- UK University Student Jailed After 3D Printing GunsGun control has always been a losing proposition. The truth of the matter is that from the moment governments started trying to ban guns for civilian use, someone immediately went to work trying to circumvent those laws. In an era where people have large amounts of free time that allow them to accumulate expertise on various subjects for fun, it’s not hard to circumvent those laws. Perhaps the best example is the backyard submachine gun that sprang up after the UK banned private ownership of firearms. However, even that gun required skills that some people don’t have. With the rise of the 3D printer, however, making guns is even easier. Which is probably why a university student in the UK was making them. A university student in the U.K. has been jailed after successfully creating handguns using a 3D printer, in the country’s first prosecution of its kind. Tendai Muswere, 26, was jailed for three years on Thursday following a court case in central London. The media student, described by his lawyer as a “loner,” claimed that he built the weapons to serve as props in a sci-fi film he was making, the BBC reported. Police discovered the firearms during a drugs raid at Muswere’s home in October 2017. Officers also found cannabis during the search. The student did not have a firearms licence, but told police that the guns were for use in a university film project. He was also found in possession of ammunition, which Muswere claimed he found in a park. Regardless of why he was making them, the fact was that he was able to. The 3D printer is an amazing bit of technology. I’m not typically a technophile, but I’ve been fascinated with this development from the start. The reason? You can make damn near anything you want from plastic and, in time, any other material you care to make. It’s also because there’s absolutely no way to enforce gun laws anymore. None. England has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. They’re an island, which makes it more difficult to smuggle in guns. The only all-land access to the island comes via other countries with tough gun control laws. It. Doesn’t. Matter. Technology has gotten to the point that a college kid with a glorified toy can crank out firearms in his apartment. They’re deluded if they think he’s the only one who’s doing this. I guarantee you that he isn’t. Yet how many of those doing so are otherwise law-abiding people? Not very many. Instead, they’ll be made by some of the worst sorts of people. Criminals who may not have ready access to already made firearms will simply build guns with a 3D printer that they can order online. Meanwhile, the good, law-abiding folk of the UK are still going to be vulnerable to these sorts, all because their government seems to believe that good, decent folks can’t be trusted with firearms. They’re wrong, of course. More importantly, though, is that the ... read more1 hour ago
- Beto O’Rourke: Hero Of The Second AmendmentThere are a lot of pro-gun politicians out there who it’s hard not to admire. Rep. Steve Scalise, for example, was shot by a domestic terrorist who only wanted to kill Republicans, yet his stance on guns has been resolute throughout. I can’t even imagine what he went through, yet he’s not budged a single inch on the issue. But even Scalise’s efforts pale behind the work of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. That’s right, I’m putting Beto up above someone like Scalise as a hero of the Second Amendment. No, I haven’t lost my mind, either. You see, Beto has managed to do something I didn’t think was possible. He may well have sidelined gun control this year without holding office or even being a viable candidate for office. “Hell yeah,” he said, “we’re going to take away your AR-15.” Not the kind of language you’d expect from a hero of the Second Amendment, as I’ve just proclaimed Beto. Yet with that one sentence, O’Rourke has upset the gun control apple cart something fierce and done so in a way the National Rifle Association could only have dreamt of. For years, we were told that no one was coming for our guns, that no one wanted to disarm us. Even O’Rourke, while running for Senate, claimed as much. The idea was to gaslight gun owners who knew otherwise. We knew what they wanted because so many had slipped up to admit their desires, but anti-gunners were so adamant about it that some started to doubt their own sanity. Then O’Rourke made his remarks on live national television and everything changed. Now, anti-gunners felt comfortable to admit that yeah, maybe they did want to take your guns. Those who took issue with his comments generally didn’t do so from the idea that it was a violation of our civil liberties, only that it wasn’t the right time or things like that. O’Rourke exposed the ugly beast within the gun control movement. He unmasked them for who they really were. The NRA couldn’t do that. Wayne LaPierre couldn’t do that. Ted Nugent couldn’t do that. Erich Pratt from Gun Owners of America couldn’t do that. No one on this side of the debate could. No one could get them to expose their own naked bias. Perhaps more importantly, no one could do so at the same time they managed to spike a potential gun control deal before it had even made it to the table. No, really. Dummy Beto made it much harder to make a deal. Convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away. Will continue forward! https://t.co/87jvaYUkyn — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019 So yeah, in a very real way, Beto O’Rourke may have just saved the Second Amendment from a Congress so willing to make a deal that they’d swallow almost anything. That’s not to say there won’t be some kind of deal. A lot of that matters to just who blinks ... read more14 hours ago
- CA Capitol Groundskeepers Want Pepper Spray Following AttacksThere’s been a lot said about the amount of homelessness going on in California, and everyone’s got a hypothesis as to just why that is. Regardless, though, homelessness is rampant. More than that, though, these don’t seem to just be harmless folks down on their luck. A large number of them appear to be willing to attack innocent people. In fact, a number of them have apparently gone after groundskeepers at the California state capitol, and now the groundskeepers want to protect themselves. The groundskeepers who maintain the California Capitol are requesting security, pepper spray and training following a string of alleged violent attacks by homeless people. “We are treading on new territory on how to arm our members,” said union spokesperson Brandy Johnson. Johnson, with the International Union of Operating Engineers, said the union filed a grievance with the state’s Department of General Services on Wednesday following five alleged attacks by homeless people this year. “Our groundskeepers are not trained in self-defense or how to deal with a hostile situation,” Johnson said. “They’re there to do the job of cleaning and making the grounds beautiful.” The most recent attack allegedly happened earlier this month when two groundskeepers were cleaning the Veterans Memorial along N and 14th streets ahead of a Sept. 11 memorial event. Johnson said the groundskeepers asked a homeless person to remove his belongings. “The individual did not want to, so they began to do it themselves as they’ve been instructed by management,” Johnson said. “That irritated and upset the homeless person. He proceeded to punch and scratch one of the groundskeepers in the face.” That particular groundskeeper was out of work until Wednesday. It also wasn’t the first such attack, and that’s a huge problem. However, I can’t help but think about the fact that this is California, one of the states most down on citizens protecting themselves from attack. After all, it’s virtually impossible to get a concealed carry permit in some places. Unless you’re a huge donor to the sheriff, that is. For regular folks, it’s a non-option in those places. Yet the state’s groundskeepers are begging for pepper spray to protect themselves from violent assaults. Frankly, I think it’s ludicrous they’re having to ask for it. They should be free to buy and carry whatever they want as a means to protect themselves. If they didn’t want to buy it since this is within the course of doing their jobs, then that’s fine too. Their employer probably should provide them with the means to protect themselves, especially if that same employer is going to insist on them performing tasks that may put them at risk. Telling a homeless guy to move probably shouldn’t be one of those cases, but it is. The truth is, the state needs to get these guys what they need or, at the very least, make sure they have the state’s support should they be forced to use it in self-defense. The right to defend yourself from violent attack ... read more16 hours ago
- Beto In Blackface: Trudeau Calls For Sweeping Gun Bans, Buyback In CanadaWe reported earlier today that Canada’s Liberal Party was soon to unveil its plan for a gun ban, and just a few hours after our story appeared, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it official. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. We will ban all military-style assault rifles, give municipalities the ability to restrict or ban handguns, and strengthen gun control. pic.twitter.com/NvX0IBtAU5 — Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) September 20, 2019 Trudeau is going full Beto and demanding a compensated confiscation of legally owned firearms, according to a CBC report. A Liberal government also would create a buyback program for all semi-automatic assault rifles that were legally purchased, offering owners a fair market price for their weapons and giving law enforcement agencies resources to administer the program. A two-year amnesty would be put in place while the program is being set up. Bill Blair, who served as the government’s pointman on gun control, said there are about 250,000 of the weapons now legally owned, with an average value of about $1,500 each. The buyback program is expected to cost between $400 million and $600 million, he said. I think the so-called “assault weapons ban” was expected, but the move to change federal law to allow municipalities to ban handguns took me a little by surprise. This is clearly aimed at voters in Toronto (and to a lesser extent Vancouver) where rising gang violence has shaken the confidence of some voters in the ruling Liberal Party. If approved, I suspect you’d quickly see cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver adopt gun bans, along with smaller towns in the suburbs of the country’s biggest cities. The cynic in me suspects that Trudeau was holding back this announcement until he really needed it. He told Bill Blair to go investigate the possibility of banning handguns and semi-automatic firearms last August. Blair reported his recommendations to Trudeau this past April. Why wait until now to announce this policy, unless you suspected or knew that closer to the election something really awful was going to come out about you, and you’d better keep a distraction in your back pocket? Even the left-wing Guardian newspaper calls it an attempt to shift attention from his blackface scandal. This will likely prove to be a popular move in Canada’s most populated areas, but it’s also likely to wreak havok on the chances of Liberals gaining or maintaining seats in more rural districts. It will also unfortunately greatly exacerbate the rural-urban divide in Canada, but I’m sure Trudeau considers that a small price to pay in exchange for headlines about him banning guns instead of stories about him donning blackface. As to the effectiveness of such a ban, the guns Trudeau wants handed over aren’t used in a lot of crime. They’re also no longer registered with the federal government in Canada, though an old copy of the 2012 registry may still exist despite an order to destroy it. Still, enforcement of this law, if Trudeau gets his way, is likely ... read more17 hours ago
- Venezuelans Wish They Had Their Own Second AmendmentThe right to keep and bear arms isn’t an American right, but a right that exists within every man and woman throughout the world. The problem, unfortunately, is that pretty much every nation on the planet completely disregards this right as existing. As such, they routinely restrict gun ownership. How else are people supposed to throw off the yolk of tyranny? In our own nation, there are those who work against the Second Amendment. They laugh at the idea we would need to do any such thing or, if we did, that the tools we currently have would be effective. The thing is, those who are living under tyranny would beg to disagree. Now, voices from within the socialist hellhole known as Venezuela are wishing they had a Second Amendment of their own. (Apologies for the horrid translation. This is as I found it.) Venezuela’s conservative motion Rumbo Libertad honest no longer too prolonged ago issued a proposal for the institutionalization of interior most gun-ownership in Venezuela. Our motion is urging Venezuela to legalize weapons for legislation-abiding voters and offer a place of both interior most and public gunnery and tutorial programs linked to gun rights. … Socialist dictator Hugo Chávez banned all interior most gun ownership, giving the issue a beefy monopoly on firearms in his rewrite of the constitution. Nicolás Maduro, his successor, strengthened the ban by adding an up to 20-300 and sixty five days penal complex sentence to the legislation for anyone caught privately proudly owning a firearm. Sadly, we possess found no improve for this pivotal civil and political correct from the Venezuelan socialist opposition. In April, President Juan Guaidó ratified Chávez’s gun protect an eye fixed on policy, also identified as Ley Desarme, implying with his argument that criminals and legislation-abiding voters are equal. Now, that’s some rough reading. I get it. Apparently, they ran it through a bad translation program a time or two, but the gist is clear. Hugo Chavez banned gun ownership in the country, now they have no way to deal with their tyrannical socialist government. Remember, you can vote yourself into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it. If they had guns, they’d have a recourse to deal with the corrupt Maduro government. They’d have a way to combat the death squads running rampant all over the country. They’d have a way to fight back. They don’t. At some point in their history, Venezuelans decided to back people who would erode that basic, core right so that by the time Chavez came to power, his efforts weren’t resisted in any meaningful way. Citizens complied and did as they were told, only to now be forced to deal with the repercussions of that action. They want freedom. They want to live as men and women, not animals. If they had guns, they could make that happen. As it stands, they’re nothing more than serfs who exist at the pleasure of the government, a government who is ... read more18 hours ago
- Meet The Columbine Survivor Questioning Beto’s Gun BanOn today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. you’ll get to hear from Evan Todd, the Columbine survivor who asked Beto O’Rourke about banning all semi-automatic firearms, not just the guns Beto calls “assault weapons”. We talk not only about what prompted Todd to ask the candidate the question and what he thinks of Beto’s response, but the assumption by many in the media that because Todd survived Columbine, he must be a gun control supporter. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, as Todd made clear in our interview and on social media.
