Bearing Arms

  • Despite Australia’s Strict Gun Control, There Are Significant Problems
    Image via Pixabay American anti-gunners adore Australian gun control laws. After all, it’s the country they most want to see the United States model itself after. However, it seems that despite its tough gun laws, parts of Australia are having serious issues. As far as regulation goes, gun control is one area you’d hope government got right. But it appears this is not the case in Western Australia. WA Police “has significant weaknesses in its regulatory controls and information systems”, says state Auditor General Caroline Spencer in a new audit looking at the effectiveness of WA Police’s regulatory approach to firearms licensing and monitoring, and key information systems used to support these functions. Assessments and decision making “lack demonstrated rigour and transparency”, increasing the risk the wrong decision will be made, says the auditor. “Further, the audit also found there is limited monitoring of compliance with licence conditions, and when police does inspect, it is not informed by a documented risk assessment. Police is also slow to follow up when licences have expired or for deceased estate firearms. “Risk-based and timely compliance activities are essential to effective regulation of firearms. Police’s key firearm licensing information system does not effectively support the entity to carry out its licensing and compliance activities. Basic licence and compliance information is unreliable and hard to get.” This finding is particularly concerning as the WA auditor general highlighted many of these same problems in previous audits, having looked at this issue four times since 2000. Now, it’s easy to point to the enforcement and say, “Oh, but we’ll do it better,” but don’t. The problem with any law is how will it be enforced. Laws themselves are little more than words on a page somewhere. They have to be enforced by individuals, and that creates problems. Despite Australia’s incredibly strict laws, the enforcement isn’t quite what Aussie anti-gunners would prefer. There are issues, and those are issues that won’t stay on their side of the Pacific. There are none of the listed issues that are likely to be unique to Australian law enforcement. The truth is that the police already have a lot on their plate. Saddling them with administrative burdens like the Australian scheme does won’t keep anyone safe. Instead, it’ll stretch limited law enforcement resources even further, perhaps so much so that something gets missed. It should be noted that despite the failure to properly enforce gun laws, Western Australia hasn’t turned into the OK Corral and isn’t littered with the bodies of those killed in mass shootings. Yet mass shootings are the reason we’re expected to bend over an allow such gun control schemes to take hold here in the United States. Well, it seems that Australian gun control isn’t the end all, be all it’s been cited as. There are significant problems with enforcement, which means the only people complying with the law are those who are too law-abiding to try and get away with anything. Funny how that seems to be the case ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    12 hours ago
  • Sacramento Bee Calls Out Kamala Harris And Her Anti-Gun Plan
    AP Photo/Paul Sancya Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has taken a bold stance on gun control. It’s so bold that if she were to pull all the stuff she’s saying she would if elected, it would likely spark a civil war. However, many of the presidential candidates are also making their stands on gun control. Rep. Eric “Nuke ’em All” Swalwell (D-CA) has made it the corner of his campaign. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) has made it a key point of his as well. The problem is, the president has limited authority over guns in the United States. As the Sacramento Bee essentially points out, all of the anti-gun rhetoric is little more than tough talk. California Sen. Kamala Harris and other Democrats running for president have promised aggressive action to stem the nation’s epidemic of gun violence if they win the White House in 2020. But when it comes to restricting gun access, experts say executive action is unlikely to make a significant dent in the problem, and any steps the president takes unilaterally are likely to be embroiled in legal challenges. The reality is it’s Congress — not the president — that holds most of the power on gun policy. The executive branch has “limited discretion” on guns, University of California, Los Angeles Law Professor Adam Winkler told McClatchy. Former Democratic President Barack Obama “looked at all these things and had a list of 20 executive actions. Even with 20 executive actions, it didn’t add up to much,” said Winkler, an expert in constitutional law. “The real takeaway of these campaign promises is how gun control has surged … as a way to energize Democratic voters.” However, it also serves as a warning to pro-gun voters in both parties. It tells all of us how little these candidates value our civil liberties, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. They would rather empower criminals and tyrants than acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty that deserves to be protected. Then again, in this day and age, we see plenty of people attack every other civil liberty we enjoy in this nation. The saving grace is that no president has the power to do the kinds of things Harris has claimed she would do by executive action. If she did, it would spark a civil war, and not everyone lashing out at a President Harris would be pro-gun advocates. The idea of a president trying to dictate anything like this should well be terrifying for anyone, even those who oppose the Second Amendment. Not that there will be that many of them, I’m afraid. The media has done an excellent job of framing the Second Amendment debate as, “Something must be done,” rather than whether or not there are solutions out there. As such, many people will be thrilled to see someone doing something, regardless of the legality of that action. It’s hardly new, after all. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has supporters despite his push for a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    14 hours ago
  • NY Legislature Approves Measure Banning ‘Undetectable’ Guns
