Jump to content

Bearing Arms

Feeders
  • Content count

    771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Bearing Arms last won the day on April 21 2017

Bearing Arms had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About Bearing Arms

  • Rank
    American Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not everyone agrees with us on guns. Frankly, that’s fine. Not everyone does need to agree on whether we have a right to keep and bear arms. People have a right to their opinions, even if I happen to think their opinions are wrong and ignorant. What people don’t have a right to are their own facts. For better or worse, reality is what it is, and you don’t get to reshape reality just because it doesn’t conform to what you’d rather it look like. Yet that’s exactly what happens when you completely ignore things that have really happened and pretend that it simply doesn’t exist. Take this guest opinion writer’s comments for The Intelligencer, a paper in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The front-page story of the Intelligencer published May 1 with the headline, “Pa. gun owners rally at Capital,” was noteworthy. Our First Amendment rights are protected so folks of a like-mind can gather and protest or advocate peacefully. This is part of what and who we are as a democracy under the rule of law. However, it is not right that the protesters in support of the Second Amendment should use scare tactics to frighten gun owners. The quote by Joshua Prince is one such example. “Make no mistake about it, they’re coming for your guns.” Taking everyone’s guns has never been a consideration and only hinders a serious dialogue on the subject of gun control. Never been a consideration? Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently penned an op-ed calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. As many as one in three Democrats agree with him on the topic, I might add. A friend of mine, science fiction author David Burkhead, has made it a bit of a mission to document all the Democrats who have said they were coming for our guns in various ways. He keeps a running account on his blog, I might add. It’s quite an impressive list, especially since we’re being assured by a writer in Doylestown, Penn that no one is coming for our guns. The truth of the matter is that while she, personally, may not consider a complete repeal of the Second Amendment something worthy of her efforts and that she, personally, may not want to take everyone’s guns away, she’s in no position to speak for everyone else who opposes the right to keep and bear arms. Over and over again, gun owners have been tasked with giving up just a little bit of our freedom in exchange for other people feeling safer. What’s more, we’ve done it. Time and time again, we gave and we gave. Time and time again, more and more was asked of us. Now, we’re done. We understand the endgame. The effort is to “compromise” us to death, to keep asking more and more until there’s nothing left. My buddy Law Dog has a great metaphor for just how this goes, using cake as an example. The premise is the same. The truth is, they are coming for our guns. That’s a given. We can show our work until the cows come home. And that makes any claim to the contrary a case of someone rejecting reality and trying to insert her own facts into the conversation. The post Guest Opinion Writer Ignores Reality In Anti-Gun Tirade appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  2. Anti-gunners recently decided to try a new tactic. They purchased Ruger stock with the intention of trying to force the company to act in a manner they think is more responsible. To an extent, it worked. They were able to get enough muscle to force the company to issue a report about how the company tracks violence associated with its products. Ruger’s CEO, Chris Killoy, had some amusing things to say about these shenanigans. In an email exchange with Ruger, CFL received a copy of the company’s statement about this and it is direct: “Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shareholder’s activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That’s it. A report. What the proposal does not do … and cannot do … is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do … and cannot do … is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our business, and frankly would rather see us out of business. “As our CEO explained, ‘we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative, and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, as importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers, and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens, and I want to assure our long-term shareholders and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that.’” Rightfully, Ruger wants to set the record straight. While the spin from some media, much of which has been proven to have an anti-gun agenda, makes it sound as if this is a win for gun control advocates, that could not be further from the truth. Ruger must create reports or surveys as required by law, but it does not have to change its course or commitment to the Second Amendment—and Chris Killoy’s is a good first step. In other words, the big win for anti-gun jihadists is to make the company create a report. That’s it. They don’t have to change a damn thing about how they do business. Frankly, it sounds to me like it’s fine if the report says, “Since we’re not responsible for the misuse of our products by individuals, we don’t bother to track a damn thing.” If it were up to me, that’s pretty much exactly what it would say. Look, if guns were blowing up and killing the user, I’d be fine with this focus on manufacturers being responsible. After all, it’s a good chance that would be the case. If the guns were accidentally going off due to manufacturing flaws and hurting people, same thing. But that’s not what’s happening here. Ruger is selling guns to distributors, who then sell to gun stores, who then sell to people. They’re not even directly selling it to individuals as a general rule. How can they possibly be responsible for who ends up with a gun when they’re selling it to people who sell to people who sell to people? They’re so out of the loop by then there’s nothing they could do even if the wanted to. Then again, it’s not like reality is these people’s strong suit. These are typically the people who want to sue gun manufacturers for things that happen well after the gun has left their control. Just like everything else they push for, though, this will accomplish nothing except make things slightly more difficult for those who have done nothing wrong. The post Ruger CEO Clarifies Result Of Stockholder Shenanigans appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  3. There’s no doubt in most Second Amendment advocates’ minds that the right to keep and bear arms applies to firearms. However, many of us forget that the term “arms” was never limited to just guns. It also included bladed weapons which were still routinely used on the battlefield at the time of the Bill Of Rights was ratified. However, many places still impose restrictions on bladed weapons, sometimes making them more restricted than guns. In Louisiana, however, the knife rights are set for a big win…if the governor signs the bill, at least. Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/05/repeal-of-louisiana-switchblade-knife-ban-goes-to-governor-edwards/#ixzz5FrX4tcII Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook On April 13th, 2018, the Louisiana repeal of the switchblade ban (HB892) unanimously passed the House. From legiscan.com: (4)(a) The manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use intentional concealment on one’s person of any switchblade knife, spring knife, or other knife or similar instrument having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch, or similar contrivance located on the handle. Section 2. R.S. 14:95(J) is hereby repealed in its entirety. CODING: Words in struck through type are deletions from existing law; words underscored are additions. On May 10th, 2018 the repeal of the switchblade ban (HB892) passed the Senate. The vote was 21-yes, 11-no, and 7- absent. Now the bill is going to Governor Edwards’ desk. The bill is part of the ongoing trend to restore the legal ownership and carry of knives in American society. The bans never made much sense. Why would a switchblade be more deadly than a fixed blade knife? The bans were pushed as yellow journalism as part of the Progressive agenda. There was no serious data or study behind the bans – just prejudice and a push for publicity. The federal ban on interstate sales of switchblade knives and the importation of them, was passed in 1958. It was fictional portrayals of youth gang violence that took the switchblade ban over the top, politically. “West Side Story” seems to have had a pivotal role. Consider the implications. It was not fact that drove the politics. It was fiction, promoted by the progressive media. It was a version of the “big lie” technique. The pro-genitive nature of the media coverage in promoting and eventually creating the ban on switchblades cannot be overemphasized. In fairness to the lawmakers of those bygone years, fiction drives most restrictions of the right to keep and bear arms. Just look at the nonsense being spread by the anti-gun crusaders on a regular basis. It’s nothing if not fictional. I mean, on one hand they claim our country is just too dangerous because of all these guns, but when you point out to someone that crime is down, they put on an impressive display of mental gymnastics to try and prove themselves right. Of course, it doesn’t work, but it is kind of funny to watch. As for repealing a switchblade ban, it needs to happen. These knives are no more dangerous than any other bladed instrument. They’re just easier to open. That’s the only difference, and I’ve opened lock blades as quickly as a switchblade opens, so it’s well past time to repeal dumb laws based on movies and books, rather than reality. The post Louisiana Switchblade Ban Almost Over? appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  4. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another of those people who will never be mistaken for pro-gun. However, just so that no one gets confused in the least. Wasserman Schultz decides to join in on attempts from the anti-gun forces to stigmatize gun owners. Why else would she join in with the chorus of people trying to paint the nation’s oldest civil rights organization as a terrorist group? Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) had stern words for the National Rifle Association on Tuesday, responding to the gun group’s new president attacking student survivors of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, for allegedly engaging in “civil terrorism.” “The NRA is kind of just shy of a terrorist organization,” Schultz told HuffPost. “They have done everything they can to perpetuate the culture of violence that we have in our country with the spread of assault weapons across the nation.” … Still, Wasserman Schultz said she considered it ironic for someone with North’s past legal troubles to accuse young people of criminal behavior simply for “standing up to make sure that we can keep people safe.” Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz proves that she’s about nine kinds of idiot, and I’m lowballing here. For one thing, these “young people” who are “standing up to make sure that we can keep people safe” are the same people who have vandalized private property and harassed the spouses of NRA officials. North’s use of the term “civil terrorism” was meant to differentiate it from what people typically think of as terrorism, not because the goals are any different. No, it’s just about how far on the other side of acceptable behavior they were willing to go. That’s it. Meanwhile, claiming the NRA is anything close to a terrorist organization is laughable. The NRA has never advocated violence. It’s never advocated any brand of lawlessness. It’s never advocated for anything that could be construed as terrorism by anyone but an anti-gun zealot. But I will grant her one thing. The NRA is responsible for the current state of violence in this country. No, really. She’s right. I mean, violent crime has been dropping for something like 25 years or so at this point, most of it post-assault weapon ban. This has coincided with the rise of concealed carry and even constitutional carry in a number of states as well as record gun sales. The efforts of activists and groups like the NRA have increased the number of guns in private hands, thus contributing directly to the reduction of violent crime. Oh, I know that’s not what she