I wanted a clear answer from Beto of where he draws the line, but never got one. To answer my own question on if we should ban guns, the answer is: HELL NO! As far as my stance on guns? The Second Amendment supports me. https://t.co/2W0fPzn0aD — Evan (@evanmtodd) September 20, 2019 It’s fascinating, by the way, to see some of Beto’s supporters accuse Evan Todd of misrepresenting himself by not telling Beto he is a 2nd Amendment supporter, or claim that his question of O’Rourke was some sort of “gotcha” question. As Todd makes clear on today’s program, it was a genuine question and he wanted O’Rourke’s genuine answer. Also on today’s program, we feature an armed citizen from South Carolina who put a stop to a rampage involving an angry man and a pickup truck, a Boston man arrested for murder just months after he was given probation for a felony weapons charge, and an Arkansas police officer in the right place at the right time who was willing and able to do the right thing. You can also find the show in podcast form on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Townhall.com. Thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word! The post Meet The Columbine Survivor Questioning Beto’s Gun Ban appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more19 hours ago
- Tucker Carlson May Be Done With 2A Debates, ‘It’s Too Stupid’Tucker Carlson is easily one of the biggest names in right-leaning media, if not the biggest. Between his Fox News show and his website, The Daily Caller, he definitely knows how to make a splash. Couple that with his incredibly popular books, and the man has a name. However, it seems he may be finished debating the Second Amendment. At least, that’s what he says. No, he’s not turning his back on guns, gun owners, or the Constitution. Instead, the debate has become something else entirely. Fox News host Tucker Carlson debated former Clinton pollster Bernard Whitman on the topic of gun violence in cities like Chicago and Baltimore. However, Thursday night’s heated “Tucker Carlson Tonight” discussion ultimately left the Fox News host seemingly bewildered and apologizing to his audience for putting them through Whitman’s “stupid” arguments. “Why are the places with gun bans, Chicago and Baltimore, for example, so much more dangerous than places where so-called assault weapons are common like Vermont or New Hampshire?” Carlson asked as they began the discussion. “You have to look at where the guns are coming from,” Whitman said. “In Chicago, 60% of the firearms that Chicago police seize are coming from states like Indiana with very weak gun laws. In New York City and New York state, 74% of the guns seized are coming from states with weak gun laws. In New York City alone nine out of 10 guns purchased and used quickly come from states with lax gun control laws.” Whitman went on to rationalize that the reason Indiana doesn’t have higher crime is that all the guns have been taken to Chicago. Yes, really. Carlson later ended the interview saying that he may well be done with debating the Second Amendment, telling the audience, “This might be my last gun control debate. It’s too stupid. I’m sorry to inflict that upon you.” The video for your own personal amusement: In truth, I can’t blame Carlson. Whitman’s argument is beyond insane. Especially when he’s parroting the talking point of “internet sales” and “gun show loopholes” that Carlson was trying to debunk. He didn’t want to hear that. But we’re expected to hear that the reason Indiana isn’t as violent on a per capita basis than Chicago is either because guns are leaving Indiana–which isn’t true as there are still plenty of guns in Indiana–or because there are more people there. Of course, the “more people” argument is negated by the fact that this is per capita. In other words, the rate per 100,000 people. Cities like Chicago and New York are always going to have more raw numbers of crimes than Podunk, Arkansas and we all know it, so we use the per capita rate to normalize things for comparison. Whitman can’t be that stupid. He has to understand this. What he clearly didn’t understand, though, was the topic at hand. No wonder Carlson finds these debates to be so stupid. They kind of are. Though, in the interest of fairness, Carlson didn’t get ... read more20 hours ago
- House Freedom Caucus Opposes Trump Over Background ChecksWhile we aren’t likely to see any proposals on gun control coming down from the White House this week, not after yesterday’s revelations, we do know that President Donald Trump has expressed some desire to expand background checks. That may or may not have anything to do with ranking Democrats arguing that they won’t consider any plan without universal background checks somewhere in the mix. However, in the process, Trump appears to be losing a number of Republican House members. The Trump administration is losing conservative House members on efforts to expand background checks for buying firearms, with Freedom Caucus members rejecting the proposals floated by the attorney general. The idea of expanding background checks to all commercial sales was a no-go for some conservative lawmakers, who felt it would erode the rights of law-abiding gun owners. “We’re continuing to work with the administration to find a solution. That particular proposal isn’t something we’d be in favor of,” Rep. Mark Meadows, former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told The Washington Times. “If they move forward with that plan the Freedom Caucus would not be in support of it.” The Freedom Caucus is a bloc of about 30 of the most staunchly conservative Republicans in Congress. It’s an important warning for the Trump administration to at least consider before proposing any gun control measures. These are people Trump will need to pass just about anything his administration wants. Alienating them may not be the best way to go about business. Of course, there’s also the flip side, and that’s how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have argued that they won’t consider any measure without universal background checks. Even the proposal floated earlier this week isn’t going to be enough for them. Asked if Democrats could back something like Mr. Barr’s idea, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pointed out that the White House made it clear that Mr. Trump hadn’t signed off on it yet. She also pointed out that one of the summer’s deadly shootings occurred because of a “straw purchase” — when someone buys a gun for someone who can’t pass the background check — which doesn’t appear be addressed by the proposal. Of course, straw purchases are already illegal and occur when someone who can pass a background check buys a gun for someone who can’t. I don’t recall that applying to any of the shootings over the summer. The closest example would be Odessa, but that killer purchased a gun from someone who is alleged to have illegally manufactured it for sale. One would have to be deluded to think that a person who illegally makes a gun with the intent to sell it would require a background check. Then again, look at who we’re talking about here. However, even if Trump capitulates with Democrats’ demands, he still faces losing support from within his own party. The Freedom Caucus may not represent all of the GOP by any stretch, but that loss of support will likely cool enthusiasm for Trump’s ... read more22 hours ago
- Carolina Carry: Concealed Carry Holder Stops Vehicle AttackA man who used his truck to smash several vehicles in a Fort Mill, South Carolina retail parking lot, pinning one individual between two cars, was stopped by one of the drivers who had a legally-carried handgun with him. Witnesses said the suspect got in his black truck and continuously slammed into three to four cars. He was stopped by one of the drivers, who was carrying a gun. The man with the gun allegedly hit the suspect in the head with the weapon. “I thought he shot him, but he had pistol-whipped the fellow and that’s what made the gun go off,” said witness John Simpson. The York County Sheriff’s Office said the person with the gun will not face charges and is a legal concealed-carry gun owner. “I’m glad the young fellow’s not being charged or anything because he had incredible restraint,” said Simpson. It’s unclear at this point what prompted the driver of the truck to turn the parking lot into his own demolition derby, but once he gets out of the hospital and into a courtroom, we’ll probably learn more. Right now he’s facing a slew of charges related to the attack, according to York County Sheriff Kevin Tolson. The driver of the truck will be charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and property damage crimes, Tolson said. The driver was taken to the hospital and remains at Piedmont Medical Center, according to Tolson and a sheriff’s office report. Detectives have arrest warrants for him, Tolson said. “It is our intent to charge the suspect upon his release from the hospital,” Tolson said. When officers arrived on scene they found a chaotic situation unfolding, and it took a few minutes to actually figure out what had happened, since the initial call to authorities was about a man with a gun, not a guy in a truck on a rampage. Responding officers found a man holding a gun in the parking lot and ordered him to drop the weapon and get on the ground, the report stated. The man with the gun, later identified as a victim in the incident, complied with officer commands, deputies said. Deputies then found another victim trapped between a pickup truck and another vehicle, deputies said. That victim was freed by officers, according to the report. Then deputies found the suspect on his back in the parking lot, according to the report. Witnesses and victims told deputies the suspect slammed his truck into vehicles, injuring at least three people, according to Tolson and the report. Vehicles were hit so hard that some were pushed onto a sidewalk, the report stated. The driver of that truck is lucky that no one was seriously injured, including himself. As for the armed citizen, I’m glad he’s not facing any charges for stopping the guy. In some jurisdictions the fact that the firearm discharged while he was pistol-whipping the driver could have lead an anti-gun prosecutor or law enforcement official to try and ... read more22 hours ago
- CA Sheriff Gets Big Donation, Issues Rare Carry PermitThere are two ways in which a state will issue a concealed carry permit: “Shall issue” or “may issue.” “Shall issue” means that so long as you meet the requirements for being issued a concealed carry permit, the issuing authority has to give you the permit. “May issue,” on the other hand, means that the issuing authority has absolute discretion as to who gets a permit and who doesn’t. Just qualifying isn’t enough, the issuing authority–usually the county sheriff–has to approve of you as a person he or she wants to allow to carry a firearm. The idea behind “may issue” is that even if someone has no criminal convictions, the sheriff’s office may know them to be potentially violent and not someone responsible enough to carry a gun. In theory. In practice, however, “may issue” laws open the door for corruption. When someone has a say in who can get a permit and who can’t, some people are going to make offers to facilitate them getting permits. This is especially true when you’re talking about an elected official who has to campaign for office. That just makes it easier to hide the corruption. Which may well be what happened recently in California. A manager at an executive security firm received a concealed-weapon permit in Santa Clara County a few months after making by far the biggest single donation supporting Sheriff Laurie Smith’s 2018 re-election, newly released records show, a contribution that is a now a focal point of a corruption probe aimed at her office. The $45,000 donation by Martin Nielsen, who is listed as the executive protection operations and executive projects manager for Seattle-based AS Solution, was made in October 2018 to the Santa Clara County Public Safety Alliance, an independent-expenditure committee that backed Smith’s bid for a sixth term. He was issued a concealed-weapon permit on March 26. Nielsen’s donation dwarfs most of the contributions made either to the committee or directly to Smith’s re-election campaign. The DA investigation first surfaced publicly after a search warrant was served Aug. 2 at the Sheriff’s Office headquarters in North San Jose. This news organization has since confirmed with sources familiar with the investigation that at least one other warrant was served on a high-ranking supervisor in Smith’s office. That doesn’t look good, all on its own. Someone makes a big donation then gets a carry permit. But, it could happen, right? I mean, post hoc ergo proptor hoc (“after, therefore because of”) is an informal logical fallacy. It’s suspicious, but not indicative of misbehavior. Unless, of course, there’s a history of this sort of thing. The CCW permit issue has long been a source of criticism for the Sheriff’s Office, and it has dogged Smith every time she has run for re-election in the last decade. Residents over the years have complained about the permitting process and said that the permits appeared to be reserved for high-profile people and VIP types. The records released Thursday show that at least 100 active permits have ... read more24 hours ago
- Liberal Government To Push Gun Ban Ahead Of Canadian ElectionsWhile Canadian Prime Minstrel.. er Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is making headlines for his apparent love of wearing blackface, there’s a much bigger story that could also have a huge impact in next month’s elections in Canada. After months of hemming and hawing, it looks like Trudeau’s Liberal party will soon announce its plan for a sweeping gun ban. A re-elected Liberal government will ban some types of “assault-style” rifles, as well as introduce additional restrictions on where firearms can be possessed or stored, according to Bill Blair, who has been the party’s pointman on gun control. The planned measures will be announced “very, very shortly” as part of the Liberals’ campaign platform, Blair said in an interview with The Fifth Estate. “I have recommended that there are certain weapons that are currently not prohibited that should be prohibited, which means no one should be allowed to have those weapons in our society,” he said. “I will tell you that I am confident that a Liberal government will enact effective regulation and legislation … to remove weapons that are, in my opinion, just too dangerous in a civil society.” This has been in the works for quite some time. In fact, nearly a year ago Trudeau asked Bill Blair to investigate banning not only “assault weapons” but all handguns as well. While it sounds like an outright handgun ban didn’t make it into this particular campaign proposal, Blair says the Liberals will also introduce some restrictions on where ” where a firearm can be possessed or stored within a municipality”, according to TheGunBlog.ca. A number of municipalities, particularly around Toronto, have come out in favor of a ban on handguns in recent months as the city reels from growing gang violence. In fact, at the urging of council member Ralph Cipolla, the city council in Orillia, Ontario (located about 50 miles north of Toronto) voted this week to call for a federal ban on handguns. Councillors approved a multi-part motion calling on the provincial and federal governments to take steps to address gun crime. Recommended measures include banning handguns and assault weapons, and encouraging collaboration between police services and governments to tackle issues associated with gun violence and gangs. “We need to protect our kids and ensure our schools are safe and our playgrounds and parks and waterfronts are safe as well,” Cipolla added. Council stopped short of supporting a call for mandatory minimum sentences for possessing an illegal firearm or using a firearm during an offence. Trudeau, meanwhile, is accusing the Conservative party in Canada of being in the “pocket of the gun lobby”. Conservative Party spokesman Simon Jefferies, in statement on Monday, said party leader Andrew Scheer and the party itself would always defend responsible, law-abiding firearm owners. “We believe that we must take a thoughtful, serious approach to this issue and pursue measures that actually reduce crime,” he said. Last year, Scheer promised to put more police officers on the streets, crack down on gangs, and develop tougher background checks for new gun ... read more1 day ago