    AP Photo/Eric Gay, File Years ago, lawmakers got concerned over Glocks. The polymer lower freaked them out. Reports abounded that the weapons could be taken through airport metal detectors, which sparked concerns over terrorism and assassination. The idea was that bad people could get these guns, carry them anywhere, and law enforcement would be powerless to prevent it. While those concerns were mostly male bovine excrement, the federal government passed a law that required all firearms to have a minimal amount of metal within them. That way, metal detectors could pick them up. Today, we have 3D printers and the means to manufacture what amount to plastic guns, yet those firearms are still required to have a specific amount of metal within them. The Liberator–a 3D printed handgun–is a design that calls for that small amount of metal as well. It’s fully compliant with the law. Yet the fears persist. Now, states are trying to ban the guns, missing quite a few points in the process. New York is the most recent example. Making, selling, transporting or possessing 3D-printed guns and other undetectable firearms would be banned in New York under legislation approved by the Democrat-controlled state Legislature. The Assembly passed the bill Monday, five days after the legislation was approved by the Senate. The measure would ban all firearms whose components can’t be detected by security screening technology such as X-rays and metal detectors typically used at airports. The bill now goes to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for approval or veto. The third-term Democrat has successfully pushed for tighter gun control laws in New York in recent years. Of course, Cuomo will sign the bill. The man has never met a gun control measure he didn’t like. However, they missed that undetectable firearms are already illegal. They’ve been illegal at the federal level for decades. Further, 3D-printed guns still require a small bit of metal to be legal. Hello? Another point they’ve missed, however, is that the people they need to be concerned about are the people who aren’t likely to listen to the laws in the first place. Let’s say that it was possible to print an undetectable, easily-concealable firearm. It’s not right now, but let’s assume that it will be somewhere down the road. Should that ever happen, some would print the guns for their amusement. They’d keep them in the safe, bring them out for a day at the range or maybe show them off, little more. A handful of others would carry such weapons for their protection in so-called secure environments. The whole “better to be tried by twelve than carried by six” logic taken a bit further than some of us would go. They’re not a threat, though. Neither of these groups represents a threat to the safety of anyone except for criminals. Another group that would print these guns, however, will continue to print them in New York state regardless of the law. They’ll print these guns and use them because they don’t care ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    16 hours ago
  • Politicians Introduce New Gun Control Law In Connecticut
    AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File The problem with anti-gun legislators is that they often look at guns as a one-size-fits-all issue and recommend one-size-fits-all approaches to regulate guns. This is especially troubling as so few of them (read: none) know a damn thing about defending one’s self with a firearm. Further, almost all of them are centered around urban centers with law enforcement a couple of minutes away. While you and I may well understand that those few minutes can amount to the rest of your life during a violent attack, it’s a short enough period of time that many feel perfectly secure. In rural parts of the country, you may well be looking at an hour response time or longer. If the deputies on duty are on the other side of the county, it’ll take them a while to get to you. When you know response times are long, you don’t expect instantaneous police protection. You learn that you may well be required to protect your self. Anti-Gun lawmakers routinely miss that fact. More to the point, they don’t care. That’s why they’ve pushed mandatory storage laws at the state level in numerous places. Now, they’re trying it at the federal level.  The Connecticut congressional delegation on Tuesday introduced a bill in the U.S. House named after a 15-year-old from Guilford that would place new requirements on gun owners to ensure firearms are stored safely in the home. Ethan’s Law, named after Ethan Song, a teen who accidentally shot himself in the head last year with a gun owned by his friend’s father, would impose a $500 fine each time an unsecured, loaded gun is found in a home. The bill would also substantially increase that fine – and increase liability in a civil suit —  if that weapon accidentally wounds or kills someone. “This legislation will protect families who own guns,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, the chief sponsor of the House legislation. A similar bill was introduced in January, but so far not much has happened with that one. The problem is that this bill won’t protect families who own guns. It will, at best, protect parents who refuse to teach their children about firearms and firearm safety. It will cost rural people their lives. It’ll cost people who live in bad neighborhoods their lives. It’ll cost stalking victims their lives. Bills like this assume that guns are only used in hunting situations or going to the range. These politicians think firearms won’t be needed in an unexpected situation. The problem is, you don’t always get to pick the moments when you’ll need your guns. The bad guys get a vote, and the initiative is on their side. We, as law-abiding citizens, are forced to react to those situations. That means anything that gets in the way of our ability to react also gets in the way of our ability to protect our own lives. Folks, people will die should this become law. Plain and simple. Ethan ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    18 hours ago
  • California City Sued Over Mandatory Reporting Law
    AP Photo/Matt York, File The state of California doesn’t like to make it easy for gun owners. It’s not like the state is known for supporting the right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape, or form. There seems to be a certain pride in restricting firearms, even when there’s no reason for a law to exist. It doesn’t matter one way or another, the state’s going to create more gun control laws. One rule in the state requires the mandatory reporting of missing firearms within five days of noticing it missing. However, the city of Morgan Hill decided that five days was too long. It instituted a 48-hour requirement instead. Now, one resident of the community is taking the city to court over it. A Morgan Hill resident and a statewide firearms advocacy organization have sued the City of Morgan Hill over a local gun control ordinance enacted by the city council last year. The plaintiffs—G. Mitchell Kirk and the California Rifle and Pistol Association—say the city ordinance’s new provision requiring gun owners to report incidents of firearm theft to police within 48 hours contradicts existing state law. The state law allows victims of gun theft up to five days to report the loss or theft, according to the lawsuit filed April 15 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Specifically, the state’s Proposition 63, which California voters approved in 2016, established the five-day maximum timeframe within which to report firearm theft. According to the lawsuit filed by Kirk and the CRPA, the state law preempts the city’s gun control ordinance, which the council approved in October 2018. “The legal preemption doctrine bans local laws that duplicate or conflict with state laws because these confuse the public,” reads a statement from CRPA about the lawsuit. “In this case, the conflicting requirements place innocent gun owners at risk of criminal prosecution for unwitting and accidental local ordinance violations that do not violate the state law.” The individual who drafted the law argues that a mandatory reporting requirement is a public safety issue, but that’s bull. They’re way too easy to get around, especially if someone has a lot of firearms. I don’t boast the impressive arsenal that many have, but even I have a wide variety of firearms ranging from classic .22 rifles in extinct ammo varieties to AR-15s. As such, I don’t put my eyes on all my guns every single day. My daily carry-firearm, sure, but the antique rifle that was my great grandfather’s? Not so much. Hell, I don’t even look at the CZ-75B I used to carry every single day. Any of those weapons could go missing, and I wouldn’t know about it for days or weeks. On the same token, I could claim I didn’t notice the weapon was missing until whenever as well. That’s the problem with mandatory reporting laws. They’re too easy to beat. Tightening up those requirements doesn’t change anything. Cutting three days off the total amount of time you ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    20 hours ago
