bearingarms--2020-09-24--NJ Gov's Outrageous Tax Hike On Gun Owners Defeated

If you ’ re a gun owner in New Jersey , good news can be hard to find .
The state has some of the most ridiculously onerous gun control laws in the country , and Gov .
Phil Murphy is always eager to find another way to crack down on those exercising their Second Amendment rights .
The governor was thwarted in his most recent effort to target legal gun owners , however , thanks to his fellow Democrats who control the state legislature .
Murphy had proposed a huge increase in taxes and fees on gun owners in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of a permit to purchase a pistol from $ 2 to $ 50 , increasing the fee for a Firearm ID card ( required to own long guns in the state ) from $ 5 to $ 100 , and jacking up taxes on firearms by an extra 2.5 % with a new 10 % tax on all ammunition .
While the governor had demanded these increases in the past without success , Murphy was hoping that the budget deficit caused by his COVID-19 closures would encourage his fellow Democrats to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earlier this week , however , the state legislature finalized a budget deal that does raise taxes on millionaires in the state , but leaves gun owners alone , at least for now .
Gov .
Phil Murphy and his fellow Democrats who lead the New Jersey Legislature have agreed on a state budget deal that raises taxes on high-income earners and HMOs while extending a 2.5-percentage point surtax on corporations with over $ 1 million in income .
The agreement also jettisons Murphy ’ s other proposed tax increases on sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , limousine rides and a tax on opioid manufacturers , according to two legislative sources who were not authorized to publicly discuss the plan and requested anonymity .
As New Jersey talk show host Dennis Malloy writes , even though gun owners may have been spared the enormous tax increases on their Second Amendment rights , Murphy isn ’ t likely to give up on his quest to price the right to keep and bear arms out of the hands of some lower-income residents .
What he wanted was a 2,400 percent increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1,900 percent increase in the firearm ID card fee and so on .
What other area could you even suggest such outrageous tax increases and show your face in public .
Well , he and a lot of his supporters think gun owners are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who deserve no respect or regard from the state or the public .
But more members of the New Jersey public are reconsidering their thoughts on gun ownership in the light of violent events this year and the dissing of police departments everywhere .
So applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In New Jersey , for instance , applications were up 250 % just in the first six months of this year and will continue to rise , given the images we ’ ve seen this summer .
And who knows what will happen as we get closer to a very heated election coming up .
The new budget is in and Uncle Phil had to drop the legal gun owners taxes in favor of other more popular taxes amounting to about $ 700 million .
But those are mostly on corporations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and millionaires that will be smart enough to flee this money gouging state soon enough .
Guess who will be holding the bag ?
Are you near a mirror ?
Malloy is spot-on here .
Murphy may not have been able to screw over gun owners with his new budget , but you know he ’ ll try again , and if the tax hike on corporations and high-income residents results in many of them leaving the state , the budgetary black hole will only grow even larger and gun owners will once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
New Jersey gun owners can celebrate the good news in this year ’ s budget deal , but they know they still have a target on their back when it comes to Phil Murphy and his anti-gun zealotry .

If you’re a gun owner in New Jersey, good news can be hard to find. The state has some of the most ridiculously onerous gun control laws in the country, and Gov. Phil Murphy is always eager to find another way to crack down on those exercising their Second Amendment rights. The governor was thwarted in his most recent effort to target legal gun owners, however, thanks to his fellow Democrats who control the state legislature.
Murphy had proposed a huge increase in taxes and fees on gun owners in his most recent budget; raising the cost of a permit to purchase a pistol from $2 to $50, increasing the fee for a Firearm ID card (required to own long guns in the state) from $5 to $100, and jacking up taxes on firearms by an extra 2.5% with a new 10% tax on all ammunition.
While the governor had demanded these increases in the past without success, Murphy was hoping that the budget deficit caused by his COVID-19 closures would encourage his fellow Democrats to sign off on his anti-gun budget this year. Earlier this week, however, the state legislature finalized a budget deal that does raise taxes on millionaires in the state, but leaves gun owners alone, at least for now.
Gov. Phil Murphy and his fellow Democrats who lead the New Jersey Legislature have agreed on a state budget deal that raises taxes on high-income earners and HMOs while extending a 2.5-percentage point surtax on corporations with over $1 million in income. The agreement also jettisons Murphy’s other proposed tax increases on sales of cigarettes, firearms, boat sales, limousine rides and a tax on opioid manufacturers, according to two legislative sources who were not authorized to publicly discuss the plan and requested anonymity.
As New Jersey talk show host Dennis Malloy writes, even though gun owners may have been spared the enormous tax increases on their Second Amendment rights, Murphy isn’t likely to give up on his quest to price the right to keep and bear arms out of the hands of some lower-income residents.
What he wanted was a 2,400 percent increase in the the handgun purchasing fee, a 1,900 percent increase in the firearm ID card fee and so on. What other area could you even suggest such outrageous tax increases and show your face in public. Well, he and a lot of his supporters think gun owners are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who deserve no respect or regard from the state or the public. But more members of the New Jersey public are reconsidering their thoughts on gun ownership in the light of violent events this year and the dissing of police departments everywhere. So applications for gun permits are at record-high levels. In New Jersey, for instance, applications were up 250% just in the first six months of this year and will continue to rise, given the images we’ve seen this summer. And who knows what will happen as we get closer to a very heated election coming up. The new budget is in and Uncle Phil had to drop the legal gun owners taxes in favor of other more popular taxes amounting to about $700 million. But those are mostly on corporations and millionaires. You know, those corporations and millionaires that will be smart enough to flee this money gouging state soon enough. Guess who will be holding the bag? Are you near a mirror?
Malloy is spot-on here. Murphy may not have been able to screw over gun owners with his new budget, but you know he’ll try again, and if the tax hike on corporations and high-income residents results in many of them leaving the state, the budgetary black hole will only grow even larger and gun owners will once again present a tempting target for lawmakers. New Jersey gun owners can celebrate the good news in this year’s budget deal, but they know they still have a target on their back when it comes to Phil Murphy and his anti-gun zealotry.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Not Just Major Cities Struggling To Deal With Violence

When we talk about cities trying to get a handle on the surging violence , we tend to focus on places like New York and Chicago .
After all , those are major cities with a massive media presence in them .
It ’ s easy for the entire world to see the violence there .
Yet the surge in violence isn ’ t isolated to these major metropolitan areas by any stretch of the imagination .
It ’ s happening damn near everywhere .
For example , the mayor of Durham , NC is trying to figure the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are on the rise in Durham and that the city has had “ a very bad summer in terms of gun violence .
It ’ s been much worse than the summer before , and the summer before that.
” He added that gangs were responsible for at least some of the shootings and that the bail system is failing Durham by allowing violent criminals to get out of jail .
“ I wonder if some of it is COVID-related , ” said Schewel .
“ The sense that people have less resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , drug sales and that kind of thing.
” Schewel said that on a local level , leaders are doing what they can to address root causes of violence by focusing on affordable housing and job creation .
“ It ’ s really hard for me to figure out what has caused this spike this summer .
It ’ s not just me .
I think we ’ re all struggling trying to figure that out , ” he said .
“ I know our police are as well .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is COVID.
” Oh , we all have ideas–calls for defunding the police haven ’ t helped , I ’ m sure , but are they really a cause ?
I think so , but I can ’ t prove it–but none of us know for certain .
Everything is too new for there to have been any real study to try and understand it .
Schewel , though , gets some credit .
Unlike some places , he ’ s not out there blaming guns for the problem .
As he noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is a problem that gun control has never solved .
The bail system may well be playing a role in violence in Durham and elsewhere , though I doubt it ’ s all of it .
Further , criminals released due to COVID fears probably hasn ’ t helped matters .
In fact , though , COVID is the big difference between this year and previous years…well , that and the anti-police sentiment .
However , due to COVID , walking around in a mask isn ’ t suspicious anymore .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible .
That means criminals are likely to feel more emboldened to open fire and walk away without fear of being identified .
After all , they ’ re wearing a mask .
No one can see their face .
For criminals , mask requirements may well be something of a boon .
Still , it ’ s important to remember that violence isn ’ t constrained to the big cities .
It seems to be popping up in communities of various sizes , even those that have seen no riots .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a big problem .