- Wisconsin Governor Supportive Of Mandatory BuybacksFor years, we were told that no one was coming for our guns, that gun control was simply about stopping the wrong people from getting guns. We, the law-abiding, weren’t the issue and they knew it so they weren’t going to come for our guns. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that over the years. Even discussions of so-called assault weapon bans made absolutely sure that those who already had such rifles would be able to keep those. No one was coming for our guns, after all. Then Beto O’Rourke opened his mouth and changed everything. He simply said what we all knew to be true. Now, it seems other Democrats feel that since he’s kicked things off, it’s fair game to discuss it as a viable option. That includes at least one governor. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said Thursday that he would consider requiring assault weapon owners to sell such guns back to the government, sparking an instant backlash from Republican legislators. The GOP’s top leaders said Evers finally revealed what they believe is Democrats’ true goal of disarming legal gun owners. They promised that he would never succeed as long as Republicans control the Legislature. “With Governor Evers considering confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, it shows just how radical Democrats have become,” Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said in a joint statement. … During a news conference in which the governor touted the red flag bill, he was asked if he supports mandatory buybacks of assault rifles. Evers tried to avoid answering directly, saying he’s focused on the red flag proposal and the universal background check bill. Asked if that meant he didn’t support buybacks, Evers responded: “I’d consider it.” Even though some Democrats have resisted the idea of mandatory buybacks, Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke tweeted that at least Evers was being honest about Democrats’ agenda. He followed that up with a statement saying mandatory buybacks would never happen as long as Republicans control the statehouse. Undoubtedly, Evers would argue that “I’d consider it” is a far cry for actually supporting a measure. I get that. But he’s wrong. The truth of the matter is that unless you’re open to actually taking the guns from law-abiding Americans, you wouldn’t consider any such thing for any reasons whatsoever. The fact that he’d consider it simply reflects his lack of support for the right of individual Americans to keep and bear certain arms. The problem is that the Second Amendment doesn’t discriminate as to which arms are covered and which aren’t. It’s important to remember that when the Second Amendment was penned, cannons were the single most destructive weapon available to anyone, yet our Founding Fathers saw no issue with those in private hands. By being willing to “consider” a mandatory buyback, Evers has made it quite clear that our rights are up for discussion in his mind. That’s not surprising from a Democrat, of course. The surprise is how ... read more1 day ago
- Beto O’Rourke Open To Banning All Semi-Automatic FirearmsBeto O’Rourke was in Aurora, Colorado Thursday evening for a town hall on gun control in the community that has seen more than its share of tragic and horrific shootings. While there, O’Rourke had a couple of headline-grabbing moments, including attacking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for not pushing more gun control when Democrats controlled the Senate. “Ask Chuck Schumer what he’s been able to get done,” the Democratic presidential candidate told reporters after a town hall here, responding to Schumer’s recent dismissal of O’Rourke’s call for a mandatory buyback of assault weapons. “We still don’t have background checks. Didn’t have them when he was in the majority, either. So the game that he’s played, the politics that he’s pursued have given us absolutely nothing and have produced a situation where we lose nearly 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year.” Sooner or later someone’s going to ask Beto why he never authored a bill to ban “assault weapons” and require existing gun owners to hand over their firearms to the federal government in exchange for some cash when he was a member of Congress. In fact, when he was running for Senate in Texas last year, O’Rourke said that while he wanted to ban the sale of AR-15’s, ““If you have an AR-15, keep it. I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away from them.” That was 2018 Beto. 2019 Beto is like the Will Rogers of gun control; he’s never met an idea he doesn’t like. In fact, after O’Rourke was asked a question from a Columbine survivor Thursday night, Beto says he’s now open to a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Taking questions from a crowd of about 200 that included survivors of mass shootings and gun-rights advocates at an emotional town hall held within sight of the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, O’Rourke told a survivor of the Columbine massacre that he would consider whether it made sense to confiscate more than the military-style rifles he has been proposing. “This is a criteria that makes sense to me, if that weapon is designed to kill people and do so efficiently and effectively,” O’Rourke said after Evan Todd pointed out that the perpetrator of the Columbine shooting hadn’t used those weapons. Later, O’Rourke gave Todd his phone number and said the two could discuss it further. “We cannot fear the future. It belongs to the bold; it belongs to every single individual who will claim it,” O’Rourke said. I’d love to eavesdrop on that phone call, because I don’t think Beto’s going to get the conversation he’s expecting. You see, Evan Todd is a survivor of the Columbine attack, but he’s not a gun control advocate. In fact, he’s the communications director for the Colorado-based school safety advocacy group Bullets Both Ways, which supports armed trained school staff who can serve as a first line of defense for students in case of an active assailant attack. I actually met ... read more1 day ago
- Carson, CA Mayor’s Anti-Gun Plan Blocked By Gun Rights ActivistsCarson, California isn’t a big place, but it’s located right smack dab in the middle of the most liberal part of California. As such, their mayor’s recent plan to essentially ban guns in the city sure could look like a slam dunk for those of us not there. At least, it would be a slam dunk until the courts got involved, at which point it was likely to be smacked down and smacked down hard. Well, it seems we didn’t have to wait for the courts. The Carson City Council this week deadlocked in an attempt by Mayor Al Robles to pass a gun-control ordinance that would have effectively ended all firearm sales in the city. With Councilwoman Lula Davis-Holmes absent and gun-rights advocates assailing the proposal as an erosion of their constitutional rights, the ordinance stalled 2-2 late Tuesday, Sept. 17, after two hours of heated public discussion. Robles pitched the ordinance because of what he called the recent “epidemic” of mass shootings across the nation. The move sparked a reaction on social media that the mayor called “crazy” and prompted about a dozen Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies to be on watch inside Council Chambers. … “I urge you to reconsider,” Jack Brandhorst, owner of “boutique” gun dealer Red Rifle Limited, told the panel as he fought back tears. “This would shut down my business.” Gun-rights advocates also threatened legal action. Robles continued trying to claim that his proposal wasn’t a restriction on people’s civil liberties. I don’t think many people actually bought that nonsense. With the measure stalled at 2-2, it was an important defeat in an anti-gun region where such measures usually have little trouble garnering support. However, this effort still should worry gun rights advocates not just in Carson but throughout the nation. As I’ve argued before, gun control is like a virus. It’s introduced in one place and then begins to spread throughout the entire system, infecting other communities and spreading even further. It doesn’t even require the proposal to be successful for it to be spread far and wide. It only has to look like a chance of working. Frankly, this is one of those proposals that I can definitely see infecting other cities all over the country despite it being stopped. There’s also a chance that this measure will come back up in Carson. However, if Robles really wanted to combat gun violence, maybe he can start by looking at why people engage in such violence, such as being involved in gang activity. Fight that, you fight all forms of violence. But Robles probably doesn’t actually care about that. What he cares more about is signaling his opposition to guns, probably as a way to advance his political career. Of course, that’s just my opinion, but one based on following countless politicians throughout the years. Who knows, though? Maybe Robles is sincere and really thinks this will somehow stop shootings. Of course, if that’s the case then people in Carson have a bigger issue. ... read more2 days ago
- Beto: Fines All That’s Necessary To ‘Compel’ On Mandatory BuybacksI’m kind of becoming a fan of Beto O’Rourke. No, I’m not going to support him for president or any office, up to and including dog catcher. I’m not going to donate to his campaign or anything of that sort either. You see, I’m becoming a fan of him because I’m becoming more and more convinced that he’s not really a presidential candidate so much as a performance artist. It’s the only thing that’s making much sense to me, and in that context, it’s awesome. Why is it the only thing that makes sense? Because he thinks that if people don’t want to sell their guns to the government, some fines will be all that’s needed to compel people to change their minds. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke provided insight into how police would enforce his proposal for a government confiscation of AR-15s and AK-47s. The Democratic presidential candidate told reporters he would impose a fine on AR-15 owners to “compel” them to follow the law and turn in their banned firearms. Owners who turn in the guns will then be compensated. “We expect our fellow Americans to follow the law. If they do not, there would be a fine imposed to compel them to follow the law,” O’Rourke said. “We’ve seen this implemented successfully in Australia, where you’ve seen a near 50% reduction in gun violence deaths in that country.” Except, that’s not what happened. For one thing, Australia didn’t just stop with AR-15 or similar rifles but began cracking down on guns of all stripes. If mandatory buybacks were responsible for a reduction in crime, it’s highly likely that laws restricting handguns would have had more of an impact as opposed to a firearm that even today in the U.S. is little used in crime. Further, the nation was one that never embraced the right to keep and bear arms quite as Americans did, so they’d be willing to roll over and accept restrictions on their gun rights. Americans are different. We’re ornery about our gun rights. Not all of us, but most of us. I can promise you that if somehow O’Rourke got into the White House and had the opportunity to put his plan into place, I don’t care what kind of fines were put in place, I’m not giving up jack. Neither are most AR-15 owners, from what I can tell. Then again, O’Rourke thinks he can continue to talk about gun confiscation–and let’s be clear, that’s exactly what a mandatory buyback is, it’s just dressed up to sound a little less totalitarian–and pretend that gun owners will just roll over and accept whatever he says. No. That’s not how any of this works, and the sooner his DUI-driving, failed folk-singing butt recognizes this, the happier everyone will be. Go ahead. Threaten fines. I speak for millions of American gun owners when I say just two little words, words passed down from history and immortalized for ages to come. They were uttered by the Spartans, then used ... read more2 days ago
- Trump Says He’s Moving Slowly On Guns To “Make Sure It’s Right”President Donald Trump says his administration is going slowly with any proposal on guns and gun control, because the administration wants “to make sure it’s right”. Speaking to Ed Henry of Fox News in an interview airing Thursday, the president said he’s still in negotiations with members of both parties, but certain measures like a “universal background check” bill aren’t part of discussions, and the president said he would do “nothing to hurt the 2nd Amendment”. “I am [going to stand up to the NRA] if it’s not going to hurt a good, solid great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that,” he said. “And they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment,” Trump continued. “I don’t want to have crazy people have guns. I don’t want to have bad people have guns. But, we’re going to do nothing to hurt the Second Amendment. And what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that’s what we’re working on.” One attempted “compromise” may have been the expanded background check measure that met a chilly reception on Capitol Hill Wednesday, and one reason it wasn’t received better is because it’s really no compromise at all. The measure would give gun control advocates a little bit of what they want, while allowing them to demand more. 2nd Amendment supporters, on the other hand, don’t get anything out of the deal other than the promise that gun control activists will use the half-measure to demand the passage of “universal background checks”. A true compromise measure would involve something of value to 2nd Amendment supporters like national right to carry reciprocity or removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act. The problem with that is that Democrats would never agree to such a proposal, even if Manchin/Toomey background check legislation was attached. So, the president has to struggle to find something that both sides would support, which may very well be an impossible task. The NRA, for example, has already come out against the background check proposal circulating on the Hill yesterday. Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement: “This missive is a non-starter with the NRA and our 5 million members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals.” So when will we actually see the rollout of the White House plan? Reports beginning late last week indicated we might see something from the president today, but Trump threw cold water on that idea in his interview with Ed Henry. In my conversation with the Daily Caller’s Amber Athey on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., she said it’s looking like next week would be the earliest we might hear something officially from the president about what measures, if any, he’ll support. In the meantime, make sure you’re talking to your senators and your representative. Gun control activists are still completely engaged in their push for new gun laws, so gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters need to be doing all ... read more2 days ago
- “Colt’s Not Pulling A Wal-Mart”: Reactions To Colt’s AR-15 DecisionWith Colt announcing it’s suspending production of AR-15’s for the civilian market, there’s obviously a lot of concern among gun owners that this represents some sort of anti-gun move. According to Colt CEO Dennis Veilleux in his statement announcing the suspension of rifle production for the civilian market, the move is a financial one, not any signal of support for gun control, and the industry officials I’ve spoken with say that is indeed the case. One individual in the firearms industry, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me that Colt is “not pulling a Wal-Mart or a Dick’s”, but that they’re simply trying to stay healthy financially, noting that Colt’s price point for AR-15’s puts them in competition with higher-end manufacturers like Daniel Defense. Others in the industry say they wouldn’t be surprised to see Colt re-enter the civilian market at some point in the future, though they couldn’t predict when that might be. Veilleux certainly left that door wide open in his statement, noting “at the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change.” Unfortunately, some media outlets like ABC News are intent on trying to shoehorn this decision into a broader anti-gun narrative.
Colt says it will stop producing the AR-15 for the consumer market in the wake of many recent mass shootings. https://t.co/Gm5HK2g9gK — ABC News (@ABC) September 19, 2019 There’s nothing in Veilleux’s statement to indicate that the decision by Colt has anything to do with the horrific crimes in Dayton and El Paso. In fact, there’s a lot in the statement by Colt’s CEO to indicate otherwise. We want to assure you that Colt is committed to the Second Amendment, highly values its customers and continues to manufacture the world’s finest quality firearms for the consumer market. The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity. Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future. “We’re having a hard time competing in this robust market” isn’t exactly the clarion call for gun control that ABC News makes it out to be, but the media has its anti-gun narrative and ABC News is apparently going to stick to it. So will anti-gun candidates like Beto O’Rourke, who’s trying to turn this into some sort of anti-gun victory.