meant, but what she meant is nonsense. Especially since she’s laboring under this delusion that we’re in a more violent time than we were in the past. We’re not, and that’s because of pro-gun activists and groups, not whiney anti-gunners and their hurt feelings. But that doesn’t matter. People like Wasserman Schultz will constantly keep pushing that the NRA is anything like a terrorist organization, understanding well that if you repeat a lie long enough, people will accept it as the truth. The problem is, it’s not, and we’re not about to stand here and let anyone claim otherwise without presenting actual evidence. The post Debbie Wasserman Schultz Joins In Stigmatizing Gun Owners appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  5. Five-year-old Dakota Pitts had a tough day ahead of him on Monday: he was returning to school for the first time since losing his father in the line of duty a little over a week ago. Dakota’s dad, Officer Rob Pitts, was a 16-year veteran of the Terre Haute Police Department in Indiana. He was one of four officers who responded to a call earlier this month and found themselves in the middle of a shootout with a homicide victim. Pitts was the only officer killed. The last time the department lost an officer in the line of duty was almost seven years ago. For his first day back, Dakota had one simple request; he asked his mother if one of his father’s friends could drive him to school. When he arrived that day, he got so much more. Lined up outside Sullivan Elementary were 70 Terre Haute Police Officers and Vigo County Sheriff’s Deputies, including the department’s SWAT team. The SWAT officers even gave Dakota his own SWAT t-shirt and badge. Dakota asked his mom if one of his dad’s friends could drive him to school for his first day back. Little did he know that would turn into 70 Terre Haute and Vigo County officers showing up in Sullivan. He was shocked pic.twitter.com/lbXquLdTJU — Kiley Thomas (@KileyWTHI) May 14, 2018 The Indiana officers present that day said they wanted Dakota to know they will always be there for him. Officer Pitts’ sister, Kelli Jones, who was also there, told WTHI-TV the sight gave her chills. “He [Dakota] will definitely know his dad was a hero,” she said. “Blood doesn’t always make family. And I think the blue family went above and beyond.” The post 5-Year-Old Gets Special Welcome at School After Losing Father in Line of Duty appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  6. When the state of Florida decided it would ban the same of long guns to people under the age of 21, anti-gunners rejoiced. Why wouldn’t they? There was gun control in the “Gunshine” state. However, the National Rifle Association was less than amused. Instead, it stood ready to fight the law in the courts. Unfortunately, it took a minor setback recently. A federal judge reluctantly denied the National Rifle Association’s use of pseudonyms instead of plaintiffs’ real names in a challenge to a new Florida law placing age restrictions on gun purchases. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker acknowledged the group’s concern for privacy amid the volatile debate over guns, but explained the request for anonymity lacks precedent. “[T]he NRA has not really identified any information of ‘utmost intimacy’ that would be revealed if Jane and John Doe were forced [to] use their real names,” Walker said in his order. “All we know so far is that they’re nineteen years old, they live in Florida, they’re members of the NRA, they haven’t been convicted of a felony, they haven’t been adjudicated mentally defective, they want to buy firearms, and they want to support the NRA with this lawsuit.” In court documents, the NRA said it feared that its plaintiffs — two 19-year-old NRA members, one male and one female — would be subjected to harassment and threats if they were identified by name. The organization pointed to nasty emails received by state representative and former NRA president Marion Hammer to show what kind of vitriol the debate spurs. But, Walker explained the legal use of a pseudonym has been limited to cases where the subject matter is sensitive or personal like religion, sexuality or involving a minor. Whereas the NRA’s case challenges the government over public policy, so there’s no reputational or economic risk involved for plaintiffs like there would be if they sued a private party. I’ll be honest, I see both sides of the argument here. The NRA has a point. At this time, anti-gun zealots will do anything to harass and destroy anyone and everyone who appears to be pro-gun. These two members have a legitimate concern here. On the same hand, I see where the judge is coming from. He’s right about the use of pseudonyms historically. However, where I think he’s wrong is that believing what was defined as “sensitive” historically is all that should be deemed sensitive now. There’s been a concerted effort to stigmatize gun owners to set up just the sort of harassment that the NRA fears. Gun ownership may, for some people, be a sensitive topic much like homosexuality was in past years. This is especially true if you reside in a very anti-gun community. That said, let’s be clear here. Unless the two members absolutely refuse to be identified, this is a minor setback at worst. The judge has a point, and failing to make this point could open the entire case up to appeal should the state lose. I’d rather he get his stuff straight so there’s nothing for them to appeal. In the meantime, let’s just hope these two members are in a position to allow themselves to be identified so this lawsuit can move forward. The post Judge Denies NRA’s Use Of Pseudonyms In Florida Case appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  7. It’s been rough for Remington, lately. However, the company finally has a bit of good news. It’s now out of bankruptcy. From Reuters: Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, filed for bankruptcy protection in March, weeks after a shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida killed 17 people and triggered intensified campaigns for gun control by activists. Under the reorganization plan, inked two days before the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, creditors including JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Franklin Advisors will take ownership stakes in the company in exchange for forgiving