bearingarms--2020-01-29--Austin PD To Make It Easier For Crooks To Dump Guns

If you ’ ve committed a crime , the last thing you really want is for the gun used in that crime to be found on your person or in your home .
If the police find that , you ’ re pretty well sunk .
But dumping a gun in the river or a pond offers its own risks .
If someone sees you tossing a gun-shaped object into a body of water , that ’ s pretty incriminating all on its own .
Luckily for the bad guys , the Austin , TX Police Department is willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a gun they don ’ t want can surrender it to the Austin Police Department , no questions asked .
The new gun surrender program started on Tuesday in an effort to make the city safer .
APD recently did a gun study and found that from 2017 to 2018 there was nearly a 25 percent increase in the number of stolen or lost guns .
In reaction , APD organized the program so anyone who has an unwanted gun can come to their East Austin police substation and an officer will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns and ammunition that you ’ ve put in a bag .
APD says the goal is to keep unwanted guns out of the hands of burglars .
“ We saw an increase in violent crime and we noticed a lot of the crime involved firearms , so in order to be part of the solution we decided to start this program , ” said Lt. Gizette Gaslin .
It ’ s a free , no questions asked service where people can surrender firearms and ammunition .
The problem is , the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want guns from law-abiding citizens who simply don ’ t want the guns anymore , then asking a few questions shouldn ’ t be much of a problem .
Yet by taking a “ no questions asked ” policy , they ’ re all but inviting people to dump guns by taking them directly to the police .
Oh , I know the rationale .
The idea is that by not asking questions , some criminals or their family members will also turn in their guns and have some kind of impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s zero evidence that turn-in programs like this have any impact on crime .
That ’ s because criminals are stealing guns from a lot of people who actually want their guns .
Why would I turn in my firearms if I actually want to keep them , right ?
That ’ s true of most gun owners in Texas , so just how will this reduce the flow of guns ?
Instead , those looking to dump firearms used in crimes have a handy tool for doing just that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be making these criminals ’ lives more difficult .
Need to dump a gun but not raise suspicions ?
Just taking it to the police and let them take it off your hands .
Then , when a prosecutor tries to link you to the murder or whatever other crime you may be facing , it ’ s just that much more difficult to make the case .
Oh , I ’ m not saying it would be impossible , mind you , but more difficult .
All on a program that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce crime .
Way to go Austin .

If you’ve committed a crime, the last thing you really want is for the gun used in that crime to be found on your person or in your home. If the police find that, you’re pretty well sunk.
But dumping a gun in the river or a pond offers its own risks. If someone sees you tossing a gun-shaped object into a body of water, that’s pretty incriminating all on its own.
Luckily for the bad guys, the Austin, TX Police Department is willing to help them out.
Austin residents who have a gun they don’t want can surrender it to the Austin Police Department, no questions asked. The new started on Tuesday in an effort to make the city safer. APD recently did a gun study and found that from 2017 to 2018 there was nearly a 25 percent increase in the number of stolen or lost guns. In reaction, APD organized the program so anyone who has an unwanted gun can come to their East Austin police substation and an officer will come out to your car and take guns and ammunition that you’ve put in a bag. … APD says the goal is to keep unwanted guns out of the hands of burglars. “We saw an increase in violent crime and we noticed a lot of the crime involved firearms, so in order to be part of the solution we decided to start this program,” said Lt. Gizette Gaslin. It’s a free, no questions asked service where people can surrender firearms and ammunition.
The problem is, the “no questions asked” part.
If they want guns from law-abiding citizens who simply don’t want the guns anymore, then asking a few questions shouldn’t be much of a problem. Yet by taking a “no questions asked” policy, they’re all but inviting people to dump guns by taking them directly to the police.
Oh, I know the rationale. The idea is that by not asking questions, some criminals or their family members will also turn in their guns and have some kind of impact on crime.
The problem is, there’s zero evidence that turn-in programs like this have any impact on crime. That’s because criminals are stealing guns from a lot of people who actually want their guns. Why would I turn in my firearms if I actually want to keep them, right? That’s true of most gun owners in Texas, so just how will this reduce the flow of guns?
Instead, those looking to dump firearms used in crimes have a handy tool for doing just that, thanks to the very people who should be making these criminals’ lives more difficult.
Need to dump a gun but not raise suspicions? Just taking it to the police and let them take it off your hands. Then, when a prosecutor tries to link you to the murder or whatever other crime you may be facing, it’s just that much more difficult to make the case.
Oh, I’m not saying it would be impossible, mind you, but more difficult.
All on a program that has been shown historically to do absolutely nothing to reduce crime.
Way to go Austin.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--NM Senate Bans Guns In Chamber During Red Flag Debate

As the state of New Mexico considers a red flag law for the second session in a row , the Senate took an alarming step this week .
Oh , it had nothing to do with the bill , mind you .
Red flag laws are odious things , but we ’ re almost used to fighting them at this point .
No , the alarming step was what the New Mexico Senate did during the debate surrounding the bill .
The state Senate prohibited firearms in its public gallery and nearby rooms for the first time , with exceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats were cited .
Statehouse rules ordinarily allow the open carry of legally owned firearms , along with permitted concealed weapons .
Restrictions and screenings for weapons have been implemented in recent years in the state House chamber for the governor ’ s State of the State address .
Now , this is problematic for one reason above any other and that ’ s perception .
Despite not citing and specific , much less credible , threats , observers will be free to draw their own conclusions .
The most likely conclusion ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be segregated from the rest of society .
This is nothing more than an attempt by anti-gun lawmakers to demonize and stigmatize gun owners .
Over and over again , we see anti-gunners and their allies pushing us into a corner .
They want us out of sight , out of mind .
They want us to feel isolated , alone .
The reason ?
Humans are social animals who need interaction .
If one is ostracized , the tendency is to shift your behavior to end the ostracization .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This also isn ’ t groundbreaking research here , either .
Anti-gunners know it and they try to use it .
They know they ’ ll never sway gun owners with their arguments– “ dur , dur , you ’ re a racist ” isn ’ t exactly a winning strategy , it seems , nor is “ dur , dur , you like dead kids ” for some silly reason–so they try this .
There are absolutely no threats to lawmakers , but the Senate ’ s decision to exclude anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law doesn ’ t , is nothing more than an attempt to further stigmatize law-abiding gun owners .
They want people to think that we ’ re a threat , so they simply act like we ’ re a threat .
The truth is , if the law permits law-abiding citizens to carry in these chambers , then they should be permitted to carry in these chambers .
If the Senate doesn ’ t have the political will to change the law completely , then they shouldn ’ t be permitted to bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun owners–the people most likely to be impacted by these laws–have a vested interest in having their voices heard and understanding what lawmakers are discussing .
Then again , let ’ s not rule out that as a possibility here .
Ban guns in the chamber to discourage gun owners from attending , all while pretending that gun owners either don ’ t exist or don ’ t care .
Makes a fair bit of sense to me .
Regardless , though , it ’ s not something gun owners in New Mexico @ @ @ @ @

As the state of New Mexico considers a red flag law for the second session in a row, the Senate took an alarming step this week. Oh, it had nothing to do with the bill, mind you. Red flag laws are odious things, but we’re almost used to fighting them at this point.
No, the alarming step was what the New Mexico Senate did during the debate surrounding the bill.
The state Senate prohibited firearms in its public gallery and nearby rooms for the first time, with exceptions for law enforcement officials. No specific threats were cited. … Statehouse rules ordinarily allow the open carry of legally owned firearms, along with permitted concealed weapons. Restrictions and screenings for weapons have been implemented in recent years in the state House chamber for the governor’s State of the State address.
Now, this is problematic for one reason above any other and that’s perception.
Despite not citing and specific, much less credible, threats, observers will be free to draw their own conclusions. The most likely conclusion? That concealed carriers represent a dangerous threat and should be segregated from the rest of society.
This is nothing more than an attempt by anti-gun lawmakers to demonize and stigmatize gun owners.
Over and over again, we see anti-gunners and their allies pushing us into a corner. They want us out of sight, out of mind. They want us to feel isolated, alone. The reason? Humans are social animals who need interaction. If one is ostracized, the tendency is to shift your behavior to end the ostracization. That’s just how humans are wired.
This also isn’t groundbreaking research here, either.
Anti-gunners know it and they try to use it. They know they’ll never sway gun owners with their arguments–“dur, dur, you’re a racist” isn’t exactly a winning strategy, it seems, nor is “dur, dur, you like dead kids” for some silly reason–so they try this.
There are absolutely no threats to lawmakers, but the Senate’s decision to exclude anyone carrying a firearm, even though the law doesn’t, is nothing more than an attempt to further stigmatize law-abiding gun owners. They want people to think that we’re a threat, so they simply act like we’re a threat.
The truth is, if the law permits law-abiding citizens to carry in these chambers, then they should be permitted to carry in these chambers. If the Senate doesn’t have the political will to change the law completely, then they shouldn’t be permitted to bar anyone from coming in.
Especially since gun owners–the people most likely to be impacted by these laws–have a vested interest in having their voices heard and understanding what lawmakers are discussing.
Then again, let’s not rule out that as a possibility here. Ban guns in the chamber to discourage gun owners from attending, all while pretending that gun owners either don’t exist or don’t care.
Makes a fair bit of sense to me.
Regardless, though, it’s not something gun owners in New Mexico should take lying down.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--NM Sheriff Willing To Face Contempt Charge Over Red Flag Law