(Colt Firearms just announced they're stopping production of AR-15s: https://t.co/wcIJ7U42dD) https://t.co/jmmqpdNLPf — Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) September 19, 2019 As for the idea of more major manufacturers stepping away from production of AR-style rifles, none of the folks in the industry that I’ve spoke to say that’s a likely scenario. The possibility of some smaller companies succumbing to the crowded market isn’t out of the question, but overall the feeling among those I’ve spoken with today is that the industry is in good shape at the moment, and that yes, ... read more2 days ago
- Mass Shooting Survivor Lobbies For Fewer Federal Gun LawsWith people like David Hogg and Gabby Giffords, we’re supposed to hold their status as a survivor as somehow sacred. They can’t be questioned over the validity of their positions because they survived, man. They know and stuff. We should all just listen to them because they know better than we do because of their experiences. Of course, these same people often ignore pro-gun survivors like Kyle Kashuv or Rep. Steve Scalise. However, mass shootings aren’t new, and so it’s not surprising that there’s a survivor lobbying Congress right now, using her experiences to explain and support her position to lawmakers. She’ll probably be ignored by many, though, because she wants fewer gun laws. Since surviving a 1991 mass shooting at a Luby’s in Killeen, Suzanna Gratia Hupp has lobbied for looser gun control laws that she says could have allowed her to save the 23 victims, including both of her parents. “I reached for the gun in my purse on the floor next to me,” Hupp told a congressional committee Wednesday during a hearing on the economic costs of gun violence. She recounted the moments after the killer, George Hennard, crashed his pickup into the restaurant where she was eating with her parents and opened fire. “But then I realized that a few months earlier I had made the stupidest decision of my life. My gun was 100 yards away, dutifully left in my car to obey the law because at that time in the state of Texas, carrying a handgun was illegal.” Hupp’s campaign to ease restrictions on guns has spanned several decades. She won a seat in the Texas House, where she served for 10 years. On Wednesday, she told her story during a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee. Hupp, a chiropractor, was invited by fellow Republicans, and she focused her testimony on what she called “the high cost of gun control.” Testimony from Hupp that was recorded years ago has always struck me as being one of the most powerful reasons for legalized carry in some form or fashion. As noted, Hupp had a firearm. It was in her car where she was required by law to leave it. As a result, she watched her father be gunned down because of that law. It’s stuck with me. However, the question is whether any anti-gunner on the committee would listen to the experiences of someone who would have been the “good guy with a gun” had the law not tied their hands? We’re told that the “good guy with a gun” is a myth, yet here’s someone who had every chance to be one except for a law that would have allowed her to have been armed. After all, as anti-gunners like to say, if it would have saved just one life… Anyway, since the Lubby’s Diner massacre in 1991, Hupp has been a vehement pro-gun voice. Yet despite this, she has never had the profile of a David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez or any of the Parkland crowd. ... read more2 days ago
- Colt Suspends Production Of AR-15 Rifles For Civilian MarketColt is one of the more venerable firearm manufacturers in the country. The AR-15 is one of the more venerable designs still regularly sold in the country today. A Colt AR-15 is one of the better options out there for those looking for what some feel is a top-shelf AR-15 (depending on who you ask, as in all things firearm related). However, it seems the legendary manufacturer is suspending production of the most popular rifle in the country for civilian sales. There have been numerous articles recently published about Colt’s participation in the commercial rifle market. Some of these articles have incorrectly stated or implied that Colt is not committed to the consumer market. We want to assure you that Colt is committed to the Second Amendment, highly values its customers and continues to manufacture the world’s finest quality firearms for the consumer market. The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity. Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, our warfighters and law enforcement personnel continue to demand Colt rifles and we are fortunate enough to have been awarded significant military and law enforcement contracts. Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles. Colt’s commitment to the consumer markets, however, is unwavering. We continue to expand our network of dealers across the country and to supply them with expanding lines of the finest quality 1911s and revolvers. At the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change. Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world. In other words, Colt is backing away from making AR-15s for the civilian market because they’ve made a ton that are just sitting in warehouses so they’re going to focus on their government contracts. This has apparently upset a lot of people in the gun community, but it shouldn’t. While AR-15s are selling really well right now, that’s a short-term bump in sales, not necessarily a sustained increase in demand for the rifles. If they’ve got enough to meet civilian demand but government contracts are going unfulfilled, of course they’re going to adjust to focus on those contracts. That’s where money is still coming into the company. Of course, it’s also possible this is just an excuse and they have no interest in making AR-15s for private citizens anymore. If so, then there’s no skin off the market’s nose. There will be a lot of other companies out there who will be more than happy to take up that market share. I don’t think that’s the case, though. We’ve known that sales of new firearms have been sluggish for the last few years now and there is ... read more2 days ago
- We Heard You. We’re Changing the Commenting System.After rolling out the new commenting system for Bearing Arms recently, and after receiving all of your much-needed, honest feedback on the Spot.IM commenting system, Bearing Arms is making a change. The Townhall Media family is going to Disqus. Instead of going back to Facebook comments which you all despised, we are going to a new platform that was requested many times, Disqus. You’ll be able to block trolls and have the comment features you want. If you have any issues signing up for Disqus, email email@example.com. Thank you for being loyal readers of Bearing Arms, we love you all. The post We Heard You. We’re Changing the Commenting System. appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more2 days ago
- A Frosty Reception For A Background Check ProposalA plan to expand background checks to some private sales of firearms met with a chilly reception on Capitol Hill Wednesday, leading to doubts that we’ll see any official proposal from President Trump this week. Amber Athey of The Daily Caller joins Cam with the latest details on the fight for gun control in D.C. Plus, Cam has the story of a self-defense shooting in North Carolina that led to the death of an armed robber, and a story out of Wisconsin involving another armed robber who’s facing more time behind bars for vandalizing a statue than he actually received for robbing someone at gunpoint. You can find the show as a podcast at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Townhall.com. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word! The post A Frosty Reception For A Background Check Proposal appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more2 days ago
- Why Alleged Airline Mechanic Sabotage Reminds Us Of Second Amendment ImportanceGuns aren’t allowed on planes, for the most part. There are ways to fly with a gun, but they’re kind of a pain in the butt, enough so that it’s often just easier to drive instead of flying. As such, it’s easy to see some reports of potential terrorism regarding planes and not think about guns. You know, reports like this one: The man arrested for sabotaging the navigation system on an American Airlines plane that was scheduled to take off from Florida earlier this year had ISIS propaganda videos on his cellphone. According to prosecutors, Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani has ties to the Islamic terrorist group through his brother in Iraq. The new revelations came during a bail hearing in Miami Wednesday. Alani is a naturalized citizen from Iraq. From the Associated Press: A federal judge cited new evidence of potential terrorism sympathies in denying bail for a mechanic charged with sabotaging an American Airlines jetliner. U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris McAliley imposed pretrial detention for 60-year-old Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani at Wednesday’s hearing. The new evidence presented by prosecutors includes that Alani has a brother in Iraq who may be involved with the Islamic State extremist group as well as statements Alani made about wishing harm on non-Muslims. Alani is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Iraq. He’s not charged with a terror-related crime. Alani is charged with sabotaging a Boeing 737 with 150 people aboard at Miami International Airport because ongoing labor negotiations were jeopardizing his chances at earning overtime. Alani claimed he sabotaged the plane in order to get mechanic overtime pay. Luckily the issue was noticed by pilots before taking off and nobody was hurt. Alani was caught on surveillance video and he conducted the sabotage for seven minutes. Now, it’s possible that Alani was legitimately trying to scam a little overtime, but I’m skeptical. I can’t help but believe there are plenty of ways to sabotage a jet where it won’t even take off, a method that would be much less likely to hurt innocent people and would guarantee it would be noticed in time to get the overtime. Messing with the guidance system, however, is suspect. The fact that he seemed to share in the radical Islamic ideology of people like ISIS, however, make it even more suspect. Now, let me be clear. This is a Second Amendment site and we talk about guns. A gun won’t do you a damn bit of good against a plane who is out over the ocean when it runs out of fuel or slams into a mountain that it thinks should be 200 miles further east. But terrorists do not and will not limit themselves to things like this. This incident, while not explicitly related to firearms in any way, does serve as a reminder that there are people out there who want you dead. They want all of us dead and if they get the chance, they will kill you. It’s not just radical Islam, either. The truth ... read more2 days ago
- Schumer Says He Doesn’t Know Any Democrats Backing Beto’s “Buyback”Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s joined the chorus of Democrats complaining about Beto O’Rourke’s proposed “assault weapon ban” and compensated confiscation program, expressing annoyance that O’Rourke’s proposal is getting a lot of attention, but doesn’t have a lot of support. “I don’t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke, but it’s no excuse not to go forward,” Schumer told reporters on a conference call Wednesday, according to the Times Union of Albany, N.Y. The minority leader’s comments come as a number of Democrats have come out in opposition to O’Rourke’s proposed mandatory buyback program for assault-style weapons. Apparently the Senate Majority leader has never met his colleagues Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both of whom are in favor of a mandatory compensated confiscation of the most popular rifle in the country. In New Hampshire on Friday, Senator Kamala Harris of California told reporters that requiring owners of assault weapons to sell them to the government is “a good idea” because “we have to take those guns off the streets.” New Jersey Senator Cory Booker said he supports the proposal. He noted that other countries have been able to take military-style semiautomatic weapons “off the streets” and that the U.S. can’t let the National Rifle Association “tell us what’s possible.” That comes from a Bloomberg News story dated September 7th, two days before Congress returned from its August recess. Back then, talking up a gun ban and confiscation was seen as something Democrats were “warming” up to, not as an impediment to passage of gun control in the Senate. Fast forward a few weeks, and you’ll find Democrats complaining about Beto’s timing, but not many actually criticizing his idea (with the exception of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who said Beto wasn’t going to take his guns, and then acknowledged he doesn’t own any of the guns Beto wants to ban in the first place). It’s also worth noting that not a single gun control group has come out and said “Beto’s idea is a bad one. There’s no way we’d support taking guns from legal gun owners. We’re all about commonsense gun safety, and gun confiscation is neither.” No, their objections have to do with strategy, not principles. Schumer doesn’t want to talk about O’Rourke’s gun ban plan because it’s not going to happen before a Democrat get back to the Oval Office, and the messaging from anti-gun activists this week was supposed to be all about background checks, with a few “red flag” talking points thrown in the mix. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer started off the week by demanding “universal background check” legislation get a vote in the Senate, and now everyone wants to talk about the gun control plan of someone who’s polling in the low single digits? It’s gotta be maddening for him. It’s interesting that Harris and Booker, both active U.S. Senators, haven’t said much about a mandatory compensated confiscation plan this week, though Harris did talk about banning “assault weapons” via executive order when she was ... read more2 days ago
- Oregon Ballot Initiative Wants Strictest Gun Storage Law In NationThe Pacific Northwest is a beautiful region, one I’ve often dreamed of visiting or possibly even living in. Trees, rain, non-Southwest Georgia-levels of heat, it almost sounds like paradise to me. There’s just one problem with that part of the country, and that’s all the anti-gun loons that live in the larger cities. Oregon, in particular, has a particularly insane breed of anti-gunner that continually push to make it almost impossible to own a gun in the state. After all, they wanted to restrict round capacity to just five shots and restrict ammo purchases to just 50 rounds per month. Well, that same breed is at it again, this time with a gun storage law. Carol Manstrom says she lost her 18-year-old son when he grabbed his father’s unsecured pistol and shot himself. Paul Kemp lost his brother-in-law when a man opened fire with a stolen AR-15 assault-style rifle at a shopping mall. On Wednesday, Manstrom and Kemp helped deliver 2,000 signatures to Oregon’s elections office as part of an effort to get a measure on the 2020 ballot that would create the stiffest law in America requiring the safe storage of firearms. The initiative would require guns to be secured with a trigger or cable lock, or in a locked container. It also mandates that a lost or stolen firearm be reported within 24 hours and makes violators of the measure liable for any injury from an unsecured weapon, except in matters of self-defense or defense of another person. So, basically, you’re on the hook for what anyone else does with your gun, even if they don’t have permission to access the gun. It also means that while the law explicitly permits gun locks to be used, you could still be on the hook for whatever happens. You see, gun locks are usually keyed locks. A lot of people drop their keys the moment they come in the door. In fact, most people do. If someone takes those keys, accesses the gun, and then misuses that weapon, you’re on the hook for whatever happens. Especially if the person who accesses the gun commits suicide or is otherwise unable or unwilling to admit that they had to steal the gun owner’s keys to access the weapon in the first place. It’ll just look like it wasn’t secured. Either that or the measure is unenforceable. So what’s this really about? Guilt. Manstrom, with a cardboard box containing the 2,000 signatures next to her, described how she lost her son Will in 2017, just a month after he and his girlfriend split up. Teens sometimes make impulsive decisions, Manstrom said. “In the case of my son Will, it was a decision that we’ll never be able to take back,” Manstrom said at a news conference in the state capitol. “If a loaded gun was not easily accessible to him that night, I believe he would be with us today.” Then why didn’t she or her husband have the gun secured? I’m ... read more2 days ago
