Bearing Arms

  • Waffle House Shooter Had Previous Run-In With Law Enforcement
    The idea of a nude mass shooter is…interesting. If the average active shooter is a crazed maniac, then someone doing the same thing nude just means this jackwagon allegedly turned the crazy up to eleven. However, apparently, this particular brand of crazy didn’t just pop up overnight. If his nude attack wasn’t bizarre enough, it turns out that he was previously arrested by the Secret Service. That’s right. He was on the radar of authorities. In July 2017, the U.S. Secret Service arrested [the shooter] for being in a “restricted area” near the White House, according to the Secret Service. After the arrest, his Illinois firearms authorization was revoked and local Illinois police seized four weapons. “Among the weapons seized by those authorities was the AR-15 rifle used at the Waffle House today,” said Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron at a Sunday afternoon news conference. Remember the story from last summer about a man in a restricted area around the White House, and how after searching his car they found firearms? This is that guy. During that event, he was instructed to move away from the restricted area. He informed them he had to speak with the president. They told him he would have to get with a tour group to do that. He reiterated that he was there to speak to the president, referred to himself as a “sovereign citizen” and said he had the right to “inspect” the White House grounds. For those with questions, “sovereign citizens” are this freakish new, subculture of anti-government people who don’t want to live by the rules of the nation. They want to pick and choose what rules they feel apply to them, ignore everything else. They’re particularly against taxation, and claim no authority but their own. This is the truly maddening part: The weapons he had confiscated by authorities were given to [his] father. His father gave them back to him, including the weapon that was used to shoot up the Waffle House. In other words, this is someone who had already had his right to keep and bear arms revoked, yet he got his guns anyway. Yet again, we have a mass shooting that we find stems from a law enforcement failure. Well, that and the father failing to recognize that his son was apparently unhinged. However, I have to take a small issue with Hot Air‘s Susan Wright on her take on “sovereign citizens,” mostly the claim that it’s new. It’s not. Oklahoma bombing conspirator Terry Nichols was a sovereign citizen prior to his eventual conviction, after all. That places this “new” movement at being around 20 years old at least. But that’s a small quibble. I agree with Wright. This is maddening. This is someone who was arrested by the Secret Service, had their firearm ownership license revoked, weapons seized by police, and yet still was able to use one of the same damn guns to shoot up a Waffle House. That’s not the only maddening part. You know good and ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, April 23, 2018By Tom Knighton
    2 hours ago
  • Yet Another Shooting Takes Place In A Gun Free Zone
    After every shooting, the mainstream media and Democrats pull out the same old song and dance. “Oh, the NRA.” “Oh, the AR-15.” “There should be a longer waiting period in the buying process.” “There should be more background check steps.” Blah. Blah. Blah. Leftists try to deflect why their precious gun-free zones didn’t work, promising that next time a shooter will read the sign more carefully and not open fire on innocent, unarmed, law-abiding citizens. And yet, on Sunday morning, a gunman entered a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. He was either deranged or under the influence of drugs because all he was wearing was a jacket. He pulled out an AR-15 and began shooting at customers, killing four and injuring several more. Once the news broke, the liberal keyboard warriors started having a good time. “Waffle House” was trending on Twitter. As expected, the anti-gunners were in a tizzy over the suspect using an AR-15. They were quick to point out that Tennessee allows open carry for handguns. While this is true, they are creating a straw man argument. Guns don’t cause shootings. However, leftists apparently don’t believe in personal responsibility. The shooting ended when a person in the store was able to jump on the gunman and wrestle the firearm away. The Left is using a heroic action like this to justify why no one needs to carry guns in public. They don’t understand this guy is the exception, not the rule. There are very few people who would selflessly put themselves in harm’s way like this. One user on Twitter decided to comment on the “good guy with a gun” argument that gun advocates often use. He said handguns are useless against AR-15’s, so citizens shouldn’t carry them anyway. About the multiple shootings at the Waffle House in TN: TN is an open-carry state, and with all those people in the restaurant, why was there no "good guy with a gun"? Could it be that against an AR-15 (or similar), you often just don't have any chance to fight back? — JimAndrews518 (@JimAndrews518) April 22, 2018 In 2015, two radical Islamic men arrived at a convention center in Garland, Texas with semi-automatic rifles and fired on the crowd. A police officer who was working off-duty shot back with his handgun, striking and killing both suspects. My Twitter buddy must’ve forgotten about that. He also clearly didn’t think about the fact that open carry isn’t effective if no one is carrying their firearm. I guess that would take too much critical thought, though. That is something the Left has a problem with at times. No one has said that open carry laws would completely stop shootings. The argument from pro-gun advocates is they may be a deterrent. There is nothing that will prevent an individual intent on causing harm from finding a suitable place to create mayhem. So then why is it a bad idea to have a firearm readily available? The answer: It’s not a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, April 23, 2018By John Dempsey
    3 hours ago
  • Anti-Gun Zealots Target NRA Lobbyist’s Home
    To say that gun control jihadists hate the National Rifle Association is kind of like saying Formula One cars are kind of fast. It’s just a bit of an understatement. However, despite their rabid, seething hatred for the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, their vitriol tended to be contained to venues most of us would consider appropriate. Their protests were annoying, but not outside of the bounds of not just the First Amendment but also good taste. Apparently, that isn’t enough for them these days. NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox and his family have reportedly been targeted by anti-gun vandals both at his home and at his wife’s place of business. It’s a new tactic, according to the Washington Post, where gun control activists ramp up the pressure on certain high-profile targets by confronting them at home instead of at the NRA headquarters where they could be more easily ignored. Cox told the Post that his Alexandria, Virginia home was sprayed with fake blood, and left-wing protesters handed out flyers outside his wife’s interior design business. They also created posters to display outside his home as well as an anti-Cox website. Cox family attorney Elizabeth Locke called the tactics “criminal and unlawful conduct” in a statement to the Washington Post. “Mr. and Mrs. Cox have been targeted over the past few months by repeated acts of criminal and unlawful conduct, including having their home vandalized on two occasions,” Locke said. “These coordinated tactics have crossed the line of civility and human decency.” Tell me about it. This is an escalation of their protest tactics, and this is seriously crossing a line. However, I also fear it’s just the beginning. You see, leftists like this tend to believe in the ends justifying the means. Otherwise, why protest outside Cox’s wife’s business? She’s not a lobbyist for the NRA. Why protest there? There, you’re impacting someone other than the person responsible. What’s happening is these protestors are using collective guilt–which makes sense considering they’re collectivists at heart anyway–to try and further add to the stigmatization of gun owners that’s currently taking place. Now, they’re wanting to try and add that stigmatization to anyone and everyone they can that’s attached to the NRA and, most likely, eventually to all gun owners. If this doesn’t produce the desired results, namely pressuring people like Cox to abandon the NRA, then what’s next? They’ve already shown they are more than willing to escalate things beyond what is normally acceptable in an effort to affect whatever change they want. In this case, to make it difficult for anyone who works for the NRA. But what’s next? What happens when this doesn’t work? That, I fear, is when things get very ugly. At that point, expect another escalation. If we’re lucky, it’ll begin and end with assault. However, I don’t think we’ll be that fortunate. Folks, these people are unhinged. To make matters worse, I’m not seeing many from the anti-gun side condemning these kinds of tactics. Then again, when you ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Monday, April 23, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 hours ago
  • Illinois Dems Push Bill That Might Result In Dead Kids
