Bearing Arms

  • Spike’s Tactical And Their Snowflake Lower
    The folks at Spike’s Tactical know who their market is. They aren’t worried about playing nice with progressive who want to put them out of business. They’re not interested in offering up platitudes designed to make them seem friendly to the anti-gun forces in hopes that somehow they’ll be left alone in a gun grabber’s Utopia. No, they know who buys guns and they know how to reach them. This is proven by their new Snowflake lower: The 7075 T6 forged receiver is about the least politically correct receiver humanly possible without possibly adding blood diamonds to the process somehow. They’re currently experiencing a bit of a backorder, which isn’t really surprising. Spikes has a great reputation for producing quality receivers, while also making some awfully fun designs at the same time. The Snowflake can also be color-filled for $25 more on the $115 price tag, which isn’t bad. Photo courtesy of Spike’s Tactical  It really brightens up the thing, don’t you think? There’s really nothing about this receiver that is designed to play nice with progressive gun grabbers, and while there are a handful of left-leaning gun owners, they tend to not be the kind demanding safe spaces and prattling on about being triggered all the time. In fact, most of those folks I’ve spoken with are more annoying at the Special Snowflakes than some of us are, so they might be the reason Spike’s is back ordered. Then again, looking at the comments on YouTube, maybe not. Still, it seems unlikely that any of the negative comments are really coming from people who were going to spend money with Spike’s in the first place, which means they lost next to nothing with this effort. Plus, they’ve got all the gun media talking about them, which is good for the company as well. Basically, it doesn’t look like they can lose with this one, even if they never sold a single receiver. However, they apparently have. They’ve also attracted some attention to their other products, from the barebones receivers to a handful with a different logo (such as The Punisher) to the really wild version with interesting magwells, they have opened up eyes that might otherwise have missed them in the oversaturated market that is today’s AR-15 lower receiver market. As long as they keep cranking out new and interesting products, they’ll keep getting attention as well. I’ve already got my eye on a receiver that’s not quite ready for prime time yet, myself. If those products also happen to give a middle finger to the anti-gun side, well…I might feel bad for laughing, but I will be laughing the whole blasted time. What about you? Do you think products like this are a “win” for the firearm industry as they’re clearly playing to the market that exists, or are they a negative because they mock people and thus making it more difficult to find common ground? Or are they one or the other for completely different reasons? Let ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Sunday, October 22, 2017By Tom Knighton
    7 hours ago
  • Treating The First Like The Second
    Rights are rights. They’re supposed to apply to each of us equally and they’re supposed to be treated equally in turn. The Bill of Rights in particular enshrined sacred rights that apply to each and every one of us. Yet it never fails that some people see no problem limiting the Second Amendment while actively opposing any limitations on the First. How would these folks feel if the rules were flipped? What if the restrictions that apply to the Second Amendment were also applied to the First Amendment? While an Indiana lawmaker touched on this just a bit recently with his bill to require journalists to be licensed, it’s still just a drop in the bucket. There’s a lot more out there, so let’s have a little fun. First, Rep. Jim Lucas and his Indiana bill is a good start, but let’s expand it. Anyone wanting to discuss politics in public must undergo a licensing process before they’re allowed to voice their opinions. The process should include a background check and a fee at a minimum, but mandatory training on the safe use of your free speech rights will be required by many states. Convicted felons aren’t entitled to voice an opinion at all. That means a criminal background check whenever someone goes to a media site in order to form an opinion. You’re free to have an opinion inside your home…but if you have children, you must keep your opinions to yourself. Oh, and don’t let your child have a shirt with a political point of view on it, otherwise they may find themselves suspended due to zero tolerance rules. If you want to get a newspaper, you have to wait three days to make sure you won’t misuse the information contained within it. During that time, the purchaser will undergo a background check for the public’s safety. By the way, do you enjoy consuming news from a variety of outlets? Forget it. You’re limited to two, so deal with it. Also, since you can share your speech, you’re also limited to two devices for that purpose. You can have either a cell phone or a computer. One or the other. There need to be reasonable limits put in place, don’t you agree? Seriously, we could go all day on this, showing just how restricted the Second Amendment is. While people love to opine on just how it’s easier to buy a gun than to do everything else, it’s bull. The truth is if any other civil liberty were as restricted as the Second Amendment, it would be amazing just how swiftly the people who kvetch about guns being too easy to get would freak out. They’d go out of their everloving minds. Yet each of these is based on an anti-gun law or proposal that has been made in recent weeks. I didn’t say a think about repealing the First Amendment, which I could have since even that has been proposed. Do I actually think any of this is a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Sunday, October 22, 2017By Tom Knighton
    9 hours ago
  • Study Claims Network News Exploited Las Vegas To Push Gun Control Agenda
    Immediately following Las Vegas, gun rights activists knew gun control supporters would go on the offensive. Those same gun rights activists knew the mainstream media was unlikely to serve as an ally. Now, a study seems to confirm what so many already suspected. The network news programs may well have exploited the Las Vegas tragedy to push their gun control agenda. In the aftermath of the Las Vegas mass shooting, ABC, CBS and NBC “wasted little time in exploiting the tragedy to advance their anti-gun rights agenda,” writes Geoffrey Dickens, deputy research director for the Media Research Center, who released a study on Monday reviewing the coverage. “In just six days of coverage, the networks filled their evening and morning show programs with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1,” Mr. Dickens said following a close analysis of all comments and statements that took any position on gun policy by anchors, reporters and guests — beginning on the morning of October 2 through the morning of October 8. In total, there were over 30 minutes of statements which supported increased gun control — and about six minutes which took gun rights into account. The study found that NBC was the most stridently anti-gun rights network by a 10 to 1 ratio. The network devoted over 12 minutes of coverage to gun control, compared with just over a minute of coverage that supported gun rights. It’s unlikely many gun rights activists will be surprised by this. We already knew they were biased against gun rights and have been for years. It’s just interesting that now we have the imbalance quantified like this. The massive imbalance in the coverage may well explain the supposedly massive support for gun control in a recent poll. With a near constant bombardment of anti-gun propaganda and no moderating counterpoint, it’s not surprising that people may well feel that gun control is the only answer. Especially since the media made no effort to show any alternatives. Yet time and again, the media will claim it is the unbiased guardian of the nation, that they merely seek the truth. The truth is that they’re presenting one-sided coverage of an issue at a particularly sensitive time in this country, and there’s almost no other reason to present such bias reporting unless it’s to advance an agenda. The other alternative is being unaware that there even is another side to the argument. Network news organizations need to remember one very important thing. If they don’t want a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it would be wise to either stop with their bias or to wear their bias proudly so everyone knows where they’re coming from. Continued biased reporting like this will certainly not help, even without a return to the Fairness Doctrine. The American public already distrusts the media, after all. If they keep this up, they can enjoy irrelevancy. What do you think? Is the media bias likely to blow back on them, or will it work ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Saturday, October 21, 2017By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • Body Camera Footage Shows Just How Fast Police Have To React