more than $775 million of debt. Remington also received a $193 million new lending package funded by seven banks, including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N). “It is morning in Remington country,” Chief Executive Anthony Acitelli said in a statement. Investors in Cerberus Capital Management LP, the previous owner, had urged the private equity fund to sell Remington after its Bushmaster rifle was used in a school shooting in 2012 in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in which 20 children died. Remington has said its bankruptcy would not affect lawsuits against it, including one filed by the families of Sandy Hook victims. It is also appointing a new board of directors. It should be noted, however, that while the bankruptcy doesn’t protect Remington, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act sure as hell does. Additionally: Remington’s bankruptcy was partly triggered by a decline in gun sales as President Donald Trump’s election eased firearm enthusiasts’ worries about increased regulation. Following the Parkland shooting, companies such as Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N), Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS.N) and Walmart Inc (WMT.N) cut ties with gun-rights groups or restricted sales of weapons. Bank of America has hinted that it may sell its participation in Remington’s exit financing package. Notice how they keep referring to these mass shootings? They have little bearing on the story being reported on. Cerberus’s comments have bearing, sure, because that directly relates to Remington’s financial woes. However, the post-Parkland cowardice by several companies has absolutely nothing to do with Remington. Further, Parkland had nothing to do with Remington’s bankruptcy. The fact that the company filed just weeks after the shooting there is a prime example of a coincidence. If history shows us anything it’s that their sales were about to increase as people scrambled to buy guns ahead of any proposed gun ban. If anything Parkland would have helped Remington. A lot. However, on a different matter, while Bank of America may well sell its part of Remington’s loans, it’s important to realize that it still entered into this loan after swearing off the gun industry. It’s almost like Bank of America will do whatever it has to do to make money. Normally, I can respect a mercenary attitude. I just prefer people to admit they’re being mercenary about things. The good news for Remington is that it’s out of bankruptcy and can push forward. What that entails is for Remington to decide, but I’m willing to bet it won’t be by developing guns that no one wants. The post Remington Emerges From Bankruptcy appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  8. The Waffle House shooting was a strange case, to be sure. The killer in that incident was clearly a deranged individual with serious mental health issues that transcended him being a mass killer. In fact, it was bad enough the Secret Service knew the guy, for crying out loud. He’s apparently a complete nutbar. Despite their already strict gun control laws, however, Illinois is considering making some changes intended to prevent a similar incident. The Illinois Senate on Wednesday advanced new rules about the transfer of firearms in response to the mass shooting at a Waffle House last month in Nashville, Tenn. [The shooter], 29, formerly of Morton, has been charged with four counts of criminal homicide in the killings and remains in custody in Tennessee. Authorities have said his firearm owner’s identification card previously had been revoked and his guns transferred to his father, Jeff Reinking of rural Tazewell County, who returned them. The Illinois Senate measure aims to prevent similar situations by allowing for a minimum of one year in jail for people who return firearms without first checking to see if the recipient has a valid license. There’s currently no punishment on the books. I’ll be honest, I’m kind of surprised they didn’t already have a rule on the books about this. As strict as everything else is, it just seemed they’d have a rule in place all about transferring a firearm to someone without a Firearm Owner Identification Card. I have mixed feelings about something like this. On one hand, I despise the FOID system in general. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you should have to get a special identification card before you can purchase a weapon when the dealer is going to conduct a background check. If this doubled as a concealed carry permit or something, maybe, but it’s not. It’s just permission to buy a gun, and the Second Amendment includes no provision for begging our masters in government for permission to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. On the other, however, we do have laws about putting guns in the hands of crazy people, and this guy certainly qualified. I’m stunned that a state like Illinois has no way to prosecute this guy’s father for giving his son his gun back while he had to know the son was still a prohibited person. I’m floored at that. My default position is that if the gun grabbers in Illinois like this provision, I’m probably against it. I can’t help but think how many people a law like this will turn into accidental criminals. After all, it’s impossible for people to remember each and every law that’s passed. Someone may well hand a gun to someone who lacks a FOID anymore and not realize they’re committing a criminal act. Anything that creates more stumbling blocks is a bad thing, and I’m afraid that’s all this is going to do. With the state of Illinois, though, I can’t help but wonder how many are hoping it’ll do just that. The post Illinois Considering Gun Transfer Rule Change After Waffle House Shooting appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  9. An active shooter situation caused a lockdown at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas earlier this morning. The school posted as much on their Facebook account just minutes ago. CBS News reports that several officers are on the scene, but thus far have no further details. Meanwhile, KHOU in Houston, which is near Santa Fe, reports that at least one student has been taken to the hospital via Life Flight. Life Flight has responded to a school in Santa Fe where there are reports of a shooter at the high school. Both Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office and the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office say they are assisting in response to reports of a shooting at Santa Fe High School. The school is located at 16000 Highway 6, about 30 miles southeast of Houston. KHOU also reports that some students say they were evacuated down the street. Other reports, these unconfirmed, say describe an exchange of gunfire between police and the suspect. Local law enforcement aren’t the only ones responding either. According to the ATF’s Twitter account, the agency is responding as well. BREAKING: ATF is responding to a school shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas. pic.twitter.com/LXC6d8jTYZ — ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) May 18, 2018 According to ABC13, the incident started around 7:30 in an art class. Santa Fe High School is on lockdown after a situation with an active shooter on campus. Witnesses say the shooting took place in an art class on campus between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. … A student tells ABC13 she saw a gunman shoot a girl. This is an unconfirmed report. Sophomore Leila Butler tells ABC13 that at about 7:45 a.m. fire alarms went off and students left their classrooms. She reports some students believe they’ve heard shots fired. She is currently sheltering with other students and teachers near campus. Now, what does this all mean? At this point, we don’t know. This situation is developing as we speak and to call it fluid wouldn’t be an exaggeration. We’re still trying to gather any and all information we can on the subject and will share them with you just as soon as we find out anything. However, we should caution everyone to remember that initial news reports are often very wrong. It’s because the whole situation is confusing for the victims and they share that confusion with the media who then reports it to a news-hungry audience. This could be nothing to speak of or it could be something horrific. At this point, we don’t know. What we do know is that we will continue to monitor this situation as it develops. Check back here for more news. The post Breaking: Shooting At Santa Fe, TX High School appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  10. The state of Rhode Island might not be a very large state by any stretch of the imagination, but they are still a state. That means they get to make their own laws, even if those laws are completely stupid. For example, they’re looking at passing one that, while not unique, will accomplish absolutely nothing. It seems the state is one step closer to passing some gun control bills. Bills banning rapid-fire bump stocks and giving police the power to disarm people who show “red flag” signs of potential violence are speeding toward becoming law after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The legislation, coming in response to gun massacres in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida, moved quickly and unanimously through the committee Thursday afternoon after drawing hours of impassioned, late-night testimony from opposing gun-rights and gun-control advocates earlier this spring. The Senate’s red-flag language now mirrors what the House passed more than a month ago, including amendments to the original legislation that limit the ability to file red-flag orders to police, raise the burden of proof to keep someone’s guns longer than a year and give the subject the right to appeal to get their firearms back. The full Senate is expected to take the bill up next week. Gov. Gina Raimondo has said she supports it. “It’s pretty fantastic. It means in the wake of Parkland our General Assembly has really stepped up to the responsibility to pass commonsense gun laws to protect Rhode Islanders,” said Jennifer Boylan, volunteer legislative leader for the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense on America, which had rallied support for the bills. After more than a thousand gun-rights supporters packed the State House at raucous rallies earlier in the year, only a handful were on hand for the committee vote. The red flag bill “is a little bit better than it was before,” said Frank Saccoccio, president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition, which still opposes the bill. “We oppose the bill because we feel it does not have enough safeguards in it yet. Some of the [red flag] triggering events are — you go to buy a firearm or you go to buy a second firearm. People do that all the time. Why would that trigger a red flag?” Yep. There’s a lot of dumb here. First, let’s address bump stock bans. You see, I’ve addressed this before, but the anti-gun forces aren’t remotely interested in listening, apparently. You see, banning bump stocks won’t keep anyone safer. After all, the same kind of fire can be replicated with a rubber band or a belt loop. Since banning those items isn’t about to happen in the near future, bump fire will still be around. In other words, this is a law that will do absolutely nothing. Especially in light of how many years bump stocks have been available and how many crimes have been committed with them. One, to be exact. As for “red flag” orders, well…if Mr. Saccoccio is right and buying a second firearm is enough to justify a red flag, we have a problem. A big one. While crazed killers may well buy a second firearm, so do a whole lot of other people who have no intention of hurting anyone. That behavior shouldn’t be sufficient to trigger anything…except, maybe, a furious spouse. That’s it. One bit of good news is that the bill comes with a provision where those who give false information on a red flag case can be fined up to $5,000 for their behavior. This is good because it’s at least something that will make people think twice about trying to play the system. It’s no nearly enough, in my mind, but at least it’s something. If you’re a Rhode Island resident, though, you may want to make some phone calls. The post Rhode Island Gun Control Bills One Step Closer appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  11. The city of Boulder, CO is often referred to by folks in Colorado as the People’s Republic of Boulder. It’s a liberal bastion in the state, one that is driving a lot of people absolutely insane with their anti-gun nonsense. The latest example is their recent passage of an assault weapon ban. Luckily, someone was ready for them. The Mountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Lakewood, Colorado, filed a legal challenge to Boulder’s new local regulations on firearms. The foundation named virtually the entire city government from the mayor and city manager to the city council and chief of police as defendants, arguing the ordinance violates not only the state and U.S. Constitution but also at least two Colorado statutes. “This ban is tantamount to Boulder attempting to stop drunk driving by banning Subarus,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney with the firm. “It accomplishes nothing other than making criminals of law-abiding citizens.” Boulder’s ban goes after virtually all semi-auto firearms in one form or another. Rifles capable of taking a detachable magazine holding 21 or more rounds, or a shotgun that can accommodate more than six shells, if they have a semi-auto action, are outlawed. A similar restriction applies to pistols or any gun that can be modified to meet the new definition. Bump stocks and detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are likewise banned. Local residents have until July 15 to remove the newly regulated arms and devices from town or apply for a certificate from the city to grandfather them. The ordinance, contends the lawsuit, violates the Second, Fifth and 14th Amendments as well as Colorado preemption laws and prohibitions against maintaining a firearms registry. “The West wasn’t won with a registered gun,” said William Perry Pendley, the foundation’s president. “Colorado is not California; these laws have no place here.” The plaintiffs in the litigation include Boulder icon Jon Caldara, a well-known libertarian activist and radio host; the Boulder Rifle Club; area gun shop Bison Tactical; and University of Colorado Shooting Team member Tyler Faye. Unfortunately, I see this having an uphill battle. For one thing, despite Colorado having a preemption law in place, Boulder is what is known as a “home rule” community. Basically, it appears to mean they can completely circumvent state law on things like gun control. The courts have upheld home rule before, so I’d be surprised if that changes now. As for the constitutional arguments, while I agree with them, I’m not so sure the courts will. Further, even if they do, I expect Boulder will fight it all the way up the chain. If Caldara is willing to as well, then that means it stops at the Supreme Court, the same court that’s been somewhat notorious about not accepting Second Amendment cases here lately. Should that be the case here, that’s going to be whatever the last court found, and I’m not hopeful these days. Still, it’s important that we fight like Caldara is doing. This is something communities should have to reckon with when they try to interfere with our constitutionally protected rights. They should have to consider the costs of not just enforcing these laws, but also of defending them to the courts time and time again. It’s a warning. It’s telling places like Boulder that they can pass whatever laws they want, but they can’t expect gun owners to just take it on the chin. The post Boulder, CO Hit With Lawsuit One Day After Passing Assault Weapon Ban appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  12. No one is about to mistake Bill Maher for a conservative any time soon. He’s a liberal and he knows it, he embraces it, and he doesn’t back down from it. However, he’s also someone who isn’t afraid to call his own side out for their BS when they start spreading it. In this video, he does that quite a bit. I urge you to watch the whole thing as he moderates between rapper Killer Mike and Robert Reich. Now, while I disagree with Killer Mike that black America is living in a tyranny, it does bring up an excellent point, one that Maher touches on as well. That point is if tyranny is either coming or here, why should anyone give up their guns? If you’re convinced the police and the government are so awful, why are they the only ones who should have guns? Killer Mike actually presents what is, I think, a solid case for progressives to oppose gun control. As S.H. Blannelberry notes over at Guns America: The 2A is not about hunting. It’s about keeping tyranny in check. Maher gets this. And he is wondering why more Lefties aren’t catching on given that their version of the antichrist is in the White House. “But when you talk about tyranny… I’ve been saying for a long time that Donald Trump is bringing fascism to this country. Madeleine Albright wrote an op-ed in the New York Times a few weeks ago saying the same thing. She said fascism is coming,” said Maher. “Okay. The shoe’s on the other foot now. If you really believe that Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader capable of using force to suppress the opposition I wonder if liberals are going to be rethinking their feelings about guns a little bit,” he added. It’s true. If you really believe that the Trump era is going to be the end of America and we’ll be killing each other in the streets or fighting off government jackboots trying to strip away our rights then why the heck aren’t you doing all you can right now to prepare for it? And suppose that is the case, why would you ever support banning “military style” weapons? Wouldn’t you want to fight fire with fire? It’s a fair question, and Reich’s response about the “rule of law” is obscene in its stupidity. Look, I like the rule of law. I like that I can check my mail without necessarily needing to armor up like I’m going on patrol in Iraq at the height of the fighting there. The rule of law is a good thing. But if tyranny is coming in the form of a supposedly fascist Donald Trump, only a fool would also go out of their way to make sure no one has an effective means of resisting that tyranny. Tyrants tend to want a disarmed populace. If you believe for one moment that the president is a tyrant in the making, only blind stupidity would say, “You know what? I think this guy is a tyrant who wants to put large portions of our population in camps and bring back the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. Let’s make it so the government that serves him are the only people who can have these military-style rifles.” In fact, I’d argue that Trump’s resistance to gun control is the truest measure that for all his faults, he’s not a fascist dictator in the making. The fact is, though, that if the rule of law says to round up all the Jews, the Hispanics, the blacks, or anyone, then my appreciation for the rule of law ends. The rule of law is immoral and it’s no longer time for the rule of law. It’s time for honest men and women to stand up and oppose tyranny, plain and simple. Claiming that the rule of law should be held to in the face of tyranny isn’t principle. It’s moral cowardice being used to justify their own unbalanced fear, plain and simple. The post Video: Bill Maher: If Trump Is A Tyrant, Will Liberals Rethink Guns? appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  13. Last month, Brenna Spencer, a 22-year-old college graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, had her graduation photos go viral after she posed with her shirt partially lifted to reveal her .380 handgun tucked into her jeans. Now, another 2018 college graduate has had her graduation photos go viral because of their pro-gun message. Kaitlin Bennett is a 22-year-old graduate of Kent State University and is the founder of Liberty Hangout at Kent State. In her now viral photos, Bennett poses with her AR-10 slung over her shoulder and a graduation cap that is decorated with a rifle and the words, “Come And Take It.” Now that I graduated from @KentState, I can finally arm myself on campus. I should have been able to do so as a student- especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus. #CampusCarryNow pic.twitter.com/a91fQH44cq — Kaitlin Marie (@KaitMarieox) May 13, 2018 In her tweet, Kaitlin advocates for campus carry, a position that is supported by many gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment. Interestingly, Kent State University is all for open carry on its campus. However, that rule does not apply to current university students, faculty, and staff. Here’s more from Fox News: The university has a rule against students, faculty, and staff carrying “deadly weapons.” But Kent State University spokesman Eric Mansfield told Fox News that because Bennett is no longer a student, she violated no policies. “After graduation, she joined the ranks of our proud graduates,” Mansfield said. “So at the time of this photo, she and other graduates would be permitted to open carry on our campus.” Mansfield noted that KSU has a full-time, certified police force of more than 30 sworn officers who protect the campus and the university was recently ranked the safest big college campus in Ohio and the 25th safest in the country, according to National Council for Home Safety and Security. To make her point that students should be allowed to carry on campus just as guests are, Kaitlin said, “I should have been able to do so as a student – especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus.” The four students that Kaitlin is referencing died during the Kent State Massacre that occurred on May 4, 1970. At that time, Americans across the country were displeased with the U.S.’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and college students at Kent State wanted their voices heard. On Friday, May 1, protests began but tensions “quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police.” The following Monday, members of the Ohio National Guard, who had been called to keep things under control, opened fire on a group of student demonstrators who were protesting former President Richard Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia and pursue the Viet Cong. Four students died and nine others were injured. Kent State has an entire page on its school website dedicated to detailing the events of the days leading up to, during, and after the massacre. Like Spencer, Bennett received harsh criticism for her photos and support for the Second Amendment. Here are just a few of the responses she received: what kind of psychopath needs that kind of gun, a handgun is understandable but your absolutely ridiculous lmao wth — Lexi Maurins (@LexiMaurins) May 14, 2018 may I just ask what exactly you need a weapon like that for other than a task that would lead to mass destruction. that’s a weapon of war. was this to merely start controversy or are you just an extremely hostile and dangerous person? you shouldnt be taking so much pride in this — nikki (@astrlolgy) May 14, 2018 You are an embarrassment to the great Kent legacy — (@LiberalMo) May 16, 2018 But Marie isn’t backing down. She replied to the Twittersphere, saying, “I have no apologies for my graduation photos. As a woman, I refuse to be a victim & the Second Amendment ensures that I don’t have to be.” The comment was posted with another photo of Marie on graduation day with her AR-10. I have no apologies for my graduation photos. As a woman, I refuse to be a victim & the second amendment ensures that I don't have to be. pic.twitter.com/5CKmQobrMb — Kaitlin Marie (@KaitMarieox) May 15, 2018 You can watch Kaitlin Bennett’s interview on Fox and Friends below. Discussing why I took graduation photos with an AR-10 rifle at Kent State and why I support #CampusCarryNow with @foxandfriends this morning. pic.twitter.com/o2RATs3gtK — Kaitlin Marie (@KaitMarieox) May 17, 2018 The post College Graduate Posing With AR-10 Has Graduation Photos Go Viral appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  14. As an actor, I really enjoy Mark Wahlberg’s movies. He’s far better an actor than he was a rapper, that’s for sure. I kind of cringe when I think about how we were all listening to “Good Vibrations” back in the day. I really do. He has a new movie coming out that looks like a hell of a fun ride, too. “Mile 22” features Wahlberg, Ronda Rousey, and “The Walking Dead’s” Lauren Cohan (Maggie Green). Looks fun. The description: In this heart-racing action thriller, a CIA agent stationed in Indonesia is tasked with transporting an informant whose identity has been discovered, from the center of the city to an awaiting getaway plane at an airport 22 miles away. While en route, they must battle corrupt police, criminal overlords and heavily-armed locals, all hell-bent on taking them out before they reach their plane. Not exactly the most original premise, but few are all that original these days. This one at least appears to be done pretty well. Tactical Life took a look at all the guns and accessories shown on the screen, which is worth a look. However, as the folks at Tactical Life point out, Wahlberg is a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to guns. Here are his comments down in Australia regarding firearms. “I would love it if they could take all the guns away. Unfortunately, you can’t do that so you hope that good people in the world have them to protect the people who can’t protect themselves,” Mark Wahlberg bemoaned in the Herald Sun in 2007. “Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing.” He says that then makes a movie like this. Wahlberg is just one of many who have made their living handling firearms in their movies, being all kinds of bada** with weaponry. But when it comes to people who can’t afford private security, then tough. We should be slap out of luck when it comes to protecting ourselves. Meanwhile, they’ll still happily profit off of guns themselves. They know that they’ll still be able to make money with firearms regardless of what the rest of us are able to own. Screw the little guys so long as Mark Wahlberg can make another million by handling guns that are forbidden to little peons like us. Don’t get me wrong. I still like Wahlberg as an actor. His comments weren’t the worst I’ve heard from a hypocritical actor. I mean, there are some ways to interpret the first part of his comment to be pro-gun, after all. Maybe he’d love it if we could make them all go away, but since we can’t, people have a right to defend themselves or something. You kind of have to squint to see it, but maybe. However, Wahlberg isn’t the only anti-gun actor out there. Liam Neeson has been on my list for a while now after his comments. The problem with all of these actors is that they make millions and millions of dollars making movies and can afford to live behind gates with private security and can hire bodyguards to follow them around everywhere they go, all to keep themselves safe. The rest of us can’t afford to outsource our protection. We don’t have the means by any stretch of the imagination. We have to do it ourselves, and when they flap their gums about how horrible it is that there are so many guns in private hands, all they’re doing is telling all of us just how out of touch they are. Yes, there are a lot of guns in private hands, but there aren’t nearly enough in private hands. Guns make us safer. So Wahlberg can afford to be a hypocrite because he’ll never face the consequences of it. However, he needs to think. You see, Wahlberg is a convicted felon. More than that, he’s a violent felon. A few years back, he tried to get pardoned for his crime. Maybe the reason Wahlberg wishes there weren’t any guns is that he knows that had his victim been armed, someone else would have starred in “Lone Survivor” and “Mile 22.” Now, to be fair, Wahlberg has cleaned up his life and been an example of a rehabilitated criminal. In fact, it’s often easy to forget his violent past. I can’t help but remember it when he makes comments about how the best tool I have to protect myself and my family against a violent felon shouldn’t be, especially when he uses a whole pile of them in a movie. The post Mark Wahlberg And Hollywood’s Anti-Gun Hypocrisy appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  15. Imagine failing at your job so spectacularly that the whole world knows not just that you failed, but that your failure resulted in the death of as many as 17 high school kids? The whole world sees you as a coward for failing to act in the process. If that was you, what do you think you would deserve? As for me, I’d deserve nothing but scorn. I sure wouldn’t deserve more than $104,000 per year in pension. Scot Peterson, the sheriff’s deputy vilified for failing to confront the Parkland school shooter, has begun receiving a state pension of $8,702.35 a month. Peterson resigned and retired Feb. 22, a week after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where he waited outside as Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people and wounded 17 others. Peterson began to receive his pension in April, according to the Florida Department of Management Services. He can receive the payments for the rest of his life. The 55-year-old Peterson, a Broward deputy for 32 years, was paid $101,879.03 last year — $75,673.72 in base salary plus overtime and other compensation, according to sheriff’s office records. Until the shooting, he was considered a trusted school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, according to annual reviews of his performance. He was eligible to retire from the agency in July 2010 when he had 25 years of service, a sheriff’s office spokeswoman said Wednesday. So, his pension amounts to a pay raise well over and above his base pay and even over what he made in overtime and other forms of compensation. Sure. That makes sense. About as much sense as a minotaur riding a centaur through a Dairy Queen drive-through. Peterson failed to act. In the process, 17 kids were killed, another 17 were injured, and the rest of us are knee-deep in a fight to keep our constitutional rights, all because this guy didn’t have the cajones to go into the building and protect the students he was charged with protecting. And his great punishment for his failure to act? Something that amounts to a pay raise, the need to never work again, and the ability to spend the rest of his days just goofing off. Kind of like what he did when the shooting was taking place, now that I think about it. Look, police have a tough job. I know, I was raised by one. I know how hard it can be about as well as anyone who hasn’t worn that uniform could know. I’d never bash police as a profession. But Scot Peterson was a disgrace to the uniform that day. He was ready to protect himself, but not the innocent kids he saw and interacted with every day. He knew these kids’ names, their faces, their voices. He knew them, and yet he still kept his happy butt outside while a maniac brutally murdered them. And his punishment? He was forced to move on in life to a cushy $104,000 per year lifestyle that requires pretty much nothing of him for the rest of his days. Peterson should have been fired, ending his pension hopes forever. His gross incompetence and cowardice cost people their lives. For him to enjoy that kind of income without lifting a finger disgusts me. The post Man Who Refused To Confront Parkland Shooter Gets $8,702 A Month In Pension appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
×