- Beto Now Attacking Fellow Democrats On Gun IssueBeto O’Rourke has already ticked off Democrats on Capitol Hill with his repeated endorsements of gun confiscation, including telling Chris Cuomo on CNN Wednesday evening that he will confiscate “AR-15’s and AK-47’s”, which he labeled “weapons designed for use on a military battlefield”. Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and Delaware’s Chris Coons are a just a couple of the Democrats in Washington expressing frustration with Beto’s full-throated calls for gun confiscation while they’re trying to hammer out an agreement with Republicans to expand some background checks. Now Beto’s calling his fellow Democrats “complicit” in the nation’s violent crime problem. While speaking to Cuomo, O’Rourke argued that while Republicans are awful on gun control, his fellow Democrats aren’t much better. “I mean, the Republicans are the most obstinate and the most obstructionist and the most in the pockets of the NRA, but it’s been a bipartisan problem that the Centers for Disease Control couldn’t even study gun violence, that here we are in 2019 and we still don’t have universal background checks or ‘red flag’ laws or we allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, even though it did so much good and saved so many lives,” the former Texas congressman told CNN. “So, this old policy and tactic of relying on polls and allowing the NRA to set the terms of the debate no longer works for me and no longer works for this country,” he added. First of all, no, the gun ban that expired in 2004 was not a huge success. In fact, at the time of its expiration even gun control groups weren’t fighting too hard to keep it around. Their big argument was that the reason the semi-auto ban didn’t do much was that it wasn’t strong enough to begin with, as this Los Angeles Times story from 2004 makes clear. Some experts said the loopholes in the ban were so great that small modifications in banned weapons made them legal. “Nothing of substance will change in the gun industry after the sunset,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control. “The difference between the post-ban versions of assault weapons such as the AR-15 and their banned counterparts is entirely trivia.” She added that many assault weapons had been developed since 1994 and fall outside the ban’s restrictions. It’s actually amusing to see Beto O’Rourke complain about politicians paying too much attention to the polls, since his campaign has been hoping that his embrace of a gun ban and confiscation would lead to a rise in his anemic polling among Democrat voters. Unfortunately for the candidate, he’s seen no real gains since his “Hell yes, we’re coming for your guns” moment a week ago, and so now he’s decided to double down on the rhetoric. If the current push for gun control fails, most Democrats will put the blame squarely on President Trump and Republicans, but there will be also be more complaints that Beto went too far, at least publicly, ... read more2 days ago
- Understanding Florida’s Potential Assault Weapon BanFlorida has long had a reputation as a pro-gun state. It’s even been called “The Gunshine State,” a play on its more official nickname. While it’s not necessarily as pro-gun as many like to believe, it’s long been an important stronghold for gun rights. After Parkland, however, it reacted quickly–as kneejerks tend to be–and added on some gun control. Lawmakers quickly backed off of making any new proposals, but anti-gunners in the state smelled blood in the water and are pushing hard for more. Now, the battle’s intensifying and area media are trying to clarify the issue to some degree. As the Florida Supreme Court considers a motion by Attorney General Ashley Moody to invalidate a proposed ballot amendment that would ban assault-style weapons, gun control advocates joined with Democratic leaders Wednesday to urge Moody to reconsider. 1) What would the amendment do? The amendment, proposed by Ban Assault Weapons Now, seeks to ban any weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once. Supporters say the definition covers the assault-style guns most often used in the nation’s spate of mass shootings, including last year’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. … 3) What is Moody’s case against the amendment? The attorney general, a Republican who has received campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, believes the amendment’s language is misleading. She warns the measure is intended to “trick” voters into believing that it applies to a small subset of guns and not the “common” guns owned by many Floridians. Now, Ban Assault Weapons Now’s actual petition uses slightly different language than the media does. It defines assault weapon as, “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device.” In other words, it won’t actually ban any weapon that’s capable of holding more than 10 rounds. That said, there are all kinds of problems with this petition and Moody is right to oppose it. For one thing, it means any semi-auto rifle or shotgun capable of holding ten rounds in any manner at all. That includes internal magazines, so even a semi-auto shotgun with a tube-extension could be considered an assault rifle. So yeah, it may well extend beyond what many people believe it would include. More importantly, though, the issue with shootings has to do with people, not guns. Parkland happened not because guns were available but because pretty much every adult in the killer’s life ignored every warning sign he was giving and did nothing, that includes the FBI. No one did a damn thing and the killer did what he was intending to do. Meanwhile, we have other cases where people didn’t do that and guess what? They get stopped. Guns aren’t the problem. Yet if mass shootings were the issue, the law wouldn’t be so broad. They’d focus on a handful of measures that might target just the weapons supposedly preferred by ... read more2 days ago
- The Hill Reports Guns Killed More Than Cars. Just One Problem HereAP Photo/Richard Vogel, File The Hill had news. They’d just learned that 2017 was the first year in which cars were responsible for fewer deaths than firearms. In a state of panic over guns throughout the nation, this is distressing news. In fact, it’s likely to be used as evidence that we need to do something about guns. That’s especially true when a common rejoinder among gun rights advocates is that cars kill more people than guns. There’s just one problem with the report. The number of Americans who died from firearms surpassed those who died in car accidents for the first time in 2017, according to a new far-reaching report on gun violence. The report, released Wednesday by Democratic members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), found that nearly 40,000 people were killed in the U.S. by a gun, including approximately 2,500 school-age children. “That is over 100 people per day and more than five children killed each day,” the report stated. In 2017, 37,133 people died in motor vehicle crashes, according to the Department of Transportation. … “I believe that Congress must act to stem the gun violence epidemic in our country,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the top Democrat on the JEC, said during a committee hearing on Wednesday. She added that while the report focused on the economic costs of gun violence, “there is no way to estimate the cost of a human life.” States with the highest rates of gun ownership, including Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming have the highest rates of gun suicides. Sixty percent of the total number of people who died from firearms died by suicide. (Emphasis added.) 60 percent of these fatalities occur when someone misuses a firearm with the express intent to take their own life, and yet we’re supposed to restrict ownership in general because of these acts? No. Just…no. Suicide is a problem, but gun ownership doesn’t make that go away. There are other methods of suicide out there, after all. Instead, the focus should be on the mental health system, including efforts to destigmatize mental illness in such a way that people will start asking for help rather than taking their own lives. We also need to understand the mindset behind suicide so we can combat it more effectively. After all, those who take their own lives aren’t necessarily thinking about their acts selfishly. They think their loved ones would be better off without them. We need to understand that and counter that to reduce suicides and, by extension, the total number of supposed firearm fatalities. The upside of that approach is that we also reduce the number of suicides by pills, hanging, jumping from tall objects, car exhaust, and by any other method you care to name. When The Hill opted to try and bury that tidbit halfway down the story, especially knowing how many readers only skim the first part of a piece, they sought to maintain a narrative of “gunz r bad.” They wanted us to ... read more2 days ago
- Twitter Suspends Second Amendment Foundation On Eve Of Annual ConferenceThe 34th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference is taking place in Phoenix, Arizona this weekend, but the event’s sponsor, the Washington State-based Second Amendment Foundation, found its Twitter account suspended without warning Wednesday evening. I spoke with Alan Gottleib, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation late Wednesday evening, and he told me that they have no idea why the account was suddenly suspended. “The fact that it was done just before our record setting Gun Rights Policy Conference does not sit well with us. Coincidence? Hard to believe.” This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a gun rights organization de-platformed, even temporarily. It was just a few weeks ago that The Well Armed Woman had its Instagram page suddenly removed, with admins unable to access the page. At the time, Carrie Lightfoot, the founder of The Well Armed Woman complained: “There was no warning and there has been no communication from Instagram at all. We don’t post ANYTHING even close to being inappropriate. My focus is totally on empowering and educating our followers. For them to take down a page focused on women taking responsibility for their own self-protection against violence is a new low.” After news of the suspension was reported throughout the 2A community and folks began speaking out, The Well Armed Woman’s page was restored, with no apology or explanation provided. I’m hoping that something similar happens here, but it’s disturbing to see a major 2nd Amendment organization lose one of its platforms, not only on the eve of its major conference, but as the push for gun control is reaching a head as well. Sadly, I won’t be in Phoenix this weekend. I was hoping to take part in a panel with some of my friends and colleagues in the 2A media world, but unfortunately my wife’s health threw us a curveball and I need to be with her instead. It sounds like it’s going to be an amazing weekend, based on the SAF’s press release. The conference will feature panel discussions on state and national political issues including the 2020 elections outlook, legal battles and legislation, suicide prevention, the culture war against gun owners, and lots more. Gottlieb acknowledged that interest is being fueled by calls from Democratic presidential candidates for mandatory surrender of semi-automatic firearms, expanded background checks and so-called “red flag laws.” Hopefully SAF has their Twitter account restored so we can follow along there, but I’d also check out their Facebook page this weekend for coverage as well. And I’ll be talking with Alan Gottleib next week on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to get a complete wrap up of this year’s conference, so be sure to tune in for that. In the meantime, please help spread the word about the latest de-platforming of a 2nd Amendment organization, and let’s see if gun owners can help get SAF’s Twitter account restored. The post Twitter Suspends Second Amendment Foundation On Eve Of Annual Conference appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more2 days ago
- White House Backs Away From Barr’s Background Check ProposalYesterday, we learned of an idea being floated by Attorney General William Barr that would expand universal background checks. (Fun fact, the journalist who broke the news, Amber Athey, will be on today’s Cam & Co., so be sure to check that out.) The proposal called for mandatory background checks at all advertised gun sales, which would include gun shows. It apparently doesn’t differentiate for private sales between two parties that just happens to take place at a gun show and those between an FFL and a customer. However, it also doesn’t cover private transfers between two parties pretty much anywhere else. At least, that’s the theory. In practice, who knows what will actually transpire. Not that it looks like it will matter, because not only is the NRA displeased with the bill, but the White House is backing away from it. Attorney General William Barr spent Wednesday shopping a proposal to expand background checks to conservative Republicans in Congress. There’s just one problem: President Donald Trump is not on board with any of it. “That is not a White House document, and any suggestion to contrary is completely false,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said. That lack of support had the potential of killing the proposal before it was barely out of the gate. But the attorney general pressed on with a memo, obtained by ABC News, that contained ideas for expanding background checks for “all advertised commercial sales,” expanding who could perform the checks and seeking to negate any kind of federal firearms registry — a primary concern for many gun rights groups. “The president has made clear he’s interested in any meaningful, workable measures that can provide greater security to the American people. I’ve been up here gathering perspective, kicking around some ideas, so I’m in a better position to advise the president,” Barr told reporters after a meeting with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. … But as the attorney general was making the rounds, the National Rifle Association was also making calls to lawmakers, according to a Republican senator who asked not to be named. “Let’s just say, they’re not on board with this,” the senator told ABC News. In a statement to ABC News, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Jason Ouimet said, “This missive is a non-starter with the NRA and our 5 million members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals.” That left the proposal in a precarious position, given the sway the gun rights group has with lawmakers despite its own internal political turmoil. It looks like Barr floated the idea in an effort to gauge reaction and potentially try and pressure Trump into accepting this as a workable alternative, even if he’s not on board with it right now. What we don’t know just yet is why Trump isn’t supportive of the measure. While it’s tempting to chalk it up to the idea that it goes further ... read more2 days ago
- Homeowner Defends Themselves Against Three Mask-Wearing TeensGun control advocates roll their eyes at the idea of “guns save lives” kind of like the do the phrase “good guy with a gun.” They don’t like the idea that private citizens are capable of protecting themselves against violent attacks without begging for the government to come to the rescue like the cavalry of old. Unfortunately, though, while the police may well want to protect every single person in their jurisdiction, they can’t. There’s just not a chance the can be everywhere and do everything. They’re humans, not supernatural beings. That means it’s up to us to protect our ourselves and our families. That’s precisely what one Georgia homeowner did earlier this week. The Rockdale County Sheriff’s Department is investigating a deadly triple shooting Monday morning. Deputies said a homeowner shot three teens who were wearing masks. Channel 2’s Aaron Diamant learned two of the teens were brothers, 15 and 16 years old. A third was a 15-year-old boy. The shooting happened around 4 a.m. at a house off White Oak Court in Conyers. One of the boys died at the scene. The other two later died at the hospital. Investigators said one of the teens pulled out a gun and fired at the neighbors before the homeowner returned fire. Deputies found the teens outside the home after the homeowner called 911 for help. One was lying near the edge of the driveway and the other two up the road a bit. Looks like a clean shoot to me. Georgia is a Stand Your Ground state, and I’m sorry, but if one of these punks pulled a gun on me and started shooting, I have no reason to assume the others are unarmed. Further, they’re wearing masks. In Georgia. In September when it’s still hot as hell. Yeah…that alone would be enough to trip every red flag in my brain. Especially at four in the morning. If I see three people that early in the morning all wearing masks, I’m going to figure they’re up to no good. If one of them pulls a gun on me, then all bets are off for the whole lot of them. Right now, gun rights aren’t really under assault in Georgia. At least, not any more than they are anywhere else. Our only real threats right now are from Congress, not the General Assembly. That’s good because it’s very clear that our gun rights are definitely still needed. For context, Conyers is a city of about 15,000 people that serves as something of a suburb of Atlanta. We don’t know what precisely was said by these three goblins, but you know what we do know? That semi-automatic rifles are damn good for home defense, contrary to what anti-gunners say. “It was five shots and then it sounded like a handgun. Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle. And it was a slew of shots that came out,” neighbor Carlos Watson said. … Investigators say three people were at the home, including a woman, when the shooting happened. The ... read more3 days ago
- NYT Columnist: Defending 2A Is Bad For Democracy Or SomethingWil Wilkinson, a contributing writer to the New York Times opinion pages, believes that the “Come and Take It” response from gun owners to Beto O’Rourke’s “Hell yes we’re coming for your guns” is an affront to democracy, and he’s got a few things to say about it.
In my latest at @nytopinion, I argue that the truculent response to @BetoORourke's mandatory assault weapon buyback proposal betrays a disturbing hostility to democracy on the right. https://t.co/Hysuh3EVwP — Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019 Wilkinson argues that when gun owners talk about a “civil war” or violence if there is mass confiscation of firearms, that they are acting “seditiously”, and that their refusal to obey a legislatively approved gun ban would be an attack on democracy. It’s an argument that’s divorced from reality, and Wilkinson’s true objective seems to be to try to portray gun owners as dangerous people who don’t have any business owning guns in the first place.