    Through the years, there’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking through the years regarding the police response to people brandishing BB guns and such. Now, a body cam video out of  Utah shows just how quickly police are required to react when they see anything resembling a gun. It started with a phone call. A resident called 911, saying a young man knocked on her door and asked for someone she didn’t know. She says the young man stayed in a car parked outside her house with three other people. Cpl. Vance and Officer Sillitoe arrived and were speaking to four people inside the vehicle, which had dark tinted windows. They were in the process of letting the group go when they found out a passenger in the back seat had given a fake name. What you see in the video is what happened when Officer Sillitoe confronted that person. Orem Police confirmed 19-year-old Anton Bay is the person in the back seat who gave a fake name and pointed what appeared to be a gun at police. The firearm was a BB gun but officers didn’t know that until they grabbed it from Bay’s hands. Watch: It took just seconds. Based on the body cam footage, it’s almost impossible to tell what the object is, only that it’s being pointed at the officer and appears to be a gun. Police responded quickly, and without needing to fire their own weapons, but that’s not always the case. They were only able to respond that way because the clicking when the trigger pulled indicated the firearm wasn’t operational for whatever reason. They knew they could react in a more measured way. At least one officer was fortunate things worked out this way. But what if they hadn’t? Had weapons been already drawn and ready? The truth is, anyone with half a brain can see just how quickly things happen. There isn’t much time at all for an officer to make a determination. They have to react, and quickly. Otherwise, people could die, people like one or both of the officers. When bad things happen, it’s simple to look at it and wonder just how can you not see it’s a BB gun…when you have a nice long look at a picture that’s not moving or pointed at you with what seems to be hostile intent. For a cop on the street or an armed private citizen, it’s a lot more complicated than that. You have fractions of a second to determine just what is what. In this case, there was no loss of life, despite the appearance that the suspect was possibly trying to commit “suicide by cop” since he pointed a BB gun at the officers and then later asked the officers to kill him. Remember this next time someone starts pontificating on just how the police should be able to identify exactly what kind of gun they’re faced with in the dark. It’s easy to armchair quarterback a situation well after ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Saturday, October 21, 2017By Tom Knighton
    1 day ago
  • High School Rejects This Request From Their Hunting-Loving Student
    A high school in Standish, Maine, has refused to accept a student’s portrait for the school yearbook because it shows him holding a shotgun. Bonny Eagle High School senior Wade Gelinas originally posted about the incident on Facebook, asking friends to “Like, Comment, or Share” if they felt the school was infringing on his rights by rejecting the photo. ATTENTION FACEBOOK FRIENDS, So here's what I wanted to have as my senior picture but was informed "No you can't put… Posted by Wade Gelinas on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 Gelinas tells WCSH-TV that hunting is a family tradition, something he’s passionate about. He simply wanted that to be reflected in his school portrait, the way kids who play music or sports can express their interests by posing with their instrument or sports gear. “It’s just my sport. It’s just what I do. I don’t play football. I don’t play basketball. I just hunt,” he explains. However, according to the Principal Lori Napolitano, the photo is in violation of the school’s code of conduct which prohibits students from wearing clothes that depict firearms or other types of weapons. According to Napolitano, that extends to school yearbook photos, as well. “Drugs, alcohol, weapons, tobacco are not allowed at school, and you cannot wear clothing that has pictures of weapons on it,” Napolitano tells WCSH-TV. “We just want to draw the line at weapons of any kind being in the picture and that way we’re not trying to pass judgment on which ones are promoting violence or which ones aren’t.” Napolitano says Gelinas’ photo isn’t the first the school has rejected because it showcases a weapon. While Gelinas says he will submit a new, gun-free photo, he’s hoping he can eventually change the school’s mind. What do you think: Should Bonny Eagle High accept the photo of Gelinas holding his shotgun or is the photograph inappropriate for a high school yearbook? The post High School Rejects This Request From Their Hunting-Loving Student appeared first on Bearing Arms. ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, October 20, 2017By Erika Haas
    2 days ago
  • Video: Officer Grabs Gun Instead Of Taser, Shoots Suspect
    Training is a very important thing for law enforcement, but sometimes it seems that there’s just not enough of the right kind of training. Police are placed in tough situations on a regular basis, and a single mistake can be devastating for everyone involved. Kind of like the situation that recently happened in Georgia. According to a video released by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Baldwin County Deputy Charles Gillis shot an 18-year-old in the arm when the officer mistakenly drew his service weapon instead of his Taser. Gillis was at the scene of a domestic disturbance between a mother and her son when the incident occurred. The mother called police to report the disturbance after her son struck her in the face, according to The Union-Recorder. In the video, officers can be seen congregating around the suspect who began resisting them. One of the officers shouted, “Taser, Taser!” but in a split second, Gillis realized that he’d pulled his gun and shot the young man in the arm instead of using his Taser on the suspect. Gillis was visibly upset by what happened, yelling, “Oh my God! God dang it!” Watch: Gillis was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, which is par for the course in a situation like this. It doesn’t help that this took place in an era where tensions between the black community and law enforcement are extremely high. Baldwin County Sheriff Bill Massee spoke with the local NAACP chapter about the incident. Massee answered, “Well, I’m sorry this happened to the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office, but I don’t think this is the first time that this has occurred where someone has grabbed his firearm as opposed to a Taser.” “People wear the Taser on what we called the off-hand side and wear their weapon on the good side. We do that, to be real honest with you, we do that so people won’t do what this deputy did and that is to grab his firearm,” Massee explained. “That is not what happened in this circumstance,” he added. “The deputy did not go to his weak side hand. He pulled his service weapon and thought he was shooting a Taser and shot him [with his gun].” A detective with the sheriff stated he didn’t believe it was racial, and there’s no indication of racial motivation on the video. Further, Deputy Gillis is clearly upset by what just happened. The young man isn’t dead, just wounded, yet he’s just as upset. Of course, it’s impossible to know what goes on in someone’s head, but this case seems a clearcut incident of an accident that shouldn’t have happened, but it did. I can’t help but wonder just what kind of training the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Department has on drawing their taser versus drawing their weapons. Under stress, it’s not hard to imagine Gillis reverting to muscle memory and drawing the tool he’s drawn far, far more: his firearm. Whether that’s the case or not remains to be seen, and ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, October 20, 2017By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Actress Julianne Moore Believes There Should Be Limits On Number Of Guns One Should Own
    Actress Julianna Moore apparently isn’t quite sure what to do when she goes off script. Without pages to memorize and regurgitate on command, she can easily get off message. That’s what seems to have happened when she was on The View recently. The friendly hosts of The View brought her around to talking about Everytown For Gun Safety, offering her everything she needed to make the case to the American public that Everytown isn’t what people think. Then she blew it. Watch: Whoopi Goldberg sets her up beautifully by noting the name. “It’s not about control, it’s about safety.” Moore, now giddy, replies that it is. Eventually, she quips, “People like to talk about it as if it’s a Second Amendment issue. It’s a safety issue. A gun is a machine.” She then goes on to talk about automotive fatalities prior to the introduction and mandating of safety devices like seatbelts and airbags, as well as regulations like speed limits. She doesn’t seem to grasp that all of these safety devices were created by the automotive industry to begin with or that they kill more people annually than guns, but whatever. Like John Belushi in Animal House, she’s rolling. She then starts talking about the safety measures like registration and licensing–neither of which actually have a thing to do with safety–but then she gives the whole thing away. Following her mention of background checks–something the killer in Las Vegas passed repeatedly, I might add–she added, “I also think, personally, limitations on the amount of firearms you can own.” Really? That’s a safety issue? I can own as many cars as I can afford, and cars kill more people every year, but owning more than X number of guns is a safety issue? Of course, it isn’t. It’s a control issue. Moore tacitly admits it is when she steps away from the more benign talking points into her personal opinions. At no point is a limit on how many guns someone can own a safety issue. That is the very definition of control. What Moore and Goldberg are both trying to do here is reframe the argument. By framing gun control as gun safety, they’re trying to use language to woe over the less informed. After all, who in their right mind would oppose gun safety? With a proliferation of low information voters in this country, they’re counting on language to help them persuade people who wouldn’t be persuaded on the merits of their arguments. It’s a rhetorical trap they’re trying to lay. Unfortunately, Moore’s made it clear that she’s not really interested in gun safety so much as gun control. She doesn’t like the idea of the plebian masses having access to firearms. She can afford private security–private armed security, to be specific–but the rest of us should be forced to make do with harsh language. Moore and her friends at Everytown can frame it however they want, but the reality is that we know better. We know better and we’re ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, October 20, 2017By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Chicago Area Judge In Hot Water After Firing His Gun
