bearingarms--2020-02-22--MI Hunting Panel Appointee Doesn't Hunt

MI Hunting Panel Appointee Doesn't Hunt

It helps if the people with oversight over a state ’ s hunting regulations are , you know , hunters .
While it ’ s not absolutely essential , it ’ s also important to understand the needs of hunters and fishers so that can be balanced as needed against other potential needs .
That ’ s usually a whole lot easier to do when you ’ re an actual hunter .
In Michigan , an appointee to such a commission admits he doesn ’ t hunt and his answers don ’ t give anyone warm , fuzzy feelings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointee to a state commission that regulates hunting and fishing said Thursday that he made a “ personal decision ” decades ago that “ killing things was not for me.
” George Heartwell , the former mayor of Grand Rapids , made the comments during a Michigan Senate Advice and Consent Committee hearing where senators vetted him for his new potential position as chairman of the Natural Resources Commission .
While Heartwell said hunting is part of the state ’ s heritage and he believes in U.S. citizens ’ right to bear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that he hasn ’ t hunted for about 35 years .
“ It was a personal decision , ” Heartwell told the committee .
“ It was not intended , nor would I want it to be read today , as a judgment on others who hunt .
I support hunting .
But it wasn ’ t right for me .
After deciding to go to theological seminary in his 30s , Heartwell said he made a “ sudden ” decision to stop hunting and he gave his firearms to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that sounds fishy ( no pun intended ) .
Sudden decisions tend to have a catalyst .
That suggests that he doesn ’ t just feel hunting is wrong for him , but that he might have some kind of moral stance against hunting .
Such a person in that particular role , regardless of what he says now , could have far-reaching ramifications for the Michigan outdoor community .
Plus , what the hell is the governor doing trying to appoint someone to the commission who really doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic ?
It should be noted , though , that Heartwell also is opposed by the NRA , of all groups .
Yet he also said he believes in the Second Amendment .
In other words , he ’ s lied in one instance .
There ’ s zero reason to believe he didn ’ t lie elsewhere .
The Michigan Senate was right to question him like they have .
My hope is that they reject him and force the governor to find a new appointee , someone without this kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their neck .
The people of Michigan deserve better than someone who suddenly gave up hunting completely and even gave his guns away .
Frankly , Heartwell needs to come up with a better explanation for how that happened , because nothing he ’ s saying rings true .

It helps if the people with oversight over a state’s hunting regulations are, you know, hunters. While it’s not absolutely essential, it’s also important to understand the needs of hunters and fishers so that can be balanced as needed against other potential needs. That’s usually a whole lot easier to do when you’re an actual hunter.
In Michigan, an appointee to such a commission admits he doesn’t hunt and his answers don’t give anyone warm, fuzzy feelings.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s appointee to a state commission that regulates hunting and fishing said Thursday that he made a “personal decision” decades ago that “killing things was not for me.” George Heartwell, the former mayor of Grand Rapids, made the comments during a Michigan Senate Advice and Consent Committee hearing where senators vetted him for his new potential position as chairman of the Natural Resources Commission. While Heartwell said hunting is part of the state’s heritage and he believes in U.S. citizens’ right to bear arms, Republican senators focused multiple questions on the fact that he hasn’t hunted for about 35 years. “It was a personal decision,” Heartwell told the committee. “It was not intended, nor would I want it to be read today, as a judgment on others who hunt. I support hunting. But it wasn’t right for me. After deciding to go to theological seminary in his 30s, Heartwell said he made a “sudden” decision to stop hunting and he gave his firearms to a business partner.
I’m sorry, but that sounds fishy (no pun intended).
Sudden decisions tend to have a catalyst. That suggests that he doesn’t just feel hunting is wrong for him, but that he might have some kind of moral stance against hunting. Such a person in that particular role, regardless of what he says now, could have far-reaching ramifications for the Michigan outdoor community.
Plus, what the hell is the governor doing trying to appoint someone to the commission who really doesn’t seem to have any interest in the topic?
It should be noted, though, that Heartwell also is opposed by the NRA, of all groups.
Heartwell’s appointment to the Natural Resources Commission, which has the power to designate game species, has been contentious since Whitmer announced it on Feb. 7. The Natural Rifle Association has criticized Heartwell, who supported banning guns from city buildings when he was mayor of Grand Rapids.
Yet he also said he believes in the Second Amendment.
In other words, he’s lied in one instance. There’s zero reason to believe he didn’t lie elsewhere.
The Michigan Senate was right to question him like they have. My hope is that they reject him and force the governor to find a new appointee, someone without this kind of anti-gun and potentially anti-hunting baggage hanging around their neck. The people of Michigan deserve better than someone who suddenly gave up hunting completely and even gave his guns away.
Frankly, Heartwell needs to come up with a better explanation for how that happened, because nothing he’s saying rings true.


bearingarms--2020-02-23--Massive Opposition Kills Nebraska Background Check Bill

Hundreds of gun owners packed a legislative hearing at the state capitol in Lincoln on Friday , determined to speak out against a gun control measure that would impose a waiting period on gun sales , as well as require background checks to be performed on all firearms transfers at gun shows .
LB816 isn ’ t a gun control bill at all , according to the bill ’ s sponsor , but the vast majority of those who showed up for a hearing on the bill strongly disagree .
“ I think the message is pretty clear that shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says bill opposer Ian Kimmen .
Senator John McCollister says his bill isn ’ t gun control but a suicide prevention bill .
“ The number one thing we can do is reduce easy access to firearms , ” says Nebraskans Against Violence demonstrator Emily Killham .
The current version of the bill requires anybody buying a handgun to wait at least 48 hours , and up to five days when getting a permit from the sheriff ’ s office .
“ This short delay would give a person , intent on harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time to reflect on the impulse to purchase a handgun and hopefully change their mind , ” says McCollister .
The bill also calls for the cost of the permits to double from $ 5 to $ 10 .
Gun store owner David Pringle , who organized many of the protesters , said the sheriff purchase permits are ineffective and he does additional background checks already .
Pringle says , “ If you think adding $ 10 is going to make this thing work , you ’ re crazy .
It already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get rid of the other pistol purchase permit.
” The Omaha World-Herald reports that about 400 gun owners were at the state capitol on Friday , compared to less than a dozen gun control activists .
In addition to LB816 , the Second Amendment supporters were also there to object to a red flag proposal introduced in the unicameral legislature , and the paper says their activism and engagement paid off .
Not passing gun control isn ’ t the same as doing nothing , even though that ’ s exactly what gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe .
Unfortunately , the real issue in the state is the lack of funding for mental health services , as the Associated Press reported back in 2017 .
While the state has saved money by closing regional centers , local programs haven ’ t received enough funding , said Sen. Paul Schumacher .
That ’ s led to a “ real deficiency ” in mental health services , particularly in rural communities , Schumacher said .
Those in need of mental health services can be stuck on waiting lists for months before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to said Deputy Platte County Attorney Elizabeth Lay .
“ There ’ s not enough resources for the number of people who need them , ” Lay said .
“ The wait times are indicative of that.
” There isn ’ t money in the budget to fund the programs , said Sen. John Stinner .
The state is projected to have a $ 195 million revenue shortfall for the 2017-19 budget .
“ When you don ’ t have money , it ’ s hard to add to a program , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of areas we need to take a look at when revenue comes back.
” The lack of resources means many mentally ill individuals end up in prisons or at the state-run Lincoln Regional Center instead of receiving the treatment they need , Schumacher said .
“ That ’ s the place where you park people when you have nowhere else to park them , ” he said .
No gun control law is going to fix that problem , but unfortunately instead of tackling that real issue , some lawmakers decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by going after legal gun owners instead .
Thanks to the efforts of the state ’ s gun owners , it looks like those bills are going nowhere .
Now lawmakers need to address the real issue instead of scapegoating the Second Amendment .

Hundreds of gun owners packed a legislative hearing at the state capitol in Lincoln on Friday, determined to speak out against a gun control measure that would impose a waiting period on gun sales, as well as require background checks to be performed on all firearms transfers at gun shows.
LB816 isn’t a gun control bill at all, according to the bill’s sponsor, but the vast majority of those who showed up for a hearing on the bill strongly disagree.
“I think the message is pretty clear that shall not be infringed is non-negotiable,” says bill opposer Ian Kimmen. Senator John McCollister says his bill isn’t gun control but a suicide prevention bill. “The number one thing we can do is reduce easy access to firearms,” says Nebraskans Against Violence demonstrator Emily Killham. The current version of the bill requires anybody buying a handgun to wait at least 48 hours, and up to five days when getting a permit from the sheriff’s office. “This short delay would give a person, intent on harm to himself or others, a window of time to reflect on the impulse to purchase a handgun and hopefully change their mind,” says McCollister. The bill also calls for the cost of the permits to double from $5 to $10. Gun store owner David Pringle, who organized many of the protesters, said the sheriff purchase permits are ineffective and he does additional background checks already. Pringle says, “If you think adding $10 is going to make this thing work, you’re crazy. It already doesn’t work. You should get rid of the other pistol purchase permit.”
The Omaha World-Herald reports that about 400 gun owners were at the state capitol on Friday, compared to less than a dozen gun control activists. In addition to LB816, the Second Amendment supporters were also there to object to a red flag proposal introduced in the unicameral legislature, and the paper says their activism and engagement paid off.
Not passing gun control isn’t the same as doing nothing, even though that’s exactly what gun control advocates want the voting public to believe. Unfortunately, the real issue in the state is the lack of funding for mental health services, as the Associated Press reported back in 2017.
While the state has saved money by closing regional centers, local programs haven’t received enough funding, said Sen. Paul Schumacher. That’s led to a “real deficiency” in mental health services, particularly in rural communities, Schumacher said. Those in need of mental health services can be stuck on waiting lists for months before being able to find treatment, according to said Deputy Platte County Attorney Elizabeth Lay. “There’s not enough resources for the number of people who need them,” Lay said. “The wait times are indicative of that.” There isn’t money in the budget to fund the programs, said Sen. John Stinner. The state is projected to have a $195 million revenue shortfall for the 2017-19 budget. “When you don’t have money, it’s hard to add to a program,” he said. “There’s a lot of areas we need to take a look at when revenue comes back.” The lack of resources means many mentally ill individuals end up in prisons or at the state-run Lincoln Regional Center instead of receiving the treatment they need, Schumacher said. “That’s the place where you park people when you have nowhere else to park them,” he said.
No gun control law is going to fix that problem, but unfortunately instead of tackling that real issue, some lawmakers decided to try to “do something” by going after legal gun owners instead. Thanks to the efforts of the state’s gun owners, it looks like those bills are going nowhere. Now lawmakers need to address the real issue instead of scapegoating the Second Amendment.