When we talk about cities trying to get a handle on the surging violence, we tend to focus on places like New York and Chicago. After all, those are major cities with a massive media presence in them. It’s easy for the entire world to see the violence there.
Yet the surge in violence isn’t isolated to these major metropolitan areas by any stretch of the imagination. It’s happening damn near everywhere.
For example, the mayor of Durham, NC is trying to figure the situation out as well.
He said shootings are on the rise in Durham and that the city has had “a very bad summer in terms of gun violence. It’s been much worse than the summer before, and the summer before that.” He added that gangs were responsible for at least some of the shootings and that the bail system is failing Durham by allowing violent criminals to get out of jail. “I wonder if some of it is COVID-related,” said Schewel. “The sense that people have less resources and they’re resorting to, you know, drug sales and that kind of thing.” Schewel said that on a local level, leaders are doing what they can to address root causes of violence by focusing on affordable housing and job creation. “It’s really hard for me to figure out what has caused this spike this summer. It’s not just me. I think we’re all struggling trying to figure that out,” he said. “I know our police are as well. The only obvious thing that’s different is COVID.”
Frankly, Schewel isn’t wrong.
Oh, we all have ideas–calls for defunding the police haven’t helped, I’m sure, but are they really a cause? I think so, but I can’t prove it–but none of us know for certain. Everything is too new for there to have been any real study to try and understand it.
Schewel, though, gets some credit. Unlike some places, he’s not out there blaming guns for the problem. As he noted, much of it is gang related, which is a problem that gun control has never solved. The bail system may well be playing a role in violence in Durham and elsewhere, though I doubt it’s all of it. Further, criminals released due to COVID fears probably hasn’t helped matters.
In fact, though, COVID is the big difference between this year and previous years…well, that and the anti-police sentiment.
However, due to COVID, walking around in a mask isn’t suspicious anymore. Now, it’s considered socially responsible. That means criminals are likely to feel more emboldened to open fire and walk away without fear of being identified. After all, they’re wearing a mask. No one can see their face. For criminals, mask requirements may well be something of a boon.
Still, it’s important to remember that violence isn’t constrained to the big cities. It seems to be popping up in communities of various sizes, even those that have seen no riots. It’s hitting everywhere, and that’s a big problem.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--4th Grader Suspended After Teacher Sees BB Gun In Virtual Class

Officials in the Jefferson Parish , Louisiana public school system have upheld a 6-day suspension for a 9-year old boy who was suspended from his elementary school after he momentarily handled a BB gun in his bedroom during an online class session , in the latest incident involving students , virtual classrooms , and airsoft or BB guns in private homes .
According to Nola.com , the student had no nefarious intention in handling the BB gun , but that didn ’ t matter to school officials , who threatened the child with expulsion over the incident .
Ka Mauri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elementary in Harvey , was taking a virtual class in his bedroom when his younger brother came into the room and tripped over a BB gun .
The 9-year-old leaned away from his English test , grabbed the unloaded weapon and put it next to his chair , away from his brother but in view of the computer camera that showed the scene to his teacher and classmates .
By the end of the day , he was facing suspension from school — and possible expulsion .
This isn ’ t the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen since many schools have moved to an all-online teaching model in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , and honestly , every single one of these stories is utterly enraging .
In this case , Ka Mauri Harrison was simply picking up the BB gun from the floor of his bedroom so his younger brother wouldn ’ t trip over it .
Any teacher or superintendent with a lick of common sense would realize that there ’ s no benefit or purpose in suspending Harrison , but instead the district is standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot here is the fact that the school called the parents instead of calling police , which wasn ’ t the case in several other incidents in Colorado and Maryland this year .
“ They are treating it as if he brought a weapon to school , ” Nyron Harrison said .
“ They told me he would be facing expulsion.
” Nyron Harrison said he told school officials that it was a BB gun , not an actual rifle .
He said he bought the gun for Ka Mauri and had taught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safely .
The gun was not loaded , and Ka Mauri just moved it to get it out of the way , he said .
According to the behavior report filled out by school staff , it was still a violation of school policy .
“ Ka Mauri presented a weapon that appeared to be a rifle/shotgun during his Google Meets classroom session .
This is a violation of weapons in the classroom setting and a violation of the internet usage policy .
He will be recommended for expulsion as per JPPSS policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subsequent expulsion hearing , the hearing officer did not expel Ka Mauri but suspended him for six days for “ displaying a facsimile weapon while receiving virtual instruction , ” according to a copy of the decision .
Ka Mauri Harrison didn ’ t bring a gun to school .
He had a BB gun in his bedroom .
The school district apparently can ’ t see the difference and understand why one might be a threat and the other a simple childhood activity .
Harrison is scheduled to return to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also hired an attorney and are weighing their legal options .
Personally , I hope they do pursue litigation .
What happened to Ka Mauri Harrison is an outrage , and there ’ s simply no reason why he should have been suspended from school and threatened with expulsion for picking a BB gun up off the floor of his bedroom and putting it aside so his younger brother didn ’ t trip over it again .
I don ’ t know how much Harrison has been able to learn from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting a real education into the insane policies and privacy violations that many school districts have adopted in the age of COVID-19 .

Officials in the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana public school system have upheld a 6-day suspension for a 9-year old boy who was suspended from his elementary school after he momentarily handled a BB gun in his bedroom during an online class session, in the latest incident involving students, virtual classrooms, and airsoft or BB guns in private homes.
According to Nola.com, the student had no nefarious intention in handling the BB gun, but that didn’t matter to school officials, who threatened the child with expulsion over the incident.
Ka Mauri Harrison, a fourth grader at Woodmere Elementary in Harvey, was taking a virtual class in his bedroom when his younger brother came into the room and tripped over a BB gun. The 9-year-old leaned away from his English test, grabbed the unloaded weapon and put it next to his chair, away from his brother but in view of the computer camera that showed the scene to his teacher and classmates. By the end of the day, he was facing suspension from school — and possible expulsion.
This isn’t the first incident like this that we’ve seen since many schools have moved to an all-online teaching model in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and honestly, every single one of these stories is utterly enraging. In this case, Ka Mauri Harrison was simply picking up the BB gun from the floor of his bedroom so his younger brother wouldn’t trip over it. Any teacher or superintendent with a lick of common sense would realize that there’s no benefit or purpose in suspending Harrison, but instead the district is standing by its decision. The only bright spot here is the fact that the school called the parents instead of calling police, which wasn’t the case in several other incidents in Colorado and Maryland this year.
“They are treating it as if he brought a weapon to school,” Nyron Harrison said. “They told me he would be facing expulsion.” Nyron Harrison said he told school officials that it was a BB gun, not an actual rifle. He said he bought the gun for Ka Mauri and had taught the boy to use it properly and safely. The gun was not loaded, and Ka Mauri just moved it to get it out of the way, he said. According to the behavior report filled out by school staff, it was still a violation of school policy. “Ka Mauri presented a weapon that appeared to be a rifle/shotgun during his Google Meets classroom session. This is a violation of weapons in the classroom setting and a violation of the internet usage policy. He will be recommended for expulsion as per JPPSS policy,” the report says. During a subsequent expulsion hearing, the hearing officer did not expel Ka Mauri but suspended him for six days for “displaying a facsimile weapon while receiving virtual instruction,” according to a copy of the decision.
Ka Mauri Harrison didn’t bring a gun to school. He had a BB gun in his bedroom. The school district apparently can’t see the difference and understand why one might be a threat and the other a simple childhood activity.
Harrison is scheduled to return to his online classes today, but his parents have also hired an attorney and are weighing their legal options. Personally, I hope they do pursue litigation. What happened to Ka Mauri Harrison is an outrage, and there’s simply no reason why he should have been suspended from school and threatened with expulsion for picking a BB gun up off the floor of his bedroom and putting it aside so his younger brother didn’t trip over it again. I don’t know how much Harrison has been able to learn from his online classes, but he’s getting a real education into the insane policies and privacy violations that many school districts have adopted in the age of COVID-19.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Ohio Senate Passes Bill Blocking Closure Of Gun Stores

As COVID-19 fears kept most people locked down inside their own homes , one place a lot of people wanted to hit were the gun stores .
After all , no one knew what was going on and where things would go and they wanted to be ready in case things got bad .
It was understandable , really .
Unfortunately for a lot of people , they couldn ’ t buy a gun .
Their local gun stores were closed by government mandate , and that was a huge problem .
Now , though , the Ohio Senate just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that from being an issue again .
The Ohio Senate OK ’ d legislation early Wednesday evening that would bar the statewide or regional closing of licensed firearm sellers , countering potential temporary orders under stay-at-home or public health directives .
Senate Bill 360 , sponsored by Republican Senate President Larry Obhof , R-Medina , was fast-tracked through the chamber ’ s legislative process and received lopsided bipartisan support for passage .
Obhof said during Wednesday ’ s session that Gov .
Mike DeWine “ was respectful of the Second Amendment and did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to close , ” but that the proposed law changes would ensure future state and local officials follow suit .
The National Rifle Association and other advocates supported the legislation , saying it was needed because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and resulting attempts by other states to restrict the sale of firearms , components and ammunition .
It ’ s also the right move to make .
While Ohio didn ’ t get stupid when it came to gun stores , a lot of states did and there ’ s no guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar during the next pandemic .
After all , Swine Flu wasn ’ t all that long ago , so it ’ s not out of the realm of possibility that we ’ ll see more pandemics as the years march on .
There ’ s no guarantee that the next governor to face a pandemic will act like DeWine did and keep the gun stores open .
In fact , there ’ s plenty of reason to be concerned of the opposite being the case .
Those the bipartisan nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This bill will do a lot to keep people in the state having the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights .
Of course , with the NRA supporting it , you already know who opposes it .
But other groups , including the national Brady Campaign/United Against Gun Violence , said SB 360 would put public health at risk if gun stores could not be temporarily shuttered , if warranted , during state or national emergencies .
“ We sincerely hope you will trust that gun dealers would only have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation – that doing so would make the rest of us safer , ” Toby Hoover , founder of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence , said in submitted committee testimony .
“ It is acceptable and advisable to allow the state and local communities to make these decisions .
Please don ’ t encourage fear.
” And yet , these same people seem to always have some reason to back anything that stops law-abiding citizens from being able to buy guns .
It should be noted that there ’ s no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for firearms , but lawfully sold guns ?
Yeah , that got impacted .
Honestly , anti-gun groups will use whatever justification they can pull out of their posteriors to try and sell people on closing gun stores , even for a short time .
They don ’ t actually care about anything but restricting your rights .