    Negligent discharges happen. They shouldn’t but they do. Often, they seem to happen to the people who should know better. People like police officers, gunsmiths, firearm instructors, and so on. One Chicagoland judge found his life flipped upside down after what appears to have been a negligent discharge on his part. Circuit Judge Patrick O’Shea, 67, of Wheaton, was arrested Friday after a warrant was issued for the Sept. 15 incident, according to a statement from the Wheaton Police Department. On Monday, DuPage County Circuit Court Chief Judge Kathryn Creswell issued a statement saying the circuit court’s executive committee removed O’Shea “from all judicial duties until further order of the court,” according to a copy of the statement. He has also been stripped of his unrestricted access to the courthouse and will be escorted by security officers in the event that he has court-related business, according to the statement. According to a source familiar with the case, the incident was not reported to police until about two weeks after it occurred. Residents in another unit in the building in which O’Shea lives found a hole in their unit. They suspected it may have been a bullet hole, but did not report it to police until later when they found the bullet in their residence, the source said. Investigators were able to trace the path of the bullet to O’Shea’s unit, the source said. Now, again, negligent discharges happen, but they’re not something that should be treated nonchalantly. They’re a serious matter. Someone very easily could have been hurt. Assuming, of course, that it’s a negligent discharge. Without seeing any evidence, it sounds like one, but what we do know is that a gun was fired and police believe it was O’Shea who pulled the trigger. He’s now charged with reckless conduct, which is a misdemeanor, and was released on $5,000 bond. He also has to hand over all firearms and firearm permits to police. The report does not mention whether or not any of these will be returned to him. Law enforcement is also unsure of precisely which gun of O’Shea’s was used. I get that O’Shea is charged with a gun-related crime, but surrendering his guns and permits for a misdemeanor non-domestic violence charge seems extreme. A charge like reckless conduct is what you level at people who had a moment that was criminally stupid, but it’s not a “no guns for you” kind of thing. That said, the judge allegedly discharged a firearm in a manner where it went into his neighbor’s home, then said nothing about it. No offer to pay to repair the damages, nothing. He apparently tried to pretend it never happened, which adds to that whole “criminally stupid” thing. Obviously, O’Shea is still innocent before the eyes of the law and will have to be judged himself. He may not be a judge for too long after that, based on the circuit court chief judge’s comments, but that’s also not a sure thing. Either way, I ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, October 20, 2017By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • San Jose To Require Gun Owners To Lock Up All Firearms
    th The state of California and most of their larger city governments don’t care about your right to self-defense. They might give a little lip service to it, but it’s not something anyone in those governments thinks about too much. Take the latest example, which comes from San Jose: City residents who own guns will have to to lock them up when they leave home under a new law set to take effect in December. The San Jose City Council approved the hotly-debated ordinance on a 6-5 vote late Tuesday, with some of the city’s elected leaders favoring stronger protections. The San Jose law is similar to safe-storage gun laws in San Francisco, Oakland, Sunnyvale and Berkeley. State law requires that guns be locked up or secured only in homes with young children. The council vote came amid emotional testimony from some residents who feel it will tamp down gun violence. Louis Pandula choked up as he told city leaders about the worst day of his life: When his daughter was shot in the head six years ago by a fellow San Jose State student. … But other residents said the measure won’t stop gun violence. One man demonstrated how long it takes to disable a trigger lock from the podium — seconds, he said, that could cost someone’s life in an emergency. “Not a single one of the tragedies described would have been prevented by this law,” said David Freedman. “The only real effect of this is making owning firearms a little more inconvenient and more expensive.” The new law, proposed last year by Councilman Raul Peralez and former Councilman Ash Kalra, now a state Assemblyman, requires gun owners to secure firearms either in a gun safe or lock-box or with a trigger lock when they leave home in an effort to curb gun violence and suicides. On the surface, this looks like nothing. After all, shouldn’t most people leave their guns locked up in a gun safe? Should firearms be locked up when not in use? Not really. Personal defense firearms are rarely used except at the range, yet need to be accessible. Laws like this require gun owners to lock and unlock their weapons each and every time they leave the house and come home. You and I know the net result will be people simply leaving the guns locked up when they get home, just so they don’t have to fool with it. Backers of this law are banking on the complacency of the average American. Therein lies the problem, however. Because many will simply leave the gun locked up, that one chance in a million that they’ll need it to defend their life will be the one time in a million they’ll have trouble unlocking their gun. Adrenaline kills fine motor skills, the kind you need to manage a lock of almost any kind. Precious seconds tick away as you fumble with a key or the combination to a lock until… Makers of these laws basically want ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Friday, October 20, 2017By Tom Knighton
    2 days ago
  • Wisconsin Man Jailed After Putting Gun To Girlfriend’s Head
    An 18-year-old Wisconsin man is currently in legal hot water after he proved himself to from the shallow end of the gene pool. The man, Josh Radder of Kiel, WI allegedly put a gun to his girlfriend’s head and pulled the trigger. Thankfully, the weapon didn’t fire. The victim got away with the help of another teenager. Police say the suspect pointed his gun at the second teen and ordered that young person to drive to the Sheboygan area. The two came back to Manitowoc. Radder was located at his home. After a brief negotiation with the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office Special Operations Squad, the suspect was taken into custody without incident. Manitowoc Police say two loaded handguns were recovered by sheriff’s deputies. In court Thursday, a prosecutor stated that Radder showed no remorse and bragged on Facebook about the incident. Yeah, he apparently bragged about it on Facebook. Clearly, we’re dealing with a Rhodes Scholar on the cusp of cracking the code to cold fusion at any moment. The judge, a complete master of understatement, noted the deep hole Radder had dug for himself. A judge called it “an extremely serious offense.” Oh, you think? Radder is charged with Attempted 2nd Degree Intentional Homicide, False Imprisonment, 1st Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Physical Abuse of a Child, and Disorderly Conduct with a Weapon. If found guilty, these are not charges that get you probation and a stern warning from the judge. Instead, there’s every reason to suspect Radder’s next relationship will be with a large felon named “Bubba” with a penchant for long walks in the cell block and making young guys squeal like a pig. It looks like Radder is out on $50,000 bond, but is not to contact any of the five people involved and can’t so much as look cross-eyed at a firearm. Frankly, $50,000 bond seems a little light for a guy who reportedly tried to kill his girlfriend and then figured confessing on Facebook. It seems unlikely he’ll adhere to the no-contact order if he is inclined to finish what he allegedly tried to start. This sounds like the kind guy no one wants walking around armed as a general rule, which is also an understatement. Folks, if you’re going to own a firearm, please be both intelligent enough and stable enough to not act like a colossal tool with them. Countless people carry firearms every day, all day long, and still manage to avoid placing a gun to their significant other’s head and pulling the trigger. If you’re someone who can’t do that, then please do us all a favor and leave the guns alone outside of Call of Duty. Probably within the game, too, while we’re at it. No one wants to see things like this happen, but I know I speak for the vast majority of our readers when I say that we’re happy to hear there was no loss of life or even injury. If Radder is guilty of these accusations–and with ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Schumer Warns Fellow Democrats Off On Gun Control