bearingarms--2020-02-23--Cop Couple's Date Night Interrupted By Armed Robber

In the movie Code of Silence , there ’ s a scene where a couple of guys decide to hold up this bar .
They go in , take their positions , and begin their robbery…only to find out it ’ s a cop bar and everyone in there are off-duty police officers .
The video is a favorite of mine : It ’ s also one of those things that don ’ t really happen that often , though it has and will again .
I can ’ t help but believe this poor guy felt like those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released surveillance video showing exactly what went down when a masked robber found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time .
According to court documents , Justin Carter , 30 , walked into Raising Cane ’ s in the Highlands just before 10 p.m. Saturday wearing a mask and armed with a gun .
He then demanded cash from one of the employees .
What he didn ’ t know is that two married off-duty Elizabethtown police officers were enjoying date night in a nearby booth .
The video shows Det @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officer Nicole McKeown spring into action .
“ I saw her hands go up and I ’ m thinking ‘ Is he doing what I think he ’ s doing ?
’ , ” Nicole McKeown remembered of watching the terrified cashier .
The two drew their weapons and proceeded to engage the robber .
The bad guy decided he had better things to do than get shot , so he took off .
The two officers gave chase , catching him in a backyard a couple of blocks away .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but especially for the police officers out there .
Far too many officers take the attitude of leaving the job behind them at quitting time .
However , crime still happens and the last thing you want to do is be the guy who couldn ’ t respond because you left your weapon in your locker at work or your nightstand at home .
Bad things can happen anywhere .
These two officers epitomize the job the way my father described it to me , that you were never completely off-duty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clock and he responded to things .
Nothing like this , mind you , but still… What these two officers did was absolutely what people want to see from law enforcement .
Further , they made the world a little safer because they were there .
This scumbag didn ’ t get away because they were right there , ready and able to put foot to butt when it was needed and put him away .
For those of us who don ’ t have a badge , though , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm with you .
While it didn ’ t turn out to be as violent as it could have , that ’ s just as much about luck as it is anything else .
What would you have done if you ’ d been there with your wife or husband and this turdnugget showed up and you hadn ’ t been armed ?
What if he decided to shoot the witnesses ?
What then ?
Carry your gun everywhere you legally can .
You never know when you ’ ll need it .

In the movie Code of Silence, there’s a scene where a couple of guys decide to hold up this bar. They go in, take their positions, and begin their robbery…only to find out it’s a cop bar and everyone in there are off-duty police officers.
The video is a favorite of mine:
It’s also one of those things that don’t really happen that often, though it has and will again.
I can’t help but believe this poor guy felt like those two hapless criminals, though.
Police have released surveillance video showing exactly what went down when a masked robber found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time. According to court documents, Justin Carter, 30, walked into Raising Cane’s in the Highlands just before 10 p.m. Saturday wearing a mask and armed with a gun. He then demanded cash from one of the employees. What he didn’t know is that two married off-duty Elizabethtown police officers were enjoying date night in a nearby booth. The video shows Det. Chase McKeown and his wife, Officer Nicole McKeown spring into action. “I saw her hands go up and I’m thinking ‘Is he doing what I think he’s doing?’,” Nicole McKeown remembered of watching the terrified cashier.
The two drew their weapons and proceeded to engage the robber. The bad guy decided he had better things to do than get shot, so he took off. The two officers gave chase, catching him in a backyard a couple of blocks away.
There is a lesson here for all of us, but especially for the police officers out there.
Far too many officers take the attitude of leaving the job behind them at quitting time. However, crime still happens and the last thing you want to do is be the guy who couldn’t respond because you left your weapon in your locker at work or your nightstand at home. Bad things can happen anywhere.
These two officers epitomize the job the way my father described it to me, that you were never completely off-duty. There were times when he was off the clock and he responded to things. Nothing like this, mind you, but still…
What these two officers did was absolutely what people want to see from law enforcement.
Further, they made the world a little safer because they were there. This scumbag didn’t get away because they were right there, ready and able to put foot to butt when it was needed and put him away.
For those of us who don’t have a badge, though, it’s still a reminder to have your firearm with you. While it didn’t turn out to be as violent as it could have, that’s just as much about luck as it is anything else. What would you have done if you’d been there with your wife or husband and this turdnugget showed up and you hadn’t been armed? What if he decided to shoot the witnesses? What then?
Carry your gun everywhere you legally can. You never know when you’ll need it.


bearingarms--2020-02-23--Illinois Gun Owners Fight Back Against Proposed Regulation Changes

Illinois has some interesting ideas on what to do moving forward in their state .
Well , what they call moving forward , anyway .
It seems that the Firearm Owners Identification Card that all potential gun buyers have to possess in the state is about to undergo a few changes , at least if some folks in the state get their way .
In fact , the changes include a doubling of the price as well as cutting the time such a card is good for in half , thus amounting to a four-fold increase for having a FOID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Needless to say , gun rights activists in the state aren ’ t taking this by sitting on their duffs .
Of course , it ’ s noted that Moms Demand Action likes this proposal .
Shocking , I know .
However , let ’ s also note that despite the existence of the FOID requirement for quite some time , Chicago continues to be a national embarrassment due to the rampant gang violence taking place on its streets .
The card hasn ’ t made a dent in the violence , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time such a card is valid in half and charge twice as much for it ?
Why ?
Honestly , I want a good reason just why in the hell the Illinois State Police director feels this is somehow essential for public safety .
Give me a good reason .
Of course , I ’ ll be waiting a long damn time , too .
That ’ s because there isn ’ t anything he can say that ’ s not going to be pulled out of his southern-most body orifice and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same Illinois State Police that misdirected funds garnered from those FOIDs to pay for other things than what they were supposed to use those funds for , so I can ’ t help but feel like this is nothing but another money grab by Kelly .
If he can get enough money coming in regularly enough , he doesn ’ t have to worry as much about what the legislature gives him to work with .
Meanwhile , the people being screwed over are law-abiding citizens .
The people committing all the violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even notice a difference and Kelly damn good and well knows it .

Illinois has some interesting ideas on what to do moving forward in their state. Well, what they call moving forward, anyway.
It seems that the Firearm Owners Identification Card that all potential gun buyers have to possess in the state is about to undergo a few changes, at least if some folks in the state get their way. In fact, the changes include a doubling of the price as well as cutting the time such a card is good for in half, thus amounting to a four-fold increase for having a FOID for the same period of time.
Needless to say, gun rights activists in the state aren’t taking this by sitting on their duffs.
One Illinois gun advocate is speaking out against the proposed changes to the gun control bill, Senate Bill 1966. David Kemp is the owner of Tombstone Gun Range and Training Center in Marion, Ill. For seven years, he has serviced thousands of gun owners in Illinois. Kemp is critical of the proposed changes to current gun laws. “I’m very frustrated, it never seems to end. It’s always one thing on top of another it’s always targeted at law abiding citizens,” Kemp said. In a news conference last week, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly calls for the passage of SB1966. The measure would increase the Firearm Owners’ Identification card fees from $10 over 10 years to $20 over five years, along with requiring fingerprinting of gun owners. “And you think – what’s 20 bucks or 40 dollars, but then you also talking about cost of possibly paying for your own background check and all of a sudden paying for other things,” Kemp said.
Of course, it’s noted that Moms Demand Action likes this proposal. Shocking, I know.
However, let’s also note that despite the existence of the FOID requirement for quite some time, Chicago continues to be a national embarrassment due to the rampant gang violence taking place on its streets. The card hasn’t made a dent in the violence, so clearly the answer is to cut the time such a card is valid in half and charge twice as much for it?
Why? Honestly, I want a good reason just why in the hell the Illinois State Police director feels this is somehow essential for public safety. Give me a good reason.
I’ll wait.
Of course, I’ll be waiting a long damn time, too. That’s because there isn’t anything he can say that’s not going to be pulled out of his southern-most body orifice and we all know it.
This is the same Illinois State Police that misdirected funds garnered from those FOIDs to pay for other things than what they were supposed to use those funds for, so I can’t help but feel like this is nothing but another money grab by Kelly. If he can get enough money coming in regularly enough, he doesn’t have to worry as much about what the legislature gives him to work with.
Meanwhile, the people being screwed over are law-abiding citizens. The people committing all the violence, though, aren’t going to even notice a difference and Kelly damn good and well knows it.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Who's Ready For The Bon Jovi Gun Control Anthem?

