violent crime,” Lt. Dave Naoroz said.
Now, I agree that if you’re going to leave your gun in the car, you should secure it in such a way that it’s not likely to be stolen.
However, I’m tired of this always being on gun owners. The government itself has a role in all of this, one that’s curiously absent from these discussions.
You see, to understand that role, ask yourself why do people leave guns in their cars?
Some people keep a gun in the car because they legally can, but they can’t carry it other places. Others have the required permits to carry a gun, but they can’t carry it into certain places. All of these means guns are being left in people’s vehicles. They’re being left because they don’t have much choice except to go unarmed everywhere else they need to go.
No one should have to make that choice.
If officials are serious about wanting to prevent guns from being stolen out of cars, perhaps it’s time to stop making it so damn hard for people to keep guns on their person instead. We don’t hear about a rash of guns being stolen out of people’s holsters, now do we? Of course, we don’t. That’s because it doesn’t happen.
Cars are unattended because people have things to do. Leaving a gun in the car is unlikely to be anyone’s first choice, but they do it out of a sense of necessity. So, remove that necessity and guess what happens? That’s right, fewer people leave their guns in the car. Everyone wins.
Of course, the flip side of this is that everywhere else becomes a whole lot safer, thank you very much.
Honestly, it’s a win for everyone…except for gun grabbers, of course, since they can’t tar us all with the “irresponsible” brush as they like to do. Frankly, they’ll get over it, especially when the rest of us make the world safer for them.


bearingarms--2020-01-04--No, Reduced Training Requirements Won't Make Tennessee Unsafe

The state of Tennessee is having some problems , which Cam noted yesterday .
However , a new rule has gone into effect in such a way that it may make the state so much safer .
However , it seems that a number of people don ’ t see it that way .
Apparently , those numbers include some people who describe themselves as being pro-gun rights .
It seems reduced training requirements are a bad thing in their minds .
A new gun law that will take effect January 1 , 2020 in Tennessee has raised some concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are calling the measure unsafe because it drastically cuts the training required to get a handgun permit .
Jim Mauth , a firearm instructor in Franklin , is one of them .
“ I ’ m a Second Amendment guy .
You know , I ’ m ex-military , ” Mauth told WPLN News in Nashville .
“ I ’ m a lifelong member of the NRA.
” But Mauth said he is concerned about the newly-created “ enhanced handgun carry ” permit .
It allows people to forgo the 8-hour in-person training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90-minute online video .
Now , let ’ s also keep in mind that Mauth is a firearm instructor .
It ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that he stands to lose money now that people aren ’ t required to attend a class .
I ’ m not saying he ’ s only saying this because he may lose money , mind you .
I don ’ t know the man , so I won ’ t ascribe such mercenary motives to him .
But I will say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financially opposes a law like this , you should take that opposition with a grain of salt .
Even if he ’ s completely sincere , how much does the subconscious understanding of losing money influence one ’ s perception of a law ?
Look , a lot of other states have absolutely no training requirement at all .
You know what else they don ’ t have ?
A whole rash of people legally carrying guns but being stupid about it .
Sure , that happens , but let ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negate someone ’ s stupid gene .
We ’ ve seen that happen time and time again .
People should never have to go through training to exercise their constitutionally protected right , if for no other reason than it then becomes too easy to limit who can exercise that right .
If you don ’ t want poor people to carry , you make the class prohibitively expensive .
If you don ’ t want many people carrying at all , you make it almost impossible to pass the class .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a training requirement .
The truth is , now more people will be carrying guns .
That means more places will be safer because there are more guns .
Criminals in Tennessee are now going to face the idea of there being more and more armed citizens in more and more places .
As I ’ m sure some of them saw in White Settlement , that can be a bad recipe for them .
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make us safer as people .
That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest easier…even if they don ’ t think they can .