    Sen. Charles Schumer from the anti-gun state of New York is no friend to gun owners or Second Amendment advocates. His anti-gun credentials are well documented and understood. Also understood, however, is that he’s not exactly the dumbest member of the United States Senate. That’s evidenced by his warning to fellow Democrats regarding gun control. Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is urging his colleagues to stay away from gun control in the budget debate despite pressure from activist groups that argue the party needs to take a stand given the string of mass shootings across the country. Schumer, focused on next year’s midterm elections, thinks it is smarter to focus on economics — specifically President Trump’s tax plan, which Democrats say is a giveaway to corporations and the rich, and GOP proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid. … “Democrats need to find courage and learn to speak to the issue,” said Ladd Everitt, director of 1Pulse4America, a gun-violence prevention group created after the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016. “There’s a lot of anger in this movement about the response from Democrats right now. People think it’s totally inadequate,” he added. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) tweeted Wednesday night that the country should be talking about answers to gun violence. “The deadliest mass shooting in our country’s history was 16 days ago,” she wrote. “Conversations about gun violence have faded. We can’t accept that.” In next year’s midterms, however, Democrats will be defending 10 seats in states won by Trump in last year’s election — including West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota, where guns are a big part of the local culture. Schumer’s strategy is based, at least in part, on saving those seats and potentially winning back the Senate majority next year if Republicans falter badly. Schumer’s strategy is actually sound. Harris and company are deluding themselves if they believe anti-gun votes won’t hurt Democrats in rural states like Montana and North Dakota. Further, Schumer is also smart enough to recognize one very important fact. They’re the minority party. They don’t have the numbers to force a vote on gun control, and even if they did it’s unlikely they’d be pleased with the result since they control neither the House, the Senate, or the White House. Schumer is probably remembering the Democratic bloodbath that followed the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, Anti-gun activists and organizations systematically targeted any who supported the legislation for removal from office. Run in conjunction with the GOP’s “Contract With America,” control of Congress flipped to the Republican Party. Only now, Republicans already have the majority. The key difference is they don’t maintain enough of a majority to block filibuster attempts by Democrats. An anti-gun push now might result in more Republican control, effectively eliminating the Democrats as a force to even be considered for the next couple of years. I hate to say it, but Schumer is on the ball here. He’s not our ally and everyone knows it. His position is one based on pure pragmatism for his party, yet hotheads like ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Neighbors Of Slide Fire Solutions Stand Behind Company
    On the last day of September, no one knew the name “Slide Fire Solutions.” They didn’t know it the next day either, but the days of relative anonymity were quickly drawing to a close and were abruptly shattered when news broke that the madman behind the Las Vegas massacre had used bump stocks on some of his weapons. Now, the small, Texas-based company has found itself and its products in the center of a firestorm of controversy. Yet their neighbors in Moran, Texas seem to have their back. Moran, Texas, sits 150 miles west of Dallas off State Highway 6. Less than 300 people call the town home and most of them consider Slide Fire Solutions an economic blessing. “It’s kept the community going,” Jed Cottle, Jeremiah’s brother, told the New York Times during an interview at high school football game earlier this month. “Everybody shows up here on Friday night. Slide Fire has kept it going.” Jeremiah Cottle, an Air Force veteran, opened Slide Fire Solutions in Moran in 2010, generating $10 million in sales in its first year. It’s signature product, the bump stock, soared from obscurity into the national spotlight three weeks ago when federal investigators revealed a dozen of the devices were found in the Las Vegas shooter’s hotel room at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Public fervor for a ban reached fever pitch earlier this month when a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers introduced legislation outlawing the devices. “It’s being used as a scapegoat — they’re looking for somebody to blame,” Lanham Martin, a Shackelford County commissioner who lives in Moran, told the newspaper. “Guns don’t kill people. Slide Fire stocks don’t kill people. It could have been just as lethal, if not more so, with a good scope.” The company halted filling orders of the stocks following the revelation that it had been used in the shooting. Cottle hasn’t publicly commented on the shooting, either, which is fine. Not everyone needs to comment. The people of Moran are standing beside the company that probably does more good for their community than anyone else, a community that the anti-gun hysteria-driven gun grabbers couldn’t care less about. Destroy a town, destroy people’s livelihoods, who cares so long as they can be seen doing “something” about guns. Who cares if nothing they propose would actually work? After all, it never does, now does it? Lanham Martin was dead on accurate. Slide Fire stocks are not responsible for Las Vegas. Vegas still would have happened even if the stocks had never been invented. In fact, it might have been more deadly as Martin noted. Bump-fire isn’t exactly accurate, after all. But again, that doesn’t matter to the average anti-gun crusader. All that matters is the appearance of actually accomplishing something, especially within the bizarre confines of their own minds. Good on the people of Moran, Texas for doing what’s right. Then again, that tends to be the way of most Texans I’ve encountered through the years. It’s almost like they ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Police Across the Country Are Testing Out a New Accessory That Could Replace Body Cams
    A handful of police departments across the country are supplying their officers with a new accessory: gun cameras. The small device, which is placed under the barrel of a sidearm, is said to provide a better view of police shootings than body cameras. Body cameras can often times be obstructed – or they may not be turned on at all. “It’s kind of cutting-edge technology now,” Assistant Chief Michael Kovacsev of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Police Department tells the Associated Press. Kovacsev’s department started testing out gun cameras this year. “One thing about the gun camera is you can actually see what’s going on,” he adds. “You actually get to see the viewpoint of the officer where the weapon is pointed. Those in favor of making the switch also believe gun cameras will save police departments money by reducing video storage costs, since the device doesn’t start recording until the firearm is actually drawn. According to the Associated Press, it can cost a mid-size police department tens of thousands of dollars a year to store footage. For larger departments, that bill can get up into the hundreds of thousands. But these aren’t the only reasons police are considering making the switch. Depending on the make and model, gun cameras can also come equipped with high-powered lights, meaning officers do not need to juggle their firearm and a flashlight in high stress situations. Better yet, some have the capability to send out alerts to nearby police, signaling that an officer has drawn their weapon and may need backup. While there are definitely some pros to these devices, not everyone is on board with testing them. The Associated Press reports that the NYPD and the LAPD have no interest in using these cameras. “If you put a camera on a gun, it’s only going to work when you pull your gun,” Deputy Chief Timothy Trainor of the NYPD tells the news agency. “We’re more concerned about capturing (all) interactions between the community that we are tasked to serve and the officers.” The NAACP and ACLU have the same concern, noting that valuable context will be lost, namely what promoted the officer to draw his weapon in the first place. However, those who are against the switch aren’t necessarily against the use of gun cameras, they just believe they shouldn’t replace body cameras. In other words, they would be supplemental. But at $500 a piece, that seems like a hard sell. Currently, only a handful of other law enforcement agencies are giving these cameras a shot; the West Hennepin Public Safety Department in Minnesota, and the Williams Police Department in Arizona are among them. As the Associated Press notes, while police are just starting to test out gun cameras, they aren’t new technology. Sports shooters and hunters have been using them for years. And by the sound of it, that’s likely the realm in which they’ll stay. The post Police Across the Country Are Testing Out a New Accessory That Could Replace Body ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Erika Haas
    3 days ago
  • Indiana Lawmaker Flips The Script, Proposes Applying Gun Rules To Journalists
    I’m constantly amazed at the number of people who tend to be selective in their observance of the Bill of Rights. I’m not talking about people who disagree what Freedom of Religion means, either. No, I mean those who will clamor for things like a free press (which I agree with, mind you) while also clamoring for things like gun control. It’s baffling how some folks can look at one amendment as sacrosanct while looking at another as merely a suggestion. Now, one Indiana state lawmaker, Rep. Jim Lucas, has flipped things around on journalists, and it’s hysterical. An Indiana Representative is forcing the establishment media to look in the mirror and face their hypocrisy. He is proposing the First Amendment in Indiana be treated the same as the Second Amendment. His proposal is that journalists be required to apply for a license before they are allowed to publish. If they have felony convictions, they might not be allowed to publish. From fox59.com: Lucas, from Seymour, has been critical of the media’s coverage of his efforts to repeal a state law that requires a permit to carry a handgun. He has stated reporters, columnists and editorial boards mischaracterize his idea, which is sometimes referred to as “constitutional carry.” “If I was as irresponsible with my handgun as the media has been with their keyboard, I’d probably be in jail,” Lucas said. The proposal would require professional journalists to submit an application with Indiana State Police. They would be fingerprinted and would have to pay $75 for a lifetime license. Lenin, the famous Communist, was reported to have made a similar point, as recorded in Lord Riddell’s Diary of the Peace Conference, published in 1934. The entry was written in 1920:   “Why should a Government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticised? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. And as to the freedom of the Press, why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the Government?” I’m sorry, but this is hysterical. No, I do not actually support licensing journalists, but it makes the point nicely. If one right can be so easily regulated, why should others be immune? This is a concept leftists should be familiar with, after all. They love to use the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” example to limiting rights in the first place. Why can’t that turn around and impact something else? The truth of the matter is that a right is something that should never be restricted. Ever. Even their “yelling fire” example isn’t an abridgment of anyone’s right. It’s simply about the ramifications of being irresponsible with your right. You can yell fire in a crowded theater all you want without any problems under several conditions. One, of course, is if there’s a fire, obviously. Another is if no one has any reason ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • Today’s Lesson In What Not To Do With A Gun