    Democrats have these weird ideas sometimes. They seem to think that if they hope really, really hard, bad things will magically disappear and we’ll all live peaceful, happy lives. That’s the only explanation for this Illinois bill other than pure, outright evil. Democratic lawmakers in Illinois have drawn up a piece of legislation that would give extra cash to schools that reallocate funds toward replacing armed security officers with unarmed social workers and behavior therapists. The controversial bill, proposed by Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Westchester, would offer grants to schools that use funds meant for school security and instead spend it on mental health services, including hiring social workers or implementing other practices “designed to promote school safety and healthy environments,” as The Associated Press reported. 16 other Democrats in the House have backed Welch’s plan. “This increased presence of law enforcement in schools does not necessarily enhance school safety,” Michelle Mbekani-Wiley from the Sargent Shriver Center for Poverty Law told The Associated Press. “Instead it dramatically increases the likelihood that students will be unnecessarily swept into the criminal justice system often for mere adolescent or disruptive behavior.” However, supporters of school resource officers say their role is essential to keeping students safe, especially from acts of violence. That’s because SROs are essential. When they’re not cowards, at least. They can meet an armed threat with an armed response. Removing them and replacing them with social workers is absolutely ridiculous. I’m not saying social workers can’t do some good in some of these schools. I’m sure they can. But when confronted with an armed threat, talking it out just isn’t really an option. Great Mills High School isn’t remembered as vividly as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because the SRO did his job and ended the threat. Period. The truth of the matter is that this bill has more to do with hopes and wishes than real reality. When people talk about the presence of law-enforcement in schools “sweeping” kids into the criminal justice system, they forget that unless the law permits the officer to arrest someone for a kind of behavior, they can’t do it. If you want SROs to be used less, then you simply make it so they can only act on things that would be criminal outside of school. Few would take issue with such a law, after all. But to pretend that SROs represent some threat to students? I’m sorry, but that’s dumb even by Illinois standards. School Resource Officers fill an important role, a role proven to be essential by the failures of Parkland. Had the SRO acted when he should have, how many lives would have been saved? Would we even be having this current gun debate? My guess is we wouldn’t. But that SRO is the exception, not the rule, and to try and take SROs out of schools at a time when the public debate about combating violence in our schools is so prevalent isn’t just dumb. It’s potentially lethal. Seriously, it’s almost like ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Sunday, April 22, 2018By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • American Federation Of Teachers Pull Business From Wells Fargo Over Gun Maker Relationships
    The American Federation of Teachers has severed their ties to Wells Fargo because the banking giant refuses to bow to anti-gun pressure. The teacher’s group announced the move in a press release on Thursday. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten announced today that the union would cut ties with Wells Fargo, after CEO Tim Sloan failed to follow up on meeting with the union to discuss the bank’s relationship with the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers. Earlier this month, the AFT released correspondence from Weingarten to Sloan outlining the union’s concerns about Wells Fargo’s connections with the NRA as well as its intention to stop offering Wells Fargo mortgages if Wells Fargo continues being the NRA banker. The Wells Fargo mortgage program is part of the Union Privilege program, and approximately 1,600 AFT members have opted for these mortgages annually. More than 20,000 AFT members currently hold mortgages through the program. Today, the AFT will officially remove the bank from its list of approved lenders, sending a letter to each of its state federation leaders alerting them of the change. The AFT will urge other Union Privilege members to follow suit. “Gun violence is an epidemic, but Tim Sloan won’t even engage in a conversation about mitigating it, much less take any real steps. We took him up on his offer to meet with us, then he went radio silent. So if Wells Fargo won’t value children and teachers above guns, we won’t do business with Wells Fargo,” Weingarten said. “It can be the bank for America’s teachers, or it can be the bank for the NRA and gun manufacturers. But, given the NRA’s refusal to even help mitigate gun violence, Wells Fargo can’t be both. Other companies, like Bank of America, BlackRock and Vanguard, have stepped up and engaged in meaningful conversations about what responsible relationships with gun companies look like, but Wells Fargo won’t. In fact, when we tried to schedule a meeting to discuss it, its friends at NRATV started launching vile attacks on teachers and personal attacks against me. “We’re ending this relationship because we have a responsibility to our members and their students, who face potential gun violence every day. Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and in order to help stop it, we’ll stop the flow of resources to the companies that manufacture these weapons that have caused so much civilian carnage and death.” Oh, so many falsehoods in that press release. I mean, seriously, it stopped being funny. You see, they keep talking like people are actually refusing to do anything about violence when that’s simply not the case. No one wants to see violence on our streets, much less our schools. No, the problem is that we’re simply not willing to accept their solution as the only, or even the right, solution. Further, gun violence is not a freaking epidemic. It’s been decreasing for the last 25 years. If that’s their definition of an epidemic, they really have no business pretending to be educators. Then again, these are people who are trying to make it impossible for the firearm industry to ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Sunday, April 22, 2018By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • NRA Backs Lawsuit Against Vermont’s Magazine Restrictions
    There are really fewer things more foolish than a restriction on magazine capacity. For the maniac, reloading isn’t really a concern. Just take a look at the Parkland killer who reportedly used 10-round magazines because they fit better in the bag he was using to hold his ammo. And yet magazine capacity restrictions are a favorite among anti-gunners following any mass shooting. In Vermont, a formerly pretty pro-gun state, they recently passed a bill restricting magazine capacity. A lawsuit was filed to oppose the move, but now things have gotten serious as the big guns have come in. The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday it would back a lawsuit filed against Vermont’s new ban on certain firearms magazines. The group said it will support a suit filed by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association, a group of sporting goods stores, and Vermont citizen Leah Stewart. The plaintiffs allege that the new ban on rifle magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and handgun magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Vermont Constitution. The magazine ban was part of new gun-control legislation signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott (R.) last week. Scott and his Florida colleague Gov. Rick Scott have both signed new gun-control legislation in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that left 17 dead and the protests for new gun and magazine bans that followed. Both Republican governors are now facing NRA-backed lawsuits over their new laws. The NRA said Vermont’s magazine ban, which affects the magazines that come standard with many of the most popular rifles and handguns on the market, will outlaw ammunition feeding devices that millions of Americans currently own. “The magazines Vermont has now banned are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “In fact, nearly half of all magazines in the nation would now be deemed ‘large capacity’ by Vermont.” Cox said magazine bans have not been effective in other states and, in his view, only serve to punish law-abiding citizens. But, then again, punishing law-abiding citizens is what all gun control laws do. I mean, it’s not like the criminals will get rid of their 30-round magazines, now will they? And if you do, you’re as deluded as the people who think this will actually save lives. If anything it’ll cost them. That’s the legacy of all gun control. For all the feel-good messaging you see day in, day out, the reality is that gun control kills. It creates an environment where the criminals know they won’t meet any armed resistance. They know they can act with impunity because the greatest equalizer mankind has ever invented, the gun, is nowhere to be found. Magazine capacity is a weird thing. For the criminal, it means nothing. For the law-abiding, changing magazines under stress is a point where you can easily be killed. That’s why the military went from the 20-round magazines for the M-16 to ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Saturday, April 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Reinstates Lawsuit Against Armslist