The state of Tennessee is having some problems, which Cam noted yesterday. However, a new rule has gone into effect in such a way that it may make the state so much safer.
However, it seems that a number of people don’t see it that way. Apparently, those numbers include some people who describe themselves as being pro-gun rights.
It seems reduced training requirements are a bad thing in their minds.
A new gun law that will take effect January 1, 2020 in Tennessee has raised some concerns — even among gun-rights advocates. Many are calling the measure unsafe because it drastically cuts the training required to get a handgun permit. Jim Mauth, a firearm instructor in Franklin, is one of them. “I’m a Second Amendment guy. You know, I’m ex-military,” Mauth told WPLN News in Nashville. “I’m a lifelong member of the NRA.” But Mauth said he is concerned about the newly-created “enhanced handgun carry” permit. It allows people to forgo the 8-hour in-person training with instructors and replace it with a 90-minute online video. Mauth called this new law “a bad idea.”
Now, let’s also keep in mind that Mauth is a firearm instructor. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that he stands to lose money now that people aren’t required to attend a class.
I’m not saying he’s only saying this because he may lose money, mind you. I don’t know the man, so I won’t ascribe such mercenary motives to him. But I will say that when someone who stands to lose out financially opposes a law like this, you should take that opposition with a grain of salt. Even if he’s completely sincere, how much does the subconscious understanding of losing money influence one’s perception of a law?
Look, a lot of other states have absolutely no training requirement at all. You know what else they don’t have? A whole rash of people legally carrying guns but being stupid about it.
Sure, that happens, but let’s also remember that training doesn’t necessarily negate someone’s stupid gene. We’ve seen that happen time and time again.
People should never have to go through training to exercise their constitutionally protected right, if for no other reason than it then becomes too easy to limit who can exercise that right. If you don’t want poor people to carry, you make the class prohibitively expensive. If you don’t want many people carrying at all, you make it almost impossible to pass the class. It’s too easy to manipulate things with a training requirement.
The truth is, now more people will be carrying guns. That means more places will be safer because there are more guns. Criminals in Tennessee are now going to face the idea of there being more and more armed citizens in more and more places. As I’m sure some of them saw in White Settlement, that can be a bad recipe for them.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make us safer as people. That’s how it works. So Tennessee residents can rest easier…even if they don’t think they can.


bearingarms--2020-01-04--GOP, 2A Groups Reject Virginia "Red Flag" Proposal

As we first reported on Friday , Virginia Democrats have officially filed a “ red flag ” firearms seizure bill that violates the due process rights of Virginians while doing nothing to actually treat or help those who may be a danger to themselves or others .
Republican lawmakers are panning the measure as well , with incoming House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert telling Bearing Arms : “ Our concern with this bill and others like it is that these bills go too far , and open the door for abuse that would not only endanger citizens but also law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our existing , proven system of dealing with those who may be a threat to themselves or others while preserving due process , but this bill comes up short.
” The existing system that Gilbert is referring to would be Virginia ’ s civil commitment laws , which use mental health professionals to decide if someone poses a threat to themselves or others , unlike the “ red flag ” proposal which leaves the decision in the hands of a judge who ’ s never actually spoken to the person who is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association is also speaking out against the bill .
Dave Adams , legislative affairs director for the group , says the measure has far more to do with gun confiscation than mental health .
“ As with other laws of this type , it does nothing for those ruled to be a risk to no longer be a risk other than taking the firearms .
It takes guns prior to a hearing to determine if the individual is a risk , and it gives immunity to law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or stolen while in law enforcement custody .
It has none of the constitutional protections that for instance , Dave Kopel , recommends for the law to be constitutional.
” It ’ s possible that the red flag bill will be amended during the legislative process , but I ’ m not holding my breath that whatever passes out of the legislature and is signed by Governor Ralph Northam is going to a ) respect the due process rights of Virginians and b ) actually treat the individual who ’ s been deemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I pointed out in my analysis of the legislation , the phrase “ mental health ” actually doesn ’ t appear anywhere in the Extreme Risk Protection Order section of SB 240 .
Unfortunately the VSSA ’ s Dave Adams is spot on when he says it has much more to do with seizing guns than helping those in crisis .
In a state that ’ s dealing with a rising suicide and drug overdose rate , I still find it unconscionable that Governor Northam and so many of his legislative allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in need and casting their eager eyes on the legally-owned firearms of Virginia residents .