    Police in Longmont, CO recently arrested a woman for pulling a pellet gun on a public menace. No, she didn’t defend herself against a rapist or armed robber, only to find herself in trouble with the law. Nothing like that. No, this menace is one I feel comfortable saying we have all stared down from time to time. The public menace is known as “the squirrel.” Longmont police arrested a woman Friday who pulled a pellet gun on a squirrel outside a coffee shop. Thirty-one-year-old Kylie Morrison was cited for disorderly conduct after witnessed said she pulled the trigger several times. As someone who has a sworn blood feud with tree rats, I understand the sentiment. Unfortunately for Morrison and fortunately for the squirrel, the gun was lacking one important component. Pellets. However, Morrison is probably the kind of person who can serve as a poster child for pellet gun control. A review of the police report by the Longmont Times-Call describes Morrison’s behavior leading up to the non-shooting. Morrison appeared to be “high on something” when she Cafe Luna in the 800 block of Coffman Street. She was talking to herself, witnesses told police, and first sat inside. She then moved outside the business and started throwing items at a squirrel as it approached her. A witness reportedly tried to encourage the squirrel to vacate the premises but to no avail. There’s no word yet on just what Morrison’s alleged malfunction is because there has got to be something there. Normal squirrel hatred–and yes, I do think it’s perfectly normal to despise them–doesn’t account for pulling any kind of gun in public, pellet or otherwise, nor does it account for her behavior prior to the incident. Morrison is currently in the Boulder County Jail, where she apparently has spent a fair bit of time previously. Morrison has convictions for theft, drug-related offenses, driving under the influence, resisting arrest, vehicular eluding, harassment and escape in Boulder and Weld counties beginning in 2006, according to online court records. In other words, this is not the mark of your average, ordinary person who just snapped over a squirrel. The drug-related charges, coupled with the description of her appearing to be high on something means there’s a good chance she was strung out on something, though no one should rule out some kind of mental disorder. After all, self-medicating is a thing. Either way, I’m glad it was both just a pellet gun and that no one got hurt. One would be surprised by the number of people who think pulling a pellet gun in public isn’t a big deal, and perhaps Morrison is one of those. However, pellet guns often look realistic enough that the police do not and cannot take a chance. This could have ended poorly. The lesson for today is simple. No matter how much you hate squirrels, you cannot pull a gun on them at a coffee shop. No, not even if it’s a pellet gun. This is a good ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • New Scare Anti-Gun Rights Scare Tactics From Hollywood Elite, Everytown For Gun Safety
    It’s like Harvey Weinstein is still pulling the strings in Tinsel Town. He said he’d redirect his focus on combatting the National Rifle Association, and what happens? Hollywood actors join together to make a video for Everytown For Gun Safety just days after the Hollywood producer tried to deflect sexual harassment allegations against him by offering to do battle with the NRA. I’m not saying he is, mind you, just that it’s an amusing coincidence. That’s where the amusement stops, however. The video itself is full of falsehood and scare tactics designed specifically to make it look like the NRA is supporting a mass stripping of American gun laws. Watch: Just watching this, you can see the dishonesty. Actors without makeup, without their hair styled, unshaved in some cases, all sitting in front of a camera with subpar sound so it’ll feel raw and spontaneous. Yet they’re saying the same thing. Each and every one is parroting the very same Everytown talking points. It’s not raw. It’s not spontaneous. It’s calculated to make people think that these actors just got up one day and decided, “I have to do something.” Then you get into the meat of what they say and it just gets worse. First, let’s look at their claims about suppressors. Yes, the NRA is trying to roll back some regulations on suppressors, but everything else regarding the topic is an outright lie. Suppressors minimize the sound, but not to the level these actors are used to portraying in their films. Real suppressors don’t do that. The most common comparison is that a suppressed gun is “only” as loud as a jackhammer. Ever been around one of those? Try telling me no one can hear them. They’re a safety device that makes it a little safer to fire. That’s it. Yet Everytown and their Hollywood allies, despite ample information stating just this being sent their way, continue to persist with this untruth. I’m sure they watch CNN, after all. One could be forgiven for an untruth stated in ignorance. One where the correct information is out there, yet ignored? That’s a lie, pure and simple. Next, the issue the claim that the SHARE Act will make suppressors more accessible to dangerous people. This, too, is a lie and for a number of reasons. First is the fact that suppressor technology has been around for over a century and can be readily manufactured in many garage workshops. There is nothing stopping dangerous people from getting suppressors now. Second is the fact that the SHARE Act still mandates a background check on every purchase. In other words, they’re treating suppressors like a semiautomatic firearm rather than a machine gun. You still have to show ID to buy it and still have to undergo a background check. It’s simply the instant check performed when purchasing a firearm, rather than the drawn out process currently in place. No one gets a suppressor without one, but good try. Finally, they take a shot ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Thursday, October 19, 2017By Tom Knighton
    3 days ago
  • September’s Tennessee Church Shooting Reportedly In Retaliation For SC Black Church Massacre
    In many cases, we don’t hear much about a mass shooting after it’s over. We still don’t know the motive for the Las Vegas gunman, for example. Yet, just a single week earlier, a good guy with a gun stopped a mass shooting in a Tennessee church. The assailant, a black immigrant from the Sudan, had a number of posts on his social media denoting a strong Christian faith…but also many that took a harsh stance on what he saw as racism in this country. Still, we didn’t know his motive. Of course, it turns out that the motive was known. It just didn’t a lot of attention in the press. Law enforcement officials say a note found in the car of a man charged in a Tennessee church shooting referenced retaliation for a white supremacist’s massacre at a black church two years ago in Charleston, South Carolina. Investigators are not saying what motivated [the killer] to shoot churchgoers Sunday. But the note could offer a glimpse into his mindset. The Associated Press has not viewed the note, but it was summarized in an investigative report circulating among law enforcement. So where was this news? This report is dated September 29, two days before the Las Vegas shooting. Why didn’t this get some play by the national media? It couldn’t have been because no one would care. The motive behind the 2014 Isla Vista rampage killings, for example, became the topic of conversation for quite some time. His misogynistic ramblings were almost everywhere. The same is true of the Pulse Orlando shooting last year. The killer in that incident had his motivations fully discussed. Why would this case be any different? Now, had this report come out October 2nd, no one would think anything of it. We had bigger things to talk about than the shooting a week earlier. We had 58 dead and over 500 wounded. A lack of reports on this then would have made some sense. Tennessee was old news at that point. But it wasn’t. It was two days before, still plenty of time for the national media to have picked it up and run with it. So why didn’t they? It couldn’t possibly be because it might paint a negative light on movements and rhetoric the left ostensibly supports, now could it? A biased media simply doesn’t exist, or so we’re repeatedly told. They report the news. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet again, I ask, why wasn’t this story made national? Don’t tell me it wasn’t news. Don’t tell me no one cared either. The least cynical answer I can concoct is that whoever saw it didn’t figure it was important, but even that is an example of their bias clouding their sense of the news. The idea of a black man looking to murder white people in a church in retaliation for a previous murder they had nothing to do with. How is this not important? But I find it hard to believe it wasn’t a case of no ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Are Millennials More Likely To Be Pro-Gun?
