Bearing Arms

  • Norfolk Police Chief Wonders How Kids Are Getting Guns
    My old stomping grounds of Norfolk, Va. is having a bit of a problem. It’s being described as an epidemic, really. Kids are getting hold of guns. “That made me say, ‘wow, how in the hell are these kids getting these guns,’” Chief Larry Boone exclaimed when he sat down with 13News Now. Headlines revealing the trend have splashed across the screen this year. They include stories about a 14-year-old charged with shooting two 16-year-olds, a 15-year-old shot to death, and a 17-year-old shot a store clerk in an attempted robbery. Norfolk Police Chief Larry Boone said this issue is not about gun control; it’s about stopping kids from being able to get guns. The NPD has studied the issue, of course, but I could have already told him the answer to his question. They get their guns from people who don’t give a damn about gun laws. They buy them from people who would sell to anyone with cash. It’s not like these kids are going into gun stores and buying them. It’s not like they’re surfing the classified listings and buying guns from law-abiding gun owners looking to liquidate part of their collections. No. They’re finding some dirtball on the street, handing him a wad of cash–how they got the money is the topic for another discussion at another time–and they walk away with a firearm. This is how pretty much everyone else who is barred from buying a firearm but wants to get one anyway does it. Either that or they get a friend who is of age to go into a gun store and buy it for them. Straw buys like this are the alternative to the guy on the street corner selling Glocks out of his trunk. Again, this is a method many criminals use to secure firearms for themselves. I’m glad Chief Boone said it wasn’t about gun control, because, well, it wouldn’t work anyway. We’ve debated countless gun control laws and initiatives, all designed to keep guns out of criminal hands. By extension, any successful measures would also keep them out of kids’ hands. However, something we’ve noticed is that they never work. These kids are getting guns through means that aren’t legal to start with. They circumvent all the roadblocks put in place by gun control proponents. As a result, it’s safe to say even more rules won’t create an impact. A far better use of time and resources would be to study why these kids turn to crime. Keep in mind that all of the instances used to illustrate the problem involve kids committing crimes with firearms. If you figure out why they embraced crime and then work to counter that, you will accomplish far more than trying to stop the flow of guns to young people. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not cool with people selling guns to teenage thugs. I’m just realistic enough to know what’s going to happen no matter what. Instead, I think we should make it so that ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, September 25, 2018By Tom Knighton
    1 hour ago
  • NJ Judge Figures Movie Theater Security Guards Don’t Need Guns
    It wasn’t all that long ago when a deranged individual who apparently thought a Batman villain was a healthy role model shot up a Colorado movie theater. We all remember hearing about the attack, an attack that marred the release of Christopher Nolan’s second Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. That shooting also kicked off a round of demands for gun control. Those calls were at least partially answered in Colorado. However, it seems that despite the horrors of that event, some in New Jersey don’t see any reason why security guards for theaters need guns. A security guard at a local movie theater applied for a carry permit, which was approved by the borough police chief. A Superior Court judge sitting in Elizabeth, however, denied Calvin Carlstrom’s application in February — a decision that was upheld Monday by an appellate court panel. Carlstrom worked as a security guard at an AMC theater and applied for the permit to carry a gun in June 2016. He listed his occupation as a security guard for Global Security Services. He submitted several endorsements, certificates for firearms trainings and a letter from Global Security’s director of operations that noted his job duties would include “protection of life, as well as cash transfers in the theaters.” The letter from John DeVino also noted that “large amounts of cash” are moved across the theater, and that theaters have been identified as “soft targets” for terrorists by the Department of Homeland Security. Carlstrom’s application was approved by the Roselle Park police chief in October 2016, but Judge William A. Daniel denied the application without a hearing. In his denial, the judge noted that Carlstrom did not establish “justifiable need” to carry a gun. “Applicant failed to establish that he, in the course of his described employment, will be subjected to a substantial threat of serious bodily harm and that carrying a handgun is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious harm to any person,” the judge’s decision said. Then, on Monday, an appellate panel upheld the ruling. Look, I’m vehemently opposed to having to beg permission and show a justifiable need to carry a firearm, but there are a few people who clearly have that need. Law enforcement, obviously, qualifies, but so do many security guards. Especially in places like movie theaters that have been the subject of attacks before and probably will be again. But this is New Jersey. Let’s be frank here. If a security guard who deals with protecting large cash transfers supposedly lacks a “justifiable need” to carry a gun, the rank and file individual is just slap out of luck. There’s absolutely no way you’re getting a permit unless you have a documented death threat against you. Even then, though, I wouldn’t hold your breath. This really highlights the problems you see with states that have added a “need” component to its carry process. It becomes harder and harder to demonstrate a need in the minds of people who are generally well ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, September 25, 2018By Tom Knighton
    3 hours ago
  • Medical Malpractice Death 500 Times Gun Accident Fatalities
    Accidents with firearms are a problem. No one debates that. Even one is far too many, and the fact that a number of these accidents prove fatal only increases the importance of finding ways to stop these accidents. However, anti-gunners would have you believe that accidents with firearms are common. Why else would some demand gun safety training before being able to purchase a gun? The thing is, there’s something that kills people at a rate of around 500 to one that the anti-gunners never seem to consider. A Johns Hopkins University study covering eight years of data found there are at least 250,000 malpractice deaths in the U.S. annually. CNBC reports the Johns Hopkins University study presents malpractice deaths on the low end, since other studies show malpractice deaths exceeding 400,000 a year. On the other hand, accidental gun deaths hover around 500 a year. For example, the Los Angeles Times reports there were 489 accidental gun deaths in 2015, making medical malpractice deaths over 500 times higher than deaths resulting from accidental firearm discharges. The number of overall gun deaths in 2015—accidental, homicides, and suicides—was approximately 36,000, two-thirds of which were suicides. So 250,000 malpractice deaths is nearly seven times higher than gun deaths, even when counting intentional gun deaths. Awkward. Now, there are some important differences worth noting. First, there are remarkably few “accidents” with guns. Most so-called accidental shootings are instances of negligence. Someone didn’t follow the basic rules of safety, and someone died as a result. On the other hand, medical malpractice deaths may be accidents. A slip with a scalpel, for example, can happen with even the most skilled physician only to see the patient just as dead. To be sure, quite a few of those deaths are due to incompetent physicians as well–based on my conversations with my doctor and med school friends, I’m more shocked that it doesn’t happen more often–but it’s impossible to tell from here how many are true accidents and how many are the result of the doctor being a functional moron. For the families of the deceased, it doesn’t matter, though. I get that too. However, the important takeaway is, firearm accidents are exceedingly rare events in the grand scheme of things, and medical malpractice deaths–something we know is far more common–are generally ignored by the public at large. With that in mind, why are we acting like firearm accidents are this great public health crisis? They’re not. Now, that’s not to say they shouldn’t be addressed. They should. Even one is too many. It’s not an epidemic that we need new legislation to try and stem the tide, either. Of course, it was never really about gun safety. It’s about creating a world where roadblocks to purchasing firearms are accepted. Once people accept some, it’s easier to push through others. We all know this to be true. But if they want to curb deaths, maybe some of these people should look into how they can help curb medical malpractice deaths. You know, just to shake things up. The ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    17 hours ago
  • CA Man Gets Five Year Sentence For Trafficking ‘Ghost Guns’