    If you sell a car to someone who then uses it to commit a crime, are you somehow responsible? The answer is no, of course–not if you had no reason to believe he intended to use the car for something illegal, and honestly, who would? Why are guns treated any differently? Every time there’s a mass shooting, someone wants to sue the gun manufacturer, as if it’s their fault the guy who bought their product turned out to be a psycho. However, it also happens on a smaller scale, such as this now reinstated lawsuit in Wisconsin. The state Court of Appeals on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit against the online firearms brokerage where a man obtained the gun used to kill three people and himself at a Brookfield spa in 2012. It is the first court in the nation to hold that a web-based gun marketplace might be held liable for negligence in facilitating an unlawful weapons sale. “There are far too many bad actors out there, particularly unlicensed online gun sellers, who are putting profits ahead of safety. This court decision puts sites like Armslist on notice that they can and will be held accountable,” said Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is part of the plaintiff’s legal team. For the record, these are either face-to-face transfers from one private individual to another private individual–thus not an actual gun dealer–or they’re someone who routes sales through a licensed FFL. What Brown is trying to do here is present it like the internet is the Wild West for gun sales, that you can buy whatever you want and it’ll come right to your door or something. It’s not like that. What happens with transfers like the one alleged to have occurred is no different than advertising in the classifieds. You put up that you have a gun for sale and someone else says they have money and want the gun. Boom. Let’s not pretend there are a bunch of people out there playing Lord of War or something. Zina Daniel Haughton and two others were killed when her estranged husband, Radcliffe Haughton, shot up the Azana Spa where she worked. Four others were injured, and Radcliffe Haughton fatally shot himself. Zina Haughton’s coworkers, Cary Robuck and Maelyn Lind, were killed. Yasmeen Daniel, personally and as administrator of her mother’s estate, sued Armslist.com, on which Radcliffe Haughton found someone to sell him a gun and ammunition while he was prohibited by a domestic violence injunction from having firearms. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro had dismissed the suit in 2016, citing the immunity granted to “interactive computer services” under the federal Communications Decency Act. He found that Armslist only displays content created by third parties and couldn’t be liable for being just the publisher of others’ content on its site. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals felt differently. However, there’s absolutely no evidence that Armslist actually did anything wrong. They simply provided a site where people could ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Saturday, April 21, 2018By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Arrogant Aussie Coming to a City Near You to Promote Gun Control
    It often becomes very difficult for me not to resort to profanity when foreigners criticize our country and the Second Amendment. It becomes orders of magnitude more difficult when the foreigner in question comes from a country whose subjects long ago ceded their freedom to protect themselves. So, you can imagine my ire when I came across the story of Peter Drew, an Australian street artist who is bringing his anti-freedom message to the streets of New York. Acclaimed Australian street artist Peter Drew is about to tackle the hottest issue in the US in his own unique way — by plastering 500 posters with the words “Australia” and “it works” on walls around New York City, San Franciso and Los Angeles. You will recall, in 1996 Australians blamed inanimate objects for a shooting and allowed their fundamental rights to be curtailed. The results, well, there’s a great deal of debate about how effective the ban actually has been, or whether it would even work in the U.S. — not that it stops the usual suspects from screeching for it. Mr. Drew, of course, thinks he’s being brave. The South Australian-based artist behind the Real Australians Say Welcome campaign knows that by doing so he’ll make a lot of people unhappy. And that’s part of the job. “To be honest, there’s a certain amount of fear and anxiety,” Mr. Drew told news.com.au. “You don’t know what the response is going to be like. Online it’s safe to be provocative but when you’re sticking stuff up on the street you’re exposed. I worry about that but that’s what’s special about the street.” Really? You’re putting up your posters in three of the most liberal, elitist, “progressive” cities in the country and you’re worried about your safety? Somehow I doubt that, particularly since I sincerely doubt Mr. Drew plans on venturing out of the extremely safe, whitebread enclaves in those cities, into the sorts of areas where cops patrol in teams and residents have bars on their windows. Mr. Drew has never done anything on this scale before. He’ll head off in August and take to the street in major cities early in the morning — as early as 4 a.m. — when foot traffic is at a minimum. It will be first of two trips to explain to Americans that their attachment to guns can be broken. He says there’s never been a better time than right now and there’s no example better than Australia’s. Oh please, Petey, please come explain to us poor, ignorant savages in America how we should give up our fundamental right to protect our families and our freedom the way your people did. “The aim isn’t to tell people what’s right and wrong, it’s to satisfy both sides and try to find some middle ground. I try to lampoon the outrage industry which is particularly strong in the US and we can see that culture bleeding right now … I feel like the conservative resolve is eroding. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Patrick Richardson
    3 days ago
  • High School Student Explains Why She’s Not Doing The #NationalSchoolWalkout
    In remembrance of the victims that died during the Columbine High School shooting 19 years ago, high school students across the country are participating in a national school walkout to protest gun violence and draw attention to, and garner support for, gun control. The Parkland activists are once again leading the charge. So proud of the #NationalSchoolWalkout and all of the students around the country who are standing up for positive change and demanding what we deserve. Keep marching forward and NEVER settle for less. — Cameron Kasky (@cameron_kasky) April 20, 2018 Who's ready to change the world and save lives? #NationalSchoolWalkout — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 20, 2018 Why should we be expected to work in school when our elected officials won't work to ensure safety and security of our citizens, children and future? #NationalSchoolWalkout — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 20, 2018 6 days until the #NationalSchoolWalkout – be sure to wear orange because it is the color for resistance against Gun Violence and it symbolizes how our schools are becoming more like prisons 🧡 — Emma González (@Emma4Change) April 14, 2018 Of course, the official March for Our Lives Twitter account tweeted an inflammatory article and image of a price tag, insinuating politicians are allowing children to die for money. Price tags for every state are up. Print them out and wear them at the #NationalSchoolWalkout this Friday. Show politicians that they can’t put a price on our lives. https://t.co/odCFQZ76kE — March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) April 17, 2018 Chants for gun control are filling the streets. “What do we want? Gun control! When do we want it? Now!”#NationalSchoolWalkout pic.twitter.com/Mikxt2OSsf — Scott Dworkin (@funder) April 20, 2018 But not everyone is on board with the #NationalSchoolWalkout. If you want to keep kids safe in school: – Abolish gun free zones– Arm teachers– Hire armed security guards– If you see something, say something, then make sure police DO something– Gun violence restraining orders– Stop blaming guns themselves #NationalSchoolWalkout — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) April 20, 2018 RedState’s Brandon Morse took to Twitter to voice his opposition to the walkouts, saying, “Walking out of class isn’t going to pressure anyone to change their minds on gun control.” Morse also explained that these walkouts would only fire up Second Amendment supporters even more. Walking out of class isn't going to pressure anyone to change their minds on gun control. It will make us wonder who is in charge of your school and what we can do to stop this stupid waste of time, however. So you got that going for you. #NationalSchoolWalkout — Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) April 20, 2018 While many high school students are walking out of their schools, other students are choosing to go to their classes. Of course, the mainstream media continues to ignore these voices that proudly support gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Meet Alexis Buxton, a high school ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Micah Rate
    3 days ago
  • Pro-Gun Shirt Scares Texas Woman
      Leftists look for any reason to be offended. As strange as it sounds, it seems there is nothing that makes them happier than finding something new to throw a fit over–including what is on a t-shirt. A few days ago in Texas, Troy Johnson took his two daughters to a local park to play. He wore a shirt that said, “I’ll control my guns, you control your kids” with an AR-15 printed next to the quote. An unidentified woman at the park wasn’t amused. More than one park-goer approached Johnson–who was also openly carrying a sidearm, which is legal in Texas–and told him a lady was in the parking lot seething over what she had read. The second man to approach Johnson with his family made a comment that was dripping with common sense; he told him that he was glad there was someone at the park who was capable of protecting everyone. This flies over the head of a leftist, but anyone who is living in the real world understands. Johnson also learned that the woman called the police on him. He decided to stay and talk to the officers. The officer, Cpl. Reese arrived a short time later. He spoke with the woman, who told him all the parents on the playground were “very uncomfortable” with the shirt. Apparently, she spoke for everyone and could read their minds. It was undeniable that Johnson’s shirt wasn’t going to cause physical harm to someone. Anyone can see that. The real kicker is the woman told the officer she wasn’t scared of the gun. She was bothered by the shirt, a shirt that actually makes a valid point. Sadly, intelligent gun owners are better caretakers of their weapons than some adults who procreate. While “Mrs. Kravitz” watched and listened from about 25-30 feet away, she began telling people there was a man with a gun in the park. This is highly irresponsible. She acted like a typical liberal, using emotion and fear in an attempt to control individuals. Staying true to form, she also attacked Johnson’s freedom of speech, simply because she didn’t like what he was saying. If she had a shirt on that said something to the effect of “Bigger Government + More Gun Control = More Safety,” we can assume Johnson would not go after her for wearing the ignorant shirt. That’s her choice. No matter how foolish. The police in this situation also need to be recognized. There is this mentality that all police officers don’t like anyone else having firearms. Untrue. Many officers go to work and appreciate the Second Amendment. Those officers know they are not omnipresent and that some citizens need to be able to protect themselves at a moment’s notice. Cpl. Reese was professional and courteous to Johnson. He is an example of an officer who is upholding his oath to protect the Constitution, specifically the First and Second Amendment. He quickly identified the situation as trivial. This woman wasted the time of the local police ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By John Dempsey