  • Trayvon Martin’s Mother To Seek Public Office As Anti-Gun Candidate
    Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File The death of Trayvon Martin sparked debate about self-defense laws throughout the nation. In particular, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law came under fire, despite the law not having been invoked during the defense of George Zimmerman, the man who fired the fatal shots. For those who don’t remember the details, Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood watch who thought Martin looked suspicious. After calling the police, he began following Martin. Martin noticed he was being followed, so Martin turned and physically assaulted Zimmerman. At the trial, it was discussed that he knocked Zimmerman to the ground and was slamming the other man’s head into the concrete sidewalk, giving Zimmerman no choice but to fire. Well, that or have is skull caved in. Now, the woman that raised the violent thug has decided she’s going to run for public office. Trayvon Martin’s mother will run for office to push for gun violence prevention. Sybrina Fulton this past weekend announced her candidacy for Miami-Dade County commissioner. Her son was 17 years old when he was fatally shot as he walked home from a convenience store in 2012. Trayvon’s killer was later acquitted on self-defense grounds. Fulton joins at least two other “Mothers of the Movement” whose bids for office were sparked by the shooting deaths of their sons. So, she did a poor job of raising her son, and now she should be venerated and elected to help run a major American city? Seriously? I’m sorry, but no. Frankly, including Fulton as a “Mother of the Movement” immediately discredits the “Movement” as a whole. Trayvon Martin may have been portrayed in the media as some sweet kid who was innocently strolling along before being viciously gunned down, but the facts of the court case found something very different. He was a violent attacker who got precisely what he deserved. I have no problem with him confronting Zimmerman. That’s what any reasonable person likely would have done. Had he turned, verbally confronted Zimmerman with why he was being followed, we’d expect that Zimmerman would have questioned Martin in return. Martin would say that he was going to his father’s house and where it was. Sure, Martin would likely have chalked the whole thing up to racism–never knowing that Zimmerman was as much Hispanic as President Obama is black–and gone on about his day. He didn’t. Instead, he assaulted Zimmerman in such a violent way that the other man had no choice but to kill or be killed. The “Movement” claims to be about those who are left behind after senseless so-called “gun violence,” but Fulton isn’t one. Her son is dead directly because of his violent actions. That’s not exactly senseless. Frankly, anyone with any sense would have done the same (which, admittedly, does rule out much of the media that reported on this at the time). The gun control crowd will likely hold Fulton up as a living martyr. They’ll talk about how her life was upended because of ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    22 hours ago
  • MN Travelers Attacked At Rail Station By Group Of 8-10 Somali Immigrants
    Throughout the nation, state legislatures are looking to restrict the number of rounds your firearm can carry. People who don’t know the first thing about firearms, much less the defensive use of firearms, want to mandate to you just how many rounds your gun can hold at one time. Self-appointed experts who have at most a few range visits but likely boast far less experience than that will simply tell you that you need to practice more. I mean, a revolve should be all you need, right? Well…not necessarily. Not if you have a pile of Somali immigrants looking to start a ruckus, apparently. A mob of eight to 10 males wielding hammers descended upon bystanders at the East Bank Light Rail station on Friday night injuring several, according to recorded police dispatch audio. The incident was apparently reported to 911 just before 10 p.m. on Friday according to the audio and other social media police scanner reports. A 9:48 p.m. Facebook post on 2nd Precinct Minneapolis Crime Watch page said that University of Minnesota (U of M) police were requesting assistance from Minneapolis police (MPD) and Metro Transit police for “a group of 8-10 males chasing people with hammers” and that some people were injured. A Facebook post a minute later on Minneapolis Scanner page said that the three police departments were responding to “multiple [911] calls” about “10-12 Somali teen males armed with hammers chasing people,” also with “several injuries reported.” Both Facebook pages regularly post summaries of police scanner audio. A person who claimed on social media to have been at the station when the incident occurred said that the group of males had “hammers and bars,” and that they seemed to be “attacking anyone who looked like they had money or were white.” The witness, who said he isn’t white, said he didn’t want to “[take] on a bunch of dudes with blunt objects,” and that he “hurried an older white lady away” and they walked a few blocks to catch a bus. Now, these teen males have been reported to be between the ages of 12 to 15, but they still represent a clear threat to the people at that station. A serious one, it seems. Yet, as Elizabeth Vaughn noted over at our sister site RedState, it’s funny that you didn’t hear about this in the media. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this incident is how little media attention it received. The second most remarkable thing is that none of the article titles about this story indicate that these teenagers were Somali. She’s right on all counts. The reason, of course, is that this doesn’t advance any agenda the media finds useful. In fact, much of this runs counter to anything journalists want to advance, and since activist journalism is apparently the norm these days, you’re just not going to see much written about it. In truth, though, I’m no different. If this didn’t somehow justify opposition to gun laws, I wouldn’t be writing about it either. The main difference, ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, May 22, 2019By Tom Knighton
    23 hours ago
  • Is Colorado Recall Attempt Dividing State GOP?