    No matter what kind of gun control you try and enact, there will be ways around it. Especially in a country with as much wealth as the United States, where people can afford the tooling to bypass gun laws altogether. We live in a world where people can manufacture their guns because they have the technology and know-how to do so, and there’s nothing a gun-grabbing government can do about it. Well, not at least until he’s caught. A Grass Valley man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday by a U.S. District Court judge for the unlawful manufacturing and dealing of “ghost” guns, according to the federal Department of Justice. Michael Paul Grisham Smith, 44, was arrested earlier this year after contacting a firearms vendor on the darknet, a part of the internet accessible only through specialized anonymity-providing tools, seeking to sell AR-15-style firearms without serial numbers, a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. Unfortunately for Smith, the darknet isn’t inaccessible to law enforcement, and he ended up selling eight guns to an undercover officer working with Homeland Security. Not smart. It seems that because he went to the darknet to find a buyer for his guns, Smith wasn’t interested in selling guns to law-abiding citizens. Let’s call it a hunch. As such, despite disagreeing with pretty much every gun law in existence anywhere on the planet, I’m not going to feel too bad for him. Mr. Smith Goes To Prison seems appropriate considering. But there’s something anti-gunners need to consider. You see, while they look at this as proof that we need more gun laws or evidence that gun control works, they forget that Smith was able to build and sell eight guns without anyone knowing he was doing it. Only bad luck or stupidity landed him in prison. The fact of the matter is that as noted earlier today, gun control’s hopes of ever being effective are dead. In this day and age, anyone can manufacture a firearm. Between 3D printers, home CNC machines, and other goodies that are easily accessible and coming down in cost, there’s no way to prevent someone from making receivers at home, thus bypassing the background check process completely. You know, the process that doesn’t work anyway? The ship has long since set sail on gun control. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners out there still think they can make it work. They’re convinced they can pass a few more laws and suddenly, we become a crime-free Utopia. So they keep pushing for more laws, keep agitating for more gun control, all the while oblivious to the mountains of evidence that not only is it unconstitutional, but it doesn’t even work. I’d be flabbergasted by this, except for one thing. These are often the same people who claim that socialism will work this time. Seriously, there’s considerable overlap between the two groups, so it’s not surprising that despite all the technology in home workshops that can be used ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    19 hours ago
  • Cruz Hammers O’Rourke Over Gun Control, Forces Him To Claim To Support 2A
    The race for the Senate taking place in Texas is one of the most interesting in the country. On one hand, we have Ted Cruz, a candidate for president who many figured had a legitimate shot at winning the GOP primary, now in a tough race to hold onto his Senate seat. On the other, we have a far-left progressive in a state that’s among the reddest of the red, and if one believes the primetime pundits, he also has a real shot at winning. Friday night, the two went head to head in a debate that had Cruz hammer his opponent over gun control, an issue unlikely to play well in Texas. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz got his Democratic opponent to claim multiple times during Friday’s Texas senatorial debate that he supports an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, despite promoting stricter gun control policies. During a heated exchange regarding the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court, Cruz asserted Democratic Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke wants to elect “liberal judicial activists on the court” — a claim O’Rourke did not dispute. “The justices that Congressman O’Rourke would insist upon, like Hillary Clinton, are justices who would undermine and effectively write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution,” Cruz said. “Those are radical views, and they’re not views consistent with the overwhelming majority of Texans.” “Congressman O’Rourke … wants justices who would overturn [District of Columbia v. Heller],” Cruz continued. “Let me tell you the position of the dissenters — the dissenters in Heller said that no individual, no American whatsoever, has any right to keep and bear arms whatsoever … That’s what Congressman O’Rourke wants to see the Supreme Court doing — writing the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.” He’s not wrong. Look, the text of the Second Amendment is clear. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” O’Rourke wants to infringe all over that right. He can say he supports the Second Amendment until he’s blue in the face. It doesn’t mean he does. I mean, I’m pretty sure Harvey Weinstein would have said he supported feminism. It doesn’t mean that he does or did. What we see in O’Rourke is the classic “I support the Second Amendment but…” He espouses support for the Second simply because it’s politically expedient to say so. But there’s absolutely nothing in his positions that backs that up. His position on Heller makes that perfectly clear. After all, Heller maintained that the Second Amendment was an individual right. Overturn that, and we end up in a world where the Second Amendment is meaningless. It’s easy to say you support something and not mean it, especially when you’re running for office in a state where voters expect their officials to support that very thing. But it doesn’t mean there’s any real support there. O’Rourke is as much of a Second Amendment supporter as David Hogg, ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    21 hours ago
  • Broadway Props Maker Busted For Trying To 3D Print A Gun
    I’ve remarked that 3D printing represents an end to any hope that gun control could or would ever be a viable concept. Now, anyone anywhere can print out the parts necessary to assemble a firearm. Gun control laws are effectively powerless to stop it. A prime example of that was found in New York City where a propmaker working on Broadway’s The Lion King was recently arrested. Cops from the Midtown South precinct arrived at the Minskoff Theatre on West 45th Street at 12:30 p.m., and went backstage to collect Ilya Vett, 47, the assistant supervisor for the prop department. Vett, of Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn, was in the midst of 3-D printing “a hard black plastic object which, based on my training and experience, is shaped like a revolver,” a cop swore in Vett’s criminal complaint. “I brought the 3-D printer in [to the theater] from my workshop because my workshop is too dusty,” Vett told cops, according to the complaint. “It’s mine … I was making the gun as a gift to my brother,” the complaint said he added. “He lives upstate and has a firearms license. There’s a website that has plans for the gun. I downloaded the plans onto the SD card in the printer.” … Manhattan prosecutors reduced the charges, leaving Vett facing one count of attempted criminal possession of a firearm — which is still a felony, though at the lowest level. The charge carries anywhere from no jail to a maximum of four years prison. There’s no mention of how police were alerted to the act, though making it in the theater wasn’t the brightest move humanly possible. More people to see it meant a greater chance someone would recognize what it was, after all. But what if Vett kept the printer at his home? Despite New York City’s much-vaunted gun control laws, Vett would have still been in possession of a firearm. It doesn’t matter that he was supposedly making it for his brother. He would have had a gun in his grubby little paws despite the gun laws. Yes, in this case, he tried it and was arrested because he was stupid. Or, more correctly, probably because he was ignorant and unthinking. If he’d been acting with nefarious intent, it’s unlikely he would have taken the printer to the theater at all. But because he probably believed he wasn’t doing anything wrong, he did what he did. But in the process, he showed that the days of pretending New York City can keep guns out are long over. We already knew that, of course. We have decades of history proving that firearms still find their way into the city. But now, they can be made right there inside the city by anyone with the equipment. And the equipment is becoming far more common and cost-effective. Couple that with all the other technology that’s already made it possible to build a firearm, and the days of gun control are over. If only the ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    23 hours ago
  • Maryland’s Republican Governor Loses NRA Support After Betrayal