    3 days ago
  • AR-15 Used To Repel Home Invasion, 30 Rounds Fired
    The AR-15 is demonized today following the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. It’s being treated like a firearm only used for nefarious purposes when that’s simply not true. Like any firearm, it can be used for good or ill, just as any other tool. For example, recently in Glen St. Mary, FL, that same demonized weapon was used to help repel a group of armed home invaders. Three men say they were asleep inside a mobile home in Glen St. Mary about 4 a.m. Sunday when they heard a voice outside yell “Sheriff’s Office!” before the front door burst open. In stormed a masked gunman who fired off a single round before two of the men inside, one armed with an AR-15 rifle and the other with a handgun, emerged from two bedrooms and opened fire. Gunfire ripped into the masked gunman and two other intruders, who crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds. Those details surfaced Tuesday when the Baker County Sheriff’s Office released an arrest report linked to this weekend’s home invasion turned deadly triple shooting. Five people are charged in the case. Investigators suspect the home invasion escalated from an ongoing feud between two groups that was stoked by social media threats. The victims told deputies they acted in self-defense when they turned their guns on the intruders, with one of them estimating he fired over 30 rounds from an AR-15 before the threat was over. Afterward, the victims retreated to another part of the home before they dialed 911, according to the report. None of them was hurt during the shooting. One of the would-be invaders later died from his wounds. Another is still being treated, while a third was treated and released to police. So, do the anti-gunners want to tell us again how an AR-15 isn’t useful for home defense? Do they want to tell us how no one needs a 30-round magazine? Do they even want to acknowledge this one happened at all? Probably not. You see, they’re not big on facts. They like hyperbole and emotion, but a situation like this? Oh, they’ll most likely pretend it didn’t happen. The problem for them is, it did. It’s not the only case, either. Last year, a kid in Oklahoma used an AR-15 to defend against multiple home invaders. In both of these cases, the AR-15 was the absolute best choice simply because of the number of people attacking the home. While most home invasions aren’t groups of people storming a home, the innocent, law-abiding citizen doesn’t get a say in what happens. We have to deal with whatever gets thrown at us. The bad guys always get the initiative, and we have to react. It sucks, but it’s what happens when you’re trying to follow the law. An AR-15 levels the playing field tremendously, especially with a 30-round magazine. A handful of guys in Florida are probably more than willing to tell you all about how many rounds they had to fire to finally ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Police Chiefs Send Letter Opposing National Reciprocity
    As national reciprocity languishes in the Senate, it seems the anti-gun forces aren’t taking any chances on it staying that way. Recently, a group of police chiefs decided it was time to step up and do something about it. You know, just in case. They sent a letter to leaders of Congress expressing their opinions on the bill. The country’s police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative. They sent a letter Thursday (April 19) to leaders of Congress to oppose a bill that would let gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state carry concealed weapons in all 50 states. The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States, and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va. “This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.” … On concealed weapons, states currently issue permits to individual gun owners, and different states have different criteria for issuing the permits. Some states require training and proof of proficiency, while some states require no qualifications. Some states recognize the permits of certain other states, but many do not. And a dozen states now have “constitutional carry,” meaning weapons may be concealed without a permit. The bill in Congress is described by the National Rifle Association as its “highest legislative priority.” The measure would require all states simply to recognize the permits of all other states, regardless of the conditions imposed by individual states for obtaining the permits. Now, some may accept this as evidence that this is a bad idea. I, however, don’t. First, it’s just over 2.6 percent of the departments represented by the Association of Police Chiefs. That’s a tiny fraction of the group. While it’s unlikely you’d ever get all the chiefs to sign onto the letter, if this had some overwhelming support from the chiefs, you’d expect to see at least a double-digit percentage represented. That didn’t happen. In other words, this was something more than 95 percent of the chiefs didn’t feel like signing on for because they most likely understood there were no risks involved in this. Every state that issues a concealed carry permit has different requirements, but all include a background check beyond the NICS check used to purchase a firearm. The reality is, we’ve seen that those with permits are far less likely to commit crime than those who aren’t part of that group. Lawful gun owners aren’t the problem and never have been. It seems that the vast majority of police chiefs understand that and opted to not ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Border Patrol Captures Three Illegals With A Number Of AK47s
    During the Obama administration, we were told that part of the reason things were so violent south of the border was because of America’s loose gun laws. Of course, then we found out that the Department of Justice was having gun stores make illegal sales to straw buyers so the guns could flow south. It was an ugly, ugly thing. However, as many of us have pointed out, if you clamp off American guns, the alleged flow will reverse. Guns will start being funneled into this country via drug routes and the pipeline used to smuggle illegal immigrants in. And now we have evidence of just that happening. In an operation coordinated with multiple helicopters and U.S. Border Patrol Search Trauma and Rescue agents near Ajo, Arizona, authorities tracked two suspected armed aliens more than 17 miles of the border this week. “Agents searched the area of the sighting using a canine and subsequently discovered multiple assault-style firearms and ammunition concealed under some brush, and an 18-year-old Mexican national man hiding nearby,” the agency said in a press release. In addition, two other Mexican nationals, 43 and 24, were taken into custody. All face a variety of immigration and weapons charges. Interestingly, the guns run the gamut of the AK-universe with 7.62×39, 5.45x45mm and 5.56mm chambered firearms recovered. In the above image from Border Patrol, there appears to be a Bulgarian-made Arsenal SLR-106 pistol at the top with the side rail, a Hungarian AMD-65 style gun with a very un-Hungarian side-folding stock, what looks like an Arsenal SAM-7 rifle with the stock detached, some really beat AK that probably still runs like a champ, and a Century-imported Serbian-made Zastava M85 pistol with the mag well to accept AR mags. Now, we can’t be completely sure where these guns came from, but it’s not overly difficult to believe these three guys brought them with them. Either way, though, they had them and there’s no way illegals purchased these guns lawfully. No way at all. But those who are inclined to break the law have a tendency to break other laws. That includes laws on procuring firearms or bringing them across national borders. That’s why gun laws are so useless. It doesn’t actually impact those who are inclined to break laws anyway. In this case, these guys were fine with coming across a national border illegally. They had a number of AK47s, more than one per man, that were obtained by breaking even more laws. What other laws were they considering breaking? What other laws had they broken before being arrested? It’s hard to know. But what we do know is that these are three people who shouldn’t have been able to get guns, yet they did. We also know that anyone who thinks new gun laws would stop this kind of thing is deluding themselves. They already broke a number of laws and it’s clear they’d break more still. What does it take to finally prove to people that gun laws will not stop criminals ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Two Florida Police Officers Killed In Ambush