    Image via Pixabay Last week, we ran a story about a recall attempt against an anti-gun lawmaker who was responsible for yet another piece of worthless trash passing for gun control legislation in Colorado. The legislator in question sponsored a red flag bill, which sent up enough red flags for voters to demand a recall. Now, it’s being reported that the effort is dividing the state Republican Party. Word this week that conservatives will try to recall state Rep. Tom Sullivanhas divided Republicans between those who see it as politically imperative and those who view it as politically foolhardy. At the center of that debate is Sullivan’s unusual entry into politics, which followed the death of his son, Alex, in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. His son’s death spurred Sullivan’s political involvement and guided his gun control advocacy. It’s that advocacy which, at least in part, prompted a recall effort against the Centennial Democrat. I’m going to say something that Sullivan’s fan club isn’t going to like. Look, of course, I’m sorry Sullivan lost his son. I can’t imagine losing a child. More importantly, I don’t want to try. The thing is, that doesn’t provide a shield against someone’s actions indefinitely. Sullivan has been beating the anti-gun war drum left and right since taking office. The man is an espoused opponent to our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. His political origin story doesn’t change that. We judge people based on their actions, not their intentions. It doesn’t matter if he’s legitimately trying to avert the next theater shooting in the state or not. No amount of righteous intent changes the fact that Sullivan is trying to infringe on gun rights in the Rocky Mountain state. Now, that’s not to say there aren’t any valid criticisms of the recall effort. Sullivan’s critics have until July 12 to collect 10,035 signatures in a district that elected him by a decent margin last year after he openly campaigned for gun control measures. Sullivan defeated Republican Rep. Cole Wist, who had also backed a red-flag gun bill, the legislation prompting the current recall effort. Wist said this week that he won’t support recall efforts and issued fiery denunciations of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the Colorado Republican Party. He’s not alone. Colorado Peak Politics, a conservative blog, called the effort to recall Sullivan “brutally tone deaf.” Tyler Sandberg, a Republican strategist and campaign manager for former U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, said it’s a grift meant to enrich Brown, RMGO’s director, by increasing donations to the gun rights group. “Congrats to RMGO on ensuring that Tom Sullivan wins re-election in 2020,” Sandberg said on Twitter. “Great work taking a swing seat and making it safe for Democrats.” A recall does little good if all the resources are spent only for Sullivan to win yet again. While my initial reaction was joy at the recall, the truth is that now I’m not so certain it’ll go the way Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the group spearheading the effort, thinks it will. Sullivan has ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, May 21, 2019By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Expect Return Of Oregon Anti-Gun Measure
    AP Photo/Brennan Linsley Oregon legislators had some ridiculous anti-gun bills up for consideration this year. Luckily, most of the worst died an ignoble death. Unfortunately, those bills may be gone, but they’re far from forgotten. It seems anti-gun lawmakers have vowed to engage in a little political necromancy and raise at least one of those bills from the dead. A multifaceted gun control bill pushed by Oregon Democrats may be dead this session, but advocates and opponents alike are confident it will return. Senate Bill 978 was a casualty of the deal that got Senate Republicans to end their four-day walkout and return to the Capitol, allowing Democrats to pass a multibillion-dollar education revenue bill on May 13. The move to include SB 978 in the trade disappointed gun control advocates inside and outside the Capitol, particularly since it dovetailed with the Moms Demand Action lobbying day two days later. “We certainly had hopes that this would be a big year for sweeping gun control and gun regulation here in Oregon,” said Hilary Uhlig, state campaigns lead for Moms Demand Action in Oregon. “If it was too hard to stomach as a package, we are used to incremental change and we will keep working until we can stem the tide of gun death.” Oh, boohoo. The fact of the matter is that there’s nothing in that bill that will help “stem the tide of gun deaths.” What’s more, I’m becoming more and more convinced that they know it. I mean, how else can you look at a mass shooting or some other senseless tragedy, use it to justify a bill, then introduce bills that do nothing about the real problem? SB 978 was a bill that was to fix a supposed oversight in how a previous measure was to be enforced. That measure lumped people who were never convicted of domestic violence into the same category as spousal abusers, meaning they would be unable to obtain firearms forever more. This, despite the lack of a felony conviction nor a conviction on a domestic violence charge. Proponents call it the “boyfriend loophole,” but all it takes is someone claiming not just that they were assaulted, but they were dating the alleged attacker and their ability to own firearms ends. Nevermind that it can be very difficult to determine if that’s an accurate assessment or not. At least with marriages or those who cohabitate, we have records that support the assertion. Oregon’s measure didn’t do any of that. The only saving grace was that there wasn’t a mechanism to take these poor schlubs’ guns. The bill in question sought to change that. The world has no use for spousal abusers. None whatsoever. I understand getting furious with your partner, but not trying to hurt them. I’m not about to defend that evil behavior in the least. But what I will defend is the right of people who haven’t been charged with domestic violence being treated like those who have. Either change the domestic violence laws to ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, May 21, 2019By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Media Latches Onto Allegations Of NRA Meddling In Sanctuary Movement
    AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File All over the country, county sheriffs have decided that their states can pass all the gun control they want, but they don’t matter. As I’ve said before, if a law is unenforced, it might as well not exist. The Second Amendment sanctuary movement has spread like wildfire. Multiple states have communities that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Unsurprisingly, anti-gun groups opted to blame the National Rifle Association for this. At the time, I figured there was either no involvement or minimal involvement. According to Brady, it’s a whole lot more than that. Brady said it received 1,600 documents under New Mexico’s public records act, including 24 email correspondences between the NRA and Tony Mace, the Cibola County sheriff and chairman of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association (NMSA), a group that both promoted the sanctuary resolutions and lobbied against gun-control bills in the state legislature. “The documents Brady acquired reveal that the NRA was actively involved in the NMSA’s efforts in drafting the (sanctuary) Declaration; recruiting sheriffs to lobby state and political politicians to oppose the GVP (gun-violence prevention) bills and to adopt so-called Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions; and encouraging sheriffs to not enforce state laws,” Brady said. … Brady provided Reuters a sampling of the emails which showed three conversations between the NRA and the New Mexico Sheriffs Association about how to defeat gun-control legislation. The emails provided did not explicitly tie the NRA to the sanctuary movement. Mace on Monday denied any NRA involvement in promoting the sanctuary movement but said he openly coordinated with the NRA in fighting gun-control legislation. It is a fine distinction. The sheriffs association was fighting against the laws with the NRA’s help. At the same time, the sheriffs were vowing not to enforce the laws. Now, it seems to me that Brady would want to provide the most damning information outright. In other words, if it had a slam-dunk email, it’d have provided it. Instead, what Brady’s seeing is the communication of a public servant trying to combat the spread of anti-Second Amendment legislation and reaching out to the nation’s oldest civil rights organization for help, and that group responding to that plea. While I don’t doubt there may be some emails lobbying sheriffs and politicians to oppose gun control legislation, I’m forced to look in askance and say, “So the hell what?” That’s part of what the NRA does, for crying out loud. It reaches out to elected officials in various roles to combat the gun control infection that has been sweeping the nation. Finding out that the NRA, indeed, do what it tells everyone it usually does is hardly a revelation. No, the most damning emails would be those that prove or even suggest that the National Rifle Association triggered the sanctuary movement. If Brady has those, it needs to release that information immediately. Otherwise, we’ll all know the gun control group is full of it. Brady underwent a fishing expedition under the guise of ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, May 21, 2019By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Washington State Wants To Snatch Guns For WrongThink