    If any political group supports a candidate for office, they expect certain things from that candidate. It’s just how the game is played. No, this doesn’t mean they “own” the candidate or anything. The support from these groups comes because they believe the candidate aligns with them in the first place, but that makes it no less of a betrayal when the candidate takes office and goes against those positions. As such, the National Rifle Association’s decision to pull support from Maryland’s governor makes perfect sense. Maryland’s Republican governor lost the support of the National Rifle Association and had his ranking downgraded Saturday after signing gun control legislation. NRA downgrades Hogan's ranking, declines to endorse him https://t.co/LigQqrOL0W pic.twitter.com/IG2mXZvg82 — Sun Breaking News (@BaltSunBrk) September 22, 2018 The Baltimore Sun first reported that the organization wouldn’t endorse Gov. Larry Hogan during his re-election campaign as it had during his successful 2014 run for office. The organization reduced Hogan’s “A-“ rating earned four years ago to a “C,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Sun. The grading reflects how well the candidate protects the rights of gun owners. Hogan had signed a series of gun control bills in April, including a ban on “bump stocks” — devices that let a weapon fire repeatedly, like a machine gun — and a “red flag law” that makes it easier to remove guns from individuals deemed dangerous, the Hill reported. Hogan had reportedly claimed he would reject the NRA’s endorsement, while simultaneously claiming to still believe in the Second Amendment. Of course, that’s a line of male bovine excrement. By his actions, Hogan has created more infringements on Marylanders’ gun rights with a stroke of the pen. The NRA expected Hogan to defend people’s gun rights, and he didn’t. The governor joked that the NRA weren’t big fans of his, and he’s right. But they’re not the only one critical of Hogan’s betrayal. It’s not like this created any goodwill with gun control supporters in his state. They viewed his move from a more cynical point of view, which means he alienated his side while not making headway with the other. Further, I can’t help but wonder just what good Governor Hogan has been for gun owners in the state. Truth be told, bump stocks and red flag laws aren’t the worst betrayals possible. If he’d been crusading for Marylanders’ gun rights before signing this bill, I might have believed the Republican supported the Second Amendment. About the most he’s reportedly done is appoint pro-gun members to a body that hears appeals of denied conceal carry permit applications. That’s it. His refusal to try and budge the needle of liberty, though, prior to signing more gun control is a slap in the face of every gun rights supporter who voted for Governor Hogan. Frankly, I think the NRA dropping his grade to a “C” is proof that the organization is being fair with its grades if you ask me. If it were up to me, ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • How Background Checks Have Failed To Deliver On Promises
    When you go to purchase a firearm from an FFL, you have to go through a background check. It doesn’t matter if this happens at a gun show, a gun store, or some guy with an FFL who deals firearms out of his kitchen. The rules are the same, and you have to go through the check regardless. The only exception are states that allow a concealed carry permit to serve as a background check, which makes sense considering the first thing you lose when you’re convicted of a disqualifying offense is your permit. But does it actually do anything? I mean, we keep seeing bad guys get guns easily enough despite the Brady checks. If that’s the case, then are they actually doing anything? Gun Owners of American executive director Erich Pratt took to the pages of USA Today last week to express his thoughts on the topic, and he makes some good points. “ATF agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous.” Those words, quoted last year by USA TODAY, explain why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and local governments are not prosecuting most gun buyers who get denied by FBI background checks. It’s because these people are largely not the “bad guys.” Rather, they consist of hundreds of thousands of veterans who didn’t know they had been stripped of their constitutional rights without due process. Or they’re people subject to bench warrants who didn’t realize their unpaid traffic tickets made them outlaws. Or they were people like Navy veteran Jeff Schrader, whose 45-year-old misdemeanor conviction for a street fight prevented him from buying a gun. The FBI understands that to prosecute these cases would be a joke. As even noted in this month’s Government Accountability Office report, “These cases are not appealing to judges and juries. (Officials) find juries questioning why the case is being prosecuted.” The report also shows that states are achieving a horrid conviction rate of about 10 percent in prosecuting these cases. After hundreds of millions of dollars spent, the Brady background check has failed to live up to its promises. Yet USA TODAY wants to double down and enforce a failed law even more vigorously. Pratt makes a good point. If background checks were the least bit effective, then maybe expanding background checks might make sense. But they haven’t really done a whole hell of a lot. It doesn’t do a thing to deal with black market guns. It doesn’t prevent the theft of firearms from law-abiding gun owners–you know, the people who passed their background checks in the first place. Honestly, they’ve done much of anything. At all. Of course, supporters of universal background checks would claim that the fact that not every purchase has to go through a background check is why they’re ineffective, but that’s a load of crap. If you want a gun, you want a gun, that’s true. And it’s also true that if you purchase a gun in a face-to-face transfer, you don’t have to go through the check. However, ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, September 24, 2018By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • Police Say Seattle Man Stole Dozens Of Guns, But Did He Get His Background Check
    Firearm thefts are a serious problem. No one wants to see guns in the hands of bad people, and regardless of who ends up with them, stolen guns are stolen property. They belong with their rightful owners no matter what. Not only that, but stolen firearms are often used in such a way that anti-gun proponents can point to the misuse as justification for more gun control. The fact that stolen guns, by definition, mean they will never be subject to gun control seems completely irrelevant to them. However, Seattle Police say one man has stolen dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. SEATTLE – Seattle police are investigating after they said a man stole at least a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition from a house in South Seattle Wednesday. … A Beacon Hill resident called police to report the apparent burglary after arriving at his home in the 4000 block of 14th Avenue South and finding several empty shipping boxes on his front porch. The boxes, where the ammunition had been stored, were pried open and emptied. Well, let’s hope he also stole a gun safe. He wouldn’t want to run afoul of Seattle’s safe storage law, now would he? Oh, and I hope he went through the background check before he stole those guns. After all, Washington has universal background checks, so the fact that he didn’t steal them from a gun store shouldn’t matter. Also, if he’s going to sell those stolen guns to his criminal friends, I hope he knows an FFL who will conduct the transfer in compliance with those universal background check laws. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? Well, yeah, it does. We all know that criminals don’t obey these laws. They steal guns. They buy guns on the black market. They lie on federal forms to buy guns through law-abiding gun dealers. They bypass every law created to keep them disarmed and do so with impunity. But still, Seattle keeps clamoring for more laws in some misguided effort to keep guns out of these people’s hands. I get the motivation. I really and truly do. But I also recognize that if you want to combat violent crime, you’re not going to do it by trying to restrict the weapon. England tried that and what happened? Crime went out of control because the law-abiding were unarmed. While it does look like they did a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of a lot of criminals as well–something that wouldn’t happen here–they didn’t curb violent crime. The bad guys just started using knives. Then London doubled down. You can give a law-abiding man a rocket launcher, and he’ll never be a problem. The violent criminal will murder with their bare hands. Why is this so damn hard for anti-gunners to see? The violent will be violent, and that’s why gun control is a problem. Anti-gunners will claim that all laws affect criminals, so by our logic, we shouldn’t have laws against murder, etc. The ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Troubling Information About The Wisconsin Mass Shooter Released
    New information has come out about the mass shooter who seriously wounded three people at his place of employment, and who was ultimately shot and killed by police, in Middleton, Wis. on Wednesday. According to a report from the Miluawakee Journal Sentinel, the shooter, whose name will not appear in this article, has a history of mental health issues. While living in South Dakota in 2004, Sioux Falls police visited the man, where they found him to be “delusional” and “paranoid.” The shooter at the time was armed and had dismantled fire alarms in his home because he thought his neighbors were listening to him. Here’s more from the Miluawakee Journal Sentinel. Sioux Falls Police Department officers were called to [the shooter’s] apartment building in August 2004 after an alarm company alerted his landlord that [he] had disabled a fire alarm in his apartment, according to Minnehaha County, South Dakota Sheriff’s Department records. Police found [he] had disabled smoke alarms, ceiling lights, ceiling fans and anything attached to a wall or ceiling that was powered by electricity. [The shooter] said he had disabled everything because “people in the apartment below him were eavesdropping on him.” Police said [the shooter] was acting defensive, delusional and paranoid, and was carrying a loaded handgun with a double magazine, pepper spray and two knives. Police also found a Colt AR-15 rifle in the apartment and a large amount of ammunition. Years later, in March of 2017, the shooter reportedly moved to Wisconsin. Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke told the Miluawakee Journal Sentinel that a federally licensed firearms dealer would know about the revocation of the shooter’s gun permit, but also said he wasn’t sure if the incident in 2004 “involved [the shooter’s] workplace and whether the incident would show up on a criminal background check.” Reports are also stating that police are having a difficult time tracing the firearm the shooter used because the gun is “unique.” Though this information provides more background on the shooter, the police chief is cautioning people not to jump to conclusions. The Miluawakee Journal Sentinel reports Foulke as saying: We must use caution in trying to jump to conclusions that this is a mental health shooting-related incident. And also we need to be cautious that we don’t paint everyone with a broad brush of everyone with a mental health issue is going to become an active shooter because as we know, that is not the case and that is not at all what we are trying to push out today. … He came to work that day and was working on a normal basis when this happened. The shooting in Wisconsin hasn’t received the typical wall-to-wall coverage other mass shootings have gotten, but these developments may push it back into the spotlight as lawmakers, at the state and federal level, will have to wonder how gun laws failed to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone prohibited from owning one. The post Troubling Information ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Micah Rate