    If you ask a gun grabber about the typical Second Amendment supporter, you’ll probably hear about a straight white male, probably middle age who lives in a trailer in the woods or some other redneck cliche. While some of those people do actually exist–believe me, I know them–the reality is that gun rights activists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and from all walks of life. Yes, including Millennials, apparently. Polling in gun politics is notoriously murky—much lies in the crafting of the question—but demographers have consistently reported a conservative streak in millennial attitudes on guns. Respondents aged 18-29 are the least likely in the country to support a renewed ban on assault weapons, at 49 percent, a fact that has helped drive nationwide support down to a record low. Pew’s data suggest that those falling in the youngest age range have dropped the furthest in support for “gun control” since 2000 (when the alternative is presented as “gun rights”). And when the question concerns the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority, concealed carry, millennials appear to lead the country. According to Gallup’s version of the question in 2004, the notion that concealed guns made for safer spaces polled at 25 percent; 11 years later, it registered at 55 percent nationally. The greatest support came from those ages 18-29, at 66 percent, a full 10 points greater than the next highest scoring demographic. Does this make millennials more conservative on guns? Some think so. Observing the trends of his own poll, in 2014, Frank Newport, the director of Gallup, wrote, “At the same time that the country’s views of same-sex marriage and marijuana have undergone significant short-term changes,” America’s proliferating gun massacres “have not produced the change in attitudes toward guns that gun-control advocates have predicted.” Newport later told NBC News, “[I]t’s unlike a number of other attitudes, say, like gay marriage, where young people are much more liberal.” Writing this month in New York Magazine, Benjamin Hart agreed, suggesting that the gun data may seem like “a head-scratcher” given millennials’ liberal attitudes on gay marriage, legalization and other issues. “But guns aren’t like that,” Hart writes. To be sure, this is a good thing, even if you disagree with millennials on many of their other positions. Gun rights are important, and it helps if we build a broad coalition between the typical gun rights advocate and the more socially libertarian millennials. Especially because then we might have a chance of correcting the bizarre contradiction in their thinking. It’s true that the young people in these surveys do support some efforts to loosen gun laws. But it turns out that their views are more complicated, even seemingly contradictory. The same poll that found millennials skeptical about an assault weapons ban? It also finds they lead the country in support for a mental health-related ban. They are the least likely demographic in America to own a gun, and they give the country’s lowest favorability ratings to the NRA, at 19 percent. And in the most striking case of ideological whipsaw, the same demographic of young people who reported ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Evidence That Universal Background Checks Are A Universal Failure
    A handful of states have implemented universal background checks. Anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute took a look at three states–Washington, Colorado and Delaware–and conducted a study to see what the impact of the new universal background check laws would be. Well, the short version is that they were less than useless. Two of the states had no real change in the number of background checks performed, while the third had a modest change. Wintemute called for more aggressive enforcement of the statute but failed to offer suggestions of just what that enforcement would actually look like. However, the NRA’s Cam Edwards offers up a more detailed rebuttal. The problem for Wintemute is that these laws are nearly impossible to enforce, and law enforcement officers know it. That’s why so many have been opposed to these feel-good but ineffective background check laws for quite a while. Virtually every county sheriff in New Mexico opposed the Bloomberg-backed gun control bill when it was introduced in the state’s legislature earlier this year. Sheriffs spoke out about the need to be able to hold repeat offenders on higher bond, the number of plea bargains, and other issues surrounding the criminal justice system and violent offenders. That’s where they think the focus should be, but gun control advocates have a different priority. They think cops across the country should be spending precious time and resources trying to find illegal gun transfers instead of the individuals who are actually committing violent crimes. How well does that work to make us safer? Well, take one more look at that study on background check laws. Supposedly, Delaware saw a significant increase in background checks. Unfortunately, Delaware also saw its homicide rate significantly increase as well; from 4.4 in 2013 to a 30-year high of 6.6 in 2015, before dropping slightly to 5.9 in 2016. Washington and Colorado also had a slight increase in  homicide rates (from 2.4 to 2.7 in the case of Washington and 3.3 to 3.7 for Colorado), but nothing like the spike seen in Delaware. Yes, the state most compliant with its “universal” background check law also had the highest homicide rate and the biggest increase in its homicide rate of the states studied. Wintemute and others may claim that Delaware’s law is “working” in terms of increased background checks, but it has clearly failed at bringing down the number of murders. Maybe they should conduct a study to try and figure out why. So, the state that seems to have had the higher compliance with universal background checks also had the bump in their homicide rate? Fascinating. It’s almost like background checks are absolutely pointless, like those who get their guns legally aren’t really the problem and never have been. Hmmmm. Another bit worth mentioning is that Wintemute’s study only found about the same number of background checks being performed in two of the states. What it doesn’t do is find why that’s the case. Were there significant numbers of sales not being checked, or did the law simply dissuade ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Breaking: Shooting At Maryland Office Park Leaves At Several Injured
    With Las Vegas still fresh in our memories, the country is hardly ready for another high-profile shooting. Unfortunately, we don’t get to pick when things like this happen, otherwise we’d pick for them to never take place. Yet it’s happened again, despite our wishes. Thankfully, this is one on a drastically reduced scale. From WBAL: Multiple people have been injured after a shooting at a business park in Harford County Wednesday morning, authorities said. Authorities asked the public to avoid the Emmorton Business Park at Emmorton Park Road near Edgewood Road after they received reports of a shooting around 9 a.m. … “Next door, we have another business that we know pretty well, and as we were outside talking, the guy said that he heard a bunch of arguing that calmed down. Then, he heard a bunch of more arguing. He said it sounded like a big huge fight going on, and then next thing he knew, he heard some noises — didn’t sound like gunshots, or didn’t really think it was gunshots — but the next thing he knew, that’s when all chaos broke out,” Sullivan said. While the FBI said it is aware of the situation with the shooting and it is providing assistance to the Harford County Sheriff’s Office, an FBI spokesman declined to say what that assistance was. The ATF and several different Police Departments are also at the scene assisting the Harford County Sheriff’s Department. WBAL is reporting via their live report that five people are injured, three are dead. Two of the injured are are critical condition Police are looking for a man named Radee Labeeb Prince. They believe he may be in a 2008 Black GMC Acadia SUV, Delaware license plate number PC064273. SEARCH for SUSPECT: RADEE LABEEB PRINCE 11/5/79 2008 Black Chevy Acadia DE Tag PC064273Call 911 if you see the suspect. pic.twitter.com/v8y18FOEUi — Harford Sheriff (@Harford_Sheriff) October 18, 2017 Harford County officials are referring to this incident as the worst incident of this kind in the county’s history. A modified lockdown is in effect at several area schools. The school system offered the following statement: “This is an important message regarding an incident in the community that has affected the school day at Edgewood High School, Edgewood Middle School, Deerfield Elementary School, Edgewood Elementary School and William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary School. “On the advice of the Harford County Sheriff’s Office, these schools are currently on modified lockdown due to an incident in the surrounding community. The modified lockdowns are being conducted in an abundance of caution. The modified lockdown requires students to remain in the building, with no outside activities. In addition, no visitors are permitted to enter our building at this time. We would like to commend our students for exhibiting excellent behavior during our current modified lockdown. When we are given the all clear by the Sheriff’s Office and the modified lockdown is lifted, you will be notified. “Our schools are secure at this time and we ask for ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Washington Post Busts Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Claims