Dogmatic claims about inviolable rights are implicitly claims about the conditions for legitimate political authority and the proper scope of democratic decision-making. But people disagree about rights, and there needs to be space to peacefully negotiate those disagreements. — Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019 Funny, I’ve never seen Wilkinson make the same argument about states that decide to legalize cannabis in violation of federal law. And frankly, that’s a much better model to consider when thinking about what disobedience to any sweeping gun ban would look like. Let’s say a Democrat is elected president in 2020, and with a new Senate majority and continued control of the House, manages to ram through a ban and compensated confiscation of all firearms deemed to be “assault weapons”. What likely to happen next? Let me present one scenario: First, a lawsuit is filed, and it’s likely that a judge would stay the law while the case made its way through the courts. In the meantime, cities would hold voluntary “buyback” programs, but most of the firearms turned in would be rusty old firearms, not the banned “battlefield weapons of war”. Now let’s say the Democrat in the White House decides to pack the Supreme Court to guarantee that the law is upheld in a 11-5 decision. The mandatory buyback is scheduled, and on the appointed days, a few people trickle in around the country. At the end of the 6-month amnesty period, about 3-million firearms are turned over for some cash. The other 12-15 million banned firearms remain in the hands of their owners. During that 6-month period several thousand rural counties across the country declare themselves to be “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” counties, and state that they will not work with federal law enforcement to enforce the gun ban. A few counties actually deputize owners of semi-automatic rifles since the federal ban included a carveout for police and military. Also during that six month period, the Democrat president changes the name ... read more3 days ago
- Anti-Gun Georgia Dem Candidate Thinks Beto’s Plan Not ‘Possible Or Lawful’Beto O’Rourke stepped in it last week during the Democratic debate. The former congressman and failed Senate candidate was explicit. “Hell yeah,” he said, he was coming for our guns. After years and years of anti-gunners claiming no one was coming for our guns, trying to gaslight their pro-gun opponents, the truth was out there for all to see. However, many people even on the anti-gun side think Beto went too far. One of them is a state senate candidate from my home state of Georgia. Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson reiterated her support for an “assault weapons” ban in a new interview, but said a confiscation scheme like that proposed by presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was neither possible nor lawful. On WGAU’s “Mission: TimPossible” podcast, host Tim Bryant noted O’Rourke’s pronouncement that his hypothetical administration would confiscate semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 through a “mandatory” buyback program. Asked for her thoughts, Tomlinson distanced herself from O’Rourke, despite previously lavishing praise on him on social media. “I don’t know Beto O’Rourke obviously, but I can only imagine the trauma that they’ve experienced with the murders there,” Tomlinson said. “I do not, however, believe that confiscation is possible or lawful, and that’s my lawyer background talking there.” Now, don’t start to think that Tomlinson is a pro-gun Democrat. She’s not. In fact, she expressly calls for an assault weapon ban despite not really understanding what the hell the term even means. “The better way to do it, frankly, is to have an assault weapons ban,” she said. Bryant cut in to say an “assault weapons” ban of some form already exists, pointing out he couldn’t own an automatic rifle. “I suppose we need to define what we mean when we say assault weapons,” Bryant said. “But there are definitions. You know there’s definitions related to how quickly they load the chamber and so forth,” Tomlinson said. “So there are definitions related to that, and you can Google them and look them up.” Yeah…wow. Anyway, it’s important to remember that people like Tomlinson are probably much closer to what the mainstream Democrat thinks on guns than, say, Beto. They may well want what Beto wants, but they also recognize that it’s not going to happen and, perhaps more importantly, it can’t happen. Not legally, anyway. Tomlinson is right about that. Of course, since she also supports an assault weapon ban herself, she may need to read up a bit on legality anyway. A recent CNN fact check delved into the constitutionality of O’Rourke’s proposal. The landmark Supreme Court D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008 found a ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote guns “in common use” were protected, and gun rights scholar Dave Kopel told CNN there was no question rifles like the AR-15 met that definition. Kopel is right, something Tomlinson might do well to remember herself. Still, it’s interesting to see just how little support O’Rourke is getting from even his fellow travelers. The post Anti-Gun Georgia Dem Candidate Thinks ... read more3 days ago
- Reminder: Not All Tech Companies Signed Anti-Gun LetterIt’s easy for gun rights advocates to feel put upon; like we’re the proverbial David in a whole nation full of Goliaths. The media is against us, it seems Washington is perpetually against us, the financial industry is against us, and Big Tech is against us. It’s hard not to feel like all the power in the nation is dedicated to stamping out gun rights. However, not everyone has signed on with the anti-gunners, and that’s important to remember too. In all, top executives for 150 companies signed the letter. In recent years liberal activist groups have enlisted CEOs to jointly pressure political leaders to bend to their agenda on causes such as climate change, trangenders’ use of public facilities, abortion, and immigration. Top executives for the major technology companies – such as Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft – could consistently be counted on to participate. But this time they opted out. Could they be growing weary of the constant political conflict – which often draws outcries from both their (mostly) liberal employees as well as the customers they have who are conservative – but seem to please no one? Are they tiring of the scrutiny they increasingly attract from members of Congress? According to a report in the New York Times, executives at Facebook and Google discussed signing the letter, and decided against it. “Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook did not sign, although he told colleagues and peers that he agreed with stricter background checks…,” the Times reported, citing anonymous company sources. “With Facebook under federal scrutiny — and contending with a drumbeat of criticism from Republicans who contend that the company’s platform silences conservative voices — Mr. Zuckerberg has decided that activism on this issue would only intensify the spotlight on the company, these people said.” And the newspaper reported that Google declined to sign, noting its recently enacted policy directed at employees who were instructed to “do the work we’ve each been hired to do, not to spend working time on debates about non-work topics.” Continued scrutiny may well play a role in this, to be sure. Google and Facebook, in particular, have come under a lot of scrutiny lately, though that didn’t stop Jack Dorsey of Twitter from signing on. However, it’s also possible that Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft also recognized a few things. For one, their customers aren’t just from one political stripe, so alienating potential customers is just bad business. They also may have come to recognize that no matter how many progressive causes they support, they’re never going to be really applauded by progressives because they’re still evil corporate giants who must be destroyed in an effort to make way for the glorious future. That means signing onto an anti-gun letter doesn’t gain them anything but may well cost them in the long run. It’s just too bad that other CEOs haven’t figured it out yet. Look, I’m not saying they should oppose gun control simply because progressives are never going to really like them. Far from it. I’d rather they be politically agnostic so ... read more3 days ago
- Ohio Republican State Senator Turns Her Back On Second AmendmentBipartisanship is often sold as a noble thing. The idea of Republicans and Democrats working together to find common ground, to work with one another to make our nation stronger sure sounds great. The problem, though, is when one side wants to destroy a fundamental right that existed in this land long before our country even existed, bipartisanship often means someone has to turn their back on that right. People like an Ohio state senator named Peggy Lehner. One by one, state Sen. Peggy Lehner ticked off the names and ages of each of the dead of Dayton. Then, the Republican from the neighboring suburb of Kettering added a few biographical details about the nine victims of the mass shooting, emphasizing they all died in but 29 seconds. She paused when she recounted brief details of the life of 30-year-old Logan Turner. He was a machinist at Thaler Machine Co. in Springboro. Bill Thaler, owner of the company, is Lehner’s neighbor and one of her best friends. Too many Ohioans, she said, increasingly know somebody affected by gun violence. “When you know someone, it’s harder to turn our back. None of these people needed to die,” Lehner testified Tuesday before the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee. “I can no longer be on the sidelines of gun safety. I’ve been there too long … doing absolutely nothing is simply not an option,” Lehner told her fellow senators. Oh, I get it. It’s hard not to consider gun control when the victim is someone you know and care about. Believe me, I freaking know. But I also know that if your principles are strong, you also pick up pretty quickly that the problem wasn’t access to guns but that someone broke the law in using them. It’s not the tool but the tool using it. The Dayton killer, in particular, broke the law by lying on his 4473. I particular, saying he didn’t use illicit drugs when we know damn good and well he did. Lehner, however, doesn’t have the internal fortitude to stand by her previous convictions. She didn’t truly have an understanding of the Second Amendment, what it means, and why it’s not to blame for insane people doing insane things. She has turned her back on the Second Amendment, all because of some personal tragedy and the constant barrage of talking heads claiming that if you’re not advancing gun control, you’re doing nothing. I get that she wants to turn her personal grief into action. Believe me, of all the people who clog the internet talking about mass shootings, I get it. Yet I can’t let this one slide. I understand the need to do something. I understand the need to question what you believed. However, if you believed that there were other options to combatting mass shootings, then why would that change because the name on the list is someone that you know? Lehner says she can’t stay on the sidelines, but why does that have to ... read more3 days ago
- Report: White House, Barr Pushing Expanded Background ChecksAttorney General William Barr reportedly met with several Republican members of Congress on Tuesday to push a version of the Machin/Toomey background check bill that would expand background check requirements to all “advertised commercial sales” of firearms. We break down how the proposal would work in the real world, and whether or not 2nd Amendment supporters are likely to back the measure. Plus, we have the latest on a couple of California stories, including a Bay-area sheriff under investigation for allegedly giving preferential treatment to concealed carry applicants who donated to her campaign, and the mayor of Carson’s attempts to change the city’s zoning laws in order to ban gun stores. You can find the show as a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or Townhall.com. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word! The post Report: White House, Barr Pushing Expanded Background Checks appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more3 days ago
- AG Barr Talks Up Background Checks, Trump Verbally Beats Down BetoWe may be inching towards some sort of public statement by President Trump on gun control, though when it will come is still anyone’s guess. Attorney General William Barr was at the Capitol yesterday speaking to several Republican lawmakers, and according to the Daily Caller‘s Amber Athey, background checks were a big topic of discussion. The Daily Caller obtained a copy of an idea sheet circulating among Republican members, which indicates that the legislation in question would expand background checks to include all commercially advertised unlicensed sales. “Consistent with the Manchin-Toomey draft legislation, a background-check requirement would be extended to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows,” the handout reads. “Background checks would be conducted either through a [Federal Firearm Licensee] or through a newly-created class of licensed transfer agents.” You can read the document for yourself here, but the big takeaway is that the White House appears to be on board, at least as of Tuesday afternoon, with expanding background check requirements to all “commercially advertised unlicensed sales”, meaning at least some private sales or transfers of firearms. That is likely to be a “no go” for many gun owners, although the fact that the proposal says a violation of the law would result in a “civil penalty”, not a criminal charge, may slightly temper criticism of the plan. Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have already said that anything less than universal background checks would be unacceptable, though I suspect they’d ultimately be on board with any expansion of background checks, especially knowing that they could portray the measure offered by Trump as a half-measure, and campaign on putting a Democrat in the White House to finish the job. That remains Trump’s biggest political issue at the moment; any gun control measure, no matter how small, that the president supports will be seen by 2nd Amendment supporters as caving to anti-gun activists, while the anti-gun activists will use any fig leaf offered by Trump as a cudgel to bash Republicans for not doing more. Trump’s best bet politically might be to walk away and claim that Democrats have ruined any real chance for “meaningful” legislation by their continued insistence on more extreme gun control measures. In fact, the president has already taken a verbal shot at Beto O’Rourke for doing just that.
Dummy Beto made it much harder to make a deal. Convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away. Will continue forward! https://t.co/87jvaYUkyn — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019 The trouble with this strategy is that most GOP consultants, and many politicians, are convinced that they need to “do something” with gun control or else risk a huge backlash among suburban voters, particularly women. If Trump walks away without addressing guns, Democrats will seize on the opportunity and hammer the President and Republicans for caring more about the gun lobby than the lives of children. It won’t be true, but it doesn’t have to be a factually correct ... read more3 days ago
- MSNBC’s Online Poll On Guns Didn’t Go How It ExpectedNo one is about to mistake MSNBC for a pro-gun outlet anytime soon. Their talking heads won’t shut up long enough for that to happen, for one thing. They’re going to continue going on and on about the evils of the Second Amendment and how we simply have to “do something.” However, they held an online poll to find out what people thought about citizens carrying firearms. It’s pretty likely they figured the results would be split to some degree, but considering the average MSNBC viewer, they also probably thought it would come down on the side of gun control. They were spectacularly wrong. Progressive cable news channel MSNBC posted an online poll to try to measure support for gun control, but they were likely disappointed with the overwhelming result. The poll showed that 93 percent of respondents supported the right of citizens to carry guns in public. Only 4 percent who responded to the decidedly unscientific poll said they were opposed to people carrying guns in public. Another 2 percent responded that people should be allowed to carry guns in public, but only for self defense. Now, it should be noted that this isn’t a scientific poll and shouldn’t be used for debate purposes. We all know how these things go. Someone like MSNBC posts the poll, pro-gun and anti-gun people rally their forces to go and vote on the poll and try to sway the results their way. You also get a number of people who are just there and answer honestly. What you usually don’t find, though, is something this lopsided. Of course, the question wouldn’t withstand scrutiny from a professional pollster, either. After all, what’s the context? It doesn’t differentiate between the rules surrounding such carry, such as those found in a constitutional carry state versus a very restrictive state like California’s. It’s just people’s off-the-cuff response to the question. And as of this morning, with over 700.000 votes in, it remains at 93 percent supporting the right to bear arms in public. Again, this doesn’t actually mean all that much. Even many anti-gunners seem to believe that there’s some right to keep and bear arms, so it stands to reason that some will say there’s a right to carry a gun in public…for some people. After all, they don’t expect celebrities or officials to not have the means to defend themselves. Then again, it’s possible the only reason there were 700K votes on this puppy is because pro-gunners flock to polls like this almost like they would one offering free ammo and anti-gunners just aren’t that interested in the topic. That would shock me, though, since so much of their time and effort has been built up into portraying their position as the mainstream position while claiming folks like me are radicals for not wanting to give up freedom in the name of some illusory safety. One would think they’d love a poll like this as a way to show just how significant their numbers are. ... read more3 days ago
- Vending Machines Almost As Deadly As AR-15s In Mass ShootingsAP Photo/Patrick Sison Anti-gunners love to scream about the AR-15. Due to it’s visual similarities to the M-16/M-4 rifles used by the military, it’s referred to as a “weapon of war” by opponents. It’s described as the preferred weapon of mass shooters as anti-gunners continue to demonize the weapon in the minds of the American people. However, their efforts are horribly misguided. In fact, vending machines may be almost as lethal as an AR-15 in the hands of a mass shooter [emphasis mine]: The report goes on to explain that the law’s larger impact on overall gun violence was minimal, because the banned weapons were rarely involved in criminal acts in the first place. According to the FBI, rifles — a broader category that lumps together your grandpappy’s hunting rifle with military-style rifles — constitute an average of 340 homicides per year. Though any loss of life is tragic, these numbers don’t exactly rise to the occasion in solving what is commonly characterized as a national epidemic. But this debate isn’t about just any old rifle, right? The scope of this debate is often targets one specific style of the rifle: the infamous AR-15. Again, analysis regarding the AR-15 — the so-called “weapon of choice” of mass shooters — produces less-than-impressive numbers. Between 2007 and 2018, 173 people were killed by mass shooters using an AR-15, according to a New York Times analysis — roughly, 15 per year. (For perspective, 13 people die per year from vending machines falling on them.) The fearmongering regarding this weapon becomes even more apparent when one considers the estimated 8 million AR-15s currently in circulation — the vast majority of which will never be involved in a crime. Let that sink in for just a bit. When you compare the number of people killed with AR-15s in mass shootings and the number of people killed by vending machines falling on them during an 11-year span, only two more are killed annually with what is termed a “weapon of war” compared to something you get drinks and snacks out of. Yeah, I don’t really see the issue here. This is especially true when you remember that the Las Vegas massacre (58 people killed) and the Pulse Orlando shooting (49 people killed) took place during this same time period. Those two shootings alone accounted for most of those killed during that 11-year span. Take those out, and a mere 66 people were killed in mass shootings with AR-15s. Of course, anti-gunners will point to those same two shootings as if it’s proof that the weapons need to be banned. To be fair, those two shootings were horrific. However, let’s also remember that Virginia Tech still stands as the worst school shooting in American history and the killer used handguns. The weapon itself isn’t the issue, especially since, as noted in the above-linked quote, there are millions upon millions of these weapons in circulation, and only a handful have been used for such purposes. Let’s also remember that the worst mass killing in modern ... read more3 days ago
- California Sheriff Under Investigation For ‘Pay To Play’ Concealed Carry PermitsAP Photo/Paul Sakuma Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith is now facing an investigation into whether her office has been issuing concealed carry licenses in exchange for campaign donations, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Prosecutors in Santa Clara County have served at least three search warrants while investigating whether Sheriff Laurie Smith’s office gave out coveted concealed-gun permits in exchange for campaign money, sources familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle.