    AP Photo/Michael Conroy The idea behind Extreme Risk Protective Orders, otherwise known as “Red Flag Orders” is that they can be used to disarm those considered to be a threat to themselves or others. That first bit is there so they can be justified under mental health grounds as proponents figure they can count those potential uses as wins to pad their statistics somewhere down the road. But the idea of taking guns from people who may be a threat is a tempting proposition. However, in Washington state, legislators are taking that concept and considering a proposal which would take it in a very different direction. Of course, The Trace loves the idea. Now, the state wants to use ERPOs for more gun owners who, like the man who went to Northwest Hospital in early April, threaten to commit hate-fueled violence. Among a slew of gun violence prevention bills signed by Governor Jay Inslee in early May was an amendment to the current ERPO law that specifies that judges should consider whether a troubled gun owner has been convicted of “malicious harassment,” a category that includes behaviors like burning crosses and defacing property with swastikas. It’s the first hate-specific ERPO law in the country. “Since the 2016 election, we’ve seen an enormous increase in hate-fueled animus,” said Marko Liias, the state senator who conceived of the reform. “If someone’s spewing hate and making threats in concrete ways, and law enforcement can detect that, we should encourage police to take action.” First, that “increase in hate-fueled animus” is usually one of two things. The first is progressives who are lashing out at their ideological opponents at every opportunity. That includes shouting people out of restaurants, harassing people who are officials from the wrong political party, or things of that sort. The others are hoax “hate crimes” that almost always turn out to be false flag situations. That’s not to say that there are no cases of racially motivated hate crimes out there. The Tree of Life Synagogue shooting is a prime example. The Chabad of Poway Synagogue shooting another. However, as awful as those two shootings were, they’re still a minority of the supposed hate crimes out there. The vast majority either seem to come from the extreme left or are false flags. It’s that simple. The problem with this new measure, however, is that it uses statutes that amount to thought crime to justify taking away someone’s Second Amendment rights. White supremacists are filthy scumbags who try to intimidate people and lash out at folks of another race. White supremacist ideologies need to be purged from the world, but this isn’t how you do it. If you’re going to have a law that says you can take a gun away from someone who represents a threat, then that’s all you need to consider. You don’t need to get into their personal beliefs and perhaps punish those who think in an unpopular manner. That’s all Washington state is looking to do. Right now, it’s ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, May 21, 2019By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Pittsburgh Police Vow Not To Enforce City’s Illegal Anti-Gun Laws…For Now
    Despite the preemption laws on the books in Pennsylvania, the city of Pittsburgh has decided it somehow has the power to pass gun control laws of its own. In particular, they banned so-called “assault weapons” in the wake of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting last year. Unsurprisingly, this sparked off a legal challenge almost immediately. As preemption laws have been held up to previous challenges throughout the country, this one probably will also. The issue is what would happen to all the people who are punished in the meantime? How many lives would be shattered before a legal challenge could finish worming its way through the courts? Luckily, it looks like the answer is “zero.” For now, at least. Attention gun owners: the city of Pittsburgh’s tough and controversial gun restrictions are now on hold. “We have decided that we will not enforce the bill, but instead let the courts decide whether they pass the legal hurdles,” Mayor Bill Peduto told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Monday. This is fantastic news for Pittsburgh gun owners. A law unenforced is a law that might as well not exist. It’s why Second Amendment sanctuaries scare the crap out of anti-gunners. If their draconian laws aren’t enforced, they’re nothing more than words on a piece of paper and they know it. With Pittsburgh making this “concession,” gun owners will be free to hold onto their property until the courts decide the issue. Now, they may be supremely confident that they’ll win, thus they can afford to wait a little while before kicking up enforcement efforts. Or, more likely, they know damn good and well that an injunction would be in the works if they didn’t agree to hold off. Either way, this buys some precious time for the courts to (hopefully) slap Peduto down and remind him that even as the mayor of one of the largest cities in the state, he still has to follow state law. My only regret is that he won’t end up in a cozy little prison cell for his lawbreaking. Right now, though, that has to be a secondary consideration. The primary concern needs to be about making sure law-abiding gun owners aren’t either turned into criminals or forced to dispose of property they purchased legally just because the powers that be think they can tell you that you can’t have it anymore. For now, gun owners have some breathing room and can wait until the legal challenges are completed. That said, don’t expect movement after the first decision. This is likely going to go through the whole rigamarole. My guess is it’ll end up in the state supreme court–though I don’t rule out efforts to land it before the United States Supreme Court. I doubt it, though. If the Court decided to hear the case, anyone with half a brain would have to believe that the heavily pro-gun Court would side with the city of Pittsburgh. No, I suspect this will stay in state court until ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, May 21, 2019By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Man Gets 33 Months For Stealing 55 Firearms