As COVID-19 fears kept most people locked down inside their own homes, one place a lot of people wanted to hit were the gun stores. After all, no one knew what was going on and where things would go and they wanted to be ready in case things got bad. It was understandable, really.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, they couldn’t buy a gun. Their local gun stores were closed by government mandate, and that was a huge problem.
Now, though, the Ohio Senate just passed a bill that should help prevent that from being an issue again.
The Ohio Senate OK’d legislation early Wednesday evening that would bar the statewide or regional closing of licensed firearm sellers, countering potential temporary orders under stay-at-home or public health directives. Senate Bill 360, sponsored by Republican Senate President Larry Obhof, R-Medina, was fast-tracked through the chamber’s legislative process and received lopsided bipartisan support for passage. Obhof said during Wednesday’s session that Gov. Mike DeWine “was respectful of the Second Amendment and did not attempt to force licensed firearm dealers to close,” but that the proposed law changes would ensure future state and local officials follow suit. The National Rifle Association and other advocates supported the legislation, saying it was needed because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and resulting attempts by other states to restrict the sale of firearms, components and ammunition.
It’s also the right move to make. While Ohio didn’t get stupid when it came to gun stores, a lot of states did and there’s no guarantee that we won’t see something similar during the next pandemic. After all, Swine Flu wasn’t all that long ago, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that we’ll see more pandemics as the years march on.
There’s no guarantee that the next governor to face a pandemic will act like DeWine did and keep the gun stores open. In fact, there’s plenty of reason to be concerned of the opposite being the case. Those the bipartisan nature of the bill’s passage is certainly promising.
This bill will do a lot to keep people in the state having the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Of course, with the NRA supporting it, you already know who opposes it.
But other groups, including the national Brady Campaign/United Against Gun Violence, said SB 360 would put public health at risk if gun stores could not be temporarily shuttered, if warranted, during state or national emergencies. “We sincerely hope you will trust that gun dealers would only have to close if we are in an emergency situation – that doing so would make the rest of us safer,” Toby Hoover, founder of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said in submitted committee testimony. “It is acceptable and advisable to allow the state and local communities to make these decisions. Please don’t encourage fear.”
And yet, these same people seem to always have some reason to back anything that stops law-abiding citizens from being able to buy guns. It should be noted that there’s no evidence the pandemic shut down the black market for firearms, but lawfully sold guns? Yeah, that got impacted.
Honestly, anti-gun groups will use whatever justification they can pull out of their posteriors to try and sell people on closing gun stores, even for a short time.
They don’t actually care about anything but restricting your rights.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Separating Fact From Fiction In The Breonna Taylor Case

In the wake of a Kentucky grand jury ’ s decision in the Breonna Taylor case , a number of fairly high profile folks on both sides of the aisle have been pushing false or incomplete narratives about the case itself and the events that led up to Taylor ’ s shooting by Louisville police officers conducting a raid on her apartment .
I don ’ t know how much good it will do in the long run , but having covered the Taylor case for months now , I feel the need to correct the record on a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen since Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron announced the grand jury ’ s findings on Wednesday .
Let ’ s start with this tweet from former University of Kentucky basketball star Rex Chapman , who posted this Wednesday evening .
That ’ s simply false .
The Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville has seen the actual search warrants that were used in the narcotics investigation that led to the raid on Taylor ’ s home , and the paper has reported that Taylor ’ s name and address were indeed on one of the warrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained copies of five search warrants Louisville police received March 12 as part of a narcotics investigation .
One was for Taylor ’ s apartment , three were for adjacent homes on Elliott Avenue in the Russell neighborhood and one was for a house on West Muhammad Ali Boulevard .
The Muhammad Ali Boulevard warrant was not executed , although the reason hasn ’ t been made public .
The search warrant for Taylor ’ s home includes her street address , apartment number and photos of her apartment door , which police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor ’ s name , birth date and social security number are listed on the warrant , alongside the names of the narcotics investigation ’ s main targets , Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker .
Adrian Walker and Kenneth Walker are not related .
On the Right side of the aisle , I ’ ve seen several individuals portray Kenneth Walker , Breonna Taylor ’ s boyfriend , as a “ criminal ” or “ thug ” who knowingly opened fire on police as they entered Taylor ’ s apartment .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floating around .
Walker wasn ’ t named in the search warrant , and wasn ’ t a part of the investigation into Breonna Taylor ’ s ex-boyfriend Jamarcus Glover .
He did not have a criminal record , and lawfully possessed the gun that he had when police came through the door of Taylor ’ s apartment .
Walker has maintained that he and Taylor were in bed watching TV when they heard the sound the sound of loud banging on the apartment door .
Walker said he initially thought it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boyfriend , but there was no response when Taylor twice called out , “ Who is it ?
” Then , Walker said he grabbed his gun ( it was registered to Walker ) saying he was , “ Scared to death.
” Taylor yelled again “ at the top of her lungs , ” asking who it was , Walker said in the recording .
He said he was asking , too .
They got out of bed and were going toward the door when it “ comes off its hinges.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see who he was shooting at , he told police .
Police fired in response , striking Taylor multiple times , according to her family ’ s lawsuit against LMPD .
On Wednesday , AG Cameron revealed that one eyewitness says they heard police announce themselves , but there are several other witnesses who say they did not hear police identify themselves before breaching the door .
I think the most likely scenario is that Walker simply didn ’ t hear the police announce themselves and believed that he was acting in self-defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the apartment .
Walker was not a suspect in the case , wasn ’ t named on the warrant , and there were no drugs found in Taylor ’ s home .
In other words , Walker really didn ’ t have a motive to fire a single shot at cops , but he did have a motive to fire at what he believed were home invaders .
All of the evidence points to both sides believing that they were acting in self-defense .
When Walker fired his gun , police rightfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The death of Breonna Taylor is a tragedy , but that doesn ’ t mean that there are easy villains to be found on either side of the apartment door .
Unfortunately , as the Courier-Journal reported in its excellent fact-check on some of the most widespread rumors surrounding the case , there ’ s been no shortage of people putting out misinformation in the case for months , including activists like Shaun King , and even Benjamin Crump , the attorney for Breonna Taylor ’ s family .
The truth is far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops gun down innocent woman ” or “ criminal thug opens fire on cops and is responsible for his girlfriend ’ s death.
” While those simple narratives may be more comfortable for some of us , it ’ s more important that the truth be heard , especially since the lies and misinformation is helping to fuel the unrest , disorder , and violence in too many of our cities .

In the wake of a Kentucky grand jury’s decision in the Breonna Taylor case, a number of fairly high profile folks on both sides of the aisle have been pushing false or incomplete narratives about the case itself and the events that led up to Taylor’s shooting by Louisville police officers conducting a raid on her apartment. I don’t know how much good it will do in the long run, but having covered the Taylor case for months now, I feel the need to correct the record on a few bits of misinformation that I’ve seen since Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron announced the grand jury’s findings on Wednesday.
Let’s start with this tweet from former University of Kentucky basketball star Rex Chapman, who posted this Wednesday evening.
Guys, never forget that Breonna Taylor’s killers were at the wrong house. The wrong house. — Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) September 23, 2020
That’s simply false. The Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville has seen the actual search warrants that were used in the narcotics investigation that led to the raid on Taylor’s home, and the paper has reported that Taylor’s name and address were indeed on one of the warrants that was issued.
The Courier Journal obtained copies of five search warrants Louisville police received March 12 as part of a narcotics investigation. One was for Taylor’s apartment, three were for adjacent homes on Elliott Avenue in the Russell neighborhood and one was for a house on West Muhammad Ali Boulevard. The Muhammad Ali Boulevard warrant was not executed, although the reason hasn’t been made public. The search warrant for Taylor’s home includes her street address, apartment number and photos of her apartment door, which police later broke using a battering ram. Taylor’s name, birth date and social security number are listed on the warrant, alongside the names of the narcotics investigation’s main targets, Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker. Adrian Walker and Kenneth Walker are not related.
On the Right side of the aisle, I’ve seen several individuals portray Kenneth Walker, Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, as a “criminal” or “thug” who knowingly opened fire on police as they entered Taylor’s apartment. There are a lot of variations of this tweet floating around.
Walker wasn’t named in the search warrant, and wasn’t a part of the investigation into Breonna Taylor’s ex-boyfriend Jamarcus Glover. He did not have a criminal record, and lawfully possessed the gun that he had when police came through the door of Taylor’s apartment. Walker has maintained that he and Taylor were in bed watching TV when they heard the sound the sound of loud banging on the apartment door.
Walker said he initially thought it might’ve been Taylor’s former boyfriend, but there was no response when Taylor twice called out, “Who is it?” Then, Walker said he grabbed his gun (it was registered to Walker) saying he was, “Scared to death.” Taylor yelled again “at the top of her lungs,” asking who it was, Walker said in the recording. He said he was asking, too. They got out of bed and were going toward the door when it “comes off its hinges.” Walker fired one shot, unable to see who he was shooting at, he told police. Police fired in response, striking Taylor multiple times, according to her family’s lawsuit against LMPD.
On Wednesday, AG Cameron revealed that one eyewitness says they heard police announce themselves, but there are several other witnesses who say they did not hear police identify themselves before breaching the door.
I think the most likely scenario is that Walker simply didn’t hear the police announce themselves and believed that he was acting in self-defense when he fired the shot as officers entered the apartment. Walker was not a suspect in the case, wasn’t named on the warrant, and there were no drugs found in Taylor’s home. In other words, Walker really didn’t have a motive to fire a single shot at cops, but he did have a motive to fire at what he believed were home invaders.
All of the evidence points to both sides believing that they were acting in self-defense. When Walker fired his gun, police rightfully responded with shots of their own. The death of Breonna Taylor is a tragedy, but that doesn’t mean that there are easy villains to be found on either side of the apartment door.
Unfortunately, as the Courier-Journal reported in its excellent fact-check on some of the most widespread rumors surrounding the case, there’s been no shortage of people putting out misinformation in the case for months, including activists like Shaun King, and even Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Breonna Taylor’s family.
The truth is far messier than the narrative of “evil cops gun down innocent woman” or “criminal thug opens fire on cops and is responsible for his girlfriend’s death.” While those simple narratives may be more comfortable for some of us, it’s more important that the truth be heard, especially since the lies and misinformation is helping to fuel the unrest, disorder, and violence in too many of our cities.