When I was 12-years old , I saw Bon Jovi ’ s Slippery When Wet tour stop in Oklahoma City , Oklahoma .
I can ’ t remember everything about the concert , but I ’ m pretty sure Jon Bon Jovi didn ’ t inject a lot of politics into his between-song banter , and the most politically-charged lyric sung that night was probably the line about Tommy being down on his luck because the union ’ s been on strike in “ Livin ’ On A Prayer.
” Of course back then Bon Jovi was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jon Bon Jovi was at the top of his game .
A new Bon Jovi album was a big deal in the late 1980s .
Today , not so much .
Maybe I ’ m a little cynical , but I can ’ t help but wonder if that ’ s one reason why the singer ’ s making it known that his new album will feature a lot of social commentary , including a song about gun control .
In a press release for Bon Jovi 2020 , the band stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as gun control , veterans ’ issues , politics , the meaning of family , and much more.
” The band will tour the record this summer , kicking off June 10th in Tacoma , Washington , and ending with a two-night residency at Madison Square Garden in New York on July 27th and 28th .
Bryan Adams will open for Bon Jovi on most dates .
Of course this isn ’ t the first time Bon Jovi has embraced gun control , though I believe it ’ s the first time he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Back in 2015 , the singer hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton , and he ’ s previously stumped for Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore .
While the singer held several fundraisers for Cory Booker before the New Jersey senator ended his presidential campaign , Bon Jovi has also palled around with Michael Bloomberg in the past .
In 2016 , the rockstar was one of several celebrities to partner with Bloomberg on a charity event that raised $ 4-million for 20 different charities .
Of course Bloomberg could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but why would anyone do that when they could get free press for hanging around with famous people in the name of charity instead ?
It ’ s awfully ironic that the 80s rock star who sang about being a “ six gun lover ” who “ never drew first but drew first blood ” in Blaze of Glory is now singing about the need for gun control , especially when you consider that the nation ’ s violent crime rate is a lot lower now than it was in 1990 when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though there are about 80-million more Americans now , there were nearly 7,000 fewer homicides in 2018 than in 1990 .
That translates to a per capita homicide rate of 9.4 per 100,000 in 1990 , compared to 5.0 homicides per 100,000 in 2018 .
I suspect none of that would matter to Jon Bon Jovi even if he was cognizant of those facts .
Gun control is “ in ” at the moment , at least until the Left figures out a few things , like replacing the War on Drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a disproportionate number of young minority men are locked up for non-violent possessory offenses , or the fact that tens of millions of Americans have no interest in giving up their constitutionally protected rights but will work instead to ensure that as many Americans as possible are able to exercise those rights .
In the meantime , I ’ ll be skipping the new Bon Jovi album .
I ’ m not really interested in his politics , and honestly , in terms of New Jersey rockers , over the years I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smithereens ’ straight forward rock than Bon Jovi ’ s hair metal .
I left Bon Jovi behind long before I became a gun owner , but I see nothing in the description of his new album that makes me want to give him a second look .

When I was 12-years old, I saw Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet tour stop in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I can’t remember everything about the concert, but I’m pretty sure Jon Bon Jovi didn’t inject a lot of politics into his between-song banter, and the most politically-charged lyric sung that night was probably the line about Tommy being down on his luck because the union’s been on strike in “Livin’ On A Prayer.”
Of course back then Bon Jovi was one of the biggest bands in the world, and Jon Bon Jovi was at the top of his game. A new Bon Jovi album was a big deal in the late 1980s. Today, not so much. Maybe I’m a little cynical, but I can’t help but wonder if that’s one reason why the singer’s making it known that his new album will feature a lot of social commentary, including a song about gun control.
In a press release for Bon Jovi 2020, the band stated that it will address “tough topics such as gun control, veterans’ issues, politics, the meaning of family, and much more.” Jon Bon Jovi stated, “It encompasses life, love, and loss.” The band will tour the record this summer, kicking off June 10th in Tacoma, Washington, and ending with a two-night residency at Madison Square Garden in New York on July 27th and 28th. Bryan Adams will open for Bon Jovi on most dates.
Of course this isn’t the first time Bon Jovi has embraced gun control, though I believe it’s the first time he’s ever written a song about it. Back in 2015, the singer hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and he’s previously stumped for Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore. While the singer held several fundraisers for Cory Booker before the New Jersey senator ended his presidential campaign, Bon Jovi has also palled around with Michael Bloomberg in the past.
In 2016, the rockstar was one of several celebrities to partner with Bloomberg on a charity event that raised $4-million for 20 different charities. Of course Bloomberg could have easily donated the money to himself, but why would anyone do that when they could get free press for hanging around with famous people in the name of charity instead?
It’s awfully ironic that the 80s rock star who sang about being a “six gun lover” who “never drew first but drew first blood” in Blaze of Glory is now singing about the need for gun control, especially when you consider that the nation’s violent crime rate is a lot lower now than it was in 1990 when the song came out. In fact, even though there are about 80-million more Americans now, there were nearly 7,000 fewer homicides in 2018 than in 1990. That translates to a per capita homicide rate of 9.4 per 100,000 in 1990, compared to 5.0 homicides per 100,000 in 2018.
I suspect none of that would matter to Jon Bon Jovi even if he was cognizant of those facts. Gun control is “in” at the moment, at least until the Left figures out a few things, like replacing the War on Drugs with a War on Guns still results in a disproportionate number of young minority men are locked up for non-violent possessory offenses, or the fact that tens of millions of Americans have no interest in giving up their constitutionally protected rights but will work instead to ensure that as many Americans as possible are able to exercise those rights.
In the meantime, I’ll be skipping the new Bon Jovi album. I’m not really interested in his politics, and honestly, in terms of New Jersey rockers, over the years I became a much bigger fan of The Smithereens’ straight forward rock than Bon Jovi’s hair metal. I left Bon Jovi behind long before I became a gun owner, but I see nothing in the description of his new album that makes me want to give him a second look.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Self-Defense Classes To Prevent Human Trafficking A Good Start At Most

Right now , human trafficking is kind of the buzzword of the day .
People are terrified they or someone they love will get snatched up and sold into some kind of slavery .
I ’ m not about to preach caution on that , either .
While it ’ s not nearly as likely as some seem to believe , being wary of your surroundings is rarely a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination .
Now , it seems , the classes that were once a popular way to help prevent women from being raped have morphed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taekwondo student hosted a human trafficking awareness and self-defense workshop on Saturday in Moline .
“ As a taekwondo student myself , I ’ ve learned many skills I think have helped me in my own life , ” Livia Dodd said .
Dodd asked Family Resources to help her inform Quad Citans about human trafficking , which is considered a form of modern-day slavery .
During the Family Resources presentation , women listened to the recorded stories of survivors and were provided with statistics and resources .
“ Even here in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they don ’ t even know it , ” Dodd said .
Good on Miss Dodd for doing this .
That ’ s a huge thing for a 15-year-old to take on , much less make a success .
I applaud her .
However , I also hope that those who attended understood the innate limitations of a class like this .
You see , learning to keep yourself safe from a potential attack of any kind isn ’ t something you really get from a one-day seminar .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic .
It ’ s understanding the nature of the threat and how to address it .
Sure , classes like this have a role to play .
They ’ re great primers for getting someone a basic foundation , but it should never be considered the end of the learning experience .
What happens far too often is that a woman attends a class like this , be it focus on rape or human trafficking , and walks away confident that they ’ re prepared for whatever may happen next .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned .
They never add to their arsenal .
In essence , they act like they ’ ve now done everything they need and don ’ t realize they ’ re still vulnerable .
It ’ s why I tend to have mixed feelings about classes like this .
None of that should be reflected on Dodd .
She ’ s 15-years-old and clearly she is taking this seriously .
I ’ m pretty sure she figures this knowledge is better than none , and she ’ s right .
Anything that empowers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in such a situation is likely to benefit them in any violent encounter more than being docile and just letting things happen to them .
My hope , though , is that these women understand that they ’ re not at the end of this particular journey , but at the very beginning .
These classes are a foundation .
They ’ re a basic entry into a world that most people are oblivious to .
With luck , though , some will recognize they only have the most cursory understanding about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeper into the world of personal defense .
That means learning more than a single-class worth of martial arts .
It also means carrying a gun , if you ’ re legally allowed to .