Cibola County , New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace was in Santa Fe on Tuesday as a state Senate committee approved a “ red flag ” bill along partisan lines , and he ’ s talking all about it on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. Mace says the bill isn ’ t just opposed by 30 of the state ’ s 33 sheriffs , but law enforcement officers across the state .
While Albuquerque ’ s police chief says the department supports the legislation , for example , the local police officers union has made it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sheriff says he has several problems with the bill , and while he hopes the legislation is defeated in the state Senate , he ’ s prepared to challenge the law if it goes into effect .
In fact , Mace says he ’ s even ready to face a contempt charge and the possible jail time or fine that could come with it .
“ We ’ re really taking a hard stance on it , ” the sheriff said of the state sheriffs association ’ s opposition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t like it , that realize the unconstitutionality of them .
And again , if these orders come through my office , if we get them , we ’ re not going to put people at risk .
We ’ re not going to put our officers at risk .
And if I have to go to the judge and get held in contempt of court to prove a point , I ’ m ready .
We ’ re gon na do the right thing here.
” Mace says the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag legislation is the unwillingness of the Democrat leadership in the legislature to even meet with sheriffs .
During Tuesday ’ s hearing , information emerged about a meeting between lawmakers , the state police , and others who support the legislation , but Mace says he and other sheriffs weren ’ t invited , even though their offices will be the ones charged with enforcing the law .
Instead of red flag legislation , Mace says he and many other sheriffs believe it would be far better to use the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mental health treatment options in the state .
The red flag legislation , he argues , doesn ’ t do anything to actually help individuals in crisis , but erodes the constitutional rights of all in the name of “ doing something.
” The bill faces one more committee hearing before it heads to the floor of the state Senate , where similar legislation died last year .
If the bill clears the Senate , it ’ s expected to easily move through the House and reach the desk of Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ already vowed to sign the legislation into law .
Opponents of the bill did a great job packing the state capitol earlier this week , and Sheriff Mace says there will be a Second Amendment Rally at the capitol this Friday , January 31st , at 11 a.m. and he ’ s hoping for a strong turnout from across the state .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and stick around afterwards as we discuss some other anti-gun legislation popping up in California , Oregon , and Hawaii , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen story from Arizona .
Don ’ t forget as well to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and Townhall.com ’ s podcast page .
You can also subscribe to the show at Townhall Media on YouTube .
One final note : I don ’ t think I ’ ve ever plugged my non-2A podcast here , but we just posted our first episode of 2020 , so if you ’ re a fan of my bride Miss E and want to keep up with everything on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a new 40 Acres & A Fool here .

Cibola County, New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace was in Santa Fe on Tuesday as a state Senate committee approved a “red flag” bill along partisan lines, and he’s talking all about it on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.
Mace says the bill isn’t just opposed by 30 of the state’s 33 sheriffs, but law enforcement officers across the state. While Albuquerque’s police chief says the department supports the legislation, for example, the local police officers union has made it clear that the rank and file do not.
The sheriff says he has several problems with the bill, and while he hopes the legislation is defeated in the state Senate, he’s prepared to challenge the law if it goes into effect. In fact, Mace says he’s even ready to face a contempt charge and the possible jail time or fine that could come with it.
“We’re really taking a hard stance on it,” the sheriff said of the state sheriffs association’s opposition to the bill. “There are attorneys that don’t like it, that realize the unconstitutionality of them. And again, if these orders come through my office, if we get them, we’re not going to put people at risk. We’re not going to put our officers at risk. And if I have to go to the judge and get held in contempt of court to prove a point, I’m ready. We’re gonna do the right thing here.”
Mace says the most frustrating part of the debate over red flag legislation is the unwillingness of the Democrat leadership in the legislature to even meet with sheriffs. During Tuesday’s hearing, information emerged about a meeting between lawmakers, the state police, and others who support the legislation, but Mace says he and other sheriffs weren’t invited, even though their offices will be the ones charged with enforcing the law.
Instead of red flag legislation, Mace says he and many other sheriffs believe it would be far better to use the state’s existing civil commitment laws while bolstering the mental health treatment options in the state. The red flag legislation, he argues, doesn’t do anything to actually help individuals in crisis, but erodes the constitutional rights of all in the name of “doing something.”
The bill faces one more committee hearing before it heads to the floor of the state Senate, where similar legislation died last year. If the bill clears the Senate, it’s expected to easily move through the House and reach the desk of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who’s already vowed to sign the legislation into law. Opponents of the bill did a great job packing the state capitol earlier this week, and Sheriff Mace says there will be a Second Amendment Rally at the capitol this Friday, January 31st, at 11 a.m. and he’s hoping for a strong turnout from across the state.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and stick around afterwards as we discuss some other anti-gun legislation popping up in California, Oregon, and Hawaii, as well as today’s armed citizen story from Arizona.
Don’t forget as well to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Townhall.com’s podcast page. You can also subscribe to the show at Townhall Media on YouTube.
One final note: I don’t think I’ve ever plugged my non-2A podcast here, but we just posted our first episode of 2020, so if you’re a fan of my bride Miss E and want to keep up with everything on the farm, you can also check out a new 40 Acres & A Fool here.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--Why Op-Eds Calling For Chicago Gun Control Are Wrong

It seems like not a week goes by that someone in Chicago is penning an op-ed all about how the problems with violence in Chicago stem from precisely one issue , and that issue is gun control .
Illinois boasts one of the strictest set of gun control laws in the nation , doing everything they can to heavily restrict law-abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms .
Yet when violence erupts , you get op-eds like this .
At this point , I agree .
I ’ m not breathing a sigh of relief that a child was killed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , I ’ ll mourn the loss of a child who still had so much life left to live .
Yet the writer here wants to use the child ’ s body for a soapbox , rather than just mourn like any sensible person would do .
We don ’ t know whether either of the parents had the legal right to own a gun , either .
It really doesn ’ t matter .
Guns are easy to get in Chicago — way too easy .
Anybody who wants one can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through the proper procedures or not .
It is well-documented that guns initially acquired legally often end up in the hands of people who should not have them .
It also is no secret that everyone who obtains a gun legally shouldn ’ t necessarily be allowed to have one .
In this case , one thing is clear .
Our guns laws aren ’ t strong enough to have kept someone in that apartment from getting hold of a gun they obviously weren ’ t responsible enough to have — legally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More gun control .
That ’ s what it always boils down to .
The writer admits she doesn ’ t know how the father got the gun , only that he did .
She acknowledges that guns are easy to get on the black market , a market that ignores any and all gun laws by its very definition .
Just how would more gun control help ?
First , if the father got the gun legally , the question needs to be asked of our writer just how would she have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringing on the rights of every other Illinois resident ?
Next , if he got it off the black market , then just how does she suggest we prevent those sales from taking place when they already ignore the plethora of regulations already existing in the state ?
I suspect she has no answer .
Oddly , I have a better answer entirely , one that doesn ’ t infringe on anyone ’ s rights .
After all , the vast majority of the violence in any city stems from just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people within those neighborhoods .
Address those individuals , and watch the difference that can make .
But that requires work and time , something people like this writer just don ’ t want to expend .
They ’ d much rather demonize guns and , by extension , lawful gun owners .

It seems like not a week goes by that someone in Chicago is penning an op-ed all about how the problems with violence in Chicago stem from precisely one issue, and that issue is gun control.
Illinois boasts one of the strictest set of gun control laws in the nation, doing everything they can to heavily restrict law-abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms.
Yet when violence erupts, you get op-eds like this.
We had heard the story that unfolded Monday night so many times before. A 1-year-old boy was shot in the head on a Chicago street, injured by a stray bullet that was meant for his father. By Tuesday, police had determined that the father lied about what happened. The baby was shot, police said, as his mother and father struggled over a gun during a domestic dispute in their Uptown apartment. Perhaps some of us were inclined to breathe a sigh of relief that another child had not been caught up in the vicious cycle of gang violence. But we should not.
At this point, I agree. I’m not breathing a sigh of relief that a child was killed in a different manner than initially feared.
Instead, I’ll mourn the loss of a child who still had so much life left to live.
Yet the writer here wants to use the child’s body for a soapbox, rather than just mourn like any sensible person would do.
We don’t know whether either of the parents had the legal right to own a gun, either. It really doesn’t matter. Guns are easy to get in Chicago — way too easy. Anybody who wants one can have access to one, whether they go through the proper procedures or not. It is well-documented that guns initially acquired legally often end up in the hands of people who should not have them. It also is no secret that everyone who obtains a gun legally shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to have one. In this case, one thing is clear. Our guns laws aren’t strong enough to have kept someone in that apartment from getting hold of a gun they obviously weren’t responsible enough to have — legally or otherwise.
There we go. More gun control. That’s what it always boils down to.
The writer admits she doesn’t know how the father got the gun, only that he did. She acknowledges that guns are easy to get on the black market, a market that ignores any and all gun laws by its very definition.
Just how would more gun control help?
First, if the father got the gun legally, the question needs to be asked of our writer just how would she have prevented him from buying a gun without infringing on the rights of every other Illinois resident? Next, if he got it off the black market, then just how does she suggest we prevent those sales from taking place when they already ignore the plethora of regulations already existing in the state?
I suspect she has no answer.
Oddly, I have a better answer entirely, one that doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. After all, the vast majority of the violence in any city stems from just a few neighborhoods and only from a handful of people within those neighborhoods. Address those individuals, and watch the difference that can make.
But that requires work and time, something people like this writer just don’t want to expend.
They’d much rather demonize guns and, by extension, lawful gun owners.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--Democrats Suddenly Have A Problem With Bloomberg Buying Support