    Being a police officer is a job with inherent risks. Most officers understand those risks. Officers are killed responding to domestic disputes or pulling over dangerous people without even realizing it. It’s a tough job. However, in Trenton, Florida, two police officers were apparently ambushed and murdered simply because of the badge they wear. Sergeant Noel Ramirez and Deputy Taylor Lindsey, the Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office deputies fatally shot in an ambush at a Chinese restaurant in Trenton, Florida, were remembered as “the best of the best” and officers who were men of integrity and loyalty. A statement from the Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Department indicated the shootings were completely unprovoked and that the deputies were executed through a window as they simply sat there eating a meal. The double shooting occurred in Trenton, Florida. Ramirez was 30 and Lindsey was 25, Gilchrist County Sheriff Bobby Schultz said at a press conference. Many details about the shooting have not been released because of the ongoing investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The sheriff called the gunman a “coward.” He was identified as John Hubert Highnote, 59, of Bell, Florida. “They were God-fearing, and they loved what they did and were very proud of it,” the emotional sheriff said of the deputies. “I loved them and they were loved, and I met with the families today and told them they can be proud of those men. They can be proud, and I’ve proud to have been their sheriff.” “What do you expect happens when you demonize law enforcement to the extent it’s been demonized? Every type of hate, every type of put down you can think of, the only thing these men were guilty of was protecting you and me. They just wanted to get something to eat. And to do their jobs,” the sheriff added. He said the slayings hit him “like a ton of bricks.” I can’t disagree with Schultz. Look, bad cops deserve to be called out. They should be called out and prosecuted if appropriate. But we should all strive to remember that a lot of officers are good people who are just trying to help folks. But police officers have been demonized to a significant degree. It’s literally OK to hate the police. There are places trying to disarm their police, for crying out loud. They’ve been called everything except decent human beings. And now two are dead, gunned down while eating lunch. What remains to be seen is whether this is an isolated event or part of something bigger. Immediately after the Dallas Police Shooting, there were several more ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers. Eventually, it all died down. Thankfully. Or at least seemed to. Was this a delayed follow-on to that series of police murders? Or is this an attempt to spark it back up? Or was this something else entirely? After all, police officers make enemies simply by doing their jobs well. It’s entirely possible this is ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, April 20, 2018By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Couple Challenges Ban On Guns In In-Home Daycares
    If you have a home-based business, do you automatically give up your rights? Most people would think, “No, of course not.” They’d be right. Just because you have an open door for your home business, doesn’t mean the government the right to come in and search your house, after all. But in Illinois, if you have a home-based daycare, you apparently can’t have a gun. Now, a couple has filed a lawsuit to challenge that ban. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services has been named in a federal lawsuit filed this week challenging the agency’s firearms policy for home day cares. Jennifer and Darin Miller have three children in their Shelbyville home as well as current Illinois firearms cards and concealed carry licenses. However, although Jennifer was licensed by IDCFS last year to run a daycare in her home, the agency has guidelines against possessing loaded handguns in their home while operating the daycare. This, argues the Millers and a trio of gun rights organizations supporting their suit, tramples their right to keep and bear arms. “IDCFS substantially prohibits day care home licensees, and those who would be day care home licensees, from the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense, which violates their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment,” said Alan Gottlieb with the Second Amendment Foundation concerning the legal challenge filed Monday. The Illinois State Rifle Association and Illinois Carry are also signed on to the lawsuit in support of the Millers. Now, I understand the concern. If you have a bunch of rugrats running around a home, no one wants one of them to find a gun and find tragedy soon after. I get that. Let’s be honest; it’s a legitimate concern. However, the problem isn’t that regulations are stating the Millers would need to keep firearms locked up or anything. These are regulations saying they can’t have them in the house at all. That takes things too far. Illinois isn’t a firearm friendly state as it stands, so I can’t say it’s overly surprising they’d take a stand like this, but I can say that I’m glad to see the lawsuit. Regulations like this desperately need to change. People don’t forfeit their right to keep and bear arms because of a vocation, especially an entrepreneurial one. While it’s one thing to require steps be taken to keep the kids safe, the rule actually makes the Millers less safe. Anyone who knows these rules knows that the Millers are sitting at home, disarmed. They’re a prime target for whatever mayhem some thug wants to inflict on them. The same goes for countless other in-home daycares in the state. Look, it’s one thing to disarm someone. It’s another thing to make it so everyone knows they’re disarmed. One is a violation of someone’s civil liberties. The other is a violation and an invitation to criminals. What do you want to bet that at least some of the pencil-necks who thought up this nonsense have a handgun sitting in their ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Top 5 Must-Watch YouTube Channels For Gun Lovers
    With YouTube changing its policies regarding channels that produce pro-Second Amendment and pro-gun content, and as many of these channels worry about their future on the platform, Bearing Arms has compiled a list of the Top 5 Must-Watch YouTube Channels for Second Amendment supporters and gun lovers. A video from each channel is linked below for your viewing pleasure. 5. sootch00 Sootch00 got its start back in September 2008. Over the years, Sootch, the host, has gained hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and his videos have amassed millions and millions of views. The channel aims to promote “rugged individualism, independent thinking, and self-reliance,” and Sootch doesn’t shy away from saying, “I’m a Christian Conservative and make no apologies for Standing for good and Against oppression.” “Be Strong, Be of Good Courage. God Bless America, Long Live the Republic!” he adds. When it comes to content on Sootch’s channel, there’s a little something for everyone. More than a channel dedicated to shooting firearms, Sootch conducts reviews of guns and has playlists for specific types. Whether it be handguns, AR-15s, other rifles, or shotguns, chances are Sootch has reviewed it. He has also dedicated part of his channel to doing optic reviews. Thrown into the mix are “How To” videos and videos where he gives his opinions on gun issues and news regarding gun policy. If you like knives and multi-tools, Sootch has content on those too. Need a good flashlight? He has you covered. Also linked to his channel are survival and prepping videos which he created on his SensiblePreppers channel. In these videos, Sootch teaches survival hacks, whether it be building a tin can stove or giving “the top ten uses for petroleum jelly.” Sootch’s channel is one of the most popular gun channels on YouTube and deservedly so. Though some of the videos can be lengthy, and he admits that five-minute videos are ideal for maintaining viewership, he uploads these videos to “teach, and to inspire a love for, not only firearms but also for the Second Amendment.” You can watch more of Sootch00’s videos here. And those interested in Sootch00’s response to YouTube’s policy changes can find it here. 4. Colion Noir Here at Bearing Arms, we’ve written various stories on Colion Noir, from his interview with rapper Killer Mike to him lashing out at those who claim the National Rifle Association is racist and exposing the hypocrisy of the Black Lives Matter movement. Not only is he a commentator and member of the NRA, but he’s a lawyer, gun enthusiast, gun rights activist, a self-described “concealed carry firearms aficionado,” and host of the shows “NOIR” and “CN Live.” His YouTube channel is a must watch. With hundreds of thousands of subscribers and millions of views since the channel’s creation in January 2011, there are a few reasons why Noir’s voice resonates with conservatives and gun owners. While Colion Noir does reviews of various firearms like most gun channels out there, he has created a brand of his own. Videos on Noir’s channel can have a humorous side, or he can ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Micah Rate
    4 days ago
  • Gun Control Town Hall In Delaware Packed With Second Amendment Supporters
    When the state of Delaware decided to try to compete with New York and California as the most anti-gun state in the nation, there were bound to be some in the state less than pleased with their lawmakers. A recent town hall, ostensibly to bridge the gap between the two sides of the gun debate, proved that there are a lot more of those who love their Second Amendment rights than their opponents thought–especially after it got derailed. It took about 60 seconds to determine which way the crowd leaned. It didn’t take much longer to make it clear how strongly it felt. Most of the approximately 400 people attending a town hall meeting about gun violence Monday evening came to voice their opposition to several proposed gun control measures now in the General Assembly. The event, organized as an attempt to bridge the divide between opponents and supporters of gun restrictions, featured four Delaware politicians: Two Republican senators, one Democratic senator and the Department of Justice’s top prosecutor who is now running for attorney general. I’m sorry, but this was a wasted effort. There is no bridging of the gap. The truth is, anti-gunners are simply doing what they always do. They’re demanding more and more from the pro-Second Amendment crowd while offering nothing in return, then blasting us as unwilling to compromise. Because of that, we’re sick of giving up any ground. That’s why there won’t be any bridging going on. There’s no bridging because the other side isn’t arguing in good faith. We all know that they’ll soon be asking for something else and using the same arguments, so no. All four were on stage before hundreds of people in the theater at Middletown High School, just two days after hundreds rallied in support of the Second Amendment in front of the state capitol. The moderator was forced to restore order minutes after the event began. The two Democratic speakers were booed and interrupted numerous times while the Republican participants were greeted much more warmly. Several members of the audience began laughing openly after Kathy Jennings, a Democrat running for attorney general, said the state has made a special effort to prosecute gun crimes, a claim Republicans find hard to believe. Now, I’m of two minds about this. On one hand, I don’t think rudeness is a good way to change hearts and minds, as a general rule. On the other hand, it’s not like the other side won’t play this card, and it also happens to be hilarious. I’m not so sure I believe Jennings’ claim either, though. Far too many people barred from buying guns have tried it at gun stores. While they haven’t gotten the guns, the act of trying to get one is illegal. Yet far too often, these people walk away free and clear. There’s a reason why so many find it hard to believe. However, I have bad news for the people of Delaware. I suspect it doesn’t matter how much you all ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Defiant Op-Ed Author Refuses To Comply With City’s Proposed Assault Weapon Ban