As we first reported on Friday, Virginia Democrats have officially filed a “red flag” firearms seizure bill that violates the due process rights of Virginians while doing nothing to actually treat or help those who may be a danger to themselves or others.
Republican lawmakers are panning the measure as well, with incoming House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert telling Bearing Arms:
“Our concern with this bill and others like it is that these bills go too far, and open the door for abuse that would not only endanger citizens but also law enforcement. There is room to tweak our existing, proven system of dealing with those who may be a threat to themselves or others while preserving due process, but this bill comes up short.”
The existing system that Gilbert is referring to would be Virginia’s civil commitment laws, which use mental health professionals to decide if someone poses a threat to themselves or others, unlike the “red flag” proposal which leaves the decision in the hands of a judge who’s never actually spoken to the person who is the subject of an Extreme Risk Protection Order.
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association is also speaking out against the bill. Dave Adams, legislative affairs director for the group, says the measure has far more to do with gun confiscation than mental health.
“As with other laws of this type, it does nothing for those ruled to be a risk to no longer be a risk other than taking the firearms. It takes guns prior to a hearing to determine if the individual is a risk, and it gives immunity to law enforcement if someone’s firearms are damaged or stolen while in law enforcement custody. It has none of the constitutional protections that for instance, Dave Kopel, recommends for the law to be constitutional.”
It’s possible that the red flag bill will be amended during the legislative process, but I’m not holding my breath that whatever passes out of the legislature and is signed by Governor Ralph Northam is going to a) respect the due process rights of Virginians and b) actually treat the individual who’s been deemed a danger to themselves or others. As I pointed out in my analysis of the legislation, the phrase “mental health” actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the Extreme Risk Protection Order section of SB 240.
Unfortunately the VSSA’s Dave Adams is spot on when he says it has much more to do with seizing guns than helping those in crisis. In a state that’s dealing with a rising suicide and drug overdose rate, I still find it unconscionable that Governor Northam and so many of his legislative allies are turning a blind eye to those in need and casting their eager eyes on the legally-owned firearms of Virginia residents.


bearingarms--2020-01-04--Money Can't Buy Bloomberg Love, But Can It Buy Him Votes?

It ’ s been a little more than a month since Michael Bloomberg first announced he was running for president , and in the weeks since it ’ s been hard to avoid running into his campaign online and on your TV set .
Search for “ gun control , ” as I do several times a day , and the first response on Google is an ad for Bloomberg ’ s campaign .
Same for “ gun safety.
” That ’ s because a large part of Bloomberg ’ s spending to date has been focused on showing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about gun control .
As Vice notes , Bloomberg is now directly going after President Trump with his online ads .
When Google users typed “ Trump ” into their search bars Thursday , an unexpected result might have popped up : a message from Michael Bloomberg .
“ Trump Has Betrayed us and Broken His Promises , ” read an ad above any Trump-related news articles , images , and other links .
“ Enough is Enough.
” The temporary takeover of the president ’ s turf was a particularly aggressive move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gobble up every inch of media real estate .
Bloomberg has spent millions buying Google ads in recent weeks , many of them similarly targeting other search keywords like “ impeachment , ” “ gun control , ” and various climate-related terms .
It ’ s not just Google .
Bloomberg has been dropping millions of dollars on Facebook ads as well , particularly targeting users who live in Super Tuesday primary states .
Since jumping into the race in late November , the former New York mayor has outgunned the vaunted Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to $ 3.5 million , more than tripled Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ spending , and more than quadrupled that of Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
“ Wouldn ’ t you rather have a President who builds coalitions , treats people with respect , and works for a better world ?
” pleads one ad targeting Facebook users in North Carolina , one of 14 states holding Super Tuesday primaries on March 3 .
Bloomberg is staking his bid on those states , which include California , rather than early voting states like Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge amounts of cash on campaign advertising , but he ’ s also going on a hiring binge , as The Hill reported earlier this week .
With a new campaign office in Times Square and more than 300 staffers , the Bloomberg campaign is massive .
The only thing it doesn ’ t have is support from a lot of voters .
There haven ’ t been many polls conducted over the past week or so because of the holidays , but in Economist/YouGov polls released on December 25th and January 1st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 % , respectively .
That puts him in a tie for 6th place with Andrew Yang .
I ’ d say Yang actually has more buzz than Bloomberg , even if his share of the vote isn ’ t any higher .
Bloomberg didn ’ t do himself any favors when he proclaimed that the “ average American ” shouldn ’ t be allowed to carry a firearm , and that only trained professionals are equipped to defend themselves or others with a gun .
There are more than 18-million concealed carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more carrying in permitless carry states .
Not all of them are Republican .
There are broad swaths of the Democrat base who despite Bloomberg for his billions of dollars made via capitalism , and plenty on the right who can ’ t stand his nanny state mentality and his hostility towards the Second Amendment .
Bloomberg was hoping that there was a large group of Americans in the middle who would embrace his attempt to portray himself as a pragmatic progressive who can do big things , but so far it looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course Bloomberg has billions of dollars to spend in his bid for the presidency , but none other than Andrew Yang recently warned the candidate of the dangers of a diminishing return on his investment .
Bloomberg ’ s running out of time to break into the top tier of candidates , and money doesn ’ t seem to be able to buy him the love and votes that he needs .