The Santa Clara County district attorney’s office raided the sheriff’s San Jose headquarters Aug. 2, seizing evidence through a search warrant that remains sealed. About a week before that, sources said, prosecutors served search warrants on two of the sheriff’s higher-ranking supervisors. The Bay-area county is home to nearly 2-million residents, but only 113 of them have concealed carry licenses, according to the California Department of Justice. Self-defense isn’t seen as a good enough reason to obtain a license from Sheriff Smith’s office, but the allegations are that campaign donations are seen as “good cause” in Santa Clara. But sources confirmed that the investigation involves an alleged “quid pro quo” between donors to six-term Sheriff Laurie Smith’s election efforts and people who have obtained concealed-carry weapons permits from her office, which has been relatively stingy about issuing the privilege compared to neighboring counties. The sources also said that the probe, while publicly surfacing over the past few days, had been in the works far longer and that it is focused on some of Smith’s trusted advisers in the agency. As the San Jose Mercury News notes, this isn’t the first time Sheriff Smith has come under scrutiny for the concealed carry permitting process in her county. In 2011, the sheriff was sued over the issuance of concealed carry permits, and it was revealed that some of the few individuals who had received a license lived outside of the county, and even outside of the country. Now, at least 4 of the 113 individuals who are licensed to carry by the Santa Clara Sheriff have donated to her campaign, and there could be others. The issue has long been a source of criticism for the Sheriff’s Office, and it has dogged Smith every time she has run for re-election in the last decade. Residents over the years have complained about the permitting process and said that the permits appeared to be reserved for high-profile people and VIP types. That was the case for Chris Long, a 30-year-old county resident who said he never heard back from the agency when he applied for a CCW permit in 2013, and learned that other applicants similarly got no response. In January, he decided to doggedly pursue the process and chronicle his experience in a post on the online platform Medium. His application was eventually denied, more than six months after he first applied. Chris Long did some digging via open records requests, and discovered that many permit holders didn’t have to articulate any particularly “good cause” to renew their permits and were able ... read more3 days ago
- OK Woman Arrested Who Allegedly Planned Shooting Without Red Flag LawsFollowing the recent spate of mass shootings, calls for red flag laws were once again renewed. It’s understandable, to some extent. When you’re looking for answers, you’ll latch onto almost any of them that present themselves and red flag laws were all the rage. That’s especially true after Parkland when the killer presented so much behavior you’re left thinking someone had to have seen something. However, what we’ve seen since Dayton has been something a little different. You see, after three mass shootings right on top of one another, we’ve seen that people are reporting troubling behavior and the police are actually investigating it. That’s led to what may be one more arrest of a potential mass shooter, all without using a single red flag law. An Oklahoma woman has been arrested after she allegedly threatened to “shoot 400 people for fun” at her former high school, CBS affiliate KOTV reports. Deputies with the Pittsburg County Sheriff’s Office seized an AK-47 and a shotgun from Alexis Wilson, 18, who was charged Monday with making a terroristic threat. Wilson was arrested after deputies got an anonymous tip that she told friends and coworkers she was going to shoot up McAlester High School, authorities said. They added that she had been posting videos of herself shooting guns. One of the coworkers allegedly told the sheriff’s office that Wilson threatened “to shoot 400 people for fun.” “You know, it may not have been anything — we don’t know 100%, but we are glad we got it before it turned into something,” Pittsburg County Sheriff Chris Morris said. Wilson had an AK-47 with six magazines and a 12-gauge shotgun with a stock sleeve for extra shells, according to Morris. He said Wilson picked up the AK-47 last week from a local gun shop with five extra high capacity magazines and 160 rounds of ammunition. Now, any law-abiding adult has a god-given right to own those weapons. Those alone don’t prove that Wilson intended to anything whatsoever. But it does mean that she had the means to carry out a mass shooting when she quipped to a coworker that she wanted to kill hundreds for no other reason than her personal amusement. What people need to understand is that Wilson’s arrest isn’t unusual. There have been others, such as the university student arrested for allegedly planning a mass shooting as well as a number of others. There are others we haven’t documented here as well. In fact, these arrests tend to be far better than a red flag order being carried out. After all, these take the potential killers off the street as well as taking their guns. The potential killers aren’t left roaming free where they can devise other means of killing innocent people like a bomb or even a van. Hell, even a knife can be used to slaughter the innocent. If you take the person off the streets, though, they can’t do such a thing. They’re locked up where the general public is safe. The ... read more3 days ago
- Second-Tier Candidates Spar Over Who’s Best On Gun ControlNeither candidate is polling in double digits, and one of them managed a whopping 1% in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, so Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke are happy to go after one another over gun control. It’s the most media attention they’ve gotten in weeks, and they’re both hoping it will translate into greater support in the polls. Right now it’s a three way race between Biden, Sanders, and Warren, and neither Buttigieg nor O’Rourke have set the electorate aflame with desire for their candidacies. Why not create some drama to generate some headlines? Asked in South Carolina about O’Rourke’s recent criticisms, Buttigieg said Tuesday he’s “focused on what we can do right now, because I don’t think we can wait.” He also said he “could care less” how Republicans might react to gun control reforms and that he’s “talking not just about politics, but about governing” and “what we can do right now.” O’Rourke has derided Buttigieg’s desire to push background checks instead of a ban and a compensated confiscation plan, calling out unnamed, but clearly identified politicians who are “triangulating, poll-testing, focus-group driving their response”. And while O’Rourke has certainly gotten his fair share of headlines since admitting he wants to take guns away from legal gun owners, it hasn’t exactly translated to a bump in the polls. In a Morning Consult poll conducted after last Thursday’s debate, O’Rourke climbed from 3% to 4% (which is also within the poll’s margin of error). In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, however, O’Rourke couldn’t even muster 2% of the vote. O’Rourke isn’t the only one calling for a ban and a compensated confiscation program anymore, either. Kamala Harris said on Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show on Monday that a buyback program is a “good idea,” and Cory Booker supports such a proposal. But O’Rourke is pressing the case for buy-backs most forcefully, and the opportunity to draw a contrast with Buttigieg is especially significant to his campaign. O’Rourke and Buttigieg are battling to be the choice of voters seeking a generational change. They are also young, white men who lean less heavily on their resumes than on their biographies and next-generation appeal. In other words, they’re occupying the same lane. Or as one Democrat strategist put it, “Isn’t this like the Spiderman meme, where the two spider men are pointing at each other?” Meanwhile, despite all the handwringing on the left about whether or not O’Rourke’s comments have hurt the chances of gun control getting to Donald Trump’s desk, no gun control group is actually coming out in disagreement with Beto’s ban. If there’s any complaint, it’s just about the timing, not the content, of Beto’s remarks. Gun control activists are split on whether mandatory buy-back programs would prove as effective as other reforms like background checks and red flag laws. But a spokesman for Everytown for Gun Safety told Fox News that though “presidential candidates are talking about a number of policies to address gun violence in America,” background checks and ... read more3 days ago
- McConnell: Congress In ‘Holding Pattern’ On GunsRight now, no one really knows what the hell is going to happen regarding gun control. All we know is that the House is passing a bunch of stuff, even now, while the Senate refuses to budge on any of it. For gun rights supporters, this is about as good as we could hope for because it means our rights aren’t being further infringed upon. That’s not going to hold. At some point, things are going to change and we’re likely to see the Senate take up some degree of gun control. What we’re waiting for, however, is President Donald Trump to decide what he wants to do. Until then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says all of Congress is basically in a “holding pattern”. Six weeks after a pair of mass shootings killed more than 30 people, Congress remains “in a holding pattern” on gun control as lawmakers await proposals from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday. While President Donald Trump has said he would veto a House-passed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases, McConnell said he is hopeful there are other gun-related proposals that Congress can approve and Trump can support. “I still await guidance from the White House as to what (Trump) thinks he’s comfortable signing,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters. “If and when that happens, then we’ll have a real possibility of actually changing the law and hopefully making some progress.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said McConnell and Trump were blocking meaningful action on gun violence, adding, “This is the moment for the president to do something different and courageous.” The New York Democrat said he wonders whether Trump will “rise to the occasion, or will he squander this opportunity as he always has done in the past?” Because trying to shame Trump has always worked so well in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump decided to just say, “Screw it. We won’t do anything,” and cite Schumer’s flapping gum as the reason for it, which would be hilarious, to say the least. That’s probably not going to happen, but you’d think that the same Democrats who complain about Trump being unstable would have also figured that riling him up was probably not a winning strategy. Trump, however, is expected to reveal his plan sometime this week regardless of what people like Schumer spout. I also have a hard time of them not taking whatever Trump is willing to concede as far as guns go, especially since they know they can’t do anything without him. Until Trump announces, though, not just Congress but the media are on pins and needles trying to figure out just what the hell is going to happen and whether it’ll accomplish the stated goal of reducing mass shootings, even though we don’t know the details. (Spoiler: It probably won’t.) McConnell is right. Everyone is in a holding pattern and will remain in a holding pattern until Trump tells the ... read more3 days ago
- California Mayor Wants To Use Zoning Laws To Ban Gun StoresCarson, California Mayor Albert Robles has a bold idea to protect the citizens of the community in Los Angeles County: ban gun stores. There are eight gun stores currently in the city; Robles said they would “eventually be shut down.” His resolution is before the City Council Tuesday evening. If you’re going to claim that you can ban gun stores because state law allows cities to “prohibit… all things injurious to the public welfare”, why not go all out and try to ban gun ownership? Of course you’re bound to lose, but think of all of the sweet, sweet press attention you could get in the meantime. While Robles doesn’t go quite as far as banning gun ownership, his resolution does take aim at legal gun owners as well as federally licensed firearm retailers by attempting to restrict where they could carry. Prohibit the sale and possession of firearms on all City-owned property, including City Hall and other City-owned buildings and all City parks and recreation facilities, subject to exceptions for possession of firearms by law enforcement officers; Given that there are only a few hundred concealed carry licenses in all of Los Angeles County, it would probably be easier if Mayor Robles tried barring the few concealed carry holders by name. “Bob can’t carry at City Hall” doesn’t have the appropriate amount of legalese, I suppose. As for gun stores, Robles has big plans. He wants the city to look into what it would take to impose several new requirements on the existing gun stores in town. Confine gun dealers to commercial zones, and require issuance of a conditional use permit for such uses; Impose reasonable minimum separation distance requirements, preferably of a radius of one mile, between gun dealers and the following: schools, churches, day-care centers, recreation facilities, bars, liquor stores, and residential zones; Provide for reasonable amortization of existing gun dealer land uses which are rendered nonconforming by the foregoing restrictions. In other words, pass new zoning laws that would prohibit any gun stores from operating inside the city. I doubt there’s any one location in Carson, much less eight, that’s in a commercial zone and is more than a mile away from a school, a church, a daycare center, a recreation facility, a bar, a liquor store, or a residential area. If there are no locations that meet the zoning requirements for gun stores, then the gun stores go away. That’s the plan, anyway. If Carson does approve this resolution at tonight’s City Council meeting and gun stores in the city are soon left homeless, I’m almost certain there’ll be litigation challenging the zoning laws. Unfortunately the 9th Circuit has allowed several other odious and onerous zoning restrictions to stand, and after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal of Alameda County, California’s zoning restrictions, anti-gun mayors and city council members throughout the state are feeling emboldened to push the envelope even further. Carson may be the next California city to try to regulate gun stores out ... read more4 days ago
- Hearings To Be Held On Gun Rights In PA SenatePennsylvania is shaping up to become one of the more pivotal battlegrounds in our fight to not just maintain our Second Amendment rights, but also to gain ground. The stuff with Harrisburg I talked about yesterday, the efforts in Pittsburgh to overstep their legal authority too, all of it adds together to illustrate that there is a real battle taking place, one that may have ramifications throughout the country. That means Second Amendment supporters throughout the state need to reach out and have their voices heard. That includes some Senate hearings in Pennsylvania that the good folks over at Firearm Owners Against Crime want residents to be aware of. IF you believe in your/our Right to Keep and Bear Arms then please pay attention to this alert. We need your help to get the word out, and please attend, these 2nd Amendment/Article 1, Section 21 PA Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings in Harrisburg, PA on Tuesday, September 24th, 2019 and Wednesday, September 25th, 2019 in the North Office Building, Hearing Room 1. The 1st Day of Hearings: Tuesday, September 24th, 2019 ***9:00AM-12:0PM*** will focus on mental and behavioral health issues related to recent mass murders and violence. The 2nd Day of Hearings: Wednesday, September 25th, 2019 ***1:00PM-4:00PM*** will focus on Gun Issues such as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO/Red Flag Laws-Gun Confiscation Without Due Process), Universal Gun Registration (Universal Background Checks), Gun & Magazine Bans, etc. The paid Bloomberg red and yellow shirts WILL be there pushing their manufactured talking points. We all need to be there to counter their paid anti-gun presence, and to represent the pro 2A position of the silent majority of Pennsylvania. If you want to stop Pennsylvania from adopting New Jersey anti-gun laws please attend these hearings. We are asking each of you to help in absolutely overwhelming the Capitol inside and outside with people recognizable as 2A supporters by filling the Capitol Building in Harrisburg beyond capacity for 2 days on Sept 24-25, 2019 and demonstrate to everyone, including the biased media, that citizens DO support our Constitutional Freedoms. I’m going to ask you to go and read the whole post over there as there are some important links and other bits of information that should be read, but I didn’t want to just lift all of their content and post it here for obvious reasons. However, if you’re someone who can be at these hearings and let your voice be heard, I encourage you to do what you can. Take a day off from work, skip school, whatever you need to do to make sure your Second Amendment rights are preserved by making your voice heard loud and clear. Gun rights don’t just up and vanish like socks in the dryer. They’re taken away. When lawmakers understand that they will lose their jobs for such actions, however, they tend to recognize the impact a wrong vote will have on their careers and choose accordingly. That means Pennsylvania residents should make their feelings clear. For those outside of Pennsylvania, that’s probably not an ... read more4 days ago