bearingarms--2020-09-24--Arrests Follow Outrage Over Breonna Taylor Decision

Unsurprisingly , a lot of people are less than pleased with the grand jury findings on the Breonna Taylor case .
See , they had their minds made up and no finding of the grand jury would be seen as anything except a coverup unless all officers involved were scheduled to be strung up in the public square .
Since that didn ’ t happen , well…we all knew what was next .
Now , numerous arrests have taken place as protests got out of hand .
At least 46 people were arrested Wednesday during protests in Louisville after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indict one of three police officers involved in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor , according to authorities .
Thirteen people were arrested in the Highlands , an area known for its nightlife and dining after officers intervened with a march earlier in the day , Louisville Metro Police said .
The group briefly clashed with officers in riot gear who blocked the path of protesters as they marched on one of the city ’ s main roads .
Officers would take action after protesters flipped over tables and chairs at a local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the area , according to Louisville FOX station WDRB-TV .
I guess this qualifies as “ mostly peaceful ” these days .
Protests would later escalate in the downtown area after an unlawful assembly was declared around 6 p.m. , near Jefferson Square Park .
Police ordered protesters to disperse from the area and 16 people were arrested during that incident , authorities said .
Jefferson Square had been at the center of protests in the city , with police firing flash bangs and forming a line at one point .
Demonstrators would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the park outside the Hall of Justice on Sixth Street between 7 and 8 p.m. , according to the station .
Many protesters would leave around 8 p.m. , before marching in the downtown area .
Honestly , that ’ s more subdued than I would have thought .
Yet it wasn ’ t nearly as peaceful as presented by Fox News , apparently .
CNN notes that two officers were shot in Louisville during the unrest .
Louisville isn ’ t the only place to see protests as they took place all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t make a lot of sense to me since local authorities have no say in what happens in Louisville and I doubt Louisville authorities care what people elsewhere think , but whatever .
Still , there were protests in D.C. , Chicago , and New York , as well as other places as a public primed for outrage already lashed out .
In Denver , police arrested someone for allegedly plowing their vehicle into a Breonna Taylor protest in that city .
Videos posted on social media showed protesters surrounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some pressing on the hood to block its path when the car accelerated through the crowd and knocked at least one person to the side of the road .
Denver police reported no injuries stemming from the incident .
Others avoided the vehicle ’ s path and some were seen chasing after the vehicle .
“ I was kind of going up on the hood and I was like , ‘ No , I ’ m not doing this , ’ and I rolled over to the side , ” a woman who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post .
“ He wasn ’ t gon na stop even though I was , like , on his hood.
” Honestly , considering what some have seen from “ protests ” earlier this year , it ’ s not surprising that someone would refuse to stop when surrounded by “ protesters.
” Oh , this might have been a completely legal protest and even a peaceful one , but if you ’ re milling about in your car and you end up surrounded like that , I can see why someone would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there waiting and hoping they don ’ t start busting in windows to drag them out to be beaten .
Regardless , this was just the first night of unrest .
Will there be a second , or has the country burned most of its anger out already after George Floyd and Jacob Blake ?
What we didn ’ t see , apparently , were widespread riots like we did in those earlier cases .
While these protests my have been less than peaceful , they ’ re still not what we saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell whether there ’ s more or not .

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people are less than pleased with the grand jury findings on the Breonna Taylor case. See, they had their minds made up and no finding of the grand jury would be seen as anything except a coverup unless all officers involved were scheduled to be strung up in the public square.
Since that didn’t happen, well…we all knew what was next.
Now, numerous arrests have taken place as protests got out of hand.
At least 46 people were arrested Wednesday during protests in Louisville after a Kentucky grand jury’s decision to indict one of three police officers involved in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor, according to authorities. Thirteen people were arrested in the Highlands, an area known for its nightlife and dining after officers intervened with a march earlier in the day, Louisville Metro Police said. The group briefly clashed with officers in riot gear who blocked the path of protesters as they marched on one of the city’s main roads. Officers would take action after protesters flipped over tables and chairs at a local restaurant, and damaged other businesses in the area, according to Louisville FOX station WDRB-TV.
I guess this qualifies as “mostly peaceful” these days.
Protests would later escalate in the downtown area after an unlawful assembly was declared around 6 p.m., near Jefferson Square Park. Police ordered protesters to disperse from the area and 16 people were arrested during that incident, authorities said. Jefferson Square had been at the center of protests in the city, with police firing flash bangs and forming a line at one point. Demonstrators would later set fires in trash bins in the park outside the Hall of Justice on Sixth Street between 7 and 8 p.m., according to the station. Many protesters would leave around 8 p.m., before marching in the downtown area.
Honestly, that’s more subdued than I would have thought.
Yet it wasn’t nearly as peaceful as presented by Fox News, apparently.
CNN notes that two officers were shot in Louisville during the unrest.
Louisville isn’t the only place to see protests as they took place all over the United States. Frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me since local authorities have no say in what happens in Louisville and I doubt Louisville authorities care what people elsewhere think, but whatever.
Still, there were protests in D.C., Chicago, and New York, as well as other places as a public primed for outrage already lashed out.
In Denver, police arrested someone for allegedly plowing their vehicle into a Breonna Taylor protest in that city.
Videos posted on social media showed protesters surrounding the unidentified driver’s vehicle, some pressing on the hood to block its path when the car accelerated through the crowd and knocked at least one person to the side of the road. Car hit a protester pic.twitter.com/dtETwNoHPT — Shelly Bradbury (@ShellyBradbury) September 24, 2020 Denver police reported no injuries stemming from the incident. Others avoided the vehicle’s path and some were seen chasing after the vehicle. “I was kind of going up on the hood and I was like, ‘No, I’m not doing this,’ and I rolled over to the side,” a woman who identified herself as Kate told the Denver Post. “He wasn’t gonna stop even though I was, like, on his hood.”
Honestly, considering what some have seen from “protests” earlier this year, it’s not surprising that someone would refuse to stop when surrounded by “protesters.”
Oh, this might have been a completely legal protest and even a peaceful one, but if you’re milling about in your car and you end up surrounded like that, I can see why someone would step on the gas instead of sitting there waiting and hoping they don’t start busting in windows to drag them out to be beaten.
Regardless, this was just the first night of unrest. Will there be a second, or has the country burned most of its anger out already after George Floyd and Jacob Blake?
What we didn’t see, apparently, were widespread riots like we did in those earlier cases. While these protests my have been less than peaceful, they’re still not what we saw earlier this year, so time will tell whether there’s more or not.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--Louisiana AG Investigates BB Gun School Suspension

On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we ’ ve got a good news update to a story we first told you about yesterday : the case of 9-year old Ka Mauri Harrison , a Louisian 4th grader who was suspended from school and threatened with expulsion after briefly and accidentally displaying a BB gun during an online class session earlier this month .
Ka Mauri Harrison , a fourth grader at Woodmere Elementary in Harvey , was taking a virtual class in his bedroom when his younger brother came into the room and tripped over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his English test , grabbed the unloaded weapon and put it next to his chair , away from his brother but in view of the computer camera that showed the scene to his teacher and classmates .
By the end of the day , he was facing suspension from school — and possible expulsion .
As far as I know , Bearing Arms was the first outlet beyond local media to report on the story , but thankfully others have picked up on the ridiculous nature of the suspension , and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation into the school district ’ s handling of the matter .
I ’ m not sure what actions the AG might be able to take here , but on today ’ s show we discuss some tips for parents who are concerned that their own kids might get in trouble for inadvertently displaying a BB , Airsoft , or Nerf gun while they ’ re online with their teachers .
I think that parents should be proactively contacting their local superintendents to ask what the district ’ s policy is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t like what they ’ re told , they should reach out to their local school board member and demand a change in policy .
As Louisiana ’ s Attorney General put it , your home is not school property simply because it ’ s connected through a Zoom video conference , and it ’ s absurd to try to punish kids for violating a school ’ s firearm policy when the BB gun never left your home .
It would also be helpful to get other parents involved .
School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the wishes of one family , but would find it harder to ignore dozens of families demanding answers and accountability to ensure that what happened to Ka Mauri Harrison won ’ t happen to their kids .
Be sure to check out the entire show above , in which we also discuss the oral arguments in the Young vs. Hawaii case that took place in the Ninth Circuit on Thursday , an armed citizen story involving a woman in Arizona who defended herself against a knife-wielding intruder , and a police officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place at the right time to rescue a woman from a burning vehicle .

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we’ve got a good news update to a story we first told you about yesterday: the case of 9-year old Ka Mauri Harrison, a Louisian 4th grader who was suspended from school and threatened with expulsion after briefly and accidentally displaying a BB gun during an online class session earlier this month.
Ka Mauri Harrison, a fourth grader at Woodmere Elementary in Harvey, was taking a virtual class in his bedroom when his younger brother came into the room and tripped over a BB gun. The 9-year-old leaned away from his English test, grabbed the unloaded weapon and put it next to his chair, away from his brother but in view of the computer camera that showed the scene to his teacher and classmates. By the end of the day, he was facing suspension from school — and possible expulsion.
As far as I know, Bearing Arms was the first outlet beyond local media to report on the story, but thankfully others have picked up on the ridiculous nature of the suspension, and now Louisiana’s Attorney General is launching an investigation into the school district’s handling of the matter.
Landry said he was alarmed by what he called multiple violations of the state and federal constitutions but also “blatant government overreach by the school system.” “For anyone to conclude that a student’s home is now school property because of connectivity through video conferencing is absurd,” Landry said. “It is ludicrous for this All-American kid to be punished for taking responsible actions just as it is for his parents to be accused of neglect.” Landry’s office did not specify which violations of either constitution that the school system may have violated. “My office and I will take a deep dive into all the irreparable harm caused by this egregious incident and take appropriate actions,” Landry added.
I’m not sure what actions the AG might be able to take here, but on today’s show we discuss some tips for parents who are concerned that their own kids might get in trouble for inadvertently displaying a BB, Airsoft, or Nerf gun while they’re online with their teachers.
I think that parents should be proactively contacting their local superintendents to ask what the district’s policy is in situations like this, and if they don’t like what they’re told, they should reach out to their local school board member and demand a change in policy. As Louisiana’s Attorney General put it, your home is not school property simply because it’s connected through a Zoom video conference, and it’s absurd to try to punish kids for violating a school’s firearm policy when the BB gun never left your home.
It would also be helpful to get other parents involved. School boards may be less inclined to act on the wishes of one family, but would find it harder to ignore dozens of families demanding answers and accountability to ensure that what happened to Ka Mauri Harrison won’t happen to their kids.
Be sure to check out the entire show above, in which we also discuss the oral arguments in the Young vs. Hawaii case that took place in the Ninth Circuit on Thursday, an armed citizen story involving a woman in Arizona who defended herself against a knife-wielding intruder, and a police officer in Montana who was in the right place at the right time to rescue a woman from a burning vehicle.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--Portland Rioter Tosses Molotov Cocktail At Police

The Molotov Cocktail isn ’ t a drink .
It ’ s a bomb , a deadly instrument that can be concocted by anyone with access to glass bottles and gasoline .
They ’ re dangerous and are responsible for much of the destruction and damage we ’ ve seen throughout the nation during the continuing unrest .
However , it ’ s important to remember that these are also weapons .
They ’ re just just tools of the arsonist , but destructive devices that can kill .
Which is likely what was on the mind of on Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if your group starts tossing incendiary devices at police , don ’ t be surprised when police don ’ t ask you nicely to come over for tea and crumpets .
Look , I get that not everyone in the group was responsible for the Molotov cocktails .
I understand how that kind of thing goes .
However , if you ’ re in a group and someone starts that stuff , you ’ ve got two choices .
You either hand them over to police or you get the hell out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , you ’ ve made yourself culpable for those acts .
Luckily , it doesn ’ t appear the officers were hurt by the Molotov , but it ’ s also clear that the individual who threw it is probably rather disappointed by that fact .
This is the world we live in , folks .
This is the world some of us seem to prefer for us to live in .

The Molotov Cocktail isn’t a drink. It’s a bomb, a deadly instrument that can be concocted by anyone with access to glass bottles and gasoline. They’re dangerous and are responsible for much of the destruction and damage we’ve seen throughout the nation during the continuing unrest.
However, it’s important to remember that these are also weapons. They’re just just tools of the arsonist, but destructive devices that can kill.
Which is likely what was on the mind of on Portland protestor Wednesday night.
A rioter threw a Molotov cocktail into a group of police officers, police deployed tear gas and made mass arrests, and civil unrest roiled downtown Portland on Wednesday night, hours after a Kentucky grand jury decided not to charge police who killed Breonna Taylor. What started as a peaceful demonstration, where a few hundred protesters reflected on Taylor’s death and urged everyone to vote, quickly turned chaotic around 10 pm when the Portland Police Bureau declared a riot. Police said protesters were throwing rocks at the bureau’s Central Precinct, endangering officers inside. Around 10:30 pm, a protester set fire to the plywood that boarded up the building’s windows. (The fire quickly went out on its own.) What ensued was a familiar sight to a city that has protested racial injustice and police brutality for over 100 days: Police officers clad in riot gear and wielding batons rushed through downtown streets, arresting those who disobeyed orders to disperse. Officers and protesters clashed for hours in smoke and fire. … The lobbing of the Molotov cocktail marked an escalation in clashes between police and protesters. Protesters threw petrol bombs toward police lines earlier this month, but Wednesday marked the first time such a weapon landed amid officers. The rest of the night followed a pattern: Police officers chased protesters throughout downtown, pushing them down streets with tear gas and pepper balls while protesters threw tear gas canisters back at them and shielded themselves with umbrellas. Repeatedly, the two sides would stand off at an intersection until officers rushed through the streets to arrest protesters who did not disperse. “You’re proving our point!” a protester yelled at a police officer who tackled another protester to the ground.
I kind of doubt that.
After all, if your group starts tossing incendiary devices at police, don’t be surprised when police don’t ask you nicely to come over for tea and crumpets.
Look, I get that not everyone in the group was responsible for the Molotov cocktails. I understand how that kind of thing goes. However, if you’re in a group and someone starts that stuff, you’ve got two choices. You either hand them over to police or you get the hell out of there. If you opt to stick around, you’ve made yourself culpable for those acts.
Luckily, it doesn’t appear the officers were hurt by the Molotov, but it’s also clear that the individual who threw it is probably rather disappointed by that fact.
This is the world we live in, folks. This is the world some of us seem to prefer for us to live in.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--Latest "Fact Check" On Biden's 2A Views Leaves Out Important Facts

It ’ s time to once again play “ Fact Check The Fact Checkers , ” and today ’ s contestant is a USA Today fact check on Joe Biden and the right to keep and bear arms .
You may have seen a headline on your Facebook feed that claims “ Joe Biden Says The Second Amendment Is ‘ Obsolete ’ ” and thought to yourself “ yeah , that sounds right.
” In this case , as USA Today notes , the story is from a satirical website run by self-described liberals called America ’ s Last Line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the website as a “ network of parody , satire , and tomfoolery.
” If readers clicked on the headline , the satirical nature of the story should have been evident to most folks .
Here ’ s a sample : The giveaway that this is satire doesn ’ t come from the supposed quote by Joe Biden , which probably rings true for many gun owners .
There is no Pohtaytoe , Virginia , however .
I ’ ve got no issue with USA Today pointing out that this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem is that the fact-checkers then proceed to try to run cover for Biden ’ s real views and statements on the Second Amendment .
Biden ’ s gun control plan includes universal background checks , additional resources to enforce existing gun laws , pushing “ smart guns ” — firearms that require an electronic ownership confirmation — and banning assault weapons .
The plan also calls for other measures , such as restricting purchases and possession of guns by fugitives and people convicted of hate crime , and banning online sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has advocated for stricter gun laws , he has never pledged to “ take away ” the Second Amendment .
NBC reported that Biden has said on numerous occasions that he is “ not opposed to the Second Amendment.
” Why did the USA Today fact checkers not mention the 2019 town hall in New Hampshire where Joe Biden was asked about the Heller decision ; the 2008 case that struck down Washington , D.C. ’ s ban on handguns and established that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear arms for self-defense , as opposed to some collective right to join a militia ?
Here ’ s what Biden said just last year in an event with WMUR-TV in New Hampshire when he was asked if he agreed with the SCOTUS decision .
“ If I were on the court I wouldn ’ t have made the same ruling .
OK , that ’ s number one.
” In other words , Biden would not have found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does .
Biden went on to say : “ Let me explain where I am on the Second Amendment .
The Second Amendment- for example , the First Amendment , if anyone of you stood up and yelled fire , you could be arrested .
You have the freedom of speech to say fire , but not in a crowded forum .
Every constitutional amendment has limitations .
And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers , I taught the Second Amendment .
And the Second Amendment is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things , I won ’ t get into that .
I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.
” Biden made it clear that the Second Amendment , in his view , poses no impediment to virtually any kind of gun control law you can think of .
He laid out everything from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to requiring “ smart guns ” for gun owners ( without ever mentioning what he thinks should happen to the 400-million or so “ dumb guns ” currently in existence ) .
Biden never gave an example of a gun control law that , in his opinion , would go too far and violate the Second Amendment , presumably because in his view there are no laws that could cross that line .
It doesn ’ t matter how many times Joe Biden says that he ’ s “ not opposed ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t need to oppose something that he doesn ’ t view as a real right .
On the other hand , Biden has stated that he ’ s opposed to the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in Heller establishing that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right , and he even went so far as to say that the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was that we needed to muster people into a militia to fight Great Britain .
* Doesn ’ t that suggest that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to the mark than its authors realized ?
Biden may not have come right out and said that Second Amendment was outdated , but that ’ s actually the gist of his remarks .
The USA Today fact check is correct in pointing out that the America ’ s Last Line of Defense story is satire , but it fails to acknowledge that Biden has in fact said that the Heller decision was wrongly decided , and that in his view the right to keep and bear arms was “ given ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a militia could fight an ongoing war against Great Britain .
If you ’ re going to provide readers with the facts on Joe Biden and the Second Amendment , you should give them all of the facts , no matter how inconvenient those truths may be to Biden supporters and his presidential campaign .
*This is a fundamental misreading of history on Biden ’ s part .
The United States wasn ’ t at war with Great Britain when the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were ratified , and the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a right.
” It codified the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms .
James Madison , writing in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified , makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was already a right of the people : Madison ’ s argument wasn ’ t that the American people should have the right to bear arms to fight Great Britain .
His argument was that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would serve as a check on the formation of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anybody who was actually taught about the Second Amendment by Biden , because they likely learned some truly bad takes on our history .

It’s time to once again play “Fact Check The Fact Checkers,” and today’s contestant is a USA Today fact check on Joe Biden and the right to keep and bear arms. You may have seen a headline on your Facebook feed that claims “Joe Biden Says The Second Amendment Is ‘Obsolete’” and thought to yourself “yeah, that sounds right.” In this case, as USA Today notes, the story is from a satirical website run by self-described liberals called America’s Last Line of Defense, which the founders describe on the website as a “network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery.”
If readers clicked on the headline, the satirical nature of the story should have been evident to most folks. Here’s a sample:
“Just recently, Biden confirmed one of those very fears during a campaign speech at the Joe Barron Jewish community center in Pohtaytoe, Virginia, referring to the sacred and God-blessed Second Amendment right of all Americans to own and use firearms at any time anywhere for any reason whatsoever as ‘obsolete.’”
The giveaway that this is satire doesn’t come from the supposed quote by Joe Biden, which probably rings true for many gun owners. There is no Pohtaytoe, Virginia, however.
I’ve got no issue with USA Today pointing out that this isn’t a genuine news story, but the problem is that the fact-checkers then proceed to try to run cover for Biden’s real views and statements on the Second Amendment.
Biden’s gun control plan includes universal background checks, additional resources to enforce existing gun laws, pushing “smart guns” — firearms that require an electronic ownership confirmation — and banning assault weapons. The plan also calls for other measures, such as restricting purchases and possession of guns by fugitives and people convicted of hate crime, and banning online sales of weapons and ammunition. While Biden has advocated for stricter gun laws, he has never pledged to “take away” the Second Amendment. NBC reported that Biden has said on numerous occasions that he is “not opposed to the Second Amendment.”
Why did the USA Today fact checkers not mention the 2019 town hall in New Hampshire where Joe Biden was asked about the Heller decision; the 2008 case that struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and established that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense, as opposed to some collective right to join a militia? Here’s what Biden said just last year in an event with WMUR-TV in New Hampshire when he was asked if he agreed with the SCOTUS decision.
“If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”
In other words, Biden would not have found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, because he doesn’t believe that it does. Biden went on to say:
“Let me explain where I am on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment- for example, the First Amendment, if anyone of you stood up and yelled fire, you could be arrested. You have the freedom of speech to say fire, but not in a crowded forum. Every constitutional amendment has limitations. And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.”
Biden made it clear that the Second Amendment, in his view, poses no impediment to virtually any kind of gun control law you can think of. He laid out everything from bans on commonly owned firearms and magazines to requiring “smart guns” for gun owners (without ever mentioning what he thinks should happen to the 400-million or so “dumb guns” currently in existence). Biden never gave an example of a gun control law that, in his opinion, would go too far and violate the Second Amendment, presumably because in his view there are no laws that could cross that line.
It doesn’t matter how many times Joe Biden says that he’s “not opposed” to the Second Amendment, because he doesn’t need to oppose something that he doesn’t view as a real right. On the other hand, Biden has stated that he’s opposed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller establishing that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and he even went so far as to say that the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was that we needed to muster people into a militia to fight Great Britain.* Doesn’t that suggest that the satirical piece fact-checked by USA Today was closer to the mark than its authors realized? Biden may not have come right out and said that Second Amendment was outdated, but that’s actually the gist of his remarks.
The USA Today fact check is correct in pointing out that the America’s Last Line of Defense story is satire, but it fails to acknowledge that Biden has in fact said that the Heller decision was wrongly decided, and that in his view the right to keep and bear arms was “given” to the American people to ensure that a militia could fight an ongoing war against Great Britain. If you’re going to provide readers with the facts on Joe Biden and the Second Amendment, you should give them all of the facts, no matter how inconvenient those truths may be to Biden supporters and his presidential campaign.
*This is a fundamental misreading of history on Biden’s part. The United States wasn’t at war with Great Britain when the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were ratified, and the Second Amendment wasn’t “given as a right.” It codified the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. James Madison, writing in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified, makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was already a right of the people:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Madison’s argument wasn’t that the American people should have the right to bear arms to fight Great Britain. His argument was that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would serve as a check on the formation of a tyrannical government. I feel bad for anybody who was actually taught about the Second Amendment by Biden, because they likely learned some truly bad takes on our history.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--Louisville Man Charged With Shooting Officers

While Thursday night ’ s protests may not have been as violent as the previous nights , though they appear to have been bad enough .
At least this time , it doesn ’ t appear that any Louisville police officers were shot .
On Wednesday , two were struck while responding to protests over the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision .
Now , a suspect has been arrested and charged .
Two police officers who were shot Wednesday night as protesters marched in Louisville , Ky. , to demand justice for Breonna Taylor are expected to recover from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A man has been arrested and faces multiple charges in connection with the shooting .
Tensions are running very high in Louisville , after a grand jury delivered a limited indictment against one officer who was present when police shot Taylor to death in her apartment .
The man accused of shooting the two officers , 26-year-old Larynzo Johnson , “ has been charged with two counts of assault in the first degree and 14 counts of wanton endangerment — all directed against police officers , ” interim police Chief Robert Schroeder said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an update on the two officers who were shot , Schroeder and Fischer said the pair — Louisville Metro Police Department Maj. Aubrey Gregory and Officer Robinson Desroches — were fortunate not to have suffered life-threatening wounds .
“ I ’ m extremely happy to report that one of them was treated and released from University Hospital with a leg wound , ” Fischer said , referring to Gregory .
“ And the other , who was struck in the abdomen , is in stable condition after undergoing significant surgeries and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m glad the officers will recover .
Second , though , no one should be surprised by this .
You can ’ t spend months vilifying police officers while holding Breonna Taylor as some kind of saint and not expect violence to erupt following a grand jury finding that none of what was claimed was true .
Some are alleging the whole thing is a coverup .
Others believe that the truth has won out over narrative .
Regardless , though , the officers involved in the raid where Taylor was shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the court of public opinion for months now .
People already had their minds made up , especially those who were already inclined toward anti-police sentiments .
None of this should have been surprising , considering .
But then it happens .
What ’ s more , there are those who believe the fact that the officers weren ’ t killed is a bigger problem than them being shot .
Yeah , that ’ s where we ’ re at in 2020 .
Honestly , don ’ t be surprised to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already seen it before .
We ’ ll likely see it again .
Luckily , we know that one potential cop-killer is behind bars .
For now , at least .
May he stay there a good long time and not be able to try to claim anymore lives .
In the meantime , there ’ s nothing really to do but to contain the destruction as much as possible and hope to move forward .
Preferably , without more police officers being shot because some dipstick didn ’ t like what another @ @ @ @

While Thursday night’s protests may not have been as violent as the previous nights, though they appear to have been bad enough. At least this time, it doesn’t appear that any Louisville police officers were shot.
On Wednesday, two were struck while responding to protests over the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision.
Now, a suspect has been arrested and charged.
Two police officers who were shot Wednesday night as protesters marched in Louisville, Ky., to demand justice for Breonna Taylor are expected to recover from their wounds, Mayor Greg Fischer says. A man has been arrested and faces multiple charges in connection with the shooting. Tensions are running very high in Louisville, after a grand jury delivered a limited indictment against one officer who was present when police shot Taylor to death in her apartment. … The man accused of shooting the two officers, 26-year-old Larynzo Johnson, “has been charged with two counts of assault in the first degree and 14 counts of wanton endangerment — all directed against police officers,” interim police Chief Robert Schroeder said during a news conference Thursday morning. In an update on the two officers who were shot, Schroeder and Fischer said the pair — Louisville Metro Police Department Maj. Aubrey Gregory and Officer Robinson Desroches — were fortunate not to have suffered life-threatening wounds. “I’m extremely happy to report that one of them was treated and released from University Hospital with a leg wound,” Fischer said, referring to Gregory. “And the other, who was struck in the abdomen, is in stable condition after undergoing significant surgeries and is expected to recover.”
First, I’m glad the officers will recover.
Second, though, no one should be surprised by this. You can’t spend months vilifying police officers while holding Breonna Taylor as some kind of saint and not expect violence to erupt following a grand jury finding that none of what was claimed was true.
Some are alleging the whole thing is a coverup. Others believe that the truth has won out over narrative.
Regardless, though, the officers involved in the raid where Taylor was shot and killed have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion for months now. People already had their minds made up, especially those who were already inclined toward anti-police sentiments. None of this should have been surprising, considering.
But then it happens.
What’s more, there are those who believe the fact that the officers weren’t killed is a bigger problem than them being shot.
Yeah, that’s where we’re at in 2020.
Honestly, don’t be surprised to see more of this. We’ve already seen it before. We’ll likely see it again.
Luckily, we know that one potential cop-killer is behind bars. For now, at least. May he stay there a good long time and not be able to try to claim anymore lives.
In the meantime, there’s nothing really to do but to contain the destruction as much as possible and hope to move forward. Preferably, without more police officers being shot because some dipstick didn’t like what another police officer did.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--9th Circuit Panel Hears Challenge To Carry Law

A challenge to Hawaii ’ s ban on the open carrying of a firearm without a license received another day in court on Thursday , as attorneys for the state and a resident challenging the law squared off in front of an en banc panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .
The case of Young vs. Hawaii is an important case when it comes to the right-to-carry , and a three judge panel on the court of appeals has already ruled that the law violates the constitutional rights of residents by requiring them to demonstrate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right of self-defense .
The state of Hawaii decided to appeal that decision to a broader panel of Ninth Circuit judges rather than take the case directly to the Supreme Court , and attorney Neal Katyal , a former acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration , represented the state in the oral arguments held on Thursday .
Katyal claimed that Hawaii ’ s restrictive licensing of open carry doesn ’ t amount to an outright ban on carrying , even though the average resident is precluded from the practice .
Arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Katyal explained that Hawaii state law and the County of Hawaii ’ s regulations do not limit open-carry permits to security guards .
He cited the Hawaii Attorney General ’ s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “ a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.
” “ Individuals can carry firearms if they have good cause , ” Katyal said .
“ That is what Hawaii ’ s law actually is.
” Katyal implored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing that only security guards have obtained open-carry permits .
The court must instead look to the plain text of the statute , he said .
Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson , a Donald Trump appointee , said he interprets the text of the county ’ s regulation as only allowing security guards to obtain open-carry permits .
“ You would agree that the regulation itself is unconstitutional , meaning the Second Amendment would not permit that , ” Nelson asked .
Katyal replied that the court need not reach the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permits to security guards “ is flatly inconsistent with what Hawaii ’ s state law is.
” The state of Hawaii is trying a legal strategy very similar to what New York City did in the recent case NYSRPA vs. New York City ; attempting to change a law after a court challenge in an attempt to claim that the law in question doesn ’ t violate the Second Amendment .
The 2018 guidance from the state ’ s Attorney General theoretically allows someone who ’ s not a security guard to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but as Katyal himself was forced to admit , no citizen has actually obtained a license to carry .
Katyal argued that the state ’ s prohibition on open carrying dates back more than 150 years , and should be upheld as constitutional based on the “ longstanding ” nature of the statute .
Despite the long history lesson , Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta , a George W. Bush appointee who joined O ’ Scannlain in ruling against Hawaii ’ s open-carry restriction in 2018 , seemed unimpressed .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — your argument as to history is merely that this right to bear arms is not a core right so that it can be restricted .
Is that correct , ” Ikuta asked .
“ No , ” Katyal replied .
“ You can see it as a core right , but it ’ s always been subject to a good cause restriction in every time period.
” The Ninth Circuit has already proclaimed that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in its decision in a case called Peruta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a three judge panel originally declared that “ good cause ” requirements to carry a concealed firearm in San Diego violated the Second Amendment , but Judge Diarmuid O ’ Scannlain ’ s opinion was undone by an en banc panel that reversed the decision back in 2016 .
Since the Second Amendment clearly protects the right to both keep and bear arms , and the Ninth Circuit has said you don ’ t have a constitutional right to carry concealed , then the open carrying of firearms must be protected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Scannlain when he wrote the majority opinion in the Young case back in 2018 ; you can ban one form of carrying for the average citizen , but they must have some means of exercising their right to bear arms .
Attorney Alan Beck , who ’ s representing George Young in his challenge to the Hawaii law , argued on Thursday that even under the 2018 guidance from the state ’ s Attorney General , the right of the average citizen to carry is being violated because of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to approve or deny the licenses .
One of the biggest issues in the case is the “ justifiable need ” or “ good cause ” requirement to obtain a license .
Several other appellate courts , including the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals , have struck down similar requirements for concealed carry licenses as a violation of the Second Amendment .
With a split in the lower courts , the case would seem ripe for an eventual review by the Supreme Court if the en banc panel decides that Hawaii ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate the Constitution .
If the Ninth Circuit upholds O ’ Scannlain ’ s opinion in the Young case , it ’ s unclear whether the state would appeal the case to the Supreme Court or reluctantly take the loss and adopt a “ shall issue ” standard for the open carry licenses .
The en banc ’ s panel likely won ’ t come down until after the election in November , so what the Supreme Court will look like by the time justices have the opportunity to hear the Young case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing else , Thursday ’ s oral argument was another reminder of the importance of the Supreme Court in this year ’ s election , and why the vote in November could determine the future of the Second Amendment jurisprudence for decades to come .

A challenge to Hawaii’s ban on the open carrying of a firearm without a license received another day in court on Thursday, as attorneys for the state and a resident challenging the law squared off in front of an en banc panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case of Young vs. Hawaii is an important case when it comes to the right-to-carry, and a three judge panel on the court of appeals has already ruled that the law violates the constitutional rights of residents by requiring them to demonstrate a “justifiable need” to carry beyond the right of self-defense.
The state of Hawaii decided to appeal that decision to a broader panel of Ninth Circuit judges rather than take the case directly to the Supreme Court, and attorney Neal Katyal, a former acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration, represented the state in the oral arguments held on Thursday. Katyal claimed that Hawaii’s restrictive licensing of open carry doesn’t amount to an outright ban on carrying, even though the average resident is precluded from the practice.
Arguing before an 11-judge en banc panel Thursday, Katyal explained that Hawaii state law and the County of Hawaii’s regulations do not limit open-carry permits to security guards. He cited the Hawaii Attorney General’s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.” “Individuals can carry firearms if they have good cause,” Katyal said. “That is what Hawaii’s law actually is.” Katyal implored the judges not to focus on data showing that only security guards have obtained open-carry permits. The court must instead look to the plain text of the statute, he said. Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, said he interprets the text of the county’s regulation as only allowing security guards to obtain open-carry permits. “You would agree that the regulation itself is unconstitutional, meaning the Second Amendment would not permit that,” Nelson asked. Katyal replied that the court need not reach the question of constitutionality because any rule that would limit permits to security guards “is flatly inconsistent with what Hawaii’s state law is.”
The state of Hawaii is trying a legal strategy very similar to what New York City did in the recent case NYSRPA vs. New York City; attempting to change a law after a court challenge in an attempt to claim that the law in question doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. The 2018 guidance from the state’s Attorney General theoretically allows someone who’s not a security guard to obtain a license to openly carry a firearm, but as Katyal himself was forced to admit, no citizen has actually obtained a license to carry.
Katyal argued that the state’s prohibition on open carrying dates back more than 150 years, and should be upheld as constitutional based on the “longstanding” nature of the statute.
Despite the long history lesson, Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee who joined O’Scannlain in ruling against Hawaii’s open-carry restriction in 2018, seemed unimpressed. “The history — which I find very ambiguous — your argument as to history is merely that this right to bear arms is not a core right so that it can be restricted. Is that correct,” Ikuta asked. “No,” Katyal replied. “You can see it as a core right, but it’s always been subject to a good cause restriction in every time period.”
The Ninth Circuit has already proclaimed that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in its decision in a case called Peruta vs. San Diego. In that case, a three judge panel originally declared that “good cause” requirements to carry a concealed firearm in San Diego violated the Second Amendment, but Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s opinion was undone by an en banc panel that reversed the decision back in 2016.
Since the Second Amendment clearly protects the right to both keep and bear arms, and the Ninth Circuit has said you don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed, then the open carrying of firearms must be protected, right? That was the logic that O’Scannlain when he wrote the majority opinion in the Young case back in 2018; you can ban one form of carrying for the average citizen, but they must have some means of exercising their right to bear arms.
Attorney Alan Beck, who’s representing George Young in his challenge to the Hawaii law, argued on Thursday that even under the 2018 guidance from the state’s Attorney General, the right of the average citizen to carry is being violated because of the “unbridled discretion” given to police chiefs to approve or deny the licenses.
One of the biggest issues in the case is the “justifiable need” or “good cause” requirement to obtain a license. Several other appellate courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, have struck down similar requirements for concealed carry licenses as a violation of the Second Amendment. With a split in the lower courts, the case would seem ripe for an eventual review by the Supreme Court if the en banc panel decides that Hawaii’s open carry law doesn’t violate the Constitution. If the Ninth Circuit upholds O’Scannlain’s opinion in the Young case, it’s unclear whether the state would appeal the case to the Supreme Court or reluctantly take the loss and adopt a “shall issue” standard for the open carry licenses.
The en banc’s panel likely won’t come down until after the election in November, so what the Supreme Court will look like by the time justices have the opportunity to hear the Young case is anyone’s guess. If nothing else, Thursday’s oral argument was another reminder of the importance of the Supreme Court in this year’s election, and why the vote in November could determine the future of the Second Amendment jurisprudence for decades to come.