It’s been a little more than a month since Michael Bloomberg first announced he was running for president, and in the weeks since it’s been hard to avoid running into his campaign online and on your TV set.
Search for “gun control,” as I do several times a day, and the first response on Google is an ad for Bloomberg’s campaign. Same for “gun safety.” That’s because a large part of Bloomberg’s spending to date has been focused on showing up in Internet searches, and not just about gun control. As Vice notes, Bloomberg is now directly going after President Trump with his online ads.
When Google users typed “Trump” into their search bars Thursday, an unexpected result might have popped up: a message from Michael Bloomberg. “Trump Has Betrayed us and Broken His Promises,” read an ad above any Trump-related news articles, images, and other links. “Enough is Enough.” The temporary takeover of the president’s turf was a particularly aggressive move by a campaign that has tried to gobble up every inch of media real estate. Bloomberg has spent millions buying Google ads in recent weeks, many of them similarly targeting other search keywords like “impeachment,” “gun control,” and various climate-related terms.
It’s not just Google. Bloomberg has been dropping millions of dollars on Facebook ads as well, particularly targeting users who live in Super Tuesday primary states.
Since jumping into the race in late November, the former New York mayor has outgunned the vaunted Trump digital team on Facebook, $6 million to $3.5 million, more than tripled Sen. Bernie Sanders’ spending, and more than quadrupled that of Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “Wouldn’t you rather have a President who builds coalitions, treats people with respect, and works for a better world?” pleads one ad targeting Facebook users in North Carolina, one of 14 states holding Super Tuesday primaries on March 3. Bloomberg is staking his bid on those states, which include California, rather than early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Bloomberg is spending huge amounts of cash on campaign advertising, but he’s also going on a hiring binge, as The Hill reported earlier this week. With a new campaign office in Times Square and more than 300 staffers, the Bloomberg campaign is massive. The only thing it doesn’t have is support from a lot of voters.
There haven’t been many polls conducted over the past week or so because of the holidays, but in Economist/YouGov polls released on December 25th and January 1st, Bloomberg was at 4% and 3%, respectively. That puts him in a tie for 6th place with Andrew Yang. I’d say Yang actually has more buzz than Bloomberg, even if his share of the vote isn’t any higher.
Bloomberg didn’t do himself any favors when he proclaimed that the “average American” shouldn’t be allowed to carry a firearm, and that only trained professionals are equipped to defend themselves or others with a gun. There are more than 18-million concealed carry holders in this country, and millions more carrying in permitless carry states. Not all of them are Republican.
There are broad swaths of the Democrat base who despite Bloomberg for his billions of dollars made via capitalism, and plenty on the right who can’t stand his nanny state mentality and his hostility towards the Second Amendment. Bloomberg was hoping that there was a large group of Americans in the middle who would embrace his attempt to portray himself as a pragmatic progressive who can do big things, but so far it looks like a miscalculation on his part. Of course Bloomberg has billions of dollars to spend in his bid for the presidency, but none other than Andrew Yang recently warned the candidate of the dangers of a diminishing return on his investment. Bloomberg’s running out of time to break into the top tier of candidates, and money doesn’t seem to be able to buy him the love and votes that he needs.