    Image via Pixabay If there’s one legitimate gun problem in this country, it’s stolen firearms. Regardless of who they stole them from, gun thieves turn around and sell firearms to some of the worst people imaginable. They don’t care about what comes next, unlike legitimate gun dealers who will refuse a sale to anyone who appears suspicious. They’re arming other criminals, and they know it. When a thief robs a gun store, he often has access to all the firearms he can carry. Recently, a man was sentenced for a theft where he took off with 55 firearms. A man was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment after admitting to stealing 55 handguns from a popular outdoor adventure sporting goods store along the Northern California coast. According to a plea agreement before a U.S. Senior Court judge, the man admitted he cut the power lines to disable the store alarm in the early morning hours of Aug. 8, 2015. “He then climbed on the roof and broke through a skylight to gain access to the firearms.  He broke into a cabinet containing firearms and then carried 55 handguns out of the store in a backpack, forcing open a roll up door to exit the store.” The man stored the guns for an undisclosed amount of time before he began selling the firearms. The stolen firearms have been recovered in places as far as Oregon and Georgia. At least one was used in a murder. For all that, he got less than three years in prison. Folks, this is how criminals get guns. They buy them on the black market. We know this for a fact. They get them from people who either stole them directly or obtained them from thieves for later sale. Stolen guns are the tools generally used for crimes throughout this country. I’m sorry, but I think 33 months amounts to a slap on the damn wrist. I’m guessing we’re looking at $22,000 worth of merchandise at least, and I’m pretty sure he’d have gotten the same sentence if he stole a couple of laptops. Of course, laptops aren’t used to rob, murder, or otherwise terrorize the population as a whole. They’re not sold to people who commit acts that are then used to justify disarming the rest of us. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this scumbag deserves a whole lot more than 33 months. “Oh, but he cut a deal.” Yeah, he did. He cut a deal. Unless he gave up some serious heavyweights in the criminal world, I honestly don’t care. We’re fighting an uphill battle to preserve our Second Amendment rights, desperately trying to block every single anti-gun measure being crammed down someone’s throat, and it’s been justified by the acts of the type of people this jackwagon provides guns to. There are probably people pushing for anti-gun measures right now because of acts carried out with the guns this moron stole. Yes, I’m taking it as a personal affront. I take every ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand And Her Anti-Gun Hypocrisy
    AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used to be one of the few pro-gun Democrats in the halls of Congress. That was back when she was in the House, though. These days, she’s beating the same anti-gun war drum that virtually every other Democrat vying for a shot at the White House is. However, unlike them, Gillibrand has words on the record defending the Second Amendment. Over at Townhall, Beth Baumann has done an excellent job of comparing then and now. From her website: We need to end our gun violence epidemic. Mass shootings and gun violence are a national crisis that threaten the safety of our families and communities. We can’t accept repeated tragedies and tens of thousands of deaths every year as normal, and we can’t accept politicians choosing NRA money over Americans’ lives. We need to pass universal background checks, stop gun trafficking, ban assault rifles and close gun sale loopholes to make sure guns can’t get into the hands of dangerous criminals, terrorists or domestic abusers. Kirsten has fearlessly and consistently stood up for commonsense gun safety and taken on the greed of the gun lobby in the Senate, earning her a proud “F” rating from the NRA. … Back in 2008, Gillibrand wrote a letter to Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. In the letter, she positioned herself as a being pro-gun and someone who wanted to work with the gun rights group. “To begin with, I want to be very clear that I always have and always will believe that the correct interpretation fo the 2nd amendment is that it applies to an individual’s right to carry guns, and does not apply generally to the National Guard or a group of individuals in a State,” Gillibrand wrote. What’s ironic is her so-called agenda are all things she previously said she didn’t believe in. “On the question of outright banning certain firearms for cosmetic features, bullets of an random size, or banning magazines holding an arbitrary number of cartridges, I am adamantly opposed and do not believe that laws should be based on random limits just for the sake of limiting gun ownership or usage,” she wrote. “Furthermore, the attempt to limit the purchase of firearms to arbitrary time periods – such as ‘one gun-a-month’ – will not solve any crimes and will only curtain the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. I share your concerns about these and other attempts to that could contribute to the slippery slope of government confiscation of people’s firearms based on the arbitrary whims of politics and public opinion.” Gillibrand has proven one thing above all others. She’ll say whatever she needs to say to get elected. She may have once believed in something. I think most people who run for office start that way. Somewhere along the way, she sold her soul. While anti-gunners love to pretend that the only people selling out are those who take the National ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Maine Lawmakers Reach Red Flag Bill Compromise
    Image via Pixabay Democrats in Maine set their sights on gun control early on. What they want are universal background checks, despite Maine voters having already put the kibosh on that one back in 2016. To make matters worse, Democratic Governor Janet Mills put her stamp on that by saying the voters had already decided the issue. In other words, legislators could pass it, but Mills would veto it. Universal background checks were a non-starter, and everyone knew it. That didn’t mean there wasn’t a whole litany of bad ideas for anti-gun lawmakers to draw from. Instead of shrugging and working on other stuff, they shifted down to number two on their list, and that was red flag laws. Red flag laws are as contentious as universal background checks, if not worse. After all, most people won’t be impacted by universal background checks since most people buy their guns from licensed dealers. However, red flag laws could impact every one of us. Now, lawmakers have reached a compromise which may saddle the state with a red flag law after all. Someone familiar with negotiations said on condition of anonymity that a drafted compromise would allow police to take guns from people in a format similar to existing “blue-paper” laws. Under that process, someone can be admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital if a medical professional deems that person to have a mental illness that could cause harm. A court hearing is required within 14 days to review those requests, and there would be a similar process under the pending deal. Sen. Michael Carpenter, D-Houlton, who is working on the deal, and David Trahan, the executive director of the alliance, wouldn’t discuss details of the compromise, though Carpenter said it was “a bipartisan effort.” Spokespeople for Mills didn’t respond to a request for comment. The new version is expected to appear in a bill as soon as next week. Because the bill will apply to people found to have mental illnesses, it is reduced in scope from Millett’s bill and the process used will be different than the one in a Mills-backed compromise vetoed by LePage in 2018. This is hardly the worst potential red flag bill possible. It makes it extremely difficult to use the law to punish people because you want to. Linking the red flag bill to mental health tends to make it much more difficult to manufacture a threat and get the state to essentially swat someone you don’t like. That said, it’s still an issue. The term “mental illness” is very broad. It tends to cover everything from psychopaths to people with a bit of depression. Between those two extremes is a vast space, most of which contain people who aren’t a threat to anyone. However, without specifics protecting these people’s rights, this law is little better than the red flag laws that allow anyone to disarm anyone else. The truth of the matter is that the right to keep and bear arms is a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Swiss Vote For More Gun Control In Face Of EU Threats
    Image via Pixabay Switzerland was in a tough spot. By European standards, the country is pretty open to gun ownership. It has long supported the right to keep and bear arms on a continent known for infringing on sacred liberties with profound regularity. Unfortunately, the rest of Europe couldn’t tolerate that. Despite no evidence of Swiss firearms filtering into the rest of the continent, the European Union threatened to close off the borders to Switzerland if it didn’t enact more gun control. That was up to the Swiss people, and unfortunately, they’ve capitulated with the EU’s demands. A wide majority of Swiss voters cast ballots Sunday in favor of enacting stricter gun control rules better aligned with European Union regulations, according to Reuters. The binding referendum passed by a margin of 64 to 36 percent, according to the news service. While Switzerland is not part of the EU, it is part of Europe’s Schengen open-border system, meaning bucking Brussels on gun regulations could have led to the nation leaving the Schengen zone. The EU enacted stricter firearms rules following a November 2015 mass shooting in Paris in which ISIS militants killed 130 people, with the new rules including tighter controls on buying semiautomatic weapons and measures to make it easier to track weapons. Former members of the Swiss military traditionally keep their assault rifles, which led Swiss officials to negotiate some exemptions for veterans and recreational shooters who belong to Swiss shooting clubs, according to Reuters. Despite that, however, this is going to create difficulties for the average Swiss citizen, especially since the weapons used by the ISIS terrorists–why must The Hill call them “militants” instead of terrorists, anyway?–were the kind restricted pretty much everywhere. The speculation is that the weapons came from illegal arms dealers from Eastern Europe, rather than from legal purchases in gun-friendly nations. So why the pressure? The Swiss citizenry isn’t to blame for Paris, so why hold them responsible? For the European Union, it’s not about who’s to blame. It knows that these measures won’t stop another terrorist attack. Instead, it’s an excuse, a pretext. It’s a chance to try and pressure Switzerland into adopting gun control laws the nation ordinarily wouldn’t have. Of course, the Swiss have mandatory military service, and veterans can keep their service weapons, meaning citizens could still theoretically have more arms per household than any other nation other than the United States. Further, there are more of what we would term Class III weapons floating around in Switzerland than even here because of that. The EU isn’t making much of a dent into anything except Swiss sovereignty. Then again, that’s probably more of a point than many Swiss voters realized. I have to think that it rankles the EU to have the Swiss sitting there, refusing to bow to its every whim, still maintaining its neutrality. However, the Swiss aren’t a nation to be trifled with. It values that neutrality with a passion. You could invade Switzerland, but it’ll be costly. It’s ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Nev. Legislator Drops Efforts To End Preemption, Still Pushing Gun Control
    AP Photo/Philip Kamrass, File A Nevada legislator wants to kill preemption in her state. Her goal was to allow jurisdictions to pass their own restrictive gun measures. Any local authority on gun control is bad…unless it’s creating more infringements on people’s rights. However, it seems the lawmaker in question has decided to abandon her quest, at least for now. Not that she’s replacing it with something all that much better. A gun bill sponsor says she is gutting the main provision that would allow counties to pass stricter firearm laws than those imposed by the state. Democratic Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui said Friday afternoon in a statement that she has decided to remove the portion of the bill at the request of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control measures, and other organizations. “I am looking at other fixes to improve gun safety in our communities such as extreme risk legislation,” she said. Jauregui did not return a message seeking further information on the statement. She did not appear to be in her legislative office Friday afternoon. The provision is expected to be replaced with language creating a so-called “red flag” law allowing police or family members to seek an order to seize guns from people who appear violent or may post a danger. Because red flag laws worked oh-so-well in California. The truth of the matter is that her preemption bill wasn’t going to go anywhere. She had to know it, but she pushed it anyway. Why? Well, why does any legislator put forth bills they know damn well aren’t going to pass? So they can pretend they’re good people fighting the noble fight. But Everytown swooped in and suggested a change that would make the bill slightly more palatable. At least to the middle of the road voters who have been deluded into thinking red flag laws somehow stop gun violence. The rest of the bill is as harmless as any gun control bill can be. It includes a bump stock ban and would lower the legal limit for the blood alcohol content of anyone carrying a gun outside of the home. Both of those are problematic, but they’re small potatoes in the world of gun control wants. Jauregui is a survivor of the Las Vegas massacre, which means she’s got a bit of a bone to pick on this issue. Of all the gun grabbers out there, she probably has the most legitimate beef considering she survived the worst mass murder of the modern era. The problem is, she’s still misguided. None of these will stop the next Las Vegas from happening. None of it at all. Instead, good people who wouldn’t harm a soul will be negatively impacted by laws like these. People will probably die because of laws like these. No one will be safer because those who want to kill aren’t going to worry about the other laws they have to break in the process. The post Nev. Legislator Drops Efforts To ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • CA Legislators Consider Still More Gun Control After Borderline Shooting
    The shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill left 12 people dead. It also exposed the absolute folly of thinking that tough gun control measures would actually prevent mass shootings. After all, California boasts some of the toughest gun control measures out there, including red flag laws, magazine capacity limits, measures limiting the models of guns available, assault weapon bans, the works. None of which stopped when a maniac walked into a bar and opened fire. None at all. Not to be deterred by their complete failure, it seems California lawmakers want to enact still more anti-gun laws in an effort to look like they’re doing something. In the wake of the Borderline shooting in Thousand Oaks, state and local officials have looked to legislative changes to find a way to better protect the community. Officials say they don’t know if any would have prevented the Nov. 7, 2018, shooting that left 12 people dead. But they hope it could stop another from happening. “Many of us in the community feel that this tragedy really is driving us to try to do something to prevent this in the future,” said Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks. She has proposed a series of bills related to gun violence prevention. Among them, two specifically focus on gun violence restraining orders, which were first allowed in the state in 2016. Relatively few were issued in the first couple years of the law, though numbers rose in 2018. “It’s basically looking at what the tools are that law enforcement has already and how they could be better utilized or more utilized to remove guns from people who should not have them,” Irwin said. Here’s the problem, though. You see, the gunman in the Borderline shooting was known to have mental health problems. Law enforcement had been called about his irrational behavior before, yet the police didn’t ask for a gun violence restraining order. Why? The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office also did not seek a gun violence restraining order at the time and said one wasn’t warranted. “In this case, there was nothing to support it, no mention of a gun, he had not threatened any violence toward anybody,” Sheriff Bill Ayub said in a recent interview with The Star. That’s the problem with the red flag laws, unfortunately. You see, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can look at the landscape and ask, “How did they not see this coming?” I know I engaged in plenty of that after Parkland. However, police at the time have to deal with what they know and see right then. While they can account for history, they can’t be expected to prognosticate. They’re cops, not clairvoyants. Even family members are going to miss the actual threats. They may know a loved one is disturbed, but few actually look at their flesh and blood and think, “Yeah, I think he’s a mass murderer in the making.”  They’re not necessarily going to identify threats. None of that seems to be a deterrent ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, May 20, 2019By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Eight Facts That Will Keep Gun Grabbers Up At Night