    Gun control advocates routinely claim that the laws they favor would have this major impact on gun crime. They brush off any claims or evidence to the contrary, parroting words like “biased” and even dismissing the evidence as lies without ever really delving into the meat of the data. It’s also easy for them to ignore anything we publish at Bearing Arms. With the current national debate on guns, Rep. Chris Murphy has made a lot of anti-gun claims. Enough that even the Washington Post decided to take a look. The results were probably not what Murphy would have liked. The evidence to support Murphy’s claim is thin, at best. A 10-year ban on assault weapons such as AR-15s didn’t do much to reduce gun violence. Many of the studies that show gun control reduces gun deaths include suicides, which distorts the results. And single-state studies may show improvements in gun violence, but the results can’t be readily generalized to other states. (The Fact Checker once documented how proposed gun laws would not have prevented any mass shootings that took place between 2012 and 2015.) After each mass shooting, politicians argue over gun-control policy, with one side focused on how to prevent the next shooting, and the other asserting that gun ownership is a constitutional right and that most gun laws don’t work. The best evidence available doesn’t lend much support for either side of the debate. Nevertheless, politicians can only work with the information they have available. And the reality is, as Kleck points out: “We make policy on the basis of incomplete and imperfect information.” The best data available show gun permits and restricted sales slightly reduce homicides and robberies. Still, there is no evidence that tough laws “dramatically reduce gun violence as Murphy claims. He exaggerates the little evidence that lends just a hint of support for his side of the gun debate. For this we award him Three Pinocchios — yet again. Obviously, almost everyone reading this will reject the notion that permits and restricted sales do anything to actually reduce crime since criminals aren’t buying their guns legally. We know this as an absolute fact. It’s too much to ask for the Washington Post to put aside their own implicit bias for all that long. There’s a lot of inconsistencies here that need to be unpacked, but the overall point is that gun control doesn’t seem to do a whole lot to reduce much of anything except the rights of the law-abiding. This is something that most of us can agree with completely, and ultimately, so does the Washington Post. If people like Chris Murphy were serious about reducing violence, they’d spend a little bit more time trying to look for the causes of violence rather than simply blaming the tool. There’s none of that. Instead, gun control zealots continue their march against an object with no agenda of its own, something used by hero and villain alike. More evidence they don’t actually care about people, only opportunities to grandstand politically. The post Washington ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Colorado Springs Clerk Fired For Defending Himself With His Firearm
    It’s a terrible end to a horrible day, but that’s just what Lee Satterthwaite had. When two armed men busted into the convenience store he worked at, it was the definition of a bad day. The two armed assailants pointed weapons at Satterthwaite’s face and demanded money. It was a harrowing situation, to say the least. Which might be why Satterthwaite drew his own pistol in self-defense. Now, Satterthwaite is out of a job, fired for having a gun on the premises. Two weeks ago, Lee Satterthwaite was working the overnight shift at Wester Convenience store on Fillmore street in Colorado Springs when two armed suspects entered the store around 3 a.m. pointing their weapons at him demanding money. “Looking down the barrel of a gun that you know is wielded with hostile intent, is frightening,” says Satterthwaite. When he asked the suspects to not point their weapons at his face and they didn’t listen, he drew his weapon. “They kept pointing their guns at my head, I stepped behind cover and drew my weapon.” The suspects were frightened by the gun. When Satterthwaite tried to grab one of the suspects weapons he was shot in the left arm. He says, “It felt like getting stabbed.” The bullet went through his arm and out his elbow. Both suspects escaped without Satterthwaite ever firing a shot. He was taken to the hospital for a minor injury and went back to work that same morning. … Two weeks later, Satterthwaite received a call from his manager saying he was fired for bringing a gun to work. Also, because of the shooting, the store says they are getting rid of the overnight shift and no longer needed him. He was shocked that he was fired for simply trying to defend himself. Has anyone else noticed that the jobs where you’re most likely to need a gun on the job tend to be lower-paying jobs with no real security to speak of but won’t let people carry their privately owned firearms? Satterthwaite’s experience isn’t unique by any stretch of the imagination. It wasn’t all that long ago when Jennifer Wertz was fired from a Circle K following a similar situation. Unfortunately, it’s way too common for clerks in these stores to find themselves looking at the business end of a firearm, to fear for their lives, and to need to respond with a firearm of their own. Also unfortunately, many of these businesses have policies that seek to disarm their law-abiding employees, making them attractive targets to criminals. Frankly, unemployment isn’t such a bad thing when your job apparently would prefer to see you dead. Stores like these know they’re inviting targets. They know it and they also know there’s very little they can do to prevent robberies. Yes, they put in place policies they think will minimize risk to employees. That’s all fine and good until someone comes in with harmful intent. They don’t want to just rob the place, they want to hurt someone. What then? They’ve now created a ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Wednesday, October 18, 2017By Tom Knighton
    4 days ago
  • Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Raffling Off Bump Stock
    Candidates gearing up for a primary will often do some odd things to not just raise money, but also get their name out there. This is especially important at the state and local levels where it’s not unusual for qualified candidates to lack name recognition. In Georgia, one state senator has found a way to make a point, a name for himself, and raise some money all at the same time. A candidate for governor in Georgia is giving away a bump stock just weeks after a Las Vegas gunman killed 58 people after using a similar device to turn his semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. “Blaming guns or bump stocks for the actions of a lunatic, is the same as blaming McDonald’s for heart disease,” wrote Republican State Senator and gubernatorial candidate Michael Williams in a statement announcing the raffle Monday. “An attack on bump stocks is an attack on the Second Amendment.” … Williams said he was holding the draw “in solidarity with gun owners across the nation.” “The tragedy in Las Vegas broke my heart, but any talk of banning or regulating bump stocks is merely cheap political lip service from career politicians,” he said. “In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence.” There’s a lot about his style to like, and he has a point on bump stocks. They’re simply something new for politicians to get worked up about, and in turn to work their base up over. They’ve been around for years and, prior to October 1st, they were never a problem for anyone not named Dianne Feinstein. Further, it’s unlikely the stocks will actually get banned. Current bills in Congress are so overly broad that they’re unlikely to garner enough support to make it out of committee, much less end up on the president’s desk. After all, when the language is so all-encompassing as to also appear to ban competition-grade trigger groups, we have a problem. A big one. So no, I’m not sure we’re going to see a ban on these stocks, but that doesn’t mean this is the only assault we’ll see on the Second Amendment. By doing this, Williams solidifies his Second Amendment credentials well ahead of any endorsements by the NRA, who endorsed him in 2016 for his state senate race. The only downside is being labeled by his opposition as…well…whatever they decide to label him as because he doesn’t wet his pants at the mere sight of a 30-round magazine. Besides, Williams has an answer for them already. “There is zero evidence that banning bump stocks would prevent any gun violence deaths,” he said, boiling it down to a mental health issue rather than access to powerful weapons. “You cannot regulate evil out of existence,” Williams said. “If politicians wanted to have a real conversation on reducing gun violence, they would be discussing mental health awareness, and ways to reduce the weekly ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, October 17, 2017By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • ATF Group Fires Back Over Criticism Of Bump Stock Decision