bearingarms--2020-01-04--Trump Praises Texas Church Hero, Vows Support For 2A

Speaking before a crowd of at least 5,000 people at a Miami megachurch on Friday evening , President Donald Trump publicly praised Jack Wilson , the church member and deacon of security at West Freeway Church of Christ who shot and killed an attacker in the Texas church last Sunday .
As you can imagine , some members of the national media were somewhat distraught that the president would actually dare to praise a man who saved the lives of others while exercising his constitutional rights .
Aaron Rupar of Vox , for example , also seemed disgusted with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acted to defend his fellow parishioners .
Aaron Rupar and his anti-gun buddies in the media may not have enjoyed what President Trump had to say , but it sounds like the crowd sure did .
“ A few days ago , a murderer opened fire during service at a church near Fort Worth , Texas , ” the president somberly addressed the crowd .
“ Our prayers are with the families of the victims and the congregation , ” he continued .
“ We ’ re grateful that the shooting was over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know why ?
Because we had someone who had a gun going in the other direction.
” At that , the president had to pause his remarks to wait for the applause of the crowd to die down .
“ You had 242 people , worshippers , they were praying , and this maniac walked in and started shooting .
But you had a man who had a gun , who knew how to use it , and in a very short period of time that was the end .
But two people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have perhaps all been dead , every one of them .
And then these people talk about guns and gun safety and gun rights and honestly they don ’ t really know what they ’ re talking about .
But many lives were saved by these heroes and Texas laws allowing them to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
” Another roar from the crowd interrupted the president , but what he said next brought down the house .
“ And your Second Amendment is under siege , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t love me , look there are so many reasons , this is one of many .
But as long as I ’ m here , and I ’ m going to be here for a long time , your Second Amendment is protected.
” Compare President Trump ’ s comments to those of Michael Bloomberg , who said that “ average Americans ” can ’ t be trusted to carry around firearms in crowded areas .
I ’ ve been critical of the president in the past when it looked like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least some portions of the gun control agenda , but Friday evening he offered a full-throated defense of the right to keep and bear arms .
As for Jack Wilson , while he hasn ’ t yet met President Trump , he did shake hands with Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Friday .
President Trump and Governor Abbott ’ s praise of Wilson is such a stark contrast to the anti-gun messaging from virtually every Democratic candidate , none of whom could simply express their gratitude that an armed citizen was present to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also stark reminder of what ’ s at stake in the 2020 elections ; your very right of self-defense .

Speaking before a crowd of at least 5,000 people at a Miami megachurch on Friday evening, President Donald Trump publicly praised Jack Wilson, the church member and deacon of security at West Freeway Church of Christ who shot and killed an attacker in the Texas church last Sunday.
As you can imagine, some members of the national media were somewhat distraught that the president would actually dare to praise a man who saved the lives of others while exercising his constitutional rights. Aaron Rupar of Vox, for example, also seemed disgusted with the audience for applauding the armed citizen who acted to defend his fellow parishioners.
Trump turns the latest mass shooting at a church into a commercial for guns — and his evangelical audience responds with a standing ovation pic.twitter.com/hXV7lYvpXO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 3, 2020
Aaron Rupar and his anti-gun buddies in the media may not have enjoyed what President Trump had to say, but it sounds like the crowd sure did.
Trump speaking about the shooting at West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas. “As long as I’m here, and that’s going to be a long time.. your Second Amendment is protected” pic.twitter.com/dNVF074nSf — Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 3, 2020
“A few days ago, a murderer opened fire during service at a church near Fort Worth, Texas,” the president somberly addressed the crowd.
“Our prayers are with the families of the victims and the congregation,” he continued. “We’re grateful that the shooting was over in six seconds. And do you know why? Because we had someone who had a gun going in the other direction.”
At that, the president had to pause his remarks to wait for the applause of the crowd to die down.
“You had 242 people, worshippers, they were praying, and this maniac walked in and started shooting. But you had a man who had a gun, who knew how to use it, and in a very short period of time that was the end.
But two people died. But you had 242 people that would have perhaps all been dead, every one of them. And then these people talk about guns and gun safety and gun rights and honestly they don’t really know what they’re talking about. But many lives were saved by these heroes and Texas laws allowing them to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Another roar from the crowd interrupted the president, but what he said next brought down the house.
“And your Second Amendment is under siege, but I guess this is why they don’t love me, look there are so many reasons, this is one of many. But as long as I’m here, and I’m going to be here for a long time, your Second Amendment is protected.”
Compare President Trump’s comments to those of Michael Bloomberg, who said that “average Americans” can’t be trusted to carry around firearms in crowded areas. I’ve been critical of the president in the past when it looked like he was getting ready to embrace at least some portions of the gun control agenda, but Friday evening he offered a full-throated defense of the right to keep and bear arms.
As for Jack Wilson, while he hasn’t yet met President Trump, he did shake hands with Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Friday.
This is the good guy with a gun who stopped a bad guy with a gun at the church in White Settlement. It took 6 seconds. He saved countless lives. He is Jack Wilson and a true Texas hero. pic.twitter.com/kfAv79xcoT — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 3, 2020
President Trump and Governor Abbott’s praise of Wilson is such a stark contrast to the anti-gun messaging from virtually every Democratic candidate, none of whom could simply express their gratitude that an armed citizen was present to stop the attack within seconds. It’s also stark reminder of what’s at stake in the 2020 elections; your very right of self-defense.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Pennsylvania Man Sentenced Over Illegal Machine Guns

