Throughout the two presidential debates and single vice-presidential debate the moderators did not ask a single question about gun control or the right to keep and bear arms. The dearth of coverage on Second Amendment issues at the debates follows a larger trend. Anti-gun lawmakers up and down the ballot, and even anti-gun organizations, have made the calculated decision to avoid gun control messaging in a year wracked by uncertainty.
Americans have made clear that they are not interested in gun control in 2020.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest, law-abiding citizens have bought guns at an unprecedented rate. Through September, the FBI had processed a record-setting 28,826,449 total National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks for 2020. With three months of the year still left, 2020 has seen 456,699 more checks than any previous year. In August, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated that roughly 5 million Americans purchased a firearm for the first time in 2020.
The polling tells the same story. Each month Gallup asks Americans “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” Each month since February less than 0.5 percent of respondents have answered “Guns/Gun control.”
Understanding that Americans have no appetite for gun control, anti-gun candidates have de-emphasized their support for new gun restrictions and gun control activists have run from the issue.
Consider NRA-ILA’s recent election coverage on this topic.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has sent mailers to swing districts in Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina that challenge candidates’ supposed positions on health care and pharmaceuticals. In Texas, Everytown targeted at least one candidate on the topic of public school funding.
In Georgia, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jon Ossoff put out an ad claiming he would “defend our Second Amendment.” The ad was a poor attempt to hide the candidate’s anti-gun record, which includes advocating for a ban on commonly-owned Second Amendment-protected semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.
Montanans have been subjected to a pair of misleading anti-gun campaigns.
A Californian-bankrolled fake hunting group named the Montana Hunters & Anglers Leadership Fund put out ads erroneously claiming U.S. Senate candidate Steve Bullock is pro-gun. In truth, Bullock has stated his support for a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. In a particularly underhanded move, the phony group’s pro-Bullock ad featured a firearm that comes standard with a magazines that Bullock would ban.
Montana ballot measure LR-130 would strengthen the state’s firearms preemption statute to prevent anti-gun localities from restricting Montanans’ gun rights. Opponents of the measure have sent out misleading mailers claiming that a no vote would “protect our freedoms.” The group behind the deceptive messaging has received support from Washington state gun control group Alliance for Gun Responsibility and Bloomberg’s Everytown.
As evidenced by the debates, the Biden/Harris ticket’s media enablers have helped the Democratic candidates avoid the gun control issue. However, each has a well-documented record of attacks on the Second Amendment and has advocated for gun confiscation.
Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.
Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.
Given Biden’s repeated boasts about authoring the 1994 federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, it can be concluded that Biden’s definition of an “assault weapon” encompasses firearms covered under that legislation – including the AR-15. However, Biden has also made clear that he wants to ban 9mm pistols.
According to an article from the Seattle Times, during a November 2019 private fundraiser in Washington, Biden asked attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”
At a campaign even in Londonderry, N.H. in early September, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”
The attempt to shift the election’s focus away from Second Amendment rights is telling. Anti-gun political strategists and their media lapdogs know that gun control is a losing issue in 2020. That speaks volumes about the public’s position.
However, gun rights activists cannot get complacent. While anti-gun candidates and groups are de-emphasizing the issue, their plans for gun control are clear. With the ongoing attempts to obscure and deceive, NRA members and gun rights activists should work even harder to inform their family, friends, neighbors, and other freedom-minded individuals about the true nature of these candidates and groups’ goals.
“We need to be armed, we need to be safe, we are citizens here, we have equal rights here, the second amendment is our right too.”
‘We Need To Be Armed, We Need To Be Safe’
Black Lives Matter Tanya Faison
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — Black Lives Matter Sacramento is taking new aim in their efforts to keep their community safe. The group is looking for sponsorships to get black community members trained in gun safety.
They are calling it a harsh realization in a world that fails to protect black people.
“We need to be armed. There is nothing wrong with it,” said Black Lives Matter Sacramento founder Tanya Faison.
For months, protests, calls for police accountability and concerns over white supremacy have been a top priority for Faison. Now she is making a new call to the public.
“Get protection in these times when we know we cannot call the police for help and where we know that we need to stay safe because it is a really volatile time right now,” she explained.
The Founder of BLM Sacramento put a message out on the group’s Facebook page asking for sponsors to pay for 10 people to get firearm training. The money would go towards anyone in the black community that is looking to sign up to learn about gun safety. The course would cover teaching everything from how to hold, clean, safely store and shoot a gun.
“I want us to be independent from the system and I want us to be educated and informed on what we are doing,” she explained.
Faison says gun education has nothing to do with their protest efforts, but she feels a necessary step for protection in situations including someone breaking into your home or attacks from white supremacists, for those who choose to apply for a concealed carry license.
“We need to be armed, we need to be safe, we are citizens here, we have equal rights here, the second amendment is our right too,” she said.
Retired New York homicide detective Dr. Alfred Titus Jr. said the group’s push is part of a growing trend.
“Gun sales are up 95 percent in the first six months of the year and 58 percent in African-Americans in gun sales,” he said. “What I’m seeing here is the community feels like they are pretty much on their own.”
The Assistant Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice believes more people arming themselves does not mean a safer community.
“In the beginning, there is going to be a lot of testing and trying people out. It’s going to lead to an increased amount of violence,” he said. “Two people have a gun, they may end up shooting it out when they would have normally called the police and no shots may have been.”
Titus said he understands the mindset but feels the pursuit of safety could bring the opposite reaction.
“It’s a sad state, it’s definitely a sign of the times,” he said.
BLM Sacramento said their focus is on safety and being responsible gun owners. The group is continuing to take donations and say there are already a large number of people in the community interested in signing up for classes.