    States that lack preemption laws are starting to see some of the ramifications of that. Communities are deciding to ban the ownership of so-called assault weapons within the city limits, thus forcing owners to either sell their guns or move. One community considering such an act is Boulder, Colorado. At least one resident of Boulder, however, is defiant. My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move. Let this column serve as a public notice, I will not comply. I was raised in Colorado and moved to Boulder in 1984, graduated from CU there and stayed. I proudly represented Boulder on the RTD Board of Directors. My late daughter rests in a Boulder cemetery. I plan to be laid to rest beside her when my time comes. All that to say my roots are deep in my hometown. But to be who I am, to be true to my values I hold dear, I must choose to leave or go to jail. Boulder prides itself on promoting inclusion, diversity and tolerance. And there was a time it lived up to those now-empty words — a time when Boulder was diverse enough to welcome such opposites as the beatnik, Buddhist Naropa Institute and Soldier of Fortune magazine. But it’s getting very clear Boulder doesn’t want my type in their lily-white, homogeneous town. Boulder City Council is on the verge of passing a sweeping anti-gun ordinance, laughably called an assault weapons ban. So loosely written, this ordinance would ban the first gun I ever owned, a simple .22 caliber rifle, the same type most farm boys get on their twelfth  birthday. Its sin? It can be fitted with a pistol-grip or a folding stock. The author, Jon Caldara, is right to be defiant. Such a ban is probably unconstitutional anyway, and defiance can lead to a Supreme Court decision overturning such a ban. Possibly all assault weapon bans, even, though I wouldn’t hold my breath. Still, a guy can dream. However, Caldara is still right. There are all kinds of problems with the Boulder proposal, but let’s start from a premise that’s actually bogus: that some guns are bad. The problem here is that trying to ban particular weapons by name is a fool’s errand. The manufacturer will change as little as they can, then rerelease the weapon under a new name, thus avoiding the ban. So you ban features. The problem is that then you start catching weapons that aren’t actually bad. You start covering guns like that .22 rifle so many kids get in their tween years. You start covering that collector’s rifle because you’re interested in a particular era of history. You start covering a lot of things you never meant to cover. In theory. The alternate theory is that you want it broad so you can ban as many guns as humanly possible with your assault weapon ban, but that couldn’t be it, right? Nah. No one would do ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • The Downside For David Hogg And His Latest Boycott
    David Hogg needs to just go away. His 15 minutes of fame are up. Most of his classmates seem to understand that. They’ve seemingly slunk away back to school. Instead, Hogg and his sister just signed a book deal. I wonder what the chapter on his latest boycott will say when he finds out just how tricky it is David Hogg, the outspoken gun control advocate who emerged from the Parkland, Florida school shooting, called for a boycott of financial institutes that invest in gun companies. “(BlackRock) and (Vanguard Group) are two of the biggest investors in gun manufacturers; if you use them, feel free to let them know. Thanks,” Hogg wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. He followed up with hashtags for boycotting both companies and a screenshot of a list of major shareholders for a gun maker. .@blackrock and @Vanguard_Group are two of the biggest investors in gun manufacturers; if you use them, feel free to let them know. Thanks — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 17, 2018 The two investment groups, BlackRock and Vanguard, own significant shares of publicly traded gun and ammo companies such as American Outdoor Brands, the holding company for Smith & Wesson; Sturm, Ruger & CompanyVista Outdoor; and Olin Corp, which owns Winchester Ammunition. These two also own a large chunk of Twitter, which is Hogg’s preferred platform for spreading his “message.” Vanguard is the largest shareholder for the social media network with BlackRock coming in at number four. The two companies account for more than 11 percent of Twitter’s stock. If Hogg really wants to hurt Vanguard, wouldn’t it also stand to reason that he and his band of merry followers would jump ship from Twitter and go elsewhere? Reduced traffic on the site would reduce advertising revenues, thus devaluing the company. That would hurt both Vanguard and BlackRock’s bottom line, right? Yet I doubt Hogg has the intestinal fortitude to actually make a stand. Not that one, at least. Instead, he’ll keep on using Twitter because it’s convenient for him to not just spread his message but to bash anyone he disagrees with. He’s not someone who is that deeply devoted to his convictions. He just wants other people to be that devoted. He wants others to make the sacrifices, to carry out the boycotts and be the muscle. Meanwhile, he’ll just sit on his throne of hypocrisy and order around the drones so he can feel powerful. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think he genuinely doesn’t like guns and genuinely thinks his efforts will save lives, but that doesn’t mean he’s somehow above reproach for his hypocritical actions. As it stands, though, he wants people who are invested in these funds to make noise, a noise he’s free to exploit without having any skin in the game in a boycott like this. After all, he won’t lose anything of any consequence in any way, shape, or form. But other people might. Somehow, I don’t think Sparky the Wonder Spud here really gets that. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • New Bill Seeks To Push States To Require License To Buy Handgun
    It’s not enough that the anti-gunners are trying to take away our so-called assault rifles. No, that’s not nearly enough for them. Not that anyone thought it would be, mind you, but I didn’t expect them to ramp it up quite this soon. The latest effort seeks to push states to establish handgun purchasing licenses in all 50 states. While it won’t require it, at least not yet, it’s still an effort to undermine our Second Amendment rights (emphasis mine). Sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), HR 5490—otherwise known as the “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act”—is framed as a means of reducing firearm homicide rates nationally. … HR 5490 calls for federal grants to be given to state, local and tribal governments. The governments would then develop and implement a handgun license scheme. To qualify, a state must have a law requiring that a handgun license applicant be at least 21. Furthermore, applicants would have to apply through enforcement agency. In addition, all applicants would be required to supply fingerprints and photographs, as well as pass a “background investigation” and a “criminal history check.” Under HR 5490, a handgun license would be good for five years. After that, a person would have to go through the process all over again. In addition, the measure is backed by numerous gun control organizations. The groups include the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; CT Against Gun Violence and the Newtown Action Alliance. Time and time again, Etsy seems convinced that laws like this will actually work, and she presents supposed data that proves it. But I don’t buy it. The reason I don’t buy it is that we already know that criminals don’t buy their guns from gun stores. They simply don’t. Further, handgun purchasers–and every other kind of firearm purchaser–already go through a criminal history check and background check. They’re the same damn thing. And it’s because of these existing background checks that criminals tend to get guns through some other means. Now, as bad as this bill is, it could be worse. It’s trying to provide a carrot rather than a stick to urge states to adopt this nonsense. I seriously doubt many states that don’t already use some kind of licensing scheme will adopt it just because the feds are offering money for it. Then there’s the fact that the bill was first introduced a week ago and has a whopping two co-sponsors. In the world of politics, the number of co-sponsors a bill has is a useful gauge as to how much support the bill has. Even in this rabidly anti-gun environment, liberal politicians don’t want any part of a bill like this. While gun control activists love it, the average person doesn’t want their right to buy a handgun inhibited by this. Handguns are the preferred choice for self-defense weapons for most people, after all, and if they need a gun right away, licenses get in the ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • GOA Releases Statement On Slide Fire’s Decision To Cease Operations