- TMZ Now Covering California’s Red Flag Lawsimage courtesty of TMZ.com It’s a weird world we live in when the celebrity gossip platform TMZ does a big story about California’s “red flag” laws. Then again, when the law is potentially going to be used by police against a celebrity, it’s a story that’s right in TMZ’s wheelhouse. And to their credit, they got singer Aaron Carter to open up about the police visits to his home to check on his mental state. Our law enforcement sources tell us … cops are looking at the law right now and deciding whether they’ll go to court. And, as for the order, a lot depends on nailing down Aaron’s true mental state, which is a difficult proposition because Aaron shares only what he wants to publicly share so it’s hard to paint a complete picture. According to TMZ, family members have asked police to check on Carter, who’s recently spoken out about becoming a gun owner. Carter also has struggled with drug abuse and mental health over the years, but now says he only smokes marijuana (here’s a bit of free legal advice from a non-attorney, Aaron: if you admit on camera to smoking pot, but say you don’t smoke pot when you fill out your 4473 while purchasing a firearm, you run the risk of facing charges for lying on your background check information). Let’s leave that little issue aside and focus on the “red flag” aspect of Carter’s story. According to TMZ, police are trying to determine if they’re going to use the law to remove Carter’s firearms. It seems to me that if they police are hemming and hawing about whether or not Carter is a danger to himself or others, they probably don’t have enough evidence to reasonably convince a judge (though it’s entirely possible that a judge would still rubber-stamp their approval of the request). We’re told these red flag laws are only going to be used when there is a clear emergency and time is of the essence. That would not seem to be the case with Mr. Carter here. I’m not even going to attempt to get into a discussion about Carter’s mental health, because I have no way of knowing, but I will say that if being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder or even schizophrenia is going to be enough to remove someone’s firearms from their possession, gun control advocates are going to set back the cause of mental health by decades. If we want to de-stigmatize mental health treatment (and we do), it doesn’t help to see clickbait headlines like Aaron Carter Brags About Owning 500 Guns Despite Schizophrenia & Addiction. For those gun control advocates who believe that any sign of mental illness should be cause to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, what about Alyssa Milano? The actress and activist recently opened up to Ted Cruz about being a gun owner, as well as her anxiety, which led to her seeking inpatient help after the birth of her son. Should she lose her 2nd Amendment rights because she sought treatment? I disagree ... read more4 days ago
- Gun Store Host’s ‘Beto Special,’ Sells Out In Mere HoursBeto O’Rourke wants to come after our guns. If you have an AR-15, he wants to make you sell them to the government–oddly enough, without a background check being performed first–or else someone will eventually come looking for you, apparently. “Hell yes,” he exclaimed, he was coming after our guns. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear he got paid by an AR-15 manufacturer to make that comment. As nothing since Trump’s election has, Beto has sold countless rifles throughout the nation. People are buying AR-15s and other so-called assault rifles. That’s especially true with one Arizona company that sold out of firearms in just four hours. Alpha Dog Firearms announced it would be selling AR-15s for $349.99 on Friday, hours after Beto O’Rourke pledged to ban the weapons at the ABC News debate on Thursday night. O’Rourke was adamant that his buyback program would be mandatory, not voluntary, going on to assure the debate moderators that “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” “Our $349.99 AR deal sold out in less than 4 hours,” the store wrote on Facebook. “We’re trying to process the orders and work on getting more special deals for our good friend gun grabber Beto.” O’Rourke has centered his presidential campaign on gun control, saying at the debate that President Donald Trump “directed” and “inspired” the August Walmart shooting in El Paso, Texas. Shocking, right? OK, not really. It is, however, hysterical. O’Rourke, while trying to campaign to rid the country of these weapons, has managed to convince a lot more people to buy these firearms. Even if most of these weapons were second rifles or whatever, there are still a lot more in circulation explicitly because of Beto’s comments. What people like Beto need to understand is that we’re not going to give up our guns. We’re not going to just roll over and play dead. We’re not going to just meekly accept that anti-gunners are going to keep pushing until they win. We are going to resist. The term “resist” has been used since Trump took office and it’s generally used by people who do little more than complain a lot on Twitter. However, if a gun ban like Beto suggests were to take hold, we would show this “resistance” what it means to truly resist. Our guns aren’t going anywhere. Unless, of course, you make and/or sell firearms. If so, then your guns are going plenty of places. All over the nation, to be exact, and based on what Alpha Dog Firearms found, they’ll go pretty damn quickly if you’re smart about your marketing. I’m sure the good folks at Alpha Dog Firearms would like to thank Beto for his role in this amazing turn of events. I suspect that O’Rourke is unsure of just where he went wrong, or if he went wrong (spoiler: He did), but that’s a whole lot of guns sold in a short amount of time. I’m not going to lie, though, I hated I didn’t have the ... read more4 days ago
- Are the Odds For Gun Control Slipping In The Senate?Jim Geraghty of National Review sits down with Cam to discuss the ever-shifting odds for passage of gun control bills in the U.S. Senate, as well as whether or not Beto O’Rourke’s full-throated call to take away guns from legal gun owners is helping his presidential run after a new poll shows the candidate climbed from 3% to 4% among likely Democrat voters. Plus, a Texas woman defends herself against a robber with a baseball bat, the New Orleans DA speaks out on a career criminal back behind bars once again, and an Arizona police officer goes above and beyond the call of duty to help a 94-year old WWII veteran make his way to his new home. You can get the show as a podcast at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or on the Townhall.com podcast page as well. Thanks for watching, listening, and spreading the word! The post Are the Odds For Gun Control Slipping In The Senate? appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more4 days ago
- California Community Looks To Essentially Ban Guns Throughout CityThe Supreme Court, in their Heller decision, made it very clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that it must be protected for individuals. However, the decision did also provide some degree of latitude, arguing that there are cases where some restrictions may be warranted and permissible. Since that time, though, we’ve been in a non-stop battle to determine just what those limits can and should be. Both sides have their own opinions on the matter and the debates can be somewhat brutal. However, a city in California is proposing a couple of measures that would essentially ban guns within the community. A near outright gun ban is what Mayor Albert Robles wants for the City of Carson. On Tuesday, he’s presenting a resolution for a radical plan to limit gun sales and gun possession. “Technically, legally, (you) can’t ban gun dealers in the city, but we can regulate where they cannot be and we’re saying, we don’t want them in Carson,” Robles said. Robles’ plan involves the city’s land use powers. Gun sales and gun possession would not be allowed within a one-mile radius of a school, park, church, or day care, making it impossible for anyone to be in the city limits with a gun. The only exception is having a gun inside your home. “If the true purpose of owning your gun is to protect your home and your family, then that is where your gun belongs, is in your home,” Robles said. Even with that exception, Loyola Law Professor Jessica Levinson says it’s not likely to hold up in court. “This strikes me as a resolution that is just too broad,” she said. “Even if you want to use land use, you still have to contend with the fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The right to bear arms is something that the Supreme Court has said every individual has.” Precisely the problem. I took a quick look on Google Maps. Carson, California isn’t particularly large. You’re looking at a total of seven miles across from the most distant points I could find. If you create a one-mile radius from every school, park, church or day care, then there’s nowhere to go with your gun. The problem is, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to keep and bear arms. Robles is trying to make it so that you’re pretty much relegated to keeping a gun in your home and never taking it out of there. Ever. He claims that if you want to protect your home and family, your gun needs to be in your home, but plenty of bad things happen outside of the home. If someone has a carry permit, why shouldn’t they be permitted to carry a firearm to protect their family outside of that home? If Gilroy and Thousand Oaks didn’t perfectly illustrate that danger isn’t confined to the home, I don’t know what will. Then again, Robles doesn’t care about that. ... read more4 days ago
- Texas Drive-In Manager Defends Herself From Robber Armed With BatThe manager of a drive-in theater in Hockley, Texas was forced to defend herself against a pair of robbers after she was beaten with a baseball bat by one of the suspects. Authorities said preliminary information suggests two men sneaked into the concession stand while it was still open and waited for it to close. They came out when they thought everyone was gone, but two managers were still upstairs and they heard rummaging, authorities said. According to Newsweek, the two managers went to investigate the noise and found a man hiding in the closet of a concession area downstairs. “They ordered the male out, the male did comply, and it appeared that he was possibly armed with a knife,” Gonzalez said. “At that point, they began giving him verbal commands, and the male exited the location and took off without incident.” But then second male suspect appeared, who may have been hiding in a closet or restroom, Gonzalez said. The second male was allegedly partially masked, wearing gloves and armed with a baseball bat. Police said the manager claimed the second man attacked her with a bat, and she was forced to defend herself. “She did retrieve a weapon that she had on her person and fired, striking the male,” Gonzalez said. “The male has been confirmed deceased at the scene.” Thank goodness she had a gun for self-defense, because otherwise this story could have ended up very differently. While police are searching for the second suspect, they did recover both the baseball bat and the knife at the scene of the would-be robbery. Sheriff Gonzalez called the managers “pretty sharp and alert”, and noted they “took care of business” when their lives were threatened. “These folks are just trying to run a business out here. You know, it brings nostalgia for me. I remember coming to drive-in theater similar to this when I was growing up, but they’re far and few between,” Gonzalez said. “It’s pretty isolated out here,” he continued. “They did what they needed to do to protect themselves.” I wonder if any of the anti-gun advocates who’ve been pushing for companies to declare themselves gun-free zones will have any harsh words for the owner of the Showboat Drive-In for allowing his employees to be armed at work. Why does anybody need a gun at a drive-in movie theater, right? Well, as it turns out, the gun in the hand of that manager may very well have saved her from a much more violent assault or even death. Who knows how many nights she carried her firearm with her, never facing any trouble, before she needed that gun to protect her life? As it turns out, she never needed that gun at work.. until she absolutely did. The post Texas Drive-In Manager Defends Herself From Robber Armed With Bat appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more4 days ago
- Did Beto’s Radical Anti-Gun Appeal Resonate With Dems?Beto O’Rourke made a statement at the last Democratic debate that’s been hotly contested ever since. While some of his opponents seem to support his call for mandatory buybacks, others oppose it. However, what other candidates think isn’t really all that big of a deal. What really matters is what do the voters think? O’Rourke hasn’t exactly been a frontrunner in this campaign. He’s a bottom-tier candidate who is, admittedly, getting a lot of free press thanks to people like me who keep pointing out his ridiculous claims. For a while, he’s been polling at about three percent. That’s nothing to be proud of for someone who was once the golden boy of the Democratic Party. Yet a Morning Consult Poll released yesterday shows Beto with a bit of a bump following his debate night performance, moving up to a whopping four percent. What does this mean? Well, it might not mean anything. The single percentage point is within the margin of error for pretty much any poll you care to name, so he may have had more support previously and this new poll is more reflective of that. It could just as easily be that this slightly overrepresents his support due to that same margin of error. It could also suggest that O’Rourke said something that a number of Democrats have wanted to hear and are throwing their support behind him. We’ve long argued that anti-gunners were purely anti-gun, despite their claims of simply wanting a few “common sense” gun reforms. No, they want our guns and Beto is just the first candidate who is stupid enough to outright say it. Of course, if that’s true, why did he get just a single percentage point? Oh, that’s easy. It’s the same reason he and Rep. Eric “Nuke ’em All” Swalwell have never been top-tier candidates despite their anti-gun rhetoric. It’s because, at the end of the day, guns just don’t matter all that much to Democrats. Oh, most of them are anti-gun, but guns aren’t the issues that drive them to the polls. They don’t pick candidates based on their stance on guns. They don’t use gun control as a litmus test to determine who their candidates should be. For them, it’s good for them if their candidates support gun control to some degree, but going more and more radical on guns isn’t going to win over very many voters. The candidates who are at the top-tier–people like Biden, Warren, and Sanders–support gun control, but also have a dozen other positions they hold to and those are what voters have flocked to. O’Rourke said something a lot of Democrats wanted to hear and a handful may well be offering up their support for his stance. However, at the end of the day, it won’t be enough to save his faltering campaign. It will, however, be more than enough to remind discontented Second Amendment advocates just what most Democrats running for office really want, especially since no one at all is ... read more4 days ago