Right now, human trafficking is kind of the buzzword of the day. People are terrified they or someone they love will get snatched up and sold into some kind of slavery.
I’m not about to preach caution on that, either. While it’s not nearly as likely as some seem to believe, being wary of your surroundings is rarely a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, it seems, the classes that were once a popular way to help prevent women from being raped have morphed into preventing human trafficking.
A 15-year-old taekwondo student hosted a human trafficking awareness and self-defense workshop on Saturday in Moline. “As a taekwondo student myself, I’ve learned many skills I think have helped me in my own life,” Livia Dodd said. Dodd asked Family Resources to help her inform Quad Citans about human trafficking, which is considered a form of modern-day slavery. During the Family Resources presentation, women listened to the recorded stories of survivors and were provided with statistics and resources. “Even here in our local Quad Cities women are at risk and they don’t even know it,” Dodd said.
Good on Miss Dodd for doing this. That’s a huge thing for a 15-year-old to take on, much less make a success. I applaud her.
However, I also hope that those who attended understood the innate limitations of a class like this.
You see, learning to keep yourself safe from a potential attack of any kind isn’t something you really get from a one-day seminar. It’s a lifetime commitment to learning on the topic. It’s understanding the nature of the threat and how to address it.
Sure, classes like this have a role to play. They’re great primers for getting someone a basic foundation, but it should never be considered the end of the learning experience.
What happens far too often is that a woman attends a class like this, be it focus on rape or human trafficking, and walks away confident that they’re prepared for whatever may happen next. They then never practice the physical skills they learned. They never add to their arsenal. In essence, they act like they’ve now done everything they need and don’t realize they’re still vulnerable.
It’s why I tend to have mixed feelings about classes like this.
None of that should be reflected on Dodd. She’s 15-years-old and clearly she is taking this seriously. I’m pretty sure she figures this knowledge is better than none, and she’s right. Anything that empowers people to feel like they can act in such a situation is likely to benefit them in any violent encounter more than being docile and just letting things happen to them.
My hope, though, is that these women understand that they’re not at the end of this particular journey, but at the very beginning.
These classes are a foundation. They’re a basic entry into a world that most people are oblivious to.
With luck, though, some will recognize they only have the most cursory understanding about what can happen and they begin to delve deeper into the world of personal defense.
That means learning more than a single-class worth of martial arts. It also means carrying a gun, if you’re legally allowed to.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--CA Gun Arrests Illustrates Attitude We Need To Address

Let ’ s be honest here .
We ’ ve kind of been getting our butts kicked for a while now .
While there ’ s reason to believe the tide is starting to shift , there ’ s a ton of work that needs to be done .
While a lot of pro-gun groups target legislatures–and really , for good reason–there is also a certain degree of public relations that needs to be done as well .
The legislatures generally reflect the attitudes of the people .
If you have an anti-gun legislature , there ’ s a decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least in some parts of the state .
That kind of drove home for me when I came across this story earlier today .
ive people were arrested after a probation search uncovered a dozen illegal firearms inside of a Stockton residence , authorities said .
The Stockton Police Department conducted a probation search Saturday afternoon at around 4 in the 6000 block of Palamino Court .
In the photo of the firearms shared by Stockton Police , a few handguns and various assault rifles can be seen .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re talking about either , so it ’ s a huge gun control fail .
The problem isn ’ t just the arrest , though .
No , the problem is the attitude of a neighbor interviewed by the media .
“ That ’ s disturbing .
No one should have that many firearms , especially that type .
We don ’ t need that in our neighborhood .
I don ’ t want it in my neighborhood , ” Danny Pullen said .
“ I didn ’ t think my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Dave Phem said .
That right there is the attitude we need to address .
“ No one should have that many firearms , ” the man said .
My question is , why not ?
What ’ s wrong with having a large number of firearms ?
I ’ m not suddenly more dangerous because I have 12 guns than I was when I had 11 .
I can only fire so many at a time .
But that ’ s just superficial .
That ’ s not the real problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that there are people who think needs should play a factor into who can have what kind of gun .
The problem is that there are folks who think people should be limited in how they exercise their rights .
It ’ s that some folks seem to believe that gun control not only works but is an unmitigated good .
We have to address this .
We have to make it a point to counter this attitude .
Look , I don ’ t know Dave Phem .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never will .
I ’ m sure he ’ s a swell guy .
However , his thinking is the problem and it ’ s a problem we need to fight back against .
We need to address this kind of thinking if we want to do more than just weather the storm we currently find ourselves in .
If we can counter this kind of thinking , if we can educate people into understanding why this kind of attitude is wrong , we can not just weather this storm , but all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been playing the wrong game .
It ’ s time to change our tactics .

Let’s be honest here. We’ve kind of been getting our butts kicked for a while now. While there’s reason to believe the tide is starting to shift, there’s a ton of work that needs to be done.
While a lot of pro-gun groups target legislatures–and really, for good reason–there is also a certain degree of public relations that needs to be done as well. The legislatures generally reflect the attitudes of the people. If you have an anti-gun legislature, there’s a decent chance you also have an anti-gun population, at least in some parts of the state.
That kind of drove home for me when I came across this story earlier today.
Five people were arrested after a probation search uncovered a dozen illegal firearms inside of a Stockton residence, authorities said. The Stockton Police Department conducted a probation search Saturday afternoon at around 4 in the 6000 block of Palamino Court. Officers located twelve illegal guns during the search. In the photo of the firearms shared by Stockton Police, a few handguns and various assault rifles can be seen.
Of course, these aren’t California-legal rifles we’re talking about either, so it’s a huge gun control fail.
The problem isn’t just the arrest, though.
No, the problem is the attitude of a neighbor interviewed by the media.
“That’s disturbing. No one should have that many firearms, especially that type. We don’t need that in our neighborhood. I don’t want it in my neighborhood,” Danny Pullen said. “I didn’t think my neighborhood would have something like that,” Dave Phem said.
That right there is the attitude we need to address.
“No one should have that many firearms,” the man said. My question is, why not? What’s wrong with having a large number of firearms? I’m not suddenly more dangerous because I have 12 guns than I was when I had 11. I can only fire so many at a time.
But that’s just superficial. That’s not the real problem here.
No, the real problem is that there are people who think needs should play a factor into who can have what kind of gun. The problem is that there are folks who think people should be limited in how they exercise their rights. It’s that some folks seem to believe that gun control not only works but is an unmitigated good.
We have to address this. We have to make it a point to counter this attitude.
Look, I don’t know Dave Phem. I don’t live in California so I probably never will. I’m sure he’s a swell guy. However, his thinking is the problem and it’s a problem we need to fight back against. We need to address this kind of thinking if we want to do more than just weather the storm we currently find ourselves in.
If we can counter this kind of thinking, if we can educate people into understanding why this kind of attitude is wrong, we can not just weather this storm, but all the storms to come.
We’ve been playing the wrong game. It’s time to change our tactics.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Gun Control Bills Still Inching Forward In VA Legislature

Last week , Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s sweeping gun ban bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee when four Democrats joined Republicans in referring the legislation to the state ’ s Crime Commission instead of sending the bill to the floor for a vote .
Gun owners were hoping for a repeat performance as the Judiciary Committee took up a number of gun control bills Monday morning , but unfortunately the same senators who voted against the gun ban voted in favor of red flag legislation , one-gun-a-month rationing , and more .
Phillip Van Cleave of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to break down the latest language in the gun control bills , which still differ in some respects from the versions passed by the House of Delegates .
That means that many of the bills will be heading to a conference committee comprised of members of both chambers , where the two sides will try to craft some sort of compromise language .
A simply majority will suffice to bring the reworked bills to the floor of both House and Senate , and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on to Northam ’ s desk for his signature .
Van Cleave says he ’ s hopeful that a few of the proposals can be tied up in that conference committee , though I wouldn ’ t say he or any other Second Amendment advocates are particularly confident that will happen .
The question now seems to be which side will prevail ; the Senate with its slightly less onerous versions , or the House with its more draconian measures .
I ’ d love to be able to say that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four Democrats that have expressed opposition to or have voted against a few of Northam ’ s gun control measures , but I have a sneaking suspicion that many of them will want to prove that they ’ re still on the side of “ common sense gun reform ” by agreeing to at least a few bills that large embrace the language adopted by the House .
It ’ s absolutely critical that lawmakers are hearing from their constituents right now .
With less than two weeks left in the legislative session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we need to keep up the pressure .
Van Cleave says gun owners have already made a difference this session , but we can ’ t let up yet .
Also on today ’ s show , we have the story of a would-be robber who brought a knife to a gun fight in Wisconsin , a New York man arrested twice in one night thanks to the state ’ s new bail reform law , and a New Hampshire police department who went above the call of duty when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II veteran without heat on an cold winter ’ s day .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts , or to Townhall Media on YouTube .
Thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Last week, Gov. Ralph Northam’s sweeping gun ban bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee when four Democrats joined Republicans in referring the legislation to the state’s Crime Commission instead of sending the bill to the floor for a vote. Gun owners were hoping for a repeat performance as the Judiciary Committee took up a number of gun control bills Monday morning, but unfortunately the same senators who voted against the gun ban voted in favor of red flag legislation, one-gun-a-month rationing, and more.
Phillip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to break down the latest language in the gun control bills, which still differ in some respects from the versions passed by the House of Delegates. That means that many of the bills will be heading to a conference committee comprised of members of both chambers, where the two sides will try to craft some sort of compromise language. A simply majority will suffice to bring the reworked bills to the floor of both House and Senate, and any bill that passes both chambers would then go on to Northam’s desk for his signature.
Van Cleave says he’s hopeful that a few of the proposals can be tied up in that conference committee, though I wouldn’t say he or any other Second Amendment advocates are particularly confident that will happen. The question now seems to be which side will prevail; the Senate with its slightly less onerous versions, or the House with its more draconian measures.
I’d love to be able to say that the Senate will prevail, thanks to the four Democrats that have expressed opposition to or have voted against a few of Northam’s gun control measures, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many of them will want to prove that they’re still on the side of “common sense gun reform” by agreeing to at least a few bills that large embrace the language adopted by the House. It’s absolutely critical that lawmakers are hearing from their constituents right now. With less than two weeks left in the legislative session bills are going to be moving quickly, and we need to keep up the pressure. Van Cleave says gun owners have already made a difference this session, but we can’t let up yet.
Also on today’s show, we have the story of a would-be robber who brought a knife to a gun fight in Wisconsin, a New York man arrested twice in one night thanks to the state’s new bail reform law, and a New Hampshire police department who went above the call of duty when they got a call about a World War II veteran without heat on an cold winter’s day.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts, or to Townhall Media on YouTube. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Why MN Bill Making Gun-Free Businesses Liable Needs To Pass