The rules about machine guns and machine gun parts are troubling for many Americans .
While it ’ s technically legal for most of us to own them , there are piles of regulations that go into buying , making , or owning fully-automatic firearms .
In fact , there are so many that most folks who might like to own such weapons and have the financial means to own them simply don ’ t bother with doing so .
After all , they ’ re not exactly something you can slip on down to your local gun store and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just possessing them can be a problem , such as the problem one Pennsylvania man found .
So Miller was basically just building AR-15s , but the receivers in question were set up for full-auto , meaning he was in possession of a Class III firearm without the proper licensing .
Of course , this is a prime example of something any of us could fall into if we ’ re not careful .
While Miller was a convicted felon–he had a non-violent drug arrest 30 years ago–there ’ s no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent action .
That would be why he got the lenient sentence .
Take that away and what you get is a man who was building rifles for people to make a little extra money , only to not realize that he had a full-auto receiver .
Ignorance , however , is not considered a valid defense .
Then again , it ’ s likely some would debate whether Miller was actually that ignorant or not .
Frankly , I don ’ t care .
There ’ s no evidence I see to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , I know some folks who have put together a rifle for friends here and there themselves for some extra money .
One thing they all do , though , is make sure they recognize a full-auto receiver when they see one .
The last thing any of them want is to end up in prison over an oversight .
Miller should have , at least , done that .
If he had , it ’ s unlikely that anyone would have looked at his side work building guns .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .

The rules about machine guns and machine gun parts are troubling for many Americans. While it’s technically legal for most of us to own them, there are piles of regulations that go into buying, making, or owning fully-automatic firearms. In fact, there are so many that most folks who might like to own such weapons and have the financial means to own them simply don’t bother with doing so.
After all, they’re not exactly something you can slip on down to your local gun store and pick up in an afternoon.
However, just possessing them can be a problem, such as the problem one Pennsylvania man found.
Donald Leroy Miller used his skill assembling guns to earn money after losing his job, his attorney said, but making machine guns for his clients cost him his freedom. U.S. District Judge Edward G. Smith on Monday sentenced Miller, 48, of Northampton to two years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Smith also ordered Miller to pay a $700 fine. Miller pleaded guilty in May to possession of machine guns, possession of guns not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer record and possession of firearms as a convicted felon. According to court documents, Miller possessed a DPMS Panther Arms A-15 .223-caliber frame and a Battle Arms Development .223-caliber rifle, both capable of firing more than one shot automatically with a single pull of the trigger. Under federal firearms law, a frame of a gun — also called the receiver — is considered a firearm even if it lacks all of the parts necessary to fire.
So Miller was basically just building AR-15s, but the receivers in question were set up for full-auto, meaning he was in possession of a Class III firearm without the proper licensing.
Of course, this is a prime example of something any of us could fall into if we’re not careful.
While Miller was a convicted felon–he had a non-violent drug arrest 30 years ago–there’s no evidence he had any intentions to commit any violent action. That would be why he got the lenient sentence. Take that away and what you get is a man who was building rifles for people to make a little extra money, only to not realize that he had a full-auto receiver.
Ignorance, however, is not considered a valid defense.
Then again, it’s likely some would debate whether Miller was actually that ignorant or not. Frankly, I don’t care. There’s no evidence I see to suggest he was intending anything malicious. In fact, I know some folks who have put together a rifle for friends here and there themselves for some extra money. One thing they all do, though, is make sure they recognize a full-auto receiver when they see one. The last thing any of them want is to end up in prison over an oversight.
Miller should have, at least, done that. If he had, it’s unlikely that anyone would have looked at his side work building guns. Unfortunately, he didn’t and they did.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Missouri GOP Leaders Vow To Fight Gun Control

Mayors of Kansas City and Saint Louis are bound and determined to believe that the only thing that will make their communities safer is gun control .
No amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them in the least .
They know what they want to believe and you ’ re not going to confuse them with the facts .
As free adults , they ’ re welcome to believe anything they want to believe .
However , Missouri Republican leadership has vowed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Missouri residents regardless of what these mayors may opt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head back to Jefferson City this week , Republican lawmakers are making a point to reaffirm their aversion to taking up strong gun control legislation during the upcoming session .
Gov .
Mike Parson held multiple meetings with a handful of metro area mayors this year as Kansas City and St. Louis , in particular , have grappled with an abundance of gun violence .
Following a November meeting , news reports suggested the Republican governor agreed to back the mayors ’ call for stronger gun control — among other things .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he has not “ supported restricting law abiding citizens ’ right to bear arms.
” Instead , Parson said the three big takeaways from his meetings with the metro area mayors centered on witness protection , mental health and substance abuse treatment , and “ keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.
” “ I have never wavered in my support of the Second Amendment , ” Parson said .
“ I firmly believe in protecting Missourians ’ Second Amendment rights and will continue working with federal , state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the citizens of our state .
Over the past months , we have rolled up our sleeves , gotten to work , and identified the immediate actions we can take at the state level to keep Missouri citizens safe , while still protecting their Second Amendment rights.
” For folks in Missouri , that ’ s good news .
( Well , sort of , but I ’ ll get to that in a second . )
It ’ s not good news for the mayors in question , but Missouri has shored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent years and it ’ s nice to hear that the governor is committed to , if not continuing that work , then at least no undermining it .
However , I think Parson would have been better served if he ’ d been explicit upfront in his lack of desire to discuss gun control .
The problem , though , is when you talk to a Democrat about “ keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals , ” what they often hear is “ we need to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pain in the rectum for law-abiding citizens.
” That ’ s gun control , folks , and that represents a very real problem for many of us .
Now , how does that balance with Parson ’ s claim of never wavering in his support of the Second Amendment ?
That ’ s up for discussion .
After all , even Shannon Watts claims to support the Second Amendment .
That said , I ’ ll give Parson the benefit of the doubt .
After all , Missouri is a pro-gun state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt him .
However , if he really wants to prove he stands by the Second Amendment , then maybe it ’ s time to smack down Saint Louis on their most recent anti-gun shenanigans .