bearingarms--2020-09-25--Second Night Of Protests Following Louisville Decision

It ’ s not overly surprising .
2020 may well go down as the Year of the Protest .
It seems someone is protesting something somewhere every day now .
But enough about Portland .
As things stand , many people feel there ’ s another reason to protest .
For them , the Breonna Taylor decision was a travesty of justice , a coverup that has failed to see the guilty prosecuted .
So it ’ s not shocking that , in 2020 , people have taken to the streets .
They did it again last night .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 24 people were arrested from a protest in the city on Thursday .
A statement says charges included unlawful assembly , failure to disperse and riot in the first degree .
Authorities allege the protesters broke windows at a restaurant , damaged city buses , tried to set a fire and threw a flare into the street .
Among those arrested Thursday night was state Rep. Attica Scott , a Louisville Democrat who has served in the legislature since 2017 and has pushed for legislation outlawing no-knock warrants .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much damage as we ’ ve seen in past riots .
Whether that ’ s because there simply isn ’ t as much or they ’ re just trying to not show it is anyone ’ s guess unless you ’ ve been there .
In Los Angeles , one protester was struck by a vehicle .
A truck drove through a group of protesters in Hollywood on Thursday night , striking at least one person as it sped through the crowd , according to the police and news footage from the scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Hollywood Forever Cemetery before marching through the streets of Hollywood .
On Thursday , the group in Hollywood was walking down Sunset Boulevard , video posted to Twitter and YouTube shows , when a dark-colored pickup accelerated among the protesters , striking one directly and hurtling the person backward .
The truck then sped down Sunset Boulevard , nearly hitting other people who leaped out of the way , the footage shows .
Capt .
Steve Lurie , who leads the Los Angeles Police Department ’ s Hollywood Division , said officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they didn ’ t immediately arrest him .
The motorist told them that protesters had attacked his car first , according to Lurie , who added that officers have noted damage to the car .
Christian Monterrosa , a freelance photojournalist who was following the protest , said the truck was traveling against the flow of the crowd — west , when the group was walking east — when protesters began crowding the vehicle , trying to bring it to a stop .
“ I would say the truck instigated the incident , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that other motorists had yielded to the demonstrators .
Of course , I wouldn ’ t accept Monterrosa ’ s take on the situation in the least .
I mean , I don ’ t know that he ’ s lying , but I also don ’ t know how much he actually understands about the situation in totality .
If , of course , this was an intentional act , the driver should be charged .
However , if someone ’ s just traveling down a major street in their city and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a protest , what the hell are they supposed to do ?
Just let their stuff get wrecked and destroyed ?
We ’ re going to have to wait for this one to shake out .
Regardless , we ’ re having more and more protests and it doesn ’ t look like they ’ ll take the weekend off , either .

It’s not overly surprising. 2020 may well go down as the Year of the Protest. It seems someone is protesting something somewhere every day now.
But enough about Portland.
As things stand, many people feel there’s another reason to protest. For them, the Breonna Taylor decision was a travesty of justice, a coverup that has failed to see the guilty prosecuted. So it’s not shocking that, in 2020, people have taken to the streets.
They did it again last night.
Police in Louisville, Kentucky, say at least 24 people were arrested from a protest in the city on Thursday. A statement says charges included unlawful assembly, failure to disperse and riot in the first degree. Authorities allege the protesters broke windows at a restaurant, damaged city buses, tried to set a fire and threw a flare into the street. Among those arrested Thursday night was state Rep. Attica Scott, a Louisville Democrat who has served in the legislature since 2017 and has pushed for legislation outlawing no-knock warrants.
However, the media isn’t showing nearly as much damage as we’ve seen in past riots. Whether that’s because there simply isn’t as much or they’re just trying to not show it is anyone’s guess unless you’ve been there.
Yet protests aren’t confined to Louisville.
In Los Angeles, one protester was struck by a vehicle.
A truck drove through a group of protesters in Hollywood on Thursday night, striking at least one person as it sped through the crowd, according to the police and news footage from the scene. Demonstrators had gathered at 7 p.m. at Hollywood Forever Cemetery before marching through the streets of Hollywood. … On Thursday, the group in Hollywood was walking down Sunset Boulevard, video posted to Twitter and YouTube shows, when a dark-colored pickup accelerated among the protesters, striking one directly and hurtling the person backward. The truck then sped down Sunset Boulevard, nearly hitting other people who leaped out of the way, the footage shows. Capt. Steve Lurie, who leads the Los Angeles Police Department’s Hollywood Division, said officers stopped and identified the motorist, although they didn’t immediately arrest him. The motorist told them that protesters had attacked his car first, according to Lurie, who added that officers have noted damage to the car. Christian Monterrosa, a freelance photojournalist who was following the protest, said the truck was traveling against the flow of the crowd — west, when the group was walking east — when protesters began crowding the vehicle, trying to bring it to a stop. “I would say the truck instigated the incident, definitely,” Monterrosa said, noting that other motorists had yielded to the demonstrators.
Of course, I wouldn’t accept Monterrosa’s take on the situation in the least. I mean, I don’t know that he’s lying, but I also don’t know how much he actually understands about the situation in totality.
If, of course, this was an intentional act, the driver should be charged. However, if someone’s just traveling down a major street in their city and they find themselves in the middle of a protest, what the hell are they supposed to do? Just let their stuff get wrecked and destroyed?
We’re going to have to wait for this one to shake out.
Regardless, we’re having more and more protests and it doesn’t look like they’ll take the weekend off, either.


bearingarms--2020-09-26--New "War For The White House" W/ Ed Morrisey, Julio Rosas, & Cam Edwards

If you haven ’ t been listening to the Townhall Media podcast series “ The War for the White House , ” this weekend would be an excellent opportunity to start !
The twice-a-week series features a rotating cast of personalities from the entire Townhall Media family , and on Friday I sat down with Hot Air ’ s Ed Morrissey and Towhall ’ s Julio Rosas to discuss some of the latest developments in the 2020 election .
Since Julio was in Louisville for the grand jury announcement in the Breonna Taylor case , we started with a look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the streets and how the continued unrest may complicate Joe Biden ’ s attempt to argue that Democrats offer a better response to the riots and disorder than Donald Trump .
Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear was much quicker in calling out the National Guard compared to what we ’ ve seen from Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown and the deteriorating situation in Portland , but the Guard was in Louisville to guard infrastructure , not to help keep peace on the streets , and there ’ ve been plenty of chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daniel Cameron announced that no Louisville officers would be facing any charges directly relating to Breonna Taylor ’ s shooting death .
We also turn our attention to the upcoming Supreme Court fight over Judge Amy Comey Barrett , who Donald Trump is expected to name on Saturday to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Ed Morrissey offers up some very interesting analysis as to why he thinks Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner when it comes to fighting the confirmation , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in moving ahead with the confirmation before the election as well .
Our last big topic of conversation centers around the first presidential debate , set for next Tuesday evening .
Will Biden show up , or will he use the Barrett nomination as an excuse to decry the “ illegitimate ” nature of the Trump administration and back out of the debates completely ?
I suspect that Biden will be on stage in Cleveland next week , if for no other reason than to try to demonstrate to voters that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think that ’ s actually going to be a big part of the debate for both candidates , with at least one swing state poll showing that a majority of voters think that both Biden and Trump aren ’ t mentally fit for the job .
It ’ s a fun and fast-paced examination of where things stand at the moment , and where the fight for the White House will take us in the days ahead .
You can stream the podcast in the window above , or find The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite podcast platforms like Apple Podcasts , Spotify , and Stitcher .

If you haven’t been listening to the Townhall Media podcast series “The War for the White House,” this weekend would be an excellent opportunity to start! The twice-a-week series features a rotating cast of personalities from the entire Townhall Media family, and on Friday I sat down with Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey and Towhall’s Julio Rosas to discuss some of the latest developments in the 2020 election.
Since Julio was in Louisville for the grand jury announcement in the Breonna Taylor case, we started with a look at the “mostly peaceful” response on the streets and how the continued unrest may complicate Joe Biden’s attempt to argue that Democrats offer a better response to the riots and disorder than Donald Trump. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear was much quicker in calling out the National Guard compared to what we’ve seen from Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and the deteriorating situation in Portland, but the Guard was in Louisville to guard infrastructure, not to help keep peace on the streets, and there’ve been plenty of chaotic moments in the days since Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron announced that no Louisville officers would be facing any charges directly relating to Breonna Taylor’s shooting death.
We also turn our attention to the upcoming Supreme Court fight over Judge Amy Comey Barrett, who Donald Trump is expected to name on Saturday to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ed Morrissey offers up some very interesting analysis as to why he thinks Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner when it comes to fighting the confirmation, and we examine the potential pitfalls for the Trump campaign in moving ahead with the confirmation before the election as well.
Our last big topic of conversation centers around the first presidential debate, set for next Tuesday evening. Will Biden show up, or will he use the Barrett nomination as an excuse to decry the “illegitimate” nature of the Trump administration and back out of the debates completely? I suspect that Biden will be on stage in Cleveland next week, if for no other reason than to try to demonstrate to voters that his mental acuity isn’t an issue. I think that’s actually going to be a big part of the debate for both candidates, with at least one swing state poll showing that a majority of voters think that both Biden and Trump aren’t mentally fit for the job.
It’s a fun and fast-paced examination of where things stand at the moment, and where the fight for the White House will take us in the days ahead. You can stream the podcast in the window above, or find The War for the White House on your favorite podcast platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.