Normally , I ’ m a fairly libertarian kind of guy .
I actually don ’ t take issue with businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free zones .
I simply don ’ t do business with them anymore and encourage all my friends to seek alternatives too .
After all , property rights are rights as well .
If I can kick someone out for Don ’ t get me wrong , I think it ’ s a grave mistake to do so , but I also think it ’ s a grave mistake to do a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to legally bar people from screwing up .
I also don ’ t think it should be a crime to carry a gun in such businesses , either .
Just like I can be asked to leave for saying the wrong thing , they should also have to ask me to leave if they realize I ’ m carrying a firearm .
While that ’ s out it works in my home state of Georgia , that ’ s not the case in far too many places .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way that I feel really should pass .
If you insist on bringing a firearm inside a coffee shop with a “ no guns ” sign , the owner can tell you to leave , and if you don ’ t , it ’ s a petty misdemeanor .
( First offense is only about $ 25 , and they can ’ t take your gun away , but still . )
“ As a permit to carry holder , it ’ s frustrating when you want to go out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a restaurant that says ‘ no guns allowed , ’ ” he says .
“ There ’ s nothing preventing criminals who carry guns from doing so… Maybe [ the permit holder ] has a restraining order , or they ’ re being stalked.
” Under Munson ’ s proposed bill , HF3051 , if you suffer a “ loss ” because you weren ’ t allowed to have your gun with you – be that injury , a death , or your wallet – you can take the property owner to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ hold the business owner liable , ” he told the Session Daily , “ for not protecting people.
” If businesses don ’ t like being responsible for their customers ’ safety , he says , they can take the sign down and let citizens fend for themselves .
Honestly , while I generally feel we have way too many laws on the books right now , this is a little different .
In a state where gun-free zones have the force of law , those who decide to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring the safety of all those within .
If I can ’ t have my gun on me , how can I be responsible for my own personal safety ?
As a result , this is a bill I really want to see become law .
It desperately needs to , for the simple reason that people are being put in jeopardy simply so a business can virtue signal about their anti-gun inclinations .
After all , that ’ s the only thing the sign on the door actually accomplishes .
That and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy can legally be armed but the bad guys aren ’ t going to pay attention to a stupid sign on the door .
Unfortunately , I doubt this one will pass , but it needs to .
There need to be repercussions for moments when someone ’ s virtue signaling gets other people hurt .
Right now , there aren ’ t .

Normally, I’m a fairly libertarian kind of guy. I actually don’t take issue with businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free zones. I simply don’t do business with them anymore and encourage all my friends to seek alternatives too. After all, property rights are rights as well. If I can kick someone out for
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a grave mistake to do so, but I also think it’s a grave mistake to do a lot of things as a business. I don’t want to legally bar people from screwing up. I also don’t think it should be a crime to carry a gun in such businesses, either. Just like I can be asked to leave for saying the wrong thing, they should also have to ask me to leave if they realize I’m carrying a firearm.
While that’s out it works in my home state of Georgia, that’s not the case in far too many places.
However, a bill in Minnesota addresses the issue in a way that I feel really should pass.
If you insist on bringing a firearm inside a coffee shop with a “no guns” sign, the owner can tell you to leave, and if you don’t, it’s a petty misdemeanor. (First offense is only about $25, and they can’t take your gun away, but still.) Minnesota Rep. Jeremy Munson (R-Crystal) believes that creates a “false sense of security.” “As a permit to carry holder, it’s frustrating when you want to go out to Minneapolis and St. Paul and there’s a restaurant that says ‘no guns allowed,’” he says. “There’s nothing preventing criminals who carry guns from doing so… Maybe [the permit holder] has a restraining order, or they’re being stalked.” … Under Munson’s proposed bill, HF3051, if you suffer a “loss” because you weren’t allowed to have your gun with you – be that injury, a death, or your wallet – you can take the property owner to court. It’s a way to “hold the business owner liable,” he told the Session Daily, “for not protecting people.” If businesses don’t like being responsible for their customers’ safety, he says, they can take the sign down and let citizens fend for themselves.
Honestly, while I generally feel we have way too many laws on the books right now, this is a little different. In a state where gun-free zones have the force of law, those who decide to make their businesses gun-free zones should be responsible for ensuring the safety of all those within. If I can’t have my gun on me, how can I be responsible for my own personal safety?
As a result, this is a bill I really want to see become law. It desperately needs to, for the simple reason that people are being put in jeopardy simply so a business can virtue signal about their anti-gun inclinations. After all, that’s the only thing the sign on the door actually accomplishes. That and put people at risk since no good guy can legally be armed but the bad guys aren’t going to pay attention to a stupid sign on the door.
Unfortunately, I doubt this one will pass, but it needs to.
There need to be repercussions for moments when someone’s virtue signaling gets other people hurt. Right now, there aren’t.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Bloomberg Hits Sanders Over Gun Control In New Campaign Ad

Former New York Mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg hit Democrat front-runner Bernie Sanders over the socialist ’ s past opposition to several gun control measures .
While Sanders has been a steadfast supporter of gun control since his 2016 presidential bid , Bloomberg said that Sanders is “ beholden to the gun lobby.
” As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon recently noted , Sanders was never a Second Amendment stalwart , but did vote against several gun control measures in his decades in the Senate .
That makes sense , given the fact that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture of responsible gun ownership .
Sanders long reflected the sensibilities of the rural gun culture of low-crime Vermont , even as the Democratic Party embraced increasingly restrictive gun control .
He voted against a law establishing gun dealer licensing and background checks while supporting a law protecting gun dealers and manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits .
For much of his career , he defended Vermont ’ s gun culture and said that he hoped to bridge the gap between his constituents and high gun-crime cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has moved to the left along with the rest of his party after he issue became a major vulnerability for him in his 2016 primary campaign against Hillary Clinton , who found and exploited Sanders ’ rare vulnerability on the left .
“ Bernie shifted with the Democratic Party ( even as an independent ) , ” Professor Larry Sabato , director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics , said in an email .
“ And he saw in 2016 his gun record could be a real detriment to his presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders for being “ bought ” by the NRA , but that opens the door for Sanders to talk about all of the politicians “ bought ” by Bloomberg over the years , including the recent influx of cash into both the DNC and state Democrat parties .
Bloomberg was never “ bought ” by the NRA , but he ’ s gone on a shopping spree of his own in recent years , spending far more money than “ the gun lobby ” backing anti-gun politicians around the country .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun Safety is planning on spending nearly $ 10-million in the state of Texas this year alone in support of candidates that will advance the Bloomberg gun ban agenda .
Bloomberg ’ s attack on Sanders comes as many young gun control advocates have embraced the Sanders campaign and rejected Bloomberg ’ s candidacy , which has to sting the billionaire .
After all , he ’ s spent hundreds of millions of dollars backing anti-gun measures around the country , and this is how the movement treats him ?
For Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much difference between the two candidates beyond the size of their bank accounts .
Yes , Sanders has rejected some gun control bills in the past , but for the last few years he ’ s been a reliable vote for gun control and that won ’ t change if he ’ s elected president .
If Bloomberg were to win the White House , he too would advance the most anti-gun agenda in the country ’ s history , and he ’ d flood Congress with enough campaign cash to get it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there simply isn ’ t a Democrat running for president in 2020 who ’ s supportive of the right to keep and bear arms .

Former New York Mayor and gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg hit Democrat front-runner Bernie Sanders over the socialist’s past opposition to several gun control measures. While Sanders has been a steadfast supporter of gun control since his 2016 presidential bid, Bloomberg said that Sanders is “beholden to the gun lobby.”
The NRA paved the road to Washington for Bernie Sanders. He spent the next three decades making sure they got a return on their investment. We deserve a president who is not beholden to the gun lobby.#NotMeNRA pic.twitter.com/HLYZe4J5PM — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 24, 2020
As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon recently noted, Sanders was never a Second Amendment stalwart, but did vote against several gun control measures in his decades in the Senate. That makes sense, given the fact that Sanders represents Vermont, which has a strong culture of responsible gun ownership.
Sanders long reflected the sensibilities of the rural gun culture of low-crime Vermont, even as the Democratic Party embraced increasingly restrictive gun control. He voted against a law establishing gun dealer licensing and background checks while supporting a law protecting gun dealers and manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits. For much of his career, he defended Vermont’s gun culture and said that he hoped to bridge the gap between his constituents and high gun-crime cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles. No longer. Political experts say that Sanders has moved to the left along with the rest of his party after he issue became a major vulnerability for him in his 2016 primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, who found and exploited Sanders’ rare vulnerability on the left. “Bernie shifted with the Democratic Party (even as an independent),” Professor Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said in an email. “And he saw in 2016 his gun record could be a real detriment to his presidential ambitions.”
Bloomberg’s ad attacks Sanders for being “bought” by the NRA, but that opens the door for Sanders to talk about all of the politicians “bought” by Bloomberg over the years, including the recent influx of cash into both the DNC and state Democrat parties. Bloomberg was never “bought” by the NRA, but he’s gone on a shopping spree of his own in recent years, spending far more money than “the gun lobby” backing anti-gun politicians around the country. In fact, his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety is planning on spending nearly $10-million in the state of Texas this year alone in support of candidates that will advance the Bloomberg gun ban agenda.
Bloomberg’s attack on Sanders comes as many young gun control advocates have embraced the Sanders campaign and rejected Bloomberg’s candidacy, which has to sting the billionaire. After all, he’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars backing anti-gun measures around the country, and this is how the movement treats him?
For Second Amendment supporters, there’s really not much difference between the two candidates beyond the size of their bank accounts. Yes, Sanders has rejected some gun control bills in the past, but for the last few years he’s been a reliable vote for gun control and that won’t change if he’s elected president. If Bloomberg were to win the White House, he too would advance the most anti-gun agenda in the country’s history, and he’d flood Congress with enough campaign cash to get it done. Despite Bloomberg’s claims, there simply isn’t a Democrat running for president in 2020 who’s supportive of the right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Story Notes Avocado Demand Helping Cartels, But Calls For Gun Control

Americans spend a lot of time discussing issues taking place all over the world .
Something about us as the world ’ s last remaining superpower has us feeling responsible for what happens pretty much anywhere else .
There ’ s a reason we remain fixated on things like the protests in Hong Kong despite it having absolutely no bearing on our lives .
However , not all of the world ’ s problems are half a planet away .
Some are practically on our doorstep .
Namely , the Mexican drug cartels .
And , it seems , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making big bucks off a crop that ’ s selling in every supermarket in the U.S. For Mexico ’ s avocado producers , the explosion in their crop ’ s popularity has brought a veritable green gold rush , but it also has a darker side .
So rich in nutrients they are widely labeled a “ superfruit , ” consumption of avocados in the US alone has doubled in the last ten years to make for a $ 2.4 billion market .
As a result , everybody from producers down in Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is consumed in the States , to your local Whole Foods has been making a killing .
The issue : so has Mexican organized crime , literally .
Above all in the state of Michoacán , which exports 90 % of Mexico ’ s avocados , the bloodshed is no longer “ just ” about drugs .
It is also about avocados .
The reason for the shift away from drugs is twofold .
First , it ’ s easier – think not having to ship merchandise for thousands of miles through hostile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the chain and still risk losing it all to law enforcement and not having personnel arrested or killed .
Second , there usually is no state actor capable or willing to keep a criminal group from going after licit crops and other resources .
Hence , Mexican organized crime has turned to extorting whoever does well in a given sector or taking over businesses directly – be that logging , mining , agriculture , public transport , or even mom and pop tortilla shops .
This is where avocados come into play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnet for the warlords , the more so due to the recent explosion of demand and prices on global markets .
Honestly , that ’ s pretty damn fascinating .
I ’ m not a consumer of avocados , so I never had any reason to consider any of this , but it makes sense .
While they ’ re strong-arming growers , they ’ re breaking the law , but once the product ships there ’ s absolutely nothing to prevent it from arriving at its destination .
So , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is helping to fuel the Mexican cartel violence .
The answer appears to be simple , right ?
Well , according to the writer , there ’ s only one potential answer .
Meanwhile , precisely because conflict avocados are but a symptom of larger dysfunction , a boycott would do more harm than good .
Avocado production sustains thousands of hard-working , peaceful families in Mexico .
No longer consuming what they produce would mean pulling the rug out from under their feet , and most likely prompt criminal groups to prey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for lost income .
Finally , addressing the role of the US guns in keeping deadly conflict in Mexico ablaze is another necessary remedy .
The guns Mexican organized crime uses to threaten and kill avocado producers are predominantly made in the US , flowing south from gun shops in the border area .
Domestic pressure to curb the tide of guns into Mexico could go a long way in making Mexico a more peaceful place .
So , let me get this straight .
We should continue funding the Mexican drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an industry the cartels have essentially hijacked and instead infringe on the God-given rights of American citizens ?
First , the guns are not predominantly from the United States in the first place .
That ’ s a gross misunderstanding–at best–of a study that found most traceable guns were found to originate in the U.S .
However , what gets missed is that only a tiny fraction of the guns were traceable in the first place .
Plus , this was also during the era when Operation Fast & Furious was literally forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they suspected were going to carry them to Mexico .
Let ’ s also keep in mind that even if the guns were coming from the U.S. , there ’ s absolutely no reason to assume the cartels wouldn ’ t find an alternate source the moment they needed to .
They have a lot of money and no scruples with regard to who they ’ ll do business with .
Someone , somewhere , will sell them guns aplenty .
And continuing to buy Mexican avocados just gives those same cartels more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Claiming an avocado boycott would hurt the people who had their industry taken over by the scum of the Earth may well be the second dumbest thing in this story .
The dumbest is to think we should curtail our rights because of the acts of people who break the law as a matter of course .

Americans spend a lot of time discussing issues taking place all over the world. Something about us as the world’s last remaining superpower has us feeling responsible for what happens pretty much anywhere else. There’s a reason we remain fixated on things like the protests in Hong Kong despite it having absolutely no bearing on our lives.
However, not all of the world’s problems are half a planet away. Some are practically on our doorstep. Namely, the Mexican drug cartels.
And, it seems, they’ve diversified. They’re making big bucks off a crop that’s selling in every supermarket in the U.S.
For Mexico’s avocado producers, the explosion in their crop’s popularity has brought a veritable green gold rush, but it also has a darker side. So rich in nutrients they are widely labeled a “superfruit,” consumption of avocados in the US alone has doubled in the last ten years to make for a $2.4 billion market. As a result, everybody from producers down in Mexico, which provides 80% of what is consumed in the States, to your local Whole Foods has been making a killing. The issue: so has Mexican organized crime, literally. Above all in the state of Michoacán, which exports 90% of Mexico’s avocados, the bloodshed is no longer “just” about drugs. It is also about avocados. … The reason for the shift away from drugs is twofold. First, it’s easier – think not having to ship merchandise for thousands of miles through hostile terrain, not having to bribe officers along the chain and still risk losing it all to law enforcement and not having personnel arrested or killed. Second, there usually is no state actor capable or willing to keep a criminal group from going after licit crops and other resources. Hence, Mexican organized crime has turned to extorting whoever does well in a given sector or taking over businesses directly – be that logging, mining, agriculture, public transport, or even mom and pop tortilla shops. This is where avocados come into play. The super fruit is a big magnet for the warlords, the more so due to the recent explosion of demand and prices on global markets.
Honestly, that’s pretty damn fascinating. I’m not a consumer of avocados, so I never had any reason to consider any of this, but it makes sense. While they’re strong-arming growers, they’re breaking the law, but once the product ships there’s absolutely nothing to prevent it from arriving at its destination.
So, it seems, Americans and their love of avocados is helping to fuel the Mexican cartel violence.
The answer appears to be simple, right? Well, according to the writer, there’s only one potential answer.
Meanwhile, precisely because conflict avocados are but a symptom of larger dysfunction, a boycott would do more harm than good. Avocado production sustains thousands of hard-working, peaceful families in Mexico. No longer consuming what they produce would mean pulling the rug out from under their feet, and most likely prompt criminal groups to prey on civilians even more aggressively to make up for lost income. … Finally, addressing the role of the US guns in keeping deadly conflict in Mexico ablaze is another necessary remedy. The guns Mexican organized crime uses to threaten and kill avocado producers are predominantly made in the US, flowing south from gun shops in the border area. Domestic pressure to curb the tide of guns into Mexico could go a long way in making Mexico a more peaceful place. Boycotting Mexican avocados would not.
So, let me get this straight. We should continue funding the Mexican drug cartels by buying a product created by an industry the cartels have essentially hijacked and instead infringe on the God-given rights of American citizens?
Wrong.
First, the guns are not predominantly from the United States in the first place. That’s a gross misunderstanding–at best–of a study that found most traceable guns were found to originate in the U.S. However, what gets missed is that only a tiny fraction of the guns were traceable in the first place. Plus, this was also during the era when Operation Fast & Furious was literally forcing gun dealers to sell firearms to people they suspected were going to carry them to Mexico.
Let’s also keep in mind that even if the guns were coming from the U.S., there’s absolutely no reason to assume the cartels wouldn’t find an alternate source the moment they needed to. They have a lot of money and no scruples with regard to who they’ll do business with. Someone, somewhere, will sell them guns aplenty.
And continuing to buy Mexican avocados just gives those same cartels more money with which to buy those guns.
Claiming an avocado boycott would hurt the people who had their industry taken over by the scum of the Earth may well be the second dumbest thing in this story. The dumbest is to think we should curtail our rights because of the acts of people who break the law as a matter of course.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Anti-Gun Lawmaker Revives WA Magazine Ban

Days after a ban on so-called high capacity magazines failed to meet a legislative deadline , a Washington State lawmaker is trying to revive the measure by attaching the ban language to another piece of legislation .
Rep. Javier Valdez ’ s HB2947 repeals a couple of tax breaks in the state , and also establishes a compensated confiscation plan for magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition .
A public hearing on the measure has already been scheduled for Tuesday morning in Olympia , but in an interesting twist , the original sponsor of the magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effort to enact the gun control plan through the substitute bill .
“ I can ’ t support this process , ” [ Rep. Mike ] Chapman said Saturday .
“ It didn ’ t pass ” by the policy bill deadline “ and now to tie it to tax policy doesn ’ t feel right .
… The public should know .
This is not right.
” “ If we open the door and say policy bills can live on then in essence our deadlines mean nothing.
” Chapman said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emailed comments , both pro and con , to his office .
“ This is patently unfair , ” he said .
“ How are they going to have time to plan to come to Olympia ?
” Chapman said he and his staff had answered a couple hundred of the emails , saying that he planned to work on it again next legislative session .
“ Now I ’ m a liar , ” Chapman said , adding that he had not known the new bill would be introduced .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Give Chapman a little bit of credit for rejecting the underhanded move to try to pass the magazine ban , even if the legislator thinks the ban itself is a good idea .
The Peninsula Daily News reports that another co-sponsor of the original ban , Rep. Steve Tharinger , also says he can ’ t support Valdez ’ s end-run around the legislative deadline , though he is still in favor of “ doing something ” regarding ammunition magazines in the next legislative session .
Though it is short notice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday morning .
Gun owners in Washington State have done a great job of getting and staying engaged this legislative session , and have already managed to ensure that a ban on so-called assault weapons that was supported by Gov .
Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson failed in its first committee vote .
Valdez ’ s attempt to revive the magazine ban seems like a long shot , especially since he ’ s already lost the support of at least two of the House Democrats who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , we can ’ t take anything for granted .
If you ’ re a gun owner in Washington State and you can ’ t make it to the state capitol on such short notice to publicly oppose the magazine ban , contact your state representative via email or through a phone call and urge them to reject Valdez ’ s back-door attempt to confiscate some of the most commonly owned magazines in the state .