    The demise of Slide Fire (if they’re stopping to take orders, it’s a sign of their demise after all) isn’t a good thing for the firearm industry at all. While they offered a product that no one else could due to their patent, they were still a part of the community of firearm accessory manufacturers. It’s proof that if the anti-gunners are allowed to, they can push anyone out of business. The Gun Owners of America have issued a statement about the situation. GOA Statement on Slide Fire Ceasing Orders of Bump Stocks Springfield, VA – Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt stated the following after Slide Fire announced bump stocks would orders would cease: “It’s sad, but not surprising, that Slide Fire is closing its doors. What should surprise gun owners is that it was a Republican administration that put a gun parts maker out of business — especially since the Obama administration had refused to take such a course of action on several occasions. “But then again, there has been so much misinformation on bump stocks. Even the news surrounding Slide Fire’s closing has consistently misconstrued bump stocks as items that can convert a semi-automatic into a machinegun. That’s just not the case. “Gun owners should be very concerned about the future of semi-automatic rifles and should not be surprised if a future anti-gun administration uses the current ATF regulations on bump stocks to declare AR-15s to be machineguns. After all, given that the proposed ATF regulations erroneously deem the bump stock firing of an AR-15 to be ‘automatic’ fire, the AR-15 thus becomes a full automatic under those circumstances.  And, under federal law, at 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), any firearm that can be ‘readily restored’ or ‘converted’ to fire automatically IS a machinegun. “But the danger is not merely a future threat for owners of semi-automatic rifles. If ATF’s proposed regulation goes into effect, there will be up to 500,000 bump stock owners who will instantaneously be turned into felons, because they will be in possession of an unregistered machinegun.”   Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesperson, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visitGOA’s Newsroom. Pratt brings up a good point, namely about the people who have bump stocks already. There was a buying frenzy when a bump stock ban was first proposed, after all. The thinking was probably that if there was such a ban, there would be some kind of grandfather clause that would allow them to keep their stocks, which is why they hurried to get one before such a ban could be finalized. Unfortunately, that’s not how things are shaping up. That leaves thousands and thousands of bump stock owners with no recourse. They will own suddenly illegal machine guns because they own a piece of plastic that was legal one day and illegal the next. Why is this ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, April 19, 2018By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Op-Ed Demonstrates Why Violence Will Always Be A Problem
    If we learned nothing from our friends across the pond in London, it’s that removing guns from the equation doesn’t make a city safer. Instead, the best you can hope for is that violent criminals will shift to another weapon. But again, this doesn’t do anything to make anyone safer. Yet, a recent op-ed in the Kansas City Star caught my eye and pointed out exactly why violence will always be a problem. Although adults have also done a lot to demand change, we still find ourselves in the same problems again and again. Groups such as Moms Demand Action and Everytown For Gun Safety have been working hard for years to get other adults involved in promoting safer gun laws. But are the rest of the adults in our country doing enough to demand change? Are the politicians doing enough to enact laws that will keep us safe? … Our parents must do better. Our politicians must do better. Every American who has a voice must do better to protect our lives. The only way to enact real sensible gun reform is for us to reform our mindset regarding our involvement in politics. So, as a child, a student, a citizen, I urge everyone to join this generation’s movement for change. How many more deaths must this country endure before we fully enact laws that will keep us safe? It is time for us to lay down our polarized politics and come up with a solution that will keep not just my generation, but future generations safe as well. Allow me to boil all of this down for you. If you don’t support gun control, you’re apathetic to the issue of school safety. Violence in this country will continue to be a problem as long as a large group continues to think the issue is the tool being used rather than the tool using it. A violent person can be violent with any weapon or no weapon at all. Take a look at what happened earlier this week in a South Carolina prison. Seven people were murdered in an environment that is as tightly controlled as any in the world. It’s damn near impossible to get weapons into the facility, so the criminals made their own. Some appear to have been killed by makeshift knives. Others killed in other manners. Yet the constant here isn’t weapons, but the violent people themselves. While the author of this particular op-ed is a high school student and has yet to understand that guns don’t kill people on their own, it’s important to note that the sentiment isn’t unique to the young. Shannon Watts has made a career out of similar statements. And all those statements ignore the reality behind all violent crimes, that they’re committed by violent people. Figure out how to minimize the number of violent people out there and you won’t need to restrict the weapons themselves. After all, a lawful man could have a bazooka and no one have anything to ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Parkland Activist David Hogg And His Sister Just Signed A Book Deal
    The March for Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C. received wall to wall coverage. But afterward, the high school activists and the gun control fervor seemed to die down. It’s been awhile since David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Emma Gonzalez have appeared for a TV interview in primetime. Though their voices haven’t been too loud as of late, the young activists are still working to advance their agenda. According to the Associated Press, via the Hollywood Reporter, David Hogg and his sister, Lauren, just signed a book deal, which in all likelihood will find itself on the best-sellers list. Two students who survived the deadly mass shooting this year at a Florida high school have a book deal. Siblings David and Lauren Hogg are working on #NEVERAGAIN: A New Generation Draws the Line. Random House announced Wednesday that the book would come out June 5 and that the Hoggs were donating their proceeds to charity and community organizations. The Hoggs and other students at the Parkland, Florida, school have become leading gun control advocates since the Feb. 14 tragedy that left 17 people dead. Random House is calling the book “a moving portrait” of a new political movement. The publisher will make a donation to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization founded in 2014. I don’t know about you, but I, for one, will not be buying the book. While the charity and community organizations are not named, it makes me wonder if the organizations are ones that will further the leftist gun control narrative. Random House’s donation will be purely political, as Everytown for Gun Safety’s mission is to promote gun control legislation. Random House is calling the book a “‘moving portrait’ of a new political movement,” but that is inaccurate. As Tom wrote before, this gun control movement is nothing new, despite what progressives and gun control advocates want to say about it. The tactics are the same. The talking points are the same. The only difference is the political left has latched on to these young activists who have allowed them to put them into the spotlight. While these activists are impassioned, and while they are sincere in the beliefs they hold, they are the new megaphone for the gun control agenda. That’s all. Though the movement is young, and while people will continue to tout that the message is different or revolutionary, the actions of those involved must result in significant change for it to be so. States across the country have enacted new gun control laws. And while laws like the Fix NICS legislation and the STOP School Violence Act have become law at the federal level, gun control activists have not achieved their holy grail: an “assault weapons” ban. But they are still fighting for it, and the only way they will get it is if they take back control of Congress in November. According to reports, and as Tom again touched on, their goal of registering new, young voters doesn’t seem to be panning out. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Micah Rate
    5 days ago
  • City Employee Tells Store To Remove Military Flags, Blasts Veteran
    Can you imagine if you were told to remove flags that displayed your support of the military? In a lot of people’s minds, that’s like ordering someone to take down their American flag, especially while allowing flags from other countries to fly freely. In Jacksonville, Florida, a recent event started with a city inspector lashing out about such flags, then it gets truly ugly. The mayor of Jacksonville has declared that a store may keep its U.S. military flags up after a city inspector ordered them to be removed. On Monday, a Jacksonville city inspector entered the Jaguar Power Sports dealership, demanded that their display of military flags be removed, and told a military veteran that he “did nothing for this country,” according to store employees. City inspector Melinda Power went into the dealership at about noon on April 16 and announced that the flags the business was flying on the roof were in violation of city code, WJXT reported. … “We cater to our men and women, both retired and active military, so it was personal,” store manager Marcy Moyer told WJXT. “We felt like it was a personal attack.” While Power issued a written warning citation for illegal display of flags on a roof, a customer inside the store spoke up. He told the inspector that he felt it was wrong to force the business to remove flags that support the U.S. military. The unnamed customer also happened to be a military veteran. “She says, ‘What did you do for this country?’” employee Katie Klasse recounted. “He says, ‘I took three bullets to the leg. I almost lost my leg for this country. I’m retired. I’m a veteran.’” “She gets in his face this close and says, ‘You did nothing for this country,'” Klasse said. I’m not going to lie, I’m more upset about the comment than I am about the flags. The flags are a non-issue now. The mayor of Jacksonville has directed city employees to treat military flags like the American flag, which I applaud. But for anyone to look at a wounded veteran and to say they did nothing for this country? Look, I served during peacetime. While there were a few actions here and there (Somalia and Bosnia, to name a couple), I never got deployed to any of those places. Instead, I did as I was assigned and worked at a naval hospital. If a wounded warrior said I did nothing for my country, I’d probably just shrug and possibly agree. After all, my impact was minimal and if I hadn’t enlisted, there would have been no difference in the grand scheme of things. Compared to what others sacrificed, I sure as hell feel like I did nothing. But a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Slide Fire To Stop Taking Orders