    4 days ago
  • March For Our Lives Co-Founder Leaves Group, Admits Mistakes
    There are a handful of names I routinely think of when it comes to the March For Our Lives crowd. David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez appear to be the two biggest, but the name Cameron Kasky has been mentioned on the pages of Bearing Arms by yours truly more than once. Like the rest of that particular gaggle of young people, Kasky was fairly bombastic in his anti-gun crusade, but I haven’t heard a lot from him over the last couple of months. Now, it seems that Kasky has left the group he helped found and is admitting to some mistakes in how he approached the whole issue of campaigning for gun control. On going after Senator Rubio at the town hall: I’m very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I’ve made along the way. One of the things I never really did was watch myself. If I was on a screen I kind of tried to run away from it. I’m not entirely sure why. But, looking back on that it’s like you said, you touched off on this very well in the intro, I’m not going to kick myself for it because I’m 17. Despite the fact that I thought I did at the time, I don’t know everything. But, I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you’re looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it’s hard not to say something like that. But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw. … On his plans going forward: This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that’s how they like to protect their family. I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time. I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives and also the fact that so often young conservatives and young liberals will go into debate, like I said earlier, trying to beat the other one as oppose to come to an agreement…I’m working on some efforts to encourage bipartisanship or at least discussion that is productive and help a lot of people avoid the mistakes that I made. (6:33) Kasky is also kicking off a podcast called “Cameron Knows Nothing.” He argues that he was “dropped up” as an expert when, in reality, he’s not an expert on anything. Well, we knew that, but I’m going to give Kasky credit. He’s recognized this about himself while his former cohorts haven’t grasped that reality yet. It sounds like Kasky hasn’t become pro-gun, but he may be understanding that people on this ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Cody Wilson, Man Behind 3-D Printed Firearms, Arrested In Taiwan
    Reports surfaced on Wednesday that Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson–the man behind the 3-D printed firearm who’s in a legal battle with several states to distribute his blueprints on the internet–was wanted for the sexual assault of minor who he paid for sex. Mr. Wilson has now been arrested, but not by U.S. authorities. According to a report from Fox News and the Associated Press (AP), Mr. Wilson was arrested in Taiwan after U.S. officials learned of his whereabouts. Officials revoked his passport, allowing Taiwanese officials to take him into custody. According to Fox, authorities say they will not question Mr. Wilson until Saturday. Here’s more on the story (via Fox and AP): Wilson was arrested in a hotel in Taipei’s Wanhua District, said the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He arrived in Taiwan on Sept. 6 using his real passport. The U.S. revoked his passport after they realized he was in Taiwan, which is why Taiwanese officials were able to arrest him, the official said. Wilson was alone at the time of his arrest and was very cooperative, the official said. He didn’t have any weapons on him at the time of his arrest. Authorities won’t question him until Saturday. Austin police Cmdr. Troy Officer told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the department was working with national and international law enforcement to locate Wilson, who missed a scheduled flight back to the U.S. from Taiwan. Officials said a friend of the girl told Wilson before he left for Taiwan that police were investigating the allegation against him. Initial reports did not give the age of the girl that Mr. Wilson allegedly assaulted, but the police affidavit did say she was a minor under the age of 17. Cmdr. Officer told the AP that the girl is 16-years-old. Another development: investigators found out that the hotel room where the girl alleges the assault happened was registered under Mr. Wilson’s name. According to Texas Age of Consent Laws, the age of consent refers to “the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity,” is 17-years-old. Because the alleged victim and accuser is 16-years-old, officials can prosecute Mr. Wilson for statutory rape. Under Texas law, statutory rape is broken up into three different categories: aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and indecency with a child. It seems the category of sexual assault would apply in this case. If convicted, Mr. Wilson faces a minimum of two years in prison with a maximum sentence of 20 years. He could also be fined $100,000 for his crime, and would be required to register as a sex offender. The post Cody Wilson, Man Behind 3-D Printed Firearms, Arrested In Taiwan appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Micah Rate
    4 days ago
  • The Trace Celebrates The NRA Losing Members Last Year
    The NRA is the most vilified civil rights organization in the nation. While groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center is defaming people, and getting hit with lawsuits for it, it still has the trust of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, the NRA is doing what it said it would do, but every potential misstep is amplified as some kind of proof the organization is evil. Now, The Trace–a media website whose sole focus seems to be combatting the NRA–is happy to report that NRA membership was down last year. The National Rifle Association suffered a sharp decline in membership dues last year despite a historic fee hike, according to financial statements made public today. The statements, covering the NRA’s operations in 2017 and obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics, also showed a substantial decline in total revenue and a drop in the NRA’s ability to cover its debts. The 22 percent drop in membership revenue — from $163 million in 2016 to $128 million last year — is striking given that the NRA increased its membership dues in March 2016 for the first time in decades (and then raised them a second time last summer). It also recently began claiming a membership of six million, up from “more than five million” in January 2016. The NRA offers a variety of different membership programs at different price points — one-year, three-year, lifetime, etc. — but experts contacted by The Trace were unable to explain how the group could be drawing less revenue from more members charged higher prices. We asked Marcus Owens, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit law and a partner at Loeb and Loeb, if it looks like the NRA is shedding members. “I think that’s a reasonable explanation for the difference in the numbers,” he said. Well, the NRA might have been “shedding members.” Last year. This year, however, numerous individuals renewed their membership or purchased one for the very first time as the NRA came under assault in the wake of the Parkland massacre. In the immediate aftermath of that deadly attack, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel immediately sought to blame the civil rights organization for the failures of his department. With the help of a complicit media, the attacks stuck and the anti-gunners began an assault. That meant that a lot of people who had left the NRA for a number of reasons over the years came flocking back. They may have had issues with the NRA–a lot of us were less than thrilled with their stance on the need for a bump stock ban, for example–but they had a bigger issue with the people attacking the NRA. So yeah, they may have had membership drop. Maybe. Frankly, I don’t care. The NRA has never been purely about the membership. There are a lot of gun rights activists who follow the NRA’s lead, even if they don’t have a membership card in their wallets. The NRA’s grades for politicians is but one example. One of many. If I were The Trace, I’d ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Big Apple Gun Applicants Claim Racial Bias
    Getting a gun in New York City is a difficult endeavor. You have to be permitted just to buy a gun, and it’s not like they’re “shall issue” permits, either. They don’t make it easy, and truth be told, it hasn’t shown much of an impact on crime. After all, the city has seen crime rise and fall with no change in the gun laws. Still, don’t expect the law to change anytime soon. However, some New Yorkers are claiming racial bias is playing a role in who gets permits and who doesn’t. New York Firearms Law and Second Amendment firm Tilem & Associates, PC filed three lawsuits, two at the state supreme court and one at the federal court in Manhattan, claiming the New York Police Department’s Gun Division uses capricious considerations that disproportionately deny gun permits to black applicants. Back in April, attorney Peter Howard Tilem, wrote on the New York Criminal Attorney Blog that in February of 2017, “during a hearing at the NYPD License Division offices before an NYPD hearing officer, a Detective assigned to the investigation section of the License Division testified under oath about using dismissed arrests as a basis to recommend revocation of an African-American license holder’s license.” Tilem noted the Detective testified at the hearing that anything brought to the attention of the NYPD License Division was established as an “incident.” Moreover, The NYPD “did not necessarily consider the quality of the incidents but rather the sheer number and that included dismissed arrests,” Tilem wrote. Tilem’s firm looked at statistics from the NY State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and found that between 2010 and 2016 “African-Americans were approximately twice as likely to get arrested for something that was ultimately dismissed or for something that the District Attorney’s Office refused to prosecute.” Because of the numbers and the testimony of the NYPD detective, the firm concluded: “There is evidence of racial bias in the way the NYPD issues and revokes firearms licenses.” Tilem attorneys say that their offices have been flooded with similar claims by black gun permit applicants in New York City. Tilem associate attorney Robert Schechter told The Daily Caller Monday night the firm currently represents two black males, John Allen and the Devon Thomas. Both applied for New York City gun permits and each was rejected. Neither had felony records but each had records of dismissed arrests. “Devon Thomas is an African-American male security guard who was falsely arrested two times and has been awarded money judgments from the city based on those arrests. Those dismissed arrested had been used to deny him. Ultimately, he had to hire a lawyer and he got his license,”Schechter told The Daily Caller. Now, I’m at the point where calls of racial bias tend to cause me to roll my eyes. It’s a kind of fatigue where something is claimed to be so often enough that you get tired of hearing about it. But this is different. Dismissed arrests are arrests that shouldn’t count at ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Tammy Baldwin Thinks Middleton Shooting Proves Need For More Gun Control
    More and more of the time, we on the pro-gun side of things look at mass shootings and after we process the loss, start to look at just how the anti-gunners will try and spin this to justify more restrictions of our civil liberties. For example, after Las Vegas, bump stocks became the targets. After Parkland, we saw renewed calls for an assault weapon ban. We’re still reeling from the loss of life, but have to also go on the defensive against anti-gun jihadists who want to take away or restrict our rights. It’s exhausting, but it’s also consistent. It will happen. And, right on cue, we have Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin doing just that. Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin says the shooting at a Middleton software company shows the need for gun control measures that are “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Baldwin said at a news conference Thursday that she supports universal background checks and banning rapid-fire “bump stock” devices. The push in Congress to ban bump stocks came after one was used in the Las Vegas shooting last year that was the deadliest in modern U.S. history, killing 58. Authorities have not indicated that such a device was used in the Middleton shooting. In other words, we don’t even have all the facts in yet, but Baldwin is trotting out a series of the gun control side’s favorite hits anyway. We don’t know how the killer got his firearm. We don’t know anything other than it was a semi-automatic handgun, the kind that would be minimally impacted by assault weapon bans. The kind that doesn’t have bump stocks. Baldwin, however, is showing the great anti-gun tendency to lash out at anything to do with firearms simply because someone used a gun in a horrific crime. Note, however, that there’s no call for studying these events and trying to uncover an actual cause. No, that might not work to advance the narrative that guns are evil. What we see here is the kind of knee-jerk reactionaryism that Democrats claim to demonize, yet engage in on a regular basis. In this case, Baldwin is calling for gun control, any gun control, in an effort to be seen as “doing something.” She’s trying to react to what happened as a way of telling the voters in her district that she just cares so hard. But the problem is that anyone with half a brain will recognize that there’s no evidence that any of her policy suggestions would do a thing to combat mass shootings like Middleton. Oh, she could add that to the grab bag if she wanted and claim she was looking at more than just Middleton and probably get away with it…if she actually addressed what happened in Middleton. She isn’t doing that. She’s just throwing out some favorite gun control measures, screaming “Middleton!” like a madwoman, and hoping everyone will be too traumatized to call her on it. Well, they’re not. While Middleton was awful, it wasn’t Las Vegas and it ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Maryland Mass Shooting Bucks Trends Of Such Events
    The tragedy that unfolded in Maryland yesterday was troubling. As the media has noted, it’s the third workplace mass shooting in just 24 hours, which is just…weird. However, this one also showed that with mass shootings, things aren’t always universally true in these events. A mass shooting broke out Thursday in Maryland at a Rite Aid distribution center, about 35 miles northeast of Baltimore. Police say a 26-year-old woman armed with a handgun opened fire on coworkers. Three were killed and three others wounded. The woman then shot herself and later died. First responders arrived on scene just after 9 a.m., about five minutes after the shooting began. Terrified employees poured out of the facility as police and medical first responders arrived, finding a horrific scene where seven people had been shot. Three of the victims died and three others were seriously injured. The seventh was the shooter, identified by police as Snochia Moseley, a temporary employee of the facility. “Our suspect is a lone female suspect, age 26, who had a last known address in Baltimore County,” Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler said. “She has died at the hospital from a fatal injury, self-inflicted gunshot wound.” She used a 9mm Glock handgun. Her motive was not made immediately clear. The fact that it was a female shooter is the big difference here. Typically, mass shooters are male, but yesterday’s shooting was conducted by a female. This is the second high-profile attack conducted by a woman this year. In April, a woman entered YouTube headquarters and opened fire. Does this represent a new trend for mass shootings? Have the gender equality bunch finally gotten their hooks into mass shooting unions for equal representation? Seriously, it’s too early for this to mean anything. We don’t know why the killer conducted the attack. We don’t know anything at this point, though I suspect we will sooner or later. What we do know, however, is that this is another attack conducted with a handgun at a time when the anti-gun zealots are still pushing for an assault weapon ban. We also know that this is yet another mass shooting in a state known for strict gun control policies. Remember, Maryland isn’t one of the first names you think of when it comes to gun control only because states like California and New York exist. In other words, we just had a mass shooting in a state where they’ve done everything the anti-gunners say we need to do nationally to stop mass shootings. Hmmmmmm. Of course, I expect there to be more calls in Maryland for gun control measures that will do nothing to actually address the problem, but allow anti-gun politicians to pat themselves on the back and pretend to be making a difference without even coming close to addressing the real problem. We need to figure out what the hell makes some people flip out and kill folks like this, but that will never happen while politicians are grandstanding. At least this time, toxic masculinity won’t ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, September 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Right About Guns And Schools
    Georgia gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp may not have enjoyed the NRA’s endorsement during the Republican primary, but that doesn’t mean that he’s anti-gun by a long shot. He made that clear in some recent comments regarding school safety. Georgia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp has unveiled a $90 million proposal for school security focused on mental health and local control. But absent from his plan was any mention of the topic that has dominated the national conversation around school safety: guns. “This is a school safety proposal. This has nothing to do with Second Amendment protections or gun control ideas that my opponent might have,” Kemp said, referring to Democrat Stacey Abrams. The plan includes funding for a support counselor program in high schools to assist students dealing with issues such as mental health problems, opioid abuse, bullying and violence in the home. The proposal also calls for a one-time $30,000 infusion for each of Georgia’s 2,292 public schools that local officials can use for “school security purposes” specific to their schools. Kemp also wants to create a new school safety division within the Georgia Department of Education using existing funds from the department. But Abrams’ campaign said that gun safety measures are essential to keeping Georgia’s schoolchildren safe. “Commonsense gun safety measures, including repealing campus carry, are essential to ensuring our schools are safe,” said Abrams’ spokeswoman Priyanka Mantha. Too bad that campus carry makes our schools safe. Kemp is completely accurate. School safety isn’t a gun issue. It shouldn’t be. It’s about prevention and hardening schools, so they’re not targets in the first place. Banning so-called assault rifles or imposing waiting periods doesn’t change that. Most school shootings are carried out by a kid with a stolen handgun, not an AR-15, contrary to what the media might want you to believe. Trying to enact gun control isn’t going to happen, but even if it did, it wouldn’t solve the problem of school shootings. By focusing on school safety without infringing on the Second Amendment, Kemp is making it clear that he sees the solutions as making schools a bad choice of target, which is the preventative measure that works for most crime. Don’t believe me? Whose house is most likely to be broken into? The one with burglar bars and a home alarm system, or the one with overgrown bushes to hide behind, no lights outside, and no alarm? It’s important to remember that the vast majority of school shooters aren’t able to legally purchase guns anyway, so adding further restrictions to firearm purchases won’t make a dent in the problem. But make it so that schools are too difficult a place to kill a lot of people, and guess what? You end much of the problem. It won’t eliminate the problem because nothing will. It will, however, minimize it which is about the best you can do until we somehow figure out a cure for violence. Since that’s not likely to happen, how about we harden schools and punish ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Doctors Across Nation Plan Stand Against Gun-Related Violence
    If a doctor wants to get me riled up, all they have to do is use their credentials as justification to talk about guns. In fairness, history has shown me that if I want to rile up doctors, all I have to do is express my opinions of their profession when it comes to guns. In truth, there are a lot of doctors who don’t like the AMA’s anti-gun line. I’ve talked to them. But it’s easy to forget that part when large groups of them are stepping up to tell us all about how we need to pay attention to gun-related violence. Healthcare providers assembled at hospitals across the country Monday for Stand Safe, an initiative co-founded by retired U.S. Air Force Col. Dean Winslow, Stanford’s Professor of Medicine, and Sarabeth Spitzer, a fourth-year medical student and Harvard graduate. Presenters wore blue scrubs with the SAFE (Scrubs Addressing the Firearms Epidemic) logo and spoke about the medical realities — and difficulties — of treating gunshot wounds, both in the immediate aftermath and long-term. “We’re looking at this from the perspective of people who care for victims of gun violence — including children — and as people who also have actually seen gun violence up close,” Winslow told Stanford News. “And we really feel that our country can do better in terms of reducing the terrible toll.” “We need to do thorough, nationwide research to figure out what are the most effective ways to prevent these injuries,” Spitzer said. “And once we have evidence to show certain policies are effective, we should implement those policies as soon as possible.” Here are a couple of takeaways from this. One, they’re acknowledging that there’s no evidence that current gun control proposals work. Why else would they need research to figure out the most effective ways to prevent violence? Frankly, I also have no issue with that. I’ve been calling for the same thing for my entire time here at Bearing Arms. I’ve argued that we’d do better to find the causes of violence and create policies dealing with that rather than taking away one weapon and hoping the violent people won’t find another. But on the same token, a lot of this really has little to do with physicians. Yes, I’ll agree there are times when it makes sense for a doctor to talk with a patient about firearms. Teaching gun safety to someone who has been shot as a result of negligence with a firearm, for example. There are other times as well. I’m not about to argue that point. But, it seems like these particular doctors want to get more involved in their patients’ lives when it deals with guns. In the process, though, it’s likely to create distrust between physicians and their gun-owning patients who are likely to resent the intrusion. Various gun groups are rife with stories of doctor’s prying about firearm ownership during even routine visits, and the resentment is evident. However, if we focused on looking at ways to prevent violence ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Another Case of Massachusetts AG Thinking Laws Don’t Apply To Her
    Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is a real piece of work. Not only does she unilaterally decide that firearms created to comply with the state’s assault weapon ban are suddenly illegal without any legislative process, but now she feels that the state’s freedom of information laws don’t apply to her in the least. As The Truth About Guns notes: Healey is one of the 21 state attorneys general who are suing Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed in a prior restraint attempt to quash his free speech rights and prevent him from making his 3D gun files available via the Internet. The plaintiffs, Brent Carlton and Brandon Combs, wanted some information about the AG’s activities in that regard. … But Healey has denied the plaintiffs’ information request, ostensibly because she said it would tip her hand in her efforts to keep the scourge of 3D gun files off of the Internet. As far as Healey’s concerned, the state’s public records law simply doesn’t apply to her, not when there are more important considerations — like gun control and restricting First and Second Amendment rights — in play. Now, most state information laws do provide a few exceptions. For example, personnel issues are often kept out of the public eye. Additionally, there’s an exception made for information regarding business dealings where revealing the information might put the state at a disadvantage. But that’s not remotely what we’re talking about here. No, this is an elected official who believes the rules don’t apply to her in her war against guns, gun owners, and the Second Amendment. What bothers me the most is that there are no real repercussions for Healey. At best, she’ll get a contempt of court charge at some point. Right now, this was a freedom of information request (or whatever Massachusetts calls its version of the law), so that’s not even particularly likely. Instead, Healey can continue to act the tyrant with her secret police tactics and hide behind claims of the public good. The fact is, she needs to cough up this information. If she doesn’t, then there need to be real penalties for elected officials who so blatantly ignore the law while performing their interpretation of their duties. Maura Healey needs to be removed from office, thrown in prison, and allowed to rot there for a good long time. Her and every other would-be despot desperately trying to willfully undermine the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. But that won’t happen, and we all know it. Healey will probably move onto either a higher office or a cushy private sector job that nets her a six-figure income and few actual responsibilities. She won’t be punished for her transgressions; she’ll be rewarded for them. Meanwhile, the gun owners of Massachusetts will be left trying to figure out how to navigate these laws and the fact that the precedent has been set for future attorneys general. Ignore the laws as written and make it up ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Breaking: Report Of Mass Shooting In Aberdeen, Maryland
    Early Thursday morning, reports came in about a mass shooting with “multiple victims” near Aberdeen, Md. The Harford Sheriff Twitter account confirmed a mass shooting had taken place. It also stated that the “situation is fluid” and asked people to “please avoid the area.” The situation is said to no longer be active. We can confirm there was a shooting in the area of Spesutia Road and Perryman Road. Multiple victims. The situation is still fluid. Please avoid the area. Media staging area still TBD. — Harford Sheriff (@Harford_Sheriff) September 20, 2018 Shortly after 9 a.m., Harford Deputies were dispatched to the scene. Deputies were dispatched to the reported shooting at 9:09 a.m. — Harford Sheriff (@Harford_Sheriff) September 20, 2018 ATF Baltimore is also responding to the incident. Special Agents from ATF Baltimore are responding to a shooting incident in Harford County, Md. Follow our @Harford_Sheriff partners for all official updates. https://t.co/PFw3BXCrt1 — ATF Baltimore (@ATFBaltimore) September 20, 2018 Little is known about the shooting, as there is no information regarding the total number of victims, who the shooter is and if they’re in custody, or what type of firearm was used. However, recent reports state that at least three people have died. Three killed in shooting at Rite Aid distribution center in Maryland https://t.co/nSchrCazmV pic.twitter.com/BmVeWQTvOE — FOX 13 News Utah (@fox13) September 20, 2018 Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is “closely monitoring” the situation. We are closely monitoring the horrific shooting in Aberdeen. Our prayers are with all those impacted, including our first responders. The State stands ready to offer any support. https://t.co/fzugpo8C1Z — Governor Larry Hogan (@GovLarryHogan) September 20, 2018 A media update is set for 11:45 a.m. ET at a designated media staging area. Media update: Sheriff will brief the media on shooting at 11:45 AM. Please head to the media staging area. — Harford Sheriff (@Harford_Sheriff) September 20, 2018 This is a developing story that will be updated as more information becomes available. The post Breaking: Report Of Mass Shooting In Aberdeen, Maryland appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Micah Rate
    5 days ago
  • UC-Berkeley Police Asked Not To Use Restrooms So As To Not Trigger Students
    If there’s one place on Earth you’d go to see the dumbest ideas imaginable put into practice, I’d probably tell you it’s UC-Berkeley. Perhaps the most liberal school in the country, it’s a perfect convergence of liberalism and ivory tower elitism. It’s the kind of place that is convinced that idiotic ideas will not only work but will flourish. The latest bit of evidence for that assertion? They want campus police to not use restrooms on campus because it triggers students. Yes. Really. A redacted email to Chancellor Carol Christ from an unidentified “security patrol officer” was published by the Young America’s Foundation Monday, obtained through a public-records request. The email is dated Sept. 28, 2017, and the context is last year’s “Free Speech Week” activities headlined by anti-feminist provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. A YAF spokesperson told The College Fix the conservative group filed the request in April 2017 and “just recently” received the email, among other documents it’s still reviewing. The officer is not identified by gender in the email, but YAF’s Monday post says it’s a male. (His name and email handle are redacted, but the Berkeley.edu domain is intact.) The 25-year veteran said he and his colleagues had “never been treated with such disrespect and disregard” as they were during Free Speech Week. They were using a ballroom to rest and eat in the student union building, and it was “completely understandable” when they were asked to use an external stairwell to get in and out of the ballroom, so as not to disrupt student activities. What was “offensive and unacceptable” was when they were asked to “not to use any restrooms” in the building, “as it was upsetting some students,” he said. (The officer’s email is phrased in the passive tense, and does not give any clue as to who made these requests, even as general as building staff or student activists.) Honestly, it doesn’t matter who made the request. Berkeley is one of those places where, as we’ve seen in the past, if the outrage mob that passes for a student body there demands it, the administration will capitulate. But this is taking things too far. Way too far. The presence of campus police on campus is “upsetting” to some students? Well, grow the hell up, buttercup. Police are a fact of life, and once you’re out of college, no one will defend your idea that police shouldn’t use certain restrooms. Yeah, you might throw a hissy if they use the bathroom at the Starbucks you’re working at–and you know a lot of these Berkely students are destined to become lifelong baristas–but beyond that, you’re slap out of luck. Only the most idiotic anti-cop morons would even think of asking police officers not to use restrooms in a building because it’s upsetting to students who would probably get upset by the sun rising in the East. Frankly, calling it “offensive and unacceptable” is far kinder than I would have called it had I been the one discussing it with the chancellor. The post UC-Berkeley ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • What We Know About Middleton, WI Shooting Yesterday
    In what even I have to agree feels like an all too common occurrence, yesterday’s news was marred by yet another mass shooting. This time, Middleton, Wisconsin was the site. There, four people were injured, one critically, when a gunman opened fire at the offices of WTS Paradigm, a business software company. Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said police received calls of a shooting at 10:25 a.m. (11:25 a.m. ET) at a complex housing several businesses. The shooting occurred in the offices of WTS Paradigm, a business products software company, where “officers engaged the suspect, and he was shot by officers,” Foulke said. University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Madison said that one patient was critically wounded and that two others were in serious condition. A fourth person was grazed by a bullet and suffered minor injuries, police said. The gunman was “heavily armed, with a lot of extra ammunition,” Foulke said. Two Middleton police officers and two Dane County sheriff’s deputies shot the man, who later died at a hospital, he said. Foulke said it was clear that the officers “prevented a lot more bloodshed from happening.” A good guy with a gun stopped the attack. Imagine that. Of course, most anti-gunners will argue that this doesn’t count because it was police, but the pro-gun side has never claimed that armed citizens were the only means to stop these attacks. For us, “good guy with a gun” means anyone who is a good guy and has a gun. Whether they also have a badge or not is irrelevant to our point. I’d like to applaud the officers for acting decisively in the matter. This time, there doesn’t seem to be the Monday morning quarterbacking that tends to go on after an officer-involved shooting, probably because it’s such a clear cut case. Police still haven’t identified the shooter, citing the requirement they notify next of kin first. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, it seems the shooter’s choice of weapon is one that will probably infuriate anti-gunners. Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said the shooter was armed with a semiautomatic handgun and extra ammunition magazines, and had two Middleton police officers and two Dane County sheriff’s deputies not stormed in to take him down, there could have been much more bloodshed. Semiautomatic handgunI guess that undermines the whole push for an assault weapon ban, now doesn’t it? Chief Foulke apparently didn’t mention just how many extra magazines the shooter had, but even if it was just a couple standard capacity magazines of around 15 rounds each, that’s 45 shots. Of course, it’s unlikely he would have shot someone with each trigger pull, but it’s fortunate that police responded quickly and put this rabid dog down. It is clear he could have done a whole lot more damage if given the opportunity, including actually killing someone. This incident isn’t likely to stir up more on the gun debate, in part because anti-gunners don’t have a pile of dead bodies to turn into a soapbox. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, September 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • A Job Site’s Lesson In Gun Control
    For most people, guns aren’t part of the job. Sure, they are for the police and those who sell them or repair them, but for most folks? Guns aren’t part of their day-to-day work. They may carry a firearm at work, but that’s for personal protection, not due to job requirements. However, some jobs supposedly control things tightly. Some would say as tightly as anti-gunners would like to control guns. Earlier, a friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, recounted a tale of one job’s response to constraints not unlike a gun control activist’s most fervent dreams. So we are a department that only does stocking, order picking, packing, and shipping. I’m on the packing line. A few weeks ago our supervisor, a married lesbian [Yes, it matters. Bear with me], henceforth known as Supervisor, decided we, as a line, possessed too few utility knives and tried to order some. This resulted in her boss handing her a box of “safety” box cutters to officially hand out, and a box of actual utility knives that “don’t exist, and if I see them outside of that room, I’ll have to take them away.” Yes, Ma’am. We’ve been oh so very good about doing so. Every single member of our small department (less than 20 of us) is “molon labe” about our utility knives. Everyone knows the packing line possesses them because we use them the most, but everyone uses one at least once a day. We know where everyone stands on the issue. The packing line consists of a refugee from a war-torn country (Coworker 1), a single mother of biracial kids (Coworker 2), a Hispanic woman who’s married to another woman (Coworker 3), a gamer dude (Coworker 4), and me. The other people in the department are similarly of…demographics usually assumed to vote for a certain political party. Which is why I use those descriptors. Coworker 1 and Coworker 2 have already left for the day. In walks this higher-up we don’t usually see. If he saw us more often he might have recognized our silent preoccupation with our work as a sign that we were listening for all that we were worth. …He hands the Supervisor six utility knives, and lays out the new rules. All knives have a number. All knives must be signed out and signed back in by the end of the day. Supervisor will personally email him the logs every day. By this point Coworker 3 is looking at me and making “kill me now” motions. Coworker 4 is so wrapped up in his earbuds and podcasts, he has no clue what’s going on around him. Supervisor looks at us, and asks us if we use knives all that often. “Of course not. We’ve got no need for them.” Supervisor looks at the higher-up, says, “See, I’d be surprised if we sign out even one a day. Now, I have an idea for where to put the knives, we just need a pegboard right ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, September 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    6 days ago
  • Anti-Gun Senator Campaigned On Hunting, Hasn’t Had License In Six Years
    I’ve always been wary of people who hold up their love of hunting as a shield against criticisms that label them as anti-gun. Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester is such a person. He supported a Feinstein-backed bill that would have expanded the NICS system to include people on the terrorist watch list, even though the proposal was in response to the Orlando Pulse shooting and the killer wasn’t on the watch list. That alone is sufficient to label someone as anti-gun, in my mind. But Tester represents Montana, a state not really known for its liberal policies. How did someone like Tester get elected there? Well, he did it by using hunting as a screen, arguing that he understands it and all that jazz. However, for Tester, it seems hunting is something that only matters in election years. Montana Sen. Jon Tester, a red state Democrat running for re-election in one of the closest Senate contests this year, has campaigned as a big hunting proponent, sending out mailers to voters that show him on his farm with his gun in hand. “As we gear up for hunting season, Montanans know that hunting isn’t just a sport – it feeds our families, and it creates lifelong memories with our kids and grandkids,” Tester says in the campaign flier. “Montanans are lucky to have some of the best access, longest seasons and greatest hunting in the world.” But according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks records reviewed by Fox News, Tester hasn’t had a hunting license in six years. He last had one in 2012 – the same year he was last on the ballot. Records dating back to 2002 indicate that the agency had no records of Tester having a hunting or fishing license for 12 out of the last 16 years. In 2012, Tester had a resident conservation and fishing, antelope and hunting access enhancement license. The agency said it has no records yet of Tester having a license this year. Now, to be fair, Tester only implies he’s a hunter. He doesn’t explicitly say so, which his office is now using to justify the deception. The fact is, Tester is a fair-weather friend to hunters and gun owners. He was quick to side with Feinstein over a bill that would have barred thousands of innocent people from buying a gun with no recourse. Anyone remotely understanding of the Second Amendment would have recognized the problems with this right off the bat. The measure died, thankfully, but that doesn’t absolve him of his sins on this, especially since he last held a hunting license the year of his last campaign. The implication is clear. Tester holds up hunting as a shield, a way to pretend to be pro-gun without having to take a pro-gun stance. He doesn’t alienate the DNC and the more rabidly anti-gun folks in his state, but he makes Montanans feel safe and sound. Now, I don’t live in Montana, but I do think it might ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, September 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    6 days ago
  • Anti-Gun Stance Clearly Not Helping O’Rourke
    For some reason, Democrats figured that Sen. Ted Cruz was vulnerable, that his seat in Texas was somehow up for grabs. They were sure that the Lone Star State was ready for more things like gun control. Apparently, none of these Democrats had ever been to Texas. Poll after poll claimed that Cruz’s opponent, Beto O’Rourke, was challenging the former presidential candidate. This information, in turn, seemed to encourage O’Rourke to continue talking about all kinds of things that usually don’t fly in Texas. You know, things like gun control. After all, I’m not sure O’Rourke has ever met a gun control policy he didn’t like. And how well is this working out for him? A new poll released by Quinnipiac University Tuesday shows Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke down nine points in his race against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Fifty-four percent of likely voters said that they would support Cruz in the election, compared to 45 percent who said they would support O’Rourke. The two candidates have overwhelming support within their parties: 94 percent of Republicans would vote for Cruz, and 94 percent of Democrats would vote for O’Rourke. Independent voters support O’Rourke by 51 percent. O’Rourke also has the youth vote, as a majority of voters between 18 and 39 would support him. Ninety-seven percent of black voters are also in favor of O’Rourke, and 54 percent of Hispanic voters are supporting him. However, Cruz has wide margins of support among white voters. A majority of Cruz voters said that the economy and gun policy were the most important issues to them in the election. O’Rourke is a supporter of gun control. A majority of O’Rourke voters said that the most important issues to them were health care and the Supreme Court. Cruz voted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He is also a critical vote in the potential confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. A recent NBC News/Marist College poll found O’Rourke only four points behind Cruz, trailing him with 45 percent to Cruz’s 49 percent. In other words, O’Rourke is trailing. Further, we’ve seen plenty of evidence that polling in recent years has skewed left. Whether that skew is intentional or due to some outside factor is irrelevant. The polls seem to routinely claim that left-leaning candidates and positions are doing better than they do on election day. That means there’s a good chance that O’Rourke is even further behind than these polls indicate. However, here’s an interesting line from the above quote: “A majority of O’Rourke voters said that the most important issues to them were health care and the Supreme Court.” Now, I’m not interested in talking health care or SCOTUS at the moment. What I am interested in is how O’Rourke supporters don’t seem to be prioritizing his anti-gun stance as all that important. This fact goes along with something I’ve noted several times in the past, and that’s how anti-gun voters tend to prioritize other things over gun control, while pro-gun voters ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, September 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    6 days ago
  • Washington Governor Too Petty To Sign Marksmanship Awards
    The National Rifle Association has been vilified by pretty much every left-leaning politician for months now. Somehow, an organization doing what its members demand is somehow evil, and the group becomes worthy of scorn. Even when the NRA is barely involved in something, it seems anti-gun crusaders feel justified in fighting its activities just because there’s some flimsy tie between the organization and whatever else. In this case, we have the governor of Washinton refusing to sign marksmanship awards–something every other governor in the country does–because the event was registered with the NRA. Governor Inslee is doing something unbelievably petty. Back in 1903, there was a group that started in our nation called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They would get together and have shooting competitions. It was for a while under the auspices of the Department of Defense. Here in Washington, they have a couple of groups that go and compete in marksmanship — the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the Washington State Police Pistol Association. This organization always holds an annual banquet, where the top shooters — both civilians and law enforcement officers — are given certificates signed by the governor. Most states do this every year. It’s known as the Governor’s 20. “The Governor’s 20 has been around for years — it’s a competition of law enforcement officers [who] are competing for skills,” Jane Milhans of the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association told me. This year, however, Governor Inslee’s office sent this letter ahead of the banquet. “The certificates that were signed last May will be the final certificates signed by the governor … Governor Inslee is no longer able to support any program affiliated with the National Rifle Association (NRA), due to the organization’s obstructive efforts to undermine common sense gun safety measures, including those that enjoy broad public support.  We understand competitors will be disappointed by this decision; however, the Governor [sic] believes constructive conversations and meaningful action around gun safety are necessary to better protect our families and communities.” But isn’t that a principled stand? I mean, if Inslee believes that the NRA is really that vile, then shouldn’t he make a stand? Well, not really. You see, the NRA’s involvement is minimal. Let me tell you the extent of the NRA’s involvement. The organization that runs this is just a little 501 (c)(3). They only register these competitions with the NRA so the shooters can get classifications if they set national records and so that the NRA can set a common set of standards for each state’s competition. “The big focus and emphasis [of the NRA] is all on safety, and even the NRA … will provide training to smaller law enforcement agencies that don’t have the manpower for a training department,” Milhans said. In other words, because the NRA is also a body that standardizes these competitions as well as defends our right to keep and bear arms, Inslee won’t sign marksmanship certificates for his state’s best shooters. These are the ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, September 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    6 days ago