    Image via Pixabay Gun rights activists are in the fight of their lives. While there have been some wins in the last year or so, there have been a whole lot of setbacks. Perhaps the worst is that Democrats are once again emboldened to pursue anti-gun legislation, something they’d learned was a losing cause a while back. Now, we’re back at it. Those who want to restrict gun ownership, however, aren’t getting an easy fight. Nor should they. You see, there are some facts about violence in the United States–the reason typically cited for why we need gun control–that will keep anti-gunners awake at night. As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes. Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions. Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America: The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >> Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution. Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look. It’s also worth noting that the trend for violent crime decreasing tends to correspond to the liberalization of gun laws throughout the nation. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, if the claims of gun control activists had any merit, we’d see the opposite. We don’t. The fact of the matter is that violence is a complicated problem. Trying to separate gun violence from other forms of violence is pointless. No one feels better that their loved one was stabbed to death. Focusing on a tool used does nothing to combat the underlying issues, issues we only barely understand. Every solution proposed by anti-gunners is the simple idea that if we somehow restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we’ll somehow make the problem go away. That’s not how it works. If any of these people want to combat violent crime, then they’d at least be willing to talk about other potential solutions. After all, those eight facts show ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Sunday, May 19, 2019By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Swiss Activists Invoke William Tell In Their Defiance Of Potential Gun Rules
    AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane Switzerland is one of the most gun-friendly nations in Europe. It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita on the continent, and those numbers are probably skewed low because many households contain guns technically owned by the military as veterans keep their service weapons at home for rapid call-up purposes. (I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer as to whether those weapons are counted or not.) Switzerland also isn’t part of the European Union. However, the country does enjoy a good relationship with the EU. That relationship is threatened right now because the EU wants Switzerland to put tougher gun laws in place or else find its easy access to the rest of Europe cut off. Now, the nation is set to vote on whether it should adopt new gun control measures, and opponents of the move are invoking a folk hero known for shooting tyrants. In the eyes of rifle lover Andre Maury, centuries of tradition are under threat. The 63-year-old is president of Geneva’s historic shooting club, housed in a gray stone building at the center of town. Sporting a blue sweatshirt emblazoned with the founding year — 1474 — he says shooting is a sport that requires autonomy and a willingness to stick to the rules. Those qualities are emblematic for Switzerland, whose folk hero William Tell, an expert marksman, launched a rebellion against foreign rule. So it’s little surprise that Maury and his compatriots are up in arms about new restrictions, initiated by the European Union, on large-magazine semi-automatic guns. They’re looking to challenge them via a referendum on Sunday. “It’s a bit like if we were to say today we’ll make it tougher to get a drivers’ license to prevent people from driving without a permit,’’ he said in an interview, before giving a tour of the club’s red damask-covered great hall. A lot of this sounds like it could be taking place here in the United States. A survey found that 52 percent of Swiss voters favor new restrictions, but 47 percent say they don’t, with one percent unsure. That’s well within the typical margin of error for a poll. Further, much of the support for the new gun restrictions have more to do with trade and tourism than any security concerns. You see, Switzerland has ridiculously low crime despite its firearm ownership rate. There’s no perceived need for enacting gun control due to criminal activity because there’s not much of it. Instead, the European Union is threatening to close the open-border policy between Switzerland and the rest of the continent. That means those who commute to and from Switzerland would have to deal with a passport check and may make the nation less attractive to European tourists. That’s likely to create some economic problems for the country. Despite that, it seems the Swiss aren’t willing to roll over. A lot of them, at least. Yes, the polls indicate a lot of support ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Saturday, May 18, 2019By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • YouTube Demonetizing More Gun Channels
    Once upon a time, YouTube represented the best of what the internet can be. Anyone could post anything they wanted and you could go and watch videos on pretty much anything. Sure, they were crappy videos most of the time–something that, in fairness, hasn’t changed all that much–but it was like almost anything that wasn’t porn was fair game. Then they became big business. People started actually making money on the platform. As a result, YouTube figured they had a say in just who could make any of that money. After all, it’s their platform, right? Over the last few years, gun channels have come under fire from YouTube, though. Firearm YouTubers have had to take the blame for mass shootings after mass shootings, all despite the fact that absolutely no evidence has been presented that any of these people had anything to do with gun YouTubers. Doesn’t matter. They’re cracking down. In fact, they’re doing so yet again. In pertinent part, the email reads (emphasis added): We want to help keep people safe both online and offline, so we don’t allow the promotion of weapons-related content that may lead to damage, harm, or injury. For this reason, ads may not be placed on videos that feature modified, 3D-printed or DIY weapons and ammunition, or provide instruction on how to obtain any of these. Videos that facilitate the sale of firearms or their modifications or otherwise provides instruction on how to obtain or build them are no longer monetizable on YouTube. Furthermore, videos featuring firearm use can only take place in appropriately safe and controlled environments such as shooting ranges in order to monetize. You may not monetize videos depicting improper usage of guns. For more information please visit: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en#Weapon-related_content Now, you can remove these if you wishes to run ads on your videos, so we can take another review on your videos. Hope to hear from you soon. So, YouTube appears to have informally implemented a new, unspoken policy (i.e., I could not find this in the content guidelines) whereby it will demonetize videos which aren’t shot in a “controlled environment” such as a “shooting range.” This raises a lot of questions, not the least of which is: How does YouTube determine what usage is improper? Is there someone at YouTube with proper training on safe gun handling who will implement these policies?* How will they know when someone is in a “controlled environment” or not, and who has the authority to reach that conclusion? Is a shooting range, in fact, safer and more “controlled” than the creator’s private property such that this policy needs to be implemented, to begin with? WHAT IS A MODIFIED WEAPON? Who do you think you are? What gives you right? Now, again, it’s YouTube’s site. They can do what they want on their site. However, there’s a question that needs to be answered by YouTube and other social media companies: Are they a publisher or a platform? You see, there’s a legal distinction between the two. Stephen Crowder ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, May 17, 2019By Tom Knighton
    6 days ago