Days after a ban on so-called high capacity magazines failed to meet a legislative deadline, a Washington State lawmaker is trying to revive the measure by attaching the ban language to another piece of legislation.
Rep. Javier Valdez’s HB2947 repeals a couple of tax breaks in the state, and also establishes a compensated confiscation plan for magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. A public hearing on the measure has already been scheduled for Tuesday morning in Olympia, but in an interesting twist, the original sponsor of the magazine ban says he won’t support the effort to enact the gun control plan through the substitute bill.
“I can’t support this process,” [Rep. Mike] Chapman said Saturday. “It didn’t pass” by the policy bill deadline “and now to tie it to tax policy doesn’t feel right. … The public should know. This is not right.” “If we open the door and say policy bills can live on then in essence our deadlines mean nothing.” Chapman said that the controversial measure drew more than 2,000 emailed comments, both pro and con, to his office. “This is patently unfair,” he said. “How are they going to have time to plan to come to Olympia?” Chapman said he and his staff had answered a couple hundred of the emails, saying that he planned to work on it again next legislative session. “Now I’m a liar,” Chapman said, adding that he had not known the new bill would be introduced. “I apologize to those who got the email.”
Give Chapman a little bit of credit for rejecting the underhanded move to try to pass the magazine ban, even if the legislator thinks the ban itself is a good idea. The Peninsula Daily News reports that another co-sponsor of the original ban, Rep. Steve Tharinger, also says he can’t support Valdez’s end-run around the legislative deadline, though he is still in favor of “doing something” regarding ammunition magazines in the next legislative session.
Though it is short notice, I expect a full house in the House Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday morning. Gun owners in Washington State have done a great job of getting and staying engaged this legislative session, and have already managed to ensure that a ban on so-called assault weapons that was supported by Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson failed in its first committee vote.
Valdez’s attempt to revive the magazine ban seems like a long shot, especially since he’s already lost the support of at least two of the House Democrats who supported the ban in its original form. Still, we can’t take anything for granted. If you’re a gun owner in Washington State and you can’t make it to the state capitol on such short notice to publicly oppose the magazine ban, contact your state representative via email or through a phone call and urge them to reject Valdez’s back-door attempt to confiscate some of the most commonly owned magazines in the state.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--Students Sue For Right To Wear Pro-2A T-Shirts

Three Wisconsin high school students are suing taking school administrators to court after they were told to cover up their shirts that had images of a gun on them .
Two of the students are sophomores at Kettle Moraine High School in Waukesha County , while a third student is a middle schooler in Neenah , Wisconsin .
In the Kettle Moraine incident , it was the school ’ s principal who told the two students to cover up the shirts they had word to school as an an act of political speech .
One had the logo of WI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a holster behind a belt that carries the organization ’ s name .
The other shirt featured the outline of an AR-15-style rifle above the words “ Pew Professional.
” The suit explains that “ pew ” refers to the sound of a gun being fired .
Principal Beth Kaminski , the only named defendant in the suit , told each student the shirts violated the school ’ s dress code and they must keep them covered with their jackets .
She emailed one of the boy ’ s mothers to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he shouldn ’ t wear any such clothing in the future .
As one of the boy ’ s mom ’ s points out , the members of the school ’ s trap shooting team regularly wear shirts showing clay targets exploding , and she says there ’ s nothing in the dress code that actually bans apparel that simply features a firearm , not a depiction of violence .
In the other case , an assistant principal told the middle school student to cover up the Smith & Wesson shirt he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shattuck Middle School Associate Principal David Sonnabend says the boy target shoots and hunts , “ believes in the value to society of personal possessions as guaranteed by the Second Amendment , ” and owns several shirts that express those beliefs .
The Neenah Joint School District told a Green Bay TV station early last week it had not seen the lawsuit yet .
“ While the district has addressed at least one shirt with inappropriate language , the district is unaware of any student being required to change a shirt depicting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statement read .
For now , the superintendent of the Kettle Morain school district is sounding defiant .
In a message to parents last week , Kettle Moraine School District Superintendent Pat Deklotz said the district wouldn ’ t comment on the specifics of the lawsuit , but courts have recognized “ legitimate pedagogical concerns in preventing violence ” in schools .
“ Wearing shirts with images of weapons is not an issue of free speech and it can be respectfully regulated by the district , ” Deklotz wrote in the statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , honestly .
Wisconsin Carry , Inc. , which is supporting all three of these lawsuits , pointed out that back in 2018 a similar case was settled in the state after the principal of Markesan High School tried to tell a kid his pro-Second Amendment shirt wasn ’ t allowed .
A lawsuit was filed ( also supported by Wisconsin Carry , Inc. ) , and a judge granted a preliminary injunction against the school ’ s policy , ruling that the student ’ s First Amendment argument was likely to succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adelman said in his decision that “ Even short deprivations of First Amendment rights constitute irreparable harm , ” and he ’ s right .
None of the shirts in question promote violence or illegal activity .
Instead , they promote organizations working to secure the exercise of a constitutionally protected right , the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment , and the exercise of the right itself .
As such , all of the shirts are pretty clearly protected speech .
It ’ s not uncommon for school administrators to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment-related apparel to school , but it ’ s exceedingly rare for those administrative actions to find favor in the court system .
From Nevada to Indiana ( and plenty of other states in between ) , courts have routinely found that the mere image of a firearm is not speech that can be prohibited in school , and that schools are violating the First Amendment rights of students with their bans on gun-related shirts .
Superintendent Deklotz may be in charge of the Kettle Moraine School District , but I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s going to be getting an education in First Amendment case law courtesy of the sophomores suing him for infringing on their freedom of speech .

Three Wisconsin high school students are suing taking school administrators to court after they were told to cover up their shirts that had images of a gun on them.
Two of the students are sophomores at Kettle Moraine High School in Waukesha County, while a third student is a middle schooler in Neenah, Wisconsin. In the Kettle Moraine incident, it was the school’s principal who told the two students to cover up the shirts they had word to school as an an act of political speech.
One had the logo of WI Carry Inc. It features a handgun in a holster behind a belt that carries the organization’s name. The other shirt featured the outline of an AR-15-style rifle above the words “Pew Professional.” The suit explains that “pew” refers to the sound of a gun being fired. Principal Beth Kaminski, the only named defendant in the suit, told each student the shirts violated the school’s dress code and they must keep them covered with their jackets. She emailed one of the boy’s mothers to say no clothing with guns is allowed and he shouldn’t wear any such clothing in the future.
As one of the boy’s mom’s points out, the members of the school’s trap shooting team regularly wear shirts showing clay targets exploding, and she says there’s nothing in the dress code that actually bans apparel that simply features a firearm, not a depiction of violence.
In the other case, an assistant principal told the middle school student to cover up the Smith & Wesson shirt he had worn to school.
His suit against Shattuck Middle School Associate Principal David Sonnabend says the boy target shoots and hunts, “believes in the value to society of personal possessions as guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” and owns several shirts that express those beliefs. The Neenah Joint School District told a Green Bay TV station early last week it had not seen the lawsuit yet. “While the district has addressed at least one shirt with inappropriate language, the district is unaware of any student being required to change a shirt depicting a firearm and advocating gun ownership,” the statement read.
For now, the superintendent of the Kettle Morain school district is sounding defiant.
In a message to parents last week, Kettle Moraine School District Superintendent Pat Deklotz said the district wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, but courts have recognized “legitimate pedagogical concerns in preventing violence” in schools. “Wearing shirts with images of weapons is not an issue of free speech and it can be respectfully regulated by the district,” Deklotz wrote in the statement.
Deklotz needs some better legal advice, honestly. Wisconsin Carry, Inc., which is supporting all three of these lawsuits, pointed out that back in 2018 a similar case was settled in the state after the principal of Markesan High School tried to tell a kid his pro-Second Amendment shirt wasn’t allowed. A lawsuit was filed (also supported by Wisconsin Carry, Inc.), and a judge granted a preliminary injunction against the school’s policy, ruling that the student’s First Amendment argument was likely to succeed at trial.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman said in his decision that “Even short deprivations of First Amendment rights constitute irreparable harm,” and he’s right.
None of the shirts in question promote violence or illegal activity. Instead, they promote organizations working to secure the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment, and the exercise of the right itself. As such, all of the shirts are pretty clearly protected speech.
It’s not uncommon for school administrators to tell students they can’t wear Second Amendment-related apparel to school, but it’s exceedingly rare for those administrative actions to find favor in the court system. From Nevada to Indiana (and plenty of other states in between), courts have routinely found that the mere image of a firearm is not speech that can be prohibited in school, and that schools are violating the First Amendment rights of students with their bans on gun-related shirts.
Superintendent Deklotz may be in charge of the Kettle Moraine School District, but I have a feeling he’s the one who’s going to be getting an education in First Amendment case law courtesy of the sophomores suing him for infringing on their freedom of speech.