When Mike Bloomberg spent millions of dollars in the 2019 elections in Virginia backing anti-gun candidates and helping Democrats regain control of the state legislature , the Left praised him for throwing his wads of campaign cash at anti-gun candidates .
Now that Bloomberg is climbing in polls for the Democratic nomination ( he ’ s overtaken Pete Buttigieg in the Real Clear Politics polling average and is now in 4th place behind Biden , Sanders , and Warren ) , the Left suddenly has a problem with Bloomberg ’ s playbook and are complaining that he ’ s buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politico : “ He has a long history of big-money self-promotion , but he wants to play senior statesmen and try to get people to believe he ’ s just taking one for the team , ” said Zephyr Teachout , a law professor who has run for statewide office in New York and is aligned with Bernie Sanders .
“ But he ’ s spending hundreds of millions because he wants the most powerful job in the world , and he needs the full treatment , ” she added , pointing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security and his long mayoral record… “ We have seen rich people run before , but the amount of money Bloomberg is able to throw around is able to get him over the absence of enthusiasm because it ’ s orders of magnitude ” greater , said Neil Sroka of the progressive group Democracy for America .
Of course there ’ s a similar dynamic at work when it comes to Bloomberg throwing money towards gun control efforts and candidates who back his agenda , but I haven ’ t heard Sroka or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his attempts to buy elections and influence until now .
What are progressives prepared to do about it ?
Will they vow to oppose candidates who take Bloomberg ’ s money ?
Will they organize grassroots efforts to defeat his candidacy and those who support him ?
At the very least , will they belatedly acknowledge that , since they have issues with Bloomberg trying to buy the presidency , they should have also spoken up when he was spending millions to turn the rights of Americans into privileges ?
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Bloomberg ’ s longstanding methods shouldn ’ t surprise anyone .
Unfortunately , politics is all too often transactional in nature , and as long as the Left was getting what they wanted ( gun control ) , they were fine with Bloomberg spending tens of millions of dollars to get his way .
In fact , they even told themselves that Bloomberg was just providing a much-needed counter to the spending of “ the gun lobby.
” As it turns out , many of those who complained about “ big money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ money being spent for causes I don ’ t support.
” Gun owners tried to warn them .
We tried to tell Virginia voters , for instance , not to let an out-of-state billionaire dictate their laws , but not enough of them listened .
Maybe we didn ’ t try hard enough , or maybe they couldn ’ t hear us over the sounds of the incessant commercials on our televisions bought and paid for by his gun control groups .
For years many on the Left have stood idly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eagerly ask for Bloomberg Bucks , and now they ’ re reaping the bitter harvest that they ’ ve sown .
Yes , Bloomberg believes he can spend his way to the White House , just as he believes he can spend his way to the annihilation of our Second Amendment .
Monica Klein , a progressive consultant in New York who is unaffiliated with a presidential campaign , cautioned against the focus on the novelty of his campaign .
“ As mayor , Mike Bloomberg spent years keeping Republicans in power in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know him as this bizarre billionaire who gives out iPhones like candy , ” she said , in response to a story last week about his lavish campaign spending .
Klein thinks it ’ s time to engage before it ’ s too late .
“ Last election , voters and pundits alike treated Trump with kid gloves because he was seen as an unelectable amusement , ” she said .
“ There ’ s a word for people who keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t that he ’ s a billionaire .
It ’ s that he ’ s a billionaire who wants to control almost every aspect of our lives and eradicate many of our most fundamental individual liberties .
Klein ’ s right for saying its time to engage Bloomberg , but the fact that he ’ s trying to buy the presidential election is far less important than what he ’ d do if he actually wins .
Folks who are focused on the process need to be paying attention and pushing back against @ @ @ @

When Mike Bloomberg spent millions of dollars in the 2019 elections in Virginia backing anti-gun candidates and helping Democrats regain control of the state legislature, the Left praised him for throwing his wads of campaign cash at anti-gun candidates.
Now that Bloomberg is climbing in polls for the Democratic nomination (he’s overtaken Pete Buttigieg in the Real Clear Politics polling average and is now in 4th place behind Biden, Sanders, and Warren), the Left suddenly has a problem with Bloomberg’s playbook and are complaining that he’s buying his way to the nomination. From Politico:
“He has a long history of big-money self-promotion, but he wants to play senior statesmen and try to get people to believe he’s just taking one for the team,” said Zephyr Teachout, a law professor who has run for statewide office in New York and is aligned with Bernie Sanders. “But he’s spending hundreds of millions because he wants the most powerful job in the world, and he needs the full treatment,” she added, pointing to his positions on foreign policy and Social Security and his long mayoral record… “We have seen rich people run before, but the amount of money Bloomberg is able to throw around is able to get him over the absence of enthusiasm because it’s orders of magnitude” greater, said Neil Sroka of the progressive group Democracy for America.
Of course there’s a similar dynamic at work when it comes to Bloomberg throwing money towards gun control efforts and candidates who back his agenda, but I haven’t heard Sroka or anyone else on the Left complain about his attempts to buy elections and influence until now.
What are progressives prepared to do about it? Will they vow to oppose candidates who take Bloomberg’s money? Will they organize grassroots efforts to defeat his candidacy and those who support him? At the very least, will they belatedly acknowledge that, since they have issues with Bloomberg trying to buy the presidency, they should have also spoken up when he was spending millions to turn the rights of Americans into privileges?
The fact that the progressive movement is only now objecting to Bloomberg’s longstanding methods shouldn’t surprise anyone. Unfortunately, politics is all too often transactional in nature, and as long as the Left was getting what they wanted (gun control), they were fine with Bloomberg spending tens of millions of dollars to get his way. In fact, they even told themselves that Bloomberg was just providing a much-needed counter to the spending of “the gun lobby.” As it turns out, many of those who complained about “big money in politics” really had an issue with “money being spent for causes I don’t support.”
Gun owners tried to warn them. We tried to tell Virginia voters, for instance, not to let an out-of-state billionaire dictate their laws, but not enough of them listened. Maybe we didn’t try hard enough, or maybe they couldn’t hear us over the sounds of the incessant commercials on our televisions bought and paid for by his gun control groups.
For years many on the Left have stood idly by or stuck out greedy hands to eagerly ask for Bloomberg Bucks, and now they’re reaping the bitter harvest that they’ve sown. Yes, Bloomberg believes he can spend his way to the White House, just as he believes he can spend his way to the annihilation of our Second Amendment.
Monica Klein, a progressive consultant in New York who is unaffiliated with a presidential campaign, cautioned against the focus on the novelty of his campaign. “As mayor, Mike Bloomberg spent years keeping Republicans in power in New York — yet most voters just know him as this bizarre billionaire who gives out iPhones like candy,” she said, in response to a story last week about his lavish campaign spending. Klein thinks it’s time to engage before it’s too late. “Last election, voters and pundits alike treated Trump with kid gloves because he was seen as an unelectable amusement,” she said. “There’s a word for people who keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
The problem with Bloomberg isn’t that he’s a billionaire. It’s that he’s a billionaire who wants to control almost every aspect of our lives and eradicate many of our most fundamental individual liberties. Klein’s right for saying its time to engage Bloomberg, but the fact that he’s trying to buy the presidential election is far less important than what he’d do if he actually wins. Folks who are focused on the process need to be paying attention and pushing back against his policies instead.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--WV Governor Urges VA Counties To Come Over, And They Should

The state of Virginia isn ’ t what it once was .
It ’ s now becoming less of a state that respects the rights of people and more of a cautionary tale for what happens when anti-gunners take power .
It ’ s no wonder why so many states jumped to join the Second Amendment sanctuary movement .
The problem is , most people understand that saying you won ’ t enforce a particular law or set of laws just isn ’ t enough .
Those laws are still enforceable by state police , for one thing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government trying to infringe on your sacred and inalienable rights .
So what should Virginia counties do ?
There have been some terrible arguments made against sanctuary counties , but few have noted that sanctuary status is , at best , a shield rather than a full set of armor .
Enter West Virginia .
The state split off from Virginia during the Civil War , and now their governor is suggesting other counties break off and join them .
Justice and Falwell both acknowledged that it was probably a longshot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I haven ’ t delved into what it would take for counties to jump ship and join West Virginia , but I do think it ’ s something a lot of Virginian counties should take a long , hard look at .
If the state of Virginia isn ’ t interested in respecting your rights , then maybe it ’ s time to join a state that actually will .
This concept isn ’ t exactly new .
I ’ ve written about movements to break Washington and Illinois into two states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the motivation for that is because of how small urban centers completely ignore the rights and needs of the more rural parts of the state on things like guns .
What we ’ re talking about in Virginia is very similar…except we ’ re talking about them moving from one state to another .
Yet I can ’ t help but believe that if you ’ re stuck with a state that is going to ignore the will of 90 percent of the counties in order to cater to the D.C. suburbs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least consider West Virginia ’ s offer .
Look , if you had a friend in a souring relationship where his or her partner clearly didn ’ t care about what they had to say , would you advise them to stick it out ?
Or would you tell them to leave ?
How is this really any different ?
Sure , there ’ s an election next year that might change a whole lot about the state , but it also might not .
Especially as Democrats are doing everything they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a blatant attempt to hold power indefinitely .
With all that in mind , it ’ s time to start looking at your options .
The best , most viable option might be to join West Virginia .
At least then you have a chance that your rights will be respected .