    Immediately following the largest mass shooting in modern American history earlier this month, a fair bit of criticism was leveled at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, or BATFE…aka the ATF. Now, an ATF group is taking issue with much of the criticism being directed at the bureau and are speaking out about it. The association representing current and former ATF employees has pushed back against critics blaming the agency for approving bump stocks. The ATF Association said the agency “does not have the legal authority to regulate” bump stocks, which allow semi-auto rifles to mimic full-auto fire. “The bump slide, and several other similar after-market accessories that increase the rate at which a shooter can pull the trigger, are engineered to avoid regulation under Federal law,” said Michael Bouchard, ATFA president, in an open letter last week. “The notion that ATF chose not to regulate an item it had the authority to regulate is false. The law is very clear and it does not currently allow ATF to regulate such accessories,” Bouchard added. The federal laws that regulates machine guns — the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act — define a machine gun as “as any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” Bouchard said. The man has a point. Yes, it would be easy for the relevant agency to simply decide bump-fire stocks are really machine guns, but the law is pretty clear. Even with the stock, it’s simply a semiautomatic weapon. One trigger pull, one bang. That’s it. If BATFE decided tomorrow to reregulate the stocks, a fair question would be “what else?” After all, the objective standard for what constitutes a machine gun is now out the window, which means anything else could be similarly regulated into illegality with the right political winds. Do we really want that? I know the NRA supports the regulation of these stocks through BATFE and all that, but I’m not sure they’ve thought of the slippery slope they’re asking for here. Once they have precedence, they can then feel free to reclassify a whole lot of other things as impermissible as well. And don’t say, “Well, Trump’s president, so we don’t have to worry,” either. While Donald Trump is indeed the president, he won’t be forever. Anti-gun politicians will get control of the White House at some point, and with this precedence in their hands, they can do a whole lot of damage without ever having to run through Congress. The truth is that if you want to ban bump stocks, you have to pass legislation. However, it appears that any legislation sufficiently broad enough to be effective in banning these stocks will also ban things like aftermarket triggers. Or more. There might be a middle ground here, a way to just ban bump stocks, but I doubt it. Either way, it the ATF Association’s point is valid, and ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, October 17, 2017By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • California Revokes Mechanism For Concealed Carry On School Campuses
    It’s official. Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that now prevents superintendents from permitting staff with concealed carry licenses from being able to be armed on school grounds. We knew it was going to happen, and it did. Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law Saturday that will remove the rights of school administrators to decide whether employees with concealed weapon permits can bring guns on campus. State law already prohibited civilians who are not school workers from bringing firearms onto campuses, but a change in the law last year gave school district superintendents power to decide if employees could bring concealed weapons onto campuses, according to Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D- Sacramento), who authored the bill. Five California school districts — including the Kingsburg Joint Union and Kern school districts — have begun to issue authorizations for some school employees to bring guns on campuses, McCarty said. He said it has increased the chance of school shootings. “A safe learning environment is essential for our children to be successful in the classroom,” McCarty said. “That’s not possible if a school district allows armed civilians to roam California school campuses.” Of course, staff members aren’t exactly “roaming” campuses. They’re working. The reality is that when it was first proposed to allow superintendents discretion to offer permission for licensed staff to carry their firearms at work, none of the anti-gun lawmakers thought it would happen. After all, aren’t school superintendents supposed to be political allies of those who favor gun control? But some did. Five, actually. And without a single reason, that’s over. McCarty doesn’t want to accept the simple fact that the presence of firearms in the possession of law-abiding and licensed staff members isn’t a mass shooting waiting to happen, but a deterrent to just that. The fact is that McCarty and his ilk are pearl-clutching politicians with a case of the vapors over the fact that some schools actually believe their staff–people with extensive background checks, both as educators and concealed carry license holders–might actually be terrorists or something. It doesn’t matter that statistically, concealed carry permit holders are the least likely group to commit a crime. That’s compared to lawyers, judges, police officers and, yes, politicians. It doesn’t matter to McCarty, who thinks the plebes should be disarmed and turned into victims. Does he have some kind of perverse need to be in control of what everyone does in the state of California? It sure sounds like it. Unfortunately, in what he claims is an attempt to provide safety, he’s now made schools far less safe. Those children in those schools are now without a significant means of protection should evil enter those schools. I pray we never see any of the potential ramifications of these laws, which could be severe. Those ramifications include dead children, the same people that so many anti-gun zealots claim to care about so deeply. Guns don’t increase the potential for something bad happening, they decrease it. Lord only knows what it’ll take to convince politicians of that fact, though. The post California Revokes Mechanism For Concealed Carry ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, October 17, 2017By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago
  • UNH Professor Calls For Complete Gun Ban In Class
    The idea that most college professors oppose the private ownership of firearms is hardly controversial. Colleges and universities are breeding grounds for anti-gun thought and rhetoric, after all, so it’s no surprise to hear that a college professor vocally favored the U.S. following the Australian model of civilian disarmament. What’s troubling is that it was all done in a class on casino management. From Campus Reform: Following the tragic shooting in Las Vegas, a professor at the University of New Hampshire suggested to her students that the U.S. should ban private ownership of firearms. When he walked into class on the evening of October 11, Josh Fox told Campus Reform that he expected there would be some type of discussion about the shooting in Las Vegas, given that the course is called “Casino Management” and the shooter in Vegas unloaded his weapons from a casino hotel room. Fox said he was nonetheless taken by surprise when Professor Valentini Kalargyrou showed a video about Australia’s gun laws, declaring after it ended that “maybe we follow Australia’s example. That would be great.” Kalargyrou, an associate professor from Greece whose specialization is in “human resources and gaming, with a concentration in diversity and disability issues in the workplace,” opened the discussion by asking her students to consider what could have prevented the shooting. According to Fox, most of the students’ responses were related to the casino’s policies, such as increasing hotel security, but Kalargyrou suggested that the obvious answer is to simply ban all guns. Students were then subjected to a Bloomberg-backed anti-gun “documentary.” Unfortunately, this is life on college campuses. Professors routinely issue political diatribes that have little to do with the class they’re teaching, all because no one can stop them. Any attempt to do so is met with cries of “academic freedom.” Meanwhile, the students who signed up and are paying for a class about how to run a casino are instead being lectured on how awesome gun control is. None of that delves into the realities that gun control simply doesn’t work. It never has, it never will, and no, comparing our crime statistics with those of other countries is an exercise in futility since their reporting criteria are different. That makes any attempt at comparisons a case of apples and unicycles. Yet anti-gun zealots don’t care about that. All they care about is pushing their narrative, that guns are bad and should go away, and that’s all this incident is about. A professor has a captive audience where she can attempt to indoctrinate students with a one-sided debate on the merits of gun control without even attempting to put it within the context of the class. Had she at least attempted to present a case why good casino management should include the restriction of private individuals carrying firearms…well, she’d have still been wrong, but at least it would fit within the scope of the class. As it stands, however? Nothing but pure propaganda and a clumsy presentation of it.   The ... read more
    Source: Bearing ArmsPublished on Tuesday, October 17, 2017By Tom Knighton
    5 days ago