Mayors of Kansas City and Saint Louis are bound and determined to believe that the only thing that will make their communities safer is gun control. No amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them in the least. They know what they want to believe and you’re not going to confuse them with the facts.
As free adults, they’re welcome to believe anything they want to believe.
However, Missouri Republican leadership has vowed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Missouri residents regardless of what these mayors may opt to believe.
As legislators prepare to head back to Jefferson City this week, Republican lawmakers are making a point to reaffirm their aversion to taking up strong gun control legislation during the upcoming session. Gov. Mike Parson held multiple meetings with a handful of metro area mayors this year as Kansas City and St. Louis, in particular, have grappled with an abundance of gun violence. Following a November meeting, news reports suggested the Republican governor agreed to back the mayors’ call for stronger gun control — among other things. But in a one-pager published Saturday, Parson said he has not “supported restricting law abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.” Instead, Parson said the three big takeaways from his meetings with the metro area mayors centered on witness protection, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and “keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.” “I have never wavered in my support of the Second Amendment,” Parson said. “I firmly believe in protecting Missourians’ Second Amendment rights and will continue working with federal, state, local, and community partners to protect the citizens of our state. Over the past months, we have rolled up our sleeves, gotten to work, and identified the immediate actions we can take at the state level to keep Missouri citizens safe, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights.”
For folks in Missouri, that’s good news. (Well, sort of, but I’ll get to that in a second.)
It’s not good news for the mayors in question, but Missouri has shored up its pro-gun reputation quite a bit in recent years and it’s nice to hear that the governor is committed to, if not continuing that work, then at least no undermining it.
However, I think Parson would have been better served if he’d been explicit upfront in his lack of desire to discuss gun control.
The problem, though, is when you talk to a Democrat about “keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals,” what they often hear is “we need to make the process of owning a gun more of a pain in the rectum for law-abiding citizens.” That’s gun control, folks, and that represents a very real problem for many of us.
Now, how does that balance with Parson’s claim of never wavering in his support of the Second Amendment? That’s up for discussion. After all, even Shannon Watts claims to support the Second Amendment.
That said, I’ll give Parson the benefit of the doubt. After all, Missouri is a pro-gun state and there’s no reason to doubt him. However, if he really wants to prove he stands by the Second Amendment, then maybe it’s time to smack down Saint Louis on their most recent anti-gun shenanigans.


bearingarms--2020-01-07--Rhonda Mary: A Fresh Voice In The 2A Fight

While on Twitter on Monday , I ran across a post by a woman named Rhonda Mary , who was sharing a snippet of an interview she ’ d done at a gun show in Richmond , Virginia this past weekend .
I was very curious to hear more , so I reached out to Rhonda Mary and am really thrilled that she could join me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about what made her travel from her home in Mississippi to Richmond , Virginia to explore the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gun control agenda .
That ’ s just one of the topics we cover in a free-wheeling conversation that gets into Walmart ’ s recent move to end sales of most rifle and handgun ammunition , why Northam ’ s proposals are going to hurt high-crime neighborhoods , and the importance of ignoring the anti-gun politicians “ trigger words ” and focusing on their policies instead .
Rhonda Mary is hoping to become more involved in 2A issues online and in person this year , and I look forward to hearing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure you check out the entire interview above , as well as Rhonda Mary ’ s entire video with Virginia gun owners , which should be posted to her YouTube page soon .
Also on today ’ s program , we have the tragic story of a Minnesota realtor allegedly murdered by a man who should have been behind bars , an armed dad forced to to shoot his son in order to stop him from beating his girlfriend , and a California police officer in the right place at the right time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a house fire in El Cajon .
Don ’ t forget that you can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and the Townhall.com podcast page .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

While on Twitter on Monday, I ran across a post by a woman named Rhonda Mary, who was sharing a snippet of an interview she’d done at a gun show in Richmond, Virginia this past weekend.
https://twitter.com/rhondamaryvids/status/1214209140752560130
I was very curious to hear more, so I reached out to Rhonda Mary and am really thrilled that she could join me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about what made her travel from her home in Mississippi to Richmond, Virginia to explore the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement and the pushback against Governor Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda.
That’s just one of the topics we cover in a free-wheeling conversation that gets into Walmart’s recent move to end sales of most rifle and handgun ammunition, why Northam’s proposals are going to hurt high-crime neighborhoods, and the importance of ignoring the anti-gun politicians “trigger words” and focusing on their policies instead.
Rhonda Mary is hoping to become more involved in 2A issues online and in person this year, and I look forward to hearing more of her voice and perspective. Make sure you check out the entire interview above, as well as Rhonda Mary’s entire video with Virginia gun owners, which should be posted to her YouTube page soon.
Also on today’s program, we have the tragic story of a Minnesota realtor allegedly murdered by a man who should have been behind bars, an armed dad forced to to shoot his son in order to stop him from beating his girlfriend, and a California police officer in the right place at the right time to save a woman and her son from a house fire in El Cajon.
Don’t forget that you can subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and the Townhall.com podcast page. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!