Mr. President, each state’s driver’s license is honored across this great nation, yet a permit to carry a concealed gun — which, in contrast, is a right specifically protected in the U.S. Bill of Rights — is often not respected by other states. Will you support a national reciprocity act so that law-abiding gun owners can more easily travel with their freedom?
Trump responded by making sure the focus was on concealed carry permit holders crossing state lines, to which 1st Freedom said, “Yes.”
Trump then said, “I will support such legislation. If it comes across my desk I will sign it.”
This is the same position Trump promoted while seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency in September 2015.
On September 18, 2015, Breitbart News reported a Trump position paper wherein he voiced his support for national reciprocity, saying “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.”
“A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state,” the paper read. “If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”
Prosecutors allege Mark and Patricia McCloskey altered the pistol she pointed at protesters, according to court documents obtained exclusively by 5 On Your Side
ST. LOUIS — Mark and Patricia McCloskey altered the pistol she pointed at protesters during a now-infamous confrontation in front of their Central West End home to “impair and obstruct” her prosecution, prosecutors alleged in court documents obtained exclusively by 5 On Your Side.
Prosecutors with Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office made the allegation against the couple in grand jury indictments.
Prosecutors allege Mark and Patricia McCloskey “altered a Bryco Arms semi-automatic pistol with the purpose to impair its verity in the investigation of an unlawful use of a weapon that occurred on June 28 on Portland Place, an official investigation, and thereby impaired the obstructed the prosecution of Patricia McCloskey for the crime of unlawful use of a weapon,” according to the indictment.
Patricia McCloskey’s pistol has been a source of controversy surrounding the evidence in this case.
Missouri law requires prosecutors to prove the gun was operable and “readily capable of lethal use,” when it was used during the commission of an alleged crime.
5 On Your Side
The McCloskeys — who are attorneys — told police the pistol was inoperable when officers seized it because Patricia McCloskey had used it as a prop at a trial against a gun manufacturer.
Crime lab workers wrote that the gun was inoperable when it arrived at the lab, and Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered them to fix the gun so it could fire, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side in July.
McCloskeys’ attorney, Joel Schwartz, said: “The only entity that can be proven to have tampered with the evidence is the state through the Circuit Attorney’s Office.”
Mark and Patricia McCloskey have become household names ever since photos and videos of them during a June 28 confrontation in front of their house went viral.
Gardner’s office charged each of the McCloskeys with unlawful use of a weapon — felonies — and presented the case to a grand jury.
That jury indicted the McCloskeys on the weapon charges but added tampering with evidence — another felony — Tuesday after determining prosecutors have enough evidence on both charges to proceed to a trial.
Both charges are class E felonies — the least serious felony classification — but are punishable by up to four years in prison.
The grand jury’s indictments were suppressed Tuesday — an unusual move experts say is typically reserved for flight risks or dangerous fugitives — without explanation.
The McCloskeys contend the protest was hardly peaceful.
A grand jury on Tuesday indicted the St. Louis couple who displayed guns while hundreds of racial injustice protesters marched on their private street.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey appeared in court Tuesday morning. After the hearing, Mark McCloskey spoke to media and expressed their frustration over the news that the trespassers involved in their case were not charged.
The McCloskeys contend the protest was hardly peaceful. They say protesters came onto the private street after knocking over an iron gate and ignoring a “No Trespassing” sign, and said they felt threatened.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who waved guns at protesters, indicted on weapons, tampering charges
This article defends the position that the right of armed self-defense remains important today, in particular in light of the civil unrest of the Summer of 2020. The article proceeds in three parts. The first part will summarize arguments from various prominent commentators that the right to self-defense with firearms is anachronistic in the contemporary United States. These critics argue that Americans can and should rely solely on their local professional police force to protect them.
The second part of the article will focus on how this argument has been undermined by recent events. This part documents in great detail the failures of law enforcement in reaction to looting, rioting, and other forms of illegal behavior that threatened the well-being of the public. First, many police departments received implicit or explicit orders from their political supervisors to “stand down.” Second, in many instances, the police themselves were unwilling or unable to combat lawless behavior. If police consistently fail to enforce law and order, the argument against the individual right to bear arms for self-defense purposes significantly weakens.
Finally, the last part of the article will discuss examples of individuals and groups of citizens using firearms in self-defense during the recent unrest in the absence of effective law enforcement. Some of these episodes are open to criticism, whether on the grounds that one believes that it’s never worth using or even threatening to use deadly force to defend property, or because the line between justified self-defense and unjustified vigilantism is not always a clear one. Nevertheless, if law enforcement is unwilling or unable to preserve basic law and order, it’s both inevitable that citizens will try to fill the breach, and desirable that law-abiding individuals should be given the means to do so.
DAVID BERNSTEIN is the University Professor and the Executive Director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
Federal judge rules against city again: Los Angeles Ordered To Pay NRA Ordinance Violation
Los Angeles Ordered To Pay NRA $150,000 Over First Amendment Ordinance Violation
Federal judge rules against city again after 2019 ruling
City Ordinance 186000 specifically requires that any prospective contractor with the city must disclose all contracts or sponsorships with the NRA. The ordinance noted several mass shootings, including the Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012, the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting of 2017, and both the Pittsburgh and Thousand Oaks shootings of 2018, and tried to tie them to the NRA by showing how their support for less strict gun laws led to those incidents. The ordinance also noted how many of those cities would later enact greater gun control methods.
In-Gauge of Polk County’s only business is conducting firearms safety training. In-Gauge of Polk County is a local, non-profit organization that conducts training that prepares you to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.