The state of Virginia isn’t what it once was. It’s now becoming less of a state that respects the rights of people and more of a cautionary tale for what happens when anti-gunners take power.
It’s no wonder why so many states jumped to join the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.
The problem is, most people understand that saying you won’t enforce a particular law or set of laws just isn’t enough. Those laws are still enforceable by state police, for one thing, and it’s still a case of the government trying to infringe on your sacred and inalienable rights.
So what should Virginia counties do?
There have been some terrible arguments made against sanctuary counties, but few have noted that sanctuary status is, at best, a shield rather than a full set of armor.
Enter West Virginia. The state split off from Virginia during the Civil War, and now their governor is suggesting other counties break off and join them.
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. are urging unhappy Virginia counties to secede and join a neighboring state where Democrats aren’t in charge. Their invitation Tuesday to join West Virginia added weight to a backlash against Virginia Democrats’ push for gun control.
Justice and Falwell both acknowledged that it was probably a longshot, but should it be?
Honestly, I haven’t delved into what it would take for counties to jump ship and join West Virginia, but I do think it’s something a lot of Virginian counties should take a long, hard look at.
If the state of Virginia isn’t interested in respecting your rights, then maybe it’s time to join a state that actually will.
This concept isn’t exactly new. I’ve written about movements to break Washington and Illinois into two states, for example, and a lot of the motivation for that is because of how small urban centers completely ignore the rights and needs of the more rural parts of the state on things like guns.
What we’re talking about in Virginia is very similar…except we’re talking about them moving from one state to another.
Yet I can’t help but believe that if you’re stuck with a state that is going to ignore the will of 90 percent of the counties in order to cater to the D.C. suburbs, then maybe it’s time to at least consider West Virginia’s offer.
Look, if you had a friend in a souring relationship where his or her partner clearly didn’t care about what they had to say, would you advise them to stick it out? Or would you tell them to leave?
How is this really any different?
Sure, there’s an election next year that might change a whole lot about the state, but it also might not. Especially as Democrats are doing everything they can to revamp elections in the state in a blatant attempt to hold power indefinitely. With all that in mind, it’s time to start looking at your options.
The best, most viable option might be to join West Virginia.
At least then you have a chance that your rights will be respected.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--Giffords Proves They're About Progressive Politics, Not Safety

Giffords likes to present itself as being just another in a long line of “ gun safety ” groups , that they really only care about making communities safer from the scourge of gun violence .
Of course , the term “ gun safety ” is always a euphemism for gun control .
It ’ s so much the case that absolutely no one buys the claims that it ’ s anything but gun control .
However , Giffords isn ’ t really all about gun control .
Oh no .
You see , they just made it clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive politics–particularly identity politics–rather than making anyone safer .
A gun reform advocacy group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords ( D-Ariz. ) is backing reelection bids for eight freshmen congresswomen as part of the organization ’ s first round of 2020 endorsements .
Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence championed the women , several of whom flipped Republican-held seats in 2018 , as key players to fight for gun reform proposals , according to the endorsement exclusively shared with The Hill on Tuesday .
“ Strong women get things done and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get gun safety legislation through Congress , ” former Rep. Giffords , founder of the organization and gun violence survivor , said in a statement .
“ Each has made clear that where others might waver , they will push ahead.
” These champions did not back down in the face of a gun lobby that tried to use their power and influence to block progress , ” she continued .
“ Their arrival in Washington signaled the NRA ’ s ironclad grip on the House of Representatives was over.
” Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure there were men who also remained in lockstep with their fellow Democrats on gun control .
Why aren ’ t they being mentioned ?
Probably because it ’ s not really about guns or gun control .
That ’ s just an excuse .
Instead , they ’ re pushing identity politics by arguing that “ strong women get things done.
” Which , of course , is a lie .
After all , what did these women actually accomplish ?
Sure , they voted for gun control measures , but just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing at all .
If that ’ s “ getting things done , ” then Giffords has a much different definition of the term than I do .
Getting it done means you showed up and made a positive difference .
That would require sitting down with Republicans and finding measures they could at least tolerate and maybe giving them a little something in return .
None of these women did that .
No , they showed up with fire and brimstone and in the end accomplishing nothing .
So they went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t getting passed , and they ’ re celebrated by a national gun-control organization for that .
In and of itself , that would be fine , but that ’ s not the only reason they ’ re celebrated .
They ’ re celebrated because they hold the right opinions while also having a uterus .
That ’ s it .
That ’ s why Giffords is applauding them .
Giffords and groups like it often pretend they ’ re really non-partisan , that they back a position and not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much male bovine excrement that claim really is .
They ’ re pushing identity politics because they know it ’ ll sell to their donors .
That ’ s all they ’ re about , and don ’ t let them say any differently .

Giffords likes to present itself as being just another in a long line of “gun safety” groups, that they really only care about making communities safer from the scourge of gun violence.
Of course, the term “gun safety” is always a euphemism for gun control. It’s so much the case that absolutely no one buys the claims that it’s anything but gun control.
However, Giffords isn’t really all about gun control. Oh no.
You see, they just made it clear that what they’re really about is progressive politics–particularly identity politics–rather than making anyone safer.
A gun reform advocacy group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is backing reelection bids for eight freshmen congresswomen as part of the organization’s first round of 2020 endorsements. Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence championed the women, several of whom flipped Republican-held seats in 2018, as key players to fight for gun reform proposals, according to the endorsement exclusively shared with The Hill on Tuesday. Giffords endorsed Reps. Katie Porter (Calif.), Lucy McBath (Ga.), Lauren Underwood (Ill.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Susie Lee (Nev.), Susan Wild (Penn.), Jennifer Wexton (Va.) and Kim Schrier (Wash.) “Strong women get things done and these leaders were essential to the successful effort to get gun safety legislation through Congress,” former Rep. Giffords, founder of the organization and gun violence survivor, said in a statement. “Each has made clear that where others might waver, they will push ahead.” These champions did not back down in the face of a gun lobby that tried to use their power and influence to block progress,” she continued. “Their arrival in Washington signaled the NRA’s ironclad grip on the House of Representatives was over.”
Of course, I’m also quite sure there were men who also remained in lockstep with their fellow Democrats on gun control. Why aren’t they being mentioned?
Probably because it’s not really about guns or gun control. That’s just an excuse. Instead, they’re pushing identity politics by arguing that “strong women get things done.”
Which, of course, is a lie.
After all, what did these women actually accomplish? Sure, they voted for gun control measures, but just what actually got passed? Nothing. Nothing at all. If that’s “getting things done,” then Giffords has a much different definition of the term than I do.
Getting it done means you showed up and made a positive difference. That would require sitting down with Republicans and finding measures they could at least tolerate and maybe giving them a little something in return. None of these women did that.
No, they showed up with fire and brimstone and in the end accomplishing nothing.
So they went to Congress, voted on some bills that aren’t getting passed, and they’re celebrated by a national gun-control organization for that. In and of itself, that would be fine, but that’s not the only reason they’re celebrated. They’re celebrated because they hold the right opinions while also having a uterus. That’s it.
That’s why Giffords is applauding them.
Giffords and groups like it often pretend they’re really non-partisan, that they back a position and not a party, but this should illustrate perfectly how much male bovine excrement that claim really is. They’re pushing identity politics because they know it’ll sell to their donors.
That’s all they’re about, and don’t let them say any differently.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--VA Dem Senator: I'm Not Backing Gun Or Magazine Bans

One of four Democrat state senators in Virginia who have gone on the record in opposition to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban bill now says he won ’ t back any legislation that bans firearms or magazines .
Sen. Lynwood Lewis , who represents Virginia ’ s Eastern Shore as well as part of Norfolk , says in a new editorial on the state of gun legislation that his focus is on what he deems “ access issues ” or , as he put it , “ trying to make sure that the filter between those whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to firearms is a tight one.
” That ’ s why Lewis says he supports the universal background check bill that cleared the Senate , as well as “ red flag ” legislation .
Lewis says bills targeting guns and magazines are a different issue entirely .
The bill which rightfully had everyone very concerned ( SB16 ) never even made it out of committee .
That is why I caution everyone who was so worried about the bill that anybody can introduce a bill — whether it passes or not is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate bill now regarding the banning of assault rifles .
The Governor ’ s bill on this topic was introduced in the House of Delegates and is being carried by Delegate Mark Levine .
As I stated publicly before the Session and as was reported in Eastern Shore news media I will not be supporting any type of ban legislation whether on a particular type of firearm or a particular type of magazine .
Lewis says he also has major concerns with a couple of other gun bills that actually do deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Howell has proposed SB581 which is very problematic and further highlights the cultural divide in our Commonwealth .
That bill has an unintended consequence making it very difficult for our young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to have access to firearms for hunting and other purposes .
Unless that legislation is amended in some significant way I will not be voting in favor of it .
Senator Saslaw put in a bill which would raise the legal age for firearm purchases to twenty-one .
As a general philosophical approach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold from eighteen to twenty-one I have a problem , since we allow eighteen year olds to vote and in all other respects be treated as adult members of society .
I do not believe that we can pick and choose for which things they should be held accountable as adults .
We should have had that discussion decades ago when we decided to treat eighteen year olds as full adults .
Unless we want to have that larger discussion again , I will resist increasing the age to twenty-one .
Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state senate , which means without Lewis ’ s support , the best Democrats could hope for would be a 20-20 tie with the tie-breaking vote to approve a gun ban coming from Lt. Gov .
Justin Fairfax .
At last report , however , Lewis has three other Democrat colleagues in the Senate who are also objecting to the current language of HB 961 .
If that voting bloc remains intact , Northam ’ s gun ban bill won ’ t have the votes to get to his desk .
Virginia gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with legislators , even if you think your state senator or delegate is unpersuadable .
They need to be hearing from their constituents , and they need to know that , despite what Michael Bloomberg tells them , the voters in their districts aren ’ t demanding legislation that turns legal gun owners into criminals while ignoring those actually responsible for committing robberies , shootings , and homicides .
Virginia gun owners are sure to see Gov .
Ralph Northam sign some awful bills , but right now there ’ s a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control agenda can be defeated before it can become law .

One of four Democrat state senators in Virginia who have gone on the record in opposition to Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban bill now says he won’t back any legislation that bans firearms or magazines.
Sen. Lynwood Lewis, who represents Virginia’s Eastern Shore as well as part of Norfolk, says in a new editorial on the state of gun legislation that his focus is on what he deems “access issues” or, as he put it, “trying to make sure that the filter between those whom we all agree should not have access to firearms is a tight one.” That’s why Lewis says he supports the universal background check bill that cleared the Senate, as well as “red flag” legislation. Lewis says bills targeting guns and magazines are a different issue entirely.
The bill which rightfully had everyone very concerned (SB16) never even made it out of committee. That is why I caution everyone who was so worried about the bill that anybody can introduce a bill — whether it passes or not is a completely different question. There is no Senate bill now regarding the banning of assault rifles. The Governor’s bill on this topic was introduced in the House of Delegates and is being carried by Delegate Mark Levine. As I stated publicly before the Session and as was reported in Eastern Shore news media I will not be supporting any type of ban legislation whether on a particular type of firearm or a particular type of magazine.
Lewis says he also has major concerns with a couple of other gun bills that actually do deal with access to firearms.
In addition Senator Howell has proposed SB581 which is very problematic and further highlights the cultural divide in our Commonwealth. That bill has an unintended consequence making it very difficult for our young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to have access to firearms for hunting and other purposes. Unless that legislation is amended in some significant way I will not be voting in favor of it. Senator Saslaw put in a bill which would raise the legal age for firearm purchases to twenty-one. As a general philosophical approach to legislation which seeks to increase the age threshold from eighteen to twenty-one I have a problem, since we allow eighteen year olds to vote and in all other respects be treated as adult members of society. I do not believe that we can pick and choose for which things they should be held accountable as adults. We should have had that discussion decades ago when we decided to treat eighteen year olds as full adults. Unless we want to have that larger discussion again, I will resist increasing the age to twenty-one.
Democrats have a 21-19 advantage in Virginia’s state senate, which means without Lewis’s support, the best Democrats could hope for would be a 20-20 tie with the tie-breaking vote to approve a gun ban coming from Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. At last report, however, Lewis has three other Democrat colleagues in the Senate who are also objecting to the current language of HB 961. If that voting bloc remains intact, Northam’s gun ban bill won’t have the votes to get to his desk.
Virginia gun owners need to keep up their contacts with legislators, even if you think your state senator or delegate is unpersuadable. They need to be hearing from their constituents, and they need to know that, despite what Michael Bloomberg tells them, the voters in their districts aren’t demanding legislation that turns legal gun owners into criminals while ignoring those actually responsible for committing robberies, shootings, and homicides. Virginia gun owners are sure to see Gov. Ralph Northam sign some awful bills, but right now there’s a real chance that the centerpiece of his gun control agenda can be defeated before it can become law.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--CA Senate Approves Cow Palace Gun Show Ban

Anti-gun senators in Sacramento on Tuesday approved a bill that would ban gun shows at the state-owned Cow Palace just outside of San Francisco .
Similar legislation has passed over the past couple of years , but was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown .
Current California governor Gavin Newsom , on the other hand , hasn ’ t vetoed any gun control legislation that ’ s gotten to his desk , and Sen. Scott Weiner , the bill ’ s primary sponsor , sounds confident that the bill will soon be signed into law .
“ I am thrilled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sen. Wiener said .
“ Its passage demonstrates the strong commitment to ending the epidemic of gun violence both in California and in our country .
Children should not have to go to school in fear of a shooting .
People should not have to be afraid of going to movie theaters , festivals , and other public places due to the prevalence of guns and mass shootings.
” “ I authored SB 281 because it ’ s time we ban , once and for all , gun shows at the Cow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of the Bay Area , and there is a long-held consensus in the community that we must end these gun shows permanently .
We can ’ t give into pressure from the NRA and the work they ’ re doing to reinstate the gun shows .
That ’ s why we need to pass this permanent statutory ban on the Cow Palace gun shows .
This is a great step towards that effort and I hope to see SB 281 pass the Assembly later this year.
” And how exactly do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Cow Palace differ from legal gun sales at a brick-and-mortar gun shop ?
Every sale of a firearm at a gun show in California is subject to the same laws that govern every other transfer of a firearm , including a 10-day waiting period and a background check .
What Weiner is actually saying is that lawful sales of firearms are the problem .
He ’ s just specifically targeting gun shows for now .
Can the government actually ban gun shows from state-owned property ?
Down in San Diego , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban put in place at the Del-Mar Fairgrounds .
As NRA ’ s Institute for Legislative Action points out , that ban has been blocked , at least temporarily , by a federal judge while litigation proceeds .
If SB 281 does end up signed by Gov .
Newsom , expect similar litigation to be filed against the Cow Palace gun show ban , but in the meantime , expect California lawmakers to continue to push bills targeting the state ’ s legal gun owners and not the growing number of violent criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Anti-gun senators in Sacramento on Tuesday approved a bill that would ban gun shows at the state-owned Cow Palace just outside of San Francisco.
Similar legislation has passed over the past couple of years, but was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown. Current California governor Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, hasn’t vetoed any gun control legislation that’s gotten to his desk, and Sen. Scott Weiner, the bill’s primary sponsor, sounds confident that the bill will soon be signed into law.
“I am thrilled that SB 281 passed the Senate today,” Sen. Wiener said. “Its passage demonstrates the strong commitment to ending the epidemic of gun violence both in California and in our country. Children should not have to go to school in fear of a shooting. People should not have to be afraid of going to movie theaters, festivals, and other public places due to the prevalence of guns and mass shootings.” “I authored SB 281 because it’s time we ban, once and for all, gun shows at the Cow Palace. The Cow Palace sits in the heart of the Bay Area, and there is a long-held consensus in the community that we must end these gun shows permanently. We can’t give into pressure from the NRA and the work they’re doing to reinstate the gun shows. That’s why we need to pass this permanent statutory ban on the Cow Palace gun shows. This is a great step towards that effort and I hope to see SB 281 pass the Assembly later this year.”
And how exactly do legal gun sales at a gun show at the Cow Palace differ from legal gun sales at a brick-and-mortar gun shop? Every sale of a firearm at a gun show in California is subject to the same laws that govern every other transfer of a firearm, including a 10-day waiting period and a background check. What Weiner is actually saying is that lawful sales of firearms are the problem. He’s just specifically targeting gun shows for now.
Can the government actually ban gun shows from state-owned property? Down in San Diego, a lawsuit is underway challenging a similar ban put in place at the Del-Mar Fairgrounds. As NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action points out, that ban has been blocked, at least temporarily, by a federal judge while litigation proceeds. If SB 281 does end up signed by Gov. Newsom, expect similar litigation to be filed against the Cow Palace gun show ban, but in the meantime, expect California lawmakers to continue to push bills targeting the state’s legal gun owners and not the growing number of violent criminals.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--FL Lawmakers Considering Guns In Church Schools, Government Buildings

A Sunday morning starting not unlike many others did a lot of change some minds regarding the role of guns in fighting potential mass shootings .
A few seconds , a single shot from a church security team member , and it was over .
It wasn ’ t the perfect outcome–someone other than the bad guy was also killed , after all–but it was as close as humanly possible under the circumstances .
It ’ s giving a bit of momentum to pro-gun measures that would also serve to help combat mass shootings .
In fact , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles and red flag laws is now considering a couple of proposals that might have a much better impact on mass shootings .
With supporters pointing to attacks on churches and synagogues , a House panel Tuesday approved a measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons at religious institutions that share properties with schools .
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee also approved a separate bill that would allow county commissioners , school board members and elected city officials to be armed at their public meetings .
State law generally allows people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it bars being armed on school properties .
That has effectively meant that people can not carry guns to churches or synagogues that meet at places with schools .
The measure ( HB 1437 ) approved Tuesday would allow religious institutions to authorize people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry guns at such locations .
That ’ s a good move on the church schools and one that ’ s long overdue .
It created a potential for people to violate the law without really meaning to since , in their mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not at the church school that happens to share the same property .
I ’ m less enthusiastic about the bill allowing elected officials to carry .
It ’ s not that I think they should be barred from doing so , mind you .
The problem is that it allows these officials to carry but not the rest of the general public .
While I get the argument that they ’ re more likely to be targetted by violence because of their position , the laws in place make a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings .
Especially since there ’ s no evidence of elected officials being more law-abiding than the rest of humanity .
That ’ s my problem there .
It ’ s not that the people it permits shouldn ’ t be permitted , it ’ s that it still excludes legions of law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun .
If Virginia Beach taught us anything , it ’ s that these buildings aren ’ t automatically safe havens and we ’ d best not pretend they are .
Law-abiding citizens shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we know there ’ s no way to keep them safe while disarmed .
Which brings me back around to the church school bill .
That was the problem there .
It kept law-abiding citizens from being armed in certain places because of a particular type of function .
Allowing carry in churches is a good thing , as White Settlement showed the entire world .
Yet having a school in place barred people from carrying , even if the school wasn ’ t in session on Sunday morning .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taken as a win .

A Sunday morning starting not unlike many others did a lot of change some minds regarding the role of guns in fighting potential mass shootings. A few seconds, a single shot from a church security team member, and it was over. It wasn’t the perfect outcome–someone other than the bad guy was also killed, after all–but it was as close as humanly possible under the circumstances.
It’s giving a bit of momentum to pro-gun measures that would also serve to help combat mass shootings.
In fact, the state that passed limits on who can buy rifles and red flag laws is now considering a couple of proposals that might have a much better impact on mass shootings.
With supporters pointing to attacks on churches and synagogues, a House panel Tuesday approved a measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons at religious institutions that share properties with schools. The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee also approved a separate bill that would allow county commissioners, school board members and elected city officials to be armed at their public meetings. State law generally allows people to carry concealed weapons at religious institutions, but it bars being armed on school properties. That has effectively meant that people cannot carry guns to churches or synagogues that meet at places with schools. The measure (HB 1437) approved Tuesday would allow religious institutions to authorize people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry guns at such locations.
That’s a good move on the church schools and one that’s long overdue. It created a potential for people to violate the law without really meaning to since, in their mind, they were carrying at church and not at the church school that happens to share the same property.
I’m less enthusiastic about the bill allowing elected officials to carry.
It’s not that I think they should be barred from doing so, mind you. The problem is that it allows these officials to carry but not the rest of the general public. While I get the argument that they’re more likely to be targetted by violence because of their position, the laws in place make a lot of people vulnerable coming to and from government buildings. Especially since there’s no evidence of elected officials being more law-abiding than the rest of humanity.
That’s my problem there. It’s not that the people it permits shouldn’t be permitted, it’s that it still excludes legions of law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun. If Virginia Beach taught us anything, it’s that these buildings aren’t automatically safe havens and we’d best not pretend they are. Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be disarmed at all, but especially when we know there’s no way to keep them safe while disarmed.
Which brings me back around to the church school bill. That was the problem there. It kept law-abiding citizens from being armed in certain places because of a particular type of function. Allowing carry in churches is a good thing, as White Settlement showed the entire world. Yet having a school in place barred people from carrying, even if the school wasn’t in session on Sunday morning.
Still, anything that expands gun rights has to be taken as a win.


bearingarms--2020-01-29--GA Gun Dealer Convicted Of Selling Guns To Traffickers

I believe that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t include limitations , in and of itself .
Sure , I have no issue with laws punishing those who use guns recklessly in ways that endanger human lives–shoot into a crowd and I want you in prison , even if you don ’ t hit anyone–but the ownership of firearms should be unrestricted .
We don ’ t live in that world , though .
We have gun laws , rules which we ’ re all supposed to follow .
That means not selling guns to people you know or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criminals .
One Georgia gun dealer was just convicted of not following that particular rule .
He had a license to sell guns .
But a Cobb County man allowed people to buy guns for criminals , according to federal investigators .
Guns sold at Christopher Koninsky ’ s business , Team 88 Enterprises , were then trafficked to several states outside Georgia , U.S. Attorney BJay Pak said Tuesday .
Koninsky , 52 , was sentenced to six months in prison , followed by six months of home confinement and two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office said .
Koninsky ran a background check on a prospective buyer , according to prosecutors .
But when he learned there was something that prevented him from selling to the would-be buyer , Koninsky allowed someone else to complete the paperwork to buy the firearm .
And really , who did Koninsky think he was , the ATF ?
I mean , really .
After all , we all know it ’ s up to the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives to provide all the guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of us are permitted to do .
No , we have to follow the rules or else land in jail for six months with six months of home confinement .
Meanwhile , the ATF officials directly responsible for arming members of the Mexican cartels continue to walk free .
Look , I ’ m not interested in excusing Koninsky .
He broke the law , laws he knew about , and he ’ s going to jail for it .
While I may not believe there should be limits to the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleep that a guy who broke the very rules he knew was in place is being punished for it .
What I can ’ t get past , though , is that Koninsky really did nothing that much different than what the ATF did during Operation Fast & Furious , yet he ’ s the one going to prison over it .
Years later , most people have forgotten about the role the ATF played in sending guns to the Mexican cartels , all while President Obama tried to use cartel violence as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I haven ’ t and neither have a lot of others in the Second Amendment community .
Koninsky may have screwed up , but his real mistake was not letting the ATF in on the action just a bit .
Had he done that , he ’ d probably still be selling guns to everyone and their brother regardless of what laws were on the books one way or the other .
The problem wasn ’ t who he sold to , just that he didn ’ t have the right badge @ @ @ @ @ @

I believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t include limitations, in and of itself. Sure, I have no issue with laws punishing those who use guns recklessly in ways that endanger human lives–shoot into a crowd and I want you in prison, even if you don’t hit anyone–but the ownership of firearms should be unrestricted.
We don’t live in that world, though. We have gun laws, rules which we’re all supposed to follow. That means not selling guns to people you know or have reason to suspect might be providing them to criminals.
One Georgia gun dealer was just convicted of not following that particular rule.
He had a license to sell guns. But a Cobb County man allowed people to buy guns for criminals, according to federal investigators. Guns sold at Christopher Koninsky’s business, Team 88 Enterprises, were then trafficked to several states outside Georgia, U.S. Attorney BJay Pak said Tuesday. Koninsky, 52, was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by six months of home confinement and two years of supervised release, Pak’s office said. … Koninsky ran a background check on a prospective buyer, according to prosecutors. But when he learned there was something that prevented him from selling to the would-be buyer, Koninsky allowed someone else to complete the paperwork to buy the firearm.
And really, who did Koninsky think he was, the ATF? I mean, really.
After all, we all know it’s up to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to provide all the guns to bad people and not something the rest of us are permitted to do.
No, we have to follow the rules or else land in jail for six months with six months of home confinement.
Meanwhile, the ATF officials directly responsible for arming members of the Mexican cartels continue to walk free.
Look, I’m not interested in excusing Koninsky. He broke the law, laws he knew about, and he’s going to jail for it. While I may not believe there should be limits to the Second Amendment, I’m not losing sleep that a guy who broke the very rules he knew was in place is being punished for it.
What I can’t get past, though, is that Koninsky really did nothing that much different than what the ATF did during Operation Fast & Furious, yet he’s the one going to prison over it.
Years later, most people have forgotten about the role the ATF played in sending guns to the Mexican cartels, all while President Obama tried to use cartel violence as justification for disarming law-abiding Americans. Well, I haven’t and neither have a lot of others in the Second Amendment community.
Koninsky may have screwed up, but his real mistake was not letting the ATF in on the action just a bit. Had he done that, he’d probably still be selling guns to everyone and their brother regardless of what laws were on the books one way or the other. The problem wasn’t who he sold to, just that he didn’t have the right badge to arm the bad guys.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--RI Senate Approves Ban On 3D Printed Guns

One of the things I do when I ’ m not writing here at Bearing Arms is reading and writing science fiction and fantasy stories ( new book out today , BTW ) .
That means considering new technologies and the kind of impact they might have on the future .
To me , one of the most fascinating is the 3D printer .
Whereas you once needed special skills to fabricate something out of nothing but raw materials , the 3D printer lets you use a file to create something in the privacy of your own home .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s pretty badass .
Unsurprisingly , someone immediately turned their attention to using this technology to make guns .
Makes sense , right ?
After all , if the government becomes tyrannical and bans guns somehow , the good people of this country will still need at least some access to arms in order to take their country back , right ?
Also unsurprisingly , lawmakers want to ban using the new technology to make guns .
The Rhode Island Senate on Wednesday approved legislation sponsored by Sen. Cynthia Coyne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns and other untraceable or undetectable firearms in Rhode Island .
“ Ghost guns , 3-D printed guns and undetectable plastic guns are designed especially for criminal activity .
They are meant to dodge the legal safeguards that protect public safety .
Our state laws should be very clear that possessing , creating or selling them is a criminal act , and we should be doing everything we can to keep these dangerous weapons from proliferating here , ” said Coyne , of District , 32 , Barrington , Bristol , East Providence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Senate has expedited this common-sense legislation , which addresses a loophole that has developed via new technology while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
” The legislation , a version of which was also approved by the Senate last year , would make it unlawful in Rhode Island for any person to manufacture , sell , offer to sell , transfer , purchase , possess , or have under his or her control any gun that is made from plastic , fiberglass or through a 3-D printing process ; or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serial number under the requirements of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 ; or one that would be undetectable by a metal detector after removal of all parts other than a major component , or whose major component would not generate an accurate image if subjected to the type of screening equipment used at airports and public buildings .
As noted above , this legislation also inhibits law-abiding citizens who enjoy building their own firearms from unregistered receivers .
What ’ s not noted above , though , is that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bill will actually interfere with criminals making guns if they want to , either with a 3D printer or with a less than 80 percent receiver .
That ’ s because criminals , by definition , don ’ t obey the law .
They ’ ll ignore this one like they ignore all the other laws .
As per usual , lawmakers seek to ignore the real problem–criminals–and instead want to impose restrictions on the very people they don ’ t need to worry about .
You can give a law-abiding citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hurt a living soul with it , but a violent criminal will use a rock or his bare hands to hurt another if that ’ s all they can get .
The problem isn ’ t the guns , but the people .
How about trying to start there .

One of the things I do when I’m not writing here at Bearing Arms is reading and writing science fiction and fantasy stories (new book out today, BTW). That means considering new technologies and the impact they may have on the future.
To me, one of the most fascinating is the 3D printer.
Whereas you once needed special skills to fabricate something out of nothing but raw materials, the 3D printer lets you use a file to create something in the privacy of your own home. I don’t care who you are, that’s pretty bada**.
Unsurprisingly, someone immediately turned their attention to using this technology to make guns. Makes sense, right? After all, if the government becomes tyrannical and bans guns somehow, the good people of this country will still need at least some access to arms to take their country back, right?
Also, unsurprisingly, lawmakers want to ban using the new technology to make guns.
The Rhode Island Senate on Wednesday approved legislation sponsored by Sen. Cynthia Coyne to outlaw 3-D printed guns, ghost guns and other untraceable or undetectable firearms in Rhode Island. “Ghost guns, 3-D printed guns and undetectable plastic guns are designed especially for criminal activity. They are meant to dodge the legal safeguards that protect public safety. Our state laws should be very clear that possessing, creating or selling them is a criminal act, and we should be doing everything we can to keep these dangerous weapons from proliferating here,” said Coyne, of District, 32, Barrington, Bristol, East Providence. “I’m very grateful that the Senate has expedited this common-sense legislation, which addresses a loophole that has developed via new technology while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.” The legislation, a version of which was also approved by the Senate last year, would make it unlawful in Rhode Island for any person to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, possess, or have under his or her control any gun that is made from plastic, fiberglass or through a 3-D printing process; or a ghost gun, one that lacks a serial number under the requirements of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968; or one that would be undetectable by a metal detector after removal of all parts other than a major component, or whose major component would not generate an accurate image if subjected to the type of screening equipment used at airports and public buildings.
As noted above, this legislation also inhibits law-abiding citizens who enjoy building their own firearms from unregistered receivers.
What’s not noted above is that there’s not a hope in hell that this bill will interfere with criminals making guns if they want to, either with a 3D printer or with a less than 80 percent receiver. That’s because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. They’ll ignore this one like they ignore all the other laws.
As per usual, lawmakers seek to ignore the real problem–criminals–and instead want to impose restrictions on the very people they don’t need to worry about.
You can give a law-abiding citizen a rocket launcher and he won’t hurt a living soul with it, but a violent criminal will use a rock or his bare hands to hurt another if that’s all they can get.
The problem isn’t the guns, but the people. How about trying to start there?


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Washington State Judge Gets Gun Rights Restored

Imagine that you ’ re a judge , that you have the power to determine the direction of people ’ s lives with a tap of a gavel .
At any level , a judge has a great deal of power , more power than most people can really even imagine .
However , superior court judges deal with a lot of high-stakes cases and can destroy a single life pretty easily if they wanted .
Now , imagine being trusted with that kind of power , but not with the right to keep and bear arms .
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very position until recently .
A Superior Court judge who is an avid outdoorsman off the bench had his gun rights restored Wednesday in a Kennewick courtroom .
The request by Yakima County ’ s Judge Doug Federspiel came 1 1/2 years after he was ordered to undergo involuntary inpatient treatment at a Richland counseling center .
Federspiel , 57 , appeared before one of his peers in Benton-Franklin Superior Court .
“ It has been over one year since those events , and I have successfully managed the stress related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Federspiel wrote in his petition to the court .
During the two-minute hearing , Judge Sam Swanberg concluded there is no evidence at this time of Federspiel being a substantial danger or committing serious harm to either himself or others .
Swanberg noted that he had “ extensively reviewed ” the file and , given that a professional mental health evaluation of Federspiel had been done , it was appropriate to sign off on the order .
The order affects state law , but not necessarily federal law .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First is how someone who can ’ t be trusted with firearms could be trusted with the power of a judge .
For right or wrong , judges have a lot of power in their courtroom and considerable pull outside of it .
Enough so that a malicious soul could ruin so many lives .
It ’ s happened and we all know it .
Yet Federspiel remained entrusted with that power .
To be fair , I ’ m not saying he shouldn ’ t have been .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to warrant removal from office , he should remain in place .
Being severely depressed and thinking about taking your own life is awful , but it ’ s awful for him .
It doesn ’ t warrant removing him from his job .
Yet on the same token , most people who are suicidal are only in that state for a limited period of time anyway .
Removing their gun rights potentially forever doesn ’ t encourage people to get help , it scares them from talking to anyone about what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think suicides went up in states with red flag orders ?
It ’ s because folks are afraid to talk because they don ’ t want to lose their guns , but then end up losing their fight .
It ’ s a short-term issue , though , and neither Judge Federspiel nor anyone else should lose their Second Amendment rights over a short-term issue .
Of course , I also wonder how many other people have lost their rights for the same thing and haven ’ t been able to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s understanding of the legal system , to say nothing of any connections he might have that helped grease the skids a bit .

Imagine that you’re a judge, that you have the power to determine the direction of people’s lives with a tap of a gavel. At any level, a judge has a great deal of power, more power than most people can really even imagine. However, superior court judges deal with a lot of high-stakes cases and can destroy a single life pretty easily if they wanted.
Now, imagine being trusted with that kind of power, but not with the right to keep and bear arms.
Pretty crazy, right?
Well, one Washington state judge was in that very position until recently.
A Superior Court judge who is an avid outdoorsman off the bench had his gun rights restored Wednesday in a Kennewick courtroom. The request by Yakima County’s Judge Doug Federspiel came 1 1/2 years after he was ordered to undergo involuntary inpatient treatment at a Richland counseling center. Federspiel, 57, appeared before one of his peers in Benton-Franklin Superior Court. “It has been over one year since those events, and I have successfully managed the stress related to the original order (under state law),” Federspiel wrote in his petition to the court. During the two-minute hearing, Judge Sam Swanberg concluded there is no evidence at this time of Federspiel being a substantial danger or committing serious harm to either himself or others. Swanberg noted that he had “extensively reviewed” the file and, given that a professional mental health evaluation of Federspiel had been done, it was appropriate to sign off on the order.
The order affects state law, but not necessarily federal law.
However, this raises a few questions for me.
First is how someone who can’t be trusted with firearms could be trusted with the power of a judge. For right or wrong, judges have a lot of power in their courtroom and considerable pull outside of it. Enough so that a malicious soul could ruin so many lives. It’s happened and we all know it.
Yet Federspiel remained entrusted with that power.
To be fair, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been. He’s a judge and unless he did something to warrant removal from office, he should remain in place. Being severely depressed and thinking about taking your own life is awful, but it’s awful for him. It doesn’t warrant removing him from his job.
Yet on the same token, most people who are suicidal are only in that state for a limited period of time anyway. Removing their gun rights potentially forever doesn’t encourage people to get help, it scares them from talking to anyone about what they’re planning. Why else do you think suicides went up in states with red flag orders? It’s because folks are afraid to talk because they don’t want to lose their guns, but then end up losing their fight.
It’s a short-term issue, though, and neither Judge Federspiel nor anyone else should lose their Second Amendment rights over a short-term issue.
Of course, I also wonder how many other people have lost their rights for the same thing and haven’t been able to get them back because they lack Federspiel’s understanding of the legal system, to say nothing of any connections he might have that helped grease the skids a bit.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--VA House Approves Seven More Gun Control Bills

Virginia ’ s Democrat-controlled House of Delegates approved more than a half-dozen gun control bills Thursday afternoon , including a version of “ red flag ” legislation , “ universal background checks , ” and the gutting of Virginia ’ s firearms preemption laws .
Former delegate Scott Lingamfelter joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the anti-gun agenda that ’ s being rushed through the legislature with fierce opposition but little time for debate .
The Republican says the actions of Gov .
Ralph Northam are a far cry from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislature , and Lingamfelter says Northam as “ sold his soul ” to anti-gun activists and far-Left politicians in an attempt to rehabilitate his image and political career after his blackface controversy in 2019 .
Make sure you check out the entire interview above , and keep reading for a look at the bills that cleared the House on Thursday afternoon .
HB 2 is a so-called “ universal background check ” bill that differs significantly from the legislation already approved by the state Senate .
HB 2 requires background checks on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only limited exceptions , while the senate version of the background bill applies only to private sales , not transfers .
HB 9 establishes a civil penalty for gun owners who fail to report their firearms lost or stolen within 24 hours .
The bill is ostensibly designed to curtail “ straw purchases , ” but in fact could indemnify individuals who illegally purchase firearms for someone else , as long as they report the firearm missing afterwards .
HB 421 guts the state ’ s firearms preemption laws and allows for localities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the “ possession , carrying , storage , or transporting of firearms , ammunition , or components or combination thereof , ” meaning that Virginians could soon be forced to learn the various gun laws of dozens of localities in order to stay in compliance .
The state senate has passed a similar version that doesn ’ t go as far as HB 421 .
HB 674 is the House version of “ red flag ” legislation , and it differs substantially from the version approved by the state senate , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections and the ability for a single law enforcement officer to petition the court for a “ substantial risk order ” .
HB 812 is handgun rationing , limiting purchases of handguns to one-per-month .
Unlike the version passed by the state senate , this bill does not contain an exemption for those who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Virginia .
HB 1083 states that any person who “ recklessly leaves a loaded , unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Class 6 felony.
” The big question is what counts as “ reckless.
” Some lawmakers expressed concern about what this might mean for minors who hunt , a point echoed by Gabriella Hoffman on Twitter .
In addition to being highly problematic in terms of hunting , the bill could also turn parents into criminals for allowing their 17-year old daughter to access a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone .
It ’ s just one of the many awful bills that have now cleared the house and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the statehouse .
While none of the gun control bills that have cleared their house of origin are supportable from a Second Amendment or public safety standpoint , the House versions are generally more atrocious than the slightly-less-awful versions passed by the state senate .
Now we ’ ll soon see what language the two chambers can agree on , and if the four Democrat state senators who are vocally opposing the current language of Ralph Northam ’ s gun ban also start to voice their opposition to the broad attacks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house .

Virginia’s Democrat-controlled House of Delegates approved more than a half-dozen gun control bills Thursday afternoon, including a version of “red flag” legislation, “universal background checks,” and the gutting of Virginia’s firearms preemption laws.
Former delegate Scott Lingamfelter joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the anti-gun agenda that’s being rushed through the legislature with fierce opposition but little time for debate. The Republican says the actions of Gov. Ralph Northam are a far cry from the man he served with in the Virginia legislature, and Lingamfelter says Northam as “sold his soul” to anti-gun activists and far-Left politicians in an attempt to rehabilitate his image and political career after his blackface controversy in 2019. Make sure you check out the entire interview above, and keep reading for a look at the bills that cleared the House on Thursday afternoon.
HB 2 is a so-called “universal background check” bill that differs significantly from the legislation already approved by the state Senate. HB 2 requires background checks on all sales and transfers of firearms, with only limited exceptions, while the senate version of the background bill applies only to private sales, not transfers.
HB 9 establishes a civil penalty for gun owners who fail to report their firearms lost or stolen within 24 hours. The bill is ostensibly designed to curtail “straw purchases,” but in fact could indemnify individuals who illegally purchase firearms for someone else, as long as they report the firearm missing afterwards.
HB 421 guts the state’s firearms preemption laws and allows for localities to set their own gun control laws regarding the “possession, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof,” meaning that Virginians could soon be forced to learn the various gun laws of dozens of localities in order to stay in compliance. The state senate has passed a similar version that doesn’t go as far as HB 421.
HB 674 is the House version of “red flag” legislation, and it differs substantially from the version approved by the state senate, most notably in the lack of due process protections and the ability for a single law enforcement officer to petition the court for a “substantial risk order”.
HB 812 is handgun rationing, limiting purchases of handguns to one-per-month. Unlike the version passed by the state senate, this bill does not contain an exemption for those who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Virginia.
HB 1083 states that any person who “recklessly leaves a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any person under the age of 18 is guilty of a Class 6 felony.” The big question is what counts as “reckless.” Some lawmakers expressed concern about what this might mean for minors who hunt, a point echoed by Gabriella Hoffman on Twitter.
Insane. What is deemed “reckless” usage for kids under 18 hunting is dubious at best and will be hard to enforce. This relates to minors access to guns during hunting and shooting sports. Hello erosion to Virginia’s sporting/hunting heritage… https://t.co/lSoBuRN3TQ — Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) January 30, 2020
In addition to being highly problematic in terms of hunting, the bill could also turn parents into criminals for allowing their 17-year old daughter to access a firearm for self-defense while she was home alone. It’s just one of the many awful bills that have now cleared the house and are heading over to the senate side of the statehouse.
While none of the gun control bills that have cleared their house of origin are supportable from a Second Amendment or public safety standpoint, the House versions are generally more atrocious than the slightly-less-awful versions passed by the state senate. Now we’ll soon see what language the two chambers can agree on, and if the four Democrat state senators who are vocally opposing the current language of Ralph Northam’s gun ban also start to voice their opposition to the broad attacks on legal gun owners approved by the Virginia house.


bearingarms--2020-01-30--Warren Signs On To New Federal Gun Licensing, Gun Ban Bill

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has introduced new legislation requiring all gun owners in the United States to receive a federal gun license before exercising their Second Amendment rights , as well as banning commonly owned firearms the bill designates as “ assault weapons.
” The bill has already attracted the support of Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren , who was on hand Thursday as Menendez held a press conference to promote the legislation .
“ With approximately 100 Americans killed every day from gun violence , it ’ s long past time for Congress to stand up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly crisis head-on , ” Warren said .
Under the legislation , Americans would be required to obtain a federal or state license to buy or own a gun , federal background checks would be required for all gun purchases , military-style assault weapons would be banned , and minimum age to buy a weapon or ammunition would be set at 21 .
Menendez ’ s latest call for stronger gun legislation comes a month after four people were gunned down in Jersey City , in which two people killed a police officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supermarket .
Of course those attackers were prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms , so any federal gun license wouldn ’ t have made a difference .
The legislation would set up a “ may issue ” system for licensing Americans to own firearms , giving the federal government the ability to deny a license to anyone if there is : That vague language assures that the process would be abused , and many current legal gun owners would be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms .
Heck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm could potentially create a risk to public safety , so why wouldn ’ t they use that language to deny anyone and everyone who applies ( with exceptions for the politically powerful and connected , of course ) .
The measure also imposes a huge tax increase on both firearms and ammunition , which would preclude some Americans on the lower-end of the economic scale to simply be unable to afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
That ’ s fine with Warren , who seemingly doesn ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment to begin with .
Warren was asked by the New York Times about what the Second Amendment means to her , but her only response was what the Second Amendment isn ’ t about , at least in her eyes .
“ All three of my brothers are gun owners and we can respect the right to own a gun .
But we have a responsibility to keep our kids safe .
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own weapons of war .
It definitely does not prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep our loved ones safe .
I ’ ll do everything in my power as president to lead this fight.
” The new licensing and gun ban bill would certainly be real action from the federal government , but it wouldn ’ t do a thing to keep our loved ones safe .
In fact , the government has no duty or obligation to protect us as individuals , which is one reason why it ’ s so important that our Second Amendment rights remain intact .
This bill stands no chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s a clear indication of what awaits gun owners if Democrats retake the White House and the U.S. Senate in the 2020 elections .
They ’ re done nibbling around the edges of our constitutional rights , and they ’ re now engaged in the biggest and most well-funded campaign to destroy the Second Amendment in our nation ’ s history .

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has introduced new legislation requiring all gun owners in the United States to receive a federal gun license before exercising their Second Amendment rights, as well as banning commonly owned firearms the bill designates as “assault weapons.” The bill has already attracted the support of Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, who was on hand Thursday as Menendez held a press conference to promote the legislation.
“With approximately 100 Americans killed every day from gun violence, it’s long past time for Congress to stand up to the gun lobby and confront this deadly crisis head-on,” Warren said. Under the legislation, Americans would be required to obtain a federal or state license to buy or own a gun, federal background checks would be required for all gun purchases, military-style assault weapons would be banned, and minimum age to buy a weapon or ammunition would be set at 21. Menendez’s latest call for stronger gun legislation comes a month after four people were gunned down in Jersey City, in which two people killed a police officer and then three people in a kosher supermarket.
Of course those attackers were prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms, so any federal gun license wouldn’t have made a difference.
The legislation would set up a “may issue” system for licensing Americans to own firearms, giving the federal government the ability to deny a license to anyone if there is:
‘‘(i) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the individual has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the individual could potentially create a risk to public safety; or ‘‘(ii) other existing factors that suggest that the individual could potentially create a risk to public safety.”
That vague language assures that the process would be abused, and many current legal gun owners would be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. Heck, gun control advocates believe that simply owning a firearm could potentially create a risk to public safety, so why wouldn’t they use that language to deny anyone and everyone who applies (with exceptions for the politically powerful and connected, of course).
The measure also imposes a huge tax increase on both firearms and ammunition, which would preclude some Americans on the lower-end of the economic scale to simply be unable to afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s fine with Warren, who seemingly doesn’t think they actually have any rights under the Second Amendment to begin with. Warren was asked by the New York Times about what the Second Amendment means to her, but her only response was what the Second Amendment isn’t about, at least in her eyes.
“All three of my brothers are gun owners and we can respect the right to own a gun. But we have a responsibility to keep our kids safe. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own weapons of war. It definitely does not prevent the federal government from taking real action to keep our loved ones safe. I’ll do everything in my power as president to lead this fight.”
The new licensing and gun ban bill would certainly be real action from the federal government, but it wouldn’t do a thing to keep our loved ones safe. In fact, the government has no duty or obligation to protect us as individuals, which is one reason why it’s so important that our Second Amendment rights remain intact.
This bill stands no chance of passing in the U.S. Senate, but it’s a clear indication of what awaits gun owners if Democrats retake the White House and the U.S. Senate in the 2020 elections. They’re done nibbling around the edges of our constitutional rights, and they’re now engaged in the biggest and most well-funded campaign to destroy the Second Amendment in our nation’s history.