bearingarms--2020-02-24--George Zimmerman Sues Presidential Candidates For Defamation

In the United States , you ’ re free to say whatever you want to say .
However , much like anything else , you ’ re responsible for the ramifications of that speech .
If you disparage someone with false statements , you may well find yourself in court over them .
That ’ s precisely where a couple of presidential candidates are likely to find themselves , especially since neither has much hope of ending up in the Oval Office instead .
George Zimmerman , the man who was charged in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pete Buttigieg for $ 265 million , claiming the candidates defamed him to “ garner votes for the black community.
” The lawsuit , which was filed in Polk County , argues that Warren and Buttigieg ’ s tweets used the killing as a “ pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.
” The candidates tweeted in memory of Martin on what would have been his 25th birthday .
According to Fox News , the lawsuit reads : “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful use of the race card by politicians of all stripes be made to cease and desist .
Their despicable ‘ race tactics ’ are not only causing great harm to persons such as my client George Zimmerman , but also are damaging relations between black and white Americans who are all brothers .
Here are the tweets in question : Let ’ s be very clear here , both Buttigieg and Warren are off their freaking rockers .
Trayvon Martin didn ’ t die because of “ gun violence ” or white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cave someone ’ s head in with a concrete sidewalk and that someone happened to be armed .
Had he not been shot , Trayvon would likely be in prison for murder .
This was not some random kid lynched for the crime of walking while black .
Let ’ s not pretend he was , either .
Zimmerman has a right to be upset by the characterizations , especially since so few people actually know the true story of what happened that fateful day .
Does that mean the lawsuits will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Defamation law is odd here in the United States , in part because lawmakers were trying to balance the needs of victims with freedom of speech .
No one should face a lawsuit simply for speaking their mind , but no one should be able to damage another man ’ s character simply because it ’ s convenient , either .
One problem is that George Zimmerman is arguably a public figure at this point .
Let ’ s face it , we all know who he is .
While many wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscurity , that ’ s kind of impossible at this point .
As a public figure , though , the bar for defamation is much , much higher .
Further , there are other factors that have to be considered for Zimmerman ’ s lawsuit to have a shot .
I ’ m not an attorney , but my recollection is that you need a willful disregard for the truth .
While that looks to be the case , I suspect there are enough stories painting Zimmerman as all of these things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be hard to prove .
I ’ m also not sure there will be any additional damages to Zimmerman ’ s reputation from this .
After all , the news media did a good enough job destroying his reputation the first time around .
As such , I don ’ t know that this will go anywhere .
I pray that it does , though .
After all , I ’ m sick of these people pretending that a thug who got precisely what he deserved based on his actions in that precise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memory .
If the lawsuit does anything , I hope it helps more people come to understand that truth .

In the United States, you’re free to say whatever you want to say. However, much like anything else, you’re responsible for the ramifications of that speech. If you disparage someone with false statements, you may well find yourself in court over them.
That’s precisely where a couple of presidential candidates are likely to find themselves, especially since neither has much hope of ending up in the Oval Office instead.
George Zimmerman, the man who was charged in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, is suing Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming the candidates defamed him to “garner votes for the black community.” The lawsuit, which was filed in Polk County, argues that Warren and Buttigieg’s tweets used the killing as a “pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.” The candidates tweeted in memory of Martin on what would have been his 25th birthday. … According to Fox News, the lawsuit reads: “It is high time that the cheap and harmful use of the race card by politicians of all stripes be made to cease and desist. Their despicable ‘race tactics’ are not only causing great harm to persons such as my client George Zimmerman, but also are damaging relations between black and white Americans who are all brothers.
Here are the tweets in question:
My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon’s family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free. https://t.co/9lXXlRnvzL — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 6, 2020
Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?#BlackLivesMatter — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 5, 2020
Let’s be very clear here, both Buttigieg and Warren are off their freaking rockers. Trayvon Martin didn’t die because of “gun violence” or white supremacy. He died because he tried to cave someone’s head in with a concrete sidewalk and that someone happened to be armed. Had he not been shot, Trayvon would likely be in prison for murder.
This was not some random kid lynched for the crime of walking while black. Let’s not pretend he was, either.
Zimmerman has a right to be upset by the characterizations, especially since so few people actually know the true story of what happened that fateful day.
Does that mean the lawsuits will go anywhere? It’s doubtful. Defamation law is odd here in the United States, in part because lawmakers were trying to balance the needs of victims with freedom of speech. No one should face a lawsuit simply for speaking their mind, but no one should be able to damage another man’s character simply because it’s convenient, either.
One problem is that George Zimmerman is arguably a public figure at this point. Let’s face it, we all know who he is. While many wish he’d just slink back into obscurity, that’s kind of impossible at this point. As a public figure, though, the bar for defamation is much, much higher.
Further, there are other factors that have to be considered for Zimmerman’s lawsuit to have a shot. I’m not an attorney, but my recollection is that you need a willful disregard for the truth. While that looks to be the case, I suspect there are enough stories painting Zimmerman as all of these things that I suspect that’s going to be hard to prove.
I’m also not sure there will be any additional damages to Zimmerman’s reputation from this. After all, the news media did a good enough job destroying his reputation the first time around.
As such, I don’t know that this will go anywhere. I pray that it does, though.
After all, I’m sick of these people pretending that a thug who got precisely what he deserved based on his actions in that precise instance is somehow a martyr worthy of memory.
Trayvon Martin is no martyr. He’s a cautionary tale.
If the lawsuit does anything, I hope it helps more people come to understand that truth.


bearingarms--2020-02-28--VA Sheriff Not Backing Down, Despite Threats From Lawmakers

Culpeper County , Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins says he will not be intimidated by anti-gun legislators who ’ ve turned back a pay raise for sheriffs and deputies , and who are threatening to go after pensions as well , all because a number of sheriffs have spoken out in opposition to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s gun control agenda .
I had the chance to sit down and talk with Sheriff Jenkins at the Townhall Media booth at CPAC 2020 , and one of the first things I asked him about was the retribution we ’ ve seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angry about the pushback from local law enforcement .
“ I ’ m not surprised anymore , ” the sheriff told me .
“ The level that that bunch will stoop to at this juncture , seeing everything I ’ ve seen in the last two months , nothing surprises me from them .
They are bought and paid for .
Their far left , liberal agenda is beyond anything we could have comprehended , and that ’ s why we ’ ve never seen an uprising like you have through over 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you seen that for any topic ?
” Jenkins went on to say that those Virginia gun owners and voters who ’ ve helped turn the vast majority of the state into a Second Amendment Sanctuary ( at least on paper ) haven ’ t settled down , even after Northam ’ s gun ban bill was defeated in a Senate committee .
“ The are still fired up , they ’ re going to continue that momentum from now forward , all the way to next November when the elect the legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insane agenda.
” As for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself , Jenkins acknowledges that the resolutions passed by 91 of the 95 counties in Virginia , along with dozens of cities and towns , are largely symbolic .
The sheriff says , however , that the resolutions are a sign of what ’ s to come if lawmakers continue trying to strip residents of their right to keep and bear arms .
“ I can tell you that people are awake more than they ever have been .
The everyday man who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe registered to vote but he hadn ’ t in years because he ’ s busy working his job , raising his family , and taking care of his daily duties is wide awake now .
They ’ re laser-focused on what this issue is , and they ’ re not going to let up.
” Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and we ’ ll have more from CPAC 2020 today and throughout the weekend .

Culpeper County, Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins says he will not be intimidated by anti-gun legislators who’ve turned back a pay raise for sheriffs and deputies, and who are threatening to go after pensions as well, all because a number of sheriffs have spoken out in opposition to Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control agenda.
I had the chance to sit down and talk with Sheriff Jenkins at the Townhall Media booth at CPAC 2020, and one of the first things I asked him about was the retribution we’ve seen by Democrats in the legislature who are angry about the pushback from local law enforcement.
“I’m not surprised anymore,” the sheriff told me. “The level that that bunch will stoop to at this juncture, seeing everything I’ve seen in the last two months, nothing surprises me from them. They are bought and paid for. Their far left, liberal agenda is beyond anything we could have comprehended, and that’s why we’ve never seen an uprising like you have through over 100 localities in the state. When have you seen that for any topic?”
Jenkins went on to say that those Virginia gun owners and voters who’ve helped turn the vast majority of the state into a Second Amendment Sanctuary (at least on paper) haven’t settled down, even after Northam’s gun ban bill was defeated in a Senate committee.
“The are still fired up, they’re going to continue that momentum from now forward, all the way to next November when the elect the legislature again and replace those people with this insane agenda.”
As for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself, Jenkins acknowledges that the resolutions passed by 91 of the 95 counties in Virginia, along with dozens of cities and towns, are largely symbolic. The sheriff says, however, that the resolutions are a sign of what’s to come if lawmakers continue trying to strip residents of their right to keep and bear arms.
“I can tell you that people are awake more than they ever have been. The everyday man who didn’t go to vote, maybe registered to vote but he hadn’t in years because he’s busy working his job, raising his family, and taking care of his daily duties is wide awake now. They’re laser-focused on what this issue is, and they’re not going to let up.”
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and we’ll have more from CPAC 2020 today and throughout the weekend.