    For a company that’s done absolutely nothing wrong, Slide Fire can certainly be termed as “embattled.” Every since the atrocity in Las Vegas on October 1 was first attributed to the use of a bump stock, Slide Fire has been in the crosshairs. Now, the company has announced what many of us feared was inevitable. Embattled Texas-based Slide Fire Solutions announced on their website this week that they will no longer accept orders for their products next month and will shut down their website. The company, the primary manufacturer of bump stock devices in the country, said in a notice that their website will go dark at midnight on May 20, with orders placed prior to that date processed and shipped. “We thank you for your support,” said the statement simply. The company, who holds itself as the “sole patent holder of bump fire technology” with numerous patents registered, is a defendant in numerous lawsuits over the use of bump fire stocks at the Route 91 Harvest shooting last October that left 58 dead and some 850 others injured. This came in conjunction with a flood of efforts, both legislative and regulatory, to ban the stocks and a host of other trigger devices at the federal, local and state level. As a result, people are now going to have to look for new jobs and a small town in Texas will be left to pick up the pieces, a small town that stood by the company despite the turmoil. Maybe that was because they knew that the Las Vegas massacre wasn’t the fault of anyone at Slide Fire, only the maniac who thought shooting up a concert would be a fun way to spend a Sunday night in Vegas. They understood that you don’t blame the innocent for the acts of the evil. But a lot of people don’t. They want to end the hard work of those at Slide Fire because the product scares the crap out of them. Nevermind that bump stocks aren’t essential to bump fire. No, that doesn’t matter at all, not to those who think this is somehow good news. As our nation is so divided in this day and age, I’ve started trying really hard to think of people as “opponents” rather than “enemies.” It helps me to think of them as people who just differ in their opinions but not some evil, shadowy group that needs to be destroyed. Then I come across a story like this one. It’s damn hard to not think of people like this as an enemy when they care nothing for the people they’re putting out of work, the lives they’ve destroyed, all because they think a lawful product is too scary to be legal. It’s hard not to think of them as evil when you look at the real ramifications of their actions, ramifications they don’t give two farts in a dust storm about. Real people were impacted by this. Gun grabbers will scream, “What about the people ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • Gun Control Advocates Paint Law-Abiding As Dangerous Lunatics In New Op-Ed
    Last week, the National Catholic Reporter decided to attack gun rights supporters with a typically alarmist headline: “Gun rights advocates pursue their goals with no restraint.” The actual copy didn’t get any better. As part of Time magazine’s recent article on the Parkland, Florida shooting, several steps were identified that could be taken to reduce gun violence. They represent common-sense, logical steps that would seem to be acceptable to any reasonable person. Reasonable by whose definition? Note then that, if I disagree with them, they’ve already painted me as “unreasonable” and “lacking common-sense.” Certainly they cannot be expected to have a civil debate with such a person. Not only do gun rights advocates reject these ideas, but their attacks against them expose these advocates as failing to care about the carnage they are contributing to by their recalcitrance. Or maybe we just don’t think the things you people call “common-sense” are anything of the sort, lacking — as they do — any basis in objective reality. Moreover, isn’t it a bit bigoted to paint an entire class of people with such a broad brush. Oh, wait, they’re only gun owners, not “people.” Doctors in some states are not permitted to talk to their patients about guns. Such restrictions hinder the ability of doctors to discuss safety issues with their patients. What kind of mentality would propose laws that prevent doctors from doing their jobs? First off, it’s none of my doctor’s business if I own or don’t own firearms. Second, note, once again, the implication that any one who proposes such laws is nuts. Aligned with that stance is the refusal by Congress to allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the effects of guns and gun violence on our communities. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which mandated that no CDC funds could be used for research that might promote gun control. What are politicians and the National Rifle Association afraid of discovering about the gun culture in our country? Where to begin? As the Federalist notes, the CDC is not prevented from doing such research. They are, however, prohibited from advocating for gun control. In 1996, a few years after the Center for Disease Controls had funded a highly controversial study that has since embedded itself into the “scientific” case for gun control, Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey added an amendment to a funding bill that dictated “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control” should be used to “advocate or promote gun control.” That same year, Congress also cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount it spent on gun control efforts. Bill Clinton signed it into law. Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. But never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, such as “smart guns.” Even more alarming is the failure to invest in safe gun technology. Technology exists through biometrics that ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Patrick Richardson
    5 days ago
  • Concealed Carry Permit Holders And The Japanese Murder Rate
    Lately, one of the more amusing places people try to compare the United States with is Japan. You see, Japan tightly controls firearms and, they argue, has a very low murder rate as a result of that. This is usually taken as evidence that we should follow Japan’s lead on guns. On the contrary. Anyone who has watched a Japanese game show and thinks we should follow their lead on anything needs to have their head examined, but that’s just me. However, it also seems that when you look at the numbers, the average concealed carry permit holder in the U.S. is just as safe as the average gun owner in Japan. Michigan Concealed Pistol License holders have an extremely low murder rate. Japan has a very low murder rate. Japan is also a very law-abiding culture. The United States, as a whole, has a much higher murder rate than Japan. Within the United States, there is a law abiding culture that has a murder rate as low as Japan’s. That culture consists of gun owners who carry guns legally. The FBI generally includes legally defined murder, which may be in the first or second degree, and non-negligent manslaughter, in the definition of murder for their statistics. A more precise definition might be “criminal homicide”. In Michigan, the State Police are tasked with compiling crimes committed by people who have the Michigan Concealed Pistol License (CPL). The State Police Reports are available from 2003 to early 2017. The state police report list convictions of people for murder,  and manslaughter, as well as a multitude of other offenses. From 2003 to 2017, there are 14 years of reports listing criminal convictions. … Criminal homicides are the most reliable crime statistics to track, and the most important for comparisons with other societies. While there are significant differences in definitions, reporting, and recording of crimes from nation to nation, murders, or criminal homicides, are more reliable than other crime statistics. In the 14 years of Michigan annual police reports, there are 17 criminal homicide convictions recorded by the Michigan State Police (MSP), for people who had CPLs. The number of active CPLs in Michigan for each year of the 14 annual reports was a little more difficult to find.  The annual reports run from October 1 to September 30 of the following year. I found numbers in each annual report period, except for the period of October 1, 2014, to September 30 of 2015. For that period I interpolated from the March 2014 number of 430,000 to the November 2015 number of 488,000, to obtain 459,000.  The numbers for the other years used were within the period for each report. Over the fourteen year span, a variation of a few months does not make much difference. Concealed carry holders have routinely been demonstrated to be among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. That makes a lot of sense when you think about it. After all, if they were inclined to break the law, why would ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